I normally read the Gospel for the day first. Then, I ask myself, "What is Jesus telling us in this Gospel? What is His message?" When I have answered that question, I can choose music that fits the message. If I am having trouble from there, I turn to the other readings for the day, and if that doesn't yield anything satisfactory, I just fill the liturgical need. For example, if the message is about loving one another, and that people will know we are His disciples from that, I would pick "Ubi Caritas" for some part of the Mass, probably Offertory or Communion, for now let's say I picked it for Communion. Sticking with the same message, you could do "They'll Know We Are Christians" for the Recessional, and you still have two more slots to fill. Let's say that the other readings don't yield any results, so now I just have to fill the other two slots in a liturgically appropriate manner. Let's also go with the current season, because that's important, too, so we'll say it's Ordinary Time. For the Entrance, you could do "Joyful, Joyuful, We Adore You" (it's appropriate for an Entrance Processional most of the time), and for the Offertory, you could pick "Panis Angelicus" (I like the Lambilotte, but I've also done my own setting). If songs like "They'll Know We Are Christians" don't float your boat, then you could always do something different, as long as it fits the liturgical season and the part of Mass where it occurs. So, here's the list for the Mass I proposed:

Gospel: Love one another

E-Joyful, Joyful, We Adore You
P-Panis Angelicus
C-Ubi Caritas
R-They'll Know We Are Christians (or Celtic Alleluia: The Sending Forth)

Of course, there would be many, many more possibilities based on that Gospel, and what hymnal you work with.

We also think for ourselves about the texts, right? But how?

YES! But... I DON'T KNOW!

I mean....

Once a hymn text has made it into my personal "approved" or "inappropriate" brain-folders, I don't think about it too much any more. When Psalm 23 comes up in the Lectionary, I never really wonder whether or not "The King of Love My Shepherd Is" is an appropriate hymn choice (I like to do it for Communion, by the way). On the other hand, no matter what the Gospel is on a Sunday, I will never, ever program "God Has Chosen Me." I can't keep rethinking it.

Some songs are borderline for me, and I fuss over them every time they come up as possibly appropriate (in terms of the Lectionary). Generally, if something is borderline, I don't do it if I can think of (or find) something that fills the same "purpose" or "idea" and is better. This is why continuing to expand one's own (and one's congregation's) repertoire is so important: bit by bit by the chaff falls away on its own as you realize that you could sing this better piece instead of that not as good one, and then this even better one instead of that. Slowly but surely, "Like a Shepherd" gets replaced with "Shepherd Me O God," and then with "The King of Love My Shepherd Is."

So part of "is this hymn text any good?" or even "good enough?" is a question "is it the best I can do right now?" There was a time in my life when I couldn't do any better than "Song of the Body of Christ." Now, if I just need a generic Communion hymn I'm more likely to use "Humbly We Adore Thee" or (if I'm trying to emphasize the community aspect of worship, as SotBoC does) "Come Risen Lord and Deign to Be Our Guest."

But what set of common criteria do I bring to any individual text to decide if it is fit? I don't know if I can enumerate it exactly...

+Doctrinally sound (I'm okay with mildly ambiguous, as long as I think it can be reasonably understood in a doctrinally sound way-- and it's only one text out of many that are clear and good)

+Poetically worthwhile

+Clear and transparent on first reading
BUT
+Rich enough to sustain further study

+Not weird

Personally (and I know others disagree with this):
+Avoids use of the word "Man" to describe humanity generally
(I have no issues with male-pronouns for God, BTW. But the "man" thing really bothers me, so I just avoid it in my own programming. The Hymnal 1982 edited most of those out anyway- perhaps the only major editing decision of that committee I agree with.)

I want an example of a weird hymn that has already passed the preceding tests.

Actually, for me, Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken is weird, because it is usually sung to Austria, a tune which has Nazi connotations.

There's one other weird thing that is the result of a shift in meaning. A great hymn by Charles Wesley, Come, O Thou Traveller Unknown, unfortunately uses an old image for compassion, "To me, to all, Thy bowels move/ Thy nature and Thy name is love." We use that expression quite differently. It used to mean something like, "I feel compassion for you, in the depths of myself."

A great hymn by Charles Wesley, Come, O Thou Traveller Unknown, unfortunately uses an old image for compassion, "To me, to all, Thy bowels move/ Thy nature and Thy name is love."

And people claim we should never edit hymn texts for use in worship...

And people claim we should never edit hymn texts for use in worship...

I doubt anyone says "never." Probably most people say, "less than GIA."

What's weird about "Lord of All Hopefulness"?

Andrew, I don't know exactly what the "preceding tests" are

I assume he means the other items on my list that precede "Not weird."

+Doctrinally sound (I'm okay with mildly ambiguous, as long as I think it can be reasonably understood in a doctrinally sound way-- and it's only one text out of many that are clear and good)

+Poetically worthwhile

+Clear and transparent on first reading
BUT
+Rich enough to sustain further study

Adam: yes.

All the weird ones I can think of which are also sound, poetic etc are along the lines of Kathy's sample (bowels move!) namely those which need to avoid a weird change in the language. "All in white shall wait around."

I detect the risk of the thread getting hijacked if we think of any more.

Avoids use of the word "Man" to describe humanity generally
(I have no issues with male-pronouns for God, BTW. But the "man" thing really bothers me, so I just avoid it in my own programming.

On the other hand, it seems that some of us are showing our Jurassic(?) age:

Traditionally, the word man has been used to refer not only to adult males but also to human beings in general, regardless of sex. There is a historical explanation for this: in Old English, the principal sense of man was ‘a human being,’ and the words wer and wif were used to refer specifically to ‘a male person’ and ‘a female person,’ respectively. Subsequently, man replaced wer as the normal term for ‘a male person,’ but at the same time the older sense ‘a human being’ remained in use. In the second half of the 20th century, the generic use of man to refer to ‘human beings in general’ (as in reptiles were here long before man appeared on the earth) became problematic; the use is now often regarded as sexist or old-fashioned.

CHG - Are you arguing for or against my position? (I'm well aware of the history of the word's usage.)

I sort of agree- but I personally am not in the "convince other people that my gender-language opinions are right" business, and (in case anyone is in the convince-Adam-he's-wrong business: I have heard every detail of your arguments on this matter before, and can probably make them better than you can.)

CHG - Are you arguing for or against my position?

Yes.

How is it that Adam manages to be right on so many things, and then rescues defeat from the jaws of victory?

Practice.

There are certain hymns and motets which are more special when they are reserved to their appropriate place and time on the calendar.

Quite so.

OCP < GIA < WLP < CMAA?

That's like comparing apples, oranges, strawberries, and suspension bridges.

I would not change the term man or men just to appease the politically correct among us. Especially, in texts written some years ago when that was accepted form. If I changed it today, it would be because it is not an accurate usage in the particular text. I never aspired to get along with everyone, and doing so is an impossibility. Those who disagree can go fly a fish! ;-)

I, as typical (shielding myself from vegetables from both directions), will try to take a middle ground.

Sometimes the imposition of inclusive language is a theological problem.

And sometimes the imposition of inclusive language would do harm to poetry.

But a lot of times, it's just people trying to remedy a problem with the English language. I'm sorry, but languages will evolve, it's a fact of life - and if nothing else a reason to advocate for at least some retention of Latin. Aside from the two reasons I lead with, I find the choice of inclusive language to be on the whole morally neutral.

The original of this is not a hymn I would use, regardless.

That would be to the detriment of the edification of the parish in song, IMO.

Not a fan of so-called "inclusive language." It was always understood, particularly within church circles that "man" could mean either a male individual, a group of male individuals or a group of people of either male or female, ie. "man = "mankind" or "humanity."

Even more recently, the term "mankind" has become seen to be sexist, and is often replaced with "humankind." It makes for awkward texts when altering old hymns.

Alternatively, it may be like a ride on the hobby-horse.

At my English school, not too long after the war, we sang "Glorious things" to Cyril Taylor's Abbot's Leigh, a splendid tune for unison singing, taken at the right tempo. It's the tune I always hear in my head to those words. There's a King's recording of it. Didn't Taylor compose it during the war as an alternative to Austrian hymn?