Confessions of a Male Chauvinist (Or maybe not!)

,

Some editors of our newer hymn books seem insistent on–perhaps I might even say obsessed with–pursuing gender equality in our sacred songs. Everything has to come out evenly, so none feel neglected, or slighted. But is this revisionism justified, or even helpful?

Why change the venerable line “Faith of our fathers” to “faith of the martyrs”? Or, as The Seasonal Missalette has done, add a stanza about mothers, to balance things out? (“Our mothers, too, oppressed and wronged, / Still lived their faith with dignity.”) The original hymn is not speaking of fathers or husbands. The reference is to our believing forefathers. And were there foremothers, too? I suppose. But the former is a widely accepted term for ancestors.

This editorial tinkering seems to be spreading, at least in some circles. “Sons of men and angels say,” the second line of Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, has become “Earth and heav’n in chorus say”. And instead of caroling “Good Christian men rejoice,” we’re now asked to sing “Good Christians all rejoice,” or, “Good Christian friends rejoice.” The classic “Jesu, joy of man’s desiring” has become “Jesu, joy of our desiring.” But are there reasons why this may not be the best idea? I believe so.

1) It is widely understood that masculine nouns and pronouns can be used generically.

Perhaps the human authors of the Scriptures were guided in this by the Lord, to avoid the clumsiness and complications that could ensue by repeatedly including “sons and daughters,” brothers and sisters. In other words, one reason the masculine form may be used there is for simplicity. Can you imagine how it would be, otherwise?

Whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his [or her] brother [or sister] in need, and shuts up his [or her] heart from [him or her], how does the love of God abide in him [or her]? (I Jn. 3:17).

Masculine terms are used of Christians in general, in the Word of God. The Bible exhorts all believers to exhibit “brotherly love” (Rom. 12:10; I Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1). And we are to “love the brotherhood,” everyone in the family of God (I Pet. 2:17). The Bible also refers to all Christians as “sons of God” (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:6-7). And if we believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, we need to think twice about assuming we know better what the words should be.

Join hands, then, brothers of the faith,
Whatever your race may be!
Who serves my Father as a son
Is surely kin to me.

It is condescending to think that women are unable to understand this. Are we to assume that they have so little perception that they aren’t aware that such statements include them? That may not be the intent, but it is the implication. Thus, in attempting to give women an equal representation, we may actually be insulting their intelligence!

2) There is merit in preserving our traditions.

Though tradition can be misused, it’s not a bad thing, in itself. The word simply refers to something that is passed on, from one person to another, or from one generation to another. The Apostle Paul spoke of the teachings he received from God, and conveyed to the Thessalonian believers, as traditions (II Thess. 2:15; 3:6).

Using our traditional hymnody gives us a sense of continuity and connectedness with the past. Abandoning or altering the older sacred songs (e.g. removing every “thee” and “thou”) can rob us of that sense of connection. Of course, we are certainly justified in changing the wording (or omitting a stanza or even dropping a hymn) if the original teaches something contrary to the Word of God. But beyond that, alterations seem rarely necessary.

Such editorial doctoring can compound itself. One change often mandates another. In the hymn Jesus, Thou Joy of Loving Hearts, the second line, “Thou Fount of Life, Thou Light of men,” has become “The fount of life, the light of all”–which doesn’t rhyme with “We turn unfilled to Thee again.” So, the latter must be changed to, “We turn, unfilled, to hear your call.” Come again? We turn to hear Your call? What on earth does that mean?

3) The proposed changes further divide the generations.

Some congregations have abandoned the hymn book altogether, in favour of contemporary songs projected on the wall. Another alternative has been to have what is called a “blended” service–which commonly means using mostly contemporary songs, with a few stanzas of an old hymn thrown in. But the latter may be set to an unfamiliar tune. And if the words are changed as well, those who love the songs may hardly recognize them.

Some of us don’t see as well as we used to. But we’re able to sing many of the great old hymns from memory, as we share favourites that have blessed our lives for many years. But I know of churches where most of the hymn singing has been abandoned, or the songs have been so abbreviated, and altered, that some have trouble joining in singing what’s left! This tends to disenfranchise our seniors, a valuable part of any congregation.

4) There is a danger of emasculating our hymnody.

I think that those obsessed with removing masculine references from our hymnody may be subtly emasculating the Christian faith in the minds of many, leaving it, by default, the province of women and children. Since God has given headship in the home, and leadership in the church specifically to men, is it not reasonable to have some hymns that address them, in particular?

What if the male references in our hymnody are taken to heart, particularly by men? Is that so harmful? We need men! Men of strong Christian character, to guide our families, and provide leadership in the church. We need a muscular Christianity that connects with them. Don’t omit from our hymnals the call to Rise Up, O Men of God, or other songs of that kind, simply because they’re addressed to men.

5) It’s dangerous to tamper with hymns that quote the Scriptures.

In the soul-stirring gospel song, Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus, the third stanza says:

Ye that are men now serve Him against unnumbered foes;
Let courage rise with danger, and strength to strength oppose.

It’s a fine challenge to the men of the congregation. But that is changed in some hymnals to “Ye that are brave now serve Him.” Not only does the original line have a historical connection to the writing of the hymn (see my post here). It is also virtually a quotation from the book of Exodus: “Go now ye that are men, and serve the Lord” (Exod. 10:11, KJV). Even though the application to Christian men is at odds with the context (where the words are spoken to the Israelites by a disdainful heathen ruler), it is still the Word of God.

Instead of “Dear Lord and Father of mankind,” we’re now to warble “Dear God, embracing humankind.” The reference to God the Father has been removed, as being too sexist–even though God is spoken of as our Father in every New Testament book but one (the tiny epistle of Third John). Furthermore, masculine pronouns are uniformly used for God in the Bible–and for angels, incidentally. From Genesis to Revelation, God is addressed as “He” (Gen. 1:5; 2:8; Rev. 11:15; 21:3). He is our heavenly Father (Matt. 6:9).

Unless we are willing to reject the doctrine of verbal inspiration (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21), there is simply no room for debate here. Yet the political correcters cannot leave even this alone. Another proposes changing 50% of the references to God in our hymns from “he,” to “she.” I was actually in a service where this was done. Song sheets had the congregation alternating “He’s got the whole world in His hands” with “She’s got the whole world in her hands”! (My oh my!)

6) Some changes obscure or miss doctrinal truths.

In a stanza of the hymn In Christ There Is No East or West (quoted earlier), “brothers of the faith” has been changed to “members of the faith,” and “who serves my Father as a son” to “who serves my Father as His child.”

Consider the latter phrase for a moment. The Bible refers to Christians both as children of God, and sons of God. But those who want to do away with what they see as the “exclusiveness” of the latter, often change references to “sons” in our hymns to “children.” On the surface, it may seem an acceptable alternative. However, the two aren’t precisely the same thing.

Through faith in Christ, we are children of God, brought into His forever family, through the new birth (Jn. 1:12-13). But all born-again children of God (male and female) are also elevated to the position of sonship, at the moment of conversion. In ancient times, sonship entailed a recognition of certain adult rights and privileges in the family. In the spiritual realm, these privileges of sonship are ours immediately, by adoption (Gal. 4:6-7; Eph. 1:5). Two different ministries of the Holy Spirit are involved, accomplishing two different things. So, let us be both children and sons of God.

Bottom line: There is rarely a valid reason to alter our hymns in this way, and it may actually do more harm than good.