Nahumite Devotions

Destruction of Ninevah

A couple months ago, our class leader urged me to build a habit of reading scripture daily. So, being a good churchman, I went to straight to the lectionary for my regular course of bible reading. Not surprisingly, I was referencing the 1943 lectionary which is inserted in American 1928 Prayer Books after the same date (see the certificate given after title page). Interestingly enough, for the Eleventh Sunday in Trinity, the Book of Nahum was assigned for the Evening Lesson(s). What shocked me was the wrathful, even imprecatory, language of Nahum’s prose. The selection alarmed me given the usual ridicule of the 1928 American BCP being ‘liberal’. That charge might be better pressed against the 1940 hymnal, yet in continuing Angilcan churches both books are normally found tucked together behind pew benches. But, I’d like to debunk the earlier objection, namely, the American 1928 BCP as a ‘liberal’ book, starting with Nahum’s presence in the lectionary and how penitentialism restored in our devotions by secondary texts, if necessary.   

Lectionaries in the 1928 BCP:
When I read from the lectionary, I use the American Revision of the Bible (1901 ASV), approved by UECNA. The book of Nahum is covered in the course of three evenings– Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The ASV subtitles Nahum, describing it as the overthrow of Nineveh under the ‘severity of Jehovah”. The tone of national judgement, or expired mercy, composes all three chapters. Indeed, the first three verses of Nahum basically sum the entire book,

“Jehovah is a jealous God and avengeth: Jehovah avengeth and is full of wrath; Jehovah taketh vengeance on his adversaries and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty”

A speck of mercy is reserved to the Jews, “For Jehovah restoreth the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel” (Na. 2:2). The punishment of Israel’s persecutors and the consequent deliverance of Jacob’s posterity resonates with the lectionary’s selected Psalms for the 11th week in Trinity (Ps. 77, 78, 79), recollecting Jehovah as Covenant God. New Testament lessons (from Romans) inform the essential condition of a true Israelite, “But, if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). In such case, a person would be subject to Nineveh, and if sensible of this impertinence, should indeed fear God.

There is almost no way to skip, or chop, Nahum to avoid the biblical dread and wrath of Jehovah without omitting the entire book from canon. I was surprised the ’43 lectionary did not do such. Indeed, the lectionary, especially with its psalms, doesn’t appear to avoid penitential scripture as an ordinary rule, but appears to be driven by a greater concern for brevity. Often times, if the Old Testament lesson happens to be abridged (or diced up a bit), it’s usually for the sake of sparing the reader or hearer with less important historical detail, or Jewish minutiae, perhaps avoiding unnecessary kin or tribal relations, especially those not relevant to the House of David’s King. So, we can say, at least with the ’43 lectionary, there’s no great prejudice against penitentialsim. Rather, we see a desire to convey a more compact or incisive lesson to the reader/ hearer.

Indeed, I have yet to be disappointed with the 1943 lectionary, keeping in mind the aim of American 1920’s compilers was probably more thematic, or seasonal, with lessons than keeping a lectio continua, say, from Genesis to Revelations. Regardless, the UECNA allows members to swap-out the ’43 lectionary with older versions. In fact, the UE Presiding Bishop’s favorite alternative is the 1871 English ‘Table of Psalms and Lessons’. Nevertheless, there have been times when I fell back to earlier kinds, namely the original 1922 Table, without departing from American  Lectionaries. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the semi-continuous, or more seasonal, approach of the 1943 but on occasion, if pinched, have used the 1922.

Another problem with estimating the conservatism of the 1928 BCP is underplaying the rubrics which cover the Psalms and Lessons at beginning of the book, some of which allow,

• “That on other days, the Minister shall use the Psalms appointed in the Tables; or at his discretion he may use one or more of those assigned in the Psalter to the day of the month [pp. 345-525] , or from the Table of Selections of Psalms [p.ix]. And Note further, That in the case of a Psalm which is divided into sections, the Minister may use a section or sections of such Psalm.”
• Any set of Psalms and Lessons appointed for the evening of any day may be read at the morning service, and any set of morning Psalms and Lessons may be read in the evening.
• Upon any weekday, other than a Holy Day, the Psalms and Lessons appointed for any day in the same week may be read instead of those appointed for the day.
• Upon special occasions the Minister may select such Psalms and Lessons as he may think suitable.
• Any Lesson may be lengthened or shortened at the Minister’s discretion. “

Notice, the last rubric basically removes the chief-most criticism regarding the lectionary or how Lessons are unfortunately divided into segments. The rubrics also give enough flexibility that a wide choice of Psalms may used upon any given day, even permitting consecutive reading in the psalter, by using the monthly order. Combined with the discretion of an Ordinary (like Bp. Robinson allowing older lectionaries), there’s hardly a time when the Table is problematic.

Problems with the 1940 Hymnal:
The second-half of this post is more pertinent (regarding orthodoxy) probably because the question of an ‘classical’ hymnal apart from the 1940 version has surfaced recently with the REC’s new song book. I probably reserve more negative comments for the 1940 hymnal rather than the 1928 BCP (or its lectionary) mainly because supplementary materials (like hymn books, ceremonial directories, vestments, and benedictine hours, etc.) has tended to undermine or weaken the Protestant moorings over the last century. Consequently, my foremost compliant with the 1940 Hymnal is it continued a decisive break with metered Psalmody (and other Evangelical songs, namely, from Dr. Watts) that Hymns Ancient and Modern inaugurated– further removing Anglicans from what was previously an important element in a common Protestant culture.

A way to correct this cultural dissolution is to revive the use of the older, Protestant church hymnals. We use those books known by Episcopalians before the Tractarian inroad. Measured Psalters were typically bound with the 1789 Prayer Book until the mid-1870’s. These Psalters were approved of by PECUSA General Convention and were generally composed from the New Version Psalms as received from England during the colonial period. Americans interestingly embellished these Psalters usually by adding the Hymns of Isaac Watts– initially as a appendix to the New Version but later as an official part of the PECUSA Hymn Book. At Littlewood proChapel we use any combination of the above in order to restore Protestant worship, with its attachment to metered Psalmody, whether at home or in public worship.

While skimming through an Americanized New Version, I ran into this scriptural hymn for the Book of Nahum by Dr. Watts. I thought to share it below to illustrate the content and mindframe of the older Protestant culture which Episcopalians belonged. For Anglicans who choose to use the old measured Psalter as we do, I thought songs like Hymn XLI might exemplify wider penitentialism, even imprecatory quality, in worship. Let the pious fear God. I suppose it reasonable to say if supplementary material indeed weakened Protestantism, then the same can be revived through texts intended to strengthen the Protestant church. Anyhow, here is Watts on Nahum, chp. 1-3:

 

Conclusion: My stumbling upon Nahum is an example of how accusations of weak penitentialism can be handled with respect to both prayer book and hymnal. My contention is the 1928 BCP, even its lectionary, is sufficiently Protestant. Where it appears weak on man’s depravity or the wrath of God, often this is solved by flexibility granted through rarely read rubrics. However, a bigger problem are supplementary works that have undermined Protestant ethos.

The 1940 Hymnal may serve a case in point. While the 1940 contains many wonderful songs, overall, it represents a departure, if not rejection, of the metered Psalmodry which preceded it. In this case, there might be less to retrieve aside from going to older PECUSA hymn books. We prefer adding songs to our prayers from either the New Version (Tate & Brady) or directly from Evangelical composers like Dr. Watts or Mr. Wesley. Of course, these authors were once commonly bound together with the American Protestant Episcopal BCP. Regardless, we often forget the treasure trove of Reformation helps Anglicans had at their disposal, and, in worst case scenarios, we can return to them.

Nahum lessons remain a bane to liberals (btw. not found in the lectionary in the 1979 BCP), testifying something of the 1928’s continuity with orthodoxy. Together with well-chosen and historically informed secondary materials, there is much sobriety awaiting with older American Episcopal worship.

Advertisement