Wright: The Case for the Psalms

In many ways this might be Wright's best work ever.  I had always suspected something like his thesis when I read the Psalms (more on that below) but I couldn't articulate it.  Wright says the Psalms transform the reader (better yet, the chanter and singer) because they place him or her at the intersection of Space, Time, and Matter--the very place where Jesus of Nazareth is.



People who pray the psalms will be learning to live in God’s time, space, and “matter” (the stuff we are made of) as well as our own (Wright 27). The psalms resonate with Jesus because he was the one who stood at the intersection of God’s time/space/matter and ours (30).

The threshold of God's Time:

The ebb and flow in the Psalms teach us an eschatological balance.  The theme of time helps us with those instances where we are called to sing of the enthronement of Yahweh’s king (44). And we shouldn’t shrink back from the royalist overtones in our democratic age, for we are called to be his vice-regents.

More specifically, Yahweh also called Israel to care for the world (Genesis 12:3). But given Israel’s failure, God narrows his focus to the House of David. Therefore, the intersection of God’s time with our time--and always with the Davidic King in the foreground--comes into focus in Psalm 89.

Where God Dwells

The “Temple” is where God’s space and our space intersect.  If the world’s Creator lives in Jerusalem, then it stands to reason (Ps. 2) that he will rule from Jerusalem.

“The temple turns out to be an advance foretaste of Yahweh’s claim on the whole of creation...It is a sign that the creator God is desiring...to recreate the world from within” (91).
1. The temple is a heaven-and-earth reality, a microcosm of creation.
2. Psalm 24: Yahweh takes up residence in his temple.
3. Temple and Torah are connected and both point ahead to God’s new place.
4. Temple Psalms and Pneumatology: the new Temple is indwelt by the Spirit.
5. Covenant renewal generates fresh idea of sacred space.

All the trees of the forest sing for joy

Western modernity sees matter as lifeless matter. The Psalms, however, see creation throbbing with the potential glory of God.  God’s glory either already fills the whole earth or it will fill the earth (124).

This ties in with Covenant and Kingship:  the true King will bring justice and peace to the earth, which will renew creation (Psalm 72).

Wisdom and Creation

Psalm 104:19-24 combines themes from Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8.  Paul picks up this Wisdom-Creation tradition and places it in Jesus (Colossians 1:15-20, 2.2-3).

Summary of Theme

Time: the past of creation, the future of Judgment, and the present of celebration are drawn together.
Space: what was promised for the Temple is now promised for the whole world.
Matter: we are standing at the fault line of the original material of creation and the glory-filled material of the new creation (144).

Conclusion and Nota Bene:

The book is simply magnificent. I honestly can’t think of a single flaw.

Nota Bene

Wright says at one time in his life when he was witnessing to Gaia-worshiping pantheists, he felt an oppressive darkness and Yahweh gave him deliverance by bringing Psalm 97 (which happened to be the next Psalm in the prayerbook reading) to mind, “Yahweh is King.  Let the Earth rejoice!” p. 175

Liturgical Prayers are Epistemologically Calvinistic

I think I can offend everyone with this one.  Here goes.  The Humeans at Puritanboard attacked "liturgy" (though despite my repeated requests, they never actually defined that which they were attacking).  It seemed that something to do with repetition is bad and soul-deadening.

Some form of liturgical prayers are inevitable and always operate at the sub-conscious level.  Even people who always pray extemporarenously, usually pray the same extemporaneous prayers.  I for one know how many "Jesus-Weejus" prayers I've prayed.  How often have you heard, "Jesus, we just..."?  Even worse, how often have you heard, "Lead, guide, and direct us" during a prayer? Nothing wrong with those concepts, mind you, but it's not entirely clear how it isn't repetitive and it certainly isn't an advance on the Book of Common Prayer.

Is liturgy soul-killing?  It's an unfair question because any practice can be soul-killing.   So should you stop the practice?

Does extemporaneous prayer really enact a more pure piety?  Well, if it does it puts the Psalter in a rather awkward position.  I think the examples of powerful extemporaneous prayers are from people whose minds are already saturated with Scripture--which is precisely the goal of the Book of Common Prayer.

But doesn't Scripture warn against mindless prayers and repetition?  Yes.  But as I've demonstrated above, many extemporaneous prayers often become repetitive.  Further, the Lord enjoined us to pray a specific, so-called "Lord's Prayer."  Seems repetitive to me.  And there is no reason why my mind can't be focused on the (admittedly repetitive) words I am saying.  The Puritanical Humean has given no reason why that must be so.  He's merely asserted it.

But why are liturgical prayers epistemologically Calvinistic?  They are so because they don't require me, on my own strength, to approach God with something new today.  I get to rely on God. Even more startling, should adherents to Exclusive Psalmody only pray from the Psalms in church?  If the argument, "We can't improve on God's songbook" holds, then why doesn't the argument "We cannot improve upon God's prayerbook" hold?

Liturgy and Apocalypse

Preliminary points (because hard core Reformed people will not grasp this).

1. Bowing down to man made pesels and pretending that they mediate a higher degree of worship is idolatry and will bring a multi-generational curse from God.
2. Christ's work is finished and effected in the lives of believers.  Re-enacting it "bloodlessly" is pointless at best and dangerous at worst.
3. It is true we should not introduce man-made religion into God's worship.
4. However, even Reformed people are not always consistent.  The Psalms say we should sing a new song to the Lord, but hard-line RPWers say we should sing only psalms, which themselves say we should sing a new song to the Lord.  To say that injunctions to sing new songs with instruments apply only to the ceremonial order seems ad hoc at best.
5. The Exclusive Psalmody position has the further difficulty of being based mostly (I understand the appeal to Ephesians) on Old Covenant orders.
6. The EPer gets around this by saying elements of the Psalms are no longer binding today (any reference to singing new psalms and using instruments).
7. As it stands, (6) seems ad hoc and special pleading, so I do not find the strict RPW case persuasive on a surface level reading.
8. The distinction between circumstance and element, essential to the RPW, is good but ultimately subjective.  It is a difference in degree, not kind.

With that out of the way.  I agree with the RPW that some ceremonial elements of the Old Covenant typify the work of Christ.    I just don't believe every liturgical "thing" in the Old Testament typifies the work of Christ.  Incense, for example, is not tied to the work of Christ but to the prayers of Christ's people (Revelation 5:8).

The objection often comes:  liturgy deadens worship and detracts from the preaching of the Word.  Yes, there is much dead worship in all mainline churches.  No argument here, but what is "liturgy?"  Usually it means something like "any kind of formal structure that I am not comfortable with."  The problem with that is the NT carries forward a number of OT practices:

1. Liturgical worship in general (Acts 13.2)
2. Incense (Revelation 5:8)
3. The Trisagion (Isaiah 6:3 --> Revelation 4:8)

Someone could respond, "But we aren't supposed to imitate the liturgical structure of Revelation," but this is ridiculous.  Consider:

1. Revelation specifically says blessed are they who hear and do what is written therein (and this immediately fells all "spiritual" interpretations of Revelation because if everything is "spiritualized," then there is nothing specific "to do").
2. Liturgy is done in Revelation.
3. Therefore, we should do liturgy (premises 1, 2).