Worship With Woe

The Place of Praise and Lament in the Psalter

 

Introductory issues

One of the most popular methods by which modern scholars categorize the Psalms is the classification system pioneered by Hermann Gunkel, dealing with the Sitz im Leben (literally "setting in life," meaning the cause for the Psalm's creation, or the liturgical function which it served) to determine the Gattung, or genre. Gunkel proposed seven types: hymns, community laments, individual songs, thanksgiving songs, individual laments, entrance liturgies, and royal psalms.1 Most modern scholars generally follow this system, although typically modifying it to a degree.

But some modify Gunkel's Gattungen more drastically. Claus Westermann, perhaps with an eye to summarizing, condensed Gunkel's seven types into a mere two -- praise psalms and lament psalms.2 Westermann's condensation, with the possible exception of Gunkel's last two categories, largely makes sense. Hymns, songs of thanksgiving, and individual songs are very easy to lump together under "praise," just as individual and community laments need not be separate in the highest level of classification.

Westermann's reduction of the Psalter to only two categories may seem oversimplistic, but it provides an excellent guideline for interpreting the Psalter as a whole. Bullock observes that "emotionally, the Psalter oscillates between praise and lament",3 and even goes so far as to claim that praise and lament are "two poles in the Psalter, the full value of one unrecognizable without proper consideration of the other."4 Therefore, though there are many ways to classify the Psalms (even where scholars are agreed on the categories, they often disagree with exactly which psalms belong in which category), our focus henceforth will be viewing the Psalter with regard to these two poles.

Praise and Lament in the Psalter

According to the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies (ICJS), "The category of Praise includes 32 psalms: 20 Hymns of Praise, 6 Enthronement Psalms (psalms proclaiming God as king), and 6 Hymns of Zion (psalms praising Zion as the place of God's continuing presence)."5 On the other pole, the ICJS states that "a conservative estimate places the number of psalms of lament at fifty-seven, approximately 38% of the Book of Psalms."6 This means, as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has observed, that "There are more psalms of lament than of any other type."7 Anderson observes that laments are "the most common category in the Psalter, and nearly a third of the psalms belong in this category."8

Differences arise in the placement of certain types of Psalm in the spectrum. Thanksgiving psalms, for example, often arise out of a lament situation, leading to either category being equally valid for these psalms. As Bullock points out, "some psalms do not fall neatly into the classification of praise or lament."9 He lists as examples some 19 psalms, all of which the ICJS considers laments. In fact, ICJS places all the thanksgiving psalms under the broad heading of laments (though recognizing that they are not laments in the "formal sense"), describing them as "a response to an answered lament."10

We begin to see the incredible interplay of praise and lament in the seemingly simple issue of categorization. Even when we reduce the factors down to only one issue (is it praise or lament?) many Psalms cannot easily be categorized because they contain elements of both. So instead of a system of two exclusive categories, a much improved system would place any given psalm along a spectrum, with the two poles marking absolute saturation of either praise or lament. Thanksgiving is perhaps derived from a lament situation, but at its heart it is praise of God for deliverance from that situation. So it might fall slightly off the center of our spectrum, favoring the praise pole.

Particularly interesting is the distribution of psalms along this spectrum when considered alongside the psalmographic distribution. If we were to look on our spectrum only at the two poles, we would see a large number of Psalms placed squarely on top of the "praise" pole. But only one psalm belongs directly on the "lament" pole -- Psalm 88. It is noteworthy that although laments are the largest category in the Psalter, almost none of them are devoid of elements of praise or thanksgiving, yet praise, containing perhaps only some thirty psalms, finds a significant number of these to be without elements of lament. We can therefore agree with Bullock when he concludes: "the nature of the Psalter is such that the power of gravitation is in the direction of praise. Indeed the worshiper finds coherence and meaning for his life in praise, not in lament."11

Functions of Praise and Lament

Much has already been said on the issue of praise, and few believing readers of Psalms do not already regularly participate in praise. For our purposes here, we will simply commend the reader to any good church or synagogue for practical and experiential instruction in the functions of praise. It is primarily lament with which we are concerned here, but especially the manner in which lament relates to praise.

The ICJS gives the following as the structure of a typical lament:12

The Moment of Plea
The Moment "Between"
The Moment of Praise

Praise is therefore shown as the eventual goal of lament. Further help in understanding lament is given by Anderson's insightful definition: "Lamentation was man's response to God in a situation of need and affliction."13 Although the cause of the lament may be the vicissitudes of earthly life, the focus of the lamentation is still Yahweh.

Lamentation can relate to praise in interesting ways. In Psalm 89, the psalmist begins with praise, describing the mighty deeds of God, particularly with relation to God's promises. But then an ulterior motive shows up, when, after a Selah, he transitions into the present in vs. 38: "But you have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one"14, etc., culminating with a desperate cry of "where is your former great love, which in your faithfulness you swore to David?" Here the lament references the praise, asserting rather brazenly (cf. Job) that God was not fulfilling his side of the bargain. Was the initial praise of the Lord's faithfulness said bitterly? Most likely. But, that said, it was not said in disbelief. For the psalmist to adjure God to live up to His promises, he had to believe those promises had been sworn in faithfulness by a loving God.

Praise and lament are modeled in the Psalms as being inextricably linked. Without praise, lament is futile. Without lament, praise atrophies. Bullock describes the balance of these two essential elements: "It is a unity enriched by the diversity that we have discussed, and held in bounds by the covenantal element of Israel's faith."15

The Rev. Frank Logue, pastor of King of Peace Episcopal Church in Kingsland, GA, gives a useful insight into another function of lament:

The lament Psalms teach that God can deal with your anger better than your silence. When you are angry with God, don't be afraid to say so. If you are at a loss for words, try strolling through the Psalms as you will find plenty of anger directed at God within these ancient hymns. [...] It may not provide an instant miracle of praise, but you will reopen up the channel of communication with God through prayer, which is what the lament Psalms accomplish best.

Thus lamentation is a very real way to stay close to God while going through tough times. If praise and thanksgiving were the only ways we could relate to God, we would be at a loss during the majority of our lives for a way to relate to God. The Psalms teach us that God wants to relate to us even when we are not happy with our lives, or even with Him.

The Present Dearth of Lament

Our immediate concern is whether the interplay of praise and lament was strictly a Biblical occurrence, i.e. did the Hebrew faith exclusively necessitate this interplay, or does the interplay still function today? Our reason for asking this question lies in the modern view. Modern believers regularly praise, while laments are voiced infrequently, and almost never within the corporate body. This emphasis on praise may agree with the Psalter, but praise to the exclusion of lament very much disagrees, because as we have seen, the Psalter is primarily praise-destined lament. Bullock has justifiably called the Psalms "the spiritual logbook for Israel",16 but should the Psalter also be the spiritual logbook of our day and age?

Athanasius, a church leader in the fourth century AD, said that the psalms are unique among Scripture because whereas most of Scripture speaks to us, the Psalms speak for us. Apparently the early church viewed the Psalms, complete with its inseparable poles of praise and lament, as applying to that day and age. We would add that the Psalms' placement in the canon of Scripture automatically gives them timeless significance, and since the psalms contain innumerable instances of lament inextricably entwined with praise, this model can and should apply to us today.

It is unfortunate then that it does not. The church makes little or no place for lament. We must make the distinction that people still lament; the church merely provides little opportunity for it. And we maintain that the church suffers and stagnates as a result.

Walter Brueggemann describes both the power of lament and how refraining from lament is actually withholding from God: a lament is

an act of bold faith -- on the one hand, because it insists that the world must be experienced as it really is and not in some pretended way. On the other hand, it is bold because it insists that all such experiences of disorder are a proper subject for discourse with God. There is nothing out of bounds, nothing precluded or inappropriate. Everything properly belongs in this conversation of the heart. To withhold parts of life from that conversation is in fact to withhold part of life from the sovereignty of God.17

Not lamenting is not sharing your real life with God. The lesson to be learned from this insight needs no explanation. Ed Saliers goes into greater detail on something we have shown above, that without lament, praise atrophies:

Christian public prayer finds praise and thanksgiving far less demanding when lamenting is suppressed. Put differently, praise and thanksgiving grow empty when the truth about human rage over suffering and injustice is never uttered. --- the revelatory character of prayer, liturgical or devotional, is diminished when no laments are ever raised. --- Christian liturgy without the full range of the Psalms becomes anorexic - starving for honest, emotional range.18

The present dearth of lament in the church is indeed unfortunate. Praising God is already delightful, but how much better the praise could be were we to praise in response to an answered lament, or even praise amid a lamentable situation!

Still more lamentably, the lack of lament in the church has more profound social implications. Brueggemann claims that "The absence of lament makes a religion of coercive obedience the only possibility."19 He states that along with the loss of lament comes "the loss of genuine covenant interaction because the second party to the covenant (the petitioner) has become voiceless or has a voice that is permitted to speak only praise and doxology."20 Covenant therefore is limited to "a celebration of joy and well-being."21 He concludes, "Since such a celebrative, consenting silence does not square with reality, covenant minus lament is finally a practice of denial, cover-up, and pretense, which sanctions social control."22

The final issue we would mention is another rather brilliant insight of Brueggemann's. Here he says it best:

A community of faith which negates laments soon concludes that the hard issues of justice are improper questions to pose at the throne, because the throne seems to be only a place of praise. I believe it thus follows that if justice questions are improper questions to God, they soon appear to be improper questions in public places, in schools, in hospitals, with the government, and eventually even in the courts. Justice questions disappear into civility and docility. The order of the day comes to seem absolute, beyond question, and we are left with only grim obedience and eventually despair. The point of access for serious change has been forfeited when the propriety of this speech form is denied.23

Let us examine ourselves to see if in failing to complain to God, we admit fatalism. But let us also not overreact in the opposite direction. Scripture reminds us that we are to "do everything without complaining or arguing."24

In conclusion, let us take seriously the challenge presented by the balance of the Psalter. Without complaining overly much, when life becomes lamentable, let us not be afraid to ask God where He is in the midst of our suffering.

 

Footnotes

1 Bullock, C. Hassell. Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1988. p. 120.
2 Ibid., 121.
3 Ibid., 125.
4 Ibid., 129.
5 Catalano, Rosann M. "Praying at the Edge: Suffering, The Psalms of Lament, and God." http://www.icjs.org/what/edge.html
6 Ibid.
7 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) "Psalms: Introduction" http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/intro.htm
8 Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms, Vol. 1. The New Century Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Introduction.
9 Bullock, 129.
10 Catalano, 1.
11 Bullock, 128.
12 Catalano, 1.
13 Anderson, Introduction
14 All citations NIV (© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society) unless otherwise noted.
15 Bullock, 127.
16 Ibid., 124.
17 Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. 51-53.
18 Saliers, Don E. Worship as Theology: Foretaste of Glory Divine. Nashville, Abignon, 1994. p. 121.
19 Brueggemann, Walter. "The Costly Loss of Lament"; Journal of Studies of Old Testament, 36 (1986), p. 61.
20 Ibid., 60.
21 Ibid., 61.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., 64.
24 Php. 2:14.The Compendium

© 1998-2024 Zach Bardon
Last modified 7.19.2019
Flangitize it!