I am challenged by it, and I have been in the Bible for over 40 years.

That is waay to simple, and truthful of speak for 99% of folks. To suggest that SoS is bible porn CANNOT be tolerated! Of all creatures on the planet, only humans need to see and hear images of sex between others. We, the Godly – need to be taught and shown … grab this, slap that, put those in the air and oh oh oh – Mmmm. Yeah. And if God says … “Go and be stimulated” then we can do it all day long! We, the hypersexually stimulated rightous! Woohoo! Do I wish they had canonized a poem on Gods desire for us to gorge ourself with chocolate. Oh yeah. The thick milky richness of Gods ‘gift’ to mankind as it slides down your throat. Dont you know what that “really” means? Oh … the flesh .. I mean the spirit!! Oh man. I think I could be the prophet!

iMonk,

Thanks for this. I don’t think I would be as strong in my critique of the preacher, but I appreciated your post. It provides some helpful counterperspective.

I don’t know why we have so much trouble taking it at face value. Of all the people in the world to talk about human love and sexuality without perversion and in God-glorfiying ways, it ought to be Christians.

The beauty of the SoS and its poetry and sensuality is simply astounding. It’s canonization is pure genius. We don’t have to explain it away or use it as a backdrop for our own ideas or a christianized Kama Sutra. It is such a testimony about how God has made us and His joy and pleasure at our capacity for love and enjoyment of that love at it’s most intimate level.

Thanks Mike. Carry on the good work.

[Moderator edited: Cut out the personal comments or I won't post you again]

If scripture is God’s word, and if God can say things in scripture that the original author didn’t know about, why shouldn’t we seek varying levels of spiritual meaning (allegorical, tropological, and anagogical), which is to say, why shouldn’t we think that we can move deeper into the literal sense in order to hear God’s voice speaking at multiple levels? Further, if we need to read for the original intentions of the author, how would we ever know the true meaning of the text seeing that the author and the circumstances of the composition of almost all the biblical books are unknown to us? Spinoza’s chapter on biblical interpretation in his Theological Political Treatise shows where this view of reading is headed. I recommend Yale theologian Denys Turner’s “Eros and Allegory” and David Dawson’s “Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity” as well as a nice collection by Richard Norris on the Song of Songs. Also, Dale Martin’s Sex and the Single Savior is a good read about matters pertaining to interpretation.

Then somebody tell the YEC’s that Genesis 1 (with its “And the Evening and the Morning…” refrain) also follows the structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry.

I lead what you may call a double Christian life. Or to put it differently you could say I move in two very different Christian circles (although within the one denomination!). As an evangelical Anglican I attend an evangelical parish church where the music is fairly standard — and bland — evangelical fare. But I’m also a chorister (in the Church of England cathedral/ Oxbridge college tradition). The majority of the music I sing as a chorister is (unsurprisingly) based on biblical texts. And I always find it fascinating when we sing music in a liturgical setting with words from the Song of Solomon. I’m sure that most of the congregation (let alone the choir) has no idea what to make of it when we sing (for instance) “As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste” (SS 2:3)!

Anyway that’s from a 20th Century work in English, but most of the settings to texts from the Song of Solomon are Renaissance works in Latin (by papist composers). Obviously at that time the works were composed allegorical interpretations (with which I incidentally don’t agree) prevailed and so the composer most probably had that in mind when setting the text to music. Actually there is quite a heavy Marian emphasis in a lot of these Renaissance settings of texts from the Song of Solomon. So for example “Ego flos campi et lilium convallium …” (SS 2:1 ff — I am the flower of the field and the lily of the valleys …) is generally given a Marian interpretation.

When it comes to singing texts from the Song of Solomon in church I do not really know what to make of it. I certainly don’t buy the allegorical interpretation (although I don’t totally discount the fact that the Song of Solomon may have something to teach us about Christ and the church) and as a good Protestant I certainly don’t buy the Marian interpretations . But despite that I really like singing the Song of Solomon in church. After all it’s the Word of God and, what’s more, it’s a SONG. Maybe we’d all do better as understanding it if we actually started singing it in church. Like the Psalms, it’s there to be sung before being being exegeted and preached on (although don’t get me wrong — I’m all for exegesis and exegetical preaching). So I say whatever we think it means: sing it baby!

Of course I am not aware of any settings of texts from the Song of Songs which would be appropriate for congregational singing, not least in an evangelical church setting. The stuff I sing in choirs is way too highbrow for your average evangelical and definitely for a choir rather than a congregation to sing. So there’s a challenge for all the budding composers out there to set parts of the Song of Songs to music appropriate for congregational singing.

Anyway to turn to my last point: Although I’ve never bought the allegorical interpretations, neither do I think it was ever intended as a kind of manual for married couples. As you point out that seems to completely ignore the context of the book and the characters in the story. So your reference to “a well-known young evangelical preacher['s]“recent sermon series piqued my curiosity. It wasn’t too hard to work out who you were talking about so I found the sermons and listened to them with interest. My initial response was that that was a lesson in how NOT to do exegesis . The preacher said some things which may be good advice but almost nothing of what he said was (in my view) based on an exegesis of the text.

I’ve also heard him preach topically on sex and marriage and my reaction was fairly similar — some useful advice plus a few valuable insights but then some dubious handling of Scripture as well. The problem this time, of course, was that the sermon was supposed to be exegetical rather than topical which made his exegetical shortcomings more prominent.

Part of me doesn’t want to be too critical of the man because (a) I don’t know him and I’ve only heard him preach a few times by way of internet download, (b) from what I can gather he’s orthodox and doing a lot of good work for the kingdom, and (c) much of what I have heard him say on sex and marriage seems to be good advice (well as far as I can tell — I’ve never been married). However, regardless of the truth of anything a preacher says, the preacher is a model to his flock of how to handle the word. And unfortunately from what I’ve heard of this sermon series the preacher is not really doing his flock (nor the myriads who listen online) any favours.

Blessings,
apodeictic