Alienated in Church: Form and Meaning in Liturgical Art

Alienated in Church: Form and Meaning in Liturgical Art

Worship Enrichment

So today I had to go to a "Worship Enrichment" seminar (required for class). Here's some food for thought that I took away from it:

Pick Your Favorite One:
O for a thousand tongues to sing
Healer of our every ill
Bless the lord my soul (taize)
We are marching/Siyahamba
Jesus loves me
Shout to the Lord
Now pick one if it was the only song you could sing for the rest of your life.

"The worship of God's people flows on the river of music." We're missing out on the prophetic voices of the other streams when we only swim in one current.

We make creative use of words, music - and more! - from many times, places, peoples, and cultures to enlarge our vision of God's kingdom and situate ourselves properly within it. When we wrap our tongues around unfamiliar syllables and our ears hear unfamiliar sounds we are dipping our toes into the river of heaven.

"The Preached Word of God IS the Word of God." (my question: Can visual art be the Word also? It's important to note that preaching isn't always perfect - it can NOT be the word of God. Whereas, an image CAN be, or a kinetic experience.)

1 John 1:1-4 (that which we have seen, heard, touched with our own hands concerning the Word of life) - John is tipping us off to the different ways that people get in touch with the Gospel (Audio, Visual, Kinesthetic).

When we talk about the Word of God, we're talking about (a little hierarchy per the seminar speaker):
1) Jesus
2) Bible (and I add tradition because you can't have one without the other - which Bible do we consult? You can't just say "the Bible" without more digging - in fact, I would say it's irresponsible to simply say "the Bible" - it doesn't exist without at least the tradition that gave us the canon, and our traditions have interpreted Scripture, you can't just say "Scripture's clear" because it's always been interpreted by the Church and we are products of that history - and for that matter, how has any of this happened without human reason? We don't have any way to read or interpret what the Bible says without our reason. I don't like this appeal to Biblical authority without acknowledging the role of tradition or reason. I'm so Anglican.)
3) Preached word of God (where do the sacraments go?)
4) Holy Spirit inside heart

A provacative question from Michelle: even though we are an image-oriented society, we still equate knowledge/intellectualism with words. Are we using the way of the world, what the world values, when we rely only upon words?
And I would add: Are we ignoring God's original revelation in creation? God doesn't tell, God shows: the Logos was flesh, not spoken; the HS came in tongues of fire, not a sermon; Revelation is depicted through outrageous imagery, not straight-up word. The old testament is full of actions and images. "This is my Son - listen to him" (yet the transfiguration is a visual event, not audio - and perhaps listen to him means look at him, at least in that moment?)

Does an image always need to be explained? Ah, do words also need to be explained? Do they mean anything? Can we really just go with words as the safe way of explanation anymore?
If images can help interpret words, then go that way!

"Our job as preachers is not to innovate but to tell the old, old story" Why does this statement give me such pause?!

Faux Pas

Today I asked a question in class and I heard someone say, "Why don't you take church history?" Well, they were right. It was probably inappropriate to ask, and I get bothered by that all the time. I need to stop talking so much! It's not always about me and MY education.

I guess I also goofed on the type of Quaker service I meant to refer to.

And I dumped coffee on myself.

Doing really well today.

Quick post today

Today on Feminary it's Vocabulary Day! Because I learned a new word. I am not, as recently accused by my husband, a relativist. I am latitudinarian. Now you may go look that up.

Also I just have to express my surprise that a classmate told me she went to a Taize service and really didn't like it at all. And I'm thinking, what's not to like? Well, I guess if you aren't comfortable with silence or repetition or whatever. But no, what she didn't like was how planned the service was. She was unable to worship with a bulletin before her telling her everything that was going to happen. She must like twist endings I guess.

And so we learn yet another aspect of Christian worship language. Some people genuinely don't want planning - or really, don't want to know what's been planned. I should recommend the Quaker church to her.

Today, give thanks

Rise before the sun and watch the sky turn shades of purple, pink, orange, and yellow.

Let a cat sit on your shoulder and purr into your ear.

Notice the mountains and the trees. If there are electrical wires in your view, thank God for the light they provide.

Savor the warmth of your coffee.

Stay under the sheets a little longer, and then get up and into something warm. Be relieved that it's not hot yet.

Listen to the birds. If all you hear is traffic, be thankful that we have cars to help us get around.

Say good morning to your neighbor.

As you pick up groceries, think about where they came from. They weren't always shrink-wrapped for your convenience. Someone put them together this way to make it easier for you.

For Amelia, the most incredibly beautiful baby, who is 4 days old today.

You can read this. I can write this.

Abraham Kuyper said that there is not a single square inch of the earth over which God doesn't say, "This is mine."

My friend Sam says that there is not a single square inch of the earth through which God doesn't say, "Look at me! Here I am!"

Don't let this day go by without noticing something. God won't interrupt our busy schedules, but God will be there if we look.

Oh, crapper

I said I'd write every day. So here I am, even though I must rush off to a rehearsal on the other side of town soon. On the other side of town, in LA, means I'll be driving at least an hour. Whoopee!

Anyway it's already burdensome to keep up this pace. Can I cheat since I wrote twice yesterday?

I got my grades and I'm actually doing really well. I am a little surprised. I always did great in school, but I'm not exactly in my comfort zone with the kinds of things I'm studying. Still, it turns out applying yourself (and having some brains to begin with) does the trick.

Can we talk about body image for just a sec? Because I am so obsessed at the moment. I hit that nasty time when suddenly your waistbands are cutting into your flesh. And I did the big naughty and went and bought two new pairs of shorts that fit my new giant ass. You know, I only really get bothered about my weight when my clothes stop fitting. And by then, it's usually too late to do anything except buy new clothes. I tend to be okay at maintaining weight, but losing just seems not to happen anymore. This year I turn thirty. Actually in less than a month. And I guess my metabolism is simply gone.

Anyway, as all students of any level know, it's nearly impossible not to put on a few pounds what with all the grabbing of food between classes and eating on the run and free pizza.

Speaking of free pizza, there was such in our courtyard today, with a program by a couple of guys who were in Iraq (one was a soldier but I'm not sure about the other) who are disillusioned and now protesting the war. There were a lot of people listening politely, but lots of people seemed pissed off. Like the guy would say that the media wasn't allowed to record wounded or dead soldiers being shipped away, and the person next to me said, "Why do they have to see everything?", so I suggested maybe because it's their job to keep the American public informed about what's going on over there. Then he simply said that the media are biased. Ah, that old chestnut. And it turns out that the media that he think are lefties I think are righties. Having worked four years at a journalism school, I realize that media people really try so hard not to be biased. They report what's there. And if what is there disagrees with your personal politics, then you're simply not living in reality.

More from the reality-based world later. I haven't nearly got the time to get into politics.

So here's what's been going on

This quarter is such icing on the cake. It's all classes that are exactly what I want to study. I know later when I'm taking three systematic theology classes at once from fundamentalists I will regret this. But for now, I'm so happy.

(and I was kidding - near as I can tell, no fundamentalists at Fuller, at least not in the faculty population - students are another story, but we're working on them)

So I'm taking two classes in worship (one is how to do it and the other is "let's think about it"), and Episcopal polity. Bet you didn't know we did that at Fuller! Me neither. But there you have it. The latter is a directed reading which means we don't meet regularly, just a few times, and we're supposed to be reading, but I have yet to even get my books yet. Not the best format for a procrastinator.

But the other two classes are interesting and annoying and stimulating and I think I may actually learn something. I'm really getting what I came to Fuller for - the diversity. There are people from me, ultimate high church gal, to those who are so nondenominational that they don't even know what "ordination" means. For the most part the classes vascillate between lots of questions by people who are ignorant about just about everything church-related to lots of discussion about different traditions.

And I have to admit it is really hard, in those situations, to accept that your own tradition isn't necessarily the best. Well, it's hard even to listen to other people sometimes. Especially if you think they are shortchanging their congregations by denying them the beauty of liturgy, or forcing upon them the banality of contemporary music, or any number of the pet peeves that drove me from the Evangelical church. And yet, and yet. My prof insists we can learn from one another. So we try to drop our smugness (it's all around, it's not just me) and listen.

I will say that from what I've seen of emerging church, it's a trend that will fade quickly. There is simply not enough substance there. But I haven't got time to go into it now. I don't know what the American church's salvation will be. I have a feeling it lies in the laity, though, not in the clergy. People need to be educated about what church is, what they are doing there, what the body of Christ is about. That is what I want to do - train better worshippers.

Yesterday we attended St. James, South Pasadena, and visited a newcomer event. Never have I been to a church where the people so "get" what church is really about. All of them are involved - most were recruited to usher, and even serve on vestry, inside of a year (several told stories of being asked to usher within the first couple weeks!). Nobody in that room isn't doing something at the church. They understand that they gather to serve, not simply to sit. They work with the children or youth, they usher, they LEM, they sing, they read. And as near as I can tell, it's all laity-driven. The rector isn't asking - people are just doing it. That, my friends, is a body that is getting it. They understand that their role isn't to sit by and wait for the leader to make church happen. They are the church. They make it happen. They want their church to be ministering according to the gifts of those who attend. They aren't trying to do things they are not gifted for just because it's "expected." They understand that each individual body is made up of members who were called there by God because God had a plan for putting those people together. God actually strategically plans church bodies! God puts gifts together in order to create a particular ministry. And we stifle that work when clergy force the congregation into something they are not gifted in, or when people feel like they want a particular kind of church that doesn't fit the gifts, or whatever.

It's like my parents' church, which has a committed organist and a committed piano player, yet some people are complaining that they want a praise band. There is nobody who wants to actually be in this band, nor is there anyone who could do it. They'd have to hire outside the church. Perfect example of trying to match someone's idea of church instead of going where God leads. They are extremely fortunate to have the committed musicians that they do have (who do it for free, mind you), and maybe God just gave them to the church.

Anyway, I'm totally on my soapbox now. I'll step off.
And hey, check out http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html

Announcements!

I am making a promise to you that I will try to write every day. It will probably be early in the morning or late at night, so I can't promise coherence, but I am sick of feeling so behind that I'm unable to get started again. So I'm just jumping back in.

And since I was so nicely outed on the Revealer, I can now shamelessly self-promote. My USC office is sponsoring a very cool panel discussion on the upcoming Kingdom of Heaven film. Here is the info:

Monday, April 18, Knight Chair Forum
Whose Crusade? Media, Muslims and the "Kingdom of Heaven"
Join journalism professor Diane Winston, USC Annenberg's Knight Chair in Media and Religion, for a panel discussion with scholars, religious leaders, and film critics about the soon-to-be-released film Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott. Panelists include Aymen Khalifa, a cultural consultant on Islamic issues; John Aberth, historian and author of "A Knight at the Movies: Medieval History on Film"; and Reuven Firestone, professor of Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles and author of "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War In Islam."
This event is co-sponsored by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, the Office of Religious Life, the School of Cinema-Television, the School of Religion, the USC Center for Religion and Civic Culture and the TriBeCa Film Festival. Reception follows. RSVPs requested. To RSVP, visit http://ascweb.usc.edu/asc.php?pageID=347&listID=47
5:00 pm, Annenberg Auditorium, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Maps and directions here: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/index.html

And I have the pleasure of presenting, for the third time, my reader's theater arrangement of the book of Revelation (yes, the entire book). It's really cool and I hope if you are in the LA area you'll come. There are seven readers and they kind of have characters, but mostly just imagine listening to a dramatic reading of the Odyssey or the Divine Comedy and you'll get an idea. It's my work I'm most proud of. Here's the info:

Saturday, April 16, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Travis Auditorium, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST
A Staged Reading
Text by John of Patmos
Arranged for Reader's Theater by Anastasia McAteer

Oops, now I guess I'm really out.

Tithing, worship, book lists...

Well I unfortunately can't find the little paragraph I wrote on tithing that my church published in the following week's bulletin, but suffice to say, the feminarian is serious about it and does NOT take that commitment lightly at all. I will have to get on my soapbox another time, though.

Right now, I have to announce first that I am no longer using dialup!! Curse SBC forever! It's a long story but basically they've done something very naughty with my phone line (let your imaginations run wild) and I can't have their DSL anymore. So it's off to Time Warner cable, even though I'm unhappy about supporting a megaconglomorate, but I could not possibly deal much longer living in the stone age of internet connection.

That said, my parents are still in town so I need to spend time with them. The Feminarian is pleased that I have a really good relationship with them, although we see eye-to-eye almost never on theological issues. So as long as we don't talk about politics and religion, we get along just great. Just like most families!

I wanted to give you a little chart that resulted from the lecture in my worship class. This quarter is the pie quarter: I have two worship classes and Episcopalian polity. Nice! anyway, first I will list the chart. Then I will list some books that are on my suggested reading list for Epis polity. If you can recommend any, I am all ears. I have to read two books in each of four areas: history, theology, worship, and polity/Ang Communion. I like the recommended list but it's much too long and I don't even know which books fit in which areas. So thanks in advance for your help.

Okay, here's the chart:
Contemporary/Emergent
Word/Symbol
Logical/Evocative
Stage/Stations
Order/Choice
Group participation/Individual participation
Content/Ambiance
Linear, Progressive music/Ambient sound, chill track
No sacrament or symbol/sacramental, sacrament-ish

And here's the books:
Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy
Pamela W. Darling, New Wine: The Story of Women Transforming...Episcopal Church
Leonel Mitchell, Prayer Shapes Believing (BCP commentary)
Charles Price and Louis Weil, Liturgy for Living
Weil, A Theology of Worship
Robert Prichard, A History of the Epis Church
Ibid, Readings from History of Epis Church
Timothy F. Sedgwick, Sacramental Ethics
Ibid, The Christian Moral Life
Ibid (ed.), The Crisis in Moral Theology in the Epis Church
"The study of Anglicanism" by Sykes, Booty and Knight
"Richard Hooker: Prophet of Anglicanism" by Secor

Moralistic Theraputic Deism

Sorry not to have time for a proper entry, but I wanted to point you to this story about a new book that's come out:
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001837.php

I heard the authors at a conference and it's pretty convincing stuff.

Holy Week

You want to hear about Holy Week, huh? OK, here's a rundown:

I moved. Thus, I suffered. Not really like Jesus suffered, but it was difficult. It is very hard to remain a good Christian when dealing with idiots. My movers overcharged me and wouldn't do anything about it; my phone company has completely screwed up. It's tiring to work with people who simply don't care and/or are incompetent.

So I spent a lot of Holy Week not really in the season. I blissfully missed out on the news, so was not bombarded with 24/7 Schiavo/Jackson coverage. I think CNN has a camera permanently in her room so we can all be there when she dies. Because that's what death is all about - having millions of people watch and snarky politians and activists making an example out of you. I just watched Citizen Ruth and it's so similar! Anyway, I kept away from it except when I got an email from Christianity Today which suggested that the comparison of Terri's and Christ's sufferings is "unavoidable". Oh, that made me cringe. Come, now. Do we really want to go there? Would this be such a big story if it wasn't going down during the passion week? I wonder...

At any rate, speaking of passion, we did the passion narrative at my church on Palm Sunday and at the church I attended on Good Friday, and the thing that struck me (no pun intended) was how very little time is spent discussing the flogging of Christ and how much more focus is on his being mocked. And I thought about how the reverse is true in Mel Gibson's film. I am personally much more disturbed by people mocking God than by someone getting the shit kicked out of them. The latter we see all the time and it bothers us, yes. But the former happens probably more often and doesn't bother us...which should be a problem.

What else? I got to sing the Easter Vigil, which was fabulous. And three services on Sunday. That is tiring. Clergy work freaking hard. Choirs do too. And you know, people just don't get it. I mean, many people thanked the choir, but I wonder how many thanked the clergy. These services, even when it's all written ahead of time, are a lot of work. I even heard choir members saying that the clergy don't do much, and mocking our poor clergyman who cantors. They just don't get no respect. I'm ultra sensitive to it now (well I have always been, because of my dad, but now I'm really internalizing it).

These are such random thoughts - I am sorry I don't have a pretty narrative for you. The stuff of life really has gotten in the way this time. But I thank God every day for my beautiful new apartment, with a view of the mountains and its light-filled spaces. And this quarter I get to take 2 worship classes and Episcopalian Polity - all of which will be such fun. And my parents are coming to see me this week. Life is good.

I've got to get going - class starts today. I promise to be more regular here now that I'll be back on a schedule. Peace and blessings to you. The Lord is risen! He is risen indeed!

Thoughts on your thoughts

In response to a couple of the comments:

"While it's true American Christianity has suffered as a result of the anti-intellectualism of evangelicals, I also know plenty of very effective spiritual leaders without seminary degrees. The lack of that education doesn't signify much, even if we'd prefer to have our leaders go to sem. "

I think that effective spiritual leaders without degrees are the exception, not the rule. At least I hope so. Because yesterday I got to thinking: we require all kinds of certification for our teachers in other walks of life. Would you let your child attend a school where all the teachers weren't educated in what they are teaching? Much less would an adult want to learn about something from a person without a degree in it, or at least some kind of certification. Why is it that frequently in spiritual matters do we leave our brains at the door? Why is it acceptable to not have any training and be teaching others about the most important things in life?

We wouldn't let a person teach math or science without them having some formal training in it. We wouldn't take literature from a person who'd just read a bunch of books and had their own ideas about them, nor biology from a person who'd gone walking in a park a lot of times and thus felt they understood creation. So why do we let our most important, life-changing subject - theology - be instructed by people without formal training or at least some spiritual direction from a wiser person?

I worry when someone feels qualified to found a church when he's only attended a Rick Warren seminar and done a couple online classes. This guy's a great businessman, to be sure - and perhaps that is his vocation! - but I don't think I would want him in charge of my spiritual development.

"Here's a guy who gives his parishioners the most watered-down version of God possible and a quarter of his congregation tithes! Is this God's sense of humor?"

Well, this is true, but again, I'd say it's more because of his business acumen. People are receiving valuable services from him: counseling, a place for the kids to play laser tag (that was the Easter special service for them), Krispy Kremes, etc. I could see how people would feel obliged - actually not even mind - to tithe. In fact, here's a scary thought: is it because the church is offering them so much that makes them happy, is servicing them so well, that they are willing to pay for it? Often people complain about tithing because the church doesn't "do" anything for them - the rewards of the spiritual walk are not easily seen, and frequently don't make you happy (although they do make you fulfilled). So perhaps the problem with tithing is our culture of capitalism - I pay to get something. Tithing means paying to give something...which is completely weird to our minds. I'm supposed to give money and time and my gifts and maybe I'll be more fulfilled but my life probably won't get any easier - just more busy, with more difficult choices, and I'll start looking stranger and stranger in this culture? Doesn't sound like something many people would want to buy. But the things offered by Radiant (the website is hilarious - their "commitments" and "mission" are making people happy, comfortable, etc.) are things that we all want and are willing to pay for.

I am just not sure they are what Jesus' followers are supposed to be looking for.

One more thing

One of my Fuller professors thinks that the Protestant church is indeed undergoing a big change - she thinks it won't last another century in America. If everyone goes the watered-down way of the civic megachurch, she may just turn out to be right. What is there, really, to distinguish this church from any other social institution? Especially with a pastor who blatently states, "I WANT to look like a mall!"

Could it be the end of the church as we know it? I can only hope so. Only because I want people to take God seriously enough, respect God enough, to be Christians for real, or not at all.

Did you see the NYT Magazine??

This is a great commentary: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001819.php, much more reasoned and thorough than mine, but at any rate, here were my thoughts:

First, scary, that this is being held up as some kind of example for churches to follow. Some guy who didn't even get a seminary degree, just took a few classes, thinks he can actually lead people spiritually? Yikes. Reflects that anti-intellectualism of the church (touched upon in the article when referring to Assemblies of God) that has screwed us up so bad for a century.

The story seems to be making the irresponsible equation Christian = Republican Voter
Also Christian Success = money and numbers - it read more like a business page story than religion (which may have been the purpose)

It's kind of a tired subject - been seeing megachurch stories for 2 decades. Not sure they succeeded in squeezing any new info out of the old chestnut. Perhaps recycled it b/c of the election results?

Celebrating the success of this church (from a business perspective) makes good news, but it is bad for religion.

Where are the experts questioning this guy's credentials? It doesn't present any dissenting opinion! No Christian interviewed who says this IS NOT the way church is supposed to be. What about other denominations who try the same thing but aren't successful? Or other non-educated pastors who've failed?

For that matter, what gives this place, which for all outside appearances is just a social center, the right to call itself a Christian Church?

The reporter does ask a few good questions, but leaves them at questions - I wonder if he even asked them of his experts? All he has from experts are sound bites that support the story - but nothing of substance, just quotes repeating what he's already said.

It definitely did get a reaction from me, but not a positive one. I think a typical evangelical would be mostly pleased with the article, although it seemed to me that the pastor (successful or no) comes off looking kind of irreponsible (in his spiritual growth and education, I mean), and the church isn't really acting like a church. I doubt very many evangelicals would be proud to be associated with a church like this, although interestingly, most evangelical churches are pretty similar to this (in services offered, etc.), just not as brazen about it.

Practice makes it wonderful

Don't make your prayer a job. It's a gift. Don't make it a grim and costly ticket you must buy in order to gain admittance to the divine love -- you're already there. When you begin to exercise it's hard. You don't feel well. You don't like to sweat. Moving hurts. Everyone else is stronger and faster and looks better. You know that years of not moving have been bad for you, and now you feel like you're being punished for it. But you keep going. And soon you begin to feel different. Wonderful. Soon you love to move, even love to sweat, soon your body loves it -- it's what your body's made to do. Soon you feel strong. Soon you don't care what other people look like. Soon you don't feel guilty any more -- you're doing good things for the body God gave you, and you're being blessed every time you do them. Spiritual discipline is just like that. It can be hard at first. You can feel guilty and inadequate at first. I should have been praying and reading scripture already, you think. I don't do this right. Other people do it better. But prayer's what you're created to do. You are naturally good at it -- God made you that way. Soon you don't care what other people do, how long they've been doing it, whether they're better at it than you are. Soon you just love it for its own sake. Soon you hardly remember what made you feel guilty about it. If you have trouble with the word "discipline," you won't later on -- not after you get going in a routine that blesses you. In the meantime, use the word "practice." It's the same thing.
Copyright © 2005 Barbara Crafton - http://www.geraniumfarm.org

Let Him Kiss Me With the Kisses of His Mouth!

Here is my book report (well actually chapter report) on the Song of Songs. I personally wasn't bowled over by it (and J thought it was simply terrible) but I got an "A" anyway.

In his enlightening book, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times, David W. Kling spends a chapter discussing the Song of Songs. This may seem strange to us, as the church today rarely reads or teaches from this book: growing up, I got the sense that it was sort of a “dirty” book that was included in the Bible by accident. Kling illumines the history of the Song, helping the modern reader to see the long, rich traditions associated with it and the way that interpretation through the centuries has been variously influenced by “views of sexuality and the self, hermeneutic assumptions…, theological emphases and conditions in the church, and socio-economic circumstances.”[1]
The Song has always been a very popular book in the canon, particularly with monastic communities. Only in the last century or so has it fallen out of regular use in liturgy and been relegated to the pre-marital aisle of the Christian bookstore. There have been two basic approaches to its reading: literal and allegorical. The latter is older, originating with Origen in the middle of the third century ce, and has been upheld by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, who interpret the book as a metaphor for the love of God for His people or His church, respectively. Nowadays, the book is nearly universally seen as literal, which is due largely to our modern exegetical practices (we will deal critically with this assumption below). The chapter is a lesson on what happens when exegetes bring their own theological assumptions and cultural ethos to the text they study.
Kling briefly explains the various reasons scholars have given to explain the Song’s fascination to the monastic community, and why they hold to the allegorical viewpoint: everything from their unhealthy sexual repression to modern theories suggesting that monks read it as a story between themselves and Jesus to satisfy homoerotic desires. A compelling explanation is offered by Roland Murphy in his 1990 commentary: the allegory “facilitated the construction of a Christian worldview,”[2] helping early scholars bridge the gap between the Old Testament and the New by testifying to God’s immense love for humankind, to be fulfilled by the Christ event.
Kling spends the rest of the chapter on a history of the interpretation of the Song. He begins with Origen, father of the allegorical interpretation. Origen was heavily influenced by Plato, and brings his beliefs to the text when doing exegesis: wanting to describe the “soul’s enlightenment to the divine mysteries,”[3] he found portions of the text which supported his argument. Origen’s five-step allegorical explanation of the book was highly influential for many centuries. Interestingly, he also touched on the idea of the Song as a wedding drama, a concept more fully explored later in history.
The Latin fathers and later medieval scholars expanded on Origen’s concept, keeping the allegorical interpretation. They used the Song to support their own convictions about the ideal state of virginity, the holiness of Mary, the institution of baptism, and various disputed church doctrines. Throughout, Origen’s remained the seminal interpretation in the West from the 5th – 11th centuries.
The rise of monasticism, coupled with Europe’s rise out of the Dark Ages (with attendant prosperity, population growth, rise of cities, etc.), led to new ways of expanding upon Origen’s commentary. Origen had focused on knowledge of and communion with God through intellect, but monastics (starting with Pope Gregory I) preferred to know God through the heart, and began to see the loving elements of the Song as the desire of the soul to commune with God (keeping the allegorical framework of God and human, not man and woman).
This interpretation was most profoundly developed by Bernard of Clairvaux, an early 12th century mystic who is a hero of that tradition as well as much beloved by everyone from Martin Luther to the Puritans to Popes and seekers. Bernard enjoyed a happy childhood, and at age 21 he decided to enter the relatively new Cistercian order, a group devoted to regaining the pure Benedictine Rule of Life with an extremely ascetic way of life. His popularity is attested by the fact that he entered not only with his family (father, uncles, brothers) but also brought in 30 friends. He remained a very effective recruiter for the order throughout his life, and was also quite influential in the political arena of his day.
The Cistercians were unique in that they only admitted adults, many of whom had already been married or had experienced love. This brought a whole new dynamic into the previously entirely celibate – and sexually ignorant – monastic system. The Song of Songs worked well for Bernard as a teaching tool, as his monks could understand the expressions of desire within it from firsthand experience. Thus, Bernard wrote 86 sermons on the Song over an 18-year period, which influenced opinion of the book for the next 400 years.
Bernard’s exegesis was quite new, in that he added personal passion to his work: his own stories, thoughts, and life experiences. He was steeped in Scripture and also the Greek Neoplatonic mystical tradition.[4] He studied the Song, but not with scholastic method – rather, he used it as a way to explain his own mystical ideas about the soul’s ascent to God. For this, many call him the last of the fathers, for after his work the study of Scripture became much more rigorously academic and would not have allowed for Bernard’s mystical contemplation.
In Bernard’s work, the Song is seen as a description of the encounter of the human soul with the living God. The Scripture is a veil, adaptable to human understanding, hiding a deep spiritual experience. His sermons use the Song to describe human desire for God, mystical ascent, Imago Dei, free will, the incarnation, and God’s deep, abiding love for us. Bernard, Kling attests, created a “new genre in exegesis”[5] by applying the Scripture to the life situation of those in his day. This caught on and was quite popular through the 16th century.
While spending the bulk of the chapter on Bernard, Kling goes on to briefly overview the reformer’s and present-day scholar’s thoughts on the Song. The Protestants, Kling points out, were adamant about the literal interpretation of Scripture – except when it came to the Song. Luther added some historical thought to the exegesis, removing the mystical elements. In the 17-18th centuries, there were dueling interpretations between Catholics (whose scholars were celibate) supporting the mystical views of Bernard, and Protestants who, personally experiencing the intimacies of marriage, knew quite surely that human marriage couldn’t hold a candle to God’s love (this makes one wonder about their marital health!). At the end of the 18th century, the idea of the Song as a dramatic poem or wedding text, first proposed by Origen, caught on, due largely to the rise of modern literary theory.
In the 20th century, the prevailing scholarship has followed the historical-critical method, which has confirmed the Song as a collection of romantic poems, celebrating and affirming married love. The first half of the century saw the rise of an interesting cultic interpretation having to do with fertility gods and goddesses in ancient Near Eastern religion, but that has largely been discounted. Recent feminist thought has provoked new discussion about the authorship of the book, and the equality between the sexes (including the woman frequently being the instigator of intimate encounters).
In conclusion, Kling sums up that from the 3-19th centuries, the allegorical tradition held sway, and it was really only in the last 100 years that the literal interpretation has been the dominant thought. He closes by asking some tough questions about our methods of exegesis: can we have it both ways: giving credit to the historical-critical method’s literal interpretation while also appreciating the less exegetically sound allegorical view? Did God actually inspire Origen and Bernard to add to our understanding of the Song? Must we always defend every interpretation only from the text itself, or can current ideas inform the reading of a text as well? Kling leaves the questions open-ended, giving the reader rich food for thought.
The main point that Kling is making throughout this chapter is that we must examine our assumptions about poor standards of exegesis. We automatically assume that to start with a theology we want to prove, like Origen, is irresponsible. Or to bring more of our own experience to the text than may actually be warranted, as Bernard was wont to do, is not appropriate. It is considered especially bad form to use Scripture to uphold our own beliefs when both sides of an argument can do so, as in an example Kling gives of Augustine and the Donatists.[6]
And yet, Kling points out the incredible popularity of both Origen and Bernard’s interpretations – and how they kept the church, and monastics especially, interested in the Song of Songs for centuries. In the 20th century, the Song has lost its mysterious meaning, leading to its general disuse. Could it be that in fact Origen and Bernard had hit upon something that we should reconsider in our exegetical practice? Perhaps our modern methods are inadequate to deal with the artistic writings of the Bible, or we must find ways to use them while emphasizing, not losing, the metaphor and poetry of certain Scriptures (as has been done with some success in exegeting Revelation, for instance).
(At any rate, the majority of modern exegesis, at least in the common preacher’s use, seems to draw wildly from experience, modern events, social circumstances – pretty much everything except the text itself. So perhaps we have not lost the tradition of Bernard after all.)
A major problem with Kling’s overview is that he does not discuss Jewish interpretation of the Song in any detail (though he mentions it in passing). While we can appreciate that he is attempting to cover the Church’s history of exegesis, it seems sloppy to ignore the Jewish roots of Old Testament documents in particular.
It is also important for us to consider the Protestants’ interpretation of the Song as allegorical when they insist on literal interpretation of everything else in Scripture. Clearly the carnal lusts described in the book did not fit their view of proper human relations, so they relaxed their rules just this once. As Kling makes clear, this is a rather obvious mistake – and one that we continue to make today. For though we now accept the literal reading of the book, we basically ignore it or are even ashamed of it.
The 20th century interpretation of the book describing married love is interesting for two reasons: one, it never says the lovers are married (as Kling points out), and two, the Song clearly describes something more akin to initial infatuation than the lifelong commitment necessary for a healthy marriage of many years. Perhaps this is why the Song regularly shows up in pre-marital counseling and books, but is rarely suggested for couples that have been together a long time.
I once believed that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs – whether one sees it as between God and the Church or God and the individual – was an unfortunate by-product of sexual repression. I see now that it is actually quite a lovely way of looking at it, if not entirely exegetically responsible. It gives everyone the ability to profit from the book, not just those in the throes of romantic desire.
I am also very intrigued by the feminist thoughts that Kling touches upon at the end of the chapter, particularly the notion of Phyllis Trible that the allegory “redeems a love story…gone awry” in the creation and fall of humans. When cursed, Eve is told she will long for her husband – but this is reversed when the woman in the Song says, “for me is his desire.” The love in the Song is a sharing between equal partners: “males are neither aggressors nor abuses, and females are neither passive objects nor victims.”[7] This is a beautiful way to teach couples about pure love for one another, and can also instruct the church community as a whole about respecting the dignity of all persons. Origen and Bernard saw the book’s human-to-human desire as a model for the desire of humans for God and God for humans. We can then carry the metaphor a step further, turning the model back again – the love of God exemplified in the Song instructs our love for each other.
Bernard’s idea of the Christian soul’s ascent to God may feel a little bit “out there,” but it is helpful for lifelong disciples of Christ who wish to find a deeper relationship with God (this is supported by the current popularity of the ancient practice of Lectio Divina, which Kling uses as the model for and example of Bernard’s teaching). The Song gives the modern-day pilgrim a description of, and great hope for, the joys of mystical connection with God.
All of this is to say that the allegorical tradition holds great truth for us, even though it does not agree with our modern exegetical standards. For it allows Christians to once again embrace the book, and teachers to find within it universally applicable teaching. It recaptures the Song’s accessibility for the modern church as a community, as well as individual members. And perhaps most importantly, it affirms the Song’s rightful place in the canon of Scripture as a document given by God to reveal Himself further to humankind.

[1] Kling, David W. The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.
[2] Ibid, 88.
[3] Ibid, 90.
[4] Ibid, 102.
[5] Ibid, 112.
[6] Ibid, 93.
[7] Ibid, 116.

Diary of a Bored White Woman

Okay, tonight you're going to get some real-time classroom action. I'm in the killer giant lecture class that meets three times a quarter (oh the horror) and we are subjected to some person telling us some large amount of information that we usually do not care about. In the 6 times I've had this three hour class, I would say maybe 2 hours of it has actually been interesting. Maybe 3.
It's sad because I so thoroughly enjoy my other classes. This one is so beneath my degree and my school.
Today was my last day of Exegesis and Theology and Art. I gave, with a brilliant partner, a great presentation on the religious imagination of Andy Warhol. We could have gone on for hours - and the class was really into it too. I was especially touched by someone who I'd never spoken with coming up to tell me what a great speaker I am. Bodes well for preaching!
And the last day of Exegesis...I nearly cried. That class has been everything I hoped graduate school would be. And it wasn't really the content, although I definitely grasped the subject better than in most classes. It was the privilege of sitting every day in the presence of this giant in the field, who would spend the majority of the class time telling us stories. It was so incredible. I was honored to be there every day.
Anyway after this super-high day of wonderful class I am listening to someone give me the Bowen model of...something psychological. Man. I don’t' know if I can deal with the counseling part of being a pastor. It's one of the things that keeps me from wanting to just be a parish priest. I find this so completely boring. Can't I outsource the counseling and just preach?
I'm going to see about working on my final paper for this class now. Around me, there is one person reading a magazine (amusingly, behind a notebook like it's porn or something), several people reading other books, several playing computer games (God bless the laptop), and actually quite a few more than usual who seem to be paying attention. Even taking notes. Yikes.
Oh, wait, no, that guy is doing his Greek workbook, not taking notes.
OK, on to the paper now.
I'm back. The paper is exhausting. It's a "family autobiography". Geezu, I've been through all this in therapy HOW many times? I know, it should be easy. But it's tiring. This is why changing therapists sucks. You just want someone to know you. Maybe I can just hand over this blog to my next therapist.
It's been all of 18 minutes since I started this little tome. And went off to write a few paragraphs and came back. Ay yi yi!
Isn't this kind of an interesting social experiment? Those of you who are teachers, be warned - it can be soooo painful if you are not interesting. I know, it's really me, not the teacher with the problem here. And yet. Sometimes you are listening to someone and you really would rather pull out your hair (I pull out my neck hairs, usually).
Tomorrow is my last new testament class. And that's it. Classes over for my second quarter. They were so good (except this one). I loved New Testament - the teacher, my first lady teacher, was very knowledgeable - you could throw anything at her and she could speak to it. And she'd give us an hour of her time every Tuesday to talk about whatever.
Oh, wow, not only are my classes nearly over, but I am almost done with all my work. I got another paper back today (I should post it - it's about Song of Songs), with a nice A. At this point, after turning in the Warhol thing today, I am down to 1 final (multiple choice), 1 paper (7-10 pages exegesis of 1 John 3:1-10 - I know, it's a killer passage, I might reconsider), and then this dumb class - the family autobiography and reactions to my small group sessions (which we did in two Saturdays instead of overall 10 weeks).
Plus they turned off my DSL. We called to tell them that on March 21 we want to switch to our new phone service at the new apartment. So they turned off our DSL on March 1. Nice. Which means that it's very hard for me to get online and post things like this and my papers. Because I am dealing with...get this...DIALUP. Holy shit. How did I ever deal with this? I can't remember life before DSL and I frankly don't want to. It was a dark, dark time.
Don't you just love the people who blatantly sleep in class? I am completely unable to do that. The natives are getting restless in here. There is rustling of papers. There is some talking. There are many blank stares. I think I will spend the last hour of class (yes, this class goes until 10, and I've been in class since 1) playing Solitaire. I kind of wish I had another game. I used to have a casino game but I got rid of it. That would be ironic, playing the slots during seminary class.
Just kill me now.
He's one of these who has a powerpoint, which he passes out, then he proceeds to read the slides. People, don't read the slides. I can read the damn slides for myself. I had a nice glass of wine before I came to class: a 2002 Sterling Vintner's Selection Central Coast Cab. It was a very cabby cab. Do you know what that means? Maybe a little too cabby. But if you like cab, a decent choice. I paid $8.50 for a glass. I'll bet the bottle doesn't cost much more at Beverages & More. But I only paid $1.95 for a burger, so dinner was still under $15 with tip.
Anyway I discovered early on that a glass of wine helps this class tremendously. Takes the edge off, as my neighbor says. He's playing games on his phone. The guy next to him stopped taking notes and is sleeping, and oh, shit, we have to talk to the people at our tables! I better pay attention to the topic.
Ha ha! He's not sleeping, he's playing games too! He's an old man and even HE'S bored!!
Well I got to sit with my own group and talk. Luckily we didn't talk much about the assigned topic. None of us, except the person who's had the speaker's class on the same topic, is enjoying this at all. Mr. Old Sleepy Game-Player Man is gone. My friend Pete seems to be able to write his paper now (he and I discussed at the break our inability to write papers while this speaker is yammering in our ears). That's my shout-out to Pete since he's a reader. : )
I'm hitting critical exhaustion. The headache begins. Oh, this is one of those classes in which attendance counts. And you have to sign something saying how much of each class you attended. Just in case you were wondering why so many people (100+) would sit through this excruciating experience. That and it is a required class (a 3-quarter long requirement!) for MDivs, and it's an easy A if you can take the lectures, so we all kind of band together and in solidarity we face the pain. Perhaps this is some kind of test from God. I have a friend here who thinks everything is a test from God. Can't say I can deal with living life that way - I guess tests are too negative. And give the impression you could fail. I don't think you can. That's why I'm studying I John 3:1-10! Ha ha!
Seriously, seriously, this is the most horrid thing ever. This is NOT what I came to grad school for.
Well he said something useful: if a pastor is asked to leave a church, it is almost never because of preaching or theology, it is because of emotional issues. Churches are like little family systems. With the attendant neuroses. I can tell that there is something good going on, my brain is just simply mush at the moment, and there's too much jargon for me. It's much too much for 9:24 p.m.
And who knows when this will get posted - I have to go home and collapse tonight and be back here at 8 am and then I'm even taking the day off to work on the exegesis paper so there won't be much time for DIALING UP and loading this into blogger.
Hey if anyone knows any outstanding commentary on I John I am all ears.
I have won solitaire three times in a row. I have been playing for several weeks (sometimes my attention needs the help) and never won once, now I've won 3 times. I should go to Vegas after this. I should go right now.
So basically I'm learning that theology is pretty much never the reason that churches split. It's because there is an emotional dynamic that needs to be satisfied - people can't deal with conflict directly and therefore need to split.
OK, I think he's going to go until 9:50. We usually get some grace and get out early (the class starts at 6:30 after all). But this dude ain't slowing down. It's 9:29. I am not sensing relief in my immediate future.
This reminds me of an illustration that my husband uses to help me deal with my insane fear of eternity (remind me to go off on that sometime): time moves so painfully slowly in classes like this and so unnervingly quickly in classes like my others. The fear is that the time in eternity will be more like the former. I try to think of it like the latter. Like when you go to Disneyland and you don't wear a watch (because that's part of the rules at Disneyland) and before you know it your 14 hours are up and the park is closing. Time really can fly - or actually, it's more like time just stops. It's inconsequential. It's happened during great movies, great conversations. But it's never long enough. And I suppose when it's eternity, it may finally be long enough. Is it possible for you to want something to go on really forever? I don't have anything on earth that I can think of (though I can think of things that I'd like to go for a really long time) but I'll bet God has something up His sleeve.
Now we're talking about the problems churches put upon pastor's families. This have I lived. It's part of why I fear being a pastor and also why I know it's doable. Without kids. And in a healthy church.
I think this has gotten long. And as an experiment in student thought and experience it's probably lost its luster. I wonder what our psychologist speaker would make of it. Maybe I'll email it to him.

Begging your pardon

I ask for patience as I am up to my ears in papers and research. I will post anything I find that is interesting, or heck, whatever I write that seems interesting too. In the meantime, here, read Bill Moyers:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852

The National Association of Evangelicals Revise Civic Engagement Policy

Lame-Ass Post

Hello, kids, I am so busy I haven't time for a real post but I figured as long as I'm sitting here at work I'd share with you some of the stuff I'm reading.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001727.php
A great article today in the Revealer by a Christian woman who went to work for - gasp! - an NPR station!

Here's another revealer story about the Passion: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_001711.php
And the Godspy article that prompted it:
http://godspy.com/reviews/Wrestling-with-the-Angel-of-Strangeness-The-Passion-One-Year-Later-by-Debra-Murphy.cfm

I'm writing a paper/presentation about Andy Warhol's spiritual side and I really dug this article:
http://godspy.com/culture/Andy-Warhol-Transubstantiating-the-Culture.cfm

And at the moment I'm listening to two of my favorite (unsigned) singers, who I am privileged to have as friends:
Mike Barnet http://www.mikebarnetmusic.com/
Chris Paul Overall http://www.chrispauloverall.com/

Check 'em out, download some mp3's. These guys deserve attention. Peace.