Thread: Should the whole Bible be read aloud? 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=026751
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
There are two aspects of the question:
A friend complained furiously about this morning's service, as the gospel was read in which Jesus mentioned divorce. This should never be read in church, apparently, as it isn't relevant to people today, no wonder the churches are losing people yada yada.... Although I think it ludicrous to 'filter out' any of the Gospels in a Christian church, I do find myself wanting some of the Old Testament passages to disappear.
At the Bible Study group I go to, we read whole chapters at a time of the Old Testament, and complete a book or theme before moving on. The group find this far more interesting and enlightening than analysing verses or passages. Somehow the difficult parts are lessened in their impact when read this way.
The questions I'm pondering are:
Should we be filtering 'difficult' passages or verses out of the readings given within church services? Is it for the preacher to be the 'bridge' between problematic verses and the congregation?
Is there a place for reading out whole books of the Bible in church? Would you go to listen?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I felt a bit uncomfortable when I read that gospel passage this morning.
But i tend to think that we should not censor the Bible but argue about it. Otherwise we escape challenge and end up choosing which bits to believe in.
I note that the reading about women keeping silent in church was set for the day that General Synod debated women bishops last week. They chose NOT to read it. Leadership or cowardice?
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I note that the reading about women keeping silent in church was set for the day that General Synod debated women bishops last week. They chose NOT to read it. Leadership or cowardice?
Or perhaps they did read it and everyone was too engrossed with their conversations, posting on twitter and sending SMS messages to notice.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The RCL already IMHO, ignores a lot of the nasty stuff in the Bible. We don't for example, read much of Judges or Joshua on Sunday mornings.
The Sermon/Homily is the appropriate place for the preacher to reflect the congregation's wrestling with the text.
[ 16. February 2014, 13:24: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If a difficult or challenging passage is read out in church then it should be explored and unpacked in the sermon (or small group, etc.). Otherwise, I can't see the point.
Regarding the CofE Synod, this article in the Telegraph implies that the awkward lectionary reading was read but quickly left to one side. The reading seemed (on the surface??) to contradict the outcome of the whole event, yet it wasn't seriously addressed by any of the speakers. I find this pretty shocking, myself!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A friend complained furiously about this morning's service, as the gospel was read in which Jesus mentioned divorce. This should never be read in church, apparently, as it isn't relevant to people today, no wonder the churches are losing people yada yada....
I guess that this reading was from the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 5:31 (NKJV) “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
This was included in an assigned reading I did in church one week. We had recently had a seminar that was in part about avoiding "cringe moments" in church. So naturally people came up to me afterwards wondering why I hadn't left that "cringe-worthy" part out of my sermon. When I explained that it was part of the assigned reading from the Sermon on the Mount they were amazed. They said "We don't believe this do we?"
But as far as the "no wonder the churches are losing people" comments go, I think the evidence is just the opposite. It's churches that avoid those teachings that are losing members.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A friend complained furiously about this morning's service, as the gospel was read in which Jesus mentioned divorce. This should never be read in church, apparently, as it isn't relevant to people today, no wonder the churches are losing people yada yada....
I guess that this reading was from the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 5:31 (NKJV) “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
This was included in an assigned reading I did in church one week. We had recently had a seminar that was in part about avoiding "cringe moments" in church. So naturally people came up to me afterwards wondering why I hadn't left that "cringe-worthy" part out of my sermon. When I explained that it was part of the assigned reading from the Sermon on the Mount they were amazed. They said "We don't believe this do we?"
But as far as the "no wonder the churches are losing people" comments go, I think the evidence is just the opposite. It's churches that avoid those teachings that are losing members.
as per this particular passage, perhaps we need to go back and have a sermon the relationship between grace and law.
As a divorced person, I don't have a problem with this passage. God hates divorce-- of course he does. God hates divorce because, as every divorced person is acutely aware, divorce causes immense, heartbreaking human suffering-- for both of the persons involved (regardless of who initiated it) as well as often innocent bystanders. So, it's not at all surprising that God would hate such a thing.
The fact that Jesus gives at least one "exception" demonstrates that this is not a "law" so much as an act of grace. It's a description of the way life should and one day will be in the Kingdom-- a world where people are valued and treasured and love is eternal. Who could argue with that?
Back to the broader question, I'm with others that we shouldn't avoid the hard passages, but if/when we bring them out, we need to be prepared to address them.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Depends how how you hear it. And the context. Highly suspect or dangerous in the hands of an inquisiton or zealot. Kind of similar to a hammer or chain saw. Useful tool but could also be used to pound or dismember people you don't like. Or if you like to replace, say "Canaanite" with "Islamist".
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
As a divorced person, I don't have a problem with this passage. God hates divorce-- of course he does. God hates divorce because, as every divorced person is acutely aware, divorce causes immense, heartbreaking human suffering-- for both of the persons involved (regardless of who initiated it) as well as often innocent bystanders. So, it's not at all surprising that God would hate such a thing.
And I hope this isn't too kergymaniacal, but wasn't it the case that in Jesus' day, divorce was even more unpleasant an experience, especially for the women, than it is now? I think a woman casually divorced by her husband stood a pretty good chance of falling into social and economic ruin.
If that's true, then perhaps the cleric could frame the message as "For our purposes today, we don't need to read this as being about divorce per se, but any case where one treats a husband, wife, or other romantic partner as someone to be exploited for short-term gain and then discarded. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Mr. Trophy Wife Brandishing CEO in the front row here."
Well, okay, maybe not that last part, but you get the general idea.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The Bible can clearly be dangerous in the wrong hands! I think it better to read the whole thing, perhaps even to extend what's currently read so that the context may be more apparent, and then to bring it into today's lives in a way which challenges and affirms at the same time. A tall order, but surely not beyond those called to preach?
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I note that the reading about women keeping silent in church was set for the day that General Synod debated women bishops last week. They chose NOT to read it. Leadership or cowardice?
Leo - whilst I assume it wouldn't be mentioned in the debate, was it not even read at the General Synod's Morning Prayer? And is that in the context of Morning Prayer at Synod normally following any particular pattern of readings etc.?
As to the general question, surely if we start 'editing' Scriptures in the way implied in the OP, then that way Marcionism lies?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
At the Bible Study group I go to, we read whole chapters at a time of the Old Testament, and complete a book or theme before moving on. The group find this far more interesting and enlightening than analysing verses or passages. Somehow the difficult parts are lessened in their impact when read this way.
Indeed. I saw a comment, I think on slacktivist, that one of the problems of the lectionary is that it encourages us to read each passage as an independent anecdote with an improving moral lesson, when much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, isn't written that way.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
At the Bible Study group I go to, we read whole chapters at a time of the Old Testament, and complete a book or theme before moving on. The group find this far more interesting and enlightening than analysing verses or passages. Somehow the difficult parts are lessened in their impact when read this way.
Indeed. I saw a comment, I think on slacktivist, that one of the problems of the lectionary is that it encourages us to read each passage as an independent anecdote with an improving moral lesson, when much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, isn't written that way.
I'm not sure there is an easy answer there though (beyond getting people to engage with Scripture beyond the service). Is it really practical to read an entire story unit in every service?
At least in the Anglican tradition, we accompany the Mass lectionary with the Office lectionary, which does have continuous reading. (Or for that matter the pre-conciliar Roman approach of reading the OT continuously at Matins and the Epistles sort-of continuously at the Mass)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Traditionally there's been a distinction between the Sunday lectionary and the texts one uses in daily reading/meditation. Yes, the Sunday lectionary is a crafted, redacted thing -- and I think with good reason; because there are texts that, frankly, I don't think are appropriate for a general audience of worshipers on the Lord's day, especially if they're not going to come with some contextual commentary/explanation. A case in point are some of the imprecatory Psalms; I don't think it's a good idea, for instance, to have a congregation blithely chanting about bashing enemies' children against rocks.
Which begs the question of when churches can try to educate the faithful about how to thoughtfully and responsibly read "texts of terror," "hard sayings" and the simply long, boring stretches that don't lend themselves to inclusion in corporate worship. I myself like some of my clergy/educator friends' thematic studies -- "Weird **** in the Bible" type small-groups (which I'm told do quite well in attracting the curious).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I note that the reading about women keeping silent in church was set for the day that General Synod debated women bishops last week. They chose NOT to read it. Leadership or cowardice?
Leo - whilst I assume it wouldn't be mentioned in the debate, was it not even read at the General Synod's Morning Prayer?
The account in the Telegraph which SvitlanaV2 linked to above is ambiguous.
I understood it to mean that they changed the reading.
But it could also mean that they had the reading, laughed and then got on with the debate without any further reference to it.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
According to the Synod Twitter feed on the day, it was read and remarked on. The Bishop of Buckingham's Chaplain was particularly mordant.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
A case in point are some of the imprecatory Psalms; I don't think it's a good idea, for instance, to have a congregation blithely chanting about bashing enemies' children against rocks.
That one would at least grab the auduence's attention, and give them something to talk about.
What's even worse are the the passages where the writer clearly has no purpose beyond conveying some mundane technical details, but the sermonizer is obligated to make it sound like something profound.
A number of years ago, I sat through a sermon based on some passage in the Old Testament. I can't exactly recall the details, but it was something along the lines of "Some Israelites were looking for something, so they checked behind a rock, but it wasn't there, so they checked behing another rock nearby and found it". The minister then had to somehow make this sound applicable to the general lives of Christians. He gave it the old college try.
[ 17. February 2014, 16:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
One of the points that our rector made yesterday was that Jesus uses irony and deliberately provocative statements as teaching tools, so you miss the point if you just try to explain away or edit out the tough sayings rather than approaching them. Her take was that Jesus is showing just how impossible it is to be one of those whose way is blameless.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I am reminded of a friend's anecdote in which his sister, asked (in Sunday School, I think) for her favorite Bible verse, quoted a prohibition on having sex with animals.
There are lots of things in the Bible I do not need to hear aloud in church.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am reminded of a friend's anecdote in which his sister, asked (in Sunday School, I think) for her favorite Bible verse, quoted a prohibition on having sex with animals.
There are lots of things in the Bible I do not need to hear aloud in church.
SO glad that that happened far from me...
We had a family Eucharist and an informal service on Sunday, and in neither did we use the verses on divorce. In the first service we focused on 'Let your yes be yes, and your no be no', and in the second we looked at controlling anger (calling your brother a fool - my take was that as I only had sisters, I was safe... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). In neither case was it appropriate to use the divorce verses.
But we have used them in previous years and I clearly remember preaching on them. It has to be addressed carefully because we all know people who have been divorced and remarried - and I for one don't believe in the prohibition of divorce in the way this has always been interpreted. Difficult for all of us, then, but not avoided.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
A case in point are some of the imprecatory Psalms; I don't think it's a good idea, for instance, to have a congregation blithely chanting about bashing enemies' children against rocks.
Although, depending on how the children are behaving in church, it could come in quite handy at times. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
My pastor's take on this selection did not dwell on the divorce stuff, but on the dramatic exaggeration of "pluck out your eye, cut off your hand"--Jesus clearly not advocating self mutilation. But, in keeping with the difficult tenor of the passage, my pastor pointed out that what it does drive home is that we don't get to decide what is or is not sin. We don't get to say "I think it is okay to do this, so it is not a sin." Nope. Not within our scope of authority. And recognizing this is necessary in order to seek forgiveness of the sins we do commit. We can only ask for forgiveness of sins that we recognize as sins--and don't delude ourselves by deciding something is "okay" because we want to do it.
And that sort of gets back to the OP topic--if you cut out the difficult parts of the Bible (instead of including and discussing) are you not basically deciding what is or is not sin? "Gee, this says that I shouldn't yell at my brother. But that's hard to do because he is such an idiot! Oh, well, Jesus probably didn't mean for that to apply in my case so let's just drop that out...snip, snip."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'd prefer to have it all left in rather than snipping away on account of good taste, modern sensibilities, etc. The preacher can hopefully use some common sense in deciding what to emphasize, taking into account the needs of the congregation, but in the readings I'd prefer to have it un-prettied up. First, because you never know what's going to speak to someone (Luke 23:29 was oddly comforting to me when I was grieving for infertility). Second, because the more shocking verses have the salutary effect of shutting up the noisy know-it-alls in Sunday School as they realize that the older generations are not the clueless, innocent idiots they thought we were.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd prefer to have it all left in rather than snipping away on account of good taste, modern sensibilities, etc. The preacher can hopefully use some common sense in deciding what to emphasize, taking into account the needs of the congregation, but in the readings I'd prefer to have it un-prettied up. First, because you never know what's going to speak to someone (Luke 23:29 was oddly comforting to me when I was grieving for infertility). Second, because the more shocking verses have the salutary effect of shutting up the noisy know-it-alls in Sunday School as they realize that the older generations are not the clueless, innocent idiots they thought we were.
As so often, I agree with Lamb Chopped.
I also feel uncomfortable at the notion that we should sit in judgement over scripture, and decide what should be included and what not. That seems the wrong way round.
[ 17. February 2014, 21:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Yes, the Sunday lectionary is a crafted, redacted thing -- and I think with good reason; because there are texts that, frankly, I don't think are appropriate for a general audience of worshipers on the Lord's day, especially if they're not going to come with some contextual commentary/explanation. A case in point are some of the imprecatory Psalms; I don't think it's a good idea, for instance, to have a congregation blithely chanting about bashing enemies' children against rocks.
On the other hand, I'm very glad that I'm part of a church that does read that psalm as well as the other more "comforting" ones. I actually find the horrors of Psalm 137 to truly be comforting. It really helps me to know that that kind of anger is acceptable to feel. Nothing could excuse actually doing the violence? But I'm very glad I'm not evil for wanting to do inappropriate things when I'm angry!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Gwai wrote:
quote:
On the other hand, I'm very glad that I'm part of a church that does read that psalm as well as the other more "comforting" ones. I actually find the horrors of Psalm 137 to truly be comforting. It really helps me to know that that kind of anger is acceptable to feel. Nothing could excuse actually doing the violence? But I'm very glad I'm not evil for wanting to do inappropriate things when I'm angry!
This makes it sound as if the Psalmist was engaged in Primal Scream therapy, helping the reader to come to terms with what were recognized by both parties as negative emotions.
But is there any reason to assume that he would actually have had a problem with slaughtering Babylonian infants?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Gwai wrote:
quote:
On the other hand, I'm very glad that I'm part of a church that does read that psalm as well as the other more "comforting" ones. I actually find the horrors of Psalm 137 to truly be comforting. It really helps me to know that that kind of anger is acceptable to feel. Nothing could excuse actually doing the violence? But I'm very glad I'm not evil for wanting to do inappropriate things when I'm angry!
This makes it sound as if the Psalmist was engaged in Primal Scream therapy, helping the reader to come to terms with what were recognized by both parties as negative emotions.
But is there any reason to assume that he would actually have had a problem with slaughtering Babylonian infants?
Probably not. But the purpose of the Psalms is not to dictate doctrine-- that comes elsewhere. The purpose of the Psalms is to show us how to worship. I would agree with Gwai that what Ps. 137 does is show us that prayer should be most of all honest. If we have all this murderous rage bottled up inside it does us no good to come to worship with a false smile and pretend "no I'm fine, really just fine". Ps. 137 expresses feelings & thoughts we would never ever admit to another living soul-- but maybe shows us that we can bring those ugly, horrible secrets to God.
Where, I assume, there's still some work to be done.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The question is always context.
I have heard the reading of the entirety of Psalm 137 is justified because it allows Christians to express the depths of their anger and pain. Now, expressing one's feelings are good, but it depends on the context. Someone who is really angry, may need to work through that in the context of a pastoral or a counselling context. However, while the feeling of anger is neither good nor bad, some expressions of it are inappropriate in public church settings. Destroying sanctuary vessels for example ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Psalm 137 read in its entirety may be justified if it was followed by a homily expounding on its context. Simply having it sung as a response to the reading (AKA typical mainline church setting) with little interpretation is irresponsible and will leave your parishioners with a WTF feeling.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The question is always context.
I have heard the reading of the entirety of Psalm 137 is justified because it allows Christians to express the depths of their anger and pain. Now, expressing one's feelings are good, but it depends on the context. Someone who is really angry, may need to work through that in the context of a pastoral or a counselling context. However, while the feeling of anger is neither good nor bad, some expressions of it are inappropriate in public church settings. Destroying sanctuary vessels for example
Psalm 137 read in its entirety may be justified if it was followed by a homily expounding on its context. Simply having it sung as a response to the reading (AKA typical mainline church setting) with little interpretation is irresponsible and will leave your parishioners with a WTF feeling.
Oh, yes, definitely!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
On Sunday I heard a good homily on the Gospel passage mentioned in the OP. The preacher remarked that Jesus is really calling us to consider the inner thoughts and motivations lying behind our violence towards others.
Most of us can never dream of murdering someone, but we do from time to time, end up harboring nasty thoughts about people we don't like. We may not physically murder people but we can for example, hurt their feelings or destroy their reputation.
The Church has gotten a good beating from secular culture about its problematic relationship with sexuality. That being said, the Gospel passage does point out in the "lusting after a woman's heart" passage that it is good to discern our drives towards intimacy towards others. It is motivated by a genuine sense of love and care for the other, or it is motivated by a sense of possession of the other. This does not solely refer to sexual relations but any interaction.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
I would agree with Gwai that what Ps. 137 does is show us that prayer should be most of all honest. If we have all this murderous rage bottled up inside it does us no good to come to worship with a false smile and pretend "no I'm fine, really just fine". Ps. 137 expresses feelings & thoughts we would never ever admit to another living soul-- but maybe shows us that we can bring those ugly, horrible secrets to God.
That's kind of like if in the year 4214 someone finds a copy of a sermon, dated 1983, by an Orange clergyman from Belfast, in which he talks about how much he wants to shoot random Catholics in the head. And then some textual critic in 4214 says "See, this shows us how we can cope with ugly, horrible secrets."
But of course, that would be a distorion of the sermonizer's orignal intention, since there is a pretty good chance that he didn't regard shooting Catholics in the head as something ugly and horrible. In fact he was probably quite proud of those feelings, and happy to express them to a sympathetic audience.
I think you have to face the fact that the author of Psalm 137, while granting that he probably had some legitimate gripes against the Babylonians, was, in the final analysis, what we would today call A Very Bad Man.
[ 18. February 2014, 00:20: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
He may have been, and then again, he may not have been. It's poetry, dude. And it's a curse, not a formal Statement of Intent™. If someone intentionally puts a rock through my windshield, you may hear me shout and shake a fist, "I'm gonna kill you, you little bastard!" That doesn't mean I'm going to even step out of the car.
Similarly, "God damn this chair" as I stand hopping on one foot, nursing a broken toe, does not mean that I truly and literally implore the deity of your choice to send the furniture to hell.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
I would agree with Gwai that what Ps. 137 does is show us that prayer should be most of all honest. If we have all this murderous rage bottled up inside it does us no good to come to worship with a false smile and pretend "no I'm fine, really just fine". Ps. 137 expresses feelings & thoughts we would never ever admit to another living soul-- but maybe shows us that we can bring those ugly, horrible secrets to God.
That's kind of like if in the year 4214 someone finds a copy of a sermon, dated 1983, by an Orange clergyman from Belfast, in which he talks about how much he wants to shoot random Catholics in the head. And then some textual critic in 4214 says "See, this shows us how we can cope with ugly, horrible secrets."
But of course, that would be a distorion of the sermonizer's orignal intention, since there is a pretty good chance that he didn't regard shooting Catholics in the head as something ugly and horrible. In fact he was probably quite proud of those feelings, and happy to express them to a sympathetic audience.
I think you have to face the fact that the author of Psalm 137, while granting that he probably had some legitimate gripes against the Babylonians, was, in the final analysis, what we would today call A Very Bad Man.
When you asked me earlier "But is there any reason to assume that he would actually have had a problem with slaughtering Babylonian infants?" and I answered "probably not" did you take that to mean that I thought he was a good man???
My point was that the point of the Psalms-- the reason they're in the canon-- is not for doctrine, but as a model for worship. My point was not to reframe what the author was thinking-- I think you are pretty much spot on, which is why I agreed with you. My point was to reframe why it is in our canon. Why Christians believe there is something of "eternal significance" here.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Is it just me, or is anybody else hearing echoes of "The Bible is too dangerous to be out there where the un-educated/enlightened/whatever might get hold of it"?
I mean, we've got all this crappy violent porno whatsit all over the TV and the Internet, and freako evangelists spouting dangerous shit for doctrine in the same places, and even the kids are wading hip deep in it ... and we're worrying about the Bible? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I'd prefer to have it all left in rather than snipping away on account of good taste, modern sensibilities, etc.
That's a rather inaccurate and unfair description of a lectionary. As others have articulated, the issue isn't a matter of "good taste" or "modern sensibilities" but rather a matter of purpose. There are texts better suited for general corporate worship, and texts better suited for personal study/devotion, or some small-group setting where one can assume some commonality of biblical literacy on the part of the worshippers.
And, again, context matters...and it's not always easy to provide contextual notes on every lesson without the worship service starting to sound like a university lecture, and the overriding theme of the Sunday beginning to get lost in the details.
And yet I've been in enough Bible studies and conversations to know that one can't always count on common sense to lead a listener -- especially someone intimidated by the Bible -- to be able to discern the bigger contextual picture beyond the literal words on the page; to figure out, for instance, that the imprecatory Psalms are personal, honest, primal prayers of anger and desperation and not sentiments about treating other people that have gotten a divine benediction as good ideas
. Or that negative comments directed toward "the Jews" in the Gospel of John are not a God-approved assessment of Judaism and Jewish people because The Bible Says. (I have some scary stories of fellow students in my lay ministry class who had to be pulled aside by our professors and disabused of their Bible-based anti-Semitism.)
Of course in a perfect world you'd have a faith community where everyone was actively engaged in "diligently searching the Scriptures" in an ongoing process of Christian formation, and pastors and other educators having unlimited time and resources to assist in that to the point where they didn't have to worry that if they didn't read a particular passage of Holy Writ on a Sunday during the Church Year the people would still be familiar with it and be able to think and talk about it in a thoughtful and informed way.
[ 18. February 2014, 01:28: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QB] He may have been, and then again, he may not have been. It's poetry, dude.
It's art, dude.
quote:
If someone intentionally puts a rock through my windshield, you may hear me shout and shake a fist, "I'm gonna kill you, you little bastard!" That doesn't mean I'm going to even step out of the car.
Well, let's make that example a little more symmetrical to the Judah/Babylon situation.
Adjusting for scale, imagine that within, say, the last year or so, there have been several violent and sometimes fatal vigilante attacks on rock-throwing vandals. With this as the backdrop, you record a video rant in which you express a desire to kill not only rock-throwers, but their families as well, including infants. You then e-mail it off to a bunch of like-minded friends.
I doubt the police, or any other interested party, would consider that to be just someone blowing off steam, even if, in and of itself, it doesn't constitute a direct incitement to murder.
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
When you asked me earlier "But is there any reason to assume that he would actually have had a problem with slaughtering Babylonian infants?" and I answered "probably not" did you take that to mean that I thought he was a good man???
Well, I have to admit I find your attitude toward him a little confusing. On the one hand, you seem to regard him as a model for prayer, while at the same time agreeing with me that he expresses some pretty murderous impulses in his work.
Now, yes, I realize that no one is perfect, and if we're going to eliminate all fallen mortals from our canon of prayer-writers, we wouldn't have anyone left. But when the person's worst tendencies are exemplified right with the prayer itself, well, that's probably not one that I'm gonna wanna have in my supplicatory repertoire.
The way people are defending the Psalmist, it's as if he had written "Okay God, I really wanna kill these guys and their whole families, so please help me overcome those sinful implulses." But that's not what's going on at all. He is openly celebrating those impulses.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Is it just me, or is anybody else hearing echoes of "The Bible is too dangerous to be out there where the un-educated/enlightened/whatever might get hold of it"?
I mean, we've got all this crappy violent porno whatsit all over the TV and the Internet, and freako evangelists spouting dangerous shit for doctrine in the same places, and even the kids are wading hip deep in it ... and we're worrying about the Bible?
Just for the record, I'm not particularly worried that people are gonna read the Bible and go off and smash babies against rocks. And I have no problem with anyone reading Psalm 137, in fact, I wrote a paper about it in university.
But it's one thing to say that something can be read by anyone who wants to, and saying that it an serve as a model for prayer. If it was from any other book besides the Bible, I don't think too many Christians would be going the extra mile to find anything but violent jingoism in its final two lines.
[ 18. February 2014, 13:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
No need to actually answer this, Stetson, but don't you sometimes want to do unacceptable things? Off the top of my head, for instance, I know I sometimes want to scream at my kids. Fortunately I usually don't, but if the baby's been teething and yelling for a while, even a mild annoyance from the five year old may make me want to turn and yell at her whether or not she's really the problem. I personally find a quick prayer for peace very effective to center on such occasions. However, until I acknowledge that I'm feeling unfairly angry, I'm unlikely to do anything about it. In other words, praying about my emotions that make me want to scream make me much less likely to scream at anyone. Would the psalmist actually have slaughtered children? I don't assume so, but it wouldn't bother me if they would. I don't think that only good/unbroken people should turn to God, so I am very fine to pray as someone else did even if that person was a sinner. As the tax collector in Luke said, "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner."
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
[QUOTE]When you asked me earlier "But is there any reason to assume that he would actually have had a problem with slaughtering Babylonian infants?" and I answered "probably not" did you take that to mean that I thought he was a good man???
Well, I have to admit I find your attitude toward him a little confusing. On the one hand, you seem to regard him as a model for prayer, while at the same time agreeing with me that he expresses some pretty murderous impulses in his work.
Now, yes, I realize that no one is perfect, and if we're going to eliminate all fallen mortals from our canon of prayer-writers, we wouldn't have anyone left. But when the person's worst tendencies are exemplified right with the prayer itself, well, that's probably not one that I'm gonna wanna have in my supplicatory repertoire.
The way people are defending the Psalmist, it's as if he had written "Okay God, I really wanna kill these guys and their whole families, so please help me overcome those sinful implulses." But that's not what's going on at all. He is openly celebrating those impulses.
Well, I thought this was rather obvious, but for the record, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that bashing little children-- Babylonian or otherwise-- against the rocks is a good idea.
We are certainly reading into the text if we suggest the psalmist is penitent. You're also reading into it when you suggest he is "openly celebrating". The fact is the text does neither-- it just lays it out there, w/o really giving us a clue one way or the other why it's included.
And yes, those of us who have a de facto assumption that all of Scripture is "inspired" (of various definitions) almost inevitably end up engaging in all sorts of gymnastics to defend the hard texts and even more so the terror texts. All too often that leads to horrific results so your concern to apply the brakes is probably wise.
At the same time-- and this was the point I was making-- regardless of the original psalmist's motive or intent, the text has remained in the canon for several millennia. It was placed there by a redactor. There was something there, then, something that the redactor and worshipping community saw, that they considered worthy. Something that drew them to God, despite the horrific bottom line. At the very least, it's worth asking why.
[ 18. February 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
No need to actually answer this, Stetson, but don't you sometimes want to do unacceptable things?
Oh God, yeah. And much, much worse than your example of screaming at kids. In fact, I've composed pretty much the moral equivalent of Psalm 137 in my head, numerous times(in my defense, this was after I had been the victim of a violent assault).
The point is, though, I would never expect my sociopathic musings to be read by anyone for inspiration on how to live their lives.
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
We are certainly reading into the text if we suggest the psalmist is penitent. You're also reading into it when you suggest he is "openly celebrating". The fact is the text does neither-- it just lays it out there, w/o really giving us a clue one way or the other why it's included.
Well, it's like in my earlier example of the Orangeman's sermon from Belfast 1983. Even if he doesn't openly come out and say that he wants us to go out and shoot random Catholics in the head, it really doesn't take much deep textual analysis to figure out what he's getting at if he says "Happy is anyone who shoots a Catholic in the head", and leaves it at that.
I will admit that I am not a trained historian, and am making certain assumptions about the relationship between Judah and Babylon at the time. Specifically, I am assuming that at the time, the idea of doing violence to Babylonians, including innocent civilians, would have been a relatively respectable one among the Jewish population.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
We are certainly reading into the text if we suggest the psalmist is penitent. You're also reading into it when you suggest he is "openly celebrating". The fact is the text does neither-- it just lays it out there, w/o really giving us a clue one way or the other why it's included.
Well, it's like in my earlier example of the Orangeman's sermon from Belfast 1983. Even if he doesn't openly come out and say that he wants us to go out and shoot random Catholics in the head, it really doesn't take much deep textual analysis to figure out what he's getting at if he says "Happy is anyone who shoots a Catholic in the head", and leaves it at that.
I will admit that I am not a trained historian, and am making certain assumptions about the relationship between Judah and Babylon at the time. Specifically, I am assuming that at the time, the idea of doing violence to Babylonians, including innocent civilians, would have been a relatively respectable one among the Jewish population.
And again, no one is disagreeing with that-- that is clearly the case. However, I don't think that changes the point I'm making.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
No need to actually answer this, Stetson, but don't you sometimes want to do unacceptable things?
Oh God, yeah. And much, much worse than your example of screaming at kids. In fact, I've composed pretty much the moral equivalent of Psalm 137 in my head, numerous times(in my defense, this was after I had been the victim of a violent assault).
The point is, though, I would never expect my sociopathic musings to be read by anyone for inspiration on how to live their lives.
Would you also get rid of the other sinners in the bible who are held up as examples? For instance, David, that man after God's own heart is a murderer, a rapist, and many other things too. The tax collector from Luke was probably a thief considering that was how tax collectors made their money, and certainly he says he's a sinner. Why are they better examples of how to live our lives? You can say the tax collector is repentant, but if that's your reason than you can't ever mention David without mentioning his later repentance. I haven't checked, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't parts of the lectionary that include David's sins but stop before we get to his eventual repentance. Aren't those equally un-edifying?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
No need to actually answer this, Stetson, but don't you sometimes want to do unacceptable things?
Oh God, yeah. And much, much worse than your example of screaming at kids. In fact, I've composed pretty much the moral equivalent of Psalm 137 in my head, numerous times(in my defense, this was after I had been the victim of a violent assault).
The point is, though, I would never expect my sociopathic musings to be read by anyone for inspiration on how to live their lives.
Would you also get rid of the other sinners in the bible who are held up as examples? For instance, David, that man after God's own heart is a murderer, a rapist, and many other things too. The tax collector from Luke was probably a thief considering that was how tax collectors made their money, and certainly he says he's a sinner. Why are they better examples of how to live our lives? You can say the tax collector is repentant, but if that's your reason than you can't ever mention David without mentioning his later repentance. I haven't checked, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't parts of the lectionary that include David's sins but stop before we get to his eventual repentance. Aren't those equally un-edifying?
But even you admit that the sins of David and the tax collectors are criticized in the same parts of the Bible in which they are described.
Psalm 137, by contrast is the equivalent of a tax-collector writing a book called How To Have Fun And Make Money Breaking The Skulls Of Deadbeats, and someone trying to argue that, in and of itself, the book can help us learn to grapple with the sin of greed.
Can you point me to a passage in Psalms, or anywhere else in the Old Testament for that matter, where God or someone credibly speaking on his behalf says something like "Okay, the lesson we need to learn here is that the Psalimist was pretty messsed up morally when he wrote 137, and was therefore a grave sinner in the eyes of God"?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
As you imply, editorial notes like that or like anything else are not in the psalms. And I for one thank God of that. For one thing, if there were then the psalm would imply that praying to God with inappropriate anger implied you are a bad person. I would not feel I could bring my anger to God.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The Bible is a mirror of us. We're dangerous.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd prefer to have it all left in rather than snipping away on account of good taste, modern sensibilities, etc. The preacher can hopefully use some common sense in deciding what to emphasize, taking into account the needs of the congregation, but in the readings I'd prefer to have it un-prettied up. First, because you never know what's going to speak to someone (Luke 23:29 was oddly comforting to me when I was grieving for infertility). Second, because the more shocking verses have the salutary effect of shutting up the noisy know-it-alls in Sunday School as they realize that the older generations are not the clueless, innocent idiots they thought we were.
As so often, I agree with Lamb Chopped.
I also feel uncomfortable at the notion that we should sit in judgement over scripture, and decide what should be included and what not. That seems the wrong way round.
That has been done more than once before, of course - in the creation of the canon of Old and New Testament in the 4th century, in the removal of the Apocrypha by some Reformed churches in the 16th/17th centuries, and so on. Why should we not make similar changes? (hypothetical question before I get hauled to a stake!)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You can, of course; but I wouldn't dare mess with it unless I had a darn clear sign that I was supposed to be revising the canon. (and the Apocrypha situation is a bit more complex than that)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
As for you, Stetson, the position of the Jews vis-a-vis Babylon (and its predecessor, Assyria) was that of people who had been invaded and subjected to horrific acts, including the ripping open of pregnant women. It's no justification in the eyes of God for wishing much the same to your enemies, but it is IMHO understandable, human, and not particularly sociopathic. Unless you think that those who suffer modern horrors (in Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) are sociopaths for having revenge fantasies of their own.
And you might consider that the Psalms were not written to be guides to how to live your life. They are prayers, expressions of worship, sometimes expressions of horror. But not "Here, do this, follow this pattern exactly 'cause it's perfect."
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And you might consider that the Psalms were not written to be guides to how to live your life. They are prayers, expressions of worship, sometimes expressions of horror. But not "Here, do this, follow this pattern exactly 'cause it's perfect."
Yes, my point exactly.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And you might consider that the Psalms were not written to be guides to how to live your life. They are prayers, expressions of worship, sometimes expressions of horror. But not "Here, do this, follow this pattern exactly 'cause it's perfect."
Yes, my point exactly.
But even allowing for that, don't you have to admit that it's a little bit odd to find inspiration in a prayer that so openly praises behaviour that you consider to be grotesquely immoral? Even if it's not technically advising us to go out and do that?
I suspect if the Psalmist were extolling the joys of rape or child-molestation, people would be less inclined to intellectualize away the sheer repulsiveness of it.
LC wrote:
quote:
As for you, Stetson, the position of the Jews vis-a-vis Babylon (and its predecessor, Assyria) was that of people who had been invaded and subjected to horrific acts, including the ripping open of pregnant women. It's no justification in the eyes of God for wishing much the same to your enemies, but it is IMHO understandable, human, and not particularly sociopathic. Unless you think that those who suffer modern horrors (in Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) are sociopaths for having revenge fantasies of their own.
Thanks for filling in the blanks a bit.
Yeah, I didn't imagine that the Babylonians were behaivng like Oxfam workers in their cross-cultural interactions. But still, collective guilt is a reprehensible concept no matter what evils it purports to address, and I'm sure the guys who were disembowelling pregnant women could come up with similar atrocity stories to justify their crimes.
"Okay, we got a bit carried away with the rape and bloodlust there, but do you KNOW what those Judeans did in the first place to a couple of our merchants who tried to enter their city? And have you SEEN how they treat their women? Sheesh, they make us look like saints."
Or something to that effect. There's usually some plausible sounding rationale for why it was understandable for someone to go into an area and start killing everyone in sight.
[ 18. February 2014, 23:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And you might consider that the Psalms were not written to be guides to how to live your life. They are prayers, expressions of worship, sometimes expressions of horror. But not "Here, do this, follow this pattern exactly 'cause it's perfect."
Yes, my point exactly.
But even allowing for that, don't you have to admit that it's a little bit odd to find inspiration in a prayer that so openly praises behaviour that you consider to be grotesquely immoral? Even if it's not technically advising us to go out and do that?
I suspect if the Psalmist were extolling the joys of rape or child-molestation, people would be less inclined to intellectualize away the sheer repulsiveness of it.
Well, as horrific as rape or child molestation is, I'd actually be hard pressed to say which was more repulsive-- that or a brutal child murder. So I'd say we'd be apt to respond pretty much the same way.
"Intellectualizing away" is not really what we're doing-- no one is trying to defend child murder here or suggest that what's being described is anything less than an inexcusably horrific genocide. If we're guilty of anything, it would be the gymnastics we're going to defend "inspiration"-- our belief that Ps. 137 belongs in the canon, and so has something of "eternal relevance" to us today.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But even allowing for that, don't you have to admit that it's a little bit odd to find inspiration in a prayer that so openly praises behaviour that you consider to be grotesquely immoral?
No, I don't. Because I am grotesquely immoral, and certainly capable of acts that are every bit as evil. And if there is no place in the Bible for that, even as a Horrible Warning, there is no place in the Bible for me.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But even allowing for that, don't you have to admit that it's a little bit odd to find inspiration in a prayer that so openly praises behaviour that you consider to be grotesquely immoral?
No, I don't. Because I am grotesquely immoral, and certainly capable of acts that are every bit as evil. And if there is no place in the Bible for that, even as a Horrible Warning, there is no place in the Bible for me.
Again, you guys are trying to make it sound as if Psalm 137 is something like The Woman Caught In Adultery or Peter Denying Jesus Three Times Before The Cock Crows, ie. as if it involved a recognition of someone's sinful nature.
[BLASPHEMOUS COUNTER-EXAMPLE FOLLOWS]
But that's not what the Psalm is. Instead, it's the equivalnet of TWCIA, if that story had ended with Jesus going up to the woman and saying "Whoa, sounds like you are one horny sex machine!! Go and **** some more, honeybuns!!"
But I think I understand the viewpoint taken by my worthy foils on this thread. They start off from the assumption that if something is in the Bible, it must have some moral value(apart from being a symptomatic indication that the writer was one messed-up individual.)
And that's a viewpoint I can respect, even if I don't think it would be the one taken by the proverbial anthropologist from Mars.
[ 19. February 2014, 14:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
Well, as horrific as rape or child molestation is, I'd actually be hard pressed to say which was more repulsive-- that or a brutal child murder. So I'd say we'd be apt to respond pretty much the same way.
Well, then I commend you for taking the rational position on that matter. With a lot of people, I find they need a sexual angle thrown in before they can recognize an obviously bad situation.
When I played Little League as a kid, a coach from the opposing team got into an argument with our coach, and ended up shoving him. That coach was suspended for a few games(during which he showed up at the games and shouted at his players from the bleachers.)
It's a pretty good wager that if the offending coach had gone up to our coach and exposed himself, he would have gotten a bit more than a suspension. Probably led away in handcuffs, just for starters.
And yes, I recognize that their are valid arguments for maintianing a more ironclad taboo around sexual violations than non-sexual ones. But still, for people who would have a flasher arrested to be so lackidaisical about common assault, doesn't quite add up.
[ 19. February 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
But I think I understand the viewpoint taken by my worthy foils on this thread. They start off from the assumption that if something is in the Bible, it must have some moral value(apart from being a symptomatic indication that the writer was one messed-up individual.)
Okay, shipmates, help me out here. What is the name of this--was it Bulverism? You know, the thingy where you say (politely, to be sure!), "You only think that because you're a [fill in the blank]."
This is a logical fallacy, I'm sorry to say.
It's also inaccurate. I would have the same reaction to poetry written by ancient Greeks, by Cambodians, by Jewish holocaust victims. I DO have the same reaction to that well-known episode (was it from Elie Wiesel?) where the SS guard is dying and begs for forgiveness, and he walks out and refuses to give him anything at all. I completely disagree with his stance, of course. But I have the same reaction to it that I do to this verse--that it is totally human, psychologically understandable, and not indicative of the speaker being a monster of depravity.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I think I understand the viewpoint taken by my worthy foils on this thread. They start off from the assumption that if something is in the Bible, it must have some moral value(apart from being a symptomatic indication that the writer was one messed-up individual.)
Speaking for myself only, but that is NOT my point of view. There are things in the bible that I think are so deeply based in their their time that I'm not sure we are capable of finding inspiration in them. I do think human nature has invaded the bible and marred some of it.
I think the only thing I can add that I haven't already is that I don't presume I am better than X who did HORRIFIC THING.* But you know I'm not standing where X is. I want to say I would never kill a child no matter what happened to me, but if I'd suffered enough torture like seeing my children hurt, I think I just can't know. It's why I view anyone who got through a concentration camp like experience without any major horrible experiences--I'm thinking of people like Solzhenitsyn here who says directly that the only completely pure ones died, by definition, but notes that despite torture etc, he never denounced anyone--as something like a saint.* He was one of the few people who COULD say that in that circumstance he still wouldn't do it. I suspect almost everyone would do evil things (denouncing someone to torture etc just to save one's skin seems pretty safely EVIL to me) and I can only pray I'll never have to know what I would do. Until then, I'm not going to say I'm morally superior to the speaker of Psalm 137 even if s/he did want to truly bash Babylonian children.**
*I'm not sure what exactly I mean by "saint" so don't take the word in a Catholic or Orthodox meaning. Probably something in between the secular meaning and the church meaning.
**Note that I still don't think that is clear.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But even allowing for that, don't you have to admit that it's a little bit odd to find inspiration in a prayer that so openly praises behaviour that you consider to be grotesquely immoral?
No, I don't. Because I am grotesquely immoral, and certainly capable of acts that are every bit as evil. And if there is no place in the Bible for that, even as a Horrible Warning, there is no place in the Bible for me.
Again, you guys are trying to make it sound as if Psalm 137 is something like The Woman Caught In Adultery or Peter Denying Jesus Three Times Before The Cock Crows, ie. as if it involved a recognition of someone's sinful nature.
[BLASPHEMOUS COUNTER-EXAMPLE FOLLOWS]
But that's not what the Psalm is. Instead, it's the equivalnet of TWCIA, if that story had ended with Jesus going up to the woman and saying "Whoa, sounds like you are one horny sex machine!! Go and **** some more, honeybuns!!"
But I think I understand the viewpoint taken by my worthy foils on this thread. They start off from the assumption that if something is in the Bible, it must have some moral value(apart from being a symptomatic indication that the writer was one messed-up individual.)
And that's a viewpoint I can respect, even if I don't think it would be the one taken by the proverbial anthropologist from Mars.
Yes, I would agree that my default assumptions about the inspiration of Scripture drive my efforts here-- as they do everyone's. And yes, obviously that's not going to be persuasive to someone who doesn't share these presumptions (and if you wanted to convince someone of the truth & authority of Scripture, Ps. 137 would probably not be the place to start...)
That being said, again, I think you're reading something into it as well. While our take on it (an example of honesty in prayer) is not explicitly found in the text, neither is yours. There is absolutely nothing in the text that says "hey, yeah, spot on!" no equivalent to your "honeybuns" reference.
And, honestly, much of Scripture is like that. The places where the meaning is spelled out for you are few and far between. Only one of all of Jesus' parables (the sower) comes with a cheat sheet telling us that item A corresponds with meaning B. Jesus throws out paradoxical, counter-intuitive, elusive little sayings all the time and then just lets them lie there w/o cleaning them up for us. Happens all the time.
If Scripture is not uniquely inspired or authoritative, then it's just some crazy book of random ramblings. If it is indeed the uniquely inspired word of God (a dead horse, I'm guessing) one has to wonder why God didn't inspire something clearer-- a series of short declarative essays, perhaps, rather than mostly a collection of narratives with all the ambiguities inherent to the genre.
But that's what we've got, for whatever reason. So perhaps the ambiguity of the medium means that "getting everything exactly right" is not the end goal.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Gwai wrote:
quote:
I would have the same reaction to poetry written by ancient Greeks, by Cambodians, by Jewish holocaust victims. I DO have the same reaction to that well-known episode (was it from Elie Wiesel?) where the SS guard is dying and begs for forgiveness, and he walks out and refuses to give him anything at all. I completely disagree with his stance, of course. But I have the same reaction to it that I do to this verse--that it is totally human, psychologically understandable, and not indicative of the speaker being a monster of depravity.
Well, recall that I first entered this debate in reply to this...
quote:
On the other hand, I'm very glad that I'm part of a church that does read that psalm as well as the other more "comforting" ones. I actually find the horrors of Psalm 137 to truly be comforting. It really helps me to know that that kind of anger is acceptable to feel. Nothing could excuse actually doing the violence? But I'm very glad I'm not evil for wanting to do inappropriate things when I'm angry!
So, in selecting readings, would your church ever consider giving equal prominence to (let's say) the diaries of someone whose family was murdered by Pol Pot, and now has violent fantasies about raping and killing the children of top-level Khmer Rouge leaders? That would certainly be as "human" as the Psalmist's revenge fantasies, so why not?
Or is there something about the Psalms that makes it just a little bit more "special", just a tad more inspirational than run-of-the-mill fantasies about killing your enemy's kids?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I don't think that the whole of Scripture need be read in the context of public worship. But I also don't think that omitting bits of it should be done because it makes a sector of the congregation uncomfortable. People both married and divorced should hear what the New Testament says about divorce, or they may go away thinking it says nothing. General Synod, debating women bishops, should listen to 1Timothy, so that they can engage it rather than merely dismiss it.
I mean, for goodness' sake, I'm gay, and year after year I've had to sit and listen to 1Corinthians 6:9-10 - often read with a degree of relish. Nobody's ever asked me if I want to do some editing on it.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Should we be filtering 'difficult' passages or verses out of the readings given within church services?
No, because many people will read them anyway. If the Church just ignores it or tries to shove it to the side, they will be left with some crackpot online.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it for the preacher to be the 'bridge' between problematic verses and the congregation?
Could you elaborate what you mean by this? If you mean that he should explain them, then yes. He is much more competent, assuming he has a proper education and isn’t just some self-proclaimed ‘guru.’
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there a place for reading out whole books of the Bible in church? Would you go to listen?
Yes, and I would probably go.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
This sounds a little like the discussion we had in our house as to the value of teaching the story of Samson to children. When I was young, I was caught up in adventure stories, so the bible stories did not seem so different. But with my own child, suddenly it seems highly inappropriate and teaching a message that I'm not sure I want children to hear (namely, apparently, that anything is acceptable behaviour if God is telling you to do it).
But then the problem is whether there are any acceptable bible stories to teach children. I'm not sure there are.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Just to clarify, the first quote was by Lamb Chopped though the second one is mine.
Why on earth would my church go looking for the writings of sinful humans to read just because said people were sinful? Besides that we don't generally read non-Biblical texts in church (though Bullfrog was asked to read a quote from Bonhoeffer at one of the churches I attend last Sunday) we have a whole church full of sinful humans already! The aforementioned church does testimonies a couple times a year from people, so I guess right there I have an example of words from a sinful being talking about their experiences in church.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh, sorry. I just realized that I confused Gwai and Lambchop, and misattrobuted something said by the latter to the former.
I guess anyone who agrees with both of the quoted posts(ie. is glad that Psalm 137 is read in their church, and thinks that it is equivalent to Cambodian revenge fantasies) can reply as if they constituted one stream of thought.
(Hadn't read Gwai's post above when I wrote this one)
[ 19. February 2014, 15:19: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't feel quite as LC does about, namely I don't have exactly the same reaction to the texts she mentioned, but your response was relevant enough to me, so I answered. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
That being said, again, I think you're reading something into it as well. While our take on it (an example of honesty in prayer) is not explicitly found in the text, neither is yours. There is absolutely nothing in the text that says "hey, yeah, spot on!" no equivalent to your "honeybuns" reference.
Well, we might be at a bit of an impasse here, because I DO think that the anthropologist from Mars(ie. someone with no pre-set bias in favour of one group or another) would read the Psalm as saying "hey, yeah, spot on" to the msas slaughter of Babylonian civilians.
I mean, let's be honest here. If someone came to you and said "I'm grappling with some pretty sinful thoughts about inflicting violence upon people. Can you suggest a good Bible passage to help me deal with this?", is there anyone here who would recommend Psalm 137?
[ 19. February 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I wouldn't, but that is only because in that context I would seem to be endorsing their violence. There are all kinds of things that would be wrong to recommend at certain times. If someone told me their husband was divorcing them against their will, and did I have a passage about it, I wouldn't recommend the sermon on the mount. That doesn't mean I don't think it should be in the bible. I think it has a point, and we need to grapple with that. Still, I wouldn't recommend it to someone who wanted passages on divorce because I don't think that bit is about modern divorce. Just as I don't think that psalm is about murder. It's not a perfect analogy as I don't think the sermon on the mount is all about modern divorce, but obviously murder is mentioned in psalm 137. Still, that's not what it's about to me. I think it's about someone's feelings of loneliness, rejection, anger, and pain. If someone told me they were struggling with such feelings of irrational anger, then I would recommend praying through that psalm.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
it would depend on the situation. If the person was actually being tempted to violence, duh, of course not. If, on the other hand, the person was simply incredibly angry and looking for a way to express this without thinking that being so angry automatically put him outside the faith, then, yeah, I'd give him this Psalm to read.
It's all about choosing your Scripture to fit the situation at hand. We Lutherans call it "rightly dividing Law and Gospel." You don't give an emetic to someone who's already vomiting, and you don't give salt to someone with sky high blood pressure. You DO give those things to people who (respectively) have drunk poison or are getting dizzy from low blood pressure caused by sodium deficiency (that'd be me, a month ago).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
That being said, again, I think you're reading something into it as well. While our take on it (an example of honesty in prayer) is not explicitly found in the text, neither is yours. There is absolutely nothing in the text that says "hey, yeah, spot on!" no equivalent to your "honeybuns" reference.
Well, we might be at a bit of an impasse here, because I DO think that the anthropologist from Mars(ie. someone with no pre-set bias in favour of one group or another) would read the Psalm as saying "hey, yeah, spot on" to the msas slaughter of Babylonian civilians.
I mean, let's be honest here. If someone came to you and said "I'm grappling with some pretty sinful thoughts about inflicting violence upon people. Can you suggest a good Bible passage to help me deal with this?", is there anyone here who would recommend Psalm 137?
I don't think anyone is disputing that it's a tough passage, and it's uses limited. And one might reasonably take that to mean that all or part of Scripture is not "inspired" at all, and has no eternal relevance.
I wouldn't say Ps. 137 is a great example of how to deal with anger so much as an ex. of how to deal with a lack of intimacy and genuineness in worship. If nothing else, it does have a raw transparency that will shock us out of our polite pretense.
But no, I would not read it in public worship except in that precise context-- where I had the time to unpack it most carefully.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I mean, for goodness' sake, I'm gay, and year after year I've had to sit and listen to 1Corinthians 6:9-10 - often read with a degree of relish. Nobody's ever asked me if I want to do some editing on it.
Indeed - I know a couple who heard that read out at a weekday mass the day after they got together and had the most healing experience of their lives.
The Bible can be toxic shit.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If the Church just ignores it or tries to shove it to the side, they will be left with some crackpot online.
True. It doesn't equip members of the congregation to engage with others, crackpot or not, if we ignore texts that may be thrown at us on line or in any social intercourse.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Could you elaborate what you mean by this? If you mean that he should explain them, then yes. He is much more competent, assuming he has a proper education and isn’t just some self-proclaimed ‘guru.’
As you can see by this thread, 'explaining' them is no easy task, and the more we study the more possibilities we see thanks to the thoughts of others over the last 2000 years. To try to be a bridge is perhaps more to do with helping people to address similar issues in this culture, in a way which centres on Christ and brings us ever closer to knowing God. A very tall order.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The unhappy with Psalm 137 might take further discomfort in that it might be one of the most widely-disseminated texts in popular culture.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Read it all. Every word. That leaves the power of interpretation in the minds of the hearers, not the speakers. Over-zealous selection is a mechanism of social control.
And if you don't then others will filter out the bits you want.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The unhappy with Psalm 137 might take further discomfort in that it might be one of the most widely-disseminated texts in popular culture.
Well, you can count me as one critic of the piece who is decidely NOT unhappy with the Boney M version, nor the earlier musical versions. We used to sing a particularly haunting version at arts camp in the 80s.
And here's a story. A few days ago, I bought my first bible in a number of years, and, wishing to test out that old bit of evangelical hocus-pocus, opened it randomly to see if any given passage really is a blast of immediately relevant spiritual wisdom. It landed on some Old Testament passage about builidng a wall. As in, a literal wall.
Then, yesterday morning, thinking of the debate I've been having on this thread, I mentioned Psalm 137 to one of my students, a Presbyterian minister of liberal bent. As he initially seemed unfamilar with the reference(likley because of the language barrier), I took the bible from my desk and opened it, only to discover that the page I had opened it to was the one with Psalm 136 right at the bottom.
[ 21. February 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
The unhappy with Psalm 137 might take further discomfort in that it might be one of the most widely-disseminated texts in popular culture.
Well, you can count me as one critic of the piece who is decidely NOT unhappy with the Boney M version, nor the earlier musical versions. We used to sing a particularly haunting version at arts camp in the 80s.
And here's a story. A few days ago, I bought my first bible in a number of years, and, wishing to test out that old bit of evangelical hocus-pocus, opened it randomly to see if any given passage really is a blast of immediately relevant spiritual wisdom. It landed on some Old Testament passage about builidng a wall. As in, a literal wall.
Then, yesterday morning, thinking of the debate I've been having on this thread, I mentioned Psalm 137 to one of my students, a Presbyterian minister of liberal bent. As he initially seemed unfamilar with the reference(likley because of the language barrier), I took the bible from my desk and opened it, only to discover that the page I had opened it to was the one with Psalm 136 right at the bottom.
As good an argument as any for a lectionary.
As well as a good argument for contextualization (e.g.: your Nehemiah reading)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Read it all. Every word. That leaves the power of interpretation in the minds of the hearers, not the speakers. Over-zealous selection is a mechanism of social control.
And if you don't then others will filter out the bits you want.
I've come around to this way of thinking too. Make no excuses for what's in the Bible. Allow the Holy Spirit free reign to speak to people through it. Don't turn a rough cloth into a soft flannel.
At the same time, don't ignore the issues it raises or skim over them in the sermon. Be pastorally sensitive enough to address them, even if that's to share our own opinion that it's a terrible passage we'd prefer not to have been included in the Bible at all. Share the learning, the context, and leave it there?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm also in the 'read it all' camp, basically. But we must do it with a sense of historical perspective and see development in it, not just read it 'flat' and out of context.
For example, the story of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac sounds horrendous to the modern reader - but it is of course happening in a very different world to ours and it's actually the beginnings of a course of divine teaching which got us where we now are about such episodes.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Read it all. Every word. That leaves the power of interpretation in the minds of the hearers, not the speakers. Over-zealous selection is a mechanism of social control.
And if you don't then others will filter out the bits you want.
I agree.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that people not read "every word" of Scripture. What's being suggested is that not "every word" is appropriate in every situation in the Church, particularly in areas like corporate worship where the text in question is not going to be explained/expounded upon in any meaningful way to the assembled...where it's just an adjunct text to the sermon text, read without comment. That is when you have Bible studies on the "texts of terror" and "hard sayings," or on how to read the Bible in a thoughtful and contextual way instead of treating the thing as a magickal oracle whose every jot and tittle can be lifted out of its historical/cultural/literal/theological contexts and assumed to be "God's word" in some equally important and prescriptive way. (Which, frankly, is how a lot of laypeople engage with Scripture, and shame on the Church for either tacitly or overtly encouraging that mentality.)
[ 24. February 2014, 14:30: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
totally agree, Lutheranchik. But we mustn't let every wind of political correctness in the world decide what is appropriate.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
A few hundred years ago, strong arguments were made for not allowing the Bible to be readily available in English, because it meant anyone who could read would be able to read all the unsuitable bits.(This came from Thomas More, I think, though it's nearly 30 years since I studied this.)
I like the unsuitable bits being there. They remind us not to worship the Bible.
My vicar says she puts me down to preach on the Sundays when we have difficult and unsuitable readings because she knows I'll give them a go. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
totally agree, Lutheranchik. But we mustn't let every wind of political correctness in the world decide what is appropriate.
The Revised Common Lectionary isn't exactly that radical an idea, is it?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
One good reason for reading and exploring very uncomfortable and rarely heard Bible passages in church is that listeners are likely to sit up, take notice and remember. Preachers sometimes preface very familiar Bible readings by urging us to listen with fresh ears. But this is very hard to do because even many rather challenging passages have been 'tamed' due to constant repetition in the same format.
It also occurs to me that extraordinary circumstances may call for extremely uncomfortable Bible readings. Even if we don't agree with the explanations and sermons that follow, we might be encouraged to go away and reflect. I'm reminded of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's former pastor, and his controversial choice of biblical references in his sermons after 9/11.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Aravis wrote:
quote:
A few hundred years ago, strong arguments were made for not allowing the Bible to be readily available in English, because it meant anyone who could read would be able to read all the unsuitable bits.(This came from Thomas More, I think, though it's nearly 30 years since I studied this.)
My mother, who is not theologically well-tutored and basically learned everything from nuns while on a vocational track(not being snobbish here, it's relevant to the story) used to tell me, with approval, that the Bible was once banned from public reading because "people who read it were taking it literally and cutting off their hands and stuff."
So, I'm guessing that this was common propaganda in Catholic education at one time. In fairness to the RCC, it's not hard to imagine that there would have been people, at least in small, isolated sects, doing things like that.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0