Alex Buchanan on the Song of Solomon

I am always on the hunt for positive and encouraging insights into the Song of Solomon - a favourite Book of the Bible to me. Through a conversation on Facebook I have been having today with a friend and fellow member of my home church in Dunstable, I have been drawn to Alex Buchanan's website and found a downloadable book on his insights into this great book.

Here's the introduction and statement;

"I regard the Book as a wonderful illustration of the relationship between Jesus and His Bride. Between God and Christians. It is a love story, but as we read on we will realise that, although it is romantic, it is also demanding and at times dangerous.

The themes are -

The strong love between bride and groom, i.e. the Shulammite woman and the shepherd -

His utter faithfulness and her relative faithfulness – she failed hin twice.

His jealous love, and loving anger (ch5:6).

The seduction of the world and the flesh (assurance of and trusting in our own resources)

The dangers of the unequal yoke. Supposing the woman had married the king and not the Shepherd! It would be like a Christian marrying a non- Christian contrary to what the Bibe says.
No need for inhibitions. What is wrong with speaking of sexual union in a pure context? The Bible is frank and wholesome in it’s treatment of sex. After all, God invented it!

Personally my greatest passion is to know God better than I do and to be more like Him than I am. The Song of Solomon has been a great help to me in realising my ambition. I still have a long way to go – but I am going! I hope more than anything else that this Book will help some to be more deeply in love with God, and therefore more obedient to his commandments".

I am looking forward to reading more!

Dear C. J. Mahaney...

Dear C. J. Mahaney...

I really WANTED to like your book (Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God)—after all, I did pay $7.99 for it. I actually think I WILL like your book, unfortunately, the wheels came off from the get go. You give me five reasons why you are going to try and persuade me that the Song of Solomon is all about sexual intimacy within the covenant of marriage.

Reason One: Solomon's topic was obviously sex.

Um, C. J. did you take a lit course in college? Have you ever read "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost? It's all about stopping by the woods on a snowy evening and watching snow flakes, right? No! It's poetry. Stopping by the woods is a metaphor for life and the ever present pressure of time and life moving on and...well, I won't bother with a literature analysis but you (don't) get the point. It's poetry! It's metaphorical. Poetry is SUPPOSED to be metaphorical. It's supposed to reach below the surface to some deeper meaning (and no, I do not spiritualize every little part of the Song of Solomon).

Reason Two: The Bible never suggests that this book isn't primarily about sex.

Seriously? An argument from silence? The Bible never suggests that it IS all about sex because the rest of the Bible NEVER REFERS TO IT! This is a terrible argument, you should have just stuck with four.

Reason Three: God's relationship with man is not sexual.

Point granted. Let me see, if I were the wisest man who has ever lived, specially gifted by God with wisdom and I wanted to come up with some type, some metaphor that best worked out the intimate relationship between Israel and God, what might I think of? Wait a minute. There is one that is all around; that everyone immediately identifies with; that everyone intuitively understands, the relationship between a man and a woman. What a perfect metaphor!

Reason Four: Spiritualizing the book doesn't work.

Agreed, and as anyone who has ever studied poetry knows, one doesn't have to make metaphors of every possible word in the poem. Indeed, one of Robert Frost's poems hung metaphorically on one line of perhaps 25. Were it not for that line, we might really think that Mr. Frost was speaking of orchards, and autumn leaves, and the smell of apples; as my English Lit professor correctly pointed out, Robert Frost won't let us take his poem literally. If thus Robert Frost, even more so Solomon.

Reason Five: We Need Instruction on Sexuality.

But, this C. J., is the brilliance of the Song of Solomon. We receive a beautiful look at the intimacy involved in marriage—and are thereby instructed—when the metaphorical meaning of the eastern love poem goes far deeper. It's brilliant! Only Solomon could have come up with it and carried it off, but then you missed the deeper meaning. So sad.

Oh, and by the way, I have a couple of questions for you.

Question one: Can you name one commentator who agrees with your position that was born before 1900?

Question two: Solomon uses the term "my beloved" again and again in the Song of Solomon. Did you bother seeing how that term is used in the rest of the Old Testament. I'm willing to bet you didn't. I've never heard anyone who holds the "Marriage Manual" interpretation of the Song of Solomon address it.

I'm going to finish the rest of the book, and I suspect I really will like it. But here we have the wisest person who has ever lived write poetry and he does not have any metaphorical purpose in mind at all? Really?

Your friend,

HT: High Fliers.

The Origin of All Worry - by Rob Rufus

A quick-fire quote from the amazing Rob Rufus that cuts right to the heart of ALL my current problems in life. This quote comes from a sermon I'm currently listening to - and I think it is the best summary of the Song of Solomon and it's place in the Christian's life - ever! (transcript of course will be coming here);

"The origin of all worry is the absence of certainty and deep assurance of His absolute intense and passionate burning love for you. When that revelation of His burning love for you comes - you know He will look after you. When you have that assurance of His love you can trust Him easily".

Rob Rufus - "Experiencing the Fire of God's Burning Love for You" - City Church International, Hong Kong - Sunday 6th March 2011

A Respected Intolerance

I had two posts in mind stemming from today - one is about fathers. I find it difficult - to be frank - relating to God as my Father. I don't quite know why that is. Maybe it's partly because I found it difficult to get on with my earthly dad. We are very different people emotionally. He is a man's man. I am an emotionally unstable soul - up or down but never in-between. I thank God that I have a measure of friendship with him now but childhood and teenage years were not easy. So does that disqualify me from ever enjoying God as heavenly perfect Father? Of course not - no earthly father is perfect. The key is to realise that any poor or bad relationships don't set the model for God - we have to be prepared to learn again and learn from new.

So I turned to the Song of Solomon today! I did so deliberately and without really much thought. It just seemed natural to me that if I wanted to learn what God is like as a heavenly Father. I'm in good company - C H Spurgeon's solid gold sermons on the Song of Solomon (gathered together masterfully in; "The Most Holy Place"). Who better than Spurgeon to teach about this book?!

However I was distracted by C H Spurgeon's rather "un-P.C" discussion of those who would hold views of the Song of Solomon that he would not agree with. I like that fresh approach! In this day and age I notice that the Christian church has become affected by the community. Disagreeing with someone isn't acceptable and it doesn't go down well. One of the things I liked about Spurgeon and the Puritans was that they were not afraid to state boldly their views and disagree carefully and thoughtfully where they felt someone was wrong.

So here is C H Spurgeon's statements on the Song of Solomon and those he would not agree with. He starts the sermon by discussing the view that men such as Mark Driscoll and C J Mahaney would hold - namely that the book discusses Solomon's marriage to Pharoh's daughter (as is thought). Spurgeon states;

"Now as I am sure as I am of my own existance, that this is one of the grossest mistakes (the Driscoll/Mahaney view) that was ever committed ... If you look all through the song you will find that this is so; in the very beginning she is compared to a shepherdess. Now all shepherds are abominations to the Egyptians; do you think therefore that Solomon would compare an Egyptian princess to the very thing which she abominated? In one place Solomon compares her to a company of horses in Pharoh's chariot. Now horses were among the Israelites, common things; and what would Pharoh's daughter have said if Solomon compared her to a company of horses?".

So there are a couple of excellent Spurgeon rebuttals to obvious glaring problems in "humanising" the Song of Solomon. It just doesn't quite make sense. Spurgeon then goes on;

"The fact is that this book is a puzzle to many men for the simple reason it was not written for them at all. Learned men and wise men find this a stone which they are broken to powder just because it was not written for them. Men who are disposed to laugh at Scripture find here an opportunity to exercise their profane wit, just because the book is not written for them".

One cannot help but think of Mark Driscoll's "jokes" about the Song of Solomon.

"The true believer who has lived near to his Master will find this book to be a mass, not of gold merely, for all God's Word is this, but a mass of diamonds sparkling with brightness ... If I must prefer one book above another, I would prefer some books of the Bible for doctrine, some for experience, some for example, but let me prefer this book above all others for fellowship and communion. When the Christian is nearest to heaven, this is the book he takes with him.

There are times when he would leave even the Psalms behind, when standing on the borders of Canaan, when he is in the land of Beulah and he is just crossing the stream, and can almost see his Beloved through the rifts of the storm-cloud, then it is he can begin to sing Solomon's song. This is about the only book he can sing in heaven".

I state all this again not to take one jot away from Driscoll or Mahaney's ministries. I know many people receive much from them. But for me - I feel more comfortable taking a hallowed approach to the Song of Solomon - it isn't funny. And it shouldn't have jokes made about it. I come to this book as a hungry learner - desperate to learn how a son should relate to his Father.

"Love the Church: Lyrics of love" - Dave Bish

Following on from yesterday's Spurgeon sermon, I was thrilled to hear from Dave Bish - the well-known Bluefish blogger. He and I have shared thoughts on the Song of Solomon for some time now and he's encouraged me many times on his insights on this beautiful book of the Bible.

Dave spoke on the Song of Songs to his UCCF team recently. Here is the link to the notes from the session:

"Love the Church - Lyrics of Love".

Dave accurately sums up the two positions on how to view the Song;

"There are two broad camps of understanding about The Song. Those who say it is about marriage – as it appears at first reading, and those who say it is about Christ and the church, as I’m going to argue. Of course it is both, but which we give priority really effects how we proceed".

That last point is key to my whole understand of this book. I don't have a problem with married couples reading and learning from the love expressed in the Song of Solomon. What a better model to follow? But I do believe that if Christ and His church is isolated from this book (as per Driscoll/Mahaney etc) then a substandard love will result both for Christ in worship and indeed in marriage. As Dave says - what we give priority to will effect how we proceed.

Dave responds to Mark Driscoll's "icky" dislike of seeing corporate love in the Book by reminding us:

"Driscoll’s key argument is that it’s just too icky if this is about “Jesus and me”, I agree but whilst its true that Jesus gave himself up in love for me, we also know “Jesus gave himself up for the church” – and that a corporate reading is more the norm in Scripture. The bride is not individual believers but the church as a whole. Us not me, our husband not my husband".

He then splits the Song of Solomon up very helpfully by "tracks" of lyrics;


Track 1 (1:1-2:7) - Delights.


Track 2 (2:8-3:5) – Desire.


Track 3 (3:6-5:1) – Wedding.

"I find myself thinking – if he loves the church like this I want to know that love, to be found in the church and feel this love by the Spirit. To know his love as Ruth experiences the LORD’s love through Boaz. That means being found among God’s people not being alone. I am not his bride, the church is – it is the church whom he loves like this".

Track 4. The fourth song (5:2-6:1) – Loss


Track 5 (6:2-8:4) – Grace


Track 6. (8:5-8:14)- Home

Dave concludes wonderfully;

"This brief overview is designed not entirely to convince you to read the Song as about Christ and the church but to tug on your heart to love the bigger story of Christ and the church. To want to be found in her to know his love for her, and to grow with the church to love him as she does".

A Spurgeon Sermon on the Song of Solomon

Many know by now that the Song of Solomon is become an "issue" to me. The modern teaching popularised by Mark Driscoll or C J Mahaney has bothered me, and I've made no secret of that. But I was challenged recently that it's no good being "anti" everything without examining what I DO believe. So I am writing my own commentary of sorts on the Song of Songs - and reading everything I can lay my hands on.

C H Spurgeon preached a great number of amazing sermons on the Song of Solomon but this one in particular caught my eye. It wasn't just the way he touched on this wonderful book but it was his teaching on the Presence and glory of God that thrilled me. C H Spurgeon is popular among evangelicals - mainly for his gospel-centred preaching. Maybe this one was overlooked.

Sermon: "The Real Presence, the Great Want of the Church".

Text: Song of Solomon 3:4-5 -

"It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me. I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please."

Brethren, if a church be without the Spirit of God in it, it may have a name to live, but it is dead, and, you know, that after death there follows corruption, corruption which breeds foulness and disease. Hence, those churches which have turned aside unto error, have not only lost all power to do good, but they have become obnoxious and the causes of great evil in the midst of the world.

Let the Spirit of God be in the church, then there is power given to all her ministries; whether they be ministries of public testimony in the preaching of the word, or ministries of holy love amongst the brethren, or ministries of individual earnestness to the outside world, they will all be clothed with energy, in the fullness of the power of the Lord Jesus. Then her ordinances become truly profitable, then baptism is burial with the Lord, and the sacred supper is a feast of love; then the communion of the brethren in their solemn prayer and praise becomes deep and joyful, and their whole life and walk are bright with the glow of heaven.

In the presence of the Lord the graces of the saints are developed; the church grows rich in all spiritual gifts; her warfare becomes victorious, and her continual worship sweet as the incense of the golden censor.

I. And first, we learn from the text that before ever we can bring the Well-Beloved into our mother's house, the church, WE MUST FIND HIM PERSONALLY FOR OURSELVES.

I am not now about to speak of the need of conversion; we all know that no spiritual act can be performed until we become spiritual men; but I am now speaking about something higher than bare conversion. If we would bless the church, we must ourselves occupy a higher platform than that of being merely saved; we must be believers, walking in fellowship with Christ, and having, in that respect, found him whom our soul loveth.

There are many believers who have only just enough grace to enable us to hope that they are alive; they have no strength with which to work for God's cause, they have not an arm to lend to the help of others, neither can they even see that which would comfort others, for they are blind, and cannot see afar off, they want all their sight, and all their strength, for themselves. Those who are to bring the Well-Beloved into our mother's house, must be of another kind. They must get beyond the feebleness which is full of doubting and fearing, into the assurance which grasps the Savior, and the fellowship which lives in daily communion with him.

Pray ye for Laodicea in her lukewarmness, and Sardis in her spiritual death; but you will only prevail in proportion as your inmost soul loves the Redeemer and abides in his love.

In seeking our Lord we must use all ministries. The spouse enquired of the watchmen. We are not to despise God's servants, for he is usually pleased to bless us through them, and it would be ungrateful both to him and to them to pass them by as useless.

But, while we use the ministries, we must go beyond them. The spouse did not find her Lord through the watchmen.

But she says, "it was but a little that I passed from them, that I found him whom my soul loveth." I charge you, my dear hearers, never rest content with listening to me. Do not imagine that hearing the truth preached simply and earnestly will of itself be a blessing to your souls. Far, far beyond the servant, pass to the Master.

Oh, for more Enochs, men who walk with God, whose habitual spirit is that of close communion with Jesus, meditating upon him, yea, more than that, sympathizing with him, drinking into his spirit, changed into his likeness, living over again his life, because he is in them the monarch of their souls. O that we had a chosen band of elect spirits of this race, for surely the whole church would be revived through their influence.

II. This brings us to the second point of the subject. If we would be a blessing to the church, and have already found Christ, WE MUST TAKE CARE TO RETAIN HIM.

To come to Christ, and to sit down at his feet, is a simple thing enough for believers, and many of us have attained to it; but to sit day after day at the Master's feet is quite another matter. Oh, could I always be as I sometimes am! Could I not only rise above but remain there! But, alas, our spiritual nature is too much like this weather—it is balmy to-day; one would think that spring or summer had come; but, perhaps, to-night we may be chilled with frost and tomorrow drenched with rain. Ah, how fickle are our spirits. We are walking with Christ, rejoicing, leaping for joy; and anon the cold frosts of worldliness come over us, and we depart from him.

Mark, that according to the text, it is very apparent that Jesus will go away if he is not held. "I held him and I would not let him go;" as if he would have gone if he had not been firmly retained.

But note, next, he is very willing to be held. Who could hold him if he were not? He is the omnipotent Savior, and if he willed to withdraw he could do so: let us hold him as we might. But, mark his condescension. When his spouse said, "I held him, and I would not let him go," he did not go, he could not go, for his love held him as well as her hands. Christ is willing to be held.

He loves that sacred violence which takes him by force, that holy diligence which leaves not a gap open by which he may escape, but shuts every door, bars every bolt, and saith, "I have thee now and I will take care that if I lose thee it shall be through no fault of mine." Jesus is willing enough to be retained by hearts which are full of his love.

III. It appears from the text that, after the spouse had thus found Christ for herself and held him, SHE BROUGHT HIM INTO THE CHURCH—"I brought him to my mother's house."

IV. This leads me to the last point, which is this, to CHARGE THE CHURCH THAT SHE BE CAREFUL NOT TO DISTURB THE LORD'S REPOSE, if we have been enabled by divine grace to bring the Lord into the chambers of our mother's house.

May you stand as a sparkling pile of precious gems, inhabited by the eternal Spirit, to the praise and the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Amen.

Don't Delay - Move on!!

I read a fascinating Twitter comment from Al Mohler this morning before leaving for work - it linked to a book review of a book called; "Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers" by sociologist Mark Regnerus. His point is simple, shocking and sincere;

"Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive design".

Now let me be clear, I haven't read his book - only Mohler's review. But I must admit as a single person (and one that is sometimes slightly anti-cliche Christian marriage) I found the review and the concept he presented intriguing and stirring. I don't quite see it as far as Mohler states;

"As men and women, we are made for marriage ... Marriage is the central crucible for accepting and fulfilling the adult responsibilities of work, parenthood, and the full acceptance of mature responsibilities".

As excellent a scholar and theologian as Mohler may be - I would argue he has forgotten that Paul makes explicit room for celibacy. Maybe Mohler is reflecting the modern Church he represents, who have also forgotten that Paul made explicit room for celibacy. Rather most single people get treated as odd, different and not quite making up even numbers at dinner parties or social events. Anyhow - back to the book review.

Mohler concludes;

"Mark Regnerus certainly drives the point home when he argues that "when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex." Nevertheless, Christians are called to a moral standard that, by any secular standard, is profoundly unreasonable. I would prefer to argue that the delay of marriage is unwise, not only because of the demonstrated risk of sexual immorality, but because of the loss of so much God gives to us in marriage".

Probably the cruelest thing that any church leader can do is to deny a couple the chance or opportunity to get married or to delay their wedding. You may argue you have never heard of this happening in the 21st century Christian church. Well I have. And not only that, it is also mentioned in the New Testament;

1 Timothy 4:2-3; "(Such teachings come) by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron - they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth".

In the Expositor's Bible Commentary Ralph Earle comments on this often-forgotten and rarely taught on verse;

"The apostle uses strong language in describing the teachers of the false doctrines he is about to mention. He declares they are "hypocritical liars" (the teachers who forbid marriage); this implies that they know better but they have deliberately forsaken the faith and teach falsehood ... Paul now mentions two of their false teachings; forbidding marriage and ordering people to "abstain from certain foods" ... what these false teachers forgot is that marriage is an institution that God established as the normal thing in society ... the apostle struck out forcefully against it as a negation of our freedom in Christ".

Marriage is one of the most beautiful and complete expressions of the grace of God that He can give. What can get closer to the image of His love, desire and passion for His Bride than that of marriage? In marriage, God has given mankind the opportunity to get a taste - just a taste of what we will enjoy at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Why am I so utterly passionate about the Song of Solomon being understood in it's true Biblical context? Because nothing excites me more than considering the tangible expression of love and glory that will be ours on that Day when our glorious Bridegroom returns. The glory will be such - we are told - that human marriage will not be in heaven. That's not something to mourn because the wonder of marriage that Christian couples enjoy now is nothing compared to what will be. That is why I so vigorously contend against the false emphasis that men like C J Mahaney and Mark Driscoll put on the Song of Solomon. Such teaching is distracting and putting too much emphasis on human marriage and too little on ultimate marriage - Christ and His church.

I wonder if that happened because too much emphasis was put on human marriage. Christian marriage is a serious undertaking because it is for life, it is done in the sight of God and man - but let us not forget that the apostle Paul himself said;

"But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion".

He's not down-grading the sanctity of marriage. But he is also not unnecessarily over-exalting the sanctity of marriage to a near-gnostic level so that marriage is forbidden unnecessarily and thereby sinfully exalting lust. Any leaders who do forbid marriage surely stand before God in accountability for causing those under their care to fall. All that aside - I stand convinced by Mohler's review of this book. Maybe the church has over emphasied too far in one direction and it is time to have the balance of truth adjusted somewhat. Young people!? Get married!!

Dave Bish on the Song of Solomon

Dave has written an excellent post recently that thanks to Twitter I noticed. He interacts with Tom Gledhill, author of the BST Song of Songs and the article on it in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology and Gledhill's views on this beautiful book. Gledhill follows (or maybe is to blame) for Mahaney, Driscoll et all and states;

"... there is some biblical justification for a moderate typological approach. But the danger of this hermeneutic is that of thinking that the relationship between the believer and God is highly emotional or even erotic".

He then goes on to state that it is "safer" to "the straightfoward and explicit admonitions of the NT". Dave responds;

"So Gledhill says a moderate typology is fine, but we're to abandon it because:

a) we might take it too far, but can we not restrain ourselves? And what if we permit ourselves to ask whether a less cautious hermeneutic might be fruitful? I'm not saying be wreckless, but let's not run scared. Sounds like an argument for abstinence from alcohol for risk of drunkeness...

b) the NT gives us 'straightfoward' words but Matthew Henry suggests: "when the meaning is found out, it will be of admirable use to excite pious and devout affections in us; and the same truths which are plainly laid down in other scriptures when they are extracted out of this come to the soul with a more pleasing power" Can we not have poetic theology?

c) it's prone to excessive allegoratization, but it's ok for Mark Driscoll to follow Gledhill's lead and interpret the foxes as sexual temptation? Excesses all round I guess, but might we miss some of the riches if we pass over details?I appreciate there are dangers, but I think Gledhill over reacts. Given he concedes there is some basis for this typological approach it seems a shame to throw away the opportunity for this book to testify about Christ and the church for fear of getting carried away with it. I accept it's possible to over-read the text, but perhaps we're more likely to under-read it...".

I don't think I need add anything to this outstanding rebuttal. Once again the danger of no use because of overuse - when rather we should be holding to right use. Fantastically written and I urge you to follow Dave's blog and his teaching.

Sam Storms on Resisting Temptations

I was just sorting through my bookshelves and found some prayer journals when I used to rather legalistically read the Bible and pray and fast in an attempt to gain some blessing from God. It was sobering to read the endless cycle of despair, hope, despair and hope. It made me realise how much grace has freed me from burdens! But I found this excellent quote of Sam Storms on Friday 2nd March 2001;

"The decision to say "No" to sin must itself be energised by the assurance of delight in an alternative "Yes" - the only way to fight the seductive power of one pleasure is with a greater pleasure - a more pleasing pleasure, the pleasure that comes from falling in love with Jesus!".

I think it was from his marvellous book; "Pleasures Evermore: Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God". Surely again here is the great connection with the Song of Solomon and the amazing truths it has to teach us about the passionate love of the Father for us. How can we ever even hope to find that superior pleasure that will triumph over sin if we will not receive His love?

Answer to Counterfeit? Intimacy!!

I was going to write quite an empassioned post about something that's been on my heart for some time. And that will come - maybe tomorrow.

But I have come back from the most amazing lunch with Ursula - a fellow blogger I met for the first time today. Whooooo ... what to say about Ursula?! We hit it off straight away - as soon as we hugged I felt the fire vibrating through this anointed servant of God. It certainly didn't feel like a first meeting in person! I felt completely at one in spirit and felt like she's going to be someone I'm seeing a lot of! We didn't stop talking from start to finish and I loved the fact that she did most of the talking. That was mainly at my design - I was there to learn and hear all about "Grace and Glory 2009" and more importantly about her encounters with God.

As I was driving home listening to the new City Church International worship album that Ursula had kindly brought for me (I LOVE souvenirs from Hong Kong!!) a lot of thoughts were flying round in my head. The first was a longing for encounters and experiences with God like she had. The second was a weary tiredness with "fear of the counterfeit" and getting it "right" that has been drummed into me since childhood. What has such fear produced? I mean really? Has such an obsession with right theology produced increased conversions or increased signs, wonders and miracles?

I was reminded of something that Rob Rufus said at "Glory and Grace" in 2007 when I was there;

"Paul said in Galatians, 'I am shocked that you are so quickly leaving the true gospel and going after another gospel that is no gospel at all' ... it is a false gospel and a legalistic gospel ... I want to say, Rob Rufus wants to say, I am astonished at the fear and paranoia amongst Christians about being deceived by false signs and wonders. I want to say - you either need to get saved (because you can't be saved if you are that frightened) or as a Christian realise that every counterfeit is easy to discern.

It takes you away from Jesus but true signs and wonders take you closer to Jesus. How can you NOT discern the difference?! How can you be so dumb and still breathe? I know Him! I know His secret ways! I know His smell! I know His voice and tone! Nothing could counterfeit Glenda to me - unless I didn't know her very well! Nothing can counterfeit the Holy Spirit to me! I have known Him for 30 years and you can be one day old in the Lord and a one day convert and you can meet the Holy Spirit - any other spirit will dishonour Jesus and point to man! It will exalt man and flesh!

This fear - "Oh in the last days we are going to be deceived!". No - those who don't know their God will be deceived but Daniel says those that know their God will do mighty signs and wonders! I am convinced there are Christians that don't know God - they are strangers to God! They have got head knowledge and full of theology about God but have never met Him! They don't know Him! When He turns up in a meeting and is moving by His power - they stand there looking around saying "What is this?". This is THAT which was the prophet Joel spoke about; "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh! Your sons and daughters will prophesy!".

These are not days to be wondering "Is this God or not?". You should know within seconds. When banktellers are trained how to recognise the counterfeit notes, they don't spend ages handling counterfeit to recognise counterfeit currency. They give them hours of training just passing the genuine through their fingers. They become so familiar with the genuine that the moment a counterfeit passes through - they recognise it immediately! Don't worry about the counterfeit - get so close to the genuine Holy Spirit and then you will know immediately a demon spirit or a new age spirit!".

You may have felt that I was banging my drum about the Song of Solomon unnecessarily. I've written quite a few posts about it now I just realised!

It all started with "If It's New it Probably Isn't True" - A Response to C J Mahaney's View on the Song of Solomon". It had never even entered my head that people could and would believe that a book of the sacred Word of God could be simply a glorified sex manual for married couples. I didn't appreciate C J Mahaney mocking that view very much!

When last month a series of posts on the Song of Songs was prompted by a chat with my Dad.

What Song of Solomon Has to Teach Us!! - It's no good just being negative about the view you don't like.

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!! - MacArthur takes toilet-mouth Mark Driscoll to task (even though they have the same views on Song of Songs).

When Rob Rufus Gets It Right!! - Rob Rufus addressed Song of Songs and made his views clear in a prayer at "Grace and Glory".

Dr Peter Masters is Right!! - Another uber-conservative, Reformed scholar and cessationist teaches accurately and powerfully on what the Song of Solomon has to say to us.

So why? What's the connection?

Well if the Song of Solomon is an accurate representation of the passionate, intimate love that God has for us and the response that can evoke in us then here is the clue to not having to fear deception and the counterfeit. Learn about the true intimacy we can find in Jesus Christ and we will never mistake Him for a demon! Ever! I don't think the answer is to be found in endless theology textbook after textbook anymore. I used to. But I suddenly saw the Bible warns clearly against this too;

"Holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these".

Avoid them! So as an expression of such intimacy I want to post Ursula's wonderful encounter and journey into heaven and her meeting with Jesus Himself (during the Sydney Glory and Grace Conference). In the past I might have probably tutted and headed for the theology textbooks to check out if it was "right". Now I hunger after such encounters. I long to know His manifest love!;

"I was in the middle of this huge field and Jesus was standing next to me. We went for a walk – and I was just telling Him how much I love Him – we only got about 5 steps – and He turned and hugged me. My arms were around His neck and His arms were around my middle and He was holding me tight. He swung me around and around and I could only bury my neck in His neck and revel in this love He had for me.

Eventually, Jesus put me down and still with our arms around each other we walked on. But we only got about 3 steps and suddenly it was like He couldn’t contain Himself and I was in His arms again swinging. He was laughing and crying and there was just so much love for me and I was totally undone by it. My heart felt like it was expanding till it was going to burst. The more we swung the deeper His love was, the deeper we fell in love and I was just whispering “I love you, I love you, I love you…I just want to fall in love more and more with you…” I was just totally overwhelmed by His incredible, totally indescribable love for me".

Do you know what I realised? The Song of Solomon teaches us that while marriage is indeed wonderful, we don't have to wait for it to encounter this wonderful intimate love. It doesn't begin at marriage! Sure Ursula is right;

"When both of our eyes are on His eyes, on Him, when He is our first love, the intensity of the love for Him actually multiplies because the two of us become one…and our love for Him together is stronger than just one of our loves…and that in the spiritual realm, that doesn’t just double, but multiplies over and over and over".

But Paul said it is BETTER that some remain single for a reason! And why would it be better if single celibate people missed out on this joyful intimate love? The answer is that we can experience this here and now with Jesus Christ - the risen and exalted Lord Himself. Here! Now! And that is the best defence against the counterfeit.

Dr Peter Masters is Right!!

Well this is now the third part in an inpromtu series sparked off by Mark Driscoll and his rather colourful words on the Song of Solomon. The first was Dr John MacArthur's reaction to Driscoll here and the second was Rob Rufus's wonderful inspired words on the Song of Songs at "Glory and Grace" in 2007. I guess that part of the motivation behind why I feel so intensely about this could be explained in my post; "Speak Tenderly to My Bride". It's my conviction that something had gone drastically wrong when a preacher is laying down rules and regulations on what Christian wives "should do" in the privacy of their bedroom - with the end result of guilt and condemnation if they even feel they do not want to do what their husband is demanding.

So yesterday on the back of a recurrent dream I have been having I travelled down to London and went to the outstanding Evangelical Library. I was hoping to spend time in the periodicals and journals that they have but they are currently in storage. Instead I spent my time in the commentaries on the Song of Solomon. And I found a quote by Watchman Nee that made me think. Underneath the mocking of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon - I believe there is actually a problem with believing that God can feel so intimately about them. Why? Because they believe that they still have sin within them somewhere that the blood of Jesus Christ didn't quite cover and thus deserve something of the wrath and judgement of God.

In short this issue of how you understand the Song of Solomon is not just some secondary issue that can be ignored. Understanding that book rightly has implications on worship, on intimacy with God and the gospel itself. Because we will never be able to access the full glory, weight and wonder of God's love and passion for us conveyed through the Song of Solomon (among other Scriptures) until we understand the Gospel of grace properly.

Here's the quote from Watchman Nee;

"The book's (Song of Solomon) innermost heart speaks of spiritual communion. It is a book for the heart ... The book addresses itself to those who are already regenerated by the Spirit of God and who are awakened to longings for a fuller experience of Christ. There is not the slightest mention of things pertaining to salvation. The emphasis is not on matters relating to the sinner but rather on those concerning the advancement of the believer. It does not address itself to those outside of Christ but to the Lord's own people.

Consequently there are no instructions given as to how one may be saved but it tells of the longings of a believer for deeper experiences of the Lord. It does not speak of faith but of love. Love floats like a banner over the whole Song ... ".

And that's when I got my shock. Searching more through the shelves of the Evangelical Library I found a commentary on the Song of Solomon by Dr Peter Masters - the senior minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. I am ashamed to say that Dr Masters is another individual I classed along with John MacArthur in the "rabidly anti-charismatic, anti-everything" camp. And that's true - he is. But I sat myself down and read his commentary. It was excellent. Here's the basis of his argument which I hope will be helpful;

1. The Title Points to Christ.

Firstly the original Hebrew is "Song of Songs" meaning the best of all possible songs, or the supreme and most beautiful song ever composed, an extravagant title for the love of ordinary human beings. Such a title best refers to the love of the Son of God for His people and their responding love to Him.

2. Solomon is Not a Model for Marriage.

Secondly Solomon, the inspired author, would hardly be the ideal channel for lessons on love and marriage in view of his having acquired a thousand wives and concubines who turned away his heart from God.

The life of the teacher must surely commend his message. If Solomon wrote about his own first courtship and marriage, how could this be described as the best song and put forward a model when it quickly became a betrayed relationship? A repentent sinner however is an acceptable person to write about the mercy of Christ to His church and Solomon became such a person after His restoration to God (reflected in Ecclesiastes).

3. There is No Wedding.

A third reason why we must see the Song as an allegory of the love between Christ and His church rather than a manual on married life is that there is no wedding in it.

It is a fact that the bride and groom are viewed throughout the book as not yet fully married, this being one of the compelling dramatic features. Modern writers tend to marry the couple off at an early stage so they view them as husband and wife, complete with physical intimacy and marital tiffs but this is read into the song. The reality is that the bride and groom had engaged in the first stage of an ancient Jewish betrothal so that they were wholly committed to each other but they did not yet live together.

Throughout the Song the bride and groom are seen waiting for the day of the wedding ceremony with it's great marriage supper and they are still looking forward to it with great desire at the end. This is powerfully prophetic providing an exceptionally close union between believers and their Lord as they wait for His coming at the end of the age and the great bridal supper of the Lamb.

C H Spurgeon said; "As a believer draws near to Heaven, this is the book he takes with him".

If we miss this the Song has ... nothing to say to our spiritual lives.

4. Love Terms Cannot Be Real.

A fourth reason for the superiority of the grand old view is that many expressions of admiration used in the Song are simply not credible for human love, such as when the groom tells the bride she resembles Pharoh's horses or that she has a neck like the squat, rough Tower of David, plus other equally jarring descriptions.

If however the poem is an allegory of the love between Christ and the church, these sentiments come to life, describing the privilidges and characteristics of saved people. The love poem is only the "vehicle" for the message. The descriptions were never meant to be wholly realistic or to be taken literally. As the old saying goes - an allegory says one thing but means another. We must see the deeper meaning.

5. Great Prophecies are Here.

A fifth reason for taking the groom to be Christ and the bride to be the Church, is the amount of prophecy which becomes obvious through this interpretation. It is no coincidence that many passages picture well the incarnation of Christ, His saving work, His resurrection, the establishment of the church age, the calling of the Gentiles and the future heavenly kingdom.

One modern evangelical Bible dictionary says rather surprisingly that "there is little in the book that is explicitly religious". This is only true if one takes the fairly modern view that this is a literal love story. However if we take the older view that this book is a guide to spiritual love then we see Christ and His work prophesied throughout it's eight chapters.

6. Allegory is Solomon's Speciality.

A sixth reason for believing that Christ and His church is the subject of this poem is that the Bible tells us that a parable style was the principal feature of Solomon's writings. He issued 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32) many of the proverbs being in the book of Proverbs. A proverb is (in the Hebrew) a rule or a comparison, ranging from a short, pithy comparison to a full-size paralell or allegory. While we are told that Solomon specialized "comparisons" (teaching truth by means of a fictional story) and also in songs,

We are not told that a major part of his work was a marriage guidance manual.

When Rob Rufus Gets It Right!!

There have been some really awesome comments on my previous post; "When John MacArthur Gets It Right!" - which I'm so grateful for. I think we all appreciated my non-Christian friend's input and frankness! All Christian husbands need to never, ever forget that sexual intimacy means that wives should be enjoying it too! But I carried the conversation on at home with my mum and dad when I met them for coffee yesterday. It's something I really love and appreciate about Mum and Dad - they are willing to listen to whatever's on my heart. The benefit of discussing this Driscoll/Song of Solomon thing is that I've come to appreciate how important Christian married couples long for some Biblical teaching and input on their intimate lives.

But I think Sheila makes a vital point too - we don't need schoolboy toilet (or bathroom) humour or language to get that point across. And while I am sure Mark Driscoll is an incredibly unique person - his behaviour doesn't necessarily have to be prescriptive to try and emulate the kind of success God is giving him at the moment. My heart still is for Christian women - sisters in Christ. And so I was thrilled driving back from Bristol to be reminded of something Rob Rufus said in a prayer at "Glory and Grace" when I was there in 2007.

Here's what he said - and it's absolutely on-topic. One might have thought he knew of the debate!

"The Bible in Song of Solomon and many other places talks about us being the Bride and being loved and ravished by heavenly romance with a Bridegroom that is so in love with us! Your love is better than wine. Come away with Me, My beloved!

Forgive us for taking the culture of the world as men - Lord! So afraid of intimacy. So afraid of closeness. So afraid of emotion. We thank You for the example of David - Lord. A real man, a masculine man, a warrior, a mighty warrior! A man who killed many people in battle, a great warrior in the army of Israel! A king! Yet a sensative, tender poet. A romantic. A lover! A tender-hearted man!

Oh give us men like that in the world today! Warriors who will stand up and fight yet know tenderness and intimacy! Jesus the Son of God who stood against the most evil force on the planet - religious demons behind Pharisees - and He stood against them alone and would not buckle under their intimidation or pressure. What a man! Yet He could stand before Lazarus's tomb and weep and shed tears and say "Let the little children come to Me for such is the Kingdom of heaven".

Jesus who could look at a woman caught in adultery and say "Woman where are your accusers? Neither do I accuse you". Such tenderness in this Man! Jesus of Nazareth! Fully God and fully Man! Weeping with compassion! Showing such kindness! But even on the Cross and dying for our sins, He looks down at John and said; "John behold your mother" - pointing at Mary. Thinking about His MOTHER! While He is on the Cross He is still wanting to make sure His earthly mother is looked after by His disciple John - the man He loved!

What kind of Man is this?! So full of masculinity and male authority yet so tender and intimate. He let John the apostle put his head on His chest at the Last Supper and was not embarressed by the contact of a physical man touching His chest in public - so innocent and pure. What happened to the church? This Bridegroom does not need our love but He desires it with a passion!".

I think that last point for me answers one of Driscoll's most distressing comments where he mocks those who see certain allegories in the Song of Solomon and says;

"Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Whether it was meant as a joke or not (and an extremely bad one if it was) - the fact remains that Jesus Christ the Man had absolutely no problem in loving one of His disciples and welcoming His disciple's love and longing for closeness in absolute innocence and purity. I must confess one of the thoughts that has most often gone through my head when I first lay eyes on the Risen and Exalted Lord Jesus Christ for the first time is a longing that I will be able to run into His arms and do the same thing. Let's recover that innocence and purity. As Rob Rufus said;

"What's happened to the Church?".

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!!

One of the joys of being a constant student and son of God is that the Holy Spirit is constantly tweaking and adjusting prejudices in my life and I always know when it is Him. Because He does so, so utterly gently and tenderly. After leaving Bristol (as many know) I struggled a lot with unforgiveness and bitterness towards Sovereign Grace Ministries and the church in particular for their harsh legalism. And if I dared to share what I was struggling with, I was told (mainly by SGM-ers) that I should "just get over it". I am indebted still to Pete Day for dealing with this excellently in a blog post.

But probably in the last 18 months or so I've discovered that the Holy Spirit has taken away that bitterness and that anger without me even noticing or making any attempts to "just get over it". That's true sanctification surely! That as Ryan Rufus said in his sermon on Sunday - God wants us to focus on Him and His heart and then He will adjust the externals that He wants changing. Rest! Anyway that's a bit of an example as to how constant gentle change goes on in our lives so gently by the Spirit within us.

I've never had much time for John MacArthur since reading his "Charismatic Chaos" back in the days when our home church was marching steadily towards a functional and theological cessationist position. I hated his aggressive attitude and judgemental intolerance of charismatics (ironic that the Holy Spirit's gently pointed out in my life recently how aggressive and judgementally intolerant I have become of those I didn't like for being such!!). However I was very impressed with some articles that MacArthur published earlier this month dealing with the Song of Solomon - and in particular Mark Driscoll's approach to them.

Here's a brief summary of what MacArthur wrote;

1. "The Rape of Solomon's Song".

"Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service ... These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days".

This was exactly the question I asked my family at dinner last night. "Relevance". I was shocked to hear that Driscoll's worship pastor used a swear word from the CCK platform when he was there for the Worship School recently. Now I am no prude! I'm a nurse and am well aware of swear words. Like Rob Rufus said once - I too can swear like a poet if I am so inclined. But I was asking my family if we need to use such words in church to be "relevant"?

MacArthur isn't saying we should stay in the Dark Ages of Victorianism and avoid sex in church;

"So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex. But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit".

He then went on to get more specific with the way that the Song of Solomon is used in this "relevant" approach to sex;

"But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined ... We're assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren't merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon's Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife's own desire or conscience.

I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, "Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you're being dirty, he's pretty happy." Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.” That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way".

That was exactly my concern and my heart when I wrote my blog yesterday. Something is wrong when women who were created and given to be protected by man are being treated like this surely?

Anyway MacArthur ends the first part by mentioning that he feels Mark Driscoll is the main proponent of this view and treatment of the Song of Solomon. That may be true - I don't know. But in my opinion it was C J Mahaney who first brought this to the discussion table.

2. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 2".

Again I couldn't agree more with his opening lines;

"It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable".

MacArthur quotes Tremper Longman saying;

"Tremper Longman III says this about preachers and commentators who interpret the Song's poetic imagery in overtly explicit ways: "[Their] free association with the images of the Song is so prevalent that we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text".

He then goes on with some more specific comments about Driscoll which can be read but aren't the object of this post. This isn't meant to be a dig at Driscoll. I don't like the guy but I know he is touching thousands with his style and that's great! My querying is more about this issue of do we have to become like the world and speak like the world to attract the world? Or should there be something rather different about us?

3. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 3".

MacArthur makes some comment on the interpretation of Song of Solomon that I'm not quite sure about. He says;

"I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning. Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text".

I agree that it's not helpful to take everything in an allegorical fashion. But my gut feeling is that we must see marriage as it's God-given intention - that of a picture of Christ and His Bride! The supremacy of the relationship between God and us surely sets the tone for everything else. After all - why else would there be no "giving and receiving of marriage" in heaven? If marriage was that supreme then surely it would go on into eternity? Why does God get so upset in the Word of God when His picture of marriage is abused through sexual sin? Because it reflects on Christ and the Bride. Why did Moses get forbidden from entering the Promised Land? Simply for abusing a picture of Christ on the Cross.

MacArthur quoted Driscoll saying this about the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon;

"Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."

MacArthur goes on;

"Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”

Some of Driscoll's supporters have tried to stand up for him saying that he's toned down in his recent "Peasant Princess" series that some of my family have liked so much. MacArthur thinks not - quoting Driscoll;

"Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Er ... no. This "dude" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But I won't go on otherwise I'll be writing stuff that I will later regret. MacArthur (while not taking the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon) writes something that I really found helpful and interesting;

"Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly, not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery".

I think if Mahaney and Driscoll had pointed to Christ and His love for the church then I wouldn't have had half the problem I do with the "literal" approach.

4. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 4".

In his final article MacArthur begins by responding to questions that arose from the many comments left as a result of these articles on his blog. Just prior to that MacArthur quoted Tim Challies who's reaction to this view of Song of Solomon was;

"I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here".

One interesting question I noted was this (followed by MacArthur's answer);

"2. Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous

Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests".

One important question was raised;

"4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach".

This surely is a fair point. MacArthur is a lot older than Driscoll. However I think Mahaney isn't that much younger than MacArthur and he seems to be very much in agreement with Driscoll. But even though I'm 31 - and I don't have scruples about discussing sex - I still have the same problem in graphic descriptions of sexual acts from the pulpit. How on EARTH is that fulfilling the Ephesians 4 mandate that these gifts of the ascended Christ are meant to be doing? To bring the body of Christ to maturity? To giggle in repulsion at the idea of the glorified and risen Christ trying to "put His hand up my shirt" sounds like it belongs in the gym changing room at school. Not the church. And certainly not from the platform.

Anyway. I promised myself I wouldn't get into a rant. Here's MacArthur's answer to that question;

"Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation. Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms".

In many ways our generation is more prudish than some of the generations that MacArthur mentioned. MacArthur makes a very important point;

"The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God".

This is something I've worried about time and again. The two churches that formed the bulk of my Christian experience were both led by very dominant (some might say domineering) church pastors. Even if they didn't intend it - there was a culture in both churches where church members would take the word of the pastor as the Word of God. And that wasn't just the preached word. That was throw-off comments and opinions that said pastors had.

We discussed Driscoll's views on the Song of Solomon last night (mainly me and my mum) and this question actually came up in conversation;

"6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?".

MacArthur gives a link to the two sermons Driscoll preached in Scotland - and I duly read them. Why is such an issue made of this? Well here's why according to MacArthur;

"That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough".

Finally someone asked MacArthur why he is dealing with this matter publicly and why he hasn't approached Driscoll privately (he has and was ignored). The questioner knew that both John Piper and C J Mahaney are having some degree of input into Driscoll's life. Here's what MacArthur said;

"I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums".

He quotes Scripture to back this up;

"When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses".

On Driscoll's tongue, MacArthur said;

"Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings".

That's something I've noticed. I know a church in Wales that has adopted the "Driscoll-style" in church life (and the pastors certainly aren't immature) and I've heard the MP3's and the same cursing and joking seems to crop up there too.

And finally on Mahaney and Piper's involvement;

"Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin.

In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog. To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them".

I'm glad that someone of MacArthur's statesmanship wrote these articles. Not because I am rejoicing that someone else is taking a pop at Driscoll - because I said before that wasn't my concern. He is who he is. And God can work all things together for good. But because the whole issue of Song of Solomon is being dealt with properly and in a concerned manner for the glory of God and for His Name and for His fame.

The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking in a smutty manner. They can do it far better than the church ever can. The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking explicitly about sex - not when explicit sex is available anywhere and everywhere. In my experience non-Christians expect the church to be different. And when they are not - even non-Christians know something is wrong.

What Song of Solomon Has to Teach Us!!

One of the fascinating conversations I had on my recent visit to Bristol to see my dad was regarding one of our favourite books in the Bible - the Song of Solomon. It was provoked because I brought him C H Spurgeon's sermons on this wonderful book entitled; "The Most Holy Place". I've argued before what my position is on this glorious book - so don't need to repeat that at length. Suffice to say that I couldn't be further removed from C J Mahaney's odd views and tend to stand in the more traditional historical view that first and foremost this book (like Christian marriage) is a picture of Christ and His Bride - the Church.

What my dad and I were discussing and unpacking was what teaching a biblical approach to this book can and will do for the Church. Some of the historical divines said this of the Song of Solomon:

"This is spoken in the person of the Church, or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loves". (from the Geneva 1599 Bible Notes)

"It treats of Christ and his Church, in their most glorious, lively, and lovely actions, to wit, his care of, and his love unto his Church, and that in its most eminent degree; and also, of her love to him". - James Durham (1622 Puritan) who incidentally C H Spurgeon described as "that master of masters".

On Song of Solomon 2:1 - "If these are the words of the Well-beloved,—and I have no doubt that they are —then it may be suggested by some that here we have the Savior praising himself; and it is true; but in no unworthy sense, for well may he praise himself since no one else can do it as it should be done" - C H Spurgeon.

And finally the great Jonathan Edwards said;

"The name by which Solomon calls this song confirms to me that it is more than an ordinary love song and that it was designed for a divine song and of divine authority for we read in 1 Kings 4:32 that Solomon's songs were "a thousand and five". This he called the "Song of songs". That is the most excellent of his songs ... because it was a song of the most excellent subject treating of the love, union and communion between Christ and His spouse of which marriage and conjugal love was but a shadow. These are the most excellent lovers and their love the most excellent love".

More recently theological scholars have said:

"The Song is more than a canonical sex manual as some recent treatments have implied" - Tremper Longman.

So what does holding this biblical view do for our Christian lives?

1. It Increases Affections for God.

As a single man I confess I have tried reading the Song of Solomon with Mahaney's interpretation in mind and I have felt nothing than a grudging resentment that I am not married. Whereas when you allow the Spirit-inspired words that are "profitable for teaching" to sink into your heart then they cannot help but provoke feelings of awe and wonder. For example;

"Your love is better than wine, your oils have a pleasing fragrance, your Name is like purified oil ...".

And then the Bridegroom Himself actually speaks ... to us! To me!

"To Me, My darling ...". (GOD calls ME darling!?!?). "Your cheeks are lovely ... My beloved ... My beloved ... how beautiful you are My darling! How beautiful you are!".

How can we but respond?

2. It inflames Worship to God.

Get this widget Track details eSnips Social DNA

I'm not sure you can sing a beautiful song like "Draw Me Close to You" (which is one among many songs of intimacy I love) without touching the passion of God for us. Pete Day's recent blog post is a vital foundational grace truth - that condemnation MUST be removed. Because while we tolerate condemnation in our lives then we never will quite believe that God is so passionately for us. How long should we bear guilt!? Not for a MOMENT! Why? Because once it's gone - our worship will rise like a fragrant incense!

Song of Solomon itself expresses something of the response that should be the Church's;

"Listen! My beloved! Behold He is coming! Climbing on the mountains! Leaping on the hills! ... My beloved is mine and I am His!"

And by contrast something of the heartache that should characterise us when His manifest Presence is not felt among us personally or corporately;

"I sought Him whom my soul loves; I sought Him but did not find Him, I must arise now and go about the city ... I must seek Him whom my soul loves".

3. It Revives Marriage between Husband and Wife.

Let me say again that I do applaud C J Mahaney's heart to infuse a God-honouring passion back into Christian marriages. I just wish he hadn't tried to impose his views to twist Scripture to try and back up what he was saying. That wasn't necessary. And I wouldn't limit Song of Solomon either to purely representing Christ and His Bride (as perhaps some of the Puritans tried). Because Christian marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and His Bride - but it is that which will last for eternity!

For example Ephesians 5:31; "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church". And slightly earlier in Ephesians 5:22; "Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the church, He Himself being the Saviour of the Body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be to their husbands in everything".

It's my observation as a single guy that most Christian men have stopped there in their theology and experience - nodding and agreeing with Wayne Grudem. But Sam Storms says quite rightly;

"Headship is a responsibility - not a right".

It is my conviction that if I were ever to be married - I would not dare try and expect my wife to submit until I had fulfilled the next verse;

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her ... so husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself".

Maybe if more husbands loved their wives "as Christ" then it wouldn't be such a controversy expecting wives to "submit"!

So it's my prayer that the Song of Solomon is rightfully claimed back! I have to confess something - I've always hated a lot of "couples" teaching you hear that goes on in the Church. I will fully admit I am bitter and jealous of those who are married. What an awesome blessing! I would love to share my life with someone! And much of the teaching that you hear makes me ... frankly want to puke. I am sure they love each other but it doesn't help me being single hearing them wax eloquent. Oddly enough though since encountering Rob and Glenda Rufus I have benefited so much in gaining a more godly attitude about marriage. I love watching a couple who have been married faithfully for 30+ years - still totally in love with each other. I hope Rob and Glenda share some of their wisdom soon about marriage in book form.

On that note Rob Rufus spoke recently about the Song (and wonderfully he agrees with myself and most of church history!). It's an awesome place to finish my meandering thoughts - because it is a testimony of how the Song of Solomon (rightfully preached) saved 30 of his soldier collegues!

"I am a bit passionate about this! Here is the mystery of the Bridegroom and the Bride! I have deliberately left out some passages because some of you would blush. These passages were written by the Holy Spirit and you are not as holy as the Holy Spirit as He expresses intimacy and you can't handle it. In the military where atheists become Christians on the Angolan border, and they usually read pornography books - so one night I opened the Song of Solomon and they all usually want to borrow each others books. I put my candle on and I read the parts which I can't read to you because you are saved people. I read it to them because they were reading pornography so they could cope with it but you are Christians and you are holy and you can't! I didn't tell them it was the Bible and hid it below my sleeping bag! And they said; "Wow what book is that - can I read it after you?". I said "Yes it is the Bible!". I wish I had captured on video their faces! They said "No!". Suddenly they all wanted to read the Bible and they realised that the Bible had been mis-represented by Christians!

30 of those swearing blaspheming troops got saved and many of them are still going on with Christ today! I wasn't a Christian - I was a son! And I showed them that this is the mystery of God and His Bride! I told them "Don't go to church to check this out because you won't see it - you will see no passion or heavenly romance". Song of Solomon chapter 1:1;"Let him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth for your love is better than wine ... let him bring me into his chambers". That is the King to the Bride!

Go down to (v12); "My lover is to me ... how beautiful you are my darling oh how beautiful". Then the church says back; "How handsome you are my lover!". This is church - Sunday morning! "Oh how handsome you are". All through the week I have been encountering your love, all through the busy week I have been concious of heaven! 2:3; "Like an apple tree ... I delight to sit in His shade .. His banner over me is love". The prophetic word God spoke to us today! "I am faint with love". How many of you have felt FAINT with love for Jesus? "I charge you by the gazelles ... do not awaken love .... here He comes! (Jesus!) bounding over the hills ... Arise my darling!" - talking to the church!".