THE DETAILS OF THE NEW ELCA HYMNAL
Stendal, IN
This piece was posted by G. Barry Anderson, with this introduction: "One of the wonderful developments associated with internet news and blogging services, is that it is not unusual for expertise and research to find you, rather than the other way around. A case in point is a post prepared by Jim Culver for another list service that detailed his analysis of Renewing Worship. I've asked for permission to reproduce it in its entirety and he has graciously agreed to allow us to do so. He notes it needs some editing, and some attention from spell check, but in the interests of timeliness, particularly given the recent action of the ELCA CWA assembly, I reproduce it here as he wrote it"
Pastor Culver writes: I printed out the complete set of hymn texts posted on the Renewing Worship website, then went through with a red pen and marked language changes that reflected a feminist ideological agenda.
The statistics alone are revealing. Feminist censorship was most ruthless with masculine pronouns. I counted 70 hymns where masculine pronouns for God or Christ were eliminated. In a few instances a pronoun survived in a verse or two, but others were changed. In 13 instances masculine pronouns for Christ / Jesus were eliminated. In one instance (5105) a masculine pronoun for the Holy Spirit was eliminated. That leaves about 56 instances where the pronoun was eliminated for God the Father or God generically. I counted only 7 hymns where pronouns referring to deity survived.
There may be others that I missed, particularly to refer to the human Jesus, but masculine pronouns are very rare indeed in this collection of hymns. That damned pronoun (he) has to go! I should mention that my statistics include only those hymn texts that were included on the website. Those that could not be posted because of copyright restrictions are not included, unless the list of "corrections" included pronouns.
Various strategies were used to eliminate pronouns. Sometimes he or his was replaced with God or God's. Sometimes his was replaced with a, the, or this. An article in place of a pronoun. There is a strong tendency to refer to Jesus as "the Son" rather than "his son" in a line that follows a reference to God the Father. (5002, 5504, etc.)
Sometimes an entire verse was omitted (5224 eliminates both Father and his with one simple stroke.) Sometimes lines are rew ritten to avoid obvious clumsiness. "Come Down, O Love Divine" gets the last line changed from "wherein the Holy Spirit makes his dwelling" to "wherein the Holy Spirit makes a dwelling." Who the dwelling is for is unspecified. Awkward. LBW changed the pronoun from its to his in order to avoid giving the impression that the Holy Spirit is impersonal. That was a good change. RW's change is simply irritating. Check out "Come, You Thankful People, Come" (verse 3, #5124) to see how his is replaced 4 times with "the." Apparently the harvest, the field, the angels, and the garner are just there and don't belong to the Lord our God! In "Rise, Shine, You People," the Spirit calls from every nation "a new creation," no longer "his new creation."
Some of the strategies to avoid pronouns are more than irritating and involve theological issues. In some cases it may be inadvertent, but then again it may be intentional. "Built on the Rock" is rewritten to avoid pronouns for God. The LBW version of the last verse reads "Many may come to hear God's Word / Where he this promise is bringing." RW says, "Many may come to hear your Word, who here this promise is bringing." In the LBW version "God's Word" refers to scripture proclaimed. In the RW version it refers to Jesus. That seems to downplay scripture as God's Word and emphasize only the incarnate Word. Guess how that fits with revisionist theology!
You don't have to worry about what scripture says, because Jesus never said anything about homosexuality (so the argument goes) and the spirit of Jesus is pitted against the written word of scripture. That may have not been intentional here, but it does seem to avoid calling scripture "God's Word."
Something similar happens in "How Firm a Foundation, O Saints of the Lord." The second line continues, "is laid for your faith in his excellent Word." RW replaces this with "is laid for your faith in Christ Jesus, the Word." Again one wonders if there is some nervousness about regarding scripture as the basis for faith. Christ and Scripture should not be opposed, but don't take that for granted these days!
Here's another example where eliminating the pronoun and rewriting whole lines weakens the text: "Spread, Oh Spread, Almighty Word" is revised in the last two lines of the first verse. LBW reads, "Tell how his own Son he gave, / All from sin and death to save." Now here's the new RW version: "Send forth our Creator's call, / heaven's gifts extend to all." Much weaker. No mention of God giving his Son for our salvation. Only the Creator extending gifts to all. What kind of gifts? Well, the next verse which wasn't changed makes it clear. But the LBW version is better and stronger.
The pronoun issue sneaked into the church through the back door in the 1980's. Feminist theology began demanding that God no longer be called "he" and denominational leadership happily obliged. Publishing houses re-wrote scripture to avoid masculine pronouns for God. "He" / "His" were replaced with [God], [God's].You didn't notice that in Augsburg Sunday School curriculum? You weren't attentive. But if you went to seminary during the late 80's or the 90's and committed the sin of calling God he, you were probably severely reprimanded for being sexist. This was a change that was made with no public discussion. It was simply imposed 'from on high' without our consent. Those who had the power to do it did it.
But people who avoid pronouns have bigger fish to fry. They want to eliminate all masculine language for God, or at least balance it with equal doses of feminine language. Avoidance of pronouns is the shibboleth by which their sympathizers can be identified. Just as surely as a rainbow flag or a pink triangle identifies gays and their sympathizers.
Incidentally, the reasons given for word changes, particularly pronouns and Father, sometimes appear to be slightly dishonest. They never acknowledge that there was pressure to eliminate masculine pronouns for God, and sometimes mention reasons other than pronouns for the language change, when in fact it looks like pronouns were the real reason.
The next most common word omitted is "Father." I counted 17 hymns where "Father" is omitted. Sometimes a verse is omitted to avoid that offensive name. Other times it is re-written or replaced with God, Creator, or Maker. I found only 6 hymns where the name "Father" survives other than in doxological stanzas where all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned.
One instance is Luther's hymn, "Come, Holy ghost, God and Lord." Verse 2 in LBW reads, "Teach us to know our God aright / and call him Father with delight." That pronoun has to go! So RW gives us "as loving Father, our delight." There are some in the church who do not call God "Father" with delight. Some who do not call him "Father" at all. This revision is a loss to the church. Keep your LBW!
One instance where "Father" had already been replaced by "Creator" in LBW is verse 3 of "We Plow the Fields and Scatter." The original translation read, "We thank thee then, our Father." (SBH) There were only a few instances in LBW where Father language for God was replaced, but it happens more often in RW.
In the doxological 4th stanza of "To You, Before the Close of Day" LBW reads, "O Father, this we ask be done." RW replaces " O Father" with "Creator." They do not acknowledge that change, but say that they wanted to avoid "Ghost" for the Holy Spirit.
Another word that is seldom seen is "King." I counted 6 hymns where it had been eliminated. "Master" also is objectionable. So whenever Jesus is called "Master" in the original version, RW replaces it with "Savior." Not theologically wrong, but it suggests that some folks have problems with submitting to authority and regard "Master" as an oppressive word.
"Lord" gets omitted in at least 5 hymns, often with reference to Jesus. Feminists and many liberation theologians regard "Lord" as an oppressive word. "Rejoice, the Lord is King" is replaced with "Rejoice, for Christ is king." Not theologically wrong but unnecessary. This is a classic text. Couldn't they leave the first line the way it was originally written? That's the only line they change. Evidently there are some who think they don't need a Lord.
Several texts are revised either to change theology or at least inadvertently do so. "O God of Mercy, God of Light" has a change in the first line of verse 4. LBW says, "For all are kindred, far and wide." Okay, maybe the language is a little dated and not common speech anymore. But here's the replacement: "All are redeemed, both far and wide." That suggests universalism. There is a sense in which Christ redeemed all by his death on the cross because he died for the sins of the whole world, but I think this line will give the impression that everybody is saved.
"Praise and Thanks and Adoration" changes "Died that Adam's heirs might live" to "Died that sinners all might live." In this case I don't believe that the SBH version included a reference to Adam. They say it is done for clarity. Perhaps so, but for those who regard Adam as a mythological character, it is convenient not to have to think of ourselves as children of Adam.
One strategy for achieving inclusive language was to present alternate versions while largely retaining the LBW version. So for "O Day Full of Grace" we have the LBW version with minor revisions, then a new version. You should compare the texts carefully. The LBW version is about the story of salvation - how God came to us in the incarnation and how Christ bore our sins, took our shame and despair, then rose from the dead and sent the Spirit at Pentecost. The new version still has the incarnation but eliminates the cross, atonement, and Pentecost, as well as "Lord" and "he." Verse 3 is merely a nature hymn, and verse 5 compares us with "birds in the morning [that' sing their praise. Theologically, the hymn has been gutted in the alternate version. How sad!
Another hymn where re-writing is "Lamb of God, Pure and Sinless." LBW says, "Once on the cross an off'ring, Patient, meek, though guiltless, Forsaken in your suffe'ring! You died our guilt to banish / That none in sin need perish." Here comes the RW version: "a tree you limbs suspending, / patient, lowly, guiltless, / though mocked with scorn unending: from sin's grasp you have torn us, from gloom to hope have borne us." What's missing? The Atonement! Jesus' death is not mentioned as an offering for sin, but the emphasis is placed on his suffering. And the danger that some might perish is gone.
Two hymns where good verses were omitted are "Abide with Me" and "We Give Thee but Thine Own." In the second instance they say the verse omitted is unclear. It doesn't seem so to me and I think it's a good verse.
There is much in Renewing Worship that is good. Some of the textual changes are improvements, but many are not. The whole project is contaminated by an ideological agenda. We need an open honest debate in the church about whether it is permissible to call God "he" or "Father" or "King" or "Lord." Until that debate happens, publication of a new hymnal is premature. It simply represents a power grab by a loud aggressive minority in the church who want to impose their will on the rest of us. We need to insist that Renewing Worship restore traditional language for God, or at least allow time for the church to seriously consider whether this is the right direction to go. Little changes that some regard as insignificant sometimes turn out to be Trojan horses. The hymn texts as proposed may be tolerable, but I am greatly disappointed by what they have done to familiar and classic hymns. There is much new material in Renewing Worship that I would like to use, even though many great hymns are missing. But if it is to be a sectarian ideological book of the sort that other liberal protestants are producing, then I say NO! We don't need a book that tries to teach us to avoid normative biblical ways of speaking of the triune God.
James Culver, Jr.
Stendal, IN 47585
Go to Top or Go back to Issue Papers
