The original call for, and then the introduction of "Contemporary Language" [as distinguished from so-called "traditional language"] as the Language of Public Worship, occurred (generally speaking) in the 1960s when a variety of important factors were present. Here are five:

A. Historical Background

1a. There was a major social and cultural revolution in the West underway and this affected the whole of society including the churches. Human rights, civil rights, women's rights and other rights became important.

2a. There were moves to translate the Bible using the best possible recreation of the original autographs of the biblical authors as established by textual scholarship.

3a. There were plans - generated by the Liturgical Movement -- to revise the structure and content of the public Liturgy in the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.

4a. The English language, spoken and written, was not in one of its best periods.

5a. In Great Britain and much of the Commonwealth (but not in the USA) church going was at a low ebb.

B. Interconnections

So when a contemporary language of prayer was created it was inevitably interconnected with the above five realities. Thus,

1b. In a period of cultural change when a major emphasis was upon relevancy in the present, the insistence on the use of the same language to address God as was used to address humankind was taken as obvious and assumed by many as a fact.

2b. Those who attempted new versions of the Bible using (they claimed) improved original texts to those used by the translators of the King James Version therefore claimed a greater accuracy for their work because of textual superiority; this claim was confused/conflated with what they claimed for the quality of their contemporary language.

3b. Those who insisted that public Liturgy should follow models from the Early Church, proceeded to create such, and their claim for a superior "shape" to the new Liturgy was confused with their claims concerning the quality of the contemporary language of prayer they created for the new "shape."

4b. Many called for a contemporary language of prayer but few worked out what this meant and entailed and so there has been no agreement yet -- 40 years on -- as to what exactly is "contemporary English" for liturgical use. Further, there is no agreement as to whether such language can/should escape containing and communicating the emphases and ideologies of the decade to which it belongs.

5b. The introduction of contemporary language was seen as a major evangelistic tool - indeed a necessary tool - to communicate with young people and bring them to God and back into church (Britain) or make church more meaningful for them (USA).

C. Achievements

So, it may be asked, what has the introduction of contemporary language achieved?

1c. A continuing and seemingly non-ending search for a truly contemporary form of English prose and poetry for Public Prayer and Worship.

2c. An expanding library of versions of the Bible, all claiming to be good English translations either for everybody or for some group. Learning parts of the Bible off by heart and referring to texts is becoming a thing of the past for there is no agreement as to which version to learn and cite.

3c. An expanding library of versions of the Liturgy, all claiming to appeal to one group or another. In one denomination - say the Anglican - the variety can be overwhelming even in one geographical area/diocese.

4c. An expanding use of Liturgies and prayers as vehicles for current concerns and ideologies - particularly in 2002 of the feminist, lesbigay, psychotherapeutical and environmentalist concerns/lobbies. The description of the Deity (God[dess]), the addressing of Deity and our perceived relation[ship] to Deity are trimmed and manipulated to serve or express the particular cause that is dear to our hearts.

5c. Excitement by those who enjoy change and relish changes from week to week and year to year and relate this to their concept of God as 'developing'; sadness amongst those who desire stability in language and content; and no increase in church attendance in Britain, Canada & Australia due to new language, doctrine, music etc.

Concluding Observation

It is amazing that in 2002 so many hymns & prayers in so many congregations in the English- speaking world are in the same classic language of prayer and worship that has been used in the English-speaking world since the change from Latin to English in the 16th Century.

As the great John Wesley put it in his little booklet on English Grammar (1753) for children at his school in Kingsmead: "We say, 'Thou, Thee' when we speak to God; and 'You' when we speak to Men." Had they not been taught this they would like people today have addressed God as "You."

In the previous century, the learned Anglican divine, Henry More (1614-1687) had to make it clear to those who wanted to address God as "You" that such an address was wrong. "No man will say 'You' to God, but will use the pronoun 'Thou' to him." (Life, 1710, p.341.)

In the seventeenth century and later, pastors & preachers addressed God as "Thou" and the congregation and its members as "you." I still do so! The Prayer Book Society exists to keep in print and use a major embodiment of this classical Language of Prayer, The Book of Common Prayer (1928 USA; 1960 Canada).

The Revd Dr Peter Toon August 9, 2002