Those who advocated in the 1960s the adoption of what they called "contemporary English" for public prayer/worship[ and Bible translation were not to know (though they could have guessed) what difficulties lay ahead.
There is general agreement that it was the Zeitgeist, the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s that indwelt the West, that was the root cause of the decision in the 1960s & 1970s to adopt a new language of prayer/worship, a language that was directly related to the language of the street, instead of separate from it as was the traditional language of prayer.
It was not particularly the presence of "thou/thee/thine/thy" but of the verb endings (thou - art, hast, doest, didst, desireth etc.) that became the presenting reason to drop the addressing God as "thou." These endings were said to be difficult, archaic and obsolete. They sounded and felt odd! In other words, if the differences in verb endings had been as simple for Thou and You as they were/are for I and We, then it would have been more difficult for the Zeitgeist to remove the "Thou" from the new language for God.
But then the Zeitgeist would have concentrated upon other examples of archaisms, obsolete words/phrases and sentence construction. For the Zeitgeist had entered the camp of the Evangelicals, Charismatics, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists etc. in a big way and It intended to be triumphant and of course was - 90 per cent perhaps. Relevancy to the present, intelligibility & accessibility for all were the demands of the Zeitgeist. And, what is quite amazing, is that Catholics and Protestants with little or no consultation went rushing in the same direction into modernity blown by this one powerful wind (the effects of which the Catholics called by the Italian name of aggiornamento). God who had been somewhat majestic and transcendent in the 1950s now became more familiar and immanent. From now on Deity was the YOU-God not the THOU-God. There had been a revolution!
Having moved the majority of English-speaking Christians, within the space of a decade or so, away from their previously normal language of prayer and worship into an experimental stage of using contemporary language for prayer, the Zeitgeist did not cease to blow.
First of all, its effects were seen in the continuing and to this day never ending efforts to find a suitable form of contemporary English for Bible translation and for church worship - note the seemingly endless versions of the Bible or parts thereof, experimental liturgies, new hymns and choruses and so on , and note particularly the troubles in the RC Church over a correct English for the Missal, Breviary, Sacramentary and so on.
Secondly, its effects were seen in the presenting of new proposals for amending, developing, and changing the emerging language of prayer. The most obvious of these were those from feminism and included radical changes in the use of pronouns for Deity, for the naming and addressing of God, for removing the generic "he" and "man" and "mankind" and "brethren" for human beings and so on. To the feminist proposals we can add those of civil and human rights, environmentalism, lesbigayism and others. And who knows what is yet to come?
Thirdly, its effects were seen in the gradual elimination of the pursuit of excellence and the acceptance of mediocrity in all areas of worship. Charges of elitism were levelled against those who wanted to provide for God the very highest and best that human art had created.
Then, its effects were felt in the general toning down of the sense of the numinous, the holy and the transcendent and the intensifying of the familiar, the immanent and the psychotherapeutic. Worshippers now assembled in the circle and half circle and made into a sacrament the passing of the peace.
Of course we must also note that the Zeitgeist payed some attention to the traditional folks, those who address the THOU-God. It got many of them to throw up their hands in holy horror, to huddle in a corner and complain and do their own thing as the world passed them by! A few of them resisted and sought by intelligent means to point out what was occurring, but their cry was muffled by the powerful winds caused by the Zeitgeist.
If there is any truth in what is stated above about the use of so-called contemporary language for God - which is apparently here to stay, then a greater effort has to be made by its advocates (and more especially by bright people who are linguists and lovers of the Lord our God) to work out what is to be the logic of the new language of prayer. That is what style it could and should develop and how it can develop without becoming a receptive container for each one of the latest offerings of the Zeitgeist working in post-modern culture. Right now we have got to the stage that many sensitive and devout people, who are prepared to use contemporary language for worship, are confused as to what is such language and they even hesitate to enter a church building on a Sunday not knowing what to expect! The Zeitgeist has them on the run or in fear.
Let those who knock and ridicule [my] calls for space and provision be made in churches today for the use of the traditional language of prayer, tell [me]us what is the logic, style and limits of their contemporary language for prayer.
August 30, 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