I knew when we started a summer worship series on Old Testament poetry that we’d have to include the Song of Solomon, or perhaps more accurately named, “The Song of Songs.” You simply can’t leave it out. It is important poetry after all. But what to do with it? It is an erotic love poem. There’s no getting around it. It is so full of innuendos and sensuousness that it’s tough to find a passage that is suitable for a family friendly worship service! Five verses from Chapter 2 are tame enough to make it into the lectionary, but that is it! Harder yet, how to preach on it!?! For today we went with the entirety of Chapter 2. That gives us a sense of the passion at work in the whole without getting into the graphic depictions that are in most of it.
On the surface the Song of Solomon is poem that is back and forth between two adolescent lovers. They are sneaky, deceitful, and they fully indulge their physical passions without any regard for morality; or perhaps they are thumbing their noses at morality.
It is hard to tell exactly what is going on, but it appears as if there are reasons why the boy and girl cannot ultimately be together. It seems that there is something about her that makes their relationship unacceptable. Perhaps it is something to do with race or class or perhaps inter-family disputes. It is hard to tell. What we want to avoid is projecting too many modern-day ideas into it.
It is difficult to know why the Song of Solmon is in scripture at all. It is one of two books of the Bible that contain absolutely no theology and never once mention God. The other book is Esther. But even though Esther has no mention of God, it does tell the story that gave rise to the Jewish holiday of Purim. The Song of Solomon does nothing.
In the traditional Jewish understanding the Song of Solomon is a religious allegory recounting God’s love for Israel and the history of their relationship. For Christians it is an allegory for Christ’s love for the church. Michael V. Fox, in the Harpers Study Bible says this is the reason why the Song of Solomon became scripture.
I think that’s a stretch! While I recognize that the history of Christian interpretation of this book has been to see it as an allegory, it is a very warped allegory at best! The Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem. Period. Other cultures of the ancient near east had similar poems. The Song is based on, or at least derived from, a Mesopotamian ritual of marriage between two gods, the fertility god Dummuzi-Tammuz and his sister Inanna-Astarte. It has been suggested that it is part of a marriage ritual, or perhaps a funeral ritual that sets the power of love against the power of death. Who knows?
I generally reject what it called Womanist Theology, but I do think it is important to read and study the work of those you think are wrong. Womanist Theology is not the same as Feminist Theology. Womanist Theology rejects traditional theology as being too male dominated. It also rejects Feminist Theology for being too European. Womanist Theology claims to be the theology of black women. I generally reject it, not because of its perspective, but because I find it to be poor biblical scholarship that reaches conclusions that are not supported by the texts. However, as I just said, it is important to read those you disagree with because they will point out things you may miss otherwise.
Womanist Theologian Renita Weems points out that the Song of Solomon is the only book in the entirety of our scripture where a female voice predominates. The female gets 56 verses. The male gets 36. It is also the only book of scripture dominated by female imagery. Other books of the Bible about women, like Ruth and Esther, are still dominated by male-identified dramas. There is no such drama here. The girl in the Song of Solmon is assertive, uninhibited, and unabashed about her sexual desires. Renita Weems takes those thoughts and reaches conclusions that I think are flawed scholarship, but she brings up a significant point. The love portrayed in the Song of Solomon is mutual, with both lovers desiring, behaving, feeling, and speaking in the same ways and with the same intensity; immature and foolish as they both are.
So, what do we do with this love poem in scripture that nowhere mentions God, has no theology, and is just two immature lovers indulging their bodily passions?
I can’t honestly say I know why it is in the Bible. But if we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Song of Solomon has had its place in scripture for thousands of years, then it must be there for good reasons.
Let’s note what it is not. It is not a heady theological treatise like some of St. Paul’s writings. It is not a complex and multi-layered story like many ancient Hebrew writings. It is not a list of names and dates and detailed instructions that are tedious to read through.
It is also not like the prophetic writings. There are no politics. No religious or political leaders are being criticized. No one is being rewarded or punished. It’s not a list of dos and don’ts. There is not a heroic struggle or a call for superior virtue.
It is also not a struggle between right and wrong. It is not wisdom literature. No one is asking why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people. Last week we read from Ecclesiastes. The weeks before we read from Proverbs. Proverbs calls for wisdom and extols its benefits. Ecclesiastes calls into question wisdom and says that both the wise and the foolish end up equally dead, so what’s the point? Those are all good issues to struggle with. But the Song of Solomon has none of that. It is simply passion and indulgence in that passion.
If the Song of Solomon were not in scripture there would be no celebration of human passion in our faith. The book is a romantic idealization of life and passion. And yes, flawed and dangerous as it is, it acknowledges those feelings and desires. The Bible dives into and explores everything that it is to be a human, including sexuality. No subject, no struggle, no feeling is so offensive or taboo that the Bible will not get into it.
In the Song of Solomon life is good. Nature is blossoming. All obstacles can be overcome by love. There is energy, hope, delight, and happiness. The mundane drudgeries of life will come upon this blissfully happy couple in time. But they are going to enjoy this time fully. If you think about it, the Bible has very little in the way of passages about joy; or passages that develop any idea of joy as an inspiring and creative force. The Song of Solomon is one of those few places where it does.
I criticized Womanist Theology earlier for the way it can reach misguided conclusions. Here is a more solid conclusion from traditional theology by Hugh Kerr:
“For better or for worse, the Song of Songs found its way into the canon of Scripture, and unless we are to say that is has no place there, we must reckon with this historical fact of context. We need not press its earthly figures into allegorical molds.
“From the biblical perspective itself there is no reason why its sensuous and sensual language cannot be taken at its face value. The Bible… does not minimize the love of man and woman. This indeed is a negative understatement, for, rightly viewed, the biblical conception of love can enhance and exalt what otherwise is merely human and mundane. The biblical perspective accordingly can appreciate the Song of Songs for what it is and rejoice in its eulogy of love. “All things are yours” says the apostle, “whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours (1 Corinthians 3:21-22). Writing to the Philippian Christians who wondered what to do about the secular society in which they lived, Paul said: “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (Philippians 4:8). From the Christian point of view therefore the [oversimplified] distinction which is so often made between secular and sacred is transcended simply because we are to “take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5).” (The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 5, Pg 147)
Or said more simply, for the Bible to be complete is needs to include everything about being human, including adolescent love. Refuse to acknowledge, or take away, any part of humanness is to discredit or shame it. But acknowledge it, and encourage us to use it as part of a whole life of faith, is to be a true and complete person; blessed by God, and capable in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment