Knee Jerk Reactions
I enjoy Ingrid Schlueter’s blog, Slice of Laodicea, and not just because I designed it and it is still near the top of my list of favorite designs I’ve made. Ingrid keeps on top of the trends in Christianity. Her blog is an ongoing source for what is happening in the church. By keeping up with her blog you’ll keep up with some of the worst of what is being introduced to the church under the guise of “Christian.” Often times this is absolutely revolting. You’ll also be informed by the wisdom of great Christians of days past.
Just a few minutes ago Ingrid posted a link to a new product called “The Original Love Song.” Here is an excerpt from a press release dealing with the product:
“Yes, it is sexy,” exclaims Guy Bickel, V.P. of Book 22, Inc., a new independent record label in Tampa, Florida. “It’s also romantic, compelling, sensuous, spiritual, and most importantly, it’s word-for-word from six different translations of the Bible. In addition, the music is so cutting-edge, that it’s tuned to natural Earth harmonics and not the 17th century instituted A-440Hz standard. We think ‘The Original Love Song’ is the most innovative achievement in scripture-based entertainment and enlightenment that’s come down the pike since ‘Jesus Christ Superstar.’”Released in November of 2005, “The Original Love Song” is the first-ever dramatic and literal interpretation of The Song of Solomon. It features a top-notch, movie-style soundtrack, vivid aural imagery, and is already being hailed by some notable Christian scholars as a must-hear for every Christian couple. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular book of the Bible, it deals entirely with love, romance, virtue, and sex.
…
Dr. [Norman] Geisler sums it up best with his quote, “‘The Original Love Song’ is passion at its purest level. It is literally God’s guide to a Godly, sexual relationship.”“Isn’t this what we’re all looking for?” concluded Bickel.
Ingrid says, “no, Mr. Bickel, that’s not what we’re “all” looking for. Why do we need Christian porno to titillate? I really believe that we’re going to see a day when there will be an evangelical version of temple prostitutes in our churches, acting out the Song of Songs. People are justifying absolutely everything these days by misusing the Bible and worse, for financial gain. That Dr. Geisler would be so excited about this is really disturbing.”
You can read about the product here. You can also listen to audio samples (you may wish to turn down your speakers a little bit if you are at work at the moment).
My first reaction - my knee jerk reaction - to this product was, like Ingrid, one of disgust. But then I began to wonder why that is. There is nothing wrong with “Song of Solomon.” There can’t be - it is part of the sacred Scripture, it is inspired by God and is meant for our edification (and perhaps even titillation). There is nothing wrong with hearing the Scripture read aloud. There can’t be - God intended for the Scriptures to be read aloud. There is nothing wrong with hearing the Scripture read with expression and emotion. There can’t be - God doesn’t intend for His Scripture to be read in a way that is deliberately boring. So now the question is, is there anything wrong with dramatizing the reading of Scripture? And further, is there anything wrong with adding a musical soundtrack behind the reading of Scripture?
For example, listen to this clip which is a minute or so long. If you want to hear a clip that is a little more suggestive or sensual, listen to this one. Having listened to them I have to respectfully disagree with Ingrid that there is anything pornographic about this. But I will admit that this is not to say that such a recording is wise or good. Still, I do not feel this is pornographic or dirty.
I have learned to exercise caution with my snap judgments. A few months ago I heard of The Light Speed Bible, a Bible that teaches speed reading and allows a person to read the entire Bible in twenty four hours (which is to say twenty four hours of reading). I laughed. But then I got one in the mail and tried it out. I have to admit that I very much enjoy the Bible (even if it is in a translation which is not my favorite). I have found it very valuable being able to read an entire book, such as Genesis, in a single sitting. It provides a high level view of the Bible (or a book of the Bible) that has allowed me to see patterns and nuances I have missed in reading the Bible more slowly. Of course one cannot meditate at Light Speed, but the creators of this version of the Bible have taken that into account and suggest that, after reading a book quickly, the reader go back and read at a devotional speed of just a few lines or verses at a time. It is quite a good product and one I have enjoyed a lot. If you are interested, you can read more about it here
The point is that I’ve been wrong before. I have allowed my judgmental nature to form an opinion on a product before I gave it a fair evaluation. I wonder if I didn’t do the same with The Original Love Song. So I am going to go out on a limb and say that I do not see that this product is necessarily wrong.
Feel free to voice your agreement or disagreement in the comments area. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.
(Please do not take this as a knock against Ingrid or her site. I am merely respectfully disagreeing with her and asking for others to help me understand whether or not I am wrong).
Comments (63) »
1. blestwithsons
January 25, 2006
3:02 PM
My knee jerk reaction is that if you have a spouse - you don’t need this product.
If you don’t have a spouse… you reaallly don’t need this product.
The other immediate thought that springs to mind is about the power of music to manipulate and enhance… nothing coherent to say about that - just a gut reaction…
2. Tim Challies
January 25, 2006
3:09 PM
“My knee jerk reaction is that if you have a spouse - you don’t need this product.”
I don’t know that anyone needs this. But I think my question still stands. Is there anything particularly wrong with it?
“If you don’t have a spouse… you reaallly don’t need this product.”
I think you might be right on that count. But does that mean that singles shouldn’t read Song of Solomon? Or should they only read it in a studious, detatched manner?
3. mike garner
January 25, 2006
3:24 PM
I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected. The other extreme is a recent mega-church that I saw advertising “R-Rated” sermons where children should be sure to be in Sunday School.
There seem to be two wrong extremes. We can present the material in a way where it is so wordly that we are in fact tacking bible verses onto temple prostitutes. However, the other extreme, and the extreme that people in my circles are more likely to fall into, is to not even talk about what is said.
If we were promoting audio version of the Gospel of John that were musical then there would not be much uproar. However, when we do the same with a book that deals largely with intimate relationships then we have a problem and would even call in pornographic.
I wish that Pastors and Youth Pastors would do more preaching on sex. I wish teenage boys got there “pornographic” material from a recording of Scripture than from a late night internet visit. Sex, like every one of God’s gifts, can be abused. Should we guard against that? Absolutely. Should we guard against it to the exclusion of the parts of Scripture that are uncomfortable? We cannot and we must not.
In Christ alone, mike
P.S. I should also note that I love Ingrid’s blog and rarely disagree with her insights.
4. blestwithsons
January 25, 2006
3:33 PM
As far as singles not reading the Song of Solomon - I think that’s where my point about the power of music to enhance comes in. Reading it is one thing. You might be a little excited, but you’re reading Scripture and learning from it. I remember repeated references to “Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires” in S.O.S. that I always took for references to waiting until marriage… And of course physical intimacy is a gift from God - it is good for everyone to know that and to understand how wonderful it can be in the proper context. But add in some enhancing music… then you have another purpose in mind besides mere Scriptural education, don’t you? Music can awaken and strengthen desires without any words - add in words… Even more powerful. Does God want us to do that? I don’t know. But I am becoming increasingly leary of “entertainment” as a whole.
And no - nobody would get worked up about a musically enhanced Gospel of John. But then we don’t live in a culture that’s obsessed with the themes in John. We live in a culture that’s gone mad for all things “sexy”. We need to be more stirred up by the words in John… Most of us don’t need any extra help to turn our minds to the bedroom.
5. Julian
January 25, 2006
3:43 PM
What’s the point of any Bible passage, if not to engage us on some level, in order to bring about a reaction, and subsequent action?
Romans engages on a more theological / rationally philosophical level, but the desire is clear: engage the mind to get to the heart, so that we will understand the righteousness of God in the saving of sinners like us. Then once we’re engaged, and we understand that we were sinners justified by grace alone through faith alone, he desires that the truth we know would bring about action: hence Romans 12-16.
Is anyone going to argue that a dramatized version of Romans is wrong?
How about the Psalms? Same thing… they’re emotive in nature, calling out to God from the depths of despair and the heights of joy so that the reader, too, will be persuaded to call out to and worship God. It’s intended to engage us, as David’s experiences become our own, we are to worship God as a result of what he is doing in our lives.
We sing the Psalms in church sometimes. They’re designed to bring about a response.
The Song of Solomon is more like the Psalms than Romans. Maybe the problem is that we’re just instinctively prudish because of our immoral contemporary culture… but we must beware the pendulum swing.
Sex between husband and wife is a fantastically, wonderfully, amazingly beautiful thing!
Why not celebrate BIBLICAL sex?
Wouldn’t that make us stand out as salt and light more effectively than priggishly suggesting by silence on the topic that we really hate the dirty deed, but do it nonetheless for procreation’s sake?
6. Carl
January 25, 2006
3:47 PM
I think Ingrid might have a very valid point.
I actually went to the website and listend to some samples. Here is some of what I heard…
“blow upon my garden let its fragrence be wafted abroad. let my lover come to my garden and taste its choicest fruits”
I would say that might just border on titillating and maybe bordering on soft porn…
7. Julian
January 25, 2006
3:48 PM
What’s the point of any Bible passage, if not to engage us on some level, in order to bring about a reaction, and subsequent action?
Romans engages on a more theological / rationally philosophical level, but the desire is clear: engage the mind to get to the heart, so that we will understand the righteousness of God in the saving of sinners like us. Then once we’re engaged, and we understand that we were sinners justified by grace alone through faith alone, he desires that the truth we know would bring about action: hence Romans 12-16.
Is anyone going to argue that a dramatized version of Romans is wrong?
How about the Psalms? Same thing… they’re emotive in nature, calling out to God from the depths of despair and the heights of joy so that the reader, too, will be persuaded to call out to and worship God. It’s intended to engage us, as David’s experiences become our own, we are to worship God as a result of what he is doing in our lives.
We sing the Psalms in church sometimes. They’re designed to bring about a response.
The Song of Solomon is more like the Psalms than Romans. Maybe the problem is that we’re just instinctively prudish because of our immoral contemporary culture… but we must beware the pendulum swing.
Sex between husband and wife is a fantastically, wonderfully, amazingly beautiful thing!
Why not celebrate BIBLICAL sex?
Wouldn’t that make us stand out as salt and light more effectively than priggishly suggesting by silence on the topic that we really hate the dirty deed, but do it nonetheless for procreation’s sake?
8. Julian
January 25, 2006
4:20 PM
Sorry about the double-post… I’m having all kinds of problems with the wireless connection… :-S What’s technology good for, anyway? :-)
9. Ken Fields
January 25, 2006
4:20 PM
“I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected.”
Yes, Mike, my Dad preached a series of messages through Song of Solomon when I was about 15 (hmm…I wonder if those were for me?). Needless to say, it did hold people’s attention, and Dad did a great job of preaching Christ from the text, which of course, is the purpose of all Scripture.
I will admit…this series made going to church a bit more exciting, especially for the young people!!!
10. Julian
January 25, 2006
4:20 PM
Sorry about the double-post… I’m having all kinds of problems with the wireless connection… :-S What’s technology good for, anyway? :-)
11. Ken Fields
January 25, 2006
4:21 PM
“I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected.”
Yes, Mike, my Dad preached a series of messages through Song of Solomon when I was about 15 (hmm…I wonder if those were for me?). Needless to say, it did hold people’s attention, and Dad did a great job of preaching Christ from the text, which of course, is the purpose of all Scripture.
I will admit…this series made going to church a bit more exciting, especially for the young people!!!
12. Ken Fields
January 25, 2006
4:22 PM
“I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected.”
Yes, Mike, my Dad preached a series of messages through Song of Solomon when I was about 15 (hmm…I wonder if those were for me?). Needless to say, it did hold people’s attention, and Dad did a great job of preaching Christ from the text, which of course, is the purpose of all Scripture.
I will admit…this series made going to church a bit more exciting, especially for the young people!!!
13. RosaMarie
January 25, 2006
4:24 PM
I don’t know. I remember reading something a Puritan wrote about the Song of Solomon and his point was that it was a book that could be used in a carnal manner and justified in doing that by carnal persons who would miss the real point of the book, meaning that in the book is an metaphor to describe the ways God loves us. I got the impression that satisfying the flesh wasn’t the point of the Book of Solomon.
I wish I could remember which Puritan wrote that. Now that I’ve read this post, I’ll have to go search it out and be sure I didn’t misunderstand it.
But I’m with Ingrid on this one. Sure seems like its being used in a carnal manner. I always thought the Bible was written to entice us to greater intimacy with God and not to get us all hot and bothered and just itching to get it on with our spouse. Not that we’re not to enjoy sex with our spouse but that it wasn’t the reason the Song of Solomon was written.
14. Ken Fields
January 25, 2006
4:25 PM
“I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected.”
Yes, Mike, my Dad preached a series of messages through Song of Solomon when I was about 15 (hmm…I wonder if those were for me?). Needless to say, it did hold people’s attention, and Dad did a great job of preaching Christ from the text, which of course, is the purpose of all Scripture.
I will admit…this series made going to church a bit more exciting, especially for the young people!!!
15. Tim Challies
January 25, 2006
4:26 PM
“I got the impression that satisfying the flesh wasn’t the point of the Book of Solomon.”
I don’t know that that is an entirely accurate way of describing the book. But I think those who make it into a metaphor for Christ and the church are missing the point - the VERY obvious point…
16. Ken Fields
January 25, 2006
4:30 PM
Sorry for the quad-post, I, like Julian was having problems with my connection. Please remove as many as you would like!!
17. Susanna
January 25, 2006
4:34 PM
“Should we guard against it to the exclusion of the parts of Scripture that are uncomfortable? We cannot and we must not.”
I agree with this statement from Mike. I think that Songs of Soloman is a book that will always leave many Christians feeling unsettled both in the present and past but it is part of the bible and therefore, it must be read and appreciated.
I have even heard it said that many great Christian men in the past actually thought it should not be part of the bible because they thought it was inappropriate. I wish I could remember specific names…someone else might know.
If this dramatization is trying to play up stuff in the book which is not there, than that would be wrong but let’s face it, when we read it or when they read it, the words are still the same and they are very sexual, suggestive and uncomfortably honest! When we know though that the two lovers have waited for each other physically, then we can see it as a beautiful, passionate display of feeling between the two. What is wrong with keeping the fires alive in marriage?!!
In terms of the book for singles, I have often moarned the fact that I did not take this book more seriously before I got married. There is advice about purity, as we all know the verse “donot arouse or awaken love…….”, but there is also just the constant show of appreciation, love and pleasure in each others company that is shown between the two lovers, something I think any married couple can learn a thing or two from at times.
Going back to the drama, I think that though it does not sound like something imperative to a Christian’s life, it could be helpful in reviving a book that to many is such a mystery. As for being described as “sexy” in the press release, maybe the press release should just be ignored as it is one of the tools by which they’re trying to market the product so it may just be misleading.
Who really knows though anymore…I guess anything is possible in Christian circles so if this drama does abuse scripture than well, hopefully not too many people will have gotten their hands on the product anyway!
18. nhe
January 25, 2006
4:35 PM
If this product is hokey, it will fade like everything else does, and Christians will be glad that it wasn’t “exported” to the culture at large…….However, if it is done well, then it shouldn’t just be a product for Christian couples…….it should marketed to all married couples!……..which begs the question - if you were to market a product like this outside Christian circles - how do you say “for married couples only” without being laughed at?
It’s off the subject, but I’m completely against the “Christian Bookstore/Christian Product” concept. If Christians make anything good, it should be sold at Barnes and Noble, not Zondervan.
19. Melchizedek
January 25, 2006
4:35 PM
mike garner wrote: “I’ve often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon’s Song of Songs.”
My church is starting a series on it Sunday. I can’t see I’m particularly looking forward to it, but they could mean it is what I need…
20. blestwithsons
January 25, 2006
5:11 PM
Why does everything start becoming all or nothing?! I’m doing a series on the problems of television and people keep assuming I’m telling them to throw it out the window.
Some of us suggest that perhaps an musically pumped up version of S.O.S. might not be the best of ideas - and people start arguing that sex is okay and S.O.S. is okay - and throwing out the word priggishly. Does the word over-reaction mean anything to anyone? Nobody - including me -said that Song of Solomon or sex was a)dirty b)sinful or c)something to be avoided or not preached.
Are we not even allowed to question the appropriateness of taking Scripture and melding it with other things in ways which might generate reactions other than what Scripture was supposed to convey lest we be called prudes?
21. Dallas
January 25, 2006
5:23 PM
Interesting. One of the best things my wife and I did before we got married was watch a study series on Song of Solomon. It was very good, and it increased our awareness that sex is such a great gift from God for married couples to enjoy. It also showed the importance of keeping these desires dormant until the appropriate time.
I wish that we had gone through this study even earlier in life. We were married at 19, but could have benefited from it in our early teen years to know God’s plan for sex and marriage.
This book is obviously beneficial for so many reasons, but probably does not apply to children who have no idea what sex is. It is good for the young person who is started to have sexual desire and needs to know that this desire is for a purpose and is only to be expressed through marriage, it is also good for the engaged couple to get some wisdom on how God wants to be honored through sex and marriage, and for the married couple to get a reminder of what a great gift sex is.
The book is very forward and I remember the speaker saying that at one point during another session he was reading outloud and one man following along paused and turned his bible around to make sure he was reading the bilble. I thought that was funny.
Point is, why does it need to be dressed up? Why is music, and multiple translations needed to get the point of the book? I have not heard any of it, and will wait to give a final opinion of it until I do so, but I can see why some people would be cautious because it can arrouse desires to a point where sin is carried out. Maybe other parts of the bible can do so, I am hard pressed to find one, but sex is obviously much more serious.
Is it wrong? Maybe. My question is what happened to good old open the word and read to dig for the treasure? Why do we need all this wrapping and decoration?
22. Dallas
January 25, 2006
5:47 PM
Interesting. One of the best things my wife and I did before we got married was watch a study series on Song of Solomon. It was very good, and it increased our awareness that sex is such a great gift from God for married couples to enjoy. It also showed the importance of keeping these desires dormant until the appropriate time.
I wish that we had gone through this study even earlier in life. We were married at 19, but could have benefited from it in our early teen years to know God’s plan for sex and marriage.
This book is obviously beneficial for so many reasons, but probably does not apply to children who have no idea what sex is. It is good for the young person who is started to have sexual desire and needs to know that this desire is for a purpose and is only to be expressed through marriage, it is also good for the engaged couple to get some wisdom on how God wants to be honored through sex and marriage, and for the married couple to get a reminder of what a great gift sex is.
The book is very forward and I remember the speaker saying that at one point during another session he was reading outloud and one man following along paused and turned his bible around to make sure he was reading the bilble. I thought that was funny.
Point is, why does it need to be dressed up? Why is music, and multiple translations needed to get the point of the book? I have not heard any of it, and will wait to give a final opinion of it until I do so, but I can see why some people would be cautious because it can arrouse desires to a point where sin is carried out. Maybe other parts of the bible can do so, I am hard pressed to find one, but sex is obviously much more serious.
Is it wrong? Maybe. My question is what happened to good old open the word and read to dig for the treasure? Why do we need all this wrapping and decoration?
23. Mike
January 25, 2006
5:47 PM
But I think those who make it into a metaphor for Christ and the church are missing the point - the VERY obvious point…
I think there are two layers. I think the bottom layer is what is being discussed here, but I do think there is another layer which is what you alluded to. This theory has lost the popularity it once had, probably because people are repulsed by the idea of intimacy with God.
I think that Christ and His Bride is a metaphor that is used for a reason. Of course I am not suggesting that the church is going to be sexually intimate with Jesus. However, the metaphor is clearly the closest thing that we humans have with understanding our future relationship.
To see only God and His people would be wrong. To not see God at all … also wrong.
In Christ alone, mike
24. Jabbok
January 25, 2006
5:48 PM
I’ve preached through Canticles but I didn’t approach it in a literal way. I personally believe the book is a metaphor for our relationship with Christ. I do see the literal context but I don’t think that is the point. I don’t think dragons and goats and six headed beasts are the point of Revelation either even though I read of these in the book.
As to combining music with Scripture. I have a friend who calls himself a “Psalmist”. He designs a message on a particular subject and takes a single verse from each book of the Bible. He then selects a backing track or a musical accompaniment and presents his message to this music. It’s very effective. I have a tape, I’ll try to copy a portion of it and post it on my site.
As to the style of reading. I was laid over, in my truck, during the Christmas holiday. I watched a Christmas Eve service for C.M.E. churches and it was most profitable. They had a half a dozen people read the Word at different times during the service. Each person read in their own way but it was very exciting to listen to how they emphasized certain passages and key words. I really enjoyed it. Each one concluded their reading by saying: “The Word of God for the People of God.” It was great.
25. Jabbok
January 25, 2006
5:51 PM
I’ve preached through Canticles but I didn’t approach it in a literal way. I personally believe the book is a metaphor for our relationship with Christ. I do see the literal context but I don’t think that is the point. I don’t think dragons and goats and six headed beasts are the point of Revelation either even though I read of these in the book.
As to combining music with Scripture. I have a friend who calls himself a “Psalmist”. He designs a message on a particular subject and takes a single verse from each book of the Bible. He then selects a backing track or a musical accompaniment and presents his message to this music. It’s very effective. I have a tape, I’ll try to copy a portion of it and post it on my site.
As to the style of reading. I was laid over, in my truck, during the Christmas holiday. I watched a Christmas Eve service for C.M.E. churches and it was most profitable. They had a half a dozen people read the Word at different times during the service. Each person read in their own way but it was very exciting to listen to how they emphasized certain passages and key words. I really enjoyed it. Each one concluded their reading by saying: “The Word of God for the People of God.” It was great.
26. David Chalkley
January 25, 2006
7:32 PM
Tim, The physical union of husband and wife is a very precious gift from God, which He created and gave to married people. Because that is only right within marriage, and because of the extreme temptation to sin outside marriage, that special gift should be discussed very considerately, not to tempt or arouse unmarried ones (whether 15 or 55 or any age). Certainly the Song of Solomon is God’s word, as surely as John’s Gospel, but because of the subject in the Song of Songs, special care should be given that the texts not become — intentionally or unintentionally — a means of temptation and arousal toward impurity and what is right only within marriage. While there is a temporal aspect of physical relations in the Song of Solomon, the core meaning — like all of Scripture — is to point us to Christ, to show us Himself and His truth. That book is to show us our relationship to Him as our Husband. (Also Zephaniah 3:17 is a clear confirmation that He is the Husband of His people. And Ephesians chapter 5.) More than 30 years ago, when I was a college senior, Song of Solomon 8:7, was written on my heart: “Many waters cannot quench love; neither can the floods drown it. If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would be utterly condemned.” The love of Christ to His own, and the love of His own to Him. There was in that no trace of physical relations, more than a decade before I married. I do not know whether this is accurate, and I do not say this as an absolute rule, but years ago I read or heard once that the Jews did not let one read the Song of Solomon before age 30, the age of marriage. Whether that is accurate or not, there is obvious reason for that. This production “The Original Love Song” has an extreme look — not of interest in presenting Christ and helping people not be tempted in a sexual way (to remain pure) — but an extreme look of using Scripture for very different and impure results. You mentioned in a Comment “the VERY obvious point.” Is it not obvious that the temporal — sexual — relations between husband and wife are almost never mentioned among anyone else — much less discussed or probed — except between the married couple alone. Please excuse me if I seem unkind. I don’t mean to be so. I really appreciate the respectfulness of your difference with Ingrid and the honesty of your inquiry in your posting. I need the same attitude of respect and honest inquiry. I’m almost embarassed to write this, thinking how obvious this must seem, though I don’t see it yet in what has been posted.
27. Dr Mike
January 25, 2006
7:54 PM
I’m OK with the recordings but …
if they start showing the video on TBN and Pat Robertson is in it, then that’s where I’ll draw the line!
That would not only pornographic, but ugly.
28. Nathan White
January 25, 2006
7:59 PM
I would have to agree that this sort of stuff is questionable, but I do not disagree on the same grounds as Ingrid.
Does anyone else feel a little sting in the conscience upon hearing the seductive nature of the woman’s voice (I speak to the men)? Maybe I’m the ‘weaker brother’, but listening to a seductive voice of a woman -someone other than my wife-, presents an aweful temptation to sin for me. Is this not aimed at enticing the same lustful fantasy as the phone-sex operators aim for? That is, a unknown voice, allowing us to fashion the image of the woman speaking according to the desires of the imagination?
For this and other similiar reasons, I am sad to see this hit the market. Obviously it was thought up by someone (maybe a woman) who doesnt quite understand the aweful depravity of the sinful heart. The heart is the problem, not the biblical text itself.
SDG
29. Wendy West
January 25, 2006
9:36 PM
A friend and I went to the originallovesong web page and found their reason for choosing the natural “background” music they selected. Essentially it is the “first time that the “RA music system has been used with Scripture.” The RA music system has its origins in Egyptian paganism and is named after the Egyptian god Ra….Quite disasterous to wed the Holy Writ of God’s Word with pagan music…. http://www.originallovesong.com/page.asp?id=12
30. wfseube
January 25, 2006
9:55 PM
NHE wrote: It’s off the subject, but I’m completely against the “Christian Bookstore/Christian Product” concept. If Christians make anything good, it should be sold at Barnes and Noble, not Zondervan.
I gotta agree with you on that one. My local Borders has a far better selection of theology books than the local Christian bookstore - FAR better. I think that’s intentional. The national booksellers have figured out there’s a market for it, and they’re working it.
31. Lee
January 25, 2006
10:57 PM
NHE wrote: It’s off the subject, but I’m completely against the “Christian Bookstore/Christian Product” concept. If Christians make anything good, it should be sold at Barnes and Noble, not Zondervan.”
NHE, I heard a similar objection once before, but I didn’t think to ask why. Would you mind expanding on your thoughts with regards to Christian bookstores and products? I have a great time at Barnes and Noble because of the huge array of books of all types, but I also have two great local Christian bookstores in my area - their selection of Christian books is larger, there’s praise music playing in the background, all of the Bibles to look over, etc. Just wondering.
Also off of the subject: I purchased a DVD player from my local Christian bookstore - it’s called a “Max-Play”. It comes with 1,000 movie filters pre-loaded. This means that you can put in just about any DVD, and the DVD player recognizes the movie, loads the appropriate filter, and automatically filters out objectionable content (words & scenes). If the DVD player is missing a filter for the DVD you want to watch, you plug in one end of a phone cord to the back of the DVD player, and the other end into the phone jack in your wall, and using your remote, you dial up and purchase the filter for $2.00. If you want, you can spend an annual fee to get all new movie filters as they are made.
I don’t work for “Max-Play”… but I love this machine. Now, my family gets to watch lots of movies with no language or objectionable scenes.
The only problem? We watched “Titanic” and it was only 14 minutes long. (Just kidding)
32. Julian
January 25, 2006
11:12 PM
Blestwithsons:
I can’t help but feel like I stepped on toe or two. I apologize. The objectionable words (“priggishly” and “prude”) were at best phrased poorly. Please believe me when I say that I was not intending to call you or anyone else here a “prude” or a “prig.” I am sorry for any offence caused.
Your question about mixing Scripture with other things is a valid one. I have seen it done poorly so many times that my “knee-jerk reaction” was scepticism as well.
My point, however, was that Scripture passages and books were designed to create a reaction that would lead to action. As Tim pointed out, there is a VERY PLAIN POINT in the Song of Solomon.
Sex is good! Sex is great! Sex is to be celebrated to the glory of God!
Has it occured to anyone that the Song of Solomon discusses aphrodisiacs? It describes sex vividly… at length! It’s written in seductive poetry! In short, it was designed to bring about a response… to stir us up to passionate love-making with our spouse, because that’s what reflects God’s design (for marriage and for the church).
If the book was designed to “get us going,” then why not let it?
If the dramatization is done with tact and is used in the same context that the book intends (marriage), then what could be wrong with it?
My last statement in my previous comment was simply an attempt to say, yes, we live in a sex-obsessed culture. But rather than running from it and pretending we’re asexual, let’s be willing to present a positive, delight-full picture of truly fulfilling sex that the culture has never heard of!
Just my two cents, though. I guess that makes four now.
33. Brendt
January 26, 2006
12:22 AM
Seems that the product is good, but that Bickel’s comments are just plain stupid — which is pretty much par for the course for media executives.
Wendy West said: The RA music system has its origins in Egyptian paganism and is named after the Egyptian god Ra….Quite disasterous to wed the Holy Writ of God’s Word with pagan music….
So, if man perverts what God created, that invalidates the creation? Didn’t we have this discussion 30 years ago regarding drums in Christian music?
34. Larry
January 26, 2006
7:56 AM
“If the book was designed to “get us going,” then why not let it?”
I think that’s a big ‘if’. Scripture is given by God for the following reasons according to II Timothy 3:16:
“…for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
I don’t see ‘titilation’ among those. We could make the argument that Song of Solomon is for teaching about sex I suppose but, as I think Ingrid pointed out, most folks don’t need to be taught how!
I think the traditional view of this book that its a picture of Christ’s love for His bride the church is the primary reason for its inclusion in scripture. Its funny to me that a heavily symbolic and poetic book is being taken literally as a sex manual by many of the same people who won’t take the historical narrative of Genesis literally (Geisler among them)
35. nhe
January 26, 2006
9:22 AM
Response to Lee:
My problem with Christian Bookstores is the same problem I have with the Dove Awards.
I would much rather see a Christian (who represents Christ well) win a Grammy, or an Oscar. When we’re just writing books and music for ourselves, and giving awards to ourselves, we’re feeding our own marginalization.
I would much rather see Christian music and books (written for Christians) sold in the church to support the ministries of that church…..and then it would be great to correspondingly see more and more Christian writers/artists/actors recognized in the marketplace. There is some of this, but we are very “under-represented”.
We could have far more impact than we do. Sometimes I think there’s too much contentment to have our own little Christian conveniences.
Just a personal preference………I’m off topic, so I’ll end here.
36. Libbie
January 26, 2006
9:22 AM
I like sex. Really, I do. It’s a really good thing. But I’m not seeing how it helps to counter a sex-obssessed society if we say ‘Hey, it was God created sex, lets baptize the worlds way of doing it!!’ I came across a website www.whollylove.com on a Christian forum a few weeks ago, and had a similar sort of discussion. Instead of genuinely having a distinctive Christian approach to sexuality, we seem to be creating a subculture that uses sex toys as long as they have a scripture on them, and uses scripture like a sex toy. We’re apeing the world, and it doesn’t make the world say “my, I thought those Christians were so prudish, but now I see they have a really positive different view”. It makes them think we’re ‘coming round the their way of thinking’, or maybe that we were hypocrites all along. And personally, while I certainly see the song of songs as a wonderful celebration of married love, I think it’s primary worth to the body of Christ, is as the metaphor of His deep and abiding faithful love for us. My single friend finds it deeply offensive that most people see it essentially as a sex manual now. She feels that view rather cuts her out of hearing from God in the whole book.
37. Lee
January 26, 2006
11:21 AM
NHE, thanks again.
38. chuck
January 26, 2006
1:26 PM
I think that the product is in very poor taste because of the marketing behind it. There are correct and appropriate ways to do things, and then there is the way evangelicalism does things: Tim and everyone else who say that the point of the Song of Solomon is plain and clear are exactly right. Yes, it is possible to glean from the book some metaphors about Christ and His church- but that’s because marriage is a metaphor for that, and the book is all about marriage. Just because it is highly poetic does not mean it has to be allegorical. Foreigner sang about being “hotblooded,” and I don’t thing anyone missed the metaphor: but there was no allegory there.
39. Paul Dirks
January 26, 2006
1:45 PM
OK- lurker alert- this is my first post:
“I don’t see ‘titilation’ among those. We could make the argument that Song of Solomon is for teaching about sex I suppose but, as I think Ingrid pointed out, most folks don’t need to be taught how!”
I don’t think Paul’s words to Timothy are all-inclusive as to the purposes of scripture- much of what we find in the psalms don’t fall neatly into one of the 4 categories Paul mentions.
The main reason I wanted to post though is because of the thought that most christians don’t need to be taught the “how” of sex. But I think that’s exactly the reason we need to read and study and learn from SOS- we desperately need to know how. Even though I was part of a healthy christian congregation growing up- I STILL probably learned more about sexuality from the world than from the word.
Our sexuality is such a large part of our humanity and marriages and we need help in many areas- from those hurt by various experiences and who have little intimacy in their marriages, to those who have a healthy amount of sex, but perhaps not in healthy, God-glorifying ways.
And although praching/studying/listening to SOS could very well lead a few into sin, I don’t think that’s reason enough to reject it, in view of the great benefit it is to most. For instance, when Jesus made wine- did anyone get drunk on it? I would think so- but Jesus still made the wine for the benefit of all. Didn’t Piper say that legalism was a far greater danger than drunkeness. In my humble opion, based on my experience in the church, I would say that not teaching biblical sexuality is a far greater danger than potentially causing someone to lust.
On point, I think that music in the background isn’t too far- I think visuals would be!
My humble 2c Paul
40. Tim Challies
January 26, 2006
1:56 PM
“most folks don’t need to be taught how!”“
I disagree with that statement. I think people need to be taught more today than in the past. Everyone knows the biology of it, but few people seem to know or care about the intimacy of it. In a pornified culture like our own, I’d suggest that the tenderness and intimacy of Song of Solomon is very instructive and desperately needs to be taught.
41. mike garner
January 26, 2006
2:08 PM
But I’m not seeing how it helps to counter a sex-obssessed society if we say ‘Hey, it was God created sex, lets baptize the worlds way of doing it!!
I simply do not understand this sentiment regarding this product. How is it baptizing sex into the world’s way of doing things? The world generally does not turn to Solomon to get a glimpse into the reality of sex. I’m just having a hard time claiming that Scripture read aloud, set to music, is “worldly”. The only way, in my opinion, that we coudl reach this conclusion is to claim that sex is worldly.
“most folks don’t need to be taught how!”“
I agree entirely with TIm here (amazing isn’t it!). I think the exact opposite is true. More and more do young men need to be instructed about this matter (women also for that matter).
In Christ alone, mike
42. Libbie
January 26, 2006
2:48 PM
Tim saidI disagree with that statement. I think people need to be taught more today than in the past. Everyone knows the biology of it, but few people seem to know or care about the intimacy of it. In a pornified culture like our own, I’d suggest that the tenderness and intimacy of Song of Solomon is very instructive and desperately needs to be taught.
I’d agree with you Tim. I’m just not sure that this isn’t just a really tacky way to do it, thus rather nullifying the intent, that’s all. Once we get down to asking whether it’s ok to listen to scripture to ‘titillate’ us, I think we’ve moved away from the intent, I really do. Why not read it to one another? How does listening to others read it ‘enhance intimacy’?
43. nhe
January 26, 2006
3:44 PM
Tacky doesn’t sell the though Libbie. This is much like the “End of the Spear/Chad Allen” debate.
We get up in arms and concerned about it, but at the end of the day, it’s just another poorly produced Christian thing that just says more about the Christian products’ lack of excellence and relevence to our culture than it does anything else.
44. RosaMarie
January 26, 2006
4:02 PM
Has anyone really said the SOS was off limits for teaching anyone anything. And I don’t see anyone arguing against good marital sex or genuine intimacy. I don’t think that’s what Ingrid was saying in her protest. It was the use/misuse and the profitting that was the issue, was it not? The original premise posed, at least from my understanding of it, was this product wrong? I think it is because it has Christians using the SOS the same way an unbeliever might use porn or ecstacy; as a way to get in the mood and enhance the experience. I know Christians, for centuries, have taught out of the book of SOS, that isn’t a problem. But the particular way that this company is using scripture and to what end might be and to me is. Is there historical precedent for this? Have Believers in other times used the music of its day paired with SOS to help married people get it on? And if not, why not? I’m still in agreement with Ingrid on this. I think its wrong, although instead of pornographic, I would call it obscene, not because of scriptual content but because of the base way it is being ‘produced’ and marketed.
And for the record, genuine or deep intimacy isn’t about sex. You can have sex and not be intimate and be intimate without sex, although sex is often either the outcome for couples or the way its expressed, whether they are Believers or not. Genuine intimacy involves self-disclosure, an opening up of yourself to another. You don’t need a sound track for that and you don’t need to buy or sell anything for it.
45. mike garner
January 26, 2006
4:43 PM
That’s a pretty good post Rose Marie. Left me with some stuff to think about.
Thanks, mike
46. Julian
January 26, 2006
4:56 PM
Tim:
I couldn’t agree with you more about the urgent need for us to teach people the biblical ideal for sex, and how it is ultimately to be enjoyed to the glory of God. That’s the aim of the Song of Solomon, and I think it should be the aim of anyone teaching the Song of Solomon.
Two quick questions for those who oppose this product:
1) Why is it wrong to put a SONG to music?
2) What was the point of the Song of Solomon, if it wasn’t to arouse passionate love and love-making? Why is it wrong to develop a resource that will help in accomplishing that end, without getting sleazy?
47. Brian...formerly voiceofthesheep
January 26, 2006
6:40 PM
If you want SOS put to music as it is being read, then try Max McLean’s Listener’s Bible. He reads it just as he reads the rest of Scripture, and there is music lightly playing in the background. So there’s your answer to dramatizing it without the speakers trying to enhance the words by using sensual voices as with the product in question on this thread.
To me, it is just another example of how the word of God, by itself, is not exciting enough for the average Christian…it has to be juiced up and enhanced before it appeals to those who consider themselves Christians.
48. Dallas
January 26, 2006
7:53 PM
Great post Brian. I could not agree more.
49. Brendt
January 26, 2006
9:47 PM
I’ve had Charlie Peacock’s “Kiss Me Like A Woman” stuck in my head for two days now.
Much better to be stuck on that than “Wheels of the Bus” though. ;-)
50. u33sun
January 26, 2006
10:47 PM
Why is it that those who are opposed to this product “for its sensuality” are so reluctant to admit that the SOS is erotic literature. IT IS EROTIC LITERATURE, there is no way around it. Those who insist that it is primarily or only allegorical or metaphorical (and that is a stretch, but I’ll go along with it for sake of argument)— if so, then the originating narrative still is EROTIC LITERATURE. In a similar way, the parable of the prodigal son is still about a prodigal son even though it represents something larger. The Hebrews knew that SOS was primarily erotic literature, so the reading of it was restricted for the proper contexts. Really, I find it hard to see the meanings that are supposedly beyond the literal, it seems that those who hopscotch beyond the literal have to do some pretty fancy eisegetical acrobatics. Also, those who insist that it isn’t primarily erotic literal have some “‘splaining to do” since the SOS originated in the context of moderate polygyny.
All that aside, I found the music passable at a few of the more subdued, nuanced points, but terribly cheesy at most of the other samples.. It sounds very western and keyboardish to me, nothing mysterious here about the tunings— all of that mumbo jumbo about “Ra earth” tunings is a bogus marketing gimmick. Even Anaphylaxis’ “Noise for Lovers” http://www.parasomnicrecords.com/ (sound samples on this page): http://www.parasomnicrecords.com/download.htm might be a better choice for the background music.
A more intelligent handling of the music would be based numerically on the original Hebrew text or even the Fibinocci Sequence.
51. Mike
January 27, 2006
2:05 AM
So there’s your answer to dramatizing it without the speakers trying to enhance the words by using sensual voices as with the product in question on this thread.
My knee jerk reaction was to agree with this statement. However, I then began thinking about the rest of the bible. If there was a passage talking about wrath or hated then I would expect a fiery voice. If Jesus was gasping on the cross crying out “Why hath Thou forsaken me” then I would expect a voice that was appropriate for the discussion. To read it in a monotone would not suffice for the situation. If we take this same view to SOS then we must expect a sensuous tone. Correct? Are we really being consistent?
In Christ alone, mike
52. Elizabeth
January 27, 2006
7:33 AM
Well, I think the main problem lies in the cheesiness of the thing. It cheapens the text, IMO. How sad that even this very sensual book must be set to awful ‘music’ in order for it to ‘teach us about sex’.
Think about how goofy that is for a moment. Why do we need all of these props and aids? Would we really want our children to come to rely on such contrivance in order to ‘know what God teaches about sex’? How about just reading it? How about using your imagination instead of plugging into this noise that gets in the way of the text.
We are a pampered bunch, aren’t we. Rather than just enjoying what god gives in simplicity we jazz must jazz it up in order to be properly titillated and to show the world that Christians have great sex. A fine reason to seek God, eh?
An aside: my husband, an excellent musician, set a portion of the Song to his own music, for me, only. Now that is a true gift, one I would never share, but treasure deeply. I think a little modesty and privacy would do more for sex in our culture than another sexy voice set to cheesy music urging us to do it.
53. Brian...formerly voiceofthesheep
January 27, 2006
8:32 AM
Mike said: “To read it in a monotone would not suffice for the situation. If we take this same view to SOS then we must expect a sensuous tone. Correct? Are we really being consistent?”
Judging from your comment above, I take it you have never listened to Max read. When I said he reads SOS as he does the rest of Scripture, I meant that he doesn’t add anything to it that he didn’t add to the rest of the Bible. And his voice is anything but monotone.
Regarding your comment about the tone we should expect to hear when listening to SOS…who is the one who will decide where the line is between biblically sensuous and sinfully suggestive???
Who are you or I to say that adding video is going to far???
When will it stop???
My piddly two cents of advice is to say to those who want to get a product like this: Just read God’s word…ask Him to give you the wisdom and insight and discernment to understand its truth and its beauty.
Sadly, if you need something like this to make the Scriptures come alive for you…then there might be some more serious issues that need to be addressed regarding your relationship with your God.
54. Ellen
January 27, 2006
10:34 AM
Well, I think the main problem lies in the cheesiness of the thing. It cheapens the text, IMO. How sad that even this very sensual book must be set to awful ‘music’ in order for it to ‘teach us about sex’.
I would have said that SOS does not teach us so much about sex as it teaches us about the desire that a husband and wife should have for each other…and that (like it or not) needs to be taught in the church today. One is about the physical, one is about the emotional.
Just today a woman that I work with said (in all seriousness) that she thinks that marriages last longer if you aren’t as sexual with each other!
An aside: my husband, an excellent musician, set a portion of the Song to his own music, for me, only.
that’s nice. It really is. What about those married people who are married to a spouse who can’t write music?
For what it’s worth - don’t you think that sensuality has its place in a marriage?
Don’t you think that “singles” who are going to stay pure are not going to be swayed by this music? (They’ve already determined)
Don’t you think that “singles” who are NOT going to stay pure are not going to be swayed by this music? (They’ve already determined)
I think that (by and large) this is a non-issue.
I also know a few couples who would benefit by having the sensual introduced (sometimes for the first time) into their marriage bed.
55. nhe
January 27, 2006
11:19 AM
Ellen said:
“An aside: my husband, an excellent musician, set a portion of the Song to his own music, for me, only. Now that is a true gift, one I would never share, but treasure deeply. I think a little modesty and privacy would do more for sex in our culture than another sexy voice set to cheesy music urging us to do it.”
AAAAAAAAMEN!
56. nhe
January 27, 2006
11:20 AM
whoops - “Elizabeth” said that
57. Rebecca
January 27, 2006
12:29 PM
OK, I listened to some of the samples, and I’m sorry —- it just seemed corny to me. I was expecting more out of the music, which just sounded ordinary and modern to me. I was expecting voices dripping with sensuality, something that would titillate. Now, maybe if I was a guy, the woman’s voice would have seemed suggestive or something —- and I think this could be a real concern. However, the guy’s voice did nothing for me.
If this is supposed to be some sort of “must have” for every Christian couple, I’m sorry to say that I’m going to save my money and miss out on this essential tool for marriage. I was expecting, by some of the comments here and what I’d read elsewhere, to be tempted to rush off after my husband in some sort of passionate frenzy, but I found myself a bit amused at the silliness of the soundbites that I heard.
But, then again, when I’ve tried to approach Song of Songs as a few modern teachers say it should be approached, strictly as some sort of sex manual for married couples, I find myself distracted by my own amusement at the thought of my husband comparing parts of my anatomy to things like towers. I also recall a woman who joked, after reading one pastor’s article, that she was going to write a countering viewpoint, titled, “How Song of Solomon Ruined my Marriage”. Inspired by the pastor’s article, her husband tried to include flowery imagery into his lovemaking, and—-urged by other men in his church—-began to engage in the practice of “showcasing his wife’s beauty”. His flowery imagery came off as insulting to her, and when she thought his bragging about her figure and kissing abilities to the guys in his accountability group was tasteless and an invasion of her privacy, her husband claimed he was just following the example set by Scripture!
Eventually she did bring her husband back to his senses. She now prefers to think of Song of Songs as a beautiful allegory. Their marriage has vastly improved since they gave up on the sex manual idea.
But, then again, maybe this couple is just as weird as I am.
58. Philippa
January 31, 2006
4:04 PM
Libbie said:
I came across a website www.whollylove.com on a Christian forum a few weeks ago, and had a similar sort of discussion. Instead of genuinely having a distinctive Christian approach to sexuality, we seem to be creating a subculture that uses sex toys as long as they have a scripture on them, and uses scripture like a sex toy.
Very perceptive comments. I looked up the website which Libbie referenced, and … good gracious me. Frankness about sexual matters is one thing. And a good thing, when it’s handled wisely and discreetly. But a Christian website selling sex toys alongside books on eating disorders …???? I’m glad it’s not just me which finds this really questionable.
And personally, while I certainly see the song of songs as a wonderful celebration of married love, I think it’s primary worth to the body of Christ, is as the metaphor of His deep and abiding faithful love for us. My single friend finds it deeply offensive that most people see it essentially as a sex manual now. She feels that view rather cuts her out of hearing from God in the whole book.
As a never-married virgin, I guess I can understand your friend’s POV. I certainly don’t see Song of Songs as a ‘sex manual’ - to do so cheapens it.
But it IS erotic. It’s the most extraordinary mixture of luscious, delicate eroticism and an equally delicate purity. Only in Holy Scripture could you find such a treasure as this.
For someone like me - single, celibate and not ashamed of my sexuality - the Song of Songs is a wonderful, God-ordained celebration of human sexual love. That’s my primary reading of it, and that’s why I am grateful that it was included in the canon.
There is of course a profound spiritual aspect to the Song. The metaphors of the relationship between God and Israel, and Christ and the Church, do not pass me by. I am glad for these metaphors as well.
But above all, I am glad that God likes sex, because He invented it.
That gives me hope. Even if I never get married and enjoy sex with the man I love. (I haven’t given up hope on that front either, although the statistics are against me.) But I’m not just talking about my own dreams and desires. I’m referring to the bigger picture, with a bigger hope. Which is that our holy God is the God who created eros, but above all He is the God of agape.
Which means that the Christian celibate CAN live without sex and not go crazy. (Yes really, it’s possible, although not painless.)
But nobody can live without love.
59. LRR
January 31, 2006
9:00 PM
Let me preface this by saying that I have heard the recording in its entirety.
WOW!! I am so blown away by the diversity of everyone’s views.
HAVE WE ALL FORGOTTEN THAT NONE OF US HAVE THE MIND OF GOD?! To take the view that God inspired men to write the Word in a way that is one dimensional is putting man made restrictions on the mind of God. In my view, He inspired the Word to be written in the manner and imagery that He so chose. In that I mean the the Word has so many more meanings and symbols than our feable human brains can comprehend. To say that SOS was written for ONLY one purpose is a scary & sad proposition! I believe it was written, at the very least, with these themes in mind: how Christ loves the church (HIS BRIDE!); how Christ loves each one of us on a personal level; and how and husband and wife should communicate with eachother.
BY THE WAY…HOW DID YOU ALL MISS THIS? Song of Solomon (and the way it is portrayed in “The Original Love Song”) is MOSTLY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE MAN & WOMAN AND THOUGHTS OF ONE ANOTHER…..NOT THE SEX STUFF. If you really listen to it, it shows a type of love language that we all yearn for from our earthly mate. In this world, we are not taught how to speak to eachother. The gap between the sexes is so wide that the meaning of what is said is so easily lost. A woman might say “Why are you at work so late?” She means “I miss you & want you home” but the man hears some form of correction or scolding. SOS really explores the nuances of the differences in the needs of men and women in communication. Why do we get so easily stuck on the “sex thing”? YES, GOD WANTS GREAT SEX FOR MARRIED PEOPLE BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY HE WANTS US TO LOVE EACHOTHER & SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE. Let’s not miss the fact that TRUE intimacy comes from knowing one another. You can’t know your spouse until there is clear communication. I really feel that “The Original Love Song” chose its manner of delivery as an aid to people’s comprehension of the SOS.
Also, The Orig Love Song ONLY used text from the Bible. Nothing added. We need to stop taking on the world’s view of sex and take on God’s.
60. George Henshaw
February 1, 2006
12:09 AM
I remember when I was a child and sat through my Grandfather’s many sermons; on SOS, he taught that this book was God’s guide in how to conduct Love, with purity and romance and desire from the heart, for the person God has selected for you; that Love, romance, and sex are spiritual in nature and to be shared only with God’s “chosen” for you . That when you feel these emotions described in SOS, you know God is awakening your heart and body to Love. He also pointed out that this book was written in an ancient time and agricultural culture, in which this flowery language was the norm. In my opinion anyone who confuses this beauiful book of Divine poetry with a sex manual or pornographic has a very pornographic mind.
If I had not already purchased and listened to “The Original Love Song” in it’s entirety, I think I might have been afraid to read SOS or hear the DVD, for fear I might run right out and rape someone.
How can you confuse God’s own words with carnality and pornography. I thought the OLS was very tastfully done and the background muisic and rural rustic sounds took one back to a time when these two people were were so totaly in love.
My wife and I (of 20 years) were re-inspired in our love for each other and in God’s infinate love for us.
We both would and have recommend OLS to our friends. We found it made a wonderful wedding gift; as let’s face it, most young (& old) people in the church have not been taught about God’s idea of Love and Divine Union.
61. Brian...formerly voiceofthesheep
February 1, 2006
8:10 AM
George said: “My wife and I (of 20 years) were re-inspired in our love for each other and in God’s infinate love for us.”
That’s good that you were reinspired in your love for each other…but why did it take a product like this to do it? The words contained in SOS have always been at your disposal, right there in the Bible. Why did it have to be set to music with male and females voices before it had any effect?
That indicates to me that it wasn’t so much the words themselves that had an effect on you, but the production of music and voices.
Christian couples don’t need a product like this to be taught about God’s idea for love. They need to read and study the Bible. I’ve said it in an earlier post…there is something that needs to be examined when a Christian needs a product like this to make the Bible come alive for them. Because actually, the Bible can’t be made more alive and exciting than it already is…it is the person that needs to be changed…not the Bible.
If the words of Scripture have to be made into theatrics to become meaningful for someone, then I encourage that someone to examine themselves.
62. George Henshaw
February 1, 2006
3:19 PM
Brian said “Because actually, the Bible can’t be made more alive and exciting than it already is…it is the person that needs to be changed…not the Bible.”
I think if this were true we wouldn’t need ministers to preach sermons from the Bible to inspire us with the Lord’s word.
The human voice brings the written word alive in our minds and hearts. Let’s not forget that before the Holy Bible or it’s “books” was written down for us to read, the word of God was spoken word. Our ancestors sat around the hearth listening to the family patriarc speaking the word of God and the history of God’s people.
I agree that couples do not need this product to be taught of God’s love, what I don’t understand is why anyone would feel the need to deny others the right to hear a modern production of God’s word if it helps wake the Word within them.
For many people, hearing gets through to the brain in much more detail than reading.
I believe the human mind (made in the image of God), needs to hear the Lord’s words spoken to awaken the word within us, just as creation needed to hear Lord’s word to come into being. Otherwise, we can dispense with our ministers who dramatize the word of God to get it through to us.
63. LRR
February 1, 2006
5:23 PM
Brian said… “Christian couples don’t need a product like this to be taught about God’s idea for love. They need to read and study the Bible. I’ve said it in an earlier post…there is something that needs to be examined when a Christian needs a product like this to make the Bible come alive for them.”
You may not feel as though YOU DO NOT need a tool to better understand a book that has been largely overlooked but many may. The corruption of sex in this world, and all that goes with it, possibly causes many to be leary of the idea of God ordained sex. Not really your place to judge. Besides, when you drive in the car, do you listen to Christian radio? Has there EVER been a song that helped you gain further insight on a God topic or idea? Did you go see “The Passion of the Christ”? Did it help you get a better undertanding of what our precious Savior did for us after seeing it? Besides, God designed us w/two sides of our brains…one creative and one logical. When music is used, both sides work at once. THAT is the efficiency of our MIGHTY CREATOR!!! I think my point has been made.
George said about Brian’s posting… “I think if this were true we wouldn’t need ministers to preach sermons from the Bible to inspire us with the Lord’s word.
The human voice brings the written word alive in our minds and hearts. Let’s not forget that before the Holy Bible or it’s “books” was written down for us to read, the word of God was spoken word. Our ancestors sat around the hearth listening to the family patriarc speaking the word of God and the history of God’s people.”
YOU SAID IT GEORGE!!! George reminds us that in earlier times, people gathered, read aloud and discussed the Word. I can imagine that the readers were the most animated of the community. A monotone human voice, with no character or inflection would have made many listeners’ learning opportunity less effective. Our Heavenly Father made us in His image! AMEN FOR THAT! He is creative and logical…all at once. Once again BOTH SIDES OF THE BRAIN make for better learning and a monotone voice affects only one side. God engineered us for a combined use of the senses through sound and imagery. We need it! Just look at the man after God’s own heart…David. He was a MUSICIAN and Psalms were usually set to music as he wrote some of them. I don’t know about you but if following the example (by adding music to scripture) of one that God has labeled as a seaker of God’s own heart is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Post Your Comment Here »