"Inclusive language" - Editorial policy in Rejoice & Sing
"Inclusive language" - Editorial practice in Rejoice & Sing
"Inclusive language" - Editorial policy in Rejoice & Sing
_______
The Compilers of RS were guided by discussions in and decisions of the General Assembly of the U.R.C.
In 1984 the report of a Working Party on the theme "The community of women and men" was presented to the Assembly. It included a paragraph stating that
As a Reformed Church, claiming to follow Scripture, the URC must be prepared
[For the full text of the Report, click here > > ]
A five-part resolution was put to the Assembly and its separate sections were passed [Assembly Record, 1984, pp.22-23]. Section (iv) proposed that
"The Assembly asks Departments and Committees to take steps to ensure that all future publications use inclusive language."
On a point of order the Moderator ruled that `inclusive language' excluded the deity. *[Note1]
This section of the resolution was carried by a small majority (226 votes to 205 with 23 abstentions), and thereby became the official policy of the URC.
At the 1986 Assembly the proposal to prepare a new hymn-book for the URC was agreed. During the Assembly discussion a question was asked (but not minuted) about the place of inclusive language in such a book. This was referred to at the 1987 Assembly when the Editorial Committee made its first report; that report included the following paragraph *[Note2]:
A question was asked at last year's Assembly about the Committee's policy on inclusive language in the new hymnbook, particularly in the light of the General Assembly's resolution on this subject in general of 1985 *[Note3]. It is the Committee's intention that normally the hymns it chooses by contemporary authors will use inclusive language, though the law of copyright means that if changes are involved they will require the author's consent. In choosing hymns written in past generations the Committee, recognizing that minor changes of language have been a constant feature of hymnbook editorial policy for 150 years, will seek to preserve the poetic integrity of the text and will normally retain the author's language except where very simple changes of wording can remove problems; but, again following the example of previous books, the committee will seek to avoid using hymns or verses which may cause serious offence because of changing sensitivities in the understanding of human society. This last consideration also extends, for example, to certain types of military imagery and to the attitudes to those of other faiths and none expressed in certain `missionary' hymns of a former generation.Nevertheless the Committee believes that the most successful and long-lasting hymnbooks of the past have been those which sought to represent a wide range of Christian experience and to avoid too strong an editorial line in any particular direction. In the end it sees its task as that of providing a selection of hymns which gives congregations and leaders of worship the range of choice which they need in the many different contexts in which our churches find themselves.
In suggesting alterations to those texts which could be misunderstood in exclusive masculine terms, the Compilers of RS generally relied on the substitution of plural for singular, or first person for third person, wherever this could be done without violating the sense. Terms such as `people' or `humankind' have occasionally been substituted for the collective `men' or `mankind' (sometimes by the authors themselves), though this usually involved some metrical juggling.
A simpler substitution was that of `people' for `brothers', `brethren' or `fathers'. See, for example, the first lines of A.C.Ainger's `Let all {our brethren} / {God's people} join in one', RS.113, and Alan Gaunt's translation of Bonhoeffer's `Menschen gehen zu Gott' (`People draw near to God'), RS.342; or v.2 line 2 of `Praise, my soul, the King of heaven', RS.104, `to {our fathers} / {his people} in distress'.
In some cases a simple word substitution could not be made without disruption, and more extensive alteration was necessary. Where possible, the Compilers tried to retain the underlying intention of the original, sometimes making use of phrases from omitted lines or verses of the same hymn. In Watts's version of Ps.100, `Sing to the Lord with joyful voice' (RS.119, v.2 line 2 `made us of clay and formed us men' proved impossible to alter invisibly; the Compilers substituted a phrase from another verse in the original which was omitted from RS.
Occasionally the word `people' has been used for a different kind of `inclusiveness'. Mrs Alexander's hymn `Once in royal David's city' (RS.167) was, in fact, written exclusively for children, and the lines `And He leads His children on / To the place where He is gone' are natural in that context. Present-day needs, however, are for words which encourage the inclusion of people of all ages in the promises offered by the Gospel; and the Compilers' alteration at this point (`for he leads his people on . . . . ') was made with this intention.
A particular problem arose with the phrase `sons of . . . '. In origin this is a periphrasis, common in Hebrew but not unknown in other languages, where `son of (X)' indicates a person fully representative of (X); the most familiar usage is in the title `Son of Man'. In contemporary speech it is hard to avoid the `exclusive masculine' implication, and the Compilers sought to find acceptable alternatives. See, for example, the notes on `Hark! the herald angels sing', v.3 line 7 (RS.159); `O love divine, how sweet thou art', v.2 line 3 (RS.372); `Sing praise to the Lord', v.2 line 4 (RS.49).
There are a few instances in RS where the Compilers decided not to make any changes to otherwise potentially exclusive terms. (E.g.) Wesley's line `all his suffering for mankind' (`Come, thou everlasting Spirit', RS.315) comes in a hymn which is so manifestly universal that a restrictive interpretation would be perverse.
Some texts were felt to be inherently unalterable. (E.g.) Christina Rossetti (RS.614) and G.K.Chesterton (RS.346) were poets rather than hymn-writers, and - notwithstanding Percy Dearmer's anecdote about the latter (see Songs of Praise Discussed, No.308) - their work is not really eligible for editorial change. The line `Love to God and all men', and GKC's reference to `easy speeches / that comfort cruel men' have therefore been preserved unaltered.
In a different category, the misleadingly familiar `While shepherds watched' (RS.155) is itself a riot of misquotations. The angelic doxology has been adapted to inclusive language, but the original angel - invariably if wrongly assumed to be male, except in children's Nativity plays - has been allowed to retain his (her) `glad tidings . . . to all mankind'.
[For an article by Elizabeth Cosnett in the G.B.& I. Hymn Society Bulletin, in which she discussed her own hymn `Can {man} / {we} by searching find out God' (RS.80) and the issue of Inclusive Language in general, click here > > ]
End of File. Return to Top . . .
<< Back to the Enchiridion Notes on Rejoice & Sing
<< Back to the Alphabetic Index of Source Books
(The Rejoice & Sing Enchiridion:edited by David Goodall; last amended 17/11/03)