There are 18 verses in Psalm 88. Save for verse 13, not a single positive thought is expressed. Everything is disastrous. Nothing good anywhere. Plus, the psalmist all but blames God: ‘When are you going to pour out your loving-kindness—when I’m dead?’ He makes the point repeatedly.

Look those verses over. You can’t find a positive thought. Except for 13: “But I still cry to you for help, O Jehovah, Each morning my prayer comes before you.” Though, he immediately follows up (verse 14) that it does him no good: “Why, O Jehovah, do you reject me? Why do you hide your face from me?” The question is nowhere answered.  He has tried the “peace of God will safeguard your heart” thing. It hasn’t worked, and so he tells God about it!

Psalm 88 is just like the Book of Job, but without the preface pulling back the heavenly curtain to explain what it’s all about. What is this psalm even doing in the Bible, which is overall a book of faith? You could easily get all cynical over it, were that your inclination. Nowhere is the psalmist’s faith rewarded. But it is steadfast, if only by force of habit, per verse 13. Is it the more powerful on that account? Life is not consistently rosy. It can be horrendous for the long periods of time.

There is precious little commentary on this psalm from the JW Library app, which likes to focus on the positive. No wonder. There’s nothing positive here, save for the verse about hanging in there with prayer. ‘Sometimes we have to wait awhile’ is the gist of the Library’s sole remark (on 13). There’s one other remark, too, but it is simply the definition of a term.

The fellow is going through a trough. Sometimes we are in troughs. Don’t feel unique if it has ever happened to you. The ground has been plowed before. If you have ever felt as the psalmist, don’t feel bad. Or, at least, don’t feel guilty about feeling bad. Part of the roller coaster of life, someone said during field service, which delivers both good times and bad.

It reminded me of how the circuit overseer said he would get carsick as a boy. The solution? Fix your gaze far off into the horizon, the one thing that does not change. So it is that the psalmist fixes his gaze upon God to carry him through a rough period of life.

******  The bookstore

Lately, my wife and I have added ‘Mankind’s Search for God’ into our family study. Published in 1990. It was a good read for me when it came out, but I also wondered what was the point. Whereas the book tells of an huge population shift, many times I’ve told people that, at its time of release, one came across only three groups of people in the U.S.—white, black, and Hispanic. Maybe in huge cities there were other populations, and one could always find the odd duck out of the water, but in the mid-sized city that was mine, all but 99% were of those three groups.

Turned out the book was just ahead of its time. Within ten years, the trickle of cultures/nationalities/religions began. Now it is a torrent, as people hop from sinking nations onto ones that are sinking more slowly. The brothers in the big cities were already seeing it back in 1990.

It is a reference work, really, and yet there are printed questions, as though it was designed for congregation study that never came. Quite a bit different from any other study book. Best remembered is the chapters comparing and contrasting all the large religions. But there are also chapters as to how the theory of evolution modified the search for God itself.

”During the 19th century, however, the picture began to change. The theory of evolution was sweeping through intellectual circles. That, along with the advent of scientific inquiry, caused many to question established systems, including religion. Recognizing the limitations of looking for clues within existing religion, some scholars turned to the remains of early civilizations or to the remote corners of the world where people still lived in primitive societies. They tried to apply to these the methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and so forth, hoping to discover a clue as to how religion began and why.” p23

The book names a few of these scholars. Tylor, Marett, Frazer, Freud has a paragraph apiece, with a few details as to the theories they proposed. At last, all are dismissed with the observation of paragraph 15:

“Numerous other theories that are attempts to explain the origin of religion could be cited. Most of them, however, have been forgotten, and none of them have really stood out as more credible or acceptable than the others. Why? Simply because there was never any historical evidence or proof that these theories were true. They were purely products of some investigator’s imagination or conjecture, soon to be replaced by the next one that came along.”

Then, an appeal to another book (World Religions—From Ancient History to the Present), which says: “In the past too many theorists were concerned not simply to describe or explain religion but to explain it away, feeling that if the early forms were shown to be based upon illusions then the later and higher religions might be undermined.” (Italics mine)

Thing is, we normally have zero interest in such things. If it is not a Bible topic itself, we don’t touch it. The book is an aberration from all else we print. All these names have popped up in background reading to maybe incorporate in my current work-in-progress, but I was real surprised to see it here, even in truncated form. Probably in the end, someone decided that it really does nothing for the building up of faith (other than provide a contrast), so for that reason it never made it into congregation study. Or maybe, it was never meant to, but in that case, why the study questions?

******  The bookstore

When a full-time-service couple moves into town, they may have several congregations to choose from. I try to woo them into mine. ‘Frankly, in some of those other congregations,’ I tell them, ‘I’m not sure they even believe in God.’ It’s a joke. Everyone knows it’s a joke. They laugh.

But in the world of theologians, it’s no joke. Theologians may not. And if they do not, their credentials as theologian are not diminished. ‘How could they not believe in God?’ the uninitiated who supposes the two all but synonymous might ask. The answer is that theology is not a study of God. It is a study of humans. Specifically, it is a study of human interaction with the concept of a divine. As such, it does not even assume that there is a divine. The concept is what counts, not whether the concept has “the quality of existence.” Frequently, theologians are agnostic. Sometimes, they are atheist.

Since their limited tools of rational measurement leave them unable to verify spiritual interpretations, they don’t try. They leave that area, huge though it is, untouched. Instead, those trained in higher criticism judge religious belief entirely by its effect upon people and society. When they entertain arguments as to God’s existence, arguments categorized as ontological, cosmological, and teleological—they generally find flaws with all. James Hall considers numerous examples of each argument and in every case arrives at what he calls a ‘Scottish verdict’—undecided. He ends his 36-part lecture series on the Philosophy of Religion with the plea that religious people take more seriously the notion that they may be wrong. Why? Because when they don’t, they tend to persecute those believing differently.

Just tamp them all down some so that human reason might rule the roost; that is his position. No wonder he downplays any dualism theodicy that implies some things are beyond human control. Strong faith is not amenable to his tools of choice. he prefers you make it weak. As a hobby, as a dimly motivating background philosophy, it is okay, but for anything serious, just shelve it, please. “I wish you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth,” Jesus says. Hall’s reply is that lukewarm with have to do.

It may be that religious people persecute those of different beliefs in his world—clearly, they do—but in the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not. As people who integrate the scriptures, rather than assume each one an island oblivious to all others, they are motivated by the Old Testament verse put in New Testament context, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” If there is any persecuting to be done, it will not be at their hands. Witnesses do not even engage in the ‘soft violence’ of stirring up politicians to force their ways upon people by law. But those addicted to changing the world, by force, if necessary, cannot abide the expanded ‘vengeance is mine’ passage:

Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good. (Romans 12: 17-21)

They do like the part about “heaping fiery coals” upon the heads of their opponents, but alas, it is not a literal recommendation. It is a reference to how metals can be softened to make them more pliable, and how acts of kindness can have that effect upon people.

Thus, one need not water down faith, as Hall appears to advocate. Assume unity of scripture and you are fine. Assume the ‘vengeance is mine’ passage is the insertion of some renegade theological peacenik, however, and you can see why he wants to dilute all systems of faith—they just go at each other like baking soda and vinegar.

******  The bookstore

Here is someone who gets right to the point. After a quick little genuflect to show he  still had the overall picture—“God is truly good to Israel, to those pure in heart,”  (Psalm 73:1) he relates how he almost lost it.

As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped.” (vs 2)

The problem? He became envious! Few things are as corrosive as envy.

 “For I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked.  For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men. Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. . . Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They just keep increasing their wealth.” (3-12)

And just how do these ones feel about God? They tell him to take a hike!

“They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” (vs 11) And it goes well for them!

They don’t all hit the party scene upon forgetting God! They don’t all turn to drugs and sex and the bottle! Someone at the meeting cited 2 Timothy 3:2-5, with its laundry list of bad traits typifying the last days:

“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.” 

It works for some. Some dance with the tune and they make out just fine! It was enough to make Asaph pull his hair out! If he were living in modern times, he’d be whining about being misled, about being brainwashed, about the Levites lying to him! In fact, when a recent Watchtower study incorporated Psalm 73 for the benefit of any feeling what Asaph did, virulent ex-Witnesses were all over it, but spinning it without reference to Asaph or the psalm. Instead, they spun it in terms of politics and cult manipulation; you know, further manipulation to keep the deluded in line. I mean, sheesh—if you’re going to carry on about Jehovah’s Witnesses, you must also carry on about what motivates them, not change that motivation to something else. It’s as though the grousers have forgotten that there are such things as scriptures.

The ones who forsake God (from vs 11) don’t actually say they no longer believe in him. They just act as though they don’t. They have their religion but they have learned to keep it in its place—last place. Here Asaph is exerting himself every day, keeping God in first place, crossing Ts and dotting Is, while “the arrogant,” and “the wicked” are “not troubled” over anything!  Their “bodies are healthy.” When they die—at least they have not escaped that bit of unpleasantness—there is “no pain in their death.” It’s as though they say, “Well, it’s been a fine run. Remind me to do it again sometime,” as they reach to switch off the light.

It’s driving Asaph mad! “Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence. And I was troubled all day long; Every morning I was chastised.” (13-14) Every morning he asked himself! “Why am I still doing this, striving so hard to measure up for God? Where is it getting me?” It’s a little like when we left our snowy clime to visit friends down south and they said, “Yeah, why are you still up there?” (And, in fact, why are we? Probably because it’s not so bad a test as Asaph’s.)

“But if I had said these things, I would have betrayed your people.” (15)

Great! So, he can’t even complain about it! It wouldn’t be “upbuilding.” You don’t want to rain on everyone else’s parade at the Kingdom Hall. You want to say, “Attaboy! Keep it up!” But it’s getting harder for him to do. “When I tried to understand it, It was troubling to me.” (16)

Sorry to those who hoped for something a little more dramatic, but the solution appears to have been to “hit the books.”

“Until I entered the grand sanctuary of God, And I discerned their future. Surely you place them on slippery ground. You make them fall to their ruin. How suddenly they are devastated! How sudden is their finish as they come to a terrible end!”

A terrible end? Like in the Braveheart movie, where William Wallace’s chum confides, as both are under heavy arrow bombardment, that he had prayed to the good Lord, and the good Lord was pretty sure he could get him out of this spot. “But you’re finished!”      (*He used a cruder synonym, not ‘finished.’)

There is an Act II! How could Asaph have forgotten that? The opening act is not also the closing act! If it was, the naysayers would be right. He is knocking himself out for nothing. But it’s not! It’s as though Asaph awakens from a bad dream: “Like a dream when one wakes up, O Jehovah, When you rouse yourself, you will dismiss their image.” (Vs 20)

 “I was unreasoning and lacked understanding” he says, once he has corrected himself. “I was like a senseless beast before you.” (vs 22)

Whoa! There it is! A reference to those who quickly settle that this life is all there is, to those who imagine nothing beyond the present 70-90 years.  They are like ‘senseless beasts!’ And Asaph had almost become one of them! No more!

“But now I am continually with you; You have taken hold of my right hand. You guide me with your advice, And afterward you will lead me to glory.

Whom do I have in the heavens? And besides you I desire nothing on earth. My body and my heart may fail, But God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.

Truly, those keeping far from you will perish. You will put an end to everyone who immorally leaves you. But as for me, drawing near to God is good for me. I have made the Sovereign Lord Jehovah my refuge, To declare all your works.” (vs 23-28)

Back on track, he is. The opening act is not also the closing act. He’s setting himself out to weather the entire play, not just the first act.

***Sorry, that Psalm 73 reference to the people who have it made recalled for me when my new bride and I went to a gala hi-brow affair where everyone was dressed to the nines. Tuxes and gowns! When intermission came and all were out in the foyer sipping drinks, each one of which cost more than the antifreeze in my car, I whispered to my wife, “Here are people we don’t usually hang out with—the wicked!”

Yes, I know, I know. Completely unfair. No doubt, most were nice. My new wife looked at me oddly—but I couldn’t resist.

******  The bookstore