|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If it was good enough for Shakespeare and Milton and Austen it should be good enough for the OUP
Excellent, does that mean we can take Shakespeare as our model for what language is acceptable across the board?
No, but you can take him as a model of correctness. So, if a modern usage is the same as Shakespeare's then it proves that- The modern usage is correct
- Shakespeare's usage is not archaic, or one might want to say "no longer archaic" where a practice has been revived.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
(On a slight and potentially disastrous tangent, I've never understood why "coloured" is offensive, while "black" isn't, especially as very few black people could be described as black in colour. Is it because black is a term many black people choose to use to describe themselves?)
You're right - it's a potentially disastrous tangent. Let's not go there. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Same goes for words and phrases like "spastic", "mentally retarded" and so forth.
But, justement, those terms persist, and in fact I'm not sure what mechanism exists for getting rid of them. You can write policy about what words can be published, and maybe about what employees can say to the publc while on duty, but you can't regulate how people speak in private conversation, and, indeed, overly zealous attempts to police "official" language may even be counterproductive.
...
And I mentioned a few pages ago the way school kids now chant "ESN!" instead of "Mental!".
I missed that post. ESN??? Seriously? I've heard of "LD" being used in that way, but doesn't ESN mean educationally subnormal? I haven't ever heard that term or even that abbreviation used by a teacher or child - it was an anachronism even when I was a kid. But in any case, people are always going to try and find new ways of being offensive - that doesn't mean we should just stop bothering. Should we go back to officially using "moronic" because it's a technical term which really oughtn't to be offensive to anyone?
I'm not sugesting we regulate the way people speak in private conversation. I'm suggesting that we should be aware and sensitive about the way we speak in church. And while you say that those terms persist, it's one thing to have those terms being used by the odd prejudiced person when they're off duty, and quite another to have them in common official usage. Would you want teachers to carry on using terms like "spastic" in the classroom? And doesn't the very fact that the kids have moved onto using "LD" (or even "ESN") instead of "spastic" suggest that usage has changed?
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
It feels like we're gearing up to go around the same set of positions one more time. As has been pointed out at various points by people on all sides of the discussion, inclusive language in church is a special case. It has been suggested several times that what is actually being proposed is not as radical as all that. So what is actually being proposed as "needed" in the context of corporate worship? Does it, for example, go beyond the OUP guidelines I linked to a few posts back (with or without the single "their")?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Out of interest, where does Shakespeare use the singular "their"?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Same goes for words and phrases like "spastic", "mentally retarded" and so forth.
But, justement, those terms persist, and in fact I'm not sure what mechanism exists for getting rid of them.
They mostly exist as abusive terms, though. They don’t retain their original meaning. Though I think it is still acceptable to talk about a ‘spastic limb’ - and ‘spastic bowel’ seems to be a great medical favourite.
quote:
On a slight and potentially disastrous tangent, I've never understood why "coloured" is offensive, while "black" isn't, especially as very few black people could be described as black in colour. Is it because black is a term many black people choose to use to describe themselves?)
‘Coloured’ was polite in the UK until the Black Power and/or Black is Beautiful movements. It had always been a term fraught with difficulty because the Apartheid regime had distinguished between ‘blacks’ and ‘coloureds’. Apparently, at one time, there was talk about using the term ‘browns’ but it never caught on. There are still Brits who think ‘coloured’ is polite and get very upset when corrected. But it is now considered rude – and this is where this ceases to be a tangent - because it implies that the word black is so awful as to be unmentionable; thereby, in a sense, it makes black people marginalised and/or invisible.
I have never heard kids chanting "ESN" though they all get very cross about the use of the words 'learning difficulties' (if it's applied to them). 'Specific Learning Difficulites' is the preferred professional term for dyslexia, but most dyslexics (and their parents) prefer the term 'dyslexic'.
[ 30. June 2005, 13:43: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Out of interest, where does Shakespeare use the singular "their"?
Shakespeare
God send every one their heart's desire!
[Much Ado About Nothing, Act III Scene 4]
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me,
As if I were their well-acquainted friend.
[Comedy of Errors, Act IV Scene 3]
Jane Austen
Emma Emma Woodhouse: "Every body was punctual, every body in their best looks: not a tear, and hardly a long face to be seen."
Or Emma to Mr. Knightley [discussing Harriet Smith]: "Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?"
Mansfield Park, Narrator (reporting what Fanny Price thinks): "It was the abode of noise, disorder, and impropriety. Nobody was in their right place, nothing was done as it ought to be."
Check out loads of other examples here.
[ 30. June 2005, 13:53: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I suppose I'd better say that I view the inclusive language debate as something much broader than gender alone. Exclusive language is powerful and the power of 'tradition' is considerable, particularly within institutions, especially within the institution of the church.
But NB churches, like other organisations, sometimes use enforced change to emphasise power structures. Alterations in liturgy or hymnody are very often pushed though by the minister (vicar, priest, whatever) in an attempt (often unconscious) to stamp their authority on a congregation. All the more so now we are in a situation where clergy are normally much more theologically liberal than nost of the rest of the congregation.
So insistence on keeping language the same can be a way of the relatively powerless offering resistance to the relatively powerful
All I can really say in defence of churches is that they are nowwhere near as bad as business where "nobody likes Change" (you can hear the Capital Letters) has for years now been an alternative way of saying "I'm the Boss and you are going to do it My Way". "Resistance to Change" is a mantra of managment style. You can go on courses about it.
quote:
quote:
I'd suggest that a lot of people who wander into church would feel more included by recognising old familiar hymns like Thine Be the Glory that they remember from their childhood and "Songs of Praise", than they would by heavily rewritten inclusive versions.
I would agree, if the people you are referring to are older. However, if someone of 20 years walks into the church, it is highly unlikely (in the UK anyway) that they will have even sung hymns in their childhood or ever dreamed of watching Songs of Praise.
True but I think you underestimate the age cutoff. Hymns and obviously Christian worship were dropped from most state schools sometime around the early 1970s, so that source of knowledge isn't available to most non-churchgoing people under the age of about 40.
And churchgoing was been a declining minority pursuit for the whole 20th century (with blips during & immediately after the two world wars). You'd have to be over a hundred years old to remember the time in the late 19th century when most people regularly went to church (itself an anomaly - in the early 19th century and probably the 18th most people did not go)
Obviously there is some cultural transmission passed on within families or social circles, some expectation of what goes on in church. But most middle-aged or even elderly people now do not have a good idea of what happens in churches. Its not the under-20s who are ignorant of it or put off by it, its the under-60s.
quote:
Therefore, by continuing traditional hymns, a growing proportion of the potential churchgoing population are being excluded. Their parents may feel comforted; but they won't have a clue what is being said and it's quite likely they will perceive christianity to be something not relevant to them.
I doubt if the parents of 20-year-olds will be "comforted" unless they are themselves from a churchgoing background. These days not even the grandpaernts. Maybe the great-grandparents. Middle-aged people are just as clueless as the young. ALL church language will be alien to them, traditional or not. Church as such is alien to them, whatever language we express it in.
Certainly what we say has to be understandable - I don't think there is much of an argument for the use of dead languages in public worship - but the mildly outdated style of most songs we sing in church is not the strongest barrier to nderstanding. And contemporary songs and liturgies can be just as hard to understand because of their content, not because of the syntax.
(Tempted to look for examples but this post is long enough already...)
quote:
Although I'm Anglican by background, I'm not sure of the relevance of liturgy to a contemporary world in which children are taught to think for themselves, challenge, analyse, etc, from an early age, rather than the former methods of repetition and responses.
I'm not Anglican (or anything) by background, but that's more or less what I'd have said not long ago. I first started going to church in my teens & was very suspicious of the repetition of liturgy. Also of its implication of control. And it was boring. Liturgy is, I think, something that doesn't come naturally to most people and certainly not to most children or teenagers - you need to grow into it.
But I've been slapped down on the Ship again and again for saying things like that by people who say "I'm under the age of X and I love liturgy don;t assume taht all young people are the same..." SO I stopped saying it ; ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
to one person the archaic word will be fully understood, to another it may be misunderstood and to another it won't even be recognised. So it may be difficult to determine which archaic words (or syntax) are at risk of misinterpretation.
There isn't much in current Anglican or Roman catholic liturgy that is so archaic it will be widely misunderstood just because of vocabulary or syntax. And very little in traditional hymns (& what there is is often 19th century sentimentalism - 17th & 18th century hymns are often much more "modern" in feel!)
Do you have any examples in mind?
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with God being referred to in male terms.
I don't generally have a problem with this either. What I do have a problem with, however, is when the masculine is used to assert power and control over others.
Which it inherently does unfortunatly.
[fixed code]
[ 30. June 2005, 17:02: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What I do have a problem with, however, is when the masculine is used to assert power and control over others.
Which it inherently does unfortunately.
(I hope I got the quoting right...) It's the "inherently" in that sentence that is going to be a sticking point for some of us. I'm not ever going to accept a Christian definition of masculinity that is inherently about asserting power and control over others, any more than I'm going to take as read that women are inherently cunning and deceitful. Even if that's what Genesis says <insert another whole discussion here>, it isn't what I expect to be at the basis of redeemed relationships.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not ever going to accept a Christian definition of masculinity that is inherently about asserting power and control over others, any more than I'm going to take as read that women are inherently cunning and deceitful. Even if that's what Genesis says <insert another whole discussion here>, it isn't what I expect to be at the basis of redeemed relationships.
MDijon, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It's the selfishness, the sin in a human heart that makes those faulty definitions. If the heart is pure, the language becomes pure.
LM
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
I did this fab reply, Fibonacci, but the site told me I had too many quotes in it. So I abandoned it and I'm afraid you've got this reply instead. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You're a linguistics graduate huh? I admire anyone who can study syntax for three years. If I tell you that last semester I studied sociolinguistics and next semester I'll be studying semantics and pragmatics, you might get an idea of where I've taken the linguistics element to my degree.
Anyway. Back to the discussion. I agree that trying to limit language to what is 'in common use' is a precarious undertaking, but I don't think it should be avoided because of that, mainly because I believe in enabling as many people to feel included as possible and the language we use is one way of achieving this.
quote:
Are you suggesting that all hymns which aren't written in contemporary language should be outlawed or modified because some people might not know what all the words mean? Or are you saying that we musn't do that, because that would be pronouncing that one form of language is "wrong"?
Sorry if I was as clear as mud on this point. I think my answer incorporates both your questions. In reply to the first one - yes, I think it needs to be modified (outlawed being a bit strong methinks!) in order that more people understand what hymns, liturgy, etc actually mean (more readily). So far as your second question is concerned, when using the word 'wrong' in relation to language, it implies a favourable value is being placed upon a particular variety when compared to others. Personally, I don't view either archaic or contemporary language as either right or wrong; just relevant or not to the goals of the church (in the context of this discussion). I suppose which style is used depends, in part at least, upon the goals of the church.
Is 'Pierce my ear O God' actually a hymn?
quote:
...but surely there are uses of grammar which are wrong?
I think it depends on what you mean by 'wrong' and which sector of the education service you are relating to. I wasn't actually having a go at English teachers. I was raised by two of them - and we still speak. My Mum was an infant teacher and at this level, because the foundations are being laid, there has to be a measure of standardisation in order for the fundamentals to be grasped. However, telling a child that their work is 'wrong', especially if they repeatedly don't meet expectations, isn't so good for that child. I remember this from my days in maths classes ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
my impression is that if young people feel excluded by traditional hymns per se, they're unlikely to feel included by revamped versions such as "Glory to Jesus".
I think they are more likely to feel included when they hear language they immediately understand and/or relate to. I wouldn't include "glory to" in that, incidentally. The word "glory" is used in relation to sport, but "glory to" isn't a phrase I have come across outside of church circles (though I confess I may have lived a limited life!).
quote:
Are you suggesting that traditional hymns are by their very nature exclusive? Is the argument that we should stick to Matt Redman songs because everyone can understand them regardless of their background?
The answer is 'yes' to your first question, just because language has moved on and if the message is to be communicated effectively, surely contemporary language is a more effective tool to communicate it?
No way, in answer to your second question. This isn't a question of worship style - it's a question of language use. The two are quite different in this context imo. I also acknowledge that there is more to a sense of exclusion than language. However, this thread is about language, so that is why I've only referred to the part language plays in exclusion/inclusion.
quote:
Incidentally, where would Christmas carols fall within this formulation? Just out of interest ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I couldn't possibly comment! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
For now, just wanted to say that I really disagree with the disparagement of liturgy as mindless repetition ...
I didn't say liturgy was 'mindless' repetition. I referred to changes in educational approaches, so I think that repetition and responses are no longer relevant. No matter what the esteemed Mr Lewis may say!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Hi Ken
quote:
Alterations in liturgy or hymnody are very often pushed though by the minister (vicar, priest, whatever) in an attempt (often unconscious) to stamp their authority on a congregation.
I agree. Churches are places of power struggles in the same way as other institutions. When any individual and/or section of a community is holding on to something or pushing something forward, there's always a power agenda behind it, imo.
quote:
So insistence on keeping language the same can be a way of the relatively powerless offering resistance to the relatively powerful
It can, but I wouldn't say that was a legitimate reason for such an insistence. The group insisting are in fact placing themselves in the same position as the person and/or individuals they are protesting against and in such situations of deadlock, no-one is served, least of all God.
I would disagree that Christian worship was dropped in state schools in the 1970s. It gradually fell out of fashion over a long period of time in many state schools, possibly in certain cities especially, but certainly it was around all the way through my own schooling (I'm 41) and my sister's (she's 32), and we both went to state schools. And the same is the case for a couple of my friends in their late 20s. Wasn't it in the 1980s that some form of teaching about Christianity was made compulsory in the state school system? However, certainly with the introduction of the mandatory teaching of at least one other major religion in the curriculum, school worship has diminished (though still not completely disappeared within the primary sector) and Christianity has become another academic subject. It was this evolution that I was thinking of when I suggested 20 as a cut off age, though I appreciate it isn't perfect.
quote:
Church as such is alien to them, whatever language we express it in.
All the more reason, imo, to make the language as contemporary - and therefore less 'alien' - as possible.
quote:
And contemporary songs and liturgies can be just as hard to understand because of their content, not because of the syntax.
I would agree with this, but I think it misses the point. Although this discussion has focused primarily on hymns and liturgy, there is far more to church language than that, whether archaic or otherwise. Last year I had a conversation with the vicar at a church about use of certain words in the sermon. Well, he did ask for feedback on his sermons! The words he used weren't archaic; they were just 'churchy'. They belonged to a specific domain - Christianity - and thus were exclusive to that domain. Those who perhaps had not been into church before wouldn't have a clue what was being spoken about. Yet had the clergyman given thought to this (he never did, sadly), his sermon could have been more accessible to more people more readily.
quote:
Liturgy is, I think, something that doesn't come naturally to most people and certainly not to most children or teenagers - you need to grow into it.
Why do we need to grow into it? Shouldn't we feel part of it straight away? I'm 41 and I've been going to church on and off since I was 22 (though my Christianity has evolved out of all recognition from those early days). I'm no more engaged by liturgy now than I was at 22. Or at 10 when I used to giggle in the pews on a Sunday morning (I had to be there in order to go to Sunday School, which I totally enjoyed).
quote:
But I've been slapped down on the Ship again and again for saying things like that by people who say "I'm under the age of X and I love liturgy don;t assume taht all young people are the same..." SO I stopped saying it ;
I can relate to your reaction! I do have a friend in her 20s who is Catholic and adores liturgy. She and I have many an interesting conversation ...
Incidentally, my reference to liturgy was more in connection with the repetition and response and how it was a relevant approach to teaching in past generations but today it is not so. Unless we are talking about the Prayer Book, in which case that is a prime example of linguistic recycle bin fodder, even though it is indeed a wonderful example of religious literature! (one of the reasons I have heard repeated many times for retaining its use)
LL
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
Great post Littlelady, and apologies for not doing a fully referenced reply, I've had too much beer this evening ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Yep, I can see the argument for modifying archaic language so that it's easier to understand and easier to use in worship. As it happens "Pierce my ear, O Lord my God" (I got it slightly wrong first time round) is a Dayspring song by Steve Croft (1980). I hadn't realised this till I did a Google search, but it was a runner up in the SoF "Unfortunate Worship Lyric" awards, along with my absolute fave, Ian Smale's "Lord you put a tongue in my mouth". It's not just traditional hymns that need modifying!
quote:
I didn't say liturgy was 'mindless' repetition. I referred to changes in educational approaches, so I think that repetition and responses are no longer relevant. No matter what the esteemed Mr Lewis may say!
Oy, oy, oy. I'm not mindlessly (yes, that's mindlessly) repeating something just because CS Lewis said it. Although I'm entirely behind the move to analytical reasoning rather than rote learning in an educational context, the purpose of liturgy is completely different. Liturgy is not an educational process, so the fact that educational approaches have changed is not that relevant.
For many people, liturgy is a form of words which means that you can spend time in God's presence without having to spend your time thinking about the exact words you're going to say. I'm absolutely not saying that you "shouldn't think while you're in church". On the contrary, for those of us who find them useful, good liturgical forms give us a platform to think and pray in more depth, because we're not having to fumble around trying to find the right words.
Hymns, corporate prayer and indeed the Lord's Prayer can also serve the same purpose. I really appreciate it when people get up and pray in church in words that they have devoted time and thought to; they focus my attention and say much more than I would be able to think of in that short time frame. It's a starting point which allows us to think more deeply, not an attempt to stop people thinking.
Oh dear, I've gone off on a liturgy tangent. But my key point is still the same - the best forms of liturgy allow you not to have to think about the wording. And where language is exclusive or confusing, it interferes with that purpose.
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
the best forms of liturgy allow you not to have to think about the wording.
Or, as C.S. Lewis said, "Our Lord's command to Peter was 'Feed my sheep' not 'Teach my performing dogs new tricks.'" ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
Having been to a liturgical service this morning, I'd also add something which I forgot to say.
Repetition and response are about corporate rather than just personal response, and as such I think that when liturgy is used, they are still extremely relevant. They are a form of public affirmation by the whole church; if they're in an accessible form of language, they are (in their own very important way) "inclusive".
[ 03. July 2005, 12:41: Message edited by: Fibonacci's Number ]
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
my key point is still the same - the best forms of liturgy allow you not to have to think about the wording. And where language is exclusive or confusing, it interferes with that purpose.
Agree that there's a place for thought-provoking use of English in the sermon, and for non-distracting language, language which doesn't draw attention to itself, in the liturgy.
Where language is unnatural or "clunky" it interferes with that purpose.
Misquotes - where the ear is led (by repetition of a phrase over time) to expect one word and is given another - interfere with that purpose. e.g. "Dear Lord and Father of..." followed by any word except "mankind".
Double-entendres such as "pierce my ear, O Lord" interfere with that purpose.
Hymns are part of liturgy, and it seems to me that there should be a natural process by which those whose language is not good liturgy will tend to drop out of use. Having dropped out of common use, compilers of hymn-books may then attempt to "improve" them and re-launch them.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Recently, I sang, 'Dear Lord and Father of us all'.....
It sounded strange but not impossible to sing.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
But the verse as a whole goes: quote:
Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
forgive our foolish ways.
Re-clothe us in our rightful mind,
in purer lives thy service find,
in deeper reverence, praise;
in deeper reverence, praise.
If you change the first line you have to change the third as well. Then instead of a familiar and well loved hymn (sorry Ken) you are left with a dog's dinner. My line, inconsistent though it may be, is that old hymns which survive have done so because they still speak to our condition today. Pleanty haven't survived, but those that have should be left alone. New writing, in hymnody and liturgy, should be inclusive but I don't want the good old stuff messed around with.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Dear Lord and Father is a good example -- it has almost totally disappeared from use, so far as I can tell. I haven't been in a place where it was used in the 30 odd years since I stopped living in the UK, although 10 years before that it had been used in some churches. Because it can't be fixed well, it is disappearing completely. I rather think it has been dropped from the latest version of the Hymn Book in Canada.
As I think it's teetering on the edge of heresy anyway, for other reasons, I can't say I miss it. In fact, I'll be quite glad to see it gone completely.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If you change the first line you have to change the third as well. Then instead of a familiar and well loved hymn (sorry Ken) you are left with a dog's dinner.
Like this, do you mean? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I guess that in most cathedrals and major parish churches, plus those which are picturesque and therefore have lots of weddings, traditional hymns such as 'Dear Lord and Father' are still very popular.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
You know John, if you weren't a Host I would suspect that you were trolling. The argument about "Dear Lord"'s possible heresy content, and its popularity, has been rehearsed so many times it is practically a Dead Horse.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Meaning is use. Use is meaning. Words are not magic talismans, but tools used by people. If enough people use a word to mean something, then that's what it means.
This seems to me a key point - that in matters of language, common usage is normative.
If it is genuinely the case that a shift in common usage has occurred so that a particular form of language which would not have been normal fifty years ago is normal now, then anyone writing a new hymn can presumably use the inclusive form without anyone noticing. Several people (somewhere in the above 16+ pages) have said that something like this is their experience.
The more difficult cases are where different sub-cultures have their own norms of language use.
Somewhere there is a happy medium - between the church as "holy huddle" that speaks its own brand of English based on archaic forms, and the church as blowing to and fro with every passing fashion in language and trendy new word.
Remembering that the Church is supposed to be the organisation that exists for the benefit of non-members...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
As long as every effort is made to avoid unnecessary gender-exclusive language (such as new hymns and songs being inclusive, and any older words in song or liturgy being adapted if easily adaptable) I cannot see that the occasional use of formerly acceptable language would be a problem, if in a very popular hymn or format which would be difficult to change. It seems to me that, as long as the balance is geared towards inclusiveness, the occasional archaic form would not cause too much upset to the vast majority of people.
Take the popular carol, 'God rest ye merry Gentlemen....' for example.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Liturgy is not an educational process, so the fact that educational approaches have changed is not that relevant.
Um. Why did I have to learn the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed before the vic would allow me to be confirmed, then? I was told in confirmation classes that the creeds and other forms of liturgy were to teach us bits about God, etc, through repetition. Perhaps I needed to be told such a thing at 12 years old ... (that and given bribes)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually rote learning is all the rage in education in England these days. That worm has turned. Primary-chool teaching has been getting rather more formal for ten or fifteen years. The peak of "child centred" education was in the 1970s and 80s.
There seems to be a cycle - education doesn't work miracles, people make a fuss, governments blame educational methods (cos it mustn't be their own fault - and it often genuinly isn't) and try to force teachers to change their ways. But that takes time. And there is a lag built in to the feedback system because the old codgers who rant about the youth of today in the press are always a little out of date.
So everything always overshoots. And 20 or 30 years later they make them change back again.
The worm will turn back soon. For at least the 3rd time since the introduction of compulsory education. The academics are shifting back to favouring such methods - and in a year, or five years or fifteen years government will suddenly decide that all these targets and prescriptive curriculums and so on are useless.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Dorothy SAyers published an essay in the 40s, I think, called "The Lost Tools Of Learning". SHe proposed that up to the age of about 11, about the point at which we know know the ability to reason inductively first appears, all teaching/learning use as its base the ability of young children to memorize quickly and to parrot back what they have been told. She suggested this was the point at which to teach rules of grammar and so on. Understanding and creativity are not required at this stage, she suggests.
But it would mean that when children begin to be able to reason, they would have the language/arithmetical tools to be able to build imaginatively and creatively, to analyse and to express themselves.
She dressed it up as a discussion about the applicability of the mediaeval trivium and quadrivium, which makes the whole thing rather opaque today, but it still seems to me to have some merit.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Liturgy is not an educational process, so the fact that educational approaches have changed is not that relevant.
Um. Why did I have to learn the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed before the vic would allow me to be confirmed, then? I was told in confirmation classes that the creeds and other forms of liturgy were to teach us bits about God, etc, through repetition.
Really? Perhaps I've been lucky then. I never had to learn anything in order to be confirmed.
I see your point of view about rote learning, though (on a tangent) I do think there are some valuable aspects to it which have been lost. I did open-book English Lit A Level, which was great, and I was very glad that I never had to spend time mug up tons of prose and poetry for the exam. The same went for learning Bible verses, the creed etc - we just didn't do it. On the other hand, I went to Spring Harvest as a teenager, and we learnt a Bible verse by heart, and I have actually found it profoundly helpful for years to be able to access that memory at difficult times without having to look it up. There's a part of me that would like to have a broader store of such things to draw upon.
To get back to liturgy, just getting rid of it in the name of inclusiveness seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Liturgy is very valuable to many people in different ways; for instance for me, the creed is about reaffirming, together, our common faith. I wouldn't want to lose it, or the Lord's Prayer for that matter, just because it doesn't happen to be individual and spontaneous. On the contrary, I value the tradition and sharedness of those forms of prayer, and I don't feel that using them diminishes the role of my intelligence or creativity.
And of course, it's not the case that liturgy is just an outmoded religious practice. It's only the word liturgy that makes it sound that way. People use affirmations, responses and other traditional forms of wording in all sorts of contexts, whether it be in NLP, yoga, chants on protest marches, or Wal-Mart corporate bonding exercises. Many people find value in structured forms of wording, if they are relevant and appropriate.
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
And very glad we all are to see you are still with us, Fibonacci, after the London blasts!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Actually rote learning is all the rage in education in England these days.
I suppose it is, though on a cosy circle basis rather than full class looking at teacher out there in front. Thinking literacy and numeracy hours. But there is more group work and more discussion within primary classrooms than when I was at primary school (1970s. Gosh. I'm old). I only know that coz my Mum was a primary school teacher until a couple of years ago and I saw the system in action. I don't know what the high school system is like now, but when I watched the TV series a couple of years ago involving kids enduring 1950s education, there were bits of it that I remembered as being true to my own experience, yet it clearly wasn't remotely like their own.
quote:
There seems to be a cycle - education doesn't work miracles, people make a fuss, governments blame educational methods ... and try to force teachers to change their ways.
Yes, I'd agree. Education as a political football. Sadly, I think that is destined to continue to be the case and more kids get messed around and more teachers get stressed out as a result.
quote:
The academics are shifting back to favouring such methods - and in a year, or five years or fifteen years government will suddenly decide that all these targets and prescriptive curriculums and so on are useless.
I think this might already be happening - the required miracle hasn't happened. The proposal to reintroduce phonetics teaching for youngsters and to run with Reading Recovery programms (piloted in some schools a number of years ago but not followed through) is indicative of the failure of a prescriptive curriculum and mass targets, imo, and the recognition of it by government. Primary English teachers generally approved of phonetics teaching (apparently) and the Reading Recovery programme. As is often the case, I think, they were ignored in favour of the particular political project of the time.
But possibly I've digressed a bit from the topic of the thread. Sorry!
I believe that in school and in church, language should be as inclusive as possible and since one role of language is to enable teaching and learning, the methods adopted, and the language used, should aim to include as many people as possible, imo.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Perhaps I've been lucky then. I never had to learn anything in order to be confirmed.
Yeah. You were lucky! Thing is, it did me no good. I managed to say both of them off by heart when other people were saying them too, but I've never been able to remember either of them by myself. Same with the Lords Prayer. I still can't say it all the way through on my own, but when I'm saying it with the congregation, I remember it. In general education being 41 means I was taught multiplication tables by rote. I can only remember the even numbers (and even then I struggle when I hit double figures). The odd numbers never did sink in (not much sunk in maths wise, so I suppose that's no surprise!).
quote:
To get back to liturgy, just getting rid of it in the name of inclusiveness seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Liturgy is very valuable to many people in different ways ...
I'd get rid of it simply because it is a total waste of time for me, just as you would retain it because you find it valuable. In an ideal world I'd mix it so that everyone was served. I learn by asking questions, wrestling and understanding, and doing so in language I can relate to. When I've done that, I remember for a lifetime. I'm a learning by doing sort of person. Liturgy, therefore, doesn't serve me at all because it doesn't require any of that. Which seems to be why you find it so helpful, and that's great. I just wish the church (Anglican in my case) would serve people like me too. That's all I ask really. Just a humble request ...
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I just wish the church (Anglican in my case) would serve people like me too. That's all I ask really. Just a humble request ...
Littlelady, I'm really surprised that you haven't found an Anglican church that serves you in a more accessible way. There is such a variety within the Anglican church. Are you living in an area with very few churches? I ask with great respect (having only ever really lived in cities, it's been pretty easy for me!)
For most of my life I went to an Anglican church which dispensed with the majority of its liturgy and traditional hymns. It prided itself on its inclusiveness. At university I went to a liturgy-free but very traditional URC church, and during my Masters degree I attended an entirely liturgy-free charismatic evangelical Anglican/Baptist church, before leaving that to join a very traditional Anglican church with old-style liturgy and all the trimmings. When I returned to London I became part of another local Anglican church with a modern, fairly minimalist liturgy.
I'm always reminded of this topic when I come home from church past the IKEA advert: "St Paul's Cathedral is an awe-inspiring experience. But you can't get a hot dog on the way out."
Style preference is a different issue from inclusiveness. Although I find it easiest to worship and talk to God in a structured context, others may find that oppressive and stifling. My friends and family back at the old church find the spontaneity of their services liberating, while I find it uncomfortable and threatening. However, both churches are actively inclusive. The old one deliberately avoids all archaism, uses inclusive language, and works to include "non-book" people; the new one also uses inclusive language and is a member of the Inclusive Church network.
It is good and worthwhile to have different kinds of service which allow people to come to God in their own way. It would be nice if one size fitted all, but it doesn't and never will - even a mixture would not suit everyone. I'm grateful that I can attend a church which meets my particular needs. However, if I attend a service at my old church, it's my responsibility to get what I can out of it, even if it isn't my preferred style.
PS. Thanks Nicodemia!
[ 10. July 2005, 13:32: Message edited by: Fibonacci's Number ]
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I learn by asking questions, wrestling and understanding, and doing so in language I can relate to. When I've done that, I remember for a lifetime. I'm a learning by doing sort of person. Liturgy, therefore, doesn't serve me at all because it doesn't require any of that. [/QB]
I learn in exactly the same way - I just don't use liturgy as part of that process. That doesn't mean there is no questioning and wrestling with tough issues, just that that specific process isn't part of the liturgy.
As it happens, the liturgy-free churches I've attended have been much less open to questioning and debate than the ones that do use liturgy, because they've been much more focused on emotions, personal responses and direct revelation from God - and questioning the Vision from God wasn't an option. The liturgical ones, on the other hand, happened to be fairly intellectually rigorous and demanding. I don't think there's any necessary connection.
Personally I've always objected to "We are all one body, because we all share in one bread." Before I started taking communion I found that incredibly exclusive (and still do). However, it's the act of excluding people from communion which concerns me, and it's actually using these traditional words which brought my concerns to light. In our church, we deal with that exclusion by having an open communion table and a dispensation to serve non-confirmed people.
[ 10. July 2005, 13:47: Message edited by: Fibonacci's Number ]
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
IMHO it's not the words of the hymns that is the problem, it's the tunes. O how drear and dismal some of them are. And even when there is a nice tune, the harmonies are old-fashioned and uninspired. And even when the harmonies are pleasant or even beautiful, they are totally ruined by the insistence of we-must-use-the-church-organ-for-it-to-be-proper musical snobbery.
I have heard some of the oldest victorian hymns played at the right speed, with the original words and tunes, but with modern instrumentation and harmony and they have been absolutely glorious.
As for the words being inaccessible, well, there's a whole treasure trove of inspiring sermon material there isn't ther!
I recall someone moaning to me about the verse from "And can it be?":
"Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night.
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray.
I woke: the dungeon flamed with light.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose went forth and followed thee".
"My people would have no idea what that meant," he complained. Well tell them, I thought! It would take 5 minutes to show that this verse mirrors the story of Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail. It would take 5 more minutes to speak about how Christ brings freedom to the soul.
That song would then become instantly accessible!
Quite honestly I think we believe people are more thick than they actually are. Perhaps we should give them a bit more credit than we do.
I remember a War Cry article about a child's dedication service. Oh, but they couldn't use the word 'dedication' because the great unwashed wouldn't know what that words means. So what did the headline say?
"Child given back to God" !
Why? Didn't they want it?
Was it a child sacrifice? Knife or flames, I wonder!!
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Sometimes it's easier to let the words speak for themselves.
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Goodness, what a tall order! When I started the thread I was thinking of inclusivity as being for males and females. But now we seem to have moved on to making sure the language is inclusive of all intelligence levels (and reading levels?)
I do feel sorry for any liturgists and hymn writers these days. Not only do they have to be careful which gender-indicative words they do or do not use, but they also have to be able to write in a style everyone (from all religious backgrounds and schooling, or none) can understand. An almost impossible task, I'd have thought. And where the 'poetry and art' in that?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have been a minister for 17 years and I have never come across anyone in my congregations who were offended by songs like "Dear Lord and FATHER of MANKIND".
Inclusive language draws more attention to the worshipper than it does to God and merely highlights a sensitivity that is indicative of pride and faulty discipleship.
After all, how on earth can anyone who truly follows Jesus complain to his face that he should not pray Our Father let alone Our Dad?
What people - men and women - who want to alter everything to suit themselves forget, is that Christianity, and Judaism before it, is a revealed religion. God has revealed it thus and we have no mandate and no right to change it.
Only those who regard the Bible as a humanly manufactured piece of literature would argue that it is paternalistic and sexist.
God is the Father, Jesus is the Son.
Linguistically, male and female make up Mankind.
There are more important things to concentrate our immortal souls upon than inclusive language.
I know this will draw down the wrath of a great many people but, well, what can you do? It's MHO.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Seventeen pages on, and we are more or less back to the beginning, aren't we?
Mudfrog, have you read any of the previous 17 pages?
There are very few, if any, who want to change any old hymns, not are we rewriting the Bible. We (some women here) just wanted to feel included amongst God's children at church. And not hear about his sons, for us men.... etc. etc.
Yes, there are some dire Victorian hymns, thankfully, they don't last. Yes, there are some dire "modern" songs. Hopefully they will die the death they deserve. But none of that was the original intention of the OP for discussion.
Maybe its time this thread died.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Goodness, what a tall order! When I started the thread I was thinking of inclusivity as being for males and females. But now we seem to have moved on to making sure the language is inclusive of all intelligence levels (and reading levels?)
I do feel sorry for any liturgists and hymn writers these days.
Linguistic inclusivity doesn't simply mean males and females, Chorister, even though some do take it to mean that alone. I think taking literacy levels into consideration is of course inclusive - not everyone is like myself, for instance, studying towards a degree in English. There are many, both native English speakers and settlers in the country, who would have an easier time of life in church if the language used was stylistically more accessible. 'Simple' language can be as profound as lexis comprising four syllables a piece or words so exclusive now to certain church services that people have little or no idea what they actually mean.
I think a discussion about how as many people as possible can be included within church life through the use of language (only one aspect to inclusivity, I admit) is a valuable one. But then I'm biased, because I happen to love the English language in all its variety.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Seventeen pages on, and we are more or less back to the beginning, aren't we?
Mudfrog, have you read any of the previous 17 pages?
There are very few, if any, who want to change any old hymns, not are we rewriting the Bible. We (some women here) just wanted to feel included amongst God's children at church. And not hear about his sons, for us men.... etc. etc.
Yes, there are some dire Victorian hymns, thankfully, they don't last. Yes, there are some dire "modern" songs. Hopefully they will die the death they deserve. But none of that was the original intention of the OP for discussion.
Maybe its time this thread died.
Why should it die just because you are fed up with it. Some people come late to these discussions and want to have their go at expressing an opinion.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
I'm really surprised that you haven't found an Anglican church that serves you in a more accessible way ... Are you living in an area with very few churches?
Thank you for your concern, FN. I don't want to derail the thread with too much talk about my church experiences (coz my post could go to pages!), so suffice it to say that I've given up looking really. I just accept what there is. I'm in Sheffield at the moment; plenty of churches, though being a student means only public transport (therefore limited options). No matter. The church I go to offers Sunday lunch to students during semester time for just £1; that's got to be a good balance to the ole liturgy!
quote:
Style preference is a different issue from inclusiveness.
I agree. I probably got distracted in my last post by the reference to liturgy. But my point about language still stands. Although style preference is a personal issue, language use - regardless of style - is an inclusivity issue, imo. Because we deal so much in words, words are important. Which words we use, and to what purpose, is very important I think.
It was interesting to read about your own church experiences, especially the difference between your old church and your present one. Although the Anglican church has been and still is so exclusive in many ways, in others it is pretty inclusive, not least by the fact that under the single roof of Anglicanism can be found so many different clubs! (All speaking different varieties of the same language)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
As it happens, the liturgy-free churches I've attended have been much less open to questioning and debate ...
Sorry - I wasn't implying that churches using liturgy are somehow not open to debate. I was simply stating that, based on information given to me about the purpose of liturgy, as a means of teaching about God I find liturgy limited. I also consider some of the language used, even in the modern format, to be exclusive in the general linguistic sense. That is, it is the language of a religious domain and, as such, is alien to those who do not (yet) have access to that domain.
quote:
Personally I've always objected to "We are all one body, because we all share in one bread." Before I started taking communion I found that incredibly exclusive (and still do). However, it's the act of excluding people from communion which concerns me, and it's actually using these traditional words which brought my concerns to light. In our church, we deal with that exclusion by having an open communion table and a dispensation to serve non-confirmed people
Case in point, really! I think you put my 'argument' over very well. Language here is acting as a signpost of exclusion: only certain people are allowed here. But it is also acting exclusively in and of itself: what does 'body' mean here? And how can we share in 'one bread'? That's very exclusive language: those in the Christian club know what it means; someone wandering in out of curiosity won't have a clue (although at a surface level of course they will connect the act of giving bread to the words). If a church changed such wording then at the point of first contact those who are not regular attenders would get the point and then, as time went on, the metaphors, etc, of the Bible could be explained.
I guess my point about liturty as it relates to this thread is that it creates a barrier to those outside the club, or on the fringes, and I'm not sure that's helpful.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That is, it is the language of a religious domain and, as such, is alien to those who do not (yet) have access to that domain.
What constitutes access to that domain? It's not like one has to tithe at the platinum level or be in the inquirer's class for 47 weeks in order to get the glossary which explains everything.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
I suppose I'm arguing that not all people are put off by liturgy, even newcomers (and though I appreciate that you are, Littlelady, there are churches which don't use it). Some people actually find it more reassuring to have a script so that they can join in; and even as a lifelong Christian, I find it unnerving to go to a church where there is no "order of service", because it means that, unless you've attended a few times, you have no idea what will happen next or how long the service will be.
Likewise, the rites and rituals of some of the currently fashionable sects - in their very alien-ness - are often part of the mystic quality that attendees are looking for.
Like all specialist organisations, the church does have a jargon problem. Likewise, jargon is one of the things that annoys me most about working for the health service. However, there is a difference between good and bad jargon. There are some concepts that the secular world just doesn't use, and the words for these concepts have dropped out of the secular vocabulary. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about them in church? For instance, you're suggesting that we stop saying "Glory to God", because we don't say "glory to" anyone in normal life. But just because we don't have a secular vocabulary for overt worship, should we stop using our religious one? What do we use instead to praise God? Football chants?
OK I'm not entirely serious, and I do appreciate that we need to make language as accessible as we possibly can. But as an NHS anti-jargon crusader, this reminds me a bit of the Casualty sketch by Mitchell and Webb, where they tried to get rid of all the medical jargon:
quote:
Nurse: "Quickly doctor! This patient is incredibly poorly!"
Doc 1: "My God! I don't think I've every seen someone look so peaky! Get me the medicine in here right now!"
Doc 2: "Get out of the way, doctor. This is my patient. Stand back! I'm doing the medical treatment here."
Doc 1: "I'm sorry Steve, I can't let you do that. You're just the sort of doctor who makes people go to sleep for operations, whereas I specialise in people who've been in the wars in this particular way."
Nurse: "The medicine, doctor."
Doc 2: "You fool, nurse! This is medicine for a different illness than this one!"
Doc 1: "Stand back. We're going to have to use the electric shock, that's a sort of medicine if you're very ill, but can make you ill if you're fine! Clear! [BZZT] Oh no, he was fine! Now he's poorly from too much electric!"
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I take your point about non-native English speakers (and am aware this is an area I don't know much about, living in an almost entirely white area - so defer to those who do). but I've had many a conversation in my line of work (teaching) about this very thing in schools. Do we pander to people's simplistic, limited vocabulary, or do we seek to educate them into the richness of language in all its variety? Of course there are opinions on all sides.
I do often hear attitudes that people attending church cannot manage richness and diversity in language - and yet most people in the country are educated to at least GCSE level; and an increasing number beyond. I reckon church attenders are more intelligent than some people give them credit for.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Personally I've always objected to "We are all one body, because we all share in one bread." Before I started taking communion I found that incredibly exclusive (and still do
[...]
what does 'body' mean here? And how can we share in 'one bread'? That's very exclusive language: those in the Christian club know what it means; someone wandering in out of curiosity won't have a clue (although at a surface level of course they will connect the act of giving bread to the words). If a church changed such wording then at the point of first contact those who are not regular attenders would get the point and then, as time went on, the metaphors, etc, of the Bible could be explained.
But the words for "body" and "bread" and "wine" are not jargon or technical language here, they are the ordinary words for body and bread and wine . The symbols aren't the words, they are the bread and wine themselves.
And ordinary bread and wine. The original words would have been as mystifying to the ancients as they are to us now. Choosing jargony words doesn't help us - though using ordinary bread and wine instead of little crackers or ribena might.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have been a minister for 17 years and I have never come across anyone in my congregations who were offended by songs like "Dear Lord and FATHER of MANKIND".
Perhaps you haven't had a congregation in a university town where many would object. (Plus the hymn has some romantic associations which are untrue e.g. the calm in the hills above Galilee - then as now they are the place where the terrorists hide out)
There are many people who have been abused by their fathers and who cannot call God father - surely 'father' is only a metaphor so I'm happy for them to pray to God as 'Mother' or 'parent'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the words for "body" and "bread" and "wine" are not jargon or technical language here, they are the ordinary words for body and bread and wine . The symbols aren't the words, they are the bread and wine themselves.
But they don't just mean the literal though do they? If they did, we'd be guilty of canabalism! There's a lot of symbolism, because the bread represents Jesus' body, the wine his blood (or they become each, depending on your denomination). So while people will connect to the literal bread and wine - as I suggested they would - that isn't them understanding the communion, because the words are a symbol as well as a literal description of what is present.
quote:
The original words would have been as mystifying to the ancients as they are to us now.
Would they? I've no idea, Ken, because I'm totally ignorant of Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic (whichever language these particular words would have been spoken in). So I just don't know. Was symbolism more a fundamental aspect of language in Biblical times than today? It would seem so based on the English translations of the Bible, but again, I don't know.
quote:
...using ordinary bread and wine instead of little crackers or ribena might.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do we pander to people's simplistic, limited vocabulary, or do we seek to educate them into the richness of language in all its variety?
Oooh Chorister!! I would love to introduce you to my sociolinguistics lecturer! The, um, ensuing debate would be fascinating to watch!
quote:
I reckon church attenders are more intelligent than some people give them credit for.
I'm not questioning people's intelligence. The grasp of a language isn't a reflection of intelligence. If someone is a first generation immigrant here from a country in which another language is their mother tongue, it is possible their grasp of English will be limited. I don't think facilitating their introduction to English church life by reorganising a bit of the language we use is 'pandering' to them. Likewise, if someone - through no fault of their own - has limited literacy skills (as I have limited numeracy skills) shouldn't we be enabling them to feel comfortable in a church environment rather than (albeit unwittingly) emphasising any feelings of inadequacy they may be feeling (they may not be feeling such, obviously, but some undoubtedly will)?
I'm thinking that the kind of language we use in church perhaps is connected to what we think church is for? If someone wants to be a Christian but their limited grasp of language or literacy skills or straightfoward unfamiliarity with the jargon leaves them feeling alienated (and therefore perhaps unsure about returning), is that a positive reflection on the church? I don't know. I'm talking out loud.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What constitutes access to that domain?
Language
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
I suppose I'm arguing that not all people are put off by liturgy, even newcomers
I agree, Fibonacci. I think I said (but I haven't checked, so don't take this as gospel!) that the ideal would be a mix: so that, say, both you and me felt a measure of inclusion, although the security you refer to may be a different issue. (As a complete opposite to you, I love not knowing what's coming next!)
quote:
Like all specialist organisations, the church does have a jargon problem.
Oh yes. I couldn't express agreement more if I had all the words in the world available to me!
quote:
There are some concepts that the secular world just doesn't use, and the words for these concepts have dropped out of the secular vocabulary. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about them in church?
For some - probably very sad - reason I was contemplating just this thought over lunch today. I'm not sure it's the concepts that have dropped, but the words we use to describe them? You refer to my 'glory to' example (and please God no, not football chants! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ). Here's another one. Next weekend I'm going to my little nephew's christening (Anglican). My brother (the Dad) is a believer, but the three godparents he and his wife have chosen (including my other brother) are not professing believers. Yet they will all declare their intention to protect little Alex from 'the world, the flesh and the devil'. The concepts are still relevant today, but the words are not, at least not in the sense that we as believers understand them. I'm not saying those outside the church will not have some grasp of their meaning - though some will not of course - but surely there are words that will communicate the contemporary version of what the original authors were talking about here, so relating the promise to today's culture? Just a thought ...
quote:
But as an NHS anti-jargon crusader, this reminds me a bit of the Casualty sketch by Mitchell and Webb, where they tried to get rid of all the medical jargon:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
But I understood it!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
PS: I didn't mean to hog this thread ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I just wanted to respond to the various points people picked up from my posts.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
All valid points, Littlelady, and I'm sure liturgists bear all that in mind when constructing the liturgy (for example, there are several Eucharistic Prayers in Common Worship, some more simply expressed than others - particularly the ones with children in mind). It has struck me that if I were to worship in a foreign country, I'd find it very helpful to have written liturgy in front of me as well as hearing the words - it would help me to feel the general shape of what is going on, regardless of whether I understood or not. (mischevious tangent) of course as a musician if the service was in Latin I'd understand every word of the responses, regardless of which country I was in - perhaps Church Latin should still be taught to everyone in schools, even if other Latin has fallen by the wayside? (mischevious tangent ends)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
