Tag Archives: Lament

Daily Lectionary Podcast – 2 Samuel 1:1-27 and 1 Corinthians 7:25-40

2 Samuel 1:1-27
1 Corinthians 7:25-40
The Lord’s Annointed, Sorrow or Lamentation, “How the mighty have fallen”
A social situation alien to us, discerning our proper vocation

Daily Lectionary Podcast – Job 2:11-26 and John 1:35-51

Job 2:11-26
John 1:35-51
Lament and Longing, Fulfillment of that Longing (“Come and See”)

Paragraph to Ponder; Lament and Studying the Psalms

We’ve been studying the Psalms and one of the things that you can’t avoid is lament in both directions. There is the lament of the faithful calling on God to be faithful like Psalm 27:7-10. There is lament of God for his people like Psalm 81:11-16. It is from reflection on passages like these and the way that primarily OT characters sometimes go after God that my spiritual advice has often been “God’s a big guy, he can take it”. That was usually quickly followed by something like “just be ready to be silenced from the whirlwind” (Job 40:6). Following Bonhoeffer’s little book on the Psalms we’ve been presenting the Psalms as two things: 1) the prayers of Christ himself and 2) the Lord’s Prayer in different form. It is that second category that is meaningful here. For what is the Lord’s prayer if not a study in Lament. Your kingdom come (because we certainly don’t see it much now). Your will be done (because the bad guys seem to have free reign). Lead us not into temptation (because it certainly feels like you are a capricious God). Deliver us from evil (because our enemies surround us to devour our flesh). Like the psalms, lament leads the way to two things: 1) reaffirming the Lordship of God and 2) our faith in his promises. Psalm 27 referenced earlier ends with such a raw declaration of resurrection and faith, Psalm 27:13-14. When God laments he closes with reiteration of his promises, Psalm 81:16.

Wesley Hill, quoting a review by Lauren Winner, touches on some of these points in the paragraph to ponder…

An important theme in Rittgers’ account is the intensely biblical nature of Lutheran suffering. Protestants, far from assuming that suffering was always a direct divine punishment for sin, offered a range of explanations for suffering. (The recognition that suffering ultimately emerges from sin, Rittgers notes, is not the same as the claim that every instance of suffering is a punishment for a person’s individual sinful act.) Protestants could articulate many different explanations for suffering because the Bible “contains … explanations for suffering that have nothing to do with punishment.” Job imagines suffering as a test of one’s devotion to God; the Psalms, Proverbs, and other texts explore suffering’s capacity to refine one’s faith; the New Testament suggests that suffering can be a means of identifying with Christ. Laypeople heard these themes expounded in the pulpit and encountered them in books about proper Christian suffering; they also copied down or memorized consoling words of Scripture, so that in a time of trial they would have biblical words to help them persevere.

Yet one important biblical response to suffering did not find a place among Luther’s heirs: lament. The psalms, in particular, contain illustration after illustration of God’s faithful people calling God to account because their suffering defied not just explanation but indeed God’s covenantal promises. This tradition did not find a place in a “premodern consolation literature” that consistently advised men and women to “accept their suffering patiently and make no protest against the workings of divine providence.” Rittgers intriguingly suggests that this loss of lament may have had profound consequences, among them contributing to the “gradual disenchantment of the world …. Perhaps in the (very) long run, the insistence of the Western churches that human beings must face suffering without the possibility of lament has worked to undermine the plausibility of Christian faith.”

In one sense I understand the point being made. Protestants, learning the theology of the cross, were often preached to skip right to the consolation. The Gospel is consolation. But taken so easily as the review suggests was done, is missing the core of Luther’s insight. Law and Gospel is a tension. We can take consolation in the promises of God now. We can even take consolation in the visible sacraments and those brief moments – like the transfiguration – when the glory breaks through the veil. But, all things are not yet brought to completion. The devil, is still the power and principality of this realm. We are still burdened by our frail flesh which works against us. The theology of the cross is a learning to bear it and learning where that strength comes from. The reformation might have made an intellectual jump, but the emotional learning lags behind. Or maybe better is that we each come to our own understanding of the one truth. Lament, in its biblical forms points the way. The feelings are true. The Psalmist does not deny them. Jesus tells us to pray them. Instead of the the effect that the review highlights, “the gradual disenchantment of the world”, the way of the cross is toward trust in the promises. Lament’s resolution is not in immediate divine action, nor is it in abandonment of the expectation of divine action in favor of our own action. The purpose of lament is to stir belief. My God, why have you forsaken me to be met with the response into your hands I commit my spirit. Belief that God has acted ultimately. I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living (Psalm 27:13). And belief that allows us to walk the way here. To love our enemies.

Tolerable Sins – A Strange Valentine

This is Pastor Saltzman with a piece that I think we miss a word for. It is worth a read.

Three thoughts:
1) The only word I can come up with is a lament. It is a recognition of a deep problem that has no readily apparent solution. In the season of Lent, laments are not bad things to ponder. A lament reminds us of our fallen nature and our deep reliance upon God. In something so fundamental and necessary, we muck things up.

2) Tolerance is a word that goes along with the therapeutic culture and mentality. We manage things. We accept things. We tolerate things. And if we just do that day after day, we can project an image of health and well-being. There are times and places for therapy. But Christianity at its core is anti-therapeutic. It declares things like: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” Or like, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” God doesn’t manage things. He forgives. He settles.

3) God help the church that actually believes its doctrine in a public way. If you had a church that lamented and proclaimed…it doesn’t take long for somebody to say something like “that is just your interpretation” or “doctrine is just a bunch of fusty rules” or “how hate filled are you” or “who are you to judge me”. Tolerance is just easier. Like 10,000 maniac’s once sang, “give them what they want, so their eyes are fat and lazy…”

Isaiah 6:9-10 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”