Monday, August 30, 2010

Does the vindictiveness of the last verse ruin Psalm 137?

Eduard Bendemann "The
Sorrowful Jews in Exile," 1832
I always look forward to the Sundays when we have a Scripture reading about the Babylonian exile. Such lessons allow me to drag from my music files one of my favorite opera choruses, Va, pensiero, sull’ali dorate from Verdi’s Nabucco. I know my choir loves to sing that song. (Listen here.)

On Sundays when I don’t have the choir forces for Va, pensiero, I plan to fall back on William Billings’s round/canon on the first verses of Psalm 137 (sung hauntingly here by Don McLean of “American Pie” fame).

On October 3, the appointed Psalm is of my favorite laments in Scripture, Psalm 137:

By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, *
when we remembered you, O Zion.
As for our harps, we hung them up *
on the trees in the midst of that land. …
How shall we sing the LORD'S song *
upon an alien soil?

Last night I was reading the Wikipedia article on Psalm 137. It notes that most classical music settings of the Psalm omit the final verse.

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones, *
and dashes them against the rock!

The Wikipedia article then quotes hymnwriter John L. Bell, explaining that he had omitted that final verse from his metrical version “because its seemingly outrageous curse is better dealt with in preaching or group conversation.” However, notes Bell, the verse “should not be forgotten, especially by those who have never known exile, dispossession or the rape of people and land.”

So what do you think about the use of Psalm 137 in worship? Should we truncate it, reading or chanting only verses 1-8 (or perhaps omitting verses 6 and 7 as well, since they serve as an on-ramp to the “outrageous curse”? Or should we be faithful to the Spirit that inspired the sacred poet and use the whole damn thing? (D-word used advisedly.) And if we omit the final verse because it is better to handle the curse in a sermon, would that instead just let the preacher off the hook?

Your thoughts?

6 comments:

Amber Lee said...

I don't think it ruins the Psalm, but we do have to ask ourselves the ever important question "What constitutes God's Word?" when we read it. It's a heavy quotation, and probably is best mentioned - then explained - in a sermon or small group setting.

The Gladdings in Lexington said...

I'm for reading the entire psalm. For several reasons, perhaps the most important for myself being the validation that comes from hearing thoughts/feelings I've had (of which I may not be proud) come from the lips of someone reading scripture in corporate worship. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who has had such thoughts...
Sean.

rgas7541 said...

IS VERY GOOD..............................

Tom Sturch said...

Anomalies, stumbling stones, and the curses in Psalms! Such things interrupt the patterns of our acquisitions and movement about the world. We may bristle but we're taking notice and asking questions. God knows just how to pique our native curiosity. However, the answers we'd like to have with objectivity most often require submission to the mystery. Confound it! He's got me right where he wants me!

payday loans said...

Valuable information and excellent info you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your ideas and time into the stuff you post! Thumbs up.

MaryBeth Coudal said...

Now I know that I am not alone, having felt the urge to dash the little one's heads against the rock. It is like a rapper who sings of a gangsta' life. Better we sing of it than actually do it. And these are human emotions.

It is the humanity of the Psalm writers that make them so beautiful to me. So flawed, so human, so real.

When texts get all righteous, I tune out, but when there is an occasional vindictive streak, I tune in, and yes, I identify. Thanks for sparking these thoughts! http://mbcoudal.wordpress.com/