why shouldn't we use language today that speaks more of the way we understand things? personally, I would rather bite the bullet and re-learn some things rather than forcing my children to be the ones that make the change. we sacrifice all sorts of things for our children, why aren't you willing to give up little things like a little language in an old song? things aren't what they used to be and they never were.
Mercy--this wasn't what I was expecting to be challenged on! But... partially, this is my inherent respect (but not blind respect) for the old--people, too. And partly my innate dislike of change. I'd like to key in on two words you used: 'today', and 'little'. We CAN use language that is relevant to today, in our compositions. I would take offense at a contemporary hymn that essentially said worship was for males only. We can teach our children what I was taught: that that was the way people talked/wrote back then, but that we know better now. It is, as you say, a little thing, to leave or change the language in an old song. I said (I hope) in my other post that I think that we owe a measure of respect to the music and to the composer, and that to change what he or she intended violates that respect. Each time a new hymnal is considered, decisions are made to leave certain ones out. I for one prefer to let them die this "natural" death than to alter what has withstood the test of time.
