Jan

It could be the Trinity. It could be the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ. It could be just about anything. 

 

I don't think it's the Trinity, I think he's referring to the way in which actions of God (in the Old Testament) were attributed to Christ. This is clear from his quotation from Psalm 24:7. This sharing in God's glory by his Messiah is something that certainly need not lead to Trinitarian theology, but in the early centuries of the Christian church this is the direction in which some people took it. That doesn't make the concept itself wrong of course, just what was eventually done with it. (And there were other factors that contributed to it as well of course, such as views of the atonement, dualism etc.)

 

Whatever it is, it doesn't negate the many valid points raised by this article.

 

I agree with this. In my comment above I was just musing on the difference that a non-Trinitarian view of Christ might make to our attitude to worship.

The blog post that Ken has quoted from here is certainly thought provoking, with interesting points about other aspects of worship too. The point made about "proper reverence" in contemporary worship, in the section that Ken quoted, is a good one.

 

One thought that I had though was about the second paragraph. 

 

The ancient Christian church, in keeping with their Jewish roots, regularly incorporated acclamatory or doxological formulae into their worship that recognized the majesty and immensity of God. But the focus of that worship came to be shared between YHWH and Jesus, and the answer to the question “Who is the King of Glory?” was ultimately thought by the early Christians to be Christ... who was vindicated and elevated in his resurrection from the dead. Because of this profound mystery, the worship of the early Church was carried out with utmost respect—even fear—of the God who worked such wonders. In our rush to turn Jesus into our buddy, the contemporary Church occasionally abandons awe-filled glorification of the Deity to chase after more comfortable modes of worship. Instead, every aspect of our Christian gathering—whether hymns, prayers, or creeds—should share the same desire to glorify the Great Mystery as that held by the ancient Church.

 

It raised a question in my mind about the way in which this idea of sharing of worship led eventually to ideas of the Trinity. (I've been looking at early Church history recently, which is why it occurred to me). And when I looked at the blog entry itself I saw that the writer had made this connection himself in his reference to his 4th point, "Christian worship should take seriously our commitment to monotheism".

 

I just wondered really whether, while agreeing that reverence should not be sacrificed for a kind of trite over-familiarity, whether non-Trinitarianism gives a different perspective? After all, Jesus' humanity and consequently greater closeness to our own experience receives more emphasis from this point of view.

From Oxford Dictionaries

Definition of layman in English
layman
Pronunciation: /ˈleɪmən/
(also laywoman or layperson)

noun (plural laymen, laywomen, laypersons, or laypeople)
1 a non-ordained member of a Church:
a council of laymen and priests
2 a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject:
the book seems well suited to the interested layman

The second definition is the one that is relevant here. This whole thread is about linguistics, not theology

I guess not everyone has the funds for Logos its not cheap if you are starting from scratch

No, but they offer an interest-free payment plan which makes it very affordable. I'm a full time uni student, and even I can afford it.

You do have to pay a monthly fee for the payment plan though don't you? (on top of the purchase price divided into monthly payments)

Hi Janey.

I've not got any of the more up-to-date lexicons etc. yet as I'm waiting to get logos 5 (which is the plan when our computer situation is sorted out). So I'll be in your position of deciding which resources to get then.

It does seem to make sense to me to get the most up to date available if possible, generally speaking. In specialised fields, like lexicography, it's not just about "fashion" (I know that you were just using this as an illustration of your general attitude to buying things) but there's a real possibility that new findings have come to light which need to be taken into account. Even if these new findings have confirmed what was previously thought this is still worth knowing!

Flappie made a good point a while ago:

If you don't know what percentage then how do you declare such as Genesius obsolete?

It would be obsolete even if it was only 10%, mainly because the people who use it wouldn't be able to recognise that 10% and are likely to use completely wrong definitions in things like exhortations.

I'd be in the category of people who wouldn't be able to recognise the wrong definitions, as would most of us because it's such a specialised area. So the logical answer is to have access to the most up-to-date information. That just seems like common sense to me, and not at all controversial.