Since he made a point of preaching through the book in 1999 and did a big rerun in 2008 Mark Driscoll's preaching and approach to Song of Songs raises the question of what even an ostensibly conservative reading of the book entails. As Michael Spenser asked years ago, what, exactly, is a "conservative" Christian reading of Song of Songs? It is, in some sense, emblematic of the tensions and difficulties in contemporary American conservative Protestantism. I'm in Seattle and he's the biggest conservative Protestant preacher in town so he's a useful local example but I want to move quickly from his example to how conservative Protestants address (or don't address) salient issues in Christian sexual conduct from time to time.
Conservative Protestants who have taken issue with Driscoll's handling of Song of Songs reveal that even among conservative Protestants there is not a consensus as to what a "conservative" reading of the text is. Michael Spenser was right to ask what a "conservative" interpretation of Song of Songs was in a contemporary American evangelical setting. It was not without some cause I proposed that in Driscoll's hands Song of Songs became "adventures in Christian porn with Mark Driscoll". With God as my witness, before I heard Driscoll insisting that Song of Songs chapter 2 refers to a woman enjoying oral sex with her man I couldn't even conceive of the text having that meaning. Now it's the only interpretation lodged in my mind by dint of only hearing that application of the text preached. Whether or not that's the best reading of the text it is impossible to infer that Driscoll and his wife have not practiced that practical application of the text. After all, if he preached the same application enthusiastically in sermons as far apart as 1999, 2002, and 2008 nearly a decade's difference would have highlighted any change in his approach to the biblical text.
I heard all the 1999 sermons and excused myself from the 2008 series. There's little by way of edification a never married man will gain from a four month long series extolling the wonders of wifely stripteases and oral sex. Just go look at the promotional materials for Peasant Princess and ask if it wasn't going out of its way to be cutesy and a big sales pitch. As for the 1999 time, Driscoll mentioned in his Reformission Rev book from 2006, he got into the book because he was frustrated by how little sex he was getting and by other problems in his marriage. I'm glad things, uh, got worked out for him and his wife. Given the sheer number of times he's said from the pulpit that Song of Songs 2 extolls the wonder of oral sex between husband and wife I cannot wonder whether he has applied the text in this way numerous times. I heard him clearly the first time so I excused myself from getting four months of reruns of a two month sermon series from nine years prior.
I stand by my observation that when Driscoll explicitly rejects typological interpretation in Song of Songs he presents himself with a conundrum--if all scripture properly interpreted points to Christ (since Jesus said so in gospels written by Luke and John) then why is it that Song of Songs does not have any chance of referring to Christ as the bridegroom and His people as the bride? Why is Song of Songs chiefly about wifely stripteases and oral sex? What is the actual basis for claiming Solomon's first love was Abishag when Kings tells us his first wife
was an Egyptian, a foreboding warning that Solomon's reign was off to a dangerous start? Why would we be explicitly told Solomon's married an Egyptian if it was known that he married Abishag? I won't contest that Solomon and Abishag sittin' in a tree sounds more cute and romantic than Solomon marrying an Egyptian and forming a political alliance but which, given that his father was David, seems more likely? Did David marry for love? Well, in any case, whether it's Driscoll's Peasant Princess or Ed Young's sermons on sex, sex sells, even if you're a conservative Protestant.
But at the end of the day Driscoll and many other conservative Protestant pastors must boil their sermons down to "Do as I say, not as my wife and I actually did." I've known a handful of conservative Protestant pastors in my time and I can't think of the number of them who didn't do things before marriage they have regretted since marriage. Even the conservative Protestant preachers are fornicators, so what practical advice do they have for the unmarried? Then there are the married pastors who didn't fornicate but are married. Traditionally it is understood that Jesus said that if you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery with her in your heart. So it's good not to lust but what, precisely, is the dividing line between sexual desire and lust? In traditional Christian teaching there appears to be no division. Generally what happens at a practical level is conservative Protestants hope to baptise sexual desire between straight consenting adults as fast as possible in the form of marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment