Covenant Prayer

[yrieithydd]

It might be an odd time of year to be doing so, but for various reasons, we ended up comparing the proper words to the Covenant Prayer and the dumbed down ones on Easter Day.

Given I like tables atm, here they are side by side.

I am no longer my own but yours.	I am no longer my own but yours.
Put me to what you will,	Your will, not mine be done in all things
rank me with whom you will;	where you may place me,
put me to doing, put me to suffering;	in all that I do and in all that I may endure;
let me be employed for you or laid aside for you,	when there is work for me and when there is none;
	When I am troubled and when I am at peace.
	Your will be done
exalted for you or brought low for you;	when I am valued and when I am disregarded;
let me be full, let me be empty,	when I find fulfilment and when it is lacking
let me have all things, let me have nothing;	when I have all things, and when I have nothing.
I freely and wholeheartedly yield all things	I willingly offer all I have and am
to your pleasure and disposal	to serve you, as and where you choose
And now, glorious and blessèd God,	Glorious and blessèd God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,	Father, Son and Holy Spirit
you are mine and I am yours.	you are mine and I am yours.
So be it.	May it be so for ever.
And the covenant now made on earth,	Let this covenant now made on earth
let it be ratified in heaven. Amen.	be fulfilled in heaven . Amen

Firstly, the modern one is far to wordy and so loses the poetry of the original. So be it versus May it be so for ever..

Secondly, the emphasis of the modern one is a lot more on me. I think because I is in the subject rather than the object. I retain more control in the modern one; I willingly offer rather than I freely and wholeheartedly yield. I am in states (When I have) rather than being put there (Let me be). This is particularly noticeable with Let me be laid aside for you which is utterly different to When there is none (work that is). Being laid aside is a change of state; sometimes there will be work, but I am not the person to do it. It would satisfy my need to be needed to stay involved in the situation, but for the person in trouble would be better helped without me there. Thus I have to step back.

Thirdly, ratified is not the same as fulfilled. Yes, it is a technical term, but a moderately common one (what with Maastricht and Kyoto).

Unfortunately, most churches (IME) seem to be using the dumbed down words.*

*They are both modern language in that the original thous, thees, thys and thines have gone.

Comments

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was thinking "well, the dumbed-down version isn't that bad" until I came to "when there is none". In addition to the point you make about the revised version being more I-centred, it seems less comfortable with God's sovereignty; it reads as though the lack of work were a matter of circumstance rather than God's choice for me.

[cathedral-life.livejournal.com]

There's a guy called something like Peter Toon (who seems to be an expert prayer book bod) who has written a book about the significance of the abandonment of "Thees, Thys and Thous" and another, which is effectively a critique of Common Worship. I find some of what he writes to be slightly pedantic, but I'm beginning to wonder whether the abandonment of the older terms of reference for God may actually have more significance than I would once have attributed them. I suspect that you'd like the first book (although I've not yet read it), which is called "Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete" (the second book, which I've got, has a chapter based on the first book).

[claroscuro.livejournal.com]

I miss the thee's and thou's. Moreover it often feels as if, by attempting to "modernise" the language of a prayer, what we are actually doing is "uglifying" it. Like the Dufflepuds in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, it might not *be* ugly, but it is changed beyond all recognition.

From my point of view, sometimes it seems that such "reformers" are bent on ripping the soul out of every piece of liturgical writing they can get their claws on.

My preferred version

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

I am no longer my own, but Thine
Put me to what Thou wilt, rank me with whom Thou wilt;
put me to doing, put me to suffering;
let me be employed for Thee or laid aside for Thee;
let me be full, let me be empty;
let me have all things, let me have nothing;
I freely and heartily yeild all things to Thy pleause and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Thou are mine, and I am Thine. So be it.

The modern version loses the Ignatian character of the original, and the more I study Ignatian spirituality, the more I want a Jesuit pope.

Ahem, back to the covenant prayer. It's very firmly rooted in the spiritual exercises, and I love the feeling of saying it with the thees and thous. "When I am troubled and when I am at peace" misses the point of the prayer - it's about poise and indifference, which are independent of turbulence in some way. turbulence may be around us, but we seek the serenity of God from within.

[(Anonymous)]

I beg to differ!

I am not a long term Methodist, so have no memory or traditiion of the original version of the Covenant.

I find the 'modern' version much more powerful, immediate and accessible, and actually very emotional as a result of this. One of the very few cases where I have preferred a 'new' version to the original.

I think the modern version would be more impactful where congregations have a significant percentage of new members or occasional visitors.

Does anyone out there agree?