Language

Gender issues

I understand the need to deemphasize the masculinity of God. The problem is that there are many images of God. Jewish theologians do not agree on a single image of God, nor do Christians. In the Westminster Confession the chapter on God discusses the various images of God presented in the scriptures, but concludes with the memorable line "God is incomprehensible." In Islam this diversity is reflected in the list "The 100 Names of God." If we are to deny any masculine imagery (God the Father), then we must deny any feminine imagery (God the Mother). Yet there is scriptural support for the latter (Isaiah 66:13 "As a mother comforts her child so will I comfort you"). Here are two examples of how this might be used. The first is the hymn "This Is My Mothers' World" (Verse 2: "This is my mothers' world, and in her gardens grow such food as all the world may share, wheree'er her children go"). The second: in my setting of the Irish Blessing, there is a second verse, with an alternative wording for the last phrase "May God hold you in the palm of his hand": "May God hold you in her loving arms" (think Michaelangelo's sculpture The Pieta here). These two examples may be seen at www.agocal.org/phymn/hymns. There are those who would change that phrase to "May God hold you in the palm of God's hand", but in my view that is so awkward as to be distracting. In that particular hymn (but of course not universally) we invoke a human image by giving God a hand; why not a gender? While catechisms usually declare that God is a spirit and "hath not a body", we still do use the Psalms which use frequent metaphors and similes for God. Are we to limit these figures of speech to historical usage (i.e. the Psalms), or will their use be permitted in modern expressions about God? In summary, in the hymnal we need to be open to the diversity of the images of God.

In another example, we have lost the hymn "Once to Every Man and Nation", omitted from the 1990 hymnal. It would have been powerful to sing this during the runup to the Iraq war, which was justified with lies. I suggest the following rearrangement:

"Once to ev'ry man and woman, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some new decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave one chooses while the coward stands aside,
'Til the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong,
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
There God waits within the shadow, 'til the fight for truth be won."

"We" vs "I"

In the 1972 Worshipbook Calvin's traditional hymn "I Greet Thee, Who My Sure Redeemer Art" got changed to "We Greet You, Sure Redeemer from All Strife." It was changed back to the original "I" in the 1990 Hymnal. Traditional wordings such as these should be changed with care. To use "we" exclusively is to devalue any encounter an individual may have with God when there are no other persons involved. Yet the Bible describes many instances when a single individual has such an encounter, for example the incident on the road to Damascus, which happened to Saul as an individual. On the other hand, there are many popular "I" hymns from the late 1800s - early 1900s that Presbyterians do not sing for a variety of reasons, including strong sexual overtones ("I come to the garden alone" and "Have thine own way, Lord...while I am waiting, yielded and still"). I do agree that "We" is preferred in most cases; it comes from reformed theology and communal worship. "We" and "our" are used in a wide spectrum of some of our most memorable hymns: "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", "Now Thank We All Our God", "What a Friend We Have in Jesus."

Interfaith Language

As one in dialogue with Muslims and Jews, I have tried to think of ways in which Muslims, Christians, and Jews can worship together. Listening reverently to other individuals' prayers is one easy way. Communal prayer is another possibility, but care should be taken to use texts that all can agree on. Singing is another possibility, but the musical styles in typical Islamic worship differ from western music. Nevertheless I have made one attempt in "Glory to the God of Time and Space" in the line "Wheresoever we turn we see God's face", which quotes the Koran "Wheresoever you turn, there is God's face" - see www.agocal.org/phymn/hymns. There are also some of the Psalms in our hymnbooks that have not been "Christianized"; these might also be useful in an interfaith setting. The time may not be right, however, for identifying hymns in the new hymnal as suitable for interfaith use, but this issue might warrant some discussion.

Cyclical vs Linear Music

Cyclical: A few hymns are meant to be sung over and over until the singer is no longer conscious of the music and enters a state of deep meditation. The Taize chant "Jesus, Remember Me" is a good example. It is similar in principal to Sufi music in Islam, in which dancing into a state of oblivion is obtained by repetition. This may also be the aim of so-called praise choruses where the textual and musical content is minimal, but repetition is extensive.
Linear: On the other hand while most of the hymns do repeat (because of multiple verses), the verses are usually much longer, have different textual content, and there is a definite beginning and ending. While not enabling the state of mind of cyclical music, they can call forth a powerful emotional response. Cyclical music in particular might deserve a separate category in the indices.

Other Languages

In the 1990 Hymnal there are a few hymns where the primary text is a transliteration (into the Latin alphabet) of that hymn as translated into another language; "Blessed Assurance" in Korean, for example. This can be a little distracting to English-speaking singers (for whom the hymnal is intended), because it requires some visual gymnastics, and it further does not make the hymnal useful to Korean language congregations, who would be more at home with the hymn text in the Korean writing system (not to mention a wider selection!). Rather, it is intended to help us be more aware of the diversity of the Christian world - a truly laudable goal, and to make the occasional Korean (or other non-English speaker) aware that they are both recognized and welcomed. It also might be useful to sing some of these hymns on Pentecost, but it is not clear how often this is being done. This goal might also be implemented by transferring these transliterations from the printed hymnal to a source from which they would be available as electronic downloads free of charge to churches who have purchased the new hymnal. The downside of that is that most congregations would then never see the Korean (or other) transliterations. We also need to remember that there still may be congregations who do not have internet access, so any hymns made available on the internet should also be available in hard copy for a nominal fee (cost of postage, paper, and printing). Finally, we are more likely to be made aware of our diversity when we use hymn tunes from other cultures, because western music notation allows us to recreate music of other styles with at least fair accuracy. To its credit, the 1990 Hymnal does include a useful selection of tunes from both Latin and oriental, as well as native American sources.