Why Isn’t This Book in the Lectionary?

Nahum-prophet

Nahum, 18th Century Russian Icon, PD-US via Wikimedia

Last Sunday, I learned one of those interesting “factoids” that may signify more than we think. I discovered that there are no readings from the minor prophet Nahum in either the Roman Catholic Sunday Lectionary or the Revised Common Lectionary used in many Protestant churches. For many people who do not engage in personal reading through the scriptures, Nahum is an unknown book, never read, and likely never preached from.

Except in my church. Our pastor was preaching on this as part of a series on the minor prophets and I realized that this was at least the second time we preached on this book. I spoke on the book in the summer of 2015, and, if you care, you may listen to that sermon. Having both listened to preaching on this book and studied it myself, I understand why it may not be included in either lectionary.

Basically the book is on the fall of Nineveh, and the empire of Assyria, the superpower of Nahum’s day, that had conquered and obliterated the northern tribes of Israel, leaving Nahum and those in Judah as subject vassals. Chapter one announces the fall in a song of praise to God. Chapter two graphically describes the battle against Nineveh and its fall to Babylon. Chapter three is a dirge describing the carnage of bodies and the devastation of Nineveh. The most troubling thing about this book is that Nahum doesn’t seem troubled. Nahum’s name means “comfort” and this picture of the destruction of an evil empire was comfort, perhaps grim comfort, to the people of Judah. Everything that happened to the Assyrians, and more, they had done at the height of their power against other nations including Israel. Their fall meant a respite from trouble.

You can see why those who put lectionaries together would omit Nahum. It poses too many uncomfortable questions in ascribing the ultimate cause of Nineveh’s fall to God’s avenging anger and portraying a prophet of God who is what I have described as “grimly satisfied” with the outcome.

Yet my pastor wondered, and I join him in this, what has been lost in this omission? For one thing, I encounter many who wonder why God does not do more against the evils they see around them. When a physician who abused scores of female athletes had to face those he abused and both be publicly shamed as he heard accounts of the damage his abuse wrought, and then was sentenced to die in prison, did anyone think he had been treated too harshly? I will confess to indulging in mental fantasies about what ought to have been done to him that should not be committed to print.

I can’t help but wonder if what is lost is the gritty reality of a God who is far from impotent to deal with evil, and a spirituality that cannot be reduced to niceness but has room for the expression of what seems unseemly, and yet is a reality of human experience. Actually, we often want it both ways–we want God to deal with evil in the abstract, we just don’t like the idea that he might actually do so. We want to pretend that we are wonderful, good people, and yet gloat or, even celebrate, when some evil is vanquished, even if it means the death of the person or people doing that evil. Sometimes we are filled with rage when we witness injustice, and we at least imagine doing unspeakably wicked things to the objects of our rage.

Is church a place where we can go with this kind of jumble of “stuff”? I suspect many Black churches were and are. They are places that understand lament for the evil around us. They are places that talk about the hate that wells up within us, and give voice to that and then speak of the greater power of love to overcome. Books like Nahum give permission and models for expressing the unseemly things that we might think don’t belong in church. We may want to ask whether our lectionaries and our endlessly happy praise songs have sanitized “church” and in the process created a kind of unreality disconnected from the world outside the building doors. Is a church that has gutted expressions of anger toward God about rampant evil, a church that doesn’t know how to lament, and a church that has tried to domesticate God, a place that can help people deal with the dark underbelly of life? What happens when people can’t express to God, and their spiritual community such things?

These are where my thoughts go when I wonder about the omission of Nahum from our lectionaries. . . .

3 thoughts on “Why Isn’t This Book in the Lectionary?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.