Thoughts - Song of Solomon SG Philosophy

Yeah, so, my Spring Break writing didn't get nearly as far as I'd hoped, and I may not manage to get back to it until May. But, in the meantime, I've taken up leading a Small Group. I've been doing a lot of thinking/philosophizing about it, because I want to do it right. Below is what I've come up with.

---

Last week, Nate Chapin and I began leading a Small Group on the Song of Solomon. Both of us being busy people, we had hoped to follow a pattern common in SG's that just directly study the text: basically, read the text, and then discuss it. There are a lot of benefits to this system: among others, it requires a minimum of preparation, allows insights to emerge that the leader might have missed, and frees the conversation to move in whatever direction members might feel a need to go. So, that's what we tried. But, unfortunately, it proved less than satisfying for the subject at hand.

Reflecting on this, it's quite apparent why this is the case. That method is great in the relatively clear and comfortable New Testament epistles. This is because, being instructional, the messages in the epistles are a lot clearer and less open to imaginative interpretation (basically, they're pre-sanctified). To be blunt, the Song of Solomon isn't. It's a poetic story, which requires a very different style of interpretation. And many of the things that it touches on really aren't comfortable or appropriate for group discussion, especially in a college setting.

According to Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's (JFB) commentary, church fathers Origen and Jerome noted that the Jews didn't allow anyone to read the Song until he was 30 years old. The more I've considered it, the more I understand the feeling behind that prohibition; the Song is very hard to read and understand. At the same time, I'm increasingly convinced of the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” And, further, I believe that it can be encountered in a pure and uplifting way, if those who study it would approach it correctly; Titus 1:15: “To the pure, all things are pure.”

[Note: Karen has provided a link which claims that the age was not 30, but 13, the age at which a child became an adult. This would honestly make more sense, but I don't have the time or resources to sort it out right now. Either way, I think the point would still be valid, although perhaps not as forcefully as with 30.]

However, just because something can be studied beneficially, that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be; in other words, the follow-on question is “why study the Song?”. I think there are a couple important reasons, at least to me. The first, at least for me, is that it poses a significant challenge. It's relatively easy to study an epistle, or to work one's way through Proverbs. Now, don't get me wrong: those are extremely essential studies, and there's great depths to be plumbed within them, which can take years to fully understand. But, at the same time, they're low-risk: it's pretty difficult to go wrong in your studies, the human predilection to read our ideas into the text notwithstanding. SoS isn't like that, as is shown by how often it's looked at kind of askance. It demands a greater amount of maturity, purity, and commitment to really get it. So, since I could use all three, what better way to pursue them than by doing something that requires me to practice them?

The second reason is related, but different: there's a reason God put this book into His Word. If you think about it, there are very few subjects that get an entire book devoted to them. Besides SoS, there's the Law (Leviticus, Deuteronomy), suffering (Job), music (Psalms), wisdom (Proverbs), and life outlook (Ecclesiastes). Among such a group, there are two basic themes: worship of God (Law, music) and living life (suffering, wisdom, and life outlook). Into this group, then, the Lord places this book about love. And not only places it, but gives it a place near the top of the heap - the title is “Song of Songs”, literally meaning “the greatest of all songs”, which seems almost an affront to the Psalms and places it at least on par with Solomon's other writings (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). How do we make sense of this, except by coming to the obvious conclusion that this Love thing must be pretty important?

There are a couple different interpretations of how the Song should be read, which affect how we understand the value in studying it. Some see it as just what it is at face value: a love story between two people. Others read it metaphorically: the love between God and His people, especially, nowadays, Christians individually and as a group. The latter is obviously safer, but I find it hard to exclude the first: basically, if God puts such value on the contents of the book, and wanted it read just metaphorically, I think He would have included at least some kind of disclaimer. At the same time, it's almost impossible, this side of Calvary especially, to miss the metaphor. And the two aren't mutually exclusive: often, in fact, the New Testament uses this very idea of bride and bridegroom to illustrate the relationship of the Church and Christ. To understand that divine love is to gain insight into proper human love, and, similarly, to understand human love is to gain insight into the love between us and Christ. And if, in fact, this relationship with Christ is to be the major theme of our lives (Galatians 2:20b: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”), then it's extremely clear why the Song is in the Word, and why it is very much an important subject of study.

With that said, though, it is also apparent that this study cannot be taken lightly. Again from JFB, the Jews had an apt metaphor for the relationship of Solomon's writings, that of the temple he built: Proverbs is the outer court, Ecclesiastes the Holy Place, and the Song the Holy of Holies. Now, at Christ's death, the curtain of the temple was ripped apart, and we were invited into such intimacy with the divine.(Matthew 27:51). At the same time, though, we must not take lightly the audacious proposition of peering into such an inner sanctum, but instead need to approach with fear, reverence, and forethought. If we will do so, the promised reward is the awe of encountering God in a new and staggering way. But we must be ready.

Unfortunately, none of us, including myself, have the time to dig in so deeply beforehand. I'm growing, but I haven't grown nearly enough to just ad-lib it, nor do I think I ever will. So, as an alternative, I'm going to be providing a set of directions for our study, to help us navigate the passages as safely as possible, while still providing us the freedom to truly appreciate what's going on and discuss what people believe needs to be discussed. It's going to take the form of a series of questions for discussion, and I'm placing them below:

Part 1: The Human Story

Reading the passage purely as the interaction between two people:

1. What is happening here?

2. What are the motivations behind their words and actions?

3. What, if anything, strikes you as particularly virtuous?

4. Where is God's involvement in the scene?

Part 2: The Christian Story

Reading the passage as a metaphor of Christ and His people:

1. What is happening here?

2. At what stage(s) of the Christian/Church life would this occur at?

3. What motivates both God and the Christian/Church here?

4. Where does this tie into the teachings of the New Testament about the Christian life?

5. How can we practically respond?

It's my hope and prayer that this will prove useful in facilitating a worthwhile and blessed study. Prayer from others would be much appreciated, too!

Thoughts - John 10:10b - "I"

See the introduction first - it'll help!
--------------------------------------------

“I”

OK, yes, I'm going to start by drilling down really little. It has to be done. If it makes you feel any better, though, I promise that I won't try to beat this by analyzing the period at the end of the verse. Unless the need comes about when I get to that point...

Anyway, there's a great importance in this little detail of identity. “I” is hard to mistake, since it always refers to the one speaking it. Beyond that, though, it is active – I do things, as opposed to things just happening to me. Starting the statement of mission with this one little word, Christ takes possession of it, making it absolutely clear that it's His.

“I” doesn't come automatically, however. Quite the opposite, actually: there are several prerequisites assumed by its use:

Rooted identity: before one can identify oneself as “I”, who I am must be clear. Christ knew who He was: “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). For those of us who aren't God, and thus aren't self-existent, things aren't so easy. Thankfully, Christ took care of that, giving us, through Salvation, identity in Him (see, e.g., Romans 6:5), so that we can know who the “I” is.

Uniqueness: “I” is distinct from “we”. Although community is important (that's coming later), the mission must be accepted by each person as a singular, unique human being.

Actionability: if the “I” is to be active, than it must be able to actually act. Christ, being God and thus omnipotent, had this covered. For us, Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.”

Authority: finally, even if one can make a statement of “I”, that doesn't mean that he may. I can declare that I will curtail inner-city crime, but, without the authority to muster resources to my aid, such an effort will be futile at best. Similarly, were we to embark on embracing Jesus' mission under our own authority, it would be laughable. Through His death, however, “He gave [us] the right to become children of God,” (John 1:12), lending us more than enough authority to take up that charge.

So, in summary, Jesus, being God, had all that was required to take active ownership of His mission. As humans, we wouldn't, except that through His we have access to all of it. Our acceptance of a role in His mission must be predicated on rooting our identity in Him, and through that relationship understanding the uniqueness, actionability, and authority that come through Him.

Thoughts - John 10:10b - Introduction

“I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
John 10:10b

Misson. It's something I talk about a lot. And, with the load of management courses I'm taking right now, something I also hear a lot about. The concept of mission and vision is vitally important, because it directs and focuses one's efforts, making the difference between flailing about and accomplishing something. To me, at least, it's common and easy to think about mission in relation to businesses and churches. Lately, I've been toying with a mission for my life, too, although that's still a work in progress. In the midst of all this pondering, it came upon me that Jesus Himself had a stated mission for His foray on earth. It is, I believe, the verse quoted above.

If the Church is to be the body of Christ on earth, and Christians individually “little Christs” (the literal meaning of the term), it is of the utmost importance that we understand His mission. There are two important reasons for this: first, so that we can understand His point in the whole thing, and, second, so that we, as His followers, can continue it. So, what I want to do is break down and attempt to pick apart this brief statement, and hopefully in so doing provide a starting point for realizing these goals.

Because this has the makings of a long thought, I'm going to split it into several posts. Should make a bit simpler for you to read, and, actually, for me to write.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of posting lately – RPI has been claiming most of my writing. I'm going to try to get this whole series done over the current Spring Break, but we'll see how it goes.