A consubstantial conundrum

Foaming Draught

ANZAC Day aside, and that's not a sermon, just a brief reflection, I'm not preaching again until 3rd May. The epistle is 1 Peter 2, Christ the Corner Stone. One of the perks of preaching, unless you have a stroppy director of music, is that you can choose hymns which fit the theme but which you also like. So it is, that we'll wrap up with Christ is made the Sure Foundation. Sadly, modernity has crept even into an old favourite. The penultimate line of the last verse has always been, and should be to the ages of ages, "Consubstantial, co-eternal". Sound theology capturing ὁμοούσιος, homoousios. But I see that it's been Jubilated into "One in might, and one in glory". If I put consubstantial up on the screen, am I an old fogey?
I know, I know, Athanasius preferred co-essential, but now there's a real old fogey.

ChastMastr

I'd stick to "Consubstantial, co-eternal."

Nick Tamen

Yes, you’re an old fogey.

“One in might and one in glory” is the only way I’ve ever sung it, and I’m 65. That’s how it’s been in my denomination’s hymnal since st least 1955. I’m traveling, so I can’t check now to see if those words go back longer.

For my money, “consubstantial” just isn’t a word to put in the mouths of the average modern English speaker. (Yes, I know it’s in the Creed in the current translation of the RC Mass. I’ve heard many a Catholic complain about it.)

Lamb Chopped

Depends on whether you think people will understand what it means. (I would say that, wouldn't I?)

Rufus T Firefly

But there are plenty of words in the hymns that people might not really understand. Do we change them all?

Just in this particular hymn, we have such words as laud, vouchsafe, benediction and Zion. None of these are commonplace words these days. And given that the hymn is a translation of a hymn from the 7th or 8th century, I might suggest that sticking to the traditional words would be best. If a word or two makes people go "huh?" then you have the opportunity to talk about what it means.

Lamb Chopped

Well, if it were me, and I were emotionally attached to the use of a word like this, I'd asterisk the thing in the church bulletin and give the simplest, clearest definition I could at the bottom of the page.

ThunderBunk

In England, there are two versions. Hymns Ancient and Modern has "consubstantial, co-eternal", which also has "Laud and honour...." in the last verse, and the New English Hymnal with "One in love and one in splendour", but also uses "Laud and honour...." Other versions are in circulation, but many of them are from hymn books compiled in the USA.

As it's a translation of a Latin hymn, it is probably seen as being more "fair game" than an original creation, but I can't be certain of that.

Foaming Draught

Rufus T Firefly wrote: »

... the hymn is a translation of a hymn from the 7th or 8th century ...

Quite right, and

Urbs beata Jerusalem,
dicta pacis visio,
Quæ construitur in caelis
vivis ex lapidibus,
Et angelis coronata
ut sponsata comite

scans to either tune. But then we have even more of a comprehension challenge.

Puzzler

I have been singing Consubstantial for years, so I was pleased to discover more comprehensible words in the hymn book in my present church.
In other hymns where changes have been made I often get caught out as I know the old words by heart, but I do approve of some updating of language, as I think we should know what we are singing about, and all the more so for people less familiar with our hymnody.

If you are in a church with a Director of Music, s/he is not being stroppy if they raise objection to the congregation being given words which are different from those in the church hymn book without warning, especially if there is a choir.

Jengie Jon

One question is what are people going to sing and put that up. Two reasons:

1. People will sing that anyway
2. Unfamilliar words will cause dissonance and that is inappropriate for ANZAC day

Problem is I cannot from the UK tell you which one is culturally normative in Australia at present.

Foaming Draught

Jengie Jon wrote: »

... Unfamilliar words will cause dissonance and that is inappropriate for ANZAC day ...

I posted that I'm not preaching on ANZAC Day, when we sing only Advance Australia Fair, and God Defend New Zealand. They are our respective National Anthems, and the words are set in stone. Well, except that we changed Australia's "For we are young and free" to "One and free" a few years back, but I don't think anyone or any service booklet has caught up yet.

Gill H

I automatically think of "consubstantial, co-eternal" but then I was a bookish kid who loved words I didn't understand. I think our current hymn book has "one in love and one in splendour".

Thinking of another hymn, I've always loved "The Potentate of Time" and I'm surprised no-one has used it for a Doctor Who episode yet.

BroJames

The final verse doxology is not AFAICT part of the original hymn, it may be J M Neale’s own composition. There’s nothing wrong with ‘one in might and one in glory’ although the meaning is quite different from’consubstantial, coeternal’

Rufus T Firefly

Gill H wrote: »

I automatically think of "consubstantial, co-eternal" but then I was a bookish kid who loved words I didn't understand. I think our current hymn book has "one in love and one in splendour".

Thinking of another hymn, I've always loved "The Potentate of Time" and I'm surprised no-one has used it for a Doctor Who episode yet.

And don't forget "ineffably sublime"!

KarlLB

I thought of asking LBlet #3, 17, who is the only LBlet who attends church, if she knows what co-eternal, consubstantial or potentate mean, but I don't need to; I know she wouldn't have a clue. I only know because I was exposed to (I hesitate to use the words 'learnt' or even 'taught') Latin.

So on behalf of everyone who doesn't have graduate level vocabulary, Latin, or both, I am grateful for the rewording. There's more than a whiff of ablism - or just linguistic snobbery- in some complaints about "dumbing down".

Edit: yeah, and ineffable. And sublime.

Nick Tamen

Rufus T Firefly wrote: »

But there are plenty of words in the hymns that people might not really understand. Do we change them all?

Just in this particular hymn, we have such words as laud, vouchsafe, benediction and Zion. None of these are commonplace words these days.

“Benediction” and “Zion” are commonly heard in my church tradition. What in some other traditions is called “the blessing” (at the end of the service) is typically called “the benediction” in mine. Meanwhile, churches that spend any time in the psalms should have encountered “Zion.”

Meanwhile “laud” turns up in other hymns, like “All Glory, Laud and Honor.” And “vouchsafe” isn’t found in the version of “Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation” found in my denomination’s hymnal.

And given that the hymn is a translation of a hymn from the 7th or 8th century, I might suggest that sticking to the traditional words would be best.

While I’d say the fact that it’s a translation may offer more freedom to deviate from the traditional words (noting again that the words in question are not the traditional words for some of us). Though as noted, the words at issue aren’t part of the Latin hymn.

If a word or two makes people go "huh?" then you have the opportunity to talk about what it means.

Perhaps. But in the context of liturgy, that needs to be balanced with a responsibility to worshippers. Hymns are a form of prayer, and a form of prayer in which the words to pray are provided. Allowing people to pray intelligently and with understanding would generally rank higher than providing a teachable moment.

And it ranks much higher than what @KarlLB aptly describes as linguistic snobbery.

ChastMastr

What do we do, though, when due to a modern lack of religious education people don’t understand words that have important meanings like that? I think that it is dumbing things down. At what point do we say, stop, people need to know basic, solid theology, and we can’t keep throwing away references to it because they’re less and less well educated in it? (I’d include, at sometime before the hymn, a definition of the complex words—maybe even put that in each week’s bulletin as well as a simple announcement—as well as include this stuff in the basic catechism/education class when people are being confirmed or received.) When I was a new Christian in high school and college, one of the things I really liked was the way that the hymns and the liturgy actually gave good, solid theological stuff. I don’t want to see that lost. If anything, we need better religious education for Christians we’ve had for some time, not just modify everything so no one is ever challenged in their understanding of it all.