Archaic hymns: Speaking in Tongues for the Reformed?

I've started with that provocative heading because I do think there's a key passage to direct our attention to. It's the section of 1 Corinthians dealing with speaking in incomprehensible tongues. And I think there's an irony that some Reformed churches fall into the same error as those wilder charismatic churches which practise glossolalia without interpretation, something Paul speaks against (1 Cor 14vv13,19)

The Corinthians clearly thought these utterances were a mark of higher spirituality, but Paul challenges their thinking. Unless there is interpretation, "you will be speaking into the air" (v9)

I have had concerns about this for years, but have felt prompted to blog on this subject because of a sizeable group of Iranians who've been coming to church. I want to take one line of a hymn as an example:

Many of us are familiar with the line in the classic Be Thou My Vision: ‘Nought be all else to me save that thou art’. If you asked your average churchgoer to explain what they're singing there, I think they'd struggle. In fact, I still don't know what exactly that line is saying!

Praise! is a hymnbook which has breathed new life into old hymns by modernising the language. They have rendered a valuable service to the church, especially since a quarter of century on from their revision work, British churches comprise far more non-native English speakers than before.

Imagine you're an Iranian with elementary English and you're glad that you have worked out some key words like 'holy', 'forgiveness', 'save' and 'Saviour'. Church is becoming more heart-warming to you. But then you're expected to understand that 'save' has this archaic meaning of 'except': 'Nought be all else to me save that thou art'.

Compare the modern Praise! version:

Lord, be my vision, supreme in my heart,

bid every rival give way and depart:

you my best thought in the day or the night,

waking or sleeping, your presence my light.

which is surely more understandable and therefore edifying in an intercultural church than

Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;

Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art;

Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,

Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

Some older folks might be put out, especially if they have the older lyrics memorised. (I think service leaders can encourage them to retain those old versions in their minds, and cherish them-- and value the opportunity to sing these modernised words as a fresh perspective on the much-loved version we may have grown up singing, so that we can continue to sing them at home with renewed thoughtfulness and understanding.)

In this case, people are not actually holding to the original version, unless we sing the Gaelic original! But even when the argument is that we shouldn't 'tamper' with the original version, I would argue that we should seek to use what will most build up the body of Christ. And in the body of Christ, the stronger should serve the weaker, following the pattern of the great Son of Man who gave his life for others. There is something worrying if clinging to tradition leads us to sing something which Iranians, Ukrainians and many others will simply not grasp. 

On the Praise! website- search their dashboard to check out their versions- in Crown Him with Many Crowns they sensibly replace 'ineffably sublime' with 'in majesty sublime'. This small change brings us closer to understanding what we're singing. 

By way of conclusion, let's use Paul's plumb-line and hold up the words we use in church against it: "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding" 1 Cor 14:15

Extra Notes:

a) I don't think thees and thous are the biggest problem. They can be explained. And so I wouldn't make a big deal about replacing the thees in And Can it Be. It is of course a wisdom call in the few cases where 'thee' leaves us with a rhyme and 'you' does not. You're then balancing better rhyme with clearer English 

b) Careful readers of Paul will see that archaic words don't contravene Paul's instructions if there is interpretation. In line with this principle, some churches put glosses for complex words in the margins. This is a way to raise the bar of people's understanding, rather than having to dumb everything down -an approach which witholds from the church the richer words of some quite complex hymns. But I think placing glosses in the margin is a poor substitute for singing in good, modern English- since it is the sung words and not the marginalia which gets embedded in our memories.