As mentioned in a comment by Drew Royals below, Liturgicam Authenticam legislates a kind of conservatism regarding hymn texts in #108.
Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity. If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided…
This point seems carefully worded. The legislation does not say that the texts must be absolutely fixed, but relatively fixed. There might be compelling reasons to change the wording of a hymn. Generally speaking, however, it is pastorally more sensitive to keep the wording of hymns steady over time.
Once or twice a century would seem to be appropriate. At some point, we'll have to resolve the tension about today's hyper-sensitivity to language.
But after that, I suspect that hymn texts will sink or swim based on their appeal to the contemporary culture. If language from a century or two ago lacks appeal, then the hymns will simply be dropped from usage. The question for music leaders then becomes: Are we going to be so inflexible as to condemn once-great texts to the trash bin? Or can they be salvaged with artistic editing? Christians have long adopted the latter approach. That has served us well.
Todd
Who requires the editing of hymns? Not the people in the pews. Liturgists, usually, who want to stay current with other liturgists.
I'm reminded of the poll that asked whether the people-in-the-pews were for or against inclusive language. The overwhelming #1 response was, "What is inclusive language?"
Have any of the people in anyone's parish ever complained about the thee's and thou's in Holy God, We Praise Thy Name? Or Come Holy Ghost, or Holy, Holy, Holy? Aren't these songs sung vigourously every time?
Instead we have patchwork fixes that often enough are not well done. John Wesley's plea echoes through the centuries:
Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our Hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours; either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.
I think like any traditions, it's a matter of cultivating and maintaining the language. If a hymn is good enough, in terms of music and language, it will last. It must be then well-tended, like a plant or flower. To continue the agricultural analogy, many growing things are ruined due to erroneous pruning, neglect, etc. If we, as music directors, continue to program and promote hymns, a la SATB Protestant hymns, they will last. That is what I've tried to do in my church. Why? The hymns I select are musically and doctrinally sound. I've tried my best to 'prune' the songs in which the congregation sings about itself and songs that are overtly sacro-pop in style.
WARNING: just because texts are set to 'old' hymn tunes may not make them "sound." I feel this way about "Church of God, Elect and Glorious."
Kathy's quote from Wesley shows, however, how customary it has long been to "alt" hymn texts….
"I've tried my best to 'prune' the songs in which the congregation sings about itself …"
So much for the Kyrie in the Mass Ordinary. Likewise Psalm 22:23, 28, etc.; 33:1-3 & 20-22; 36:9-11; 42:5; most all of 44; 46:2; 47:2; all of 95 and 100 …
Excellent texts are there to be found. Let's be sure we don't let politics blind us to what really happens in Christian worship.
Todd
Todd, as usual, you put me back on the straight-n-narrow. Let me give examples of what I mean: songs like "Gather Us In; Anthem; Ashes; In This Place; Gather the People…need I go on?
Psalm 22…I'm looking at the version in the Heritage Missal (the only resource availible to me at the moment)…the text is addressed to God, is it not?
I'm not sure how "Lord have mercy, etc." is the congregation singing about itself.
I agree, the psalms are excellent texts. We used Paul Inwoods setting of Ps. 47 (as found in Heritage), with the verses set to Meinrad tones…wonderful results, we're singing Scripture…praise God!
Trying to keep an open eye and mind…
Hey John, thanks for the ping. I'm sparing my Café friends from insistent posting. I'll pop in once or twice on a thread then duck out.
Yes, many modern texts can be a problem. I prefer psalm settings and more texts more strongly based on Scripture. Examples of what I mean: Genevieve Glen, Ralph Wright. I don't have too much of a problem with Gather Us In, though. The whole text is addressed second-person to God. It's the equivalent of perspective of the Kyrie, which is indeed addressed to God, but it's all about our need for mercy.
I'm cautious about the political undercurrents that seem to be pushing for censorship of hymns they don't like. There's a lot of fuzzy thinking on exactly what is so objectionable about many modern texts.
Todd
Thanks for responding! I understand about the insistent posting. Some folks do go into "automatic" when they see a screen name.
I do also prefer psalm settings, scripture-based settings, and good theological poetry. I'm going to reexamine GUI, though I suspect the text to be more 1st person plural…
The political undercurrents seem to focus on style, as well as content. Thus my juxtaposition of Inwood-esque refrains and Meinrad verses.
I'm so happy we are able to dialogue, as this medium is meant to do.
Gather Us In: God is the implied subject of the text. "Us" is objective case. Just like the penitential rite, for example: "You came to heal the contrite …"
My sense is that much criticism of the "singing about us" is really a flimsy attempt to pin some excuse, any excuse, for what is often an exercise in personal taste. Don't like "Ashes"? Fine. Neither do I. But I have what I think are sound and objective reasons. I'm also willing to find a better alternative. For good artists, it has to be more than the hermeneutic of subtraction.
Todd