(responses invited to this tract to Peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk)
The bishops and liturgists, who produced and commended the new forms of liturgy for the Anglican Churches, together with the scholars, who gave us the new versions of the Bible, from the 1960s through to the present, did not always tell us the whole truth about their form of English that they called "contemporary" (in contrast to "traditional" for the language of the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley). They were not intending to deceive. Apparently they did not fully realize what they were doing!
The impression we received from their commendations especially in the early days - the 1970s -- of their new form of prose is that they were merely updating, replacing the archaic and obsolete with the modern, and in doing so they were not changing the religious style, ethos and doctrine found in the old texts.
In fact, I think we can now say, looking back to the 1970s, that there was much naivete amongst many well-meaning people who thought that the task of putting Bible and liturgy into modern language was a reasonably straightforward, even if demanding, task. This was because they had little knowledge of the history, use, development, grammar, syntax and style of the English language and no experience of the creation of sacred texts - and they did not regard this ignorance as important.
What we can see now was that many of those involved in Bible translation and liturgical revision were energized by revolutionary ideas which became the air we breathed in the 1960s, and sometimes by ideologies (e.g., feminism). What most did not then see, or not see clearly, is that the concern for relevance, intelligibility and simplicity is not a neutral, that is a value-free, exercise.
Relevance to and for whom? What kinds of persons and what levels of competence and usage of the English language are in mind here?
Intelligibility to and for whom? What kind of persons with what level of education and intelligence are in mind?
Simplicity to and for whom? The truths of the Gospel are essentially simple when one's spiritual eyes have been opened [by the divine Spirit], but some of the doctrine of the Faith is complex and cannot be communicated simply even to those with their eyes opened.
The type of a concern and aims underlying the search for contemporary language usually cause the production of a text that is not any form of recognizable, spoken English, but is a kind of mish-mash that occurs after a committee has sought to revise a preliminary draft. We have noticed since the 1960s just how short is the shelf-life and public use of a growing number of versions of the Bible and forms of liturgy.
But there are other related matters to be considered.
Those creating "contemporary language" versions of the Bible and forms of liturgy have felt the need - and this has increased from the 1970s onwards - to seek to minimize what they regard as a strong bias against the dignity of women [and from the 1990s a bias against homosexual persons] built into the older translations. The supposed patriarchalism, androcentrism and sexism of the ancient texts and the older translations is seen as an offence to the God who is known in the present as the God of "peace and justice."
The pressure to take account of inclusivism has come from the post 1960s western culture and is in parallel with similar activities in the writing of texts and addressing people in industry, government, education and the media. It is clearly a feature of modern secular culture which is utilised and canonized by the church through such Christian themes as the dignity of human beings and the equality of all persons in Christ before God.
Thus what became known as inclusive language was adopted with the aim of minimizing the offence of the old language, which it was judged used "man" and "he" and related offensive words too often. More of a technique than a language, inclusivism is found at least in a minimal form in every recent Bible translation (e.g., REB, NRSV, NJB and even the British edition of the NIV) and in many Anglican prayer books and trial forms of liturgy. In fact, it is difficult to find "contemporary language" anywhere today which has not made some concessions or adaptations to the feminist call for less masculine-bias. So instead of "brethren" we have "sisters and brothers" and instead of "Blessed is the man." we have "Happy is the one." or "Happy are they." And at the other end of the spectrum "Father" becomes "Parent" or "Father-Mother."
What all this tells us is that, in a heavily secularised time as our own (the post 1960s), language does not come to us as a neutral instrument that can be used by us as we deem appropriate. Rather, it comes with a style and meaning and when we put it to religious use at least part of its acquired secular meaning comes with it. Therefore, those who want the Church to adopt part of the modern agenda of say the feminist and lesbigay movements have a decided advantage! They merely have to watch and wait and much of what they desire will be achieved with little or no effort. The evidence of the last two decades amply proves this. And, I fear, the evidence of the next decade, will make it abundantly clear.
It is now doubtful whether a form of "contemporary language" for public prayer and worship can be created in English that is worthy or truly able to carry the Good News of God's salvation in Jesus Christ, his Incarnate Son for public worship that seeks to please the LORD God. Also it is doubtful whether a form of the same language for Bible translation can be created. Certainly such a language has not yet been discovered or created - again as the abundance of changing texts reveals.
With this in mind, there is surely an argument for the maintenance of the old so-called "traditional" language of prayer and worship ( as found in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the KJV and RSV, the hymns of Wesley, for example) because this comes with meaning attached to it and it comes from a period before modern individualism, secularism and inclusivism left their legacy in the contemporary language of modern prayer.
It is true that in recent times some have supported this classic language of public worship because of its aesthetic qualities and certainly this is how certain church leaders would like it to be supported. For then it is easy to dismiss it! What I say is that, while the so-called Elizabethan and Jacobean language is aesthetically pleasing, it has also over the centuries achieved and gained a style, a style that includes its meaning, and it is for this reason that I say that its maintenance and use is necessary to preserve the treasury of meaning (doctrine and moral, faith and faithfulness) of the Gospel in the English language.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 26, 2002
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
Minister of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor,
England & Vice-President and Emissary-at-Large
of The Prayer Book Society of America
No comments:
Post a Comment