A Lack of Laments in the Church's Use of the Psalter

by LESTER MEYER

THE BIBLICAL PSALMS have been a rich resource for the com­munities of faith that claim the Hebrew Bible as their heritage.

Not only have they been canonized in the sacred scriptures of Ju­daism and Christianity; they continue to be utilized in worship, both corporate and private, and regularly find a place in the hymnals and worship books of various church bodies.

To anyone who reads the psalms with some degree of attention, it is apparent that they display considerable variety. In some, for example, the voices of the community are joined together; in others, it is an individual who addresses God. Some speak of gratitude; others, of need. Some reflect serene confidence; others, dire distress. The psalms give expression to a wide range of Israel's experiences under God.

This article is concerned with the use of the psalms in contem­porary Christian worship. Its focus is on the Lutheran Book of Wor­ship.1 The argument is that one major type of psalm is underrepresented in this volume and in its lectionary, with signif­icant implications for the worship of congregations that utilize it.

I

The Lutheran Book of Worship contains a section headed, simply, "The Psalms."2 The heading is somewhat misleading, since the section does not contain all of the biblical psalms. Nevertheless, the selection is generous: 122 of the 150 in the entire Psalter. Indeed, so generous is the selection that we might wonder why any of the psalms were omitted. Having come so close to completeness, the compilers could surely have included the twenty-eight omitted psalms (fewer than twenty percent of the total number) without adding appreciably to the bulk or cost of the volume. (All 150 psalms are included in the Lutheran Book of Worship: Ministers Desk Edition,3

67

68 L U T H E R A N QUARTERLY

but this volume is of course not ordinarily utilized by the whole congregation.)

The explanation is that the section provides the text of only those psalms "appointed in the Lectionary and services of the church."4

Thus "The Psalms" in the Lutheran Book of Worship contains every psalm listed in "Prayers of the Day, Psalms, and Lessons"5 and in the table of "Psalms for Daily Prayer."6 No psalm is included that is not listed there; the only exception is Psalm 127, which is among the psalms and lessons for the marriage service, as recommended in the companion Occasional Services.7

It would seem ungrateful to complain when Lutherans who use this worship book have more than eighty percent of the Psalter so conveniently available. There are, nevertheless, two matters worth investigating. What is the character of the psalms omitted from the Lutheran Book of Worship! What are the implications of their omis­sion for the church's worship?

In order to determine the answer to the first question, we need some way of identifying the major types of psalms. Since they do not explicitly identify themselves as to genre, and the Psalter is not arranged by subject as are modern hymnals, the task is not so obvious as we might expect. Form criticism has yielded useful results for classification, however. With allowance for variations in terminol­ogy and other matters of detail, some broad categories are generally recognized.

The work of Claus Westermann, building on Hermann Gunkel's earlier analysis, has been especially influential in this regard. "Praise and lament" he maintains, "are the two dominant tonalities that characterize the Psalms of Israel."8 Thus psalms of praise and psalms of lament are "the two most important and most clearly discernible classes or genres of psalms."9 Both of these are further classified into individual and community psalms, while psalms of praise in­volve either narrative ("the echo of a specific act of God which has just taken place") or description (which "praise[s] God in the full­ness of his existence and activity").10 The main types of psalms are, then (along with Westermann's suggested examples):

Community psalm of lament [80] Individual psalm of lament [13] Community psalm of narrative praise [124] Individual psalm of narrative praise [30] Psalm of descriptive praise, or hymn [113]

A LACK OF LAMENTS 69

Along with these, he identifies several other more or less important types of psalms, for example, liturgical, royal, and wisdom psalms. He further notes that many psalms are composites of mixed genres.11

More recently, Craig Broyles has taken issue with Westermann's view that psalms of praise and psalms of lament stand at opposite poles in the Psalter. Most psalms of lament, he notes, uphold the praise of God. ". . . if to praise means to predicate of God elevated attributes and actions, then logically the opposite of praise would be to predicate of God demeaning or unfavorable attributes and actions.. . ."12 The only lament psalms that are the polar opposites of the psalms of praise, he maintains, are those which do the latter. He calls these "God-lament psalms."13 The point is well taken. More important for our topic, however, is that Broyles retains the category of lament, noting that what all lament psalms have in common is not the absence of praise but an underlying situation of distress.14

We return now to the Lutheran Book of Worship. First we consider the entire selection printed in "The Psalms." How are the omitted psalms distributed among the types identified above? While some allowance must be made for occasional differences of opinion in the designation of particular psalms, the picture that emerges is clear. Thirteen of them (46%) are individual psalms of lament (3,13, 35, 38, 39, 52, 55, 59, 64, 77, 109, 120, 140). Seven of them (25%) are community psalms of lament (58, 60, 74, 79, 83, 129, 137). The other omissions may be characterized as follows. Psalms 14 and 75 are prophetic oracles of judgment (though the latter is set within opening and closing expressions of thanksgiving); because they de­scribe wrongs that must (and indeed will) be set right only by God, they are akin to lament. Psalm 37 is a wisdom psalm and "shows affinity to a specific genre of psalms, the IL [individual lament] type."15 Psalm 106 is an historical psalm which contains elements of the community lament.16 Psalms 21,101, and 144 are royal psalms, the last of which contains elements of both the individual lament and the community lament. Psalm 76 is a liturgical psalm: a song of Zion. Of the twenty-eight psalms omitted from the Lutheran Book of Worship, then, twenty (or 71%) are laments, while another five (or 18%) have lament-like qualities.

So far we have been discussing the section called "The Psalms." It should be noted, however, that some psalms are included there because they appear in the table of "Psalms for Daily Prayer." Most

70 L U T H E R A N QUARTERLY

users of the Lutheran Book of Worship will not encounter those in the context of corporate worship, since few Lutheran congregations gather for daily prayer. Therefore we should consider the character of the psalms which, although included in "The Psalms," are not appointed in the lectionary for Sundays and principal festivals ("Prayers of the Day, Psalms, and Lessons").

There are thirty-two of these (4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 44, 46, 48, 53, 56, 57, 73, 84, 87, 88, 94, 102, 108, 114, 123, 124, 125, 127,132,133,134,136,141). Eleven are individual psalms of lament (4, 5, 7, 9,17, 56, 57, 88, 94,102,141). Four are community psalms of lament (12, 44, 108, 123). An additional three (11, 53, 73) have features in common with the laments. Psalm 11 is identified by Westermann as an individual psalm of lament,17 but it should prob­ably be designated what he elsewhere calls the psalm of trust, which grows out of one element of the lament, namely, "the confession of confidence."18 Psalm 53 is virtually identical with Psalm 14 (one of the previously-noted prophetic oracles of judg­ment). And Psalm 73 is another wisdom psalm (see the earlier comment about Psalm 37).

Thus sixty of the 150 psalms in the Bible are omitted from the lectionary for Sundays and principal festivals. Of these sixty, forty-three (or 72%) are laments or lament-like. Against this we may set the fact that some twenty-two individual laments (plus three la­ment-like psalms of trust) are to be found in the lectionary, plus five community laments, or 30-33% of the ninety psalms included. The answer to our first question is clear: it is laments that are underrepresented in the Lutheran Book of Worship and its lectionary. Before turning to our second question, which concerns the impli­cations of this underrepresentation for the church's worship, we may for comparative purposes look briefly at the situation in two other liturgical traditions.

The Book of Common Prayer19 of the Episcopal church differs from the Lutheran Book of Worship in that the Psalter is printed in its entirety.20 The lectionary for Sundays and major festivals21 appoints psalms to be read over a three-year cycle; frequently these are cited in longer and shorter versions, the latter described as appropriate when sung between lessons at the Lord's Supper.22 There are also psalms appointed for other holy days and special occasions,23 as well as a "Daily Office Lectionary";24 these will not be included in our analysis because, despite a strong tradition of daily worship in An-

A LACK OF LAMENTS 71

glicanism, most Episcopalians (like their Lutheran counterparts) tend to limit their attendance at worship to Sundays and major festivals.

The Episcopal lectionary's three-year cycle omits sixty-seven psalms. Of these, twenty-nine are individual laments (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 77, 88, 94, 102, 109, 120, 140, 141, 143) and eight are community laments (58, 60, 74, 79, 83,108,129,137). Thus fifty-five percent of the omitted psalms are laments. When one adds to this total the eleven psalms (11, 14, 30, 49, 53, 73, 75, 82, 106, 115, 144) that are related to the laments, the percentage rises to seventy-two percent.

The Roman Catholic lectionary exhibits a similar pattern. Sev­enty-eight psalms do not appear in the Sunday readings appointed in the Lectionary for Mass: The Roman Missal25 Individual laments account for thirty-three of these (3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 26, 28, 35» 38> 39» 43» 52> 55> 56> 57» 59> 6l> 64> 7?> 77> 88> 94, 102, 109, 120, 139,140,141, 142,143), while community laments account for eight others (44, 58, 60, 74, 79, 83, 108, 129), for a total of fifty-three percent. Twelve lament-related psalms (11,14, 36, 37, 49, 53, 73, 75, 82, 106, 115, 144) bring the total to sixty-eight percent.

The results of this comparison are not unexpected, of course. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics share a "common" lectionary and, while there are considerable variations in the psalms appointed in each tradition for particular occasions, the relationship is evident. Thus our second question, to which we now turn, is one that is of importance not only to users of the Lutheran Book of Worship.

Ill

What are the implications for worshipers of this lack of laments? In order to determine the answer to this question, we need first to consider the character and function of these psalms.

In general, the Psalter, like the rest of the Old Testament, reflects two disparate perceptions on the part of God's people: the sense of divine presence and the sense of divine hiddenness. Of the main types of psalms, psalms of lament give expression to Israel's distress at the latter of these perceptions. It is the latter, therefore, at which we must look more closely.

72 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

Israel shared with other ancient peoples the view that the uni­verse was orderly and therefore, within limits, predictable. Mean­ing, rather than happiness, was essential to survival. Occasional disturbances of the order could be tolerated so long as the worldview was not threatened. If such disturbances, chief among which were evil, suffering, and death, reached a level at which they threatened that worldview, however, it was necessary to address them in some way.26

In a polytheistic system that level is not quickly reached, because "the polarities of life may be shared out among many deities."27

For Israel (to the degree that its Yahwism was not compounded with the worship of other gods) the threat to the worldview would obviously emerge more quickly, since all responsibility must finally rest with the one God who, as Creator, was guarantor of an orderly world. Thus an orderly world testified to the divine presence, while disturbances of that order were experienced as divine hiddenness.28

For Israel, then, evil, suffering, and death inevitably raised the problem of the integrity of its religious outlook. Indeed, the per­ception of divine hiddenness comes to frequent expression in the documents of Israel's faith. References to the hiddenness of God are to be found throughout the Old Testament, in narrative, proph­ecy, wisdom, and psalms. This suggests that it "ought not to be treated as if it were merely a footnote to an otherwise optimistic and unshakeable faith."29 " 'Why?' and 'How long?' were repeat­edly discovered to be as authentic cries as 'Hallelujah.' "30

It is commonly thought that Israel's response to the sense of God's hiddenness evoked by evil, suffering, and death was to at­tribute them to divine punishment for human sinfulness, thereby integrating them into its worldview and restoring the sense of God's presence. This is true for much of the biblical material. The prophets proclaim as a message from God to the people that such experiences are divine judgment (e.g., Isaiah 1:19-20). Biblical narratives, es­pecially those within the deuteronomistic framework, tell Israel's story from the same point of view (e.g., Judges 2:11-23). In the tradition of conventional wisdom, evil, suffering, and death are the consequences of foolish (i.e., wicked) behavior (e.g., Job 4:7-9). The result is a sort of theodicy—if we may "define theodicy loosely as the attempt to pronounce a verdict of 'Not guilty' over God for whatever seems to destroy the order of society and the universe."31

But that is not the whole picture. There are other passages in

A LACK OF LAMENTS 73

the Old Testament, notably in the Psalter, in which the distress aroused by evil, suffering, and death is expressed as the address of the people to God within the context of the worshiping community. These prayers testify that not all in Israel

found that piety and prosperity coexist harmoniously, and . . . could therefore personally identify with Psalm i, untroubled by the fact that it had nothing to say either about the difficulties and the suffering of the righteous or about the evident success of the wicked. . . . In the face of this, [these prayers] seek to help the worshipers to live through the darkness of this experience. They make urgent appeal to God, but they do not claim either to understand or to explain the apparent irrationality of what has happened.32

They address not so much the causes of the experience, but the consequences, the chief of which is separation from God.33 The wor­shiper still raises the questions "Why?" and "How long?" But the "answer" is of a different character than those to which reference has already been made.

In the laments the community provides a means by which wor­shipers may reflect upon and articulate their sense of God's hid­denness. Moreover, it confronts those who have not faced up to the significance of their experience; it "may evoke reality for someone who has engaged in self-deception and still imagines and pretends life is well-ordered, when in fact it is not."34 Furthermore, it in­tegrates them into the life and worship of the community. On the one hand, these persons are assured that they are not excluded from the community by their distress over what they have experienced. On the other, the community provides a means for expressing the experience so that it can be addressed by the community in such a way as to make it bearable and even constructive: "It is this form which enhances experience and brings it to articulation and also limits the experience of suffering so that it can be received and coped with according to the perspectives, perceptions, and resources of the community."35

Finally, the lament offers some kind of "answer" or "solution." As noted above, this does not take the form of "theodicy," if by that is meant some explanation of what the lamenter has suffered. It addresses, rather, the consequence, namely, separation from God. The lament presupposes that the meaning of life is bound up with relationship to God; questions must be directed to God because only

74 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

God can answer them. To do this with the perception of God's hiddenness puts it in proper perspective, acting as "a buffer against total scepticism."36

The preservation of the laments in the canon attests to the fact that the community of faith, and individuals within it, repeatedly experienced the hiddenness of God, struggled to integrate that into their faith, and found these poems useful in doing so. For century after century, they were able to interpret them in such a way as to relate them to the particular circumstances in which that hiddenness was experienced.37

To a degree, this remains so down to the present. There is reason to think, however, that in comparison to their role in the Jewish community during the period in which the Hebrew Bible was tak­ing shape (and perhaps subsequently), laments are less utilized in the Christian community today. One indication of this is the un-derrepresentation of laments in worship books and lectionaries, as noted above.

Whatever may be the historical developments that have led to this situation, we should next consider whether there is any justi­fication for perpetuating it. One possible justification is that laments are no longer as necessary for modern worshipers—-or at any rate for those who use the Lutheran Book of Worship and similar volumes— as they were for those who composed, compiled, and canonized the biblical psalms. This assumes that there has been a significant change in the experience of believers. Our experience of divine presence (so it might be held) is at least as great as theirs; thus all the resources of the Psalter must be called on in order to give expression to that experience. On the other hand, we modern worshipers are spared, to a significant degree, the experience of divine hiddenness, so that a smaller number of psalms expressing that experience is needed in worship.

It is hardly possible to quantify such experiences in a way that would permit a convincing comparison. We can only observe that, if this is the claim, an equally credible counterclaim can be made. There is no need to romanticize the past, or to denigrate the com­forts and conveniences of the present, in order to assert a com­monality of experience (including that of the hiddenness of God) for believers of all generations. Do believers today, however for­tunate their circumstances, differ from their forebears in the faith in being spared the anxiety, disappointment, and suffering that call

A LACK OF LAMENTS 75

into question the nearness and loving concern—even the existence— of God? Are we so insulated from the tragedies that beset our fellow believers, and all human beings, that our faith is less shaken than was theirs? Surely for contemporary Christians, as well as for an­cient Israelites, the experience of divine hiddenness "ought not to be treated as if it were merely a footnote to an otherwise optimistic and unshakeable faith."

Another possible justification is that laments are no longer as appropriate as they once were. Modern worshipers (one might as­sert) are to be encouraged to celebrate the experience of the presence of God as a suitable expression of faith, but are to be more restrained in giving voice to the experience of God's hiddenness, because that is evidence of unbelief. Perhaps " 'Why?' and 'How long?' " are not, for us, "as authentic cries as 'Hallelujah.' "

Here the assumption is that in this respect Christianity differs from "Old Testament religion." Davidson asks, "Is it that the tra­dition of faith in which we are nurtured is so radically different from that of the psalmist that this is an element in Israel's hymn book to which, in the light of Christ, the Christian says an emphatic 'no'?"38 He answers the question in the negative, as does Claus Westermann, who writes:

In both the Old and New Testament the lament is a very natural part of human life; in the Psalter it is an important and inescapable component of worship and of the language of worship. In the Old Testament there is not a single line which would forbid lamentation or which would express the idea that lamentation had no place in a healthy and good relationship with God. But I also know of no text in the New Testament which would prevent the Christian from lamenting or which would ex-

Î>ress the idea that faith in Christ excluded lamentation from man's re-ationship with God. Certainly in the Gospels the actions of Jesus of

Nazareth are characterized by the compassion he evidenced for those who implored him to help them in their need. The cry of distress with which the afflicted besought him (Ό thou Son of David, have mercy on me') is never rebuffed by Jesus. In the passion story the lament of the ancient people of God (Ps. 22) is placed on the lips of Jesus.39

This is not to deny that some psalms of lament contain elements troubling to the sensibilities of modern worshipers. Among these may be mentioned the passages that pray for the punishment and extermination of enemies (the concluding verses of Psalm 137 con­stitute the parade example). It should be noted, however, that la-

76 L U T H E R A N QUARTERLY

ments in which such passages occur have not been systematically excluded from the Lutheran Book of Worship (e.g., 5:10; 17:13; 54:5; 63:9-11; 69:22-28; 71:13). In any case, it is questionable whether apparently offensive biblical material would be best dealt with by omission from public worship (such analogies come to mind as the derogatory references to "the Jews" in John's Gospel and statements in the epistles about the role and status of women).

For the contemporary Christian community, in the absence of adequate justification, to persist in relegating the psalms of lament to a relatively minor place in worship would only serve to reinforce a tendency trenchantly characterized by Walter Brueggemann.

Much Christian piety and spirituality is romantic and unreal in its posi-tiveness. As children of the Enlightenment, we have censored and selected around the voice of darkness and disorientation, seeking to go from strength to strength, from victory to victory. . . . It is no wonder that the church has intuitively avoided these psalms. They lead us into dan­gerous acknowledgement of how life really is. They lead us into the pres­ence of God where everything is not polite and civil. They cause us to think unthinkable thoughts and utter unutterable words. Perhaps worst, they lead us away from the comfortable religious claims of "modernity" in which everything is managed and controlled. In our modern experience, but probably also in every successful and affluent culture, it is believed that enough power and knowledge can tame the terror and eliminate the darkness.40

IV

As we have seen, psalms of lament are underrepresented in the Lutheran Book of Worship and similar volumes. This cannot be jus­tified on the grounds that laments are less necessary or less appro­priate for Christian worshipers than their presence in the Psalter suggests. Given the function that these psalms have served and can continue to serve in the community of faith, it is desirable that they be more fully utilized. To devise means by which this might be accomplished moves beyond the scope of this essay. At the very least it may be said, however, that every worship book should pro­vide worshipers with a complete Psalter. Moreover, since most wor­shipers are exposed only to psalms appointed for use on Sundays and major festivals, a revised lectionary should insure that laments

A LACK OF LAMENTS 77

are more amply represented; those of both the individual and the community should be included, just as is now the case with all types of psalms. In the meantime, those who lead the community in worship should bear in mind that the rubrics do not limit the use of psalms to those specifically appointed. Others may be used in addition, and it would be desirable to select them in such a way as to compensate for the imbalance that presently prevails. It should be noted that the recovery of the note of thanksgiving in the Lord's Supper does not in any way exclude expressions of lament within the liturgy (on this point, the article by Gail Ramshaw41 is instruc­tive). In these psalms the community of faith has an indispensable resource for giving utterance to a range of experience which in­cludes the hiddenness as well as the presence of God.

NOTES

i. Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978). 2. Ibid., 215-89. 3. Lutheran Book of Worship: Ministers Desk Edition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), 340-

440. 4. Philip H. Pfatteicher and Carlos R. Messerli, Manual on the Liturgy: Lutheran Book of

Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 19. 5. LBW, 13-41. 6. Ibid., 178. 7. Occasional Services: A Companion to Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg,

1979)' 31· 8. Claus Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message (Minneapolis: Augsburg,

1980), 23. 9. Ibid., 25. 10. Ibid., 26.

11. Ibid., 27 -8 .

12. Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 52 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989): 37.

13. Ibid.: 35-7. 14. Ibid.: 52-3. 15. Westermann, Psalms, 112. 16. Ibid., 29, 47. 17. Ibid., 53. 18. Ibid., 69. 19. The Book of Common Prayer: According to the Use of the Episcopal Church (New York:

Church Hymnal Corporation, 1977). 20. Ibid., 588-808. 21. Ibid., 889-921. 22. Ibid., 888.

78 L U T H E R A N QUARTERLY

23. Ibid., 921-31. 24. Ibid., 933-1001. 25. Lectionary for Mass: The Roman Missal (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company,

1970). 26. James L. Crenshaw, "Introduction: The Shift from Theodicy to Anthropodicy,"

Theodicy in the Old Testament, Issues in Religion and Theology 4, ed. by James L. Crenshaw (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 2.

27. Robert Davidson, The Courage to Doubt: Exploring an Old Testament Theme (London: SCM, 1983), 91-2.

28. The phrase "divine hiddenness" is used here in the sense described, and without reference to its technical use in the theological tradition. For an important study of the latter, with interesting implications for our topic, see B. A. Gerrish, " 'To the Unknown God': Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God," The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982), 131-49. I am indebted for this reference to my colleague Per M. Anderson.

29. Samuel E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (Oxford: University Press, 1983), 171-72.

30. Davidson, Courage, 12. 31. Crenshaw, "Introduction," 1. 32. Davidson, Courage, 23-4. 33. Balentine, Hidden, 77. 34. Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary, Augsburg

Old Testament Studies (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 53. 35. Walter Brueggemann, "The Formfulness of Grief," Interpretation 31/3 (July 1977):

263-75· 36. Balentine, Hidden, 167; cf. 167-69. 37. Davidson, Courage, 12. 38. Ibid., 15. 39. Claus Westermann, "The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament,"

Interpretation 28/1 (January 1974): 20-38. 40. Brueggemann, Message, 11-2, 53. 41. Gail Ramshaw, "The Place of Lament Within Praise: Theses for Discussion," Worship

61 (1987).

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.