The Recovering Choir Director

Peace, all.

In reading Lucy Carroll’s article, I’m not sure if she bemoans altered texts because of the “appeal” of archaic English, the poor quality of some alterations, or the whole issue of sexist language.

In case one, you have many Americans who find “thee’s” to be more an affectation than artsy or even poetic.

Case two seems easily solved by putting modern poets to work on altering texts, but then the publishers have to go outside the stable and then there’s the profit margin for heaven’s sake.

In case three, you just have to admit the English language is changing. And if can get inclusive language with a superior modern English twist, everybody can be happier.

Peace, Stefan.

Often the language issues transcend personal ego. People on both sides, admittedly, are just looking for a fight. But the fact of changing language is very real, and must continue to be addressed as the meanings of words change.

By the way, the Latin of the Credo is quite inclusive, “homo” means humanity. The problem is that “for us men” more and more means men, not women. I’m sure that you could find some progressives who could accept the broader term of “men” if it meant that “men” could be ordained. Then there would really be happiness.

Or not.