Thread: Inclusive language hymns Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028700
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
This arises from THIS thread.
If you are in a church that cares about the use of inclusive language in its liturgy, what do you do about the hymns and songs which are NOT inclusive? Some modern hymn books have tried (with varying degrees of success) to inclusivise some traditional hymns.
I will admit that I now find non-inclusive hymn words to be jarring. And yet I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled by the Political Correctness brigade.
So what do we do????
Here are are a couple of examples:
- To be a pilgrim Mrs Grouch and I love this hymn. But it has foiled all my attempts to inclusivise it. I will still sing it, though.
- I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
What other examples do you know of hymns which defy inclusivisation? And should we still sing them or let them wither on the vine?
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
If a hymn can't use inclusive language do not update other words, if "thee" and "thy" are left in, fair warning is given that the language is not current and it jars less while leaving good tunes and sentiments intact
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
I'm not sure if I've ever heard Talbot's original words sung by a congregation. Almost everywhere I know this is sung, it's with horizontally-inclusive lyrics. "And I will raise you up, on the last day."
Most Catholic hymnals update lyrics in all sorts of ways, like printing the Tantum Ergo in English rather than (or as well as) Latin, taking out archaic English pronouns, etc. They often inclusivize language while they're at it. If a hymn's out of copyright, I think it's totally fair to regard each new printing of it as a new version, just like how folk songs keep evolving.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled ...
That's pretty much my position.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
That great Anglican hymnodist J.M. Neale was a master of "disturbing traditional hymn words." Think of all the hymns he took whose traditional words were all Latin that he disturbed by making them English! Why can't modern hymnodists follow in his footsteps?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This arises from THIS thread.
If you are in a church that cares about the use of inclusive language in its liturgy, what do you do about the hymns and songs which are NOT inclusive? Some modern hymn books have tried (with varying degrees of success) to inclusivise some traditional hymns.
I will admit that I now find non-inclusive hymn words to be jarring. And yet I also have a wariness about disturbing traditional hymn words. And I especially hate traditional hymns which have been thoughtlessly mangled by the Political Correctness brigade.
So what do we do????
Here are are a couple of examples:
- To be a pilgrim Mrs Grouch and I love this hymn. But it has foiled all my attempts to inclusivise it. I will still sing it, though.
- I am the bread of life I know that some (many? most??) people detest this. And yet some people still love it. But any attempts that I have seen at inclusivising the words have been spectacularly clunky.
What other examples do you know of hymns which defy inclusivisation? And should we still sing them or let them wither on the vine?
The normal way to deal with Sr Toolen's "I am the bread of life" is to note that each verse is in direct speech by Jesus, just as the verses are. (Most books don't actually put quotation marks at the beginning of each verse, but they should). Then the chorus which now goes "And I will raise you up...etc." works just fine. That's the version I've seen in a number of hymn collections. The other non-inclusive bits aren't a problem to word around (again, I've seen the whole thing done like this) -- and that hideous scansion problem in one of the verses can be made to disappear.
I'm not certain whether Sr. Toolen herself did the update, but I've certainly seen it in places where the changes are legit.
John
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
Inclusive language advocates should realize that some hymns and passages just do not work when inclusivived. For example, it just does not work to replace the messianic "Son of Man" with "Offspring of a Human Being." Not on a literary or theological or any level.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Son of Humanity ? Though it probably wouldn't scan ?
[ 23. July 2014, 00:02: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
There's always the Common English Bible's "The Human One" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Inclusive language advocates should realize that some hymns and passages just do not work when inclusivived. For example, it just does not work to replace the messianic "Son of Man" with "Offspring of a Human Being." Not on a literary or theological or any level.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Why would you want to inclusivise "Son of Man" anyway? It's a title for Jesus - undeniably male.
And that's not the kind of thing this thread is about, so this is just a red herring.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Why would you want to inclusivise "Son of Man" anyway? It's a title for Jesus - undeniably male.
The inclusive language issue isn't with "Son", it's with "Man".
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I wish it were a red herring, Oscar. But I discovered the hard way back in 2007 that it is not as I heard the NRSV butcher the aforementioned messianic term, thusly:
As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
That was supposedly Daniel 7:13.
You seem to agree that this is going too far. If so, you are to be commended for that. Sorry if I am the one being a grouch. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
So why talk about "offspring"??
And anyway, how many hymns have this in the lyrics, so it presents a problem?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I wish it were a red herring, Oscar. But I discovered the hard way back in 2007 that it is not as I heard the NRSV butcher the aforementioned messianic term, thusly:
As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
That was supposedly Daniel 7:13.
You seem to agree that this is going too far. If so, you are to be commended for that. Sorry if I am the one being a grouch.
Again - look at the thread title....
This isn't about inclusive language in general, but about hymns and specifically about hymns with non-inclusive lyrics.
If you want to bash on about the evils of inclusive language in general, feel free to start a thread of your own to do that. But I was careful to set up this thread in this particular way.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I suspect similar problems can arise with efforts to transform hymns into inclusive language. But I'll be quiet now.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
When the Anglican Church of Canada introduced a new hymnal I wrote the Anglican Journal, the church national paper and said That when you have an aging congregation changing what is familiar for P.C. reasons is
a bad idea. As is meddling w2ith Christmas Carols.
But I had to usher at a naval funeral and found the words of "Eternal Father Strong To Save" changed. We ran out of service cards and so I sang the old version.
And there are a lot of other hymns that fall in the same hole of being changed for P.C. reasons .
One hates to think what Luther, Wesley et al would make of it .
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
If you can't cope any other way making pronouns plural (female writers have to do it all the time as we don;t have a simple singular for "they") usually works
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I memorized bunches of hymns (and other songs) as a kid, sing 'em as I know 'em (early morning reading small print in a hymnal is too much work for sleepy eyes), a few words sometimes don't match what others sing, decided not to worry about it.
Pretty rare a hymn has more than a few words changed. Sing whichever words you like.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
This Statement on Language included as an appendix in Glory to God, the new hymnal of the Presbyterian Church (USA), might be of interest. It describes considerations for inclusive language about people and expansive language about God.
With regard to the latter, it notes that "texts will reflect a strong preference for avoiding the use of male pronouns for God. In evaluating each hymn or song, issues of tradition, theological integrity, poetic quality, and copyright will all be considered. The goal is a collection in which traditional hymns and songs are balanced with others that are more gender-neutral or expansive in their reference to God." It insists, though, that use of the Trinitarian formula and of the word "Lord" must be maintained.
One way the committee went about trying to achieve this balance was through layout. So for example, on the page opposite "Come Thou Almighty King," one will find Ruth Duck's "Womb of Life and Source of Being." One interesting "change" had to do with "Be Thou My Vision." The previous hymnal had altered the words to remove "High King of Heaven." That phrase has now been restored—the hymnal committee noted that the request to restore the familiar language was one of the most common comments they received.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell."
That was the Presbyterians. The Methodists are similar, though—"pleased with us in flesh to dwell."
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
If you can't cope any other way making pronouns plural (female writers have to do it all the time as we don;t have a simple singular for "they") usually works
But is grammatically incorrect.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
Plural pronouns are grammatically correct in many situations. eg "Who would true valour see, let them come hither" is not incorrect grammatically.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
suppose I was lucky to have a song changing experience early in life. I had just been taught "God Save the King" in school when it changed. At a Primary School assembly we sang "God Save the Queen". I marveled that it still rhymed!
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
I can cope with inclusive language in hymns.
I cannot cope, largely speaking, with 2 things.
1) Mindless changing texts without actually reading the context. The one that particularly sticks in my mind is Verse 2 of "All my hope on God is founded", which begins "Pride of man and earthly glory". In some hymnbooks (I'm looking at you, Mayhew) this has been changed to "Human pride and earthly glory". All well and good, until you see lines 3-4 "What with care and toil he buildeth, tower and temple fall to dust". In the original, this would seem to refer to "man". In the IL version, to whom does it refer? God? Erm...
2) Trendy churches at occasional offices such as funerals using their IL versions when everybody in the congregation knows the old words and gets very confused.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Happily, the singular "they" (which was quite traditional for centuries) has come back into vogue, and is indeed correct. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I love Oxford. <3
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm wary of updating words to old hymns, but on occasion it can be done well. Some denomination, I think it was the United Methodists, changed "pleased as man with men to dwell" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" to "pleased in flesh with us to dwell." I actually like that better than the original words. Besides the inclusiveness it's a better statement of the Incarnation.
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
Completely agree Chast. And surely the original words should be, "pleased as man with man to dwell"?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't agree, actually--if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I think "as man" is closer than "in flesh," as if it was a case of Divine "possession." I also think it takes away from the poetry of the original.
Well, one could argue that the suggestion of Divine possession was already made with "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see." In fact, my biggest beef with "pleased in flesh with us to dwell" is that "in flesh" has already been used two lines earlier.
As for the poetry of the original, see below.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Completely agree Chast. And surely the original words should be, "pleased as man with man to dwell"?
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!" "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"—originally "Hark, how all the welkin rings, 'Glory to the King of kings'"—is a poster child for hymns that nobody sings as originally written, nor have they for hundreds of years.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Happily, the singular "they" (which was quite traditional for centuries) has come back into vogue, and is indeed correct.
Yeah, yeah - but I find that my sensibilities have been trained by Victorian-era literature, so I find singular 'they' inelegant and jarring to the ear.
Re God save the Queen, the rhyme scheme changes in the (second? third? depends how you count) verse, that ends:
quote:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save The Queen!
for a Queen, but
quote:
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
With heart and voice to sing,
God save The King!
for a King.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!"
Which IMO is tautologous, as the "here" is implied in the words "Immanuel" (= "God with us")!
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Plural pronouns are grammatically correct in many situations. eg "Who would true valour see, let them come hither" is not incorrect grammatically.
True. But they can make life incredibly confusing. Take, for example, "To be a pilgrim". But not the original version, but the version that most people will be familiar with:
quote:
He who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let him in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset him round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound—his strength the more is.
No foes shall stay his might; though he with giants fight,
He will make good his right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
Now let's try and inclusivise it:
quote:
All who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset them round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound — their strength the more is.
No foes shall stay their might; though they with giants fight,
They will make good their right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
As you can see, verse two becomes a shambles, as we have two lots of "them". Any suggestions?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Actually, the original words were "Pleas’d as man with men to appear, Jesus, our Immanuel here!" "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"—originally "Hark, how all the welkin rings, 'Glory to the King of kings'"—is a poster child for hymns that nobody sings as originally written, nor have they for hundreds of years.
Good Lord. I had no idea. Hrm. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Christmas carols are mostly owned by people outside the churches, so if these songs are going to be made more 'inclusive' at this point it probably shouldn't be Christian theologians and clergy who lead the way. It's more of a role for poets and journalists who have their fingers on the pulse of the nation.
[ 23. July 2014, 18:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Oscar the Grouch wrote: quote:
Now let's try and inclusivise it:
quote:All who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset them round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound — their strength the more is.
No foes shall stay their might; though they with giants fight,
They will make good their right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
As you can see, verse two becomes a shambles, as we have two lots of "them". Any suggestions?
You also should inclusivize the "men" in v3 (it surely doesn't refer just to males), but what with?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
'I'll fear not what folks say'?
'my foes can go their way'?
'the rest can go and play'? (Lifted from 'U Can't Touch This' by MC Hammer)
...
I don't see the point, though. The traditionalists wouldn't be happy, and neither would anyone who likes decent lyrics. A better option would be to keep the tune but write a completely different hymn.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Well I prefer the version of the third verse that goes like this:
Hobgoblin nor foul fiend
Can daunt his spirit...
Presumably it was altered by some pedant who objected to the elision of 'neither' in the first line, but how can anyone resist a hymn with hobgoblins in it?
As a general rule I too prefer inclusive language. But I also object to clunky poetry... so, like Oscar, I put up with the historical language if the poetry is good enough.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
So what do you do with the second half of A safe stronghold our God is still which has the immortal lines quote:
And though they take our life,
Goods, honour, children, wife,
Yet is their profit small;
These things shall vanish all,
The city of God remaineth.
Yes, we know what the sentiment is but the way it is expressed is as un-PC as you can get. That doesn't bother me at all but I know it makes some grind their teeth.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
That one's also deeply, disturbingly theologically wrong. One's children and spouse, while not on the level of God Himself, are human beings, not worldly goods. Ick.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Maybe so in the 21st century, but not at the time when Martin Luther wrote it or Thomas Carlyle translated it.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Maybe so in the 21st century, but not at the time when Martin Luther wrote it or Thomas Carlyle translated it.
No, they've been human beings all along. That's basic theology from the beginning.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've heard men in interviews talk about how an addiction cost them 'everthing', which generally means their job, home and family. But that doesn't mean, I hope, that they viewed their wives and children as chattels, just like the house and the paycheque. It could simply mean that they (once) had a lot of goodness in their lives, be it human, material, psychological, etc. and now it's gone.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I'm curious as to whether hymns with exclusive language are a particular problem in Anglicanism. I'd have thought it'd be preferable to avoid such hymns nowadays. I can't remember the last time I sang 'To be a Pilgrim'!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
There are other translations of A Mighty Fortress (as we call it) which are less fraught. The one we sing has
And take they our house
goods, kindred, children, spouse,
They yet have nothing gained
God's truth the same remains
His kingdom is forever.
In this case the people and things are classed together only as blessings which can be taken from us. Not as chattel.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You also should inclusivize the "men" in v3 (it surely doesn't refer just to males), but what with?
Doh! You're right. And yes - I don't have a clue what to replace it with. "I'll fear not what they say"? Weak - terribly weak. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, regarding the OP, I'm curious as to whether hymns with exclusive language are a particular problem in Anglicanism. I'd have thought it'd be preferable to avoid such hymns nowadays. I can't remember the last time I sang 'To be a Pilgrim'!
It is noticeable that some (many? most?) recent hymn books (yes, Kevin Mayhew, I'm looking at you) have gone to some lengths to eliminate exclusive or non-PC language. In some cases, it is pretty obvious, but in others it is merely a matter of replacing a few words - which is actually just as awkward as, if you are like me, you tend to sing the words you KNOW rather than the ones actually on the page.
Of course, the prime example of how this modernising was done very VERY badly was Hymns for Today's Church. If you have never seen a copy, it's worth grabbing a second hand one some time - just to see how many perfectly decent hymns can be scrambled and ruined at the same time.
Some churches will be zealous in using totally inclusive language in hymns. Other less so. YMMV is indeed the key acronym here. Although C of E liturgy has (hopefully!) been inclusive for some time, I am not aware that there has been that much debate about hymnody. Which is atrange, given that hymns are just as important (if not more important) in influencing the attitudes and beliefs of a congregation.
As you suggest, one option for some churches will be to drop any hymn that fails the inclusive language test. But I for one am unhappy to see good hymns that have stood the test of time go to waste in this way. "To be a pilgrim" is one such example. I love the sentiment in it so much that I can overlook the exclusive language. But then I'm male, so it's easy for me....
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There are other translations of A Mighty Fortress (as we call it) which are less fraught. The one we sing has
And take they our house
goods, kindred, children, spouse,
They yet have nothing gained
God's truth the same remains
His kingdom is forever.
In this case the people and things are classed together only as blessings which can be taken from us. Not as chattel.
Or the version with which I'm familiar:
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still,
His Kingdom is forever.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
A friend who has been active in General Conventions of TEC (and sat on some of the Hymnal revision sub-committees) reports that, based on reactions to The Hymnal 1982, the consensus was 'Don't f*ck with existing hymns, eliminate the worst ones and write new good ones!' With which sentiment I heartily concur.
Having sung hymns in church for 70 years, I frequently find myself belting out the words I know, not the ones on the page.
BTW, Hymnal 1982 bowdlerizes the 'Toolan Tripe' by the use of plurals, which not only alters duly authorized scripture translation, but weakens the impact of the text. Does your congo put their hands in the air at every refrain of this one? I once worked for one that did. (I didn't stay long!)
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Does your congo put their hands in the air at every refrain of this one? I once worked for one that did. (I didn't stay long!)
Thankfully not! But it IS a very popular song. So although I can exercise some control over how often it is sung, it would probably be too selfish of me to drop it from the repertoire completely.
(I usually work on the slightly subversive method of "if I don't want to sing hymns I dislike, I will introduce lots of new ones that will (like shiny baubles and magpies) distract the attention." Whilst the congregation is watching my right hand, no-one see the left hand binning the offending hymn. My wife says I am sneaky. I can think of worse things I could be.... )
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Some churches will be zealous in using totally inclusive language in hymns. Other less so. YMMV is indeed the key acronym here. Although C of E liturgy has (hopefully!) been inclusive for some time, I am not aware that there has been that much debate about hymnody. Which is atrange, given that hymns are just as important (if not more important) in influencing the attitudes and beliefs of a congregation.
As you suggest, one option for some churches will be to drop any hymn that fails the inclusive language test. But I for one am unhappy to see good hymns that have stood the test of time go to waste in this way. "To be a pilgrim" is one such example. I love the sentiment in it so much that I can overlook the exclusive language. But then I'm male, so it's easy for me....
Coming from a Methodist environment in England I've never heard any discussion about gender inclusivity in hymns. The recent thing seems to be whether the 'thees' and 'thous' should be retained or dismissed as too stuffy, and I believe the new Methodist hymnbook tries to cut some of them out. The previous book, 'Hymns and Psalms', doesn't include 'To be a pilgrim'. I probably learnt that one at school rather than church.
I'm not bothered about 'mankind', but I agree there's an awkwardness in singing hymns that refer only to our 'brothers' in the faith. ('In Christ there is no east and west' presents this problem, which is ironic considering the theme and the biblical reference.) 'Sibling' is the gender neutral alternative with the same number of syllables, but it's very unpoetic.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I think the debate largely happened when Hymns and Psalms came out. Certainly Rejoice and Sing, the URC hymn book that followed that*, it had inclusive language in quite a few of its hymns.
Jengie
*Yes this is correct, the URC was involved in the early stages of the development of Hymns and Psalms and then withdrew. Rejoice and Sing was then the result of this withdrawal. Intriguing things resulted from that, amongst them that Hymns and Psalms has more Isaac Watts hymns than Rejoice and Sing.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The problem with insisting on altering hymns so they are inclusive, is that it tends to foul up the scansion and rhyming scheme. 'Man' and 'men' has one syllable. 'Person' and 'people' has two.
The same often applies to making everything plural but it also generalises the message, depersonalises it, makes it less immediate.
There's been a regrettable tendency also to fiddle with hymns so as to make the language more mundane, just for its own sake. Nothing must stretch anyone or include words a 10 year old wouldn't naturally say, or imagery that might be too expressive.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Sibling' is the gender neutral alternative with the same number of syllables, but it's very unpoetic.
Not questioning you - just raising this as a general question.... Why should "sibling" be "unpoetic" but "brother" is not?
I have another example of a song which, in its original form, was very exclusive:
quote:
Brother, let me be your servant.
Let me be as Christ to you.
Pray that I might have the grace
To let you be my servant, too.
Now I have seen this amended in two ways:
quote:
Brother, sister, let me serve you.
and
quote:
Sister let me be your servant
(Repeating the verse at the end with "Brother"
Any thoughts??
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I've sung the "brother, sister" version.
Lots of Michael Forster rewrites for old favourites exist, some more successful than others, but a lot of people loathe his work, it seems on principle. I think the success depends on whether he's written something that sounds new with the same ideas and tune or whether the changes are tiny and irritating to sing because you remember the old versions.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
I've only ever heard it "Will you let me be your servant..."
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been a regrettable tendency also to fiddle with hymns so as to make the language more mundane, just for its own sake. Nothing must stretch anyone or include words a 10 year old wouldn't naturally say, or imagery that might be too expressive.
This. I can't think of the precise example, but the change was the equivalent of changing "rent" for "torn". An entirely unnecessary tweak.
I'm conflicted on inclusifying older hymns. I strongly support inclusive language in church, but I find that the changes jar with my memory, especially when they've also modernised/simplified the words.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The Cuddesdon Rule, it may amuse you to hear, was to leave all hymns written before WW1 unchanged, but make hymns written afterwards inclusive.
'He who would valiant be' is Percy Dearmer's bowdlerization of Bunyan's 'Who would true valour see.' The former is in the New English Hymnal. The latter is in Ancient & Modern. St Percy objected to the 'hobgoblin & foul fiend' verse, which he thought was unseemly. The Bunyan version (unchanged) was a favourite choice for the first masses of female priests in the early years of women's ordination.
I really don't like changing hymn texts, especially classic ones. I make an exception for 'We have a gospel to proclaim' which is much better in the TEC hymnal version which goes on 'Good news of Christ for all the earth,' instead of 'Good news for men in all the earth.' That one is egregious.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I really don't like changing hymn texts, especially classic ones. I make an exception for 'We have a gospel to proclaim' which is much better in the TEC hymnal version which goes on 'Good news of Christ for all the earth,' instead of 'Good news for men in all the earth.' That one is egregious.
And this, for me, illustrates how we should go about the process of creating new versions. It's not trying to just replace isolated objectionable words, which tends to be impossible given scansion consideration (and rhyme sometimes), but writing new sentences that convey the sense of the old. Clearly, "of Christ" isn't a direct replacement of "for men" but the new sentence replaces the old.
But, if you are looking for word-for-word replacements, replacing "brother" with "neighbor" often works.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Sibling' is the gender neutral alternative with the same number of syllables, but it's very unpoetic.
Not questioning you - just raising this as a general question.... Why should "sibling" be "unpoetic" but "brother" is not?
I have another example of a song which, in its original form, was very exclusive:
quote:
Brother, let me be your servant.
Let me be as Christ to you.
Pray that I might have the grace
To let you be my servant, too.
Now I have seen this amended in two ways:
quote:
Brother, sister, let me serve you.
and
quote:
Sister let me be your servant
(Repeating the verse at the end with "Brother"
Any thoughts??
I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I've never come across the word 'sibling' in a hymn.
As for 'Brother, sister, let me serve you', the solutions you highlight work well in that hymn, but might not be possible in some others.
A thought occurs to me: one advantage of the much maligned 'me, me, You, You' worship songs is that they avoid the problematic third person.
[ 25. July 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
My work-place church has a hymnal (in addition to the 1982 one) called "The Celebration Hymnal", 1997, which has "I am a woman", and a couple of pages later, "I am a man". I've never stopped to peruse either one, figuring they were the same, with only the gender words were exchanged.
But now that I look at them, the texts are from different sources. They both are loaded with christian platitudes and trite phrases that anyone could paste together.
At any rate, has anyone run into either of these songs?
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
I believe that "Brother, sister, let me serve you" is now the official version of the Servant Song, and was changed by the author.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
I believe that "Brother, sister, let me serve you" is now the official version of the Servant Song, and was changed by the author.
It's the only version I've encountered - I was surprised to hear it wasn't the original.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Amos: quote:
The Bunyan version (unchanged) was a favourite choice for the first masses of female priests in the early years of women's ordination.
I'm surprised to hear it was sung unchanged. What I remember is it being sung lustily with "him" changed to "her", and "he" to "she".
i.e. There's no discouragement
Shall make her once relent,
Her first avowed intent
To be a pilgrim.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
My work-place church has a hymnal (in addition to the 1982 one) called "The Celebration Hymnal", 1997, which has "I am a woman", and a couple of pages later, "I am a man". I've never stopped to peruse either one, figuring they were the same, with only the gender words were exchanged.
But now that I look at them, the texts are from different sources. They both are loaded with christian platitudes and trite phrases that anyone could paste together.
At any rate, has anyone run into either of these songs?
Praise the Lord! No!!!!
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Amos: quote:
The Bunyan version (unchanged) was a favourite choice for the first masses of female priests in the early years of women's ordination.
I'm surprised to hear it was sung unchanged. What I remember is it being sung lustily with "him" changed to "her", and "he" to "she".
i.e. There's no discouragement
Shall make her once relent,
Her first avowed intent
To be a pilgrim.
I can well believe this! I only heard it the other way, but you can change the pronoun without affecting the scansion, so I'm sure it happened.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
I believe that "Brother, sister, let me serve you" is now the official version of the Servant Song, and was changed by the author.
It's the only version I've encountered - I was surprised to hear it wasn't the original.
By the time I came across it myself, the original ("Brother, let me be your servant") was maybe used in one or two books. I don't think I've ever sung the original.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I’ve been looking at some English office hymns written by nuns for their own use.
The Father all transcending near
The fount of Godhead may we know,
His sons, his servants living now
Within the Pascha of the Lord.
West Malling
Here is God’s eternal Son
Now to men made known,
By the Sprit’s love conceived
Mary’s flesh his own.
Stanbrook
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Those read as if written as a penitential exercise.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I've never come across the word 'sibling' in a hymn. ...
Does anyone use it in normal speech, or is its use restricted to sociology text books?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I've never come across the word 'sibling' in a hymn. ...
Does anyone use it in normal speech, or is its use restricted to sociology text books?
I use it all the time to tell people whether younger siblings are welcome at some event or other I'm organizing for our kids.
I have never referred to an individual person as a "sibling" though.
[ 31. July 2014, 23:25: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does anyone use it in normal speech, or is its use restricted to sociology text books?
I do, but I'm weird.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I share that particular weirdness with Chast.
In certain contexts at least,'sibling' is the word one wants. Hymns aren't that context Prizes for a catchy hymn verse containing the word.
[ 01. August 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Perhaps so that people who suffer from gender confusion won't feel left out, the hymn should be changed to,
"Sibling, sibling, let me serve you"
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Enoch: quote:
Perhaps so that people who suffer from gender confusion won't feel left out...
It's very sweet of you to worry about them, but most of the people who balk at describing themselves as 'brother' or 'he' are not confused about their gender at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I've never come across the word 'sibling' in a hymn. ...
Does anyone use it in normal speech, or is its use restricted to sociology text books?
It's certainly a lot faster than saying "brothers and sisters," and people are lazy.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Today I had to sing 'Onward, Christian Soldiers' at a special commemorative service. I thought it was a shame that no one had tried to make it a bit more inclusive. There was a chance to refer to 'sisters' as well as 'brothers', but it wasn't taken. Considering that soldiers are now female as well as male it would have been a small way to redeem a hymn that many find to be too warlike.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
I believe that "Brother, sister, let me serve you" is now the official version of the Servant Song, and was changed by the author.
It's the only version I've encountered - I was surprised to hear it wasn't the original.
As he's a friend of mine I can probably speak for him - yes he did officially change it and about 25 years ago now!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I feel it is a real cheek to alter the words of someone's written creation and I would be very annoyed if that was done to me or any of my literary ancestors.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel it is a real cheek to alter the words of someone's written creation and I would be very annoyed if that was done to me or any of my literary ancestors.
I understand the point re writing in general. But if someone is using a text for worship, that's rather different IMHO. If someone makes a necessary change (or one that is darn close to necessary) for good and sufficient reason, I'd not be fussed about a rewrite of a hymn of mine. If someone is just screwing around, well...
But God's worship is serious business and my hymn (or other liturgical type piece) exists to serve worship, and thus, indirectly, God; not to be a literary creation on its own.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
I've never seen an inclusive version of those lines either. Our hymnal substitutes the last two lines from another verse that otherwise is not used (and has never been used in our hymnals):
Thou my soul’s shelter and thou my high tower,
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel it is a real cheek to alter the words of someone's written creation and I would be very annoyed if that was done to me or any of my literary ancestors.
Perhaps. But I think that there are two other points to consider.
First of all, if you've written something specifically for worship, I'm not sure you should be getting too precious about amended words, unless it is something that really corrupts what the original words meant. Changing "Jesus" into "Buddha" is such a change. Inclusivising lyrics is unlikely to be.
Secondly, in this day and age, there is little excuse for exclusive language, so if you've written something exclusive, you shouldn't be surprised or offended if someone inclusivises it. If you're sensible, you'll do it yourself.
I think it was here, some years ago, that someone said that Ian Smale didn't like the words of "Father God..." being changed from "now I am your son" to "now I am your child". I thought he was wrong then and still think he was wrong. Fortunately, the song is rarely sung these days, so the point is moot.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
In a Sydney Primary School in 1955 the word "God" was replaced by "Allah" in a poem we recited as a class viz.
"War Song of the Saracens"
By James Elroy Flecker (1884–1915)
"We have marched from the Indus to Spain, and by God we will go there again;"
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
"Thou my great Father and I thy true heir
Thou in me dwelling and I in thy care."
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
]I've never seen an inclusive version of those lines either. Our hymnal substitutes the last two lines from another verse that otherwise is not used (and has never been used in our hymnals):
Thou my soul’s shelter and thou my high tower,
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.
Yes, I've seen that sort of thing done with other hymns, too. But IMO it's a form of cheating!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I've never come across the word 'sibling' in a hymn. ...
Does anyone use it in normal speech, or is its use restricted to sociology text books?
I did not realise that there were sociology textbooks.
I frequently use "siblings", particularly at work.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
"Thou my great Father and I thy true heir
Thou in me dwelling and I in thy care."
"Thou my great Father: thine own I would be;
thou in me dwelling, and I one with thee."
(Church of Scotland, CH4)
Which I don't mind too much, and am glad to keep the 'one with God' idea. I detest the anodyne 'I in thy care', which is there only to make a rhyme.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Now that's a version I like! I have a CH$ here at home, but I never thought to look at it.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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 - as well as shudder at the crass stupidity thinking three syllables can be jammed into a metre for two.
In the case of the use of 'son' in Be thou my vision the use of the word 'son' is not to imply gender, rather it is to stress the type and closeness of relationship. Substituting the word with 'heir' gives a meaning no in the original and out-of-step with the sentiments of it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
That's a good point. after all 'father' is really a metaphor, isn't it, so why not accept the metaphorical 'son'?
(The obvious retort is, 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.)
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
I've never seen an inclusive version of those lines either. Our hymnal substitutes the last two lines from another verse that otherwise is not used (and has never been used in our hymnals):
Thou my soul’s shelter and thou my high tower,
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.
This verse is included in the NEH, which we use (no.339), so it's not that unknown.
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 - as well as shudder at the crass stupidity thinking three syllables can be jammed into a metre for two.
In the case of the use of 'son' in Be thou my vision the use of the word 'son' is not to imply gender, rather it is to stress the type and closeness of relationship. Substituting the word with 'heir' gives a meaning no in the original and out-of-step with the sentiments of it.
Yes, exactly. I'm female and happily sing these words - one of my favourite hymns - for this reason.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The one which annoys me is "Be thou my vision", which was sung at a service I attended tonight.
Plenty of women were happily singing:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
Which seems a bit bizarre. But I've never come across an inclusive-language version!
"Thou my great Father and I thy true heir
Thou in me dwelling and I in thy care."
"Thou my great Father: thine own I would be;
thou in me dwelling, and I one with thee."
(Church of Scotland, CH4)
Which I don't mind too much, and am glad to keep the 'one with God' idea. I detest the anodyne 'I in thy care', which is there only to make a rhyme.
Anglican Church of Canada's Common Praise is marginally different:
"Thou my great Father: thine own may I be;
thou in me dwelling, and I one with thee."
As you say, they keep the "one with God" idea. BUT... both of them make the error of thinking that "be thou my vision" is a request, rather than a statement of fact. We are not asking God to do this, we are celebrating that it is already so.
So, the original lines:
"Be thou my great Father, and I thy true son;
Be thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one."
could be accurately paraphrased as
"You are my Father and I am your true son;
You are dwelling in me and I am one with you."
So "may I be" or "I would be" are actually inaccurate. But I do accept that I am being terribly picky here and that most people sing "Be thou my vision" as a request. It's just that I love this hymn so much that I hate it when people misunderstand the central point.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, they're not inaccurate. 'Be thou' suggests a wished for or hoped for or aspired to state of affairs (in this case, I suppose, one which the singer seeks to achieve by faith). This is consistent with the rest of the hymn ('be thou my vision' = 'may you be my vision'). I don't know what the original Irish says but if the translator (Mary Byrne) or the versifier (Eleanor Hull) had thought they meant 'Thou art my true father', they would presumably have said so.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Is it a subjunctive?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, they're not inaccurate. 'Be thou' suggests a wished for or hoped for or aspired to state of affairs (in this case, I suppose, one which the singer seeks to achieve by faith). This is consistent with the rest of the hymn ('be thou my vision' = 'may you be my vision'). I don't know what the original Irish says but if the translator (Mary Byrne) or the versifier (Eleanor Hull) had thought they meant 'Thou art my true father', they would presumably have said so.
No, I am pretty sure that the original Irish is proclaiming what is rather than hoping for what might be. I am open to be proved wrong, though.
(I wish I could remember where I read it, though!)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So many of the changes in the name of 'inclusive' language display nothing so much as linguistic ignorance.
. . .
In the case of the use of 'son' in Be thou my vision the use of the word 'son' is not to imply gender, rather it is to stress the type and closeness of relationship.
Sure, but to dismiss any problem with the use of "son" as linguistic ignorance rather misses the point, I think, and perhaps constitutes some linguistic ignorance itself. The reality is that use of the masculine as generic has rapidly vanished or is vanishing in many parts of the English-speaking world.
Sure, "son" is meant to convey the type and closeness of the relationship, and I doubt few every took it literally. But as the language has changed, use of the masculine no longer conveys that sentiment cleanly. For many people, the metaphor doesn't work any more, or it works but it comes with unnecessary baggage.
Obviously, "child" conveys the same sentiment without any baggage, but then you've got a rhyme scheme issue.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, but "child" possibly implies a youthfulness which is less in the case of "son" or "daughter". There are no easy solutions!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, they're not inaccurate. 'Be thou' suggests a wished for or hoped for or aspired to state of affairs (in this case, I suppose, one which the singer seeks to achieve by faith). This is consistent with the rest of the hymn ('be thou my vision' = 'may you be my vision'). I don't know what the original Irish says but if the translator (Mary Byrne) or the versifier (Eleanor Hull) had thought they meant 'Thou art my true father', they would presumably have said so.
I don't have Eigse ii to hand (Mary Byrne's edition), only the version from NLI 3, but that probably makes little difference. The fourth stanza reads thus: quote:
Rop tussu m'athair
rob mé do macsu
rop tussu lemsa
rob misse latsu
Rop/rob is indeed subjunctive ~ 'May it be'. So we have "May it be you <to be> my father/ may it be me <to be> thy son/ may it be thou <to be> with me (i.e. mine)/ may it be me <to be> with thee (i.e. thine)"
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel it is a real cheek to alter the words of someone's written creation and I would be very annoyed if that was done to me or any of my literary ancestors.
I understand the point re writing in general. But if someone is using a text for worship, that's rather different IMHO. If someone makes a necessary change (or one that is darn close to necessary) for good and sufficient reason, I'd not be fussed about a rewrite of a hymn of mine. If someone is just screwing around, well...
But God's worship is serious business and my hymn (or other liturgical type piece) exists to serve worship, and thus, indirectly, God; not to be a literary creation on its own.
I don't suppose that the anonymous ?tenth century Irish ?monk who wrote the thing could have conceived of a vernacular hymn in the liturgy. It is a poem. Use it as a hymn if you like, I don't see the above as relevant justification for messing about with the words, given its origins. CH4 also tinkers with the next verse - cathscíath means 'battle shield' as in CH3; not 'breastplate'. Pace its admirers I find CH4 an irritating book in that it makes arbitrary changes where it is hard to see any justification. So 'laud' is out, and 'vouchsafe' totally beyond the pale in Angularis fundamentum. I am still trying to fathom why the editors have done what they have to 'God is working his purpose out' which cropped up a couple of weeks ago; I doubt that John Mason Neale would recognize what is given as 'his' translation of Conditor alme siderum .. and so on.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
'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.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
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 .
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
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).
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
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.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, yes. But being charitable I thought it was perhaps not meant to read like that.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Your charitable thought may be correct, but I'm not so sure.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.)
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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?
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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.>
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
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".
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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!!)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
[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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on
:
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.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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..
Matthew 7.21:
‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven.'
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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..
It sounds better to me than salvation by assent to the "right" doctrines.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I thought it was 'don't matter' except in the final verse which is "Wherever you travel, I'll be there".
Many years since I sung this, and it still confuses me. Presumably the speaker is Jesus? (Whatever you did for the least of these...)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
An organist friend tried to object to a choice of The ink is black, the page is white for a Family Service on the grounds that it was entirely secular and it didn't relate to the readings for the Sunday.
He was given a formal warning and told that any more such objections would result in his being sacked.
Really inclusive, eh?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Committee? Is outrage!
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Committee? Is outrage!
No no no. leo misspoke. When he said "committee" he really meant "ministry team". Does that make it better? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Oh thank the heavens. That's okay then.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And the creed doesn't matter? Oh yes it does!
Which is why it omitted by those churches that see themselves to be the most "relevant" ( ) and cutting edge.
But I digress. Again.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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..
That's why I'm not a protestant. If someone is self sacrificial loving to others, Christ is with them. The basic sacramental principle. Christ is present in this embodied world.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by leo quote:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
And you've had what training in liturgical music? And presumably the churchwarden was also sent on a suitable course? And the Vicar is musical, keeps up-to-date with music practice and developments in contemporary music?
No, calling this sort of nonsense a 'ministry team' does not make it better.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo quote:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
And you've had what training in liturgical music? And presumably the churchwarden was also sent on a suitable course? And the Vicar is musical, keeps up-to-date with music practice and developments in contemporary music?
No, calling this sort of nonsense a 'ministry team' does not make it better.
There's presumably a bit more to this than an "is this good music question"... assuming that music specialists are the best people to answer the question "is this good music?", which is, perhaps, questionable...
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo quote:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
And you've had what training in liturgical music? And presumably the churchwarden was also sent on a suitable course? And the Vicar is musical, keeps up-to-date with music practice and developments in contemporary music?
No, calling this sort of nonsense a 'ministry team' does not make it better.
So the only possible way of gaining aptitude in something is a formal course? A lifetime of singing hymns and participating in worship couldn't be good enough for you?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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..
It sounds better to me than salvation by assent to the "right" doctrines.
Starting a new thread in Purgatory on this topic!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Basilica quote:
So the only possible way of gaining aptitude in something is a formal course? A lifetime of singing hymns and participating in worship couldn't be good enough for you?
Not necessarily, no.
But aptitude is not the same as ability or breadth of knowledge.
A lifetime of singing hymns and participating in worship can mean a person is only exposed to one type of liturgical music, or even just one period of one type of music.
As a worshipper, I know which sort of music I prefer; as a musician I know which is the best I can hope to achieve at my present crib - and the two aren't the same, although there is a small window of overlap.
But in my time as an organist I've been in post in places where the musical preference was very far from my preference: and what a professional does is aim to choose the best available and achievable with the resources at hand. Believe me, I've spent long hours endeavouring to get older members of music groups more relaxed about rhythm so that the worship songs which were the preferred style of the church sounded as good as possible. Privately it made me shudder but not a single member of the group, or the priest in charge, had the faintest inkling of my own musical preferences until they came to the next church where I was in post.
If a committee is made up of people all of the same era, all from the same worshipping background, it may be that they are unaware of new developments which may suit their own worship style.
In the case of clergy, many of the rows between musicians and clergy that hit the national press can be put down to clergy being insensitive to musical style and attempting to put in place something that is not only unwanted but frequently unsuitable for the congregation they inherit. That is not to say there shouldn't be change but IME situations like that frequently come down to a cleric who is so set on making changes they think will attract new people they forget about the needs of the existing congregation.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Musical style is only one part of it. Some would argue only a small part. What is much more important is that the choice of hymns fits the liturgy (which hymns to sing at which point in the service, and which texts reflect the lectionary readings of the day.) Obviously the professional musicians need to be consulted, but basically it is the task of the liturgist/ aka presiding priest.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A lifetime of singing hymns and participating in worship can mean a person is only exposed to one type of liturgical music, or even just one period of one type of music.
Sadly the same can often apply to organists as well.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Sorry Angloid, but IME it is the musicians who worry about fitting hymns or songs to readings or worship themes.
Again, IME the most jarring choices of music have all been made by clergy.
I still shudder at the use of The Servant Song no fewer than 5 times in the same church between Passion Sunday and Good Friday. The same cleric also couldn't see anything wrong with the choice of Majesty and To God be the glory during the distribution of communion on Maundy Thursday.
To describe this particular cleric as a liturgist would be like describing a gerbil as a zoologist.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Musical style is only one part of it. Some would argue only a small part. What is much more important is that the choice of hymns fits the liturgy (which hymns to sing at which point in the service, and which texts reflect the lectionary readings of the day.) Obviously the professional musicians need to be consulted, but basically it is the task of the liturgist/ aka presiding priest.
Much this, but for us the music is part of the liturgy, and the hymns, motets and setting are chosen by the Rector to fit the season, the day, and the readings. Also to be able to be sung by the congregation. There's no use having a musically superb hymn if it can only be sung by a few professional musicians. The organist has pretty free play with the music before and the postlude.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Neither clergy nor musicians should be allowed unfettered access to the liturgy, in my opinion.
There are some clergy (but, again IMO, very few) who have the slightest clue about music.
And a good many (but by no means a majority) of "trained church musicians" who have a clue about the liturgy, at least the Anglican liturgy and what goes along with it, like the church year.
It's relatively easy for clergy to put their foot down, if they want to and if -- and many don't -- they realize there's a problem with the musician. It's almost impossible for the knowledgeable musician to deal with an ignorant priest, of whom there are a very large number indeed.
John
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo quote:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
And you've had what training in liturgical music? And presumably the churchwarden was also sent on a suitable course? And the Vicar is musical, keeps up-to-date with music practice and developments in contemporary music?
No, calling this sort of nonsense a 'ministry team' does not make it better.
So presumably all organists have theological training then?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It is very rarely that I find myself disagreeing with l'organist and agreeing with Exclamation Mark, but on this occasion I do.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
The obvious approach here is to have dialogue: people with theological expertise, people with liturgical expertise, people with musical expertise. In a very few cases, this may be found all in one person. I know two or three such people! But in most contexts you're going to need a conversation.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
The obvious approach here is to have dialogue: people with theological expertise, people with liturgical expertise, people with musical expertise. In a very few cases, this may be found all in one person. I know two or three such people! But in most contexts you're going to need a conversation.
That was my thought too, which is making me wonder what the problem is with leo's arrangement?
I've been on both sides of this debate; as a musician who had to put up with some... eccentric song-choosing practices (eg the minister who used to pick songs nobody knew just because he liked the look of the words, or the preacher who when leading the service announced all the songs, just not necessarily in the right order); and now, as one who chooses hymns and songs for our service (though I suspect this might be a different process in my tradition than it is in, say, an Anglican church). I've made some real clunkers of song choices in my time as a minister, but these (I hope!) have got less as I've spent time in this church and got to know the congregation, what works and what doesn't. There's little substitute for experience of a congregation in this. And help from the musicians, which I'm always grateful for.
So if the priest is in the habit of making bad choices for hymns, then surely helping him/her is better than just marginalizing them? A group like leo's would surely be an asset, as it would give the priest some guidance and help them to make better choices - and also help the musician(s) to understand where the priest is coming from, why s/he's making those particular choices and then enable them to be guided in better ways of reflecting those concerns?
If the priest outright refuses, then fair enough - it's dust-shaking-off time. But I'd have thought everyone's a winner with something like this?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry Angloid, but IME it is the musicians who worry about fitting hymns or songs to readings or worship themes.
Again, IME the most jarring choices of music have all been made by clergy.
I still shudder at the use of The Servant Song no fewer than 5 times in the same church between Passion Sunday and Good Friday. The same cleric also couldn't see anything wrong with the choice of Majesty and To God be the glory during the distribution of communion on Maundy Thursday.
To describe this particular cleric as a liturgist would be like describing a gerbil as a zoologist.
That is indeed a nightmare situation, L'organist, and I sympathise. I agree that there are many (and probably an increasing number of) clergy who are liturgically clueless. Likewise many organists (such as yourself) who are just the opposite. Having a sensitive appreciation of the power of liturgy should be a sine qua non for people in both roles.
However, whereas inept clergy have no excuse apart from their own ineptness, many parishes have to rely on musicians (who might be skilled musically) with little experience of or understanding of Christian worship. They are the sort of people I had in mind.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
EE: you ask what, if any, theological training I've had? Well, does growing up in a house with a CR trained priest, with a member of the Community living next door, and being taught the organ by someone who thought that organist training must include liturgical training count? And then going on to do courses in theology post graduation, not to mention a certain conservatoire's Church Music Studies Course.
By way of contrast, my current PinC had precisely one day per term of a 2 year course 'dedicated' to music in the liturgy - so 6 whole days. And before going forward to ordination training he was an '8 o'clocker' so had little experience of sung liturgy.
As for Gee D's point about whether or not hymns are singable by the congregation, I'd point to the nonsense of setting a hymn to the Londonderry Air which has a range well beyond the compass of most people, including a fair number in choirs - if you don't believe me you can find it in most hymnals. It is recommended that hymns for congregational singing go no lower than Middle C and no higher than an E +1 (that is a range of 1 tenth) and many congregations struggle with that: Londonderry has a range well beyond that, yet is regularly chosen by clergy "because people know it / love it".
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by L'Organist:
quote:
As for Gee D's point about whether or not hymns are singable by the congregation, I'd point to the nonsense of setting a hymn to the Londonderry Air which has a range well beyond the compass of most people, including a fair number in choirs - if you don't believe me you can find it in most hymnals. It is recommended that hymns for congregational singing go no lower than Middle C and no higher than an E +1 (that is a range of 1 tenth) and many congregations struggle with that: Londonderry has a range well beyond that, yet is regularly chosen by clergy "because people know it / love it".
We sang that at my wedding! I choose that one from time to time in the spirit of the gentleman who was asked if he believed in infant baptism. "Believe in it? Heck, I've seen it done!"
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
So if the priest is in the habit of making bad choices for hymns, then surely helping him/her is better than just marginalizing them? A group like leo's would surely be an asset, as it would give the priest some guidance and help them to make better choices - and also help the musician(s) to understand where the priest is coming from, why s/he's making those particular choices and then enable them to be guided in better ways of reflecting those concerns?
This is wise. Very few decisions are poorer through being adequately discussed by interested parties.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
EE: you ask what, if any, theological training I've had? Well, does growing up in a house with a CR trained priest, with a member of the Community living next door, and being taught the organ by someone who thought that organist training must include liturgical training count? And then going on to do courses in theology post graduation, not to mention a certain conservatoire's Church Music Studies Course.
By way of contrast, my current PinC had precisely one day per term of a 2 year course 'dedicated' to music in the liturgy - so 6 whole days. And before going forward to ordination training he was an '8 o'clocker' so had little experience of sung liturgy.
As for Gee D's point about whether or not hymns are singable by the congregation, I'd point to the nonsense of setting a hymn to the Londonderry Air which has a range well beyond the compass of most people, including a fair number in choirs - if you don't believe me you can find it in most hymnals. It is recommended that hymns for congregational singing go no lower than Middle C and no higher than an E +1 (that is a range of 1 tenth) and many congregations struggle with that: Londonderry has a range well beyond that, yet is regularly chosen by clergy "because people know it / love it".
It's usually pitched to use a low A rather than go high. We Plough the Fields also uses a low A or Ab depending on book. I'm a high tenor but I don't know anyone who can't get down there when needed; far easier than expecting Altos/Basses, or indeed the average untrained voice, to negotiate an F, or even an E to be honest.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Committee? Is outrage!
No no no. leo misspoke. When he said "committee" he really meant "ministry team". Does that make it better?
The ministry team is entirely separate from the worship c'tee though there is a slight overlap[ in personnel.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo quote:
Better to have the organist involved in whatever committee chooses the hymns.
Ours is - we meet every 3 months - music director, vicar, a churchwarden and me.
And you've had what training in liturgical music? And presumably the churchwarden was also sent on a suitable course? And the Vicar is musical, keeps up-to-date with music practice and developments in contemporary music?
The vicar's first degree is in music.
The director of music is obviously a musician.
The committee also comprises a retired professor of music and a secretary in the music dept. of the uni.
The churchwarden is a scientist but he is the person to whom most people moan if they don't like the hymns.
I am the only non-musician but I am the only theologian on the team and my contribution is specifically concerning the lectionary.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I'm guessing you're in a university town/city, Leo.
At our shack the PinC's degree is in natural sciences and he freely admits that most music 'passes him by'.
The Churchwardens are a retired mathematics specialist who is tone-deaf and a retired banker who isn't into music.
As for the place where the vicar chose the Servant Song repeatedly: they admit to a fondness for Duran-Duran. Since arriving in the parish they've managed to get rid of an in-post organist and 2 deputies. The robed choir has gone, the music group is reduced to a single violinist, the former head of the music group got so fed up he's now heading up the music at the local Baptist Church, which he goes to after making his communion at 8 o'clock at another church.
The wardens in that parish were both supportive and appreciative of good music - of all kinds; both have resigned with one only going to the said service, the other has moved to more congenial pastures.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
We drop an octave as necessary. The choir is good and does not need to. Difficulty in singing by a congregation does not just mean high notes. Breathing, ornamentation and a whole lot more come into it.
You have not dealt with my point, which was that the music is a part of the liturgy and liturgy is the province of the Rector, not the organist or choir director. (And the Rector does discuss; it's just that at the end the decision is his - and should be.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm guessing you're in a university town/city, Leo.
Well, yes - and we are the university chaplaincy church
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Gee D
I discuss music with PinC, and he does his best to appear interested. But he said to me soon after arriving he's a firm believer in the old saying I]Why keep a dog and yet bark yourself?[/I].
We have regular meetings and discuss which feasts will be marked, plus any of the numerous 'special' sundays. Then I choose the music because that is what I'm employed to do.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gee D
I discuss music with PinC, and he does his best to appear interested. But he said to me soon after arriving he's a firm believer in the old saying I]Why keep a dog and yet bark yourself?[/I].
We have regular meetings and discuss which feasts will be marked, plus any of the numerous 'special' sundays. Then I choose the music because that is what I'm employed to do.
It's a good thing this works for you. It sounds like it does.
But in many situations it does not.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I discuss music with PinC, and he does his best to appear interested. But he said to me soon after arriving he's a firm believer in the old saying I]Why keep a dog and yet bark yourself?[/I].
I've been thinking about this.
The priest is the 'custodian of the liturgy' so s/he should have some input into choosing hymns - to fit with sermons.
S/he should also avoid heretical hymns - like Townend's idea of the wrath of God was satisfied - and the organist should avoid bad tunes - for which reasons our church is a Kendrick-free-zone.
Incidentally, on congregations having a narrow repertoire of known hymns - because we have so many students, there is almost a one-third congregation turnover every year with new people coming from all over the country plus a few from abroad.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I discuss music with PinC, and he does his best to appear interested. But he said to me soon after arriving he's a firm believer in the old saying I]Why keep a dog and yet bark yourself?[/I].
I've been thinking about this.
The priest is the 'custodian of the liturgy' so s/he should have some input into choosing hymns - to fit with sermons.
S/he should also avoid heretical hymns - like Townend's idea of the wrath of God was satisfied - and the organist should avoid bad tunes - for which reasons our church is a Kendrick-free-zone.
Incidentally, on congregations having a narrow repertoire of known hymns - because we have so many students, there is almost a one-third congregation turnover every year with new people coming from all over the country plus a few from abroad.
PSA is not heresy - the objection should be to it being presented as the only valid atonement theory. PSA is perfectly orthodox, certainly for Anglicans.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by leo quote:
... our church is a Kendrick-free-zone.
So is ours - only exceptions the occasional wedding where they've used the web (especially the CofE website) and found something by Ke****ck.
We have a pretty broad repertoire of hymns - but then I try not to repeat (other than carols) during the year, although that was easier with the old EH than with the NEH. On the rare occasions when repetition is unavoidable I try to make it to a different tune.
There are regular open sessions for learning 'new' hymn tunes or if a new setting is being introduced. We even sing the Wayne Marshall tune Marlborough Gate for Beyond all mortal praise - NEH 340.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
PSA is not heresy - the objection should be to it being presented as the only valid atonement theory. PSA is perfectly orthodox, certainly for Anglicans.
PSA is almost a dead horse and has already attracted lots of people to long threads about it.
However, to state that God was satisfied suggests that he hungered for some sort of blood thirsty revenge - that is heretical in that God has no passions and in thatb God somehow changed. Orthodoxy holds that God is unchangeable.
An expiation changes us, taking away our sin, whereas a propitiation changes God, satisfying whatever needed to be satisfied
Hebrews talks of expiation, not propitiation.
PSA is certainly not Anglican - as long ago as the Church of England Doctrine Commission 1938 the notion of propitiation as the placating by man of an angry God is definitely unchristian
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I discuss music with PinC, and he does his best to appear interested. But he said to me soon after arriving he's a firm believer in the old saying I]Why keep a dog and yet bark yourself?[/I].
I've been thinking about this.
The priest is the 'custodian of the liturgy' so s/he should have some input into choosing hymns - to fit with sermons.
S/he should also avoid heretical hymns - like Townend's idea of the wrath of God was satisfied - and the organist should avoid bad tunes - for which reasons our church is a Kendrick-free-zone.
Incidentally, on congregations having a narrow repertoire of known hymns - because we have so many students, there is almost a one-third congregation turnover every year with new people coming from all over the country plus a few from abroad.
Canon B20 - the minister is to pay 'due heed' to the musician's advice, but the final responsibility is the minister's
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I don't have the time to check if there be an equivalent to that C of E Canon, but could not agree more - it is the responsibility of the Rector to choose the hymns, settings and so forth. One who does not is shirking responsibility.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
<snip>S/he should also avoid heretical hymns - like Townend's idea of the wrath of God was satisfied <snip>
While there certainly are understandings both of the wrath of God, and of satisfaction which tend to the heretical, Townend's hymn doesn't on the face of it deserve that stricture. The Doctrine Commission's 1938 report which you have already referred to offers the theological framework within which this language is rightly used and understood. The understanding of the wrath of God against sin is specifically addressed in a section with that title, and it is with that understanding that the report goes on to use the idea of the Cross as a satisfaction for sin in its consideration of the Atonement.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Plural pronouns are grammatically correct in many situations. eg "Who would true valour see, let them come hither" is not incorrect grammatically.
True. But they can make life incredibly confusing. Take, for example, "To be a pilgrim". But not the original version, but the version that most people will be familiar with:
quote:
He who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let him in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset him round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound—his strength the more is.
No foes shall stay his might; though he with giants fight,
He will make good his right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
Now let's try and inclusivise it:
quote:
All who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset them round with dismal stories
Do but themselves confound — their strength the more is.
No foes shall stay their might; though they with giants fight,
They will make good their right to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, Thou dost defend us with Thy Spirit,
We know we at the end, shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away! I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labor night and day to be a pilgrim.
As you can see, verse two becomes a shambles, as we have two lots of "them". Any suggestions?
Bumping this back up, as I had a "Eureka" moment yesterday. As the last verse of this hymn shifts from third person singular to first person plural, I thought "why not make the WHOLE hymn first person plural?"
So what do people think of this:
quote:
We who would valiant be
’gainst all disaster,
let us in constancy
follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement
shall make us once relent
our first avowed intent
to be a pilgrim.
Who so beset us round
with dismal stories,
do but themselves confound -
our strength the more is.
No foes shall stay our might,
though we with giants fight:
we will make good our right
to be a pilgrim.
Since, Lord, you will defend
us with your Spirit,
we know we at the end
shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away!
We’ll fear not what they say,
we’ll labour night and day
to be a pilgrim.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I find grammatical errors in this version of the great hymn. You can't talk about we and our while still using a pilgrim when the plural is pilgrims
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I find grammatical errors in this version of the great hymn. You can't talk about we and our while still using a pilgrim when the plural is pilgrims
I know. I was wondering who would spot that first. But I think it is still possible (just) to get away with it.
(Man! How desperate does that sound?)
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I find grammatical errors in this version of the great hymn. You can't talk about we and our while still using a pilgrim when the plural is pilgrims
I know. I was wondering who would spot that first. But I think it is still possible (just) to get away with it.
(Man! How desperate does that sound?)
I think it's possible to get away with it. I remember being told that it's acceptable to talk about "their heart" or "our life" because each person has only one heart and one life, so presumably in the case each of us can only be one pilgrim.
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on
:
It doesn't seem odd to me at all to say "we each have an intent to be a pilgrim," even if we understand us to be pilgrims severally and not just jointly. I don't see why dropping the "each" makes it wrong. Also, the church qua church is a pilgrim people, at least in Catholic ecclesiology. So, we are jointly a pilgrim, as well as severally each a pilgrim.
As for singular 'life,' the new translation of the Roman Missal (not that that's a paragon of English usage) uses that in my favorite dismissal option: "Go in peace, glorifying the Lord with your life."
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
could I suggest that the last line of each verse would be more politically correct as 'to all be pilgrims'
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I always sing it with feminine pronouns.
Brings tears to my eyes.
In childhood my brother and I would sing it to our mother who - in the manner of those days had changed her name on marrying... because our family-name rhymed with "pilgrim"!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
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.
I like this one. It appears in the Methodist book Hymns and Psalms. (I don't know if it's in the new Methodist hymnbook.)
Although God isn't mentioned by name it's assumed that the hymn is addressed to him. Moreoever, the hymn's reference to travelling seems to match the common Christian understanding of faith being a journey. I don't know whether the hymn's general sentiments in general would be reflected in the worship of any other religion, but it does seem to be a highly inclusive hymn.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
In the UK which modern in print hymnbook is the best for inclusive / expansive language do you think?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I know some people will hate me saying this...
In my experience, Kevin Mayhew hymn books are most inclusive. Check out the various(!) versions of Anglican Hymns Old and New. Some rewritten hymns are awful, but often there has been a relatively restrained approach to inclusivisation.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Thank you, Oscar. I heard also the Church of Scotland hymn book had done well with expansive and inclusive hymns.
Also a friend mentioned an older hymn book - Hymns For Today's Church.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The only people that the Kevin Mayhew books exclude are those who care about the literary quality of the words that they are singing.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Oh dear! I know my request for advice could be a hot potato, but it is genuine. We'd like an inclusive / expansive language book to supplement.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
ML
Why does it have to be inclusive language? Unless your church has had a sudden lottery win (or similar) are you so flush with cash that this is a must have?
And is your church so well maintained that this is the only thing left for you to spend your money on?
If the answer to either of those two is NO, then you shouldn't be wasting time, effort and money worrying about 'inclusivity'.
IME the alteration of many older hymns by the PC brigade has ruined some of the finest religious poetry in regular use in the UK - but you are entitled to your view and, if your church really wants an 'inclusive' book then go for it.
BTW, is the inclusion to be concerning gender alone, or are all references that might offend the differently abled going to be removed too?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Also a friend mentioned an older hymn book - Hymns For Today's Church.
Noooooooooooo!
It's clunky and horrible and..... and....
Before I was ordained, I was in a church that had HFTC. So many perfectly good hymns ruined for so little purpose. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
L'organist I take it your comments are actually ones opposed to inclusive language and using richer and more expansive language about God.
I fully expect people here to push that line, as I know others will hold different views.
However, my request was a simple one, not a polemic one. We are not getting a new hymn book for our church, we just like to have a variety of resources and so have one or two full music copies of other hymn books, hence the request. But why, I ask myself, should I have to explain!
So to repeat my simple question.
Which modern hymn book available in the UK is a good one for inclusive language and expansive language?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
My last place had the dark red version of Hymns Old and New. I'm not sure I'd recommend it as the hymn book to end all hymn books but if you want it to give you another string to your bow, it's pretty good. The Methodist hymnal, 'Singing the Faith' would be my suggestion. Currently, I tend to resort to the latter in circumstances when five hymns from the NEH won't cut the mustard.
As things stand, we use the NEH and have some elderly copies of Mission Praise, which appear to date from some period between the settling of the Ark on Mount Ararat and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which are, frankly, worse than useless. I can only assume they were purchased by one of my predecessors in a peculiar attempt at reverse psychology. In the event of a dodgy Russian oligarch moving into the parish and offering me unlimited access to his ill-gotten lucre I would probably invest in a suitable number of copies of Singing The Faith and produce more service booklets with the words of all the hymns. Until that happy event, I persevere. But if you are looking for a few copies to give you a wider repertoire and some more inclusive language, you could do worse.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Thanks Callan for a kind and helpful response.Thats the sort of situation we face. We will not be replacing our traditional hymn book but we do want to supplement it with inclusive language and expansive language hymns, and I should have said, we'd like more hymns from differing nations.
I'll look out the hymn book you suggest. It seems from what I have heard the C of E hymn books are more conservative than some of the Free Church ones.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
To be more helpful:
We use the New English Hymnal.
We supplement with English Praise - which is the supplement to the NEH.
For some things we still use the original English Hymnal.
But there are some hymns we get from a wide variety of other books, including: Ancient & Modern New Standard, Mission Praise, Hymns Old & New, The Catholic Hymn Book (1998 edition), the English Gradual, plus Hymnau yr Eglyws for a couple of tunes, the Hymnary of the US Department of Defense, Songs of Praise, etc.
IME there is no single book that covers all the bases; you just choose the one that suits most of your needs and deal with the rest on a case-by-case basis. Not perfect, I know, but the best that can be done if you want to have a broad range of liturgical music.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Another one you might want to look at, especially in terms being a supplement to your existing hymn book, is Sing Praise from the publishers of Hymns Ancient and Modern.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
We used to use 'New Hymns and Worship Songs' in addition to the NEH. It won't suit everybody because it's published by Kevin Mayhew, but it is specifically designed as a supplement in that it doesn't generally include the well-known hymns already in most established collections.
The practical problem, if you hand out hymn-books to congregation members rather than print the texts in a bulletin, is having to juggle with a library. Either you restrict yourselves to singing all the hymns in a particular service from one or other of the books (especially problematic with the newer book); or you compromise by handing out only the one with most of the hymns and printing out the rest; or you permanently keep books in the pews; or you put off strangers for life by confusing them with two or three books and a couple of leaflets and then either destroy the flow of the liturgy with distracting announcements or leave people floundering.
If you don't use a screen, simple outline orders of service are the way to go.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I tend to agree with L'Organist and Albertus. So far, I've not come across a recent hymn book that's remotely up to the job. I'd love to hear of one. Most of them have all (rather than only some) of the following failings:-
- they omit too many of the classics that should be in every hymn book - though it varies which ones they omit.
- in their determination to modernise uninclusive language, old forms of second person singular etc, they butcher what hymn writers originally wrote and reveal themselves to be cloth-eared.
- one suspects that too often this is so as to claim a sort of false copyright in the works of writers and composers better than they, and then try to claim fees on them.
- their selections of modern material are invariably weirdly idiosyncratic. Whatever the list, it will have little bearing on what you want to sing. Modern favourites won't be there, but the pages will be cluttered up with choruses that were written by friends of the editor, but which nobody else has ever sung. (Actually, if you replace 'choruses' by 'hymns' that last bit applies to most old hymn books as well. It certainly applies to all the editions of A&M and EH).
Some Shipmates will scream but these are all good arguments for having a projector and screen.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Angloid quote:
The practical problem, if you hand out hymn-books to congregation members rather than print the texts in a bulletin, is having to juggle with a library.
May I enquire how many hymns you have in a service?
In a standard parish communion, for example, you can really only fit 5: an Introit (some people call this the gatheringhymn; a Gradual before the Gospel if you don't have a Psalm; at the Offertory; at Communion; and a final Post Communion hymn.
It should not be beyond the wit of someone with a modicum of gumption to ensure that all of those for one service come from the same book; there may be occasions when you want to stray into a second book but beyond that? I really couldn't see the necessity. Of course, you may have a preference for choosing more widely but thats a different thing altogether.
[ 12. December 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Not any longer having responsibility for a congregation, that is a hypothetical question. If I had my way we'd have no more than two hymns at a eucharist.
But yes, it is usually possible to find four or five relevant and singable hymns from the standard hymnbooks. It's only when you want to incorporate a newer one (or two) from the alternative book: certainly with the one that I mentioned you would be struggling to find all four (or five) in that book. So people either have to juggle with two books or with a book and a piece of paper. That's why an printed service leaflet is a good idea especially if it can obviate this need.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not any longer having responsibility for a congregation, that is a hypothetical question. If I had my way we'd have no more than two hymns at a eucharist.
Wonderful. After all the rest of the service, bar the sermon, is chanted normally, isn't it?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Two seems a bit meagre - how about 3? Introit, Offertory, and one just after Communion whilst the washing-up is done....
Ian J.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not any longer having responsibility for a congregation, that is a hypothetical question. If I had my way we'd have no more than two hymns at a eucharist.
Wonderful. After all the rest of the service, bar the sermon, is chanted normally, isn't it?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm with the late +Mervyn Southwark, who in reply to a question about his churchmanship is alleged to have said, 'I'm neither high church nor low church, but short church.'
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0