|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inclusive language hymns
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Yes, exactly. I'm female and happily sing these words - one of my favourite hymns - for this reason.
If Pine Marten and the nuns of West Malling and Stanbrook happily sing the occasional gender specific word to apply to themselves, then it is the merest patriarchy for me as a man to accuse them of internalising their oppression.
Thank you, venbede. I might add that, being of a medieval inclination, and a collector of various bits of arms & armour, I have no trouble either with swords, armour, kings, breastplates or indeed battleshields ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Battleshield' is changed to 'breastplate' for simple pragmatic reasons: congregations could never get 'battleshield' to scan. Now it sings easily and they never trip over it.
Hmm. RCH / CH3 laid the words under the tune and added extra notes* where the metre was irregular. As long as the organist was paying attention it should have worked. I don't recall it having been a problem.
* there must be a proper term for these but I can't think of it.
[ 11. August 2014, 20:03: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Battleshield' is changed to 'breastplate' for simple pragmatic reasons: congregations could never get 'battleshield' to scan. Now it sings easily and they never trip over it.
Hmm. RCH / CH3 laid the words under the tune and added extra notes* where the metre was irregular. As long as the organist was paying attention it should have worked. I don't recall it having been a problem.
* there must be a proper term for these but I can't think of it.
I recall it as a constant problem. Even if the organist were to adapt the tune, the congregation still didn't know what to do. Besides, there were no notes in their words-only hymnbooks. It was a particular disaster at weddings. Was it battle-shie-ie-ld or bah-tle-shie-eld? No one ever knew (and I am not sure I do even now).
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Battleshield' is changed to 'breastplate' for simple pragmatic reasons: congregations could never get 'battleshield' to scan. Now it sings easily and they never trip over it.
Hmm. RCH / CH3 laid the words under the tune and added extra notes* where the metre was irregular. As long as the organist was paying attention it should have worked. I don't recall it having been a problem.
* there must be a proper term for these but I can't think of it.
It's called "farcing" when you add extra words to fill the notes. I'm not sure what the inverse would be called.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
'Battleshield' is changed to 'breastplate' for simple pragmatic reasons: congregations could never get 'battleshield' to scan. Now it sings easily and they never trip over it.
Hmm. RCH / CH3 laid the words under the tune and added extra notes* where the metre was irregular. As long as the organist was paying attention it should have worked. I don't recall it having been a problem.
* there must be a proper term for these but I can't think of it.
I recall it as a constant problem. Even if the organist were to adapt the tune, the congregation still didn't know what to do. Besides, there were no notes in their words-only hymnbooks. It was a particular disaster at weddings. Was it battle-shie-ie-ld or bah-tle-shie-eld? No one ever knew (and I am not sure I do even now).
For the most part we had hymn books with tunes - principally the green melody ones, but some of the bigger red ones as well with the harmony. I suppose that made it easier - except for the diehards who demanded a 'wee red one', of course.
And thanks to Basilica for supplying the correct term.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
I commend you for at least imagining that it might feel weird in your gut, and encourage that empathy.
That is very kind of you.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, yes. But being charitable I thought it was perhaps not meant to read like that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Your charitable thought may be correct, but I'm not so sure.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
IME-as a giver and a receiver, as it were- people who say patronising things rarely do so with the intention of being patronising. (Just as, I suppose, many people who unthinkingly use 'non-inclusive' language do so with no intention of being, say, sexist.)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
There are many versions of Be Thou My Vision anyway. Personally I don't mind being a 'true son' in this one, as it is an image with particular associations, just as 'High King' is. But I hate 'Christ of my own heart' rather than '(Great) Heart of my own heart' as it just sounds so odd.
There is a modern worship song with the line 'knowing I'm a sinful man' which does annoy me, though. I am not a man, sinful or otherwise.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So many of the changes in the name of 'inclusive' language display nothing so much as linguistic ignorance.
The changing of 'mankind' for 'humankind', in particular, makes me despair <snip>
It is not as simple as you suggest:
"mankind" = human beings considered collectively,
"womankind"=women considered collectively
"?"= men considered collectively.
Historically the linguistic marking for male human beings has been lost in most areas, so if you refer to mankind and womankind, the expectation is that you are referring to men considered collectively and women considered collectively. In English, using these forms, there is no longer any way of distinguishing or marking the male part of mankind from the whole. This means that many listeners, both male and female, hear 'mankind' as meaning male human beings considered collectively, and 'man' as a male reference with woman as its female counterpart. The word's history is not its meaning. The English language is continuing to change, and just as 'let' and 'prevent' no longer mean what they meant in the 1549/1662 prayer books, so man/men and mankind no longer (if they ever did) unequivocally mean the whole human race, and many people hear them as a specifically male reference.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
They didn't have to use breastplate: if the original meaning is 'battle shield' then there is a correct word - it is buckler - and it is in regular use wherever the psalms are sung (18, 91).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So many of the changes in the name of 'inclusive' language display nothing so much as linguistic ignorance.
The changing of 'mankind' for 'humankind', in particular, makes me despair <snip>
It is not as simple as you suggest:
"mankind" = human beings considered collectively,
"womankind"=women considered collectively
"?"= men considered collectively.
Historically the linguistic marking for male human beings has been lost in most areas, so if you refer to mankind and womankind, the expectation is that you are referring to men considered collectively and women considered collectively. In English, using these forms, there is no longer any way of distinguishing or marking the male part of mankind from the whole. This means that many listeners, both male and female, hear 'mankind' as meaning male human beings considered collectively, and 'man' as a male reference with woman as its female counterpart. The word's history is not its meaning. The English language is continuing to change, and just as 'let' and 'prevent' no longer mean what they meant in the 1549/1662 prayer books, so man/men and mankind no longer (if they ever did) unequivocally mean the whole human race, and many people hear them as a specifically male reference.
Well put. Regrettable, but true, and so we need to work around that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Its not only 'inclusive' language that grates.
In Lead us, heavenly Father, lead us they have changed "Lone and dreary, faint and weary, Through the desert thou did'st go" to "Self-denying, death-defying, Thou to Calvary did'st go".
Can anyone tell me why?
Not only are all the original words still in current use and so easily understood by a 10 year old, but the change of words alters the meaning.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I agree with you about that one, L'organist.
Certainly the word "man" means primarily humanity to me.
Unfortunately, there has been a common idea that males are normative humans, and women an exception. The use of "men" to mean "men and women" is used to exemplify this attitude and make lots of women, fed up with being patronised and ignored, understandably irritated. Being male, I may well not appreciate this.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Cynically I suspect many of the changes made by certain publishers is to gain some additional copyright fees. Lots and lots of traditional hymns that would otherwise be out of copyright are earning fees on new words.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, we've been there before, and when some of us have hinted at who we think are the worst offenders, hosts have reminded us that the Ship can't afford a libel suit, so we'd better tread carefully. But I think we all know who we mean. We sang an entirely unnecessarily buggered up version of 'God is Working His Purpose Out' on Sunday (well, I sang the unbuggered up words and tune, as best I could remember them), which seemed to have been changed for no other purpose than to establish copyright.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IME-as a giver and a receiver, as it were- people who say patronising things rarely do so with the intention of being patronising. (Just as, I suppose, many people who unthinkingly use 'non-inclusive' language do so with no intention of being, say, sexist.)
I would have used "patronising", but that too is sexist in its etymology and may have offended someone. "Condescending" may be safer.
You and L'Organist are right about other changes. I learnt "Guide me Oh thou great Jehovah" many decades ago, and still sing that rather than "Redeemer"; I also sing of "goblins and foul fiends" rather than the words in the NEH. Others may take a different approach.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its not only 'inclusive' language that grates.
In Lead us, heavenly Father, lead us they have changed "Lone and dreary, faint and weary, Through the desert thou did'st go" to "Self-denying, death-defying, Thou to Calvary did'st go".
Can anyone tell me why?
Not only are all the original words still in current use and so easily understood by a 10 year old, but the change of words alters the meaning.
I agree the change alters the meaning. But as to the words still being in current use and easily understood, connotations can vary. On this side of the pond, at least, the primary meaning of "dreary" is "boring," "gloomy" or "pessimistic." While some may know it also means "sad," I never hear it used that way. To refer to a person as "dreary" conjures up images of Eyeore, which I'm sure is not what the author was trying to convey. But at least where I live, that's how it would be heard.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
You and L'Organist are right about other changes. I learnt "Guide me Oh thou great Jehovah" many decades ago, and still sing that rather than "Redeemer";
Side bar question:
This might have been answered already, but is the reason why "Jehovah" was dropped in favor of "Redeemer" was because New Testament scholars in the 20th century stated that "Jehovah" was an incorrect translation of the Tetragrammaton?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IME-as a giver and a receiver, as it were- people who say patronising things rarely do so with the intention of being patronising. (Just as, I suppose, many people who unthinkingly use 'non-inclusive' language do so with no intention of being, say, sexist.)
Gracious of you.
Fair call - I posted an unfinished and poorly edited thought in haste, and pressed the "Send" button. Sorry about that. It was intended charitably on my part, even if expressed clumsily.
Interesting to note the effect two words posted by a random Internet stranger had. Consider the impact of dozens of words, spoken or sung every Sunday by community and clergy. Measures and sensitivities certainly vary! This is true within inclusivity as well, where I think I would be located at the conservative end (for example, using traditional Father-Son-Holy Spirit language for ritual and some theological use).
<tangent re "breastplate": piglet referred to St Patrick's Breastplate as "Paddy's Bra", and now I am stuck with that imagery.>
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In Lead us, heavenly Father, lead us they have changed "Lone and dreary, faint and weary, Through the desert thou did'st go" to "Self-denying, death-defying, Thou to Calvary did'st go".
Can anyone tell me why?
I have no idea of the editorial intent, but the latter seems much more powerful poetry to me. If I was choosing a version, I'd definitely go for the latter. I've been lone, dreary (probably in both senses!), faint and weary, but I've never been self-denying to the extent Christ was and I've certainly never death-defied. The newer version seems a much fuller articulation of the gospel, far more likely to make me proclaim "were not our hearts set on fire" and lead me to more profound wonder, love and praise of Our Lord.
I can understand people having different tastes to me. What I'm finding hard to understand is this notion that changing an author's original text is "cheeky." When I'm assembling words to be sung in worship (which is pretty rare for me to do, but I do do occasionally), my priority is not to honor original authors, but God. If different words will lead to more fervent prayer, I'm changing them.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I cannot believe you are serious! Those new words are just awful, compared to the original. And "death defying"?? What are we singing about - some kind of circus trapeze act??
[ 13. August 2014, 01:27: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I also sing of "goblins and foul fiends" rather than the words in the NEH.
What did they change them to?
This is from TEH, the amendments being by Percy Dearmer:
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
OK, its scans and rhymes, but has nothing of the original left in it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, we've been there before, and when some of us have hinted at who we think are the worst offenders, hosts have reminded us that the Ship can't afford a libel suit, so we'd better tread carefully. But I think we all know who we mean. We sang an entirely unnecessarily buggered up version of 'God is Working His Purpose Out' on Sunday (well, I sang the unbuggered up words and tune, as best I could remember them), which seemed to have been changed for no other purpose than to establish copyright.
The words of God is working his purpose out were written by Arthur Campbell Ainger. He died in 1919. If a person is actually collecting copyright fees through CCLI from people using their mangling of the original words,- rather than merely asserting copyright in their mangling so as to stop someone else doing that - that is a form of theft from the dead. They are putting their immortal soul in danger.
Because they are attempting to exploit other people's worship, that is worse than if the publishers of the Arden Shakespeare editions were to try and claim 10p off everyone's ticket wherever Hamlet or whatever is performed.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
While I don't like the change in words, when I think about it I do balk at calling Jesus "dreary". The word isn't appropriate, and I suspect was only included because it rhymes with "weary".
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I also sing of "goblins and foul fiends" rather than the words in the NEH.
What did they change them to?
This is from TEH, the amendments being by Percy Dearmer:
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
OK, its scans and rhymes, but has nothing of the original left in it.
What was the original, then? I thought it might have replaced "goblins and foul fiends" with, I don't know, "spiritual enemies" or something, but now I'm curious about the context.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I also sing of "goblins and foul fiends"
Well, I don;'t believe in goblins.
Any more than I believe in unicorns - as in Jim Cotter's modernisation, taken up by the New Zealand church.
Presumably one could take 'hobgoblins and foul fiends' in some kind of symbolic sense?
Regarding inclusivity, I find that many hymns make reference to emotions and experiences that are obviously personal to the person who wrote the words, without necessarily being directly applicable to every Christian who might sing them. It also seems to be quietly accepted that we don't always share the precise theology of a hymn that we might be asked to sing. So considering that we cut many hymns a lot of slack in their personal and theological application, perhaps we ought to do the same when it comes to gender references. I don't know....
The hymn seems to be a genre that praises God and unifies people in a variety of different ways, and it seems that lyrical content is only one of them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Gosh, svit. That's rather good.
And leo, for Pete's sake most religious language is symbolic rather than boringly literal. I may not believe goblins are a part of natural history, but they are certainly a part of poetry, representing hostile powers.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Also, it is important to remember with this hymn that originally it is lifted from a particular context in Pilgrim's Progress (use search for 'valor' or for '[366]' - the page number) which does have its fair share of hobgoblins and foul fiends.
[ 13. August 2014, 20:27: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Ah, thank you, I didn't know it was still from To Be A Pilgrim, which... I don't know if it's in the 1982 Episcopal Hymnal at all, actually. But yeah, apart from hobgoblins (good Lord, this is a day for weird topics; for more on hobgoblins, see the thread on voices in Purgatory), surely something about God protecting us from Satan and foul fiends would be appropriate.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find that many hymns make reference to emotions and experiences that are obviously personal to the person who wrote the words, without necessarily being directly applicable to every Christian who might sing them.
Such as references to a dramatic conversion, which seem to have once been regarded as the normative Christian experience in some circles (even to the extent of individuals "talking up" their own stories to make them sound more authentic).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Chastmaster, sorry to be late getting back to you, but the original words were:
Hobgoblin, nor foul fiend
Can daunt his spirit;
Dearmer's alteration carries none of that at all.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding inclusivity, I find that many hymns make reference to emotions and experiences that are obviously personal to the person who wrote the words, without necessarily being directly applicable to every Christian who might sing them. It also seems to be quietly accepted that we don't always share the precise theology of a hymn that we might be asked to sing. So considering that we cut many hymns a lot of slack in their personal and theological application, perhaps we ought to do the same when it comes to gender references. I don't know....
The hymn seems to be a genre that praises God and unifies people in a variety of different ways, and it seems that lyrical content is only one of them.
Considering this made me think about other ways in which this happens, such as Jack White's brilliant version of 'Jolene', or Martin Carthy singing first-person folk songs about being an abandoned girl. Doesn't have to be literal to reflect truth.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And leo, for Pete's sake most religious language is symbolic rather than boringly literal. I may not believe goblins are a part of natural history, but they are certainly a part of poetry, representing hostile powers.
A non churchgoer would find those words even more fairy tale than the usual stuff we sing.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A non churchgoer would find those words even more fairy tale than the usual stuff we sing.
So? If it's true, it's true; why shouldn't we sing it, with modified words or otherwise?
--------------------
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
I find this constant harping on what 'non-churchgoers' or 'young people' will or will not understand incomprehensible.
In schools today children study works by Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc, and even Beowulf has moved into schools, and pupils tackle the metaphysical poets: how are the same people unable to understand the hymns of Isaac Watts, etc?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I find this constant harping on what 'non-churchgoers' or 'young people' will or will not understand incomprehensible.
In schools today children study works by Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc, and even Beowulf has moved into schools, and pupils tackle the metaphysical poets: how are the same people unable to understand the hymns of Isaac Watts, etc?
Because at school etc. you have a teacher who's on hand to explain words/phrases etc. that aren't understood as you go through. You can't put your hand up halfway through a hymn and ask everyone to stop singing to explain what "Thy unction grace bestoweth" (to take an example from a hymn we're singing this week) means.
I'd also argue that, to an outsider, it can give the impression that the church generally speaks a different language to everyone else, a language that belongs to several hundred years ago. It therefore wouldn't be unreasonable (in their minds at least) to conclude that the church has very little of relevance to say to the world today.
Now that might be unfair: just because we sing some hymns in archaic language doesn't mean on its own we're disconnected from the world outside. And I'm not advocate for wholesale, knee-jerk "updating" of older hymns in any case (read through Baptist Praise and Worship for some truly bad examples of doing this); I don't suppose that if we modernised the words of every hymn the un-churched would come streaming in. Many worship songs written in "modern" language can be fairly incomprehensible too, when they lift images straight from the Bible without any attempt at giving some kind of "translation". And poetry is important.
But still... I'd say we have to keep in mind that these hymns do use words, phrases and images that are far removed from the lives of most people and, if we're not careful, there can be a disconnect between them and us. We can't assume that people will get what we mean when we sing them, or that it's their problem if they don't.
(I'd also wonder how many people who've been singing these hymns for years understand them - there's some things I've sung that I haven't a clue what they mean. And I chose the blinking hymns!!)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
[Not Entirely a Tangent] quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I find this constant harping on what 'non-churchgoers' or 'young people' will or will not understand incomprehensible.
In schools today children study works by Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc, and even Beowulf has moved into schools, and pupils tackle the metaphysical poets: how are the same people unable to understand the hymns of Isaac Watts, etc?
They do? Here, even in the university English Department, they study newspaper leaders, advertisements, government whitepapers and billboards. I doubt if Shakespeare or the Metaphysicals get a mention any more ... certainly not at school.
Which provides an interesting opportunity for meaningful churches, for I am discerning, amongst the deep anti-Christian cynicism in the community, a parallel yearning for deep narratives of faith and mystery. Into which our ancient (i.e. more than two years old) hymns (I prefer a little bit of inclusive language tinkering, but that's all) can breathe energy and meaning.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
You and L'Organist are right about other changes. I learnt "Guide me Oh thou great Jehovah" many decades ago, and still sing that rather than "Redeemer";
Side bar question:
This might have been answered already, but is the reason why "Jehovah" was dropped in favor of "Redeemer" was because New Testament scholars in the 20th century stated that "Jehovah" was an incorrect translation of the Tetragrammaton?
And 'redeemer' is a better replacement just because the syllables fit?
We still have Jehovah in our song book.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I think it very likely that Jehovah is an incorrect, if close, rendition of the unspeakable Name. That's why is alright to say or sing it. More likely is that whenever the change occurred, it was incorrectly thought to be the Name.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I only said 'this piece of fish is good enough for...' FWIW it's neither 'Jehovah' nor 'Redeemer' in the original, but 'Arglwydd' ('Lord')- the usual English translation of the whole hymn is a rather free one.
[ 27. August 2014, 11:41: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In fact it shouldn't be called a translation at all but a paraphrase.
So although not of a Psalm its in good company with those other paraphrases by JM Neale (of Latin office hymns) and things such as "Praise, my soul", etc.
Oops, forgot to ask this: who can explain to me what One more step along the world means? I've been asked by a junior chorister and haven't been able to come up with an answer he finds convincing.
[ 27. August 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I can't stand the 1960s type of school hymn written by people like Sidney Carter.
When I needed a neighbour is another - the creed and the colour won't matter?
Well, the colour is no barrier but it DOES matter- people are proud of their colour and so they should be! We should not be colourblind (which usually means white people ignoring that someone is black) and we should celebrate and honour colour.
And the creed doesn't matter? Oh yes it does!
I get it that creed and colour shouldn't figure in whether people help one another, but they do matter in other respects.
[ 27. August 2014, 12:30: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
I get it that creed and colour shouldn't figure in whether people help one another, but they do matter in other respects.
But the hymn isn't about the other respects. It's about whether or not we help one another. If it were a learned treatise on the value of doctrinal orthodoxy or the relationship between colour, ethnicity and self-respect among members of ethnic minority populations then we might give it a 'D' but it's not.
Claiming that it doesn't work on its own level because of that is like claiming that Dr. Brian May ought to be stripped of his Ph.D in Astrophysics because the rotation of the earth is not, in fact, caused by Fat Bottomed Girls.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
There was a Stepney Episcopal Area course for Adults called Step by Step, and I remember singing "One more step along the world I go" at the memorial service for Beatrice Shearer who was mainly responsible for getting the course going.
I haven't got the text in front of me and I can't remember it being particularly Christian, but it certainly isn't inconsistent as an expression of faith and hope and it was highly appropriate on that occasion.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The implication for me is that the time it won't matter is sometime in the future.
When I needed a neighbour were you there,
against
And the creed and the colour won't matter.
The question is 'when' won't it matter?
In the context of judgment - inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these, is it correct to say that the creed we follow will not matter at all?
I really have to resist the idea of salvation by charitable works and it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you were nice to people you'll pass muster..
[ 27. August 2014, 22:35: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
St Everild
Shipmate
# 3626
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Would I as a man be happy using a 'daughter' metaphor? Well, I'd find it odd in my gut, but I hope that I could understand and accept it with my head.
This sounds like a highly theoretical exercise for you, rather than the practical, weekly difficulty some women experience.
If you would like a sense of this puzzlement and alienation (Who do they mean? Am I included?) try replacing all the pronouns at your next worship: She for He, Her for His, women for men (but don't worry, because it really means all humans, not just adult females!)
Thinking about it, "For us women, and for our salvation..." sounds to me powerful and refreshing: Thank God, it really is for us, and we don't have to wonder how subsumed we have to be in another group in order to be included.
I commend you for at least imagining that it might feel weird in your gut, and encourage that empathy.
Yes. This.
Posts: 1782 | From: Bethnei | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
