I linked my previous post “Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men” on my Facebook page where it seems the title caused a couple of my friends to chastise me for not using inclusive language. There is a difference I believe when using traditional language versus using inclusive language.
In writing this title, I thought I was quoting a famous quote. It turns out that I blended two quotes together from traditional sources. The first is the King James biblical text of Luke 2: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” The second is from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s post civil war hymn I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day, which reads “Of peace on earth, good will to men.” It turns out that my title was a blending of these two quotes. These are traditional words and words written during a particular era when the language had different meanings and understandings.
It was a deliberate move on my part to allude to the traditional language. Not because it is sexist but because the traditional language is part of our cultural milieu and therefore is familiar to most people. I am also writing in the South where traditional religious (specifically Christian) language is commonly used. To have changed the wording of the title to not allude directly to the scripture would have been, in my view, haughty and condescending. But this begs the question, is it ever appropriate to change language written in an earlier age just so it appeals to modern readers?
I do not believe it is appropriate to change words from an era long gone just because the language usage is harsh to our ears. I find that disrespectful of the author and a lack of appreciation of the era in which he or she lived. And frankly it is arrogant for us to assume that we are the enlightened ones in word usage. In a hundred years time, our language will have changed again and the words we have written today will appear archaic and perhaps exclusive of someone. There will probably be papers written about our attempts to be inclusive and that we did not go far enough in that direction. How foolish and unenlightened we were compared with the sophisticated reader of the 23rd century!
There is a joke about UU’s that can also be considered a truism. The joke goes like this: Why are UU’s horrible at singing hymns? Because they are too busy reading ahead to see if they agree with the words. We have a propensity of changing words that we do not like to sing to fit our thinking of how it should be. It really is arrogant on our part to do so. It shows our ignorance in appreciating the literary era in which such words were written.
And yet, we think nothing of changing the word “wretch” for “soul” in John Newton’s Amazing Grace. A song about his realization that being a slave trader was a dehumanizing and evil act. The word “soul” may soothe our delicate ears but the word “wretch” is more accurate to how he felt. It also emphasizes the grace he felt as being amazing, the word soul misses that mark. We are being arrogant when we fail to appreciate the words originally used simply because we don’t believe anyone can be a wretch. If we were honest with ourselves, there were probably times when we have done some action that only a wretch would commit. Let’s own up to our times of being a wretch so we can sing this hymn with the heart felt passion in which it was written.
Natalie Sleeth a music composer from the late 20th century wrote a song that many UU’s absolutely love. It is called Go Now in Peace. The editors of the Singing the Living Tradition sought to get permission to change one three-letter word in the song. Ms. Sleeth said absolutely not. Yet, hundreds of UU’s sing this song incorrectly every week, changing the three-letter word to a four-letter word. What was the word that offended our sensibilities so very much? “God.” We felt that to sing the word “love” instead would be inclusive for our diverse theological congregations. Perhaps. But that is not the word she used. She wrote “May the love of God surround you” and not “May the spirit of love surround you”. For us to really appreciate her words, we need to sing the song as she wrote it. It does not mean we have to agree theologically but we can appreciate the sentiment she was seeking to convey.
It is the same with inclusive language. Longfellow was not being exclusive when he was writing his famous poem that we sing every Christmas. Nor was King James or rather the translators who translated the biblical text into English under his reign in the 1600′s. They were reflections of their day and culture. We can quote them and appreciate their writings in the context they were written. We can quote them for the poetry of their words. It is known as respect. It is known as honoring their integrity even as we recognize that words have changed in their meaning.
May we honor our forebears words even when the words they chose seem harsh or foreign to our ears. May we read looking for the spirit of the words written and not the logos of the words used. And May all our words lend themselves to a greater and more lasting peace on earth and good will toward all people. Blessings,