Romantic Love is...Unmentionable!
Captain Sensible writes: When was the last time, I wonder, that you heard a talk in church about the Song of Songs (ie. "the best of all songs")? Or heard your Pastor encourage the singles in the congregation to follow God's frequent commands to get married and have a family?
Hmmm? Hmmmm?
Thought not.
Having conducted my own highly non-scientific study, it appears to be unanimously round about, er, never.
I have heard Pastors stand up in front of their congregation and defiantly state that they will talk about this controversial subject, or fearlessly exclaim that non-politically correct belief. They are not afraid of the Gospel, they declare!
But will they dare to say that there is a book in the Bible full of the joys and delights of erotic love? Or even ask us to turn in our Bibles to the passages where God tells us we need to get married?
Seems not.
Romantic love is, apparently, unmentionable.
(Aside from an occasional reminder to guard our hearts of course if we sinfully talk about love -- which kind of puts a negative spin on it in any case, so that's probably acceptable.)
So it was admittedly quite a revelation to me to read this article.
I am sure this is only one interpretation of much of the Song of Songs' content. But even the Captain's eyes were opened at the sheer, unadulterated pleasure of erotic love that is described in its pages!
I like the author's explanation of the use of symbolism: "When God spoke of personal aspects of sex in the Song of Songs, He could have used the slang terms; however, they would tend to raise up our psychological censors. He could have used the medical terms, but that would leave a feeling of 'mechanics' and science and often a sense of awkwardness. The Lord avoided both problems by using poetic symbolism."
God seems to rather approve of love and sex. So why do we disapprove, and try to play it down all of the time? As if virtually any of us could live fully without it!
Oh, and about that guarding your heart business (which as we all know is next to impossible to do anyway). The author of this article suggests another interpretation of "Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires": "The experience of lovemaking is too powerful to be aroused before the couple have committed themselves in marriage."
I think I prefer that interpretation.
And when you have finished reading about erotic love, and ONLY then, will you be in the mood to hear some romantic music, do you think? It's not "the best of all songs"; we know that is in the Bible. But it is nice. Secular songwriters do seem to understand this whole love business a lot better than the Christian leaders who tell us that the "gift of marriage" is equal to the fictitious "gift of singleness". (Apologies people; I think I am just a little bit in love with YouTube at the moment...)
Paul Weller: English Rose
Hmmm? Hmmmm?
Thought not.
Having conducted my own highly non-scientific study, it appears to be unanimously round about, er, never.
I have heard Pastors stand up in front of their congregation and defiantly state that they will talk about this controversial subject, or fearlessly exclaim that non-politically correct belief. They are not afraid of the Gospel, they declare!
But will they dare to say that there is a book in the Bible full of the joys and delights of erotic love? Or even ask us to turn in our Bibles to the passages where God tells us we need to get married?
Seems not.
Romantic love is, apparently, unmentionable.
(Aside from an occasional reminder to guard our hearts of course if we sinfully talk about love -- which kind of puts a negative spin on it in any case, so that's probably acceptable.)
So it was admittedly quite a revelation to me to read this article.
I am sure this is only one interpretation of much of the Song of Songs' content. But even the Captain's eyes were opened at the sheer, unadulterated pleasure of erotic love that is described in its pages!
I like the author's explanation of the use of symbolism: "When God spoke of personal aspects of sex in the Song of Songs, He could have used the slang terms; however, they would tend to raise up our psychological censors. He could have used the medical terms, but that would leave a feeling of 'mechanics' and science and often a sense of awkwardness. The Lord avoided both problems by using poetic symbolism."
God seems to rather approve of love and sex. So why do we disapprove, and try to play it down all of the time? As if virtually any of us could live fully without it!
Oh, and about that guarding your heart business (which as we all know is next to impossible to do anyway). The author of this article suggests another interpretation of "Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires": "The experience of lovemaking is too powerful to be aroused before the couple have committed themselves in marriage."
I think I prefer that interpretation.
And when you have finished reading about erotic love, and ONLY then, will you be in the mood to hear some romantic music, do you think? It's not "the best of all songs"; we know that is in the Bible. But it is nice. Secular songwriters do seem to understand this whole love business a lot better than the Christian leaders who tell us that the "gift of marriage" is equal to the fictitious "gift of singleness". (Apologies people; I think I am just a little bit in love with YouTube at the moment...)
Paul Weller: English Rose
posted by Captain Sensible at 1:54 AM
9 Comments:
Captain,
You have the most romantic heart.
Ah, but you see, my friend, so do we all, in our own way.
Barring but a few exceptions, we are all romantic -- it is how we are made, how we are designed to be fulfilled personally and how we are designed to fulfil God's purposes here on earth.
There is no idolatrous battle there.
It saddens me greatly that the secular world seems to understand this, but we, as Christians, now feel the need to stamp it out. To get all "religious" about it. Pretend that the Song of Songs doesn't exist, or excuse it away with denials that it means what it does.
Sad, very, very sad.
What's more, I wonder what takes the place of romantic love in our hearts when we cannot express it? Like the warning Jesus gives in Matthew 12: 43-45 about an evil spirit finding an empty place and filling it with many more like itself, are we in danger of filling our hearts with undesirable longings if we deny the importance of romance: materialism, selfish ambition, pornography; or a fear or even loathing of the opposite sex?
Or maybe there is perhaps the even greater danger that we simply ice over and become cold. Brittle. Embittered.
Captain,
It is that neo-Platonic gnosticism that has so steadily creeped into the church that holds us back. Scripture however does celebrate romantic/sexual love. Many feel that the Song of Solomon should have been left out of the canons as it is one of the few books that does not mention God. But is it possible that in the arena of the marriage bed, God actually wants two married people to "knock themselves out," and not even think of Him. I certainly don't mean to sound "idolatrous"(oooooh, there I've said it) in saying that statement, but how many couples after "doing it" really think-- enough pleasuring now, let me think holy thoughts about God. Sure, there may be a fleeting thought of isn't God good to invent such a nice passtime. But come on . . .
The problem is that our love is cold, and if it is ever too warm, we think somehow we have betrayed God. We create idols that have never really existed, and we give false sacrifices to false gods. In so doing, we avoid the goodness of the very things that God has designed for us.
I knew an associate minister who once preached on SoS, and the entire time, he drew out the twice mentioned word of caution-- "do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires," and spent the entire time teaching singles how to wait on the Lord and be extra, extra, extra cautious to the point that hardly any pro-romantic love decisions could hardly be entertained. He was so caught up in the exception, he missed the entire point of the letter, i.e. the celebration of romantic/sexual love in marriage is something to be sought after. But isn't that our tendency when dealing with I Corinthians 7 as well? We take a letter that is clearly written to draw out a very qualified exception, and turn it into something that virtually swallows the rule.
Some late night thoughts to spur discussion. Pray for me as I write speeches for my upcoming trip over there.
Debbie Maken
Debbie,
I loved it when you said the couple should "knock themselves out." LOL Actually, we had a speaker come to our church to talk about sex. It was the frank and no-holds-barred sermon I think I've ever heard (not to mention the most enjoyable) Kathy Tolston was her name I think. Anyway, talk about shaking up traditions. She actually said that couples could have what she called "anointed sex." You could have heard a pin drop in the auditorium! I think many of the singleness pundits need that kind of shock and awe.
I have just heard that a church in the UK recently held a women's group talk on the subject of sex.
The single women were asked not to attend.
Seriously.
I wonder if that church also removes the Song of Songs from the single women's Bibles?
Still - you can see the church leaders' point.
If single Christian women are to hear about sex FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE, as opposed to just being bombarded with it in our culture, they might start becoming a bit discontented and begin asking awkward questions about whether or not singleness really is a "gift."
Their church obviously cannot allow that to happen, so they did the wisest thing.
A certain prolific singleness writer is now advising singles not to download a talk on sex that was given IN CHURCH to the WHOLE CONGREGATION because it "may not be helpful...in the fight to resist sinful temptation and grow in purity."
I am now regretfully coming to the conclusion that this singleness writer, and some of her followers, are - actually - mad. Their prolonged singleness appears to have affected their brain.
I am gobsmacked by the comment:
"Respect" is the new "Love"
as posted on the blog of the prolific singleness writer.
So we just need to have lots of male/female friendships, based on respect, in order to be fulfilled...
And we wonder why we end up turning to the secular world, instead of the Christian world, in order to find understanding about the nature of God's creation!
Shame on all of us.
Hi Captain,
Have you ever heard of Tommy Nelson? He is a pastor in Denton, Texas and has brought the teachings of Solomon's Song of Songs to the forefront in biblical circles. You can learn more by going to:
http://www.tommynelsononline.com and selecting Song of Solomon
The Devotional Archives offers good information from his teaching.
Tommy champions romantic love and sexual passion between married couples. He also champions a dating style that protects others' hearts. You know, this person may not end up being our future mate, but most likely, they are God's chosen for someone else, so do your best to be tender with their heart.
Thanks for the tip. I had a quick look at his site, and I couldn't see any mention of the "gift of singleness", but you can't be too careful these days, so readers beware just in case!
Post a Comment
<< Home