Surely it's possible to explain odd words and technical terms in the sermon or whilst introducing the hymn?
You could, but I don't know about you but I'm tuning in and out during sermons and before hymns I'm fumbling the hymn book finding the page and looking at the music. I'd personally sooner the hymn be intrinsically comprehensible.
I think that part of my antipathy to "modernising" the words of old hymns comes from the time I was attending a large evangelical Anglican church when I was at university. Their hymn book was Hymns for Today's Church and it was awful. Every hymn had been modernised so you couldn't sing by heart - you had to look closely at the words. And it seemed so flat and unpoetic. Even to this working class guy, who had never learned Latin or the Classics, it seemed the very epitome of dumbing down.
I think there's a difference between wanting to remove all the thees and thous (which I think people understand perfectly well) and avoiding obscure theological terms, especially when they appear to occur in precisely one hymn.
At the risk of contemporary chorus-bashing, I'd say that at least traditional hymns use chunks of unfamiliar biblical language in some kind of context or to make a theological point.
I find in many of the more contemporary contemporary worship songs (post-1990s/early 2000s), biblical clips and soundbites appear at random and with clear rationale.
It's as if the writers have hoovered up a few biblical tropes by AI and sprinkled them into the mix - 'Emmanuel', 'The Lion and the Lamb', etc etc without any specific context or purpose other than to fit the tune and format.
There are exceptions of course.
I fully accept the points people raise about 'ablism' and 'elitism' and so forth and am mindful of all that.
Heck, there are Eastern Europeans in our parish who very much struggle with English and whose spirituality is postively medieval. They couldn't cite biblical chapter and verse to save their lives.
But if biblical references are 'unfamiliar' then surely we must make the effort to make them familiar.
I remain very grateful to my evangelical background for giving me a 'working knowledge' and overview of the scriptures.
I know it's easier said than done buy somehow we need to familiarise ourselves and others with this stuff.
Surely it's possible to explain odd words and technical terms in the sermon or whilst introducing the hymn?
You could, but I don't know about you but I'm tuning in and out during sermons and before hymns I'm fumbling the hymn book finding the page and looking at the music. I'd personally sooner the hymn be intrinsically comprehensible.
I’d prefer hymns be intrinsically comprehensible, too.
And I’d be peeved if the flow of the service was interrupted so that the minister or someone else could say, “In the hymn we are about to sing, we’ll encounter the word consubstantial. It means ‘of the same substance or being.’ It is an affirmation that the three Persons of the Trinity are united by being one of substance.”
And I can imagine at least some people then thinking, “Huh?”
If it’s really important to a congregation to sing “consubstantial, co-eternal,” then a religious education or catechesis program outside the liturgy that includes what those words mean needs to be equally or more important. Otherwise, it would appear that what’s really important is either personal preference or avoiding change simply to continue doing things the way we’ve always done it.
Surely it's possible to explain odd words and technical terms in the sermon or whilst introducing the hymn?
You could, but I don't know about you but I'm tuning in and out during sermons and before hymns I'm fumbling the hymn book finding the page and looking at the music. I'd personally sooner the hymn be intrinsically comprehensible.
I’d prefer hymns be intrinsically comprehensible, too.
And I’d be peeved if the flow of the service was interrupted so that the minister or someone else could say, “In the hymn we are about to sing, we’ll encounter the word consubstantial. It means ‘of the same substance or being.’ It is an affirmation that the three Persons of the Trinity are united by being one of substance.”
And I can imagine at least some people then thinking, “Huh?”
If it’s really important to a congregation to sing “consubstantial, co-eternal,” then a religious education or catechesis program outside the liturgy that includes what those words mean needs to be equally or more important. Otherwise, it would appear that what’s really important is either personal preference or avoiding change simply to continue doing things the way we’ve always done it.
Especially given that without understanding what Aristotle meant by substance you're really none the wiser about what it means.
The version of the Nicene creed I know uses "of one being".
@Nick Tamen I can't help but wonder if many Americans would read "Zion" and think of Utah before thinking of any Biblical meaning.
“Zion” (or “Sion”) and “Mount Zion” are not uncommon names for churches—especially Lutheran, German Reformed (now United Church of Christ), Baptist and nondenominational churches—in my part of the world. And one of the leading historically African American denominations in the US is the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (aka, the A.M.E. Zion Church).
Google could have been your friend here. "how many churches named zion in united states" tells me there are thousands of churches named Zion in the United States, including 523 Zion Lutheran Churches, as of 2010.
Zion is also a common name for Lutheran churches in Canada, although I couldn't find a number through a quick Google search.
It's as if I said that someone going somewhere called Trinity in England can only have meant they were going to a single bougie restaurant in Clapham. ("how many churches named trinity in uk" = approximately 600 in England).
If someone is into mountaineering or fine dining, they might have meant a very restricted idea of the name of their locale, and only in that sense is your comparison meaningful. Otherwise, it betrays a profound ignorance of religious life in North America. "I'm going to Zion" means, in almost every context of ordinary life in North America, "I'm going to my neighbourhood church named Zion."
I think that part of my antipathy to "modernising" the words of old hymns comes from the time I was attending a large evangelical Anglican church when I was at university. Their hymn book was Hymns for Today's Church and it was awful. Every hymn had been modernised so you couldn't sing by heart - you had to look closely at the words. And it seemed so flat and unpoetic. Even to this working class guy, who had never learned Latin or the Classics, it seemed the very epitome of dumbing down.
If that was the corner of NW London I think it is, we got rid of HTC a few years ago because it was so awful, and replaced it with the latest A&M- which has "consubstantial, co-eternal".
FWIW, there's some discussion within our parish whether to use 'essence' rather than 'substance' when we say the Creed.
The use of either isn't going to be that helpful to anyone unfamiliar with the Council of Nicea and Trinitarian theology. Which is why I agree with @Nick Tamen that there should be some attempt on whatever form to explain these terms outside of the Liturgy / services / meetings.
In Orthodox circles you'll hear pious statements such as, 'The Liturgy speaks for itself ...'
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have proper systematic catechesis alongside that. Our Deacon told me this weekend how he's often confronted with the most bizarre and left-field questions imaginable after the services and can't always get a cup of coffee because he's got to think on his feet and handle them.
Church is messy. All churches are messy - whether they have a designated 'Messy Church' component or not.
And I’d be peeved if the flow of the service was interrupted so that the minister or someone else could say, “In the hymn we are about to sing, we’ll encounter the word consubstantial. It means ‘of the same substance or being.’ It is an affirmation that the three Persons of the Trinity are united by being one of substance.”
Do people not encounter new words, and think "I vaguely get what this word means from context, but I'm going to go home and look it up", and then do that? That's a genuine question: is that not normal for people? It's normal for me, but I don't claim to be representative of "people".
Comments
You could, but I don't know about you but I'm tuning in and out during sermons and before hymns I'm fumbling the hymn book finding the page and looking at the music. I'd personally sooner the hymn be intrinsically comprehensible.
I think there's a difference between wanting to remove all the thees and thous (which I think people understand perfectly well) and avoiding obscure theological terms, especially when they appear to occur in precisely one hymn.
@Gill H - ha ha to the veiled 'Vale' reference...
At the risk of contemporary chorus-bashing, I'd say that at least traditional hymns use chunks of unfamiliar biblical language in some kind of context or to make a theological point.
I find in many of the more contemporary contemporary worship songs (post-1990s/early 2000s), biblical clips and soundbites appear at random and with clear rationale.
It's as if the writers have hoovered up a few biblical tropes by AI and sprinkled them into the mix - 'Emmanuel', 'The Lion and the Lamb', etc etc without any specific context or purpose other than to fit the tune and format.
There are exceptions of course.
I fully accept the points people raise about 'ablism' and 'elitism' and so forth and am mindful of all that.
Heck, there are Eastern Europeans in our parish who very much struggle with English and whose spirituality is postively medieval. They couldn't cite biblical chapter and verse to save their lives.
But if biblical references are 'unfamiliar' then surely we must make the effort to make them familiar.
I remain very grateful to my evangelical background for giving me a 'working knowledge' and overview of the scriptures.
I know it's easier said than done buy somehow we need to familiarise ourselves and others with this stuff.
And I’d be peeved if the flow of the service was interrupted so that the minister or someone else could say, “In the hymn we are about to sing, we’ll encounter the word consubstantial. It means ‘of the same substance or being.’ It is an affirmation that the three Persons of the Trinity are united by being one of substance.”
And I can imagine at least some people then thinking, “Huh?”
If it’s really important to a congregation to sing “consubstantial, co-eternal,” then a religious education or catechesis program outside the liturgy that includes what those words mean needs to be equally or more important. Otherwise, it would appear that what’s really important is either personal preference or avoiding change simply to continue doing things the way we’ve always done it.
Especially given that without understanding what Aristotle meant by substance you're really none the wiser about what it means.
The version of the Nicene creed I know uses "of one being".
@Pomona: your comparison was exceptionally inapt.
Google could have been your friend here. "how many churches named zion in united states" tells me there are thousands of churches named Zion in the United States, including 523 Zion Lutheran Churches, as of 2010.
Zion is also a common name for Lutheran churches in Canada, although I couldn't find a number through a quick Google search.
It's as if I said that someone going somewhere called Trinity in England can only have meant they were going to a single bougie restaurant in Clapham. ("how many churches named trinity in uk" = approximately 600 in England).
If someone is into mountaineering or fine dining, they might have meant a very restricted idea of the name of their locale, and only in that sense is your comparison meaningful. Otherwise, it betrays a profound ignorance of religious life in North America. "I'm going to Zion" means, in almost every context of ordinary life in North America, "I'm going to my neighbourhood church named Zion."
If that was the corner of NW London I think it is, we got rid of HTC a few years ago because it was so awful, and replaced it with the latest A&M- which has "consubstantial, co-eternal".
The use of either isn't going to be that helpful to anyone unfamiliar with the Council of Nicea and Trinitarian theology. Which is why I agree with @Nick Tamen that there should be some attempt on whatever form to explain these terms outside of the Liturgy / services / meetings.
In Orthodox circles you'll hear pious statements such as, 'The Liturgy speaks for itself ...'
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have proper systematic catechesis alongside that. Our Deacon told me this weekend how he's often confronted with the most bizarre and left-field questions imaginable after the services and can't always get a cup of coffee because he's got to think on his feet and handle them.
Church is messy. All churches are messy - whether they have a designated 'Messy Church' component or not.
Do people not encounter new words, and think "I vaguely get what this word means from context, but I'm going to go home and look it up", and then do that? That's a genuine question: is that not normal for people? It's normal for me, but I don't claim to be representative of "people".