**1. Introduction**

The vision of forming intercultural worshipping communities focuses on the identity of faith communities in light of the increasing awareness of the injustice caused by politics of assimilation and the limitations that exist within the model of multiculturalism. In the former approach—that is, assimilation—a dominant culture is assumed, difference is perceived as a threat, and those who are different are welcomed as long as they repress their cultural identity and become absorbed by the dominant culture. Minoritized communities experienced injustice because they were expected to abandon their traditions and praxis that have sustained them throughout different periods of their history in which they experienced various forms of oppression and marginalization. In the latter approach, multiculturalism, difference is recognized and accepted, but people of different cultural backgrounds coexist on islands, with little interaction or attempts to know one another in deep and transformative ways. Tokenism, such as singing a song from a different culture, or praying a prayer in a different language, scratches the surface of encountering the other, without digging deeper or making visible the spiritualties, the struggles, the triumphs, and the stories of the communities that stand behind these songs and prayers. Intercultural approaches to worship that are concerned about the identity of a faith community seek to create mechanisms for these transformative encounters to take place by way of helping the members of a diverse community to become more competent in navigating theological and cultural sameness and difference. That is, communities that are serious about becoming interculturally competent need to continue to wrestle with the questions of how to find a common ground that does not turn unity into a hegemony of the dominant culture,

**Citation:** Marzouk, Safwat. 2023. Intercultural Worship and Decolonialization: Insights from the Book of Psalms. *Religions* 14: 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel14020152

Academic Editor: Eunjoo Mary Kim

Received: 7 December 2022 Revised: 16 January 2023 Accepted: 19 January 2023 Published: 28 January 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

and how to celebrate, integrate, and adapt to difference so that all who are involved are mutually transformed by encountering one another, and together they may imagine new possibilities.1 The work of interculturalism and decolonization is an ongoing journey of transformation that seeks to embody an alternative to the politics of assimilation and segregation in a polarized world.

#### **2. Interculturalism and Decolonialism: Conversation Partners**

A crucial concern that relates to this intercultural approach about the life, worship, and witness of the church suggests that the "intercultural language" does not go far enough in naming and resisting racism and other forms of oppression, and that the "intercultural" model may end up reproducing the dominant culture; it might turn minoritized communities, the ethnic other, and their traditions into a commodity consumed by people with power, or it might force minoritized communities to lose the space in which they preserve the peculiarities of their cultural identities. The validity of these concerns resides in the acknowledgment that whenever diverse people form a worshipping community, there are power dynamics at play that shape their relationships and practices. Therefore, while it is important to reiterate the point that being intercultural does not mean a loss of one's identity and traditions, there is, still, a necessity for a complementary approach to the intercultural one that analyzes power dynamics, that seeks to repair the damage of the past, and that centers the work of justice and liberation at the heart of intercultural encounters. Equally important, the work of analyzing power dynamics, striving towards reparation and healing, and envisioning processes of liberation and justice needs the intercultural approach that allows for diverse embodied experiences to converse and to build bridges of understanding for the sake of transformation and overcoming fragmentation in the society or the church. This way, an intercultural church lives up to Hyung Jin Kim Sun's assessment that "intercultural engagement and practice in a white dominant society and churches is at the same time an inherently anti-racist engagement and practice. This means that becoming an intercultural church is becoming an anti-racist church as well" (Sun 2022, p. 146). For an intercultural worshipping community to become anti-racist, it must engage insights from the work of postcolonial and decolonial analyses.

In some of its manifestations, postcolonial criticism that focuses on the cultural aspect of colonialism intersects with interculturalism in that both deal with how the self and the other, the colonizer and the colonized, construct and are constructed as they encounter one another. Postcolonial and decolonial analyses expose how the construction of the self and the other was used by colonizers to legitimate domination and how it was used by the colonized to envision resistance, liberation, and healing from the hegemony of the empire. This avenue of inquiry yielded many subversive means of resistance, such as hybridity, third space, and mimicry. For some critics, even though these are legitimate ways to expose the colonial gaze, and even though these phenomena have unpacked some of the complex relations between the self and the other, they do not address head on the issue of power differential as decolonialization does. Becca Whitla evaluates two common notions of postcolonial criticism, those of "third space" and "mimicry". Although third space "has the potential to be both resistant and liberating", in some of its manifestations, it does not deal with the power differential between dominant and marginalized cultures. For mimicry, seeking to undermine the imperial justification for domination, quite often, it reproduces the imperial status quo, "because communities are still excluded and absent." (Whitla 2020, pp. 171–72). The alternative in her program of liberation and justice lies in a decolonial approach. Decoloniality restores "marginalized agencies" and it reclaims "other (non-European) ways of knowing, being, doing, and feeling. ... Decolonial approaches strive to affirm the ways in which people's lived experience represents marginalized voices. Hence, a decolonial perspective would ask how the story would change should those on the underside participate by actually being agents in the story, changing the very nature of the story itself." (Whitla 2020, p. 172).

Decolonial analyses guide intercultural worship to investigate how power dynamics shape the relationships within the church, while intercultural worship makes it possible for people who have different experiences with power to construct a new identity as a result of encountering God and the other. Intercultural worship is a relational response to God's activity in the world; it also engages the realities of the world as experienced differently by diverse communities. This relational response celebrates the diverse ways in which people encounter God and how this encounter is shaped by their ethnic identity, cultural heritage, and linguistic traditions. Intercultural worship creates a space for the diverse relational responses to enrich one another as they are expressed in songs and prayers uttered in different languages and embodied in cultural and artistic expressions. These concrete means of worshipping interculturally are informed by a theology that celebrates difference as a gift, and that seeks the transformation of the self and other as they relate together to God. But this utopian articulation of what an intercultural worship is quite often clashes with old and new expressions of racism, oppression, colonialism, and imperialism. In addition to economic and political devastations, racism, colonialism, and imperialism have and continue to erode cultures and marginalize identities.<sup>2</sup> This is where intercultural work and decolonization meet. As they both investigate how the self and the other relate to one another and to God, decolonial and postcolonial approaches ask, how are these relationships shaped by power, sameness, and difference? An intercultural worship that is informed by the work of decolonization is honest about the hurt, the violence, marginalization, and erosion; it also celebrates what resistance, confrontational or subversive, has accomplished; it creates a space for the colonizer to be held accountable and for the colonized to be empowered; and it longs for God's reign to bring healing, justice, and mutuality.<sup>3</sup> With this background in mind, now, I turn to the book of Psalms in order to explain how the proclamation of God's reign in the book itself was a form of resisting the empire, which in turn will be fruitful for our considerations on the relationship between decolonization and interculturalism.

#### **3. The Book of Psalms and Intercultural Worship**

The book of psalms offers insights that deepen the wisdom of intercultural worshipping communities as they seek to do justice, work for liberation, and build bridges of mutual transformation across their cultural differences. It will become apparent from the discussion below that the dichotomy between political and social matters, on the one hand, and spiritual or theological worldviews, on the other, is nonexistent in the book of Psalms. The worship of God in the book of psalms always engaged the lives of the individuals and the communities that composed these hymns and prayers. Power struggles, oppression, justice, and liberation are essential threads in the fabric of the individual and communal songs and appeals. The identity of the worshipper(s) in relation to God, the enemy, or the other are front and center in words of lament, prayers of help, and shouts of praise. Thus, as contemporary worshipping communities seek to increase their intercultural competence in a decolonial mode, they ought to reflect on the socio-political contexts that have shaped the prayers of lament and the songs of praise in the book of Psalms. These reflections would function as a mirror for these communities to consider who they are and who they are called to be and do. It will become apparent from the discussion below that the languages of lament and praise are deeply connected with people's struggles, their agency, and God's sovereignty.

Intercultural worshipping practices that seek to decolonize the oppressed and to transform the oppressor invite the diverse members of the faith community to ask about how they enter into the words of the psalms. Given the diversity of genres within the psalter and the diversity of voices even within a single psalm, the book contributes to decolonization and to intercultural work by holding various voices, spiritualities, and theologies in tension. These psalms, which have come from the era of different empires, were the words of the oppressed Israelites, and have been appropriated into the worship lives of communities that have different power dynamics and experiences. Therefore, it is

important for contemporary worshipping communities to ask, how do the diverse voices of the different genres that are present within the book of psalms hold those who abuse their power accountable, and how do they give a voice to those who have been marginalized and oppressed? How does this anthology, which sought to decolonize the Israelites, but in doing so has reproduced some of the ideologies it sought to deconstruct, be instructive to contemporary worshipping communities as they seek to be transformed? How can we avoid taking the words of the oppressed to reproduce the status quo and conceal privilege and power? How can we be transformed by the words uttered or sung to God in the presence of a diverse crowd that have had a long history of colonialism and conflict? How have the texts been abused to maintain the status quo and how did they inspire various forms of liberation?

#### **4. God's Reign, Intercultural Worship, and Decolonization**

Reflecting on the motif of God's reign in relation to the colonial and imperial realities of the people of Israel creates a productive space to consider the relationship between intercultural worship and decolonization. The book of psalms shows that colonialism and empire are part of how the faith community is shaped, how it speaks about God, and how it constructs its identity in relation to the other. The motif of God's reign is central to the book of Psalms.4 As early as Psalm 2, which is part of a programmatic introduction to the whole book, the audience of the psalter are called to respond to the proclamation of the reign of God.5 The motif of God's reign is, naturally, a crucial component of the Royal Psalms, Enthronement Psalms, and Zion Psalms.6 The motif also appears in psalms of praise, as well as psalms of lament, in which the psalmists put their trust in God's sovereignty to deliver them from their personal or communal distress. Even though the motif may reflect an ideology that centralizes power in the hands of the monarchy that seeks to subjugate its people and other nations, it still reflects the vulnerability of the people of Israel, who were subjugated to the powers of the surrounding empires. In the latter case, the belief in God's reign is a source of resilience and faith in the face of the empires.

In her study of the Zion Tradition, Beate Ego differentiates between two manifestations of the relationship between God, the Israelites, and the nations, or, put differently, between the self and the other, the center (Jerusalem) and the periphery (the nations). The Zion tradition, which appears in the psalms, the prophets, and the lamentation, speaks of "God as a royal ruler, residing in his temple palace on Zion, the holy mountain in Jerusalem. Zion is, therefore, the location of divine indwelling. Because God lives on Zion, divine blessing flows into the world. This blessed power is manifested in the provision of water for the city and the land, in nature's fertility, and in the security of the city's residence from internal and external enemies." (Ego 2016, p. 333).<sup>7</sup> The socio-political experiences of the people of Israel in relation to other empires shaped how the worshipping community proclaims God's reign and how they see themselves and the other. According to Ego's analyses of the Zion tradition, the first strand emerged during the time of the monarchy and the heightened power of the Assyrian empire. After a study of Psalms 46 and 48, Ego concludes that "center and periphery are related to each other in an antagonistic manner; however, the center can be described as being stronger than the power of the periphery." (Ego 2016, p. 336).8 In these two psalms, chaos, whether natural disasters or tumult nations, threatens the well-being of those who dwell in Zion. Yet, the psalmists proclaim an unshaken trust in God's power to tame these chaotic forces. These psalms subvert the Assyrian propaganda of world dominion. According to these psalms, the empire may threaten the dwelling of God, but eventually God puts an end to war and restores order. The nations here are seen as a representation of chaos that needs to be defeated and tamed.

The psalms that come from the exilic or the Persian period reflect a new development in the articulation of the Zion tradition and theology. In this development, "the relationship between center and periphery is best described as complementary and harmonious." (Ego 2016, p. 337).<sup>9</sup> According to Psalm 102, the nations are not in enmity with YHWH or Zion. Instead, they fear the name of the LORD and all the kings of the Earth revere God's glory. God's reign is manifest in rebuilding the destroyed Zion and in paying heed to the prayers of the marginalized. God, who is enthroned in Zion, is feared by the nations, "hears the groans of the prisoners", and "sets free those who were doomed to die" (Psalm 102:20).<sup>10</sup> Nations, kingdoms, and peoples gather in Zion to praise this God. In a similar way, in Psalm 68:31–32, the kingdoms of the Earth are called upon to praise YHWH, and even though they march towards Zion, they do not come to attack, but to present their gifts to the God of Israel. That the nations acknowledge the sovereignty of YHWH is possibly a result of monotheism. If YHWH is the only true creator of the world and its nations, then YHWH must relate to these nations in one way or another. This theological development that includes the nations as worshippers of YHWH corresponds to some ideological facets of the Persian empire. Persian iconography shows images of representatives of the vassal states of the Persian empire "voluntarily" bringing gifts from their respective regions to honor their emperor. If this ideology indeed influenced the changes in the Zion tradition, then, suggests Ego, this theological claim may have functioned as "an anti-imperial impetus. Instead of the Persian Emperor, the true ruler of the world is the God of Israel!"(Ego 2016, p. 343).11

In his study of the enthronement psalms, Royce M. Victor situates the book of Psalms as a whole and this genre of psalms in the context of empires. Even though these psalms may have different originating dates, they, along with the whole book, essentially continued to be compiled and edited down to the Second Temple period (Victor 2018, p. 235). The language used in these psalms leaves the reader in a tension: are these words those of resistance or are they words of dominance? On the one hand, these psalms reflect the hopes of the oppressed Israelites—namely, that their God is a sovereign deity who will liberate them from the tyranny of the oppressive empires and will usher a new era of justice, peace, and dignity. Victor writes, "The psalmists' proposal is to replace the present tyrant ruler, who denies freedom and rights, with a new benevolent and just ruler, who has all the authority over the universe." (Victor 2018, p. 236). In this way, these psalms become a voice of resistance to the empires that subjected the people of Judah to their military, economic, and political control. Victor adds, "These psalms thus become a powerful protest against the imposing of imperial power and its allies." (Victor 2018, p. 236). While these psalms functioned as a voice of resistance for those who had been colonized, they tend to reproduce the ideology that they sought to deconstruct. Victor refers to the danger of identifying a particular people or a human ruler with the divine reign. Thus, he notes, "When Israel's God becomes the universal deity through his great enthronement, Israel gets a special privilege to have a mandate from her God to subjugate other peoples and occupy their lands in the name of her God. The conquest and invasion of land becomes justifiable according to this authorization Israel received from her God." (Victor 2018, pp. 236–37).12 Even though these texts may have, for a brief time in Israel's history, given a justification for the expansion of the so-called Davidic or Solomonic empires, it is crucial to remember, as Victor reminds us, that these texts were written or redacted at times when Israel was under the rule of foreign empires. "As mentioned earlier, the Psalter was compiled in the Second Temple period, when the community was struggling to rebuild with a specific identity as the people of God. The people were still under the shadow of the empire. In fact, it was an ardent hope of a colonized and subjugated people who envisaged having absolute dominance over the universe including their present masters. The genre of enthronement psalms emerged out of the pain, suffering, and anxiety about the future of a subjected people. It envisions the emergence of a new divine ruler who will dethrone the present empire and help his people to have universal dominion." (Victor 2018, p. 237).13

The discussion above shows that worship in the book of Psalms always engaged the political realities of the community. Whether in conflict or harmony, domination or resistance, inclusion or exclusion, hope or despair, praise or lament, the proclamation of God's reign addressed the power differential between the colonized and the colonizer. The psalms that emerged for the most part out of the powerlessness of the ancient Israelites as a language of faith in the face of the empire have been used in worship by the colonizers and by the colonized, in separate worship spaces or in the same worship space. In an intercultural worship setting, in which the colonized and the colonizers worship together, the language of God's reign in the psalter creates fertile soil on which to reflect on power dynamics among a diverse worshipping community. The language of God's reign in the book of Psalms, which is pervasive in psalms of praise, but also appears in psalms of lament, as will see in the following paragraphs, creates a challenge and an opportunity. Worshipping through the psalms that proclaim God's reign challenges intercultural worship to expose the ways that this motif might have been used to justify colonialism and imperialism. Worshipping though the psalms that proclaim God's reign gives a voice to the oppressed to lament and protest against the oppression they have experienced, and it calls onto those who have abused their power to surrender to God's righteous justice. Whether in lament or praise, God's reign liberates, heals, and repairs through a worship that is honest, diverse, and authentic.
