Don has a wonderful post about the struggle to address the great worship music that may have lyrical "issues". His test case is "In Christ Alone" (Getty/Townend) , and the line
Til on the cross as Jesus died,
the wrath of God was satisfied.
(He asks other good questions of the text as well.)
For years we've been using the words
"My sin with him was crucified".
I haven't got anything for the "scheme of man" part.
But once a song has entered a congregation's collective memory it's pretty hard to make a change, so we vet songs pretty thoroughly before introducing a new song, and I am usually the de facto text writer if we want a change. In fact my blog was originally started 3 years ago last month, initally just to post the texts, litanies and other worship resources I wrote.
It's a matter of emphasis and priority I think. Wrath language is not totally foreign to scripture, but the emphasis is on grace and love, not wrath.
However, I think the phrase "dumbing down" is unfortunate and offensive (though I did not and do not take offense) - I find it equivalent to and on the flipside of the charge of "intellectual/cultural snobbery".
Those advocating adjustments are not necessarily dumb or removing intellectual vigor from the content of the faith; nor are those preferring the original language necassarily snobs of the intellectual or cultural variety.
In my judgment each side is advocating something I value - on the one hand, making the faith easily understandable and accessible to the exploring mind, and on the other, inviting a deep and stimulating exploration of where the truths of faith can lead.
To those who object to "lyric tampering", I often recall Charles Wesley's Christmas classic, whose original line runs thus:
"Hark, how all the welkin rings: Glory to the newborn King!"
If you've never sung that;
if you prefer "Hark the herald angels sing";
if you don't know what "the welkin" refers to (and you can look it up at merriamwebster.com)
- have you been "dumbed down"?
And if you prefer "Hark the herald angels sing", why is that?
Intellectual snobbery?
"Dumbing down"?
Preference for the familiar (to yourself or to those who will be worshiping or listening)?
In the end, does it really matter?
Thanks Don - good topic.
2 comments:
Hi, Rick...Gregg Patterson here (you might remember me from Westmont choir, too many years ago). I found bookmarked your blog quite some time ago to intriguing topics such as this.
Worth considering, I think:
Poetically, is the language figurative of a larger whole (or emblematic of a larger truth)? "Scheme of man," for example, strikes me as an allusion to mankind as a whole -- and thus inclusive -- reference. Others find it exclusive ("Man-"). Which is the intent of the writer? (Necessarily inclusive, I think -- to convey that no mortal can thwart the saving and preserving grace of God.)
Would changing the lyric(s) clarify or muddy the intended message? destroy poetic license? remove the weight and majesty of the Gospel?
Maybe poor theology can result from either reason: having a "tin ear" as to what offends, or a desire to avoid offending?
Regarding preferences, music and lyrics can be highly evocative for different people for different reasons -- what carries emotional wallop for one has little effect on another. Changing lyrics, I would surmise, would have a varying effect accordingly.
Does it matter? Yes.
For example: too often in the field in which I work (education), official language usage often seems driven by what could charitably be termed "the doctrine of presumed offense." In other words, if the word choice might remotely bother someone, don't use it.
Viscerally, I would object to hauling this standard into the church. Too much it seems grounded in the notion that no slight, no matter how small it might seem -- or be -- should be ignored or overlooked (as if we don't already have enough of that fellowship-destroying sentiment already).
Yet we are to be sensitive to others and what offends them. That tension seems to require charity and humility in comparable measure. The balancing act appears to be in maintaining that it is the Gospel only which gives offense, no?
Good topic, indeed...I've been waiting for someone to hit this for a looong time. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Hi Greg, I hear from Bob occasionally - good to hear from you as well. Thanks for some GREAT thoughts.
Even though many of us have inclusive language concerns, your comment on author's intent is well placed.
I've often advocated avoiding adjustments that cannot maintain the poetic artistry of the original. Forcing the adjustment comes off as ill advised and "PC".
I have fond memories of you and our Westmont days. Best wishes from Alicia and me.
Post a Comment