I pray the children of my enemies be dashed against the rocks
July 07, 2012
One of the interesting things that we find within religious institutions is a type of prayer that expresses a deep love for God, the world and even ones enemies. Indeed it can often be the case that a group will pray all the more fervently in this way when confronted by oppression and difficulties, seeking forgiveness and grace for those who would seek to do them harm.
From this perspective statements such as the one found in Psalm 137 can seem inappropriate and without place in the church,
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
However, such prayers might have a deeply important place in the life of faith. To understand this let us take the rather mundane example of a young woman who has had a bad day at work and wants to express this to her partner. Let us also imagine that her partner stops her in the midst of her diatribe, informing her that she is being unreasonable and ungracious in her comments, even attempting to get her to see the other people’s perspective.
In such a scenario we can imagine the woman getting frustrated. Such a situation can quickly degenerate because the man is making a fundamental mistake. His mistake is neither in pointing out that his partner is being unreasonable and ungracious. Nor is it in mistaking what she is explicitly saying as unreasonable and ungracious. But rather in seeing the unreasonable and ungracious discourse as unreasonable and ungracious.
The point here is that, while what the woman said may well have the structure of being unreasonable and ungracious, the underlying meaning is “I am frustrated, tired and need to get this off my chest.” By the other person ignoring the real meaning of the words and concentrating purely on the explicit content they fundamentally miss the idea that such communication can actually have nothing to do with a hatred of the other or an inability to see things from their perspective, but can be more about the need to speak out a frustration and work it through.
In light of the man saying that she is being unreasonable and ungracious the woman could thus respond, “Is that the way you see me? Taking my unreasonable and ungracious diatribe as unreasonable and ungracious?”
The woman is not here disagreeing that what was said was unreasonable and ungracious, but rather she is reacting to the way that the unreasonable and ungracious statement was misunderstood as unreasonable and ungracious.
This is what we see play out when someone responds to the demand of their lover “I want you to leave,” by getting up and walking out. For often such a message communicates an opposite demand, namely, “I want you to fight to stay.”
The person who asks their lover to leave can’t communicate the true content of the demand directly for the simple reason that the other is being asked to respond to the true message without directly hearing it. In other words, it is not a demand being directed to the others ego (the image the person has of themselves), but rather to the others desires as such.
Hence it cannot be a message addressed to the ego. If it is directly spoken then it can be obeyed without the others subjective commitment. In short, the message thus reaches the wrong address. The message must rather be communicated in an indirect, ciphered, way for it to have a chance of ending up in the right place. While this might be seen as game playing it is in fact the only way for people to communicate to and expose the desires of the other directly.
The point here is that, when it comes to prayer, we must be free to express the full range of the moans that lie within us. While we might be inclined to think that these moans express directly what we think, more often than not they simply express a cluster of frustrations and fears that will do more damage if not given space; frustrations and fears that can be worked through only as they are expressed.
By praying out what we are holding without reserve we can actually be doing the very opposite of what the express language communicates. This becomes evident in those who, by expressing themselves in this way, work through their feelings and act in more reasonable and gracious ways in the aftermath of the unfettered expression.
There are, of course, groups that seek to oppress minorities (typically based on gender, sexuality or religious identity) and halt the expansion of human rights. Such groups will often pray their hatred of the other out directly. Yet in these groups there is a tendency to express this hatred in terms of love and a genuine desire for the wellbeing of the other; often praying for those who they feel are persecuting the community for staying true to the Divine Will.
So even here the idea of people expressing their feelings devoid of any loving language is progress, because the people might come to know themselves better, be shocked by what they find and begin to work it through. Or they might not. But at least then it will be revealed to all what lies within the doubletalk of love and forgiveness. The hatred will be robbed of its seemingly reasonable and gracious rationalisation and be exposed for the truly unreasonable and ungracious discourse that it is.
39 Responses to I pray the children of my enemies be dashed against the rocks
Leave a Reply
Speaking
October 20Pints and Parables, Detroit, MI
October 22
Building on Fire, Detroit, MI
October 26
The Largo with Rob Bell, Los Angeles, CA
November 12
Building on Fire, Los Angeles, CA
April 24-27
Wake 2017, Belfast, UK
April 30 - May 2
Thrive Conference, Granite Bay, CA
Latest Book
So… by logical extension, those who comment on your writings and call you a heretic and even a “murder” are deep down longing for you to write more =)! Or at least they are releasing the turmoil that you are causing inside of them
In response to Ryan who wrote, “So… by logical extension, those who comment on your writings and call you a heretic and even a “murder” are deep down longing for you to write more =)! Or at least they are releasing the turmoil that you are causing inside of them”.
There are so many ways that the two situations are not the same that it is hard to know where to start. So I’ll stick to just one. Peter is proposing that person A complains to person B (God or spouse) about person C. That is quite different from person A complaining to person B about person B – in Ryan’s example person B would be Peter. Jesus says “Cast your cares on me”, not “dump on whoever is bothering you.” If the two scenarios were the same, then we would not need people to debrief with after terrorist attacks, we could just complain to the terrorists!
Thank you for showing me the error of my ways ED! I will be sure to be much more accurate and compliant to details when making a joke from this point forward in my life…bless you for keeping the blog-o-sphere in line!
I enjoyed reading that, Pete.
Nice one, Peter. Very thought-provoking. Whilst the ‘parallel’ approach is helpful, it’d be good to hear your exposition directly on the original passage too. I’m intrigued to think that this analogy may be pertinent, but would like to see it rooted/demonstrated to be so. It is a difficult passage.
Well, now that I can clearly see you would understand my double-speak while in the midst of PMS, I am fully prepared to ask for your hand in marriage. That is, if I find your dowry acceptable…
I’ve been thinking about the flip side of this. We have a friend who has suddenly been diagnosed with terminal cancer throughout her body. Her husband is a pastor, a very thoughtful and intelligent man. He has been posting these encouraging and eloquent comforts that indicate they are not discouraged or doubtful. I find myself believing him, yet wishing for him to pray the doubtful angry prayer; but perhaps this isn’t honest for him. Must prayer that confesses faith of necessity be dishonest?
I have been faced with a similar set of messages while reading The Soul of Hip Hop by Daniel White Hodge. An examination of rap and hip hop that addresses the intersection of the profane and the sacred – a place where God meets people. Very interesting and compelling stuff. Thanks for continuing to rattle my small but growing mind.
that is a really interesting correlation – I always thought that there was potentially something healing about being able to have the laments found in hip-hop.
came across these lyrics, reminded me of this thread:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/atmosphere/mamahadababyandhisheadpoppedoff.html
I would love to hear what you think happens on the other side. When God receives these moans, what’s going on there?
Pete,
This is incredibly and amazingly timely for me. My wife and I are in counseling and not a small part of tht is due to my past inability to understand this dynamic. She ends up feeling judged because I don’t seem to join in with her in venting about the people people she works with. I experience anxiety because I don’t feel like I know what she wants me to do for her, but she desperately does not want to have to say it outright….
Sometimes I feel like I must have aspergers or something to not pick up on this stuff until I’ve painstakingly reasoned through it all.
Pete, sincerely, thank you so much for your writing. Insurrection marks a massive milestone in my spiritual journey. You’ve thought me that seeking IS finding and that my daily death is the well from which eternal life is drawn.
Thank you for these thoughts. I wholeheartedly endorse this teaching and would ask readers to indulge me the opportunity to share a difficult story from my experience.
I endured months of contact with an individual whose obstinate fundamentalism has injured one for whom I cared deeply. During the time of our interactions I desired often to curse and shame this self-confident and confrontational individual. Through long conversations, I held in my contempt but carried the weight of my hatred. In the midst of this interpersonal struggle I attended a lecture presented by a Hebrew scholar in which he offered prayer of lament as an outlet for such ungracious thoughts. I began immediately to offer up my violent emotions by praying that this individual would be devastated and forced to give up or reconsider his closed-minded self-importance. Less than a month after beginning to release my negative emotions through prayer the object of my lament suffered a sudden stroke.
In my years of prayer this is the one prayer which I have seen “answered.”
I do not regret this prayer.
Does Christ in the N.T. not encourage us to pray ‘ Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us’? Surely Christ was saying here and through his use of story elsewhere is that we have been forgiven so much that really it should be relatively easy for us to forgive others who have sinned against us much less than we have been forgiven. What do you think?
Bah, I’m totally guilty of this. This could also be titled “how to actually listen.”
Just wondering though…and others feel free to enlighten me…but what do you do for someone who is constantly bitching and moaning? Surely there comes a point where the move from having a frustrating day to chronic unsettling bitterness must be addressed? Is patient listening and decoding the ciphered message enough in this case? or can you be like “hey, you need to shut up now, I’m beginning to hate you for complaining so much.”
I see the idea of releasing what is repressed and that it is really not helpful to simply go through the love motions – and in some ways I agree – but I have also seen it done in such a way where one simply admits they do not know and admits that there is an inward issue of hatred and they confess an inability to fully be enabled to want to or know how to remedy it. More specifically it was for those that are God people stating that in the desire to want to be in alignment with love they admit that they can’t or do not even have the desire and invite God into that. I suppose this is similar to
what I hear takes place with AA groups – that when they are ready and see the benefit of being on the flip side, sober, they confess the inability to do it alone. It is not repressing it, it is not pretending that they can handle it alone, it is addressing it, confessing and inviting into a sort of healing that may be outside their own tendency. Or as much as it seemed to me. Specifically the prayer I heard was similar to a practice of “I can’t do this on my own, sometimes I don’t even want to do this, but other times I know I need to” sort of thing…but then again, even when I write this that does sound too nice…but it can also be more within “Honestly I want to —!!!!—,and the idea of forgiveness pisses me off, I can’t do it, I don’t want to do it, but not doing it and then needing to otherwise it destroy me I want to want to but I don’t…so God….open what is closed” sort of thing might work too. But overall I do agree that release of what is repressed is good, rather than pretending.
I have my own theory about Ps 137. Hebrew has no italics, but I think there should be a vocal stress on ‘your’ in ‘whoever takes *your* infants and dashes them against the rocks. I think this is what the invaders did to Judah’s children, and the psalmist is wishing the same to them. It doesn’t lessen the hatred, and I agree it has to be expressed, but it lets Judah (or the psalmist) off the hook of actually inventing the idea of dashing babies against rocks.
Pingback: Reflections on “I pray the children of my enemies be dashed against the rocks” | Real Rest is the Best
I think it is to a large extent game playing. Why can’t we say what we mean in an honest and loving way? As per the rest it overlooks a great deal of the contextual issues that surround the various Psalms. I do think that what made David a man after God’s heart was his willingness to be 100% honest in how he spoke to God – complaints and anger, warts and all. I believe that is what God wants from us – an open, honest no holds barred dialogue, rather than religious speak. So when addressing God, holding back is really just dishonesty. However there is a big disconnect between what we say to God directly, between Him and us (which helps us to heal internally), and how we pray “FOR” others to God. We can vent, but then we need to go back and pray both that we and God will find ways to deal with those negative things both in the world, in others, and especially within ourselves.
There is also the issue of what is expedient and appropriate within the context of corporate (group) prayer vs. individual prayer.
Not to mention the effect that praying for the good of others that we may not like or agree with has in bringing our hearts into a place of true tolerance and forgiveness.
…but…another day.
Hey. As I am not a Christian in the religious sense I am not qualified to comment on some of the things you mention. However in the matter of language the idea of it as a transparent mode of communication that can communicate its content explicitly, is problematic in linguistics (is this not what Saussure showed?). What you describe is how we attempt to communicate in the academic environment (although it is acknowledged that this is only a regulative ideal rather than possible). The point is that language requires parable, that parable is a necessary element of discourse due to the fact that the ego is only an aspect of our subjectivity rather than our subjectivity as a whole (or rather a manifestation of our subjectivity). Because discourse is not simply enunciated but also involves enunciation it is not simply transparent (in linguistics this is the defining difference between language and animal communication). Indeed one of the elements of psychosis is an inability to hear grasp this difference that is internal to discourse. This is a good and simple introduction to the subject http://www.lacan.com/zizciap.html
I don’t really find that I disagree with much of what you teach or what you suggest, especially in regards to actual communication – I think I tend to simply feel as though some of this is somewhat age-appropriate, or….what would you say…in need of at least some level of acclimation. For instance, my youngest daughter mostly takes what I say directly as that, then acts. That does not mean that it does not resonate in different ways, but her filter at that time is very simple in reference to it then producing enough for her to then act upon. SO I agree that there is a constant and inescapable reading between the line but then there are times when there is not enough pause in that between taking something and then reacting universally or overall no matter the age. But then again, perhaps that is part of the “violence” in the story, that at some point God or love (story wise) breaks in and takes the risk of the communication upheaval and acts, enough to stir change and then overtime, in process, it causes an acclimation or rest. Not sure.
I feel you bro, but I think what is at issue (before we delve into the minutia of linguistics academia), is the human heart so fearful of rejection that it requires others to acquiesce, without the provision of succinct verbal indicators. Before we ever get to the parabolic level, our insecurity and fear of rejection, lead us to address other thinking human beings with something akin to Pavlovian charades. One speaks in hyperbolic absolutes and pronouncements, to trigger a desired, though seemingly opposite response. Much as in your example of a lover’s spat – “GET OUT!” doesn’t really mean get out, the opposite is actually desired, it’s a thinly veiled manipulation, rather than communication. My friend is unhappy with the way his wife meets his needs. When I ask if he’s discussed it with her, he says no, because he feels doing that would make her response somehow less sincere. That really cuts to the heart of it; we want a sincere response and for some reason we feel that manipulative dramatics are a more legitimate means to that end than open communication.
Clearly there is always sub text in language and what we mean and its perception vary from person to person. Believe me, having a constructive conversation with theologians has become nearly impossible because every sect wants to redefine terms, a regulative ideal is pretty much out the window. I think the heart of this lies not in mechanics and psychology of linguistics, but a defect of the ego or psyche (or heart) which predisposes us toward dishonesty, with ourselves and others.
Thanks for the tag back and the link!
One of the great things about praying to God is that he is, well, God. So he is not bound to do what I request. Plus I know that his response will be one of wisdom, justice, love and mercy, toward me and toward the people about whom I am complaining. So, I can just rant and let him figure out what to do about it, if anything. It seems to me that those who prayed the violent Psalms in faith must have had this insight.
Your idea of hearing the underlying need which is different from the content expressed reminds me of the idea of Nonviolent Communication developed by Marshall Rosenberg.
Richard Beck is really helpful in developing Rene Girard on this. Hebrew Scripture is, he claims, first in allowing the voice of the victim to be heard. A start, at least, which finds its completion in the gospel account of Jesus the victim who returns not to blame or accuse, but to forgive.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/voice-of-scapegoat-part-4-whispers-of.html
Thank you for this Peter. Such posts show clearly your ‘irreligious’ heart – and God is well pleased (as am I) with what I see coming from your ‘damaged lips’.
What responsibility does the speaker have to *ever* learn that what he is saying is not really what he means? Isn’t a mark of maturity a developing habit of self-reflection and self-correction where through thought, meta-talking, and even emoting with the other person the *speaker* actually realizes something too? Some Psalms aren’t imprecatory …
It’s wise to tailor your speech to the audience’s level of understanding. So I guess you can abandon caution with God because he knows your heart already.
The inverse of that can also be true too, when we “take in” other people’s suffering. Without getting into the rest of his work, I’ve always loved this anecdote via Ken Wilber:
“In meditation, picture or visualize someone you know and love who is going through much suffering — an illness, a loss, depression, pain, anxiety, fear. As you breathe in, imagine all of that person’s suffering — in the form of dark, black, smoke-like, tar-like, thick, and heavy clouds entering your nostrils and traveling down into your heart. Hold that suffering in your heart. Then, on the outbreath, take all of your peace, freedom, health, goodness, and virtue, and send it out to the other person in the form of healing, liberating light. Imagine they take it all in, and feel completely free, released and happy. Do that for several breaths. Then imagine the town that person is in, and, on the in breath, take in all of the suffering of that town, and send back all of your health and happiness to everyone in it. Then do that for the entire state, then the entire country, the entire planet and the universe. You are taking in all the suffering of beings everywhere; and sending them back health and happiness and virtue.
The initial reaction of anyone who is first introduced to this practice will usually be very strong and negative. Take that black tar into me? Areyou kidding? Inviting catastrophes to myself? This is insane and dangerous! Kalu Rinpoche who once gave a tonglen course on one of his retreats, responded without hesitating, “You should think, Oh good! It’s working!” to one student who was worried of getting the sickness herself.
Ken Wilber wrote in Grace and Grit, “”That was the entire point. It caught all of us ‘selfless Buddhists’ with our egos hanging out. We would practic eto get our own enlightenment, to reduce our own suffering, but take on the suffering of others, even in imagination? No way.”
“We know what we do. We know why we do what we do. What we don’t know is what what we do does.” – Michel Foucualt
Really good piece, this blog. It seems so odd that “GOD” in the widest definition of that term, is the ultimate in anyone’s way of seeing things, the source of everything and the biggest, most all-encompassing conception we can have as human beings, yet we feel we must be polite when speaking to God, and are afraid to say the wrong things. If you cannot rant at God, who is supposed to understand all, then who can you rant at? My experience has been that, those who feel safe enough yelling at God either because of God or because of someone else’s actions, are the people who are facing the reality of their situation and are best able to do something about it. It is difficult act against, or respond to a bad situation if you are worried about the “correct” attitude. It’s others who are listening who may well get the wrong impression, and that’s where caution is needed if you have anything to lose – if in fact you care at all when in an extreme situation.
Maybe the person who wrote this wanted their enemy annihilated. Maybe they wanted their god to crush their opponent. Maybe they not as civilized as we are.
This was not a context in which ones enemies were nasty with them at work or scratched their car. More likely they will have seen their mother raped and their family (including themselves) put into slavery. Likely they will have also witnessed the slaughter of friends and family.
On the point that the writer might have meant what he said, that IS my point. Not sure what you thought i was saying? Did you think i was saying that he didnt mean it? The point is that the writer did feel this and that being able to speak the pain of seeing your friends and family reduced to slaves, beaten, raped, and murdered is important. You are knocking on an open door there.
Finally we live in a world where slavery is still rife, where we buy choc bars knowing 12 year old children are picking the coco beans in slave conditions etc. because we like the taste. All societies like to think that they are civilised by pushing the horrors they perpetrate beneath the surface
Say it, Peter.
Call me dense, but when I’m asked to leave I do. I refuse to play reindeer games.
Exactly. You refuse to play. That is itself an act. It is not an inability to see the meaning, but a dislike of the message. Refusal to play is still an act made in the face of the communication. All communication requires signifiers and signifieds. We respond to both in our responses to the others discourse. Your likely response is actually a very common one in such situations, at least when the two people are no longer in love.
It is the inability to read the meaning of discourse in its signified and signifier form that describes a psychotic response (not a dense response as communication does not rely on a high level of intelligence) not the dislike of how communication functions.
Wow, really thought and reflection provoking piece and discussion. This has made me think on a couple of things:
1. Sometimes I have been shutting my wife down on her diatribes particularly about the (lack of) quality of the online university lectures she gets (I sometimes think she could have watched the lecture in the time she takes to grumble about how bad it is!) but you have reminded me that perhaps she needs to leech the frustration from her system before she can move on with the material;
2. Maybe my strategy of NOT expressing MY frustrations (not even to God) may be causing soul damage and I need to do a bit of cathartic criticism to clear my cardio-spritual system.
Thanks again everyone for your incites and giving me something new to improve my quality of Life.
Dnx
Pingback: 10 Scripture Passages that I Love | David M Schell