Sexy stuff, huh? In our pew Bibles, the heading on the page
we just read says "Song of Songs" but, as you know, in many
Bibles the heading says "Song of Solomon." So saying, it is not
generally thought that King Solomon was the author - granted he
was a lusty fellow with 700 wives and 300 concubines, but that in
itself, in my view, would mitigate against his authorship (when
would he have had time?). More likely, Solomon's name became
attached to the book in some sort of dedication. The original-language title of this book (Song of Songs) is a Hebrew way of
talking about the FINEST song just as "king of kings" means the
greatest king.(1) Somebody, somewhere, way back, thought these
love poems were the best of the bunch.
Not only the passage we just read but the whole book is an
ode to the joys of erotic love. It is so giddy with the
intoxicating charms of sensual attraction that, like young lovers
kissing in the Mall, it seems not to care who else is around or
what they might think of such carrying on.
The book is comprised of the love songs sung by a man and a
woman who can see only each other. And see each other they do.
They linger over every inch in voluptuous celebration, savoring
all the physical characteristics of the beloved - thighs and
navels and breasts and lips. As one writer has noted, "It is
almost enough to get the Bible banned from public libraries. If
young adolescents ever happened upon this torrid little book,
they might begin to read the Bible with flashlights under their
covers at night."(2)
It is little wonder then that the Song of Songs almost did
not make it into the Bible. Some have wondered if it has any
religious value at all. Read it through from beginning to end in
a modern translation - it will not take you long, only eight
brief chapters - there is not a single mention of God. Not once.
A wonderful collection love poems, OK...but holy scripture?
Some have rushed to its defense. One famous Jewish teacher,
Rabbi Akiba, claimed that, "The whole world is not worth the day
on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the
scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of
Holies."(3) So some interpreters, stuck with this book that could
melt a Puritan winter, have tried to make it an allegory -
nothing really meaning what it appears to mean, and all beneath
the mantle of education - just to bring it into line. Under the
influence of Greek views, which denigrated the body, and with the
loss of a biblical view of the created goodness of the body and
human love, many interpreters felt compelled to find in the Song
an allegory of the sacred love between God and Israel, Christ and
the church, or Christ and the individual soul.(4) In the Middle
Ages, St. Bernard of Clairvaux followed this line of
interpretation and preached 86 sermons on the Song of Songs, a
series that covered only two chapters and three verses. Eighty-six sermons can take the joy out of any subject (and one cannot
help wondering if the celibate saint protested too much). These
days though, most of us believe that the author of the Song of
Songs actually was doing what he or she appeared to be doing (and
what more straitlaced interpreters seem unable to admit) namely,
celebrating human love with poetry reveling in romance and
sexuality.
All right, if God's word in scripture is provided for our
instruction and edification, how is this material helpful? One
commentator has written,
Encountering these love songs in the pages of the Bible
reminds me of the time when, as a teenager, I
discovered ardent letters written by my grandparents
when they were in the throes of young love. The
discovery completed my picture of them. They were real
people after all, animated by the kind of impulses and
yearnings I knew quite well. These dignified and
upright people - who, before my discovery, I could only
imagine going to bed fully clothed - also had a love
for one another that was as hungry and tumultuous as
the sea. And as their lives demonstrated, passionate
love for another person need not eclipse God but can
enlarge a life in ways that make room for God to be
manifest - something I might have missed if those
letters had remained undiscovered and my picture of my
grandparents had remained incomplete.(5)
Good point. Were it not for the Song of Songs, we too might
miss the fact that healthy desire and healthy discipleship are
not mutually exclusive. Sex is a wonderful gift. GOD'S gift,
even. Enjoy!
OK. Now combine that with the passage we heard from Mark's
gospel, this seemingly nit-picky confrontation between Jesus and
the disciples on one side and the Scribes and Pharisees on the
other over this earth-shaking issue of washing your hands before
a meal.
Come on!!! Who, other than a five-year-old coming in with
mud from head to toe, would raise a fuss about washing hands?
Well, the Scribes and Pharisees, obviously. For them, this was
more than an issue of cleanliness, it was a way of showing who
they were and WHOSE they were. This ritual let the world know
they were Jews, the chosen people of God. Granted, they could go
overboard with it - in the Mishnah, the how-to manual outlining
essential aspects of Judaism, there is one whole chapter - seven
pages - on the importance of washing hands, plus another 40-page
chapter on cleaning pots, pans, plates and utensils.(6) But,
again, the issue was not cleanliness, but identity. To give it a
more 21st century spin, think of it as saying Grace before meals.
Some of us think that is a big deal, others less so...especially
in public. Should we fight about that?
What do you think Jesus would say? Probably something along
the lines of not majoring on minors or making mountains out of
molehills. In the context of the discussion with the Pharisees,
his response was, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you
hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their
lips, but their hearts are far from me.'" The issue for Jesus
was that these super religious types were more concerned with
SHOWING their religion than DOING their religion. Jesus says,
NO! Don't just TALK the TALK, WALK the WALK. It all has to do
with, in a word, INTEGRITY - being the same on the inside as on
the outside. Or as Will Rogers once described it, "[Living] in
such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to
the town gossip.(7)
You are familiar, no doubt with the huge flap down in
Alabama about whether the Ten Commandments should be displayed on
a 5300-pound granite monument in the rotunda of the Judicial
Building in Montgomery. Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore
installed it two years ago in the dead of night, without
forewarning to his eight fellow justices. He later argued that
he kept them in the dark so they would not be held liable for his
actions - an argument his colleagues have dismissed as, shall we
say, less than honest. After all, this is the same Roy Moore
who, in the mid-90's had rosewood tablets with the decalogue
on them posted behind his bench (and was therefore sued) and in
2000 ran for the office of Chief Justice on a platform of "Still
the Ten Commandments Judge." Meanwhile, suit was brought to
remove "Roy's Rock," as it has become known, because it fairly
clearly violates the First Amendment guarantees that prohibit
state sponsorship of a particular religion.
The result was predictable - for a week, Mr. Moore's
supporters, undeterred by sweltering summer temperatures and
equally undeterred the legal system, which has consistently ruled
against them, stood outside the building, denouncing any
opponents as perverts and holding up signs reading, "The wicked
shall be turned into hell." They swore to "kneel side-by-side in
Christian love" to block attempts to remove the monument, and
threatened to boycott any moving company that would agree to take
on the job. But, "lovingly," of course.
Judge Moore himself remains in lockstep with his fans.
"They have allowed the acknowledgment of God to be taken from us
because three lawyers walked in this building and are offended at
looking at God's word" - that is what he said in a speech from
the steps of the courthouse last Monday night. "That's what this
case is about. It's not about a monument. It's not about
religion. It's about acknowledgment of Almighty God."
Actually, do you know what it is really about? It is about
washing hands in a certain way before you eat...or at least the
modern day equivalent thereof. Religious EXTERNALS. Does anyone
seriously think the Ten Commandments need Roy Moore's protection?
Of course not. But for him, and for countless thousands of his
supporters, this defiant stand is Christianity at its finest. It
lets the whole world know WHO we are and WHOSE we are. Sound
familiar? Sweet home, Alabama.
For what it is worth, there is an Alabama politician these
days I am coming to admire more and more. Governor Bob Riley.
The Governor is a teetotaling, Bible-quoting businessman who as a
congressman prior to taking the Governor's Mansion had a nearly
perfect record of opposing any legislation supported by the
Americans for Democratic Action. Conservative to the core.
But Governor Riley has stunned many of his traditional
supporters, and enraged the state's powerful farm and timber
lobbies, by pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama
Legislature that shifts a significant amount of the state's tax
burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations.
And he has framed the issue in starkly moral terms, arguing that
the current Alabama tax system violates biblical teachings
because Christians are prohibited from oppressing the poor. Oh,
did I mention that Governor Riley is a Republican?
According to an article in the New York Times,(8) if Governor
Riley's tax plan becomes law - the voters still need to ratify it
in September - it will be a major victory for poor people, a rare
thing in the current political climate. But win or lose,
Alabama's tax-reform crusade is posing a pointed question to the
Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other groups that
seek to import Christian values into national policy: If Jesus
were active in politics today, wouldn't he be lobbying for the
poor?
What do you think? Folks in Alabama are used to hearing
their politicians make religious arguments, as the current flap
over "Roy's Rock" demonstrates. Governor Riley thinks he can
convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer
tax system. He says, "I've spent a lot of time studying the New
Testament, and it has three philosophies: love God, love each
other, and take care of the least among you. I don't think
anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who makes
$4,600 a year." Go get 'em, Guv.
OK. Enough about politics. Let's talk about sex again.
And the reason we are talking about both in the same sermon is
not that the previous administration has come back, but that the
lectionary has these two passages appearing together. That was
not by design - the lectionary passages during Ordinary Time (of
which this is the 22nd Sunday on the church calendar) do not
necessarily relate to each other. But perhaps there is something
providential going on today as this wonderful poem celebrating
sex is joined to this equally wonderful lesson from Jesus on
integrity. The truth is, in our day and age, sex is not
presented as being at all related to integrity. Look at the
shows on television - "Sex and the City," "For Love or Money,"
"Who Wants to Marry My Dad?" "Coupling," "Temptation Island,"
"Temptation Island 2," "Temptation Island 3," And on and on and
on. Sex without integrity. Sex without love. Sex and marriage?
What a quaint idea! We know better. After all, the same Bible
that says believe also says behave.
As we said early on, sex is wonderful. A Christian
understanding of sex begins where the Song of Songs does - a
joyful acceptance of it as one of the most delightful forces in
human experience. There are no snide innuendos, no crude jokes.
Why? Listen to an Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple: "The
reason for not joking about sex is exactly the same as for not
joking about the Holy Communion. It is not that the subject is
nasty, but that it is sacred, and to joke about it is
profanity."(9) Handle it with care.
As with all of our life, because we do not want to just talk
the talk, but we want to walk the walk, we will handle it
with...what's that word again? Oh, yes. INTEGRITY.
Amen!
1. Robert Davidson, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, Daily Study Bible Series,
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), p. 93
2. Martin Copenhaver, "Reveling in Romance," The Christian Century, August 10-17,
1994, p. 747
3. Davidson, ibid.
4. Raymond C. Van Leeuwan, "Song of Solomon, Holman Bible Dictionary, Electronic
Edition, Parsons Technologies, 1994
5. Copenhaver, ibid.
6. Ron Allen, "Reign In - Reign Out," on the Internet service for preachers, "The
Immediate Word," at http://www.csspub.com
7. James S. Hewett, Illustrations Unlimited (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc,
1988) p. 56.
8. Adam Cohen, "What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners,"
6/10/03
9. Davidson, p. 158
click and send us mail