|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inclusive language hymns
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
This arises from THIS thread.
If you are in a church that cares about the use of inclusive language in its liturgy, what do you do about the hymns and songs which are NOT inclusive? Some modern hymn books have tried (with varying degrees of success) to inclusivise some traditional hymns.
I will admit that I now find non-inclusive hymn words to be jarring. And yet I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled by the Political Correctness brigade.
So what do we do????
Here are are a couple of examples:
- To be a pilgrim Mrs Grouch and I love this hymn. But it has foiled all my attempts to inclusivise it. I will still sing it, though.
- I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
What other examples do you know of hymns which defy inclusivisation? And should we still sing them or let them wither on the vine?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
If a hymn can't use inclusive language do not update other words, if "thee" and "thy" are left in, fair warning is given that the language is not current and it jars less while leaving good tunes and sentiments intact
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
I'm not sure if I've ever heard Talbot's original words sung by a congregation. Almost everywhere I know this is sung, it's with horizontally-inclusive lyrics. "And I will raise you up, on the last day."
Most Catholic hymnals update lyrics in all sorts of ways, like printing the Tantum Ergo in English rather than (or as well as) Latin, taking out archaic English pronouns, etc. They often inclusivize language while they're at it. If a hymn's out of copyright, I think it's totally fair to regard each new printing of it as a new version, just like how folk songs keep evolving.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled ...
That's pretty much my position.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
That great Anglican hymnodist J.M. Neale was a master of "disturbing traditional hymn words." Think of all the hymns he took whose traditional words were all Latin that he disturbed by making them English! Why can't modern hymnodists follow in his footsteps?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This arises from THIS thread.
If you are in a church that cares about the use of inclusive language in its liturgy, what do you do about the hymns and songs which are NOT inclusive? Some modern hymn books have tried (with varying degrees of success) to inclusivise some traditional hymns.
I will admit that I now find non-inclusive hymn words to be jarring. And yet I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled by the Political Correctness brigade.
So what do we do????
Here are are a couple of examples:
- To be a pilgrim Mrs Grouch and I love this hymn. But it has foiled all my attempts to inclusivise it. I will still sing it, though.
- I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
What other examples do you know of hymns which defy inclusivisation? And should we still sing them or let them wither on the vine?
The normal way to deal with Sr Toolen's "I am the bread of life" is to note that each verse is in direct speech by Jesus, just as the verses are. (Most books don't actually put quotation marks at the beginning of each verse, but they should). Then the chorus which now goes "And I will raise you up...etc." works just fine. That's the version I've seen in a number of hymn collections. The other non-inclusive bits aren't a problem to word around (again, I've seen the whole thing done like this) -- and that hideous scansion problem in one of the verses can be made to disappear.
I'm not certain whether Sr. Toolen herself did the update, but I've certainly seen it in places where the changes are legit.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Inclusive language advocates should realize that some hymns and passages just do not work when inclusivived. For example, it just does not work to replace the messianic "Son of Man" with "Offspring of a Human Being." Not on a literary or theological or any level.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Son of Humanity ? Though it probably wouldn't scan ?
[ 23. July 2014, 00:02: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
There's always the Common English Bible's "The Human One" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Inclusive language advocates should realize that some hymns and passages just do not work when inclusivived. For example, it just does not work to replace the messianic "Son of Man" with "Offspring of a Human Being." Not on a literary or theological or any level.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Why would you want to inclusivise "Son of Man" anyway? It's a title for Jesus - undeniably male.
And that's not the kind of thing this thread is about, so this is just a red herring.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Why would you want to inclusivise "Son of Man" anyway? It's a title for Jesus - undeniably male.
The inclusive language issue isn't with "Son", it's with "Man".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I wish it were a red herring, Oscar. But I discovered the hard way back in 2007 that it is not as I heard the NRSV butcher the aforementioned messianic term, thusly:
As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
That was supposedly Daniel 7:13.
You seem to agree that this is going too far. If so, you are to be commended for that. Sorry if I am the one being a grouch. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
So why talk about "offspring"??
And anyway, how many hymns have this in the lyrics, so it presents a problem?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I wish it were a red herring, Oscar. But I discovered the hard way back in 2007 that it is not as I heard the NRSV butcher the aforementioned messianic term, thusly:
As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
That was supposedly Daniel 7:13.
You seem to agree that this is going too far. If so, you are to be commended for that. Sorry if I am the one being a grouch.
Again - look at the thread title....
This isn't about inclusive language in general, but about hymns and specifically about hymns with non-inclusive lyrics.
If you want to bash on about the evils of inclusive language in general, feel free to start a thread of your own to do that. But I was careful to set up this thread in this particular way.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
When the Anglican Church of Canada introduced a new hymnal I wrote the Anglican Journal, the church national paper and said That when you have an aging congregation changing what is familiar for P.C. reasons is
a bad idea. As is meddling w2ith Christmas Carols.
But I had to usher at a naval funeral and found the words of "Eternal Father Strong To Save" changed. We ran out of service cards and so I sang the old version.
And there are a lot of other hymns that fall in the same hole of being changed for P.C. reasons .
One hates to think what Luther, Wesley et al would make of it .
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
If you can't cope any other way making pronouns plural (female writers have to do it all the time as we don;t have a simple singular for "they") usually works
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I memorized bunches of hymns (and other songs) as a kid, sing 'em as I know 'em (early morning reading small print in a hymnal is too much work for sleepy eyes), a few words sometimes don't match what others sing, decided not to worry about it.
Pretty rare a hymn has more than a few words changed. Sing whichever words you like.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
This Statement on Language included as an appendix in Glory to God, the new hymnal of the Presbyterian Church (USA), might be of interest. It describes considerations for inclusive language about people and expansive language about God.
With regard to the latter, it notes that "texts will reflect a strong preference for avoiding the use of male pronouns for God. In evaluating each hymn or song, issues of tradition, theological integrity, poetic quality, and copyright will all be considered. The goal is a collection in which traditional hymns and songs are balanced with others that are more gender-neutral or expansive in their reference to God." It insists, though, that use of the Trinitarian formula and of the word "Lord" must be maintained.
One way the committee went about trying to achieve this balance was through layout. So for example, on the page opposite "Come Thou Almighty King," one will find Ruth Duck's "Womb of Life and Source of Being." One interesting "change" had to do with "Be Thou My Vision." The previous hymnal had altered the words to remove "High King of Heaven." That phrase has now been restored—the hymnal committee noted that the request to restore the familiar language was one of the most common comments they received.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell."
That was the Presbyterians. The Methodists are similar, though—"pleased with us in flesh to dwell."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
If you can't cope any other way making pronouns plural (female writers have to do it all the time as we don;t have a simple singular for "they") usually works
But is grammatically incorrect.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Plural pronouns are grammatically correct in many situations. eg "Who would true valour see, let them come hither" is not incorrect grammatically.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
suppose I was lucky to have a song changing experience early in life. I had just been taught "God Save the King" in school when it changed. At a Primary School assembly we sang "God Save the Queen". I marveled that it still rhymed!
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
I can cope with inclusive language in hymns.
I cannot cope, largely speaking, with 2 things.
1) Mindless changing texts without actually reading the context. The one that particularly sticks in my mind is Verse 2 of "All my hope on God is founded", which begins "Pride of man and earthly glory". In some hymnbooks (I'm looking at you, Mayhew) this has been changed to "Human pride and earthly glory". All well and good, until you see lines 3-4 "What with care and toil he buildeth, tower and temple fall to dust". In the original, this would seem to refer to "man". In the IL version, to whom does it refer? God? Erm...
2) Trendy churches at occasional offices such as funerals using their IL versions when everybody in the congregation knows the old words and gets very confused.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
Completely agree Chast. And surely the original words should be, "pleased as man with man to dwell"?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
Well, one could argue that the suggestion of Divine possession was already made with "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see." In fact, my biggest beef with "pleased in flesh with us to dwell" is that "in flesh" has already been used two lines earlier.
As for the poetry of the original, see below.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Completely agree Chast. And surely the original words should be, "pleased as man with man to dwell"?
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!" "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"—originally "Hark, how all the welkin rings, 'Glory to the King of kings'"—is a poster child for hymns that nobody sings as originally written, nor have they for hundreds of years.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Happily, the singular "they" (which was quite traditional for centuries) has come back into vogue, and is indeed correct. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Yeah, yeah - but I find that my sensibilities have been trained by Victorian-era literature, so I find singular 'they' inelegant and jarring to the ear.
Re God save the Queen, the rhyme scheme changes in the (second? third? depends how you count) verse, that ends:
quote:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save The Queen!
for a Queen, but
quote:
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
With heart and voice to sing,
God save The King!
for a King.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!"
Which IMO is tautologous, as the "here" is implied in the words "Immanuel" (= "God with us")!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Plural pronouns are grammatically correct in many situations. eg "Who would true valour see, let them come hither" is not incorrect grammatically.
True. But they can make life incredibly confusing. Take, for example, "To be a pilgrim". But not the original version, but the version that most people will be familiar with:
quote:
He who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let him in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset him round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound—his strength the more is.
No foes shall stay his might; though he with giants fight,
He will make good his right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
Now let's try and inclusivise it:
quote:
All who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset them round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound — their strength the more is.
No foes shall stay their might; though they with giants fight,
They will make good their right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
As you can see, verse two becomes a shambles, as we have two lots of "them". Any suggestions?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!" "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"—originally "Hark, how all the welkin rings, 'Glory to the King of kings'"—is a poster child for hymns that nobody sings as originally written, nor have they for hundreds of years.
Good Lord. I had no idea. Hrm. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Christmas carols are mostly owned by people outside the churches, so if these songs are going to be made more 'inclusive' at this point it probably shouldn't be Christian theologians and clergy who lead the way. It's more of a role for poets and journalists who have their fingers on the pulse of the nation.
[ 23. July 2014, 18:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch wrote: quote:
Now let's try and inclusivise it:
quote:All who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset them round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound — their strength the more is.
No foes shall stay their might; though they with giants fight,
They will make good their right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
As you can see, verse two becomes a shambles, as we have two lots of "them". Any suggestions?
You also should inclusivize the "men" in v3 (it surely doesn't refer just to males), but what with?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
'I'll fear not what folks say'?
'my foes can go their way'?
'the rest can go and play'? (Lifted from 'U Can't Touch This' by MC Hammer)
...
I don't see the point, though. The traditionalists wouldn't be happy, and neither would anyone who likes decent lyrics. A better option would be to keep the tune but write a completely different hymn.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well I prefer the version of the third verse that goes like this:
Hobgoblin nor foul fiend
Can daunt his spirit...
Presumably it was altered by some pedant who objected to the elision of 'neither' in the first line, but how can anyone resist a hymn with hobgoblins in it?
As a general rule I too prefer inclusive language. But I also object to clunky poetry... so, like Oscar, I put up with the historical language if the poetry is good enough.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
So what do you do with the second half of A safe stronghold our God is still which has the immortal lines quote:
And though they take our life,
Goods, honour, children, wife,
Yet is their profit small;
These things shall vanish all,
The city of God remaineth.
Yes, we know what the sentiment is but the way it is expressed is as un-PC as you can get. That doesn't bother me at all but I know it makes some grind their teeth.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
That one's also deeply, disturbingly theologically wrong. One's children and spouse, while not on the level of God Himself, are human beings, not worldly goods. Ick.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Maybe so in the 21st century, but not at the time when Martin Luther wrote it or Thomas Carlyle translated it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Maybe so in the 21st century, but not at the time when Martin Luther wrote it or Thomas Carlyle translated it.
No, they've been human beings all along. That's basic theology from the beginning.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've heard men in interviews talk about how an addiction cost them 'everthing', which generally means their job, home and family. But that doesn't mean, I hope, that they viewed their wives and children as chattels, just like the house and the paycheque. It could simply mean that they (once) had a lot of goodness in their lives, be it human, material, psychological, etc. and now it's gone.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I'm curious as to whether hymns with exclusive language are a particular problem in Anglicanism. I'd have thought it'd be preferable to avoid such hymns nowadays. I can't remember the last time I sang 'To be a Pilgrim'!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There are other translations of A Mighty Fortress (as we call it) which are less fraught. The one we sing has
And take they our house
goods, kindred, children, spouse,
They yet have nothing gained
God's truth the same remains
His kingdom is forever.
In this case the people and things are classed together only as blessings which can be taken from us. Not as chattel.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You also should inclusivize the "men" in v3 (it surely doesn't refer just to males), but what with?
Doh! You're right. And yes - I don't have a clue what to replace it with. "I'll fear not what they say"? Weak - terribly weak. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, regarding the OP, I'm curious as to whether hymns with exclusive language are a particular problem in Anglicanism. I'd have thought it'd be preferable to avoid such hymns nowadays. I can't remember the last time I sang 'To be a Pilgrim'!
It is noticeable that some (many? most?) recent hymn books (yes, Kevin Mayhew, I'm looking at you) have gone to some lengths to eliminate exclusive or non-PC language. In some cases, it is pretty obvious, but in others it is merely a matter of replacing a few words - which is actually just as awkward as, if you are like me, you tend to sing the words you KNOW rather than the ones actually on the page.
Of course, the prime example of how this modernising was done very VERY badly was Hymns for Today's Church. If you have never seen a copy, it's worth grabbing a second hand one some time - just to see how many perfectly decent hymns can be scrambled and ruined at the same time.
Some churches will be zealous in using totally inclusive language in hymns. Other less so. YMMV is indeed the key acronym here. Although C of E liturgy has (hopefully!) been inclusive for some time, I am not aware that there has been that much debate about hymnody. Which is atrange, given that hymns are just as important (if not more important) in influencing the attitudes and beliefs of a congregation.
As you suggest, one option for some churches will be to drop any hymn that fails the inclusive language test. But I for one am unhappy to see good hymns that have stood the test of time go to waste in this way. "To be a pilgrim" is one such example. I love the sentiment in it so much that I can overlook the exclusive language. But then I'm male, so it's easy for me....
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There are other translations of A Mighty Fortress (as we call it) which are less fraught. The one we sing has
And take they our house
goods, kindred, children, spouse,
They yet have nothing gained
God's truth the same remains
His kingdom is forever.
In this case the people and things are classed together only as blessings which can be taken from us. Not as chattel.
Or the version with which I'm familiar:
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still,
His Kingdom is forever.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
A friend who has been active in General Conventions of TEC (and sat on some of the Hymnal revision sub-committees) reports that, based on reactions to The Hymnal 1982, the consensus was 'Don't f*ck with existing hymns, eliminate the worst ones and write new good ones!' With which sentiment I heartily concur.
Having sung hymns in church for 70 years, I frequently find myself belting out the words I know, not the ones on the page.
BTW, Hymnal 1982 bowdlerizes the 'Toolan Tripe' by the use of plurals, which not only alters duly authorized scripture translation, but weakens the impact of the text. Does your congo put their hands in the air at every refrain of this one? I once worked for one that did. (I didn't stay long!)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Does your congo put their hands in the air at every refrain of this one? I once worked for one that did. (I didn't stay long!)
Thankfully not! But it IS a very popular song. So although I can exercise some control over how often it is sung, it would probably be too selfish of me to drop it from the repertoire completely.
(I usually work on the slightly subversive method of "if I don't want to sing hymns I dislike, I will introduce lots of new ones that will (like shiny baubles and magpies) distract the attention." Whilst the congregation is watching my right hand, no-one see the left hand binning the offending hymn. My wife says I am sneaky. I can think of worse things I could be.... )
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Some churches will be zealous in using totally inclusive language in hymns. Other less so. YMMV is indeed the key acronym here. Although C of E liturgy has (hopefully!) been inclusive for some time, I am not aware that there has been that much debate about hymnody. Which is atrange, given that hymns are just as important (if not more important) in influencing the attitudes and beliefs of a congregation.
As you suggest, one option for some churches will be to drop any hymn that fails the inclusive language test. But I for one am unhappy to see good hymns that have stood the test of time go to waste in this way. "To be a pilgrim" is one such example. I love the sentiment in it so much that I can overlook the exclusive language. But then I'm male, so it's easy for me....
Coming from a Methodist environment in England I've never heard any discussion about gender inclusivity in hymns. The recent thing seems to be whether the 'thees' and 'thous' should be retained or dismissed as too stuffy, and I believe the new Methodist hymnbook tries to cut some of them out. The previous book, 'Hymns and Psalms', doesn't include 'To be a pilgrim'. I probably learnt that one at school rather than church.
I'm not bothered about 'mankind', but I agree there's an awkwardness in singing hymns that refer only to our 'brothers' in the faith. ('In Christ there is no east and west' presents this problem, which is ironic considering the theme and the biblical reference.) 'Sibling' is the gender neutral alternative with the same number of syllables, but it's very unpoetic.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I think the debate largely happened when Hymns and Psalms came out. Certainly Rejoice and Sing, the URC hymn book that followed that*, it had inclusive language in quite a few of its hymns.
Jengie
*Yes this is correct, the URC was involved in the early stages of the development of Hymns and Psalms and then withdrew. Rejoice and Sing was then the result of this withdrawal. Intriguing things resulted from that, amongst them that Hymns and Psalms has more Isaac Watts hymns than Rejoice and Sing.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
