Myths Of Our Mothers
Announcement of the forthcoming publication of a hymnbook for religio-political activists, Songs of the State, was so warmly received that the enterprising publisher, Van der Zon, is planning a companion volume. Since it has been statistically proved that women constitute a majority not only of the general population but also of that more select group, regular church-goers, many sensitive souls feel it is oppressive to ask women constantly to sing hymns full of masculine references, such as “Faith of Our Fathers.” (Grammarians, it is true, may point out that in English usage, as in that of most other civilized peoples, masculine nouns and pronouns may be used as common gender—i.e., to stand for both sexes. However, as the last known grammarian of the English language, J. Phineas Mather, died of apoplexy while working on a review of the most recent unabridged Webster’s, such grammarians’ quibbles may be safely ignored.)
The only solution to the continuing crisis in hymnody is, as Van der Zon has rightly grasped, the revision of existing hymns and the writing of new ones. Because opinions among the majority, women, are divided, it has been decided that the new hymn volume will contain hymns from opposite perspectives. Holding the volume one way, one will be able to sing the activist lyrics. Turning it over and upside down (or right side up, depending on one’s perspective) brings the quietist versions into view. Among the activist revisions is the feminist version of “Faith of Our Fathers,” “Myth of Our Mothers,” which is also expected to give the new book a market in liberal theological circles and among scholars in comparative religion. “Dare to Be a Deborah” figures in the children’s section. Luther’s favorite, “A Mighty Fortress,” is included only in the German original, “Ein’ feste Burg,” because “die Burg” is feminine in German.
Between the two sections there are some neutral hymns suitable to both groups, such as Reginald Heber’s stirring “The Son of God Goes Forth to War.” Heber, well in advance of his time, wrote, as we all know, “A noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid,” thus forestalling objections for generations to come (though his use of the singular for the female in this phrase does suggest tokenism). “The Church’s One Foundation,” with its feminization of the concept of the church, has been rewritten: “The denomination’s one foundation/ Is Jesus Christ its Lord” and the name of the melody changed from Aurelia to Aurelium.
In the quietist section, under Frances Ridley Havergal’s name there is a revised “Who Is on the Lord’s Side?,” reading in part, “Silently enlisting at the call divine/ I am but a woman, clinging like a vine.” Songs with lines such as “You in your small corner, I in mine,” could of course be taken over verbatim. Unfortunately the compilers have had to drop the familiar Latin carol, “Adeste, fideles,” as no one could recall whether Adeste is masculine or feminine and they could not find it in their Latin dictionary.
Much work remains to be done in this field, but we can confidently predict that this ambitious new effort, Hymns For Her, will be greeted with all the acclaim it deserves.
Pine Scent
Edith Schaeffer’s column is the first thing I turn to in each new issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. There is in her writing a vigorous kind of refreshment as pervasive as the scent of pines one delights in while meeting the challenges of a bracing mountain climb. No miasmic smog of equivocation here, obscuring the vision; rather, the life-giving atmosphere of a Logos-centered unity of love and duty, rest and rigor, joy and concern.
South Pasadena, Calif.
Misapplied Tar
The comment of Eutychus VI about United Methodists (Nov. 22) is misleading. The use of the words “United Methodist leaders” and “their recent action” gives the impression that the United Methodist Church as a whole officially allows homosexuals into the Methodist ministry. I don’t know where he got his information, but the official magazine (United Methodists Today) stated that the United Methodist Council on Youth Ministry “voted to propose legislation to the 1976 General Conference which would open the ordained ministry to all regardless of sex, race, marital status, or sexual orientation.” I asked and was informed that the vote was fifteen to one in favor of including the phrase “sexual orientation.”
The resolution has no chance whatsoever of passing. Other resolutions from the grass roots of the church are being sent to affirm the present official stand of the church, namely, “We do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider the practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” (U.M. Book of Discipline, 1972, par. 72, c); and United Methodist ministers must be those “whose conduct is above reproach and who are free from harmful practices that would mar their influence or compromise their witness” (ibid., par. 306).
Eutychus’s tar brush applies only to a small, but vocal, minority of United Methodists. May he be more precise in the future.
Milton United Methodist Church
Milton, Wash.
Wild Doings
Malcolm Muggeridge in his Lausanne address protested that liberal clergy constantly frustrate professional humorists by being “infinitely more absurd” in what they do and say than one’s wildest inventions. Unless NCC: Going Deeper (News, Nov. 8) is one of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S wildest inventions, they have done it again.
Stanford, Conn.
Nice Advice?
The November 22 Current Religious Thought by John Warwick Montgomery, “Transcendental Gastronomy,” was indeed an interesting clever article. But it was equally distressing in its basic assumptions. As chairman for the French Gastronomical Academy, Montgomery assumes that it is our duty to not feel guilty over our thanksgiving banquet, “one of God’s creative gifts,” but rather to exalt such enjoyment to the realm of “transcendental status.” We should not feel guilty for our abundance of holiday foodstuffs, but rather realize that Scripture elevates eating and drinking to a level of “highest theological and spiritual importance.” … Montgomery gives us nice advice—if we are fortunate enough to live in a country where it is possible to indulge in banqueting. But for the majority of the world’s population, even many of them Christians, it is an impossible feat. For those less fortunate, it is probably just not God’s will for them to partake of such “high theological and spiritual” activities.
Montgomery advocates that we should not feel guilty for our abundance. But how can a Christian advocate such, when so many of his spiritual brethren across the globe are unable to share in his abundance? It is hard to believe that he would be able to sign Article Nine of the Lausanne Covenant: “Those of us who live in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple life-style”.… His article does contain truthful elements, but what a shame that it does not apply to a major portion of the evangelical church around the world.
Maybe we should trim our banqueting … and definitely, we should cease our boasting, and flee such blasphemous desires as to elevate our gastronomy to “transcendental status.”
Deerfield, Ill
