Inclusive language has been a point of much discussion for many many years – and – continues to provide opportunities for animated and passionate conversation.

Today I want to point you to a couple of superb articles from the current issue of The Christian Century – both written by Mary Louise Bingle.

The first, “Singing from one book: Why hymnals matter” may be found at http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-04/singing-one-book – and – the second, “Debating hymns” which may be retrieved at http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-04/debating-hymns. Both articles offer an excellent information source about the current state of hymnody in this country and beyond.

Following is an excerpt from the second which describes a portion of the process and work of the committee preparing the new Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) hymnal Glory to God:

“Two examples of theological in-group disagreements stand out. The committee debated a long time over whether to include in Glory to God the American folk hymn ‘Jesus Walked This Lonesome Valley.’ The hymn does appear in the Lent section of the 1990 Presbyterian Hymnal, as well as in hymnals and supplements of several other bodies (such as the Disciples of Christ, Roman Catholics, Mennonites, United Methodists and Society of Friends). Yet opponents of inclusion argued that the text makes statements that are theologically questionable. How can Christians sing that ‘nobody else’ can walk the lonesome valley with us or that we have to stand our trial ‘by ourselves,’ when the very heart of the crucifixion narrative holds that Jesus walked—and continues to walk—alongside those who suffer and that he went on trial for our sakes?

Proponents of inclusion argued that the folk text is making an experiential rather than a theological claim: there are times when we feel as if we are starkly alone and to voice such a lament resonates with cries of forsakenness going back at least as far as the Psalms. Opponents of inclusion won (both on a first vote and on a later call for reconsideration), and the hymn will not appear in the 2013 song collection.

Even more sustained theological debate occurred after the conclusion of the committee’s three-and-a-half years of quarterly meetings in January 2012. We had voted for a song from the contemporary Christian canon, Keith Getty and Stuart Townend’s ‘In Christ Alone.’ The text agreed upon was one we had found by studying materials in other recently published hymnals. Its second stanza contained the lines, ‘Till on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified.’ In the process of clearing copyrights for the hymnal we discovered that this version of the text would not be approved by the authors, as it was considered too great a departure from their original words: ‘as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied.’ We were faced, then, with a choice: to include the hymn with the authors’ original language or to remove it from our list.

Because we were no longer meeting as a committee, our discussions had to occur through e-mail; this may explain why the ‘In Christ Alone’ example stands out in my mind — the final arguments for and against its inclusion are preserved in writing. People making a case to retain the text with the authors’ original lines spoke of the fact that the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history: the view of Anselm and Calvin, among others, that God’s honor was violated by human sin and that God’s justice could only be satisfied by the atoning death of a sinless victim. While this might not be our personal view, it was argued, it is nonetheless a view held by some members of our family of faith; the hymnal is not a vehicle for one group’s perspective but rather a collection for use by a diverse body.

Arguments on the other side pointed out that a hymnal does not simply collect diverse views, but also selects to emphasize some over others as part of its mission to form the faith of coming generations; it would do a disservice to this educational mission, the argument ran, to perpetuate by way of a new (second) text the view that the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger. The final vote was six in favor of inclusion and nine against, giving the requisite two-thirds majority (which we required of all our decisions) to the no votes. The song has been removed from our contents list, with deep regret over losing its otherwise poignant and powerful witness.”

Again – this represents the proverbial tip of the iceberg. In the next post I will begin to speak to the inclusive language policy that has been approved and is in place for the particular congregation where I am presently serving as Director of Music Ministries.

Grace and peace