Thread: Resolved: The Bowdlerized NZ Psalter Offends God and Humankind Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022466
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Resolved: The Bowderlized New Zealand Psalter Offends Against God and Humankind

I was convinced that Ecclesianticians had done this to death. My googling has suggested otherwise. And, since Enoch has risen to bite, it seemed good to hive this off to a separate thread. Perhaps there are others who have an opinion on the resolution.

Here is the relevant text from A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare O Aorearoa, page 195f:
quote:
Some omissions have been made on the grounds that we are not making a new translation of the Book of Psalms, but providing psalms suitable for Christian worship. Some verse of the psalms are not suitable for use in the corporate worship of the church.

The passages omitted are:

18:38-43; 21:8-12; 24:4,5; 35:4-8; 54:5,7;
55:16; 58 in toto; 59:5,11-13; 68:21-23; 69:24-30;
79:10, 12; 83 in toto; 101:6,9; 106:34; 109:5-19;
110:5-7; 137:7-9; 139:19-22; 140:9-11; 141:7, 8;
143:13; 149:7-9
[Edited thread title.]

[ 28. February 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Eh? The Psalter at the back of Voices United doesn't have every psalm included in its collection. For some Psalms like the 100th there are three settings, one responsive and two full sung metrical settings (guess the tune, you have a single chance).

Does Enoch propose the same standard for Canticles? What happens if the Book of Philippians is suddenly found to be a prime source of canticles? Does that reduce 2 and 3 John to the status of singing telegrams? I propose that the answer to both propositions is negative.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
OK, some ecclesial authority decided not to include certain verses of the Psalms in public worship. In what way is this an offense against God? In what way is it an offense against humankind?

I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that if an OP contains nothing but an assertion, it's not much of an OP.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Alas, Marcion is still with us. I think the worst edit of all is 137, where some liturgist decided to completely invalidate the trauma and anger of a defeated people being carted off to exile. He leaves the people of Zion in terror and despair by the rivers of Babylon and robs them of even the right to be angry.

The oppressed and their oppressors alike need to hear that oppression makes God angry. These Psalms that have been censored speak to this. They assure an oppressed people that God hears their cry of injustice and will certainly vindicate them in the end, because that's the sort of God this Jehovah is. That's the sort of God Jesus is, and that is why even the violent Psalms have a place in Christian worship.

Jesus "treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" after all, which to me is cause for both hope and personal examination. What if the cry of revenge in the Psalms is a cry against me?

Zach
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
The point that a book of worship need not include material not used in worship is a valid one.

However, the tradition of Anglican BCP's is to include the full psalter, as all of the psalms have been used in corporate worship since before the Rule of Benedict.

If you don't use a psalm in your book, more power to you. However, in this case, the scripture has been deemed 'unsuitable' for use in the worship of the church, and hence was excluded.

As a lover of the Rule of Benedict, and one who still follows the Benedictine rule for the daily office at times, I am fairly insulted that my prayer should be deemed 'unsuitable', especially since these are words of scripture. I have not said how I might interpret them, but discarding them does seem naive and arbitrary.

I would not presume to speak for God, although I have always loved SA's sense of righteous hyperbole, especially in Ecclesiantics.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Here is Enoch's shocked response to which I merely linked above.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch on another thread:
I am shocked. Actually omitted, rather than printed with brackets round them or in a different typeface to indicate 'you may decide not to sing these'! I would have thought that puts the individual members of the NZ equivalent of the liturgical commission at risk of the judgement in Revelation 22:19.

Also, their censorship seems either incomprehensible or seriously bad. I can see why they might want to suggest people don't sing Pss 58 and 109:5-19 congregationally. However, we do sometimes feel like that. But censoring Psalm 24:4-5 suggests a liturgical commission that is both doctrinally illiterate and seriously into truth denial. The one who ascends into the hill of the Lord and has clean hands and a pure heart, is Christ, not some of us but not others.
Also: oops. Please read Bowdlerized (twice!) for my witless misspelling, above.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
OK, some ecclesial authority decided not to include certain verses of the Psalms in public worship. In what way is this an offense against God? In what way is it an offense against humankind?
A simple omission would be one thing but this is an omission accompanied by the explanation the omitted parts of Holy Scripture are unsuitable for Christians to read/hear when they come together in worship, and have therefore been censored away. While I would perhaps not word my response to.this in exactly the same way as the OP, I think it does raise questions about why these particular portions of the psalter are considered unsuitable.
 
Posted by Unjust Stuart (# 13953) on :
 
What is unsuitable is using certain verses out of context.

Unfortunately, removing these verses from use actually removes the context from the remaining verses.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
However, the tradition of Anglican BCP's is to include the full psalter, as all of the psalms have been used in corporate worship since before the Rule of Benedict.
I was surprised to find out, fairly recently, that the 1959/62 Canadian BCP leaves out parts of the psalter: The remaining verses are renumbered, which is probably why I never noticed this as I've used the book from time to time.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Hmm. In private use for suitable occasions is one thing, but not everything in the Psalter is suitable for communal Christian worship and it's pointless to pretend otherwise. Sorry - I'm not going to sing about beating babies to death. Not even Babylonian ones. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd been taken captive by the Babylonians, but with all due respect to the ancient Israelites, I damn well hope not.

Good for the common sense of the New Zealand Prayer Book compilers for being so up front about it.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
However, the tradition of Anglican BCP's is to include the full psalter, as all of the psalms have been used in corporate worship since before the Rule of Benedict.
I was surprised to find out, fairly recently, that the 1959/62 Canadian BCP leaves out parts of the psalter
The story is that the revision committee's Fr Palmer, then superior of Bracebridge Cowley and latterly dean of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (the "A and 3 Cs") was averse to "impolite" psalmody. Another example is in the churching of women, where the verse "... I said in my haste, all men are liars" was deleted as perhaps impolitic for the circumstances.

[ 28. February 2012, 18:43: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Hmm. In private use for suitable occasions is one thing, but not everything in the Psalter is suitable for communal Christian worship and it's pointless to pretend otherwise. Sorry - I'm not going to sing about beating babies to death. Not even Babylonian ones. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd been taken captive by the Babylonians, but with all due respect to the ancient Israelites, I damn well hope not.

Good for the common sense of the New Zealand Prayer Book compilers for being so up front about it.
I, on the other hand, think there needs to be space for human life in the liturgy of the Church. Feelings like anger, remorse, or sadnesss cannot be theologized away- in fact their destructive nature makes it is all the more important they be given a space in the community so that the community can give one the support he or she needs to cope with them. The Church cannot pretend it is concerned with the plight of the oppressed when it gives no space to what the oppressed feel, or worse tells them what they feel is invalid. It is indeed impossible to feel the hope of the Christian promise if the cry of anger is never addressed.

Furthermore, a God that isn't angry at what happened to the children of Zion in Psalm 137 is a lesser God.

Zach

[ 28. February 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Another example is in the churching of women, where the verse "... I said in my haste, all men are liars" was deleted as perhaps impolitic for the circumstances.
[Killing me] But, they are, Blanche, they are.

Veering back toward the topic, the late Erich Zenger (RIP 2010) had this to say about the Catholic Church's excisions, similar to the NZ prayerbook:
quote:
In particular, the "psalms of cursing" ... are a puzzle and a stumbling block for many Christians. For this reason, the postconciliar liturgical reform has even rejected certain psalms as unsuitable for the Catholic church's Liturgy of the Hours, and in an act of magisterial barbarism, it destroyed the poetic form of some psalms by simply eliminating individual verses.


Erich Zenger. A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996, p viii.

 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Icky. In cutting Ps. 149 at verse 7, it leaves the psalm hanging on verse 5-6, which is:

quote:
5 Let the faithful rejoice in triumph; *
let them be joyful on their beds.
6 Let the praises of God be in their throat *
and a two-edged sword in their hand;
So unless they edited 6 to take out those swords for being too dangerous for small children and untrained adults to handle, it really destroys the entire flow of the psalm and kind of the whole theme for that section of psalms.

And honestly, I'd like to see a show of hands of whom has EVER used Psalm 58, 83, or 137:7-9 in public worship outside of the recitation of the Daily Office. Fess up, kids.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
*raises hand*
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I was surprised to find out, fairly recently, that the 1959/62 Canadian BCP leaves out parts of the psalter:

[...]

The remaining verses are renumbered, which is probably why I never noticed this as I've used the book from time to time.
I find that galling for another reason - that they give the appearance of trying to kick dust over their tracks.
 
Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :
 
An historical explanation based on informal conversations with a number of acquaintances associated with the NZ Prayer Book Commission.

The psalter in its present bowdlerized form got into the NZ prayer book by a process of exhaustion. There was at least one extremist on the Commission who had politically based difficulties on the use of Israel, Zion and similar words in the psalms together with the usual problems with Psalm 137 vv 8-9 and similar problems elsewhere. There was an attempt by moderates to take the traditional wording of the psalms and update it (inclusive language and so on) and mark verses along the lines of the psalter in the 1928 received book. However the extremists were adamant and just would not shift or compromise. In the end the extremists got their way because the moderates were not willing to delay the NZ Prayer Book over the psalter. Decision by sheer exhaustion!

An interesting side issue. I have been given to understand that the Jewish communities (Progressive and Orthodox) in Auckland and Wellington were asked at the time to comment on the bowdlerization of the psalms. The Auckland communities had some harsh words to say about the matter with talk about academic integrity being required. The Wellington communities shrugged their shoulders with the comment that it was not appropriate for Jewry to criticise or otherwise the texts that christians might wish to use. Another interesting point: the Orthodox Singer sidur (1962 edition ?) in use at the time had english translations of the psalms that closely resembled the Cranmerian words.

My own opinion. The NZ Prayer Book psalter is a disaster that should not have been published. Politics should not have been part of the process. It does not sit well with a denomination that has generally been proud of its generally scholarly approach to liturgy.I would like to have seen a modern translation with the involvement of poets to provide words suitable for singing or congregational recitation. Indeed, if that had not been possible, I would have preferred Cranmer's words with, if necessary, footnotes about the obscure bits about bottles and smoke and so on.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I was out a large part of yesterday and feel honoured that my comment inspired The Silent Acolyte to set in motion a whole thread in response to my original comment.

At the moment, I stand by what I originally said. Nothing anyone has suggested since has changed my mind at all.

Sober Preacher's Kid, to me, there is a fundamental difference between providing 'a selection from the psalms' and issuing an official psalter that has been expurgated. Particularly where the full psalm is quite long, such as 18, 68 or 104, it is better that people sing some of it than none of it.

I'm even more disgusted by Oblatus's description of a psalter that has been secretly expurgated.

Scripture is scripture, and chopping out the the bits one doesn't like is setting oneself up as a judge over it.

I think there's also a trust issue. How can or should we trust the people who presume to decide for us which bits of the psalter are all right and which bits are 'impolite'?

Looking at the two sets of expurgations, one can see the rationale for some of them, even if one does not - as I don't - accept their legitimacy. But in both cases, even allowing for discrepancies in verse numbering between translations, there are other expurgations which are by any standards, mystifying.


Canticles are a slightly different question, because not all of those now used are quite so clearly written as 'intended to be sung'. Common Worship numbers the verses consecutively, as it does when it prints selections from a psalm for use in a particular service, but indicates at the bottom which original verses they are.

What is really the difference between omitting Psalm 24:4-5, which I find incomprehensible, and omitting from the Magnificat "He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and hath exalted the humble and meek."? After all it could encourage socialism. What does the Patriot's Bible think about it?

Ger, with the weird history you describe, how does the NZ Nunc Dimmittis go? Does it omit "To be a light to lighten the Gentiles: and to be the glory of thy people Israel"?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Is New Zealand planning to produce its own similarly bowdlerized Bible? While I can imagine, given the Marcionite tendencies of the circumcised psalter, that much of the Hebrew Bible would be left out, which parts of the New Testament would go? The loonier parts of the Revelation to St John the Divine? Certain verses in the Pastoral Letters? Various parts of various other Epistles having to do with sex, gender, and slavery?

If not, why not?
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Is New Zealand planning to produce its own similarly bowdlerized Bible?
No need - that's what the Revised Common Lectionary is for.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
For many years I used and loved a form of the daily office that did not include the full psalter, only those verses in use. Psalm 62 was prominent, but the last verses were omittted. Psalm 105 and the long narrative psalms were only used in Advent and Lent. The end of Psalm 139 was curtailed.

What was it? The title page reads:

The Divine Office: The Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman Rite.

Archbishop Ryan of Dublin gave it his imprimatur on 18 December 1973.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Is New Zealand planning to produce its own similarly bowdlerized Bible?
No need - that's what the Revised Common Lectionary is for.
[Big Grin] Touche!
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
*raises hand*
How often, main Sunday service or not, and how'd it go over with the congregation?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
We said Psalm 137. It was the main weekly service for the Episcopal Chaplaincy, and there were 20 people or so present. Not much was made of it in the sermon.

Zach
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
There's two issues here.

A Using scripture selectively. This has always happened - (Benedict insists on reciting all 150 psalms, but he still repeats or gives greater prominence to some (ie 51, 63 148-150, etc.) he chooses appropriate psalms for Lauds and Compline, and I bet the nasty vindictive bits are usually hidden away in Vigils).

B But then there's the issues of which bits are selected. I haven't checked the NZ omissions, so I can't comment critically. However I am very concerned at the infantilisation, the triviality and sentimentality of much worship now, which will avoid the awkward bits of scripture. I'm afraid that if you deny the terror and judgement, you are in danger of denying wonder, glory and justice as well.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've had look at the omitted verses.

Interestingly, the Vat 2 Roman breviary omitted verses 10,11 from psalm 63 (which cropped up every feast day) and NZ doesn't.

Both NZ and Vat 2 omit a verse near the end of Psalm 110 (which is used every Sunday evening in Rome.)

They do seem to be have been a bit slap happy with the scissors in NZ, but it is mainly passages condemning enemies in vindictive terms.

Why on earth have they cut Psalm 24, 4,5 giving the reply to the question "Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord"? Is that a typo?
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
54:5,7;
That edit alone is monstrous. It's a menorah (or chiastic, if you prefer to dazzle people with Hellenisms) psalm:

A SAVE me, O God, for thy Name's sake, * and avenge me in thy strength.
B Hear my prayer, O God, * and hearken unto the words of my mouth.
C For strangers are risen up against me; * and tyrants, which have not God before their eyes, seek after my soul.
D Behold, God is my helper; * the Lord is with them that uphold my soul.
C' He shall reward evil unto mine enemies: * destroy thou them in thy truth.
B' An offering of a free heart will I give thee, and praise thy Name, O LORD; * because it is so comfortable.
A' For he hath delivered me out of all my trouble; * and mine eye hath seen his desire upon mine enemies.

The problem with messing with the Psalms is that they aren't just a random collection of non-rhyming couplets: they actually have poetic structure. One has to be very careful not to end up with an obscurantistic mess.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
We were having a house blessing, and a liturgically informed friend sent me the NZ prayers for a house blessing.

It was the most toe-curlinly twee bit of liturgy I have been embarrassed to read for a long time.

But that is me.

A twee liturgical house blessing is better than no house blessing or an essentially verbal one. NZ clearly realizes the importance of ritual, and that worshipers should be involved in it. It's just I couldn't keep a straight face.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We said Psalm 137. It was the main weekly service for the Episcopal Chaplaincy, and there were 20 people or so present. Not much was made of it in the sermon.

Zach
So was anything made of it at all in the sermon, or was it just ignored like most sermonizers do with the psalm?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Why on earth have they cut Psalm 24, 4,5 giving the reply to the question "Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord"? Is that a typo?
Yes it is, for which I apologize. It should have been 28:4-5.

Here is the, corrected, relevant text from A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare O Aorearoa, page 195f:
quote:
Some omissions have been made on the grounds that we are not making a new translation of the Book of Psalms, but providing psalms suitable for Christian worship. Some verse of the psalms are not suitable for use in the corporate worship of the church.

The passages omitted are:

18:38-43; 21:8-12; 28:4,5; 35:4-8; 54:5,7;
55:16; 58 in toto; 59:5,11-13; 68:21-23; 69:24-30;
79:10, 12; 83 in toto; 101:6,9; 106:34; 109:5-19;
110:5-7; 137:7-9; 139:19-22; 140:9-11; 141:7, 8;
143:13; 149:7-9
Also, thanks to the kind host who corrected my typo in the title.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'd like to see a show of hands of whom has EVER used Psalm 58, 83, or 137:7-9 in public worship outside of the recitation of the Daily Office.
The Daily Office is important. Why are you suggesting that it is marginal? I'm unclear about what denomination publishes this book that we're discussing; but if it is Anglican, our tradition is to say the psalter, in Morning and Evening Prayer, monthly. Too many evensongs already make no attempt to pull their weight in this regard, but reduce the psalter portion to a random vestige. A so-called psalter that is as full of holes as this plays right along.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We said Psalm 137. It was the main weekly service for the Episcopal Chaplaincy, and there were 20 people or so present. Not much was made of it in the sermon.

Zach
So was anything made of it at all in the sermon, or was it just ignored like most sermonizers do with the psalm?
I don't want to impute opinions to you, Spiffy, but this sound suspiciously like the Gland Slam view voiced on Hart's adjacent Preaching thread that God's word is not strong enough on its own to do the job—that it needs a little anthropo-sermonic umph to traverse the distance between God's heart and our own.

Contrariwise, I firmly believe that merely using a psalm liturgically is enough.

[ 01. March 2012, 20:09: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
So was anything made of it at all in the sermon, or was it just ignored like most sermonizers do with the psalm?
God's word was proclaimed, and it was heard by God's congregation. It wasn't mentioned in the sermon, but it put me in a very thoughtful mood at any rate.

Zach

[ 02. March 2012, 04:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :
 
Enoch wrote:

quote:
Ger, with the weird history you describe, how does the NZ Nunc Dimmittis go? Does it omit "To be a light to lighten the Gentiles: and to be the glory of thy people Israel"?
There are two versions of the Song of Simeon in the NZPB. (p47)V3."a light to reveal you to the nations: and the glory of your people Israel." and (p179) V not numbered. "a light to the world in its darkness, and the glory of your people Israel."

As I wrote in my original post on this subject the difficulty was over the use of such words as Israel and Zion as collective nouns in the psalms. My information is that the problem was essentially political in nature, not theological. "Israel" is not totally expurgated. For example NZPB Psalm 22 verse 23 includes "children of Jacob" and "children of Israel". Perhaps the PB Commission allowed "Jacob" and "Israel" as synonymous proper nouns rather than collective nouns. Any way my information concerned psalms and not canticles.

Very recently I learnt that the Jerusalem Post published an article on the NZPB Psalter during the late 1980s. To date I have not been able to trace the article.

All translation is interpretation of the text. The Anglican church in general is noted for its scholarship. I consider that the NZPBC would have better served the Province of NZ by going back to the "original" Hebrew and providing a new translation. They appeared to have taken a translation and bowdlerized it.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ger:
My own opinion. The NZ Prayer Book psalter is a disaster that should not have been published. Politics should not have been part of the process.
I've just seen this. I quite understand the point - omitting the word "Israel" is quite potty. I'd have thought the over-sensitive concern behind that omission was not to offend Palestinians, rather than not offend Jews.

The principle of using selected psalm verses rather than the entire psalter has primitive precedent though (a cathedral rather than a monastic office).

[ 08. March 2012, 07:23: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And honestly, I'd like to see a show of hands of whom has EVER used Psalm 58, 83, or 137:7-9 in public worship outside of the recitation of the Daily Office. Fess up, kids.
Arguably 83 shouldn't be recited on the basis of "he said Jehovah!" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Arguably 83 shouldn't be recited on the basis of "he said Jehovah!" [Big Grin]
Same with Ps. 68 and, in the USA, Canticle 8 (Cantemus Domino). But we generally use everything. I recall reciting an office with a nun and, on arriving at a transliteration of YHWH, we both spontaneously replaced the word with silence, which I thought rather appropriate, although I'm not quite sure exactly how that happened; perhaps we were both hesitating to hear what the other would do. Usually, though, I'd say "the Lord." Mileage varies, I know.
 
Posted by deragoku (# 17049) on :
 
Although I might not word in exactly the same way as the OP, I think it is why these particular parts of the Psalter is not suitable for the issues raised, my response to this.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Don't click on the link in the above sig, folks. Admins alerted.

Mamacita, Eccles Host
 
Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Arguably 83 shouldn't be recited on the basis of "he said Jehovah!" [Big Grin]
Same with Ps. 68 and, in the USA, Canticle 8 (Cantemus Domino). But we generally use everything. I recall reciting an office with a nun and, on arriving at a transliteration of YHWH, we both spontaneously replaced the word with silence, which I thought rather appropriate, although I'm not quite sure exactly how that happened; perhaps we were both hesitating to hear what the other would do. Usually, though, I'd say "the Lord." Mileage varies, I know.
Myself, I'd prefer to replace every generic LORD in the Psalter (and, for that matter, in the Old Testament) with Yahweh (or other literally translated words), basically following the lead of the Jerusalem Bible. As a baptized child of God, I have been given access to the Most High by the blood of Jesus Christ, which includes the ability to call God by the tenderest terms (Abba) and the grandest (Yahweh).

My annoyance over this has only grown since the Vatican's ruling on the use of Yahweh has made it impossible to buy new hymnals that haven't wrecked songs I grew up singing.

Fortunately, I am not bound by the Vatican's rules on this, but, I am bound by the liturgical books and Biblical texts I am required to use in public worship... so my use of Yahweh is very rare indeed. [Frown]

Rob+
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
I noticed those horrible omissions when I first found a New Zealand Prayer Book an took it home to savour. The American prayer book puts an extra blank line or two before and after thethe offensive bits but doesn't leave them out much, except in the Holy Women lectionary where a final verse can be omitted if it offends the delicate constitutions of the ladies present.

But I was thinking, this is done on out of date liturgical sensibilities. Nowadays we like the whole hog, but in mixed company there are things we shouldn't say to strangers. This is the New Zealand Prayer Book.

I am guessing that if a quarter of the Episcopal Church knows of its existence, that is probably a greater number than Kiwis who seem to avoid church in droves.

Most people who use the New Zealand Book are often as not elderly women using bits and pieces for a funeral or wedding, whose congregations probably haven't a clue about what goes on in Church. So if they read a Psalm from the Prayer book it had better be innocuous so as not to offend the innocent young ears of the attendees.
I guess.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0