Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

[smartypants]

However, unlike some Christian commentators -- but like other Christian authors, commentators and teachers -- I don't see Jesus being Personally, specifically or even analogically described in the Song of Solomon. While Paul drew out the "bride" imagery especially in Ephesians 5 and John said similar things describing the New Jerusalem coming down to New Earth in Revelation 21, Song of Solomon is totally, solidly about Wuv, Twue Wuv and Mawwiage, humans only. Otherwise, the parallels would get really gross, really fast, and also not suitable for discussion here!

Yes, Jesus is not specifically mentioned, but does that truly mean that this book is not about the Bridegroom and His Bride? I think not. I have been taught that the book Song of Solomon is about the Bride and the Bridegroom. I have not seen any good "arguements" for this book being souly about human relationship. Yes, it can be read literally read as human to human love, but I believe that you have to go deeper and ask for the Lord to reveal it to you personally.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

If you really read Song of Solomon, there's some really interesting stuff in there that perhaps singles ought not read too often -- let's put it that way!

I know that Song of Solomon can be somewhat. . . graphic, but at the same time, we must remember the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I definitely wouldn't reccommend Song of Solomon being withheld from single people; I wouldn't reccommend withholding any book from anybody. Let people make up their own mind concerning what they read. After all, there are much much MUCH worse books out there rather than Song of Solomon. I would say that some books require more emotional development than others to read and understand. One certainly couldn't expect a three year old to pick up a book like Great Expectations and fully understand everything therein. Yes, they may be able to read the words, but they're not understanding. Reading the Bible is the same way. If we're developed enough in our spiritual lives than there isn't a single reason why singles shouldn't read Song of Solomon.

Just because a book has an intended audience doesn't mean that people outside that audience shouldn't be permitted to read it/permitted to read it in moderation. Along the same logical lines, one couldn't use any of Paul's epistles to lead the unsaved to Christ, for Paul's letters were written to Christians. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with me there, right ?

*Feels as if he's been disagreeing with his best friend rather a lot as of late . Hope ya don't mind my good Doctor.

[The Black Glove]

However, unlike some Christian commentators -- but like other Christian authors, commentators and teachers -- I don't see Jesus being Personally, specifically or even analogically described in the Song of Solomon. While Paul drew out the "bride" imagery especially in Ephesians 5 and John said similar things describing the New Jerusalem coming down to New Earth in Revelation 21, Song of Solomon is totally, solidly about Wuv, Twue Wuv and Mawwiage, humans only. Otherwise, the parallels would get really gross, really fast, and also not suitable for discussion here!

I have to disagree slightly here. While I agree that the Song of Solomon is about human relationship, it's also about Christ and the Church and the union which we as Christians have with Christ. This is why Christian marriage is structured the way it is: because, in a sense, the husband and wife are playing the parts of Christ and the Church--cool stuff.

Like with many sets of extremes, the answer is both.

TBG

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

I do agree with The Black Glove that the Song of Solomon can have a secondary meaning. It's similar to how Christ's love for the Church can also be seen echoed in the story of Ruth, or even the awed and loving response Adam exhibits when he first sees the newly created Eve. All of the Old Testament points to Christ in one way or another; I did not mean to imply otherwise.

But very often the allegories are secondary and sometimes readers miss the main point of a passage because they're determined to find the Hidden Meaning. (Sounds a bit like some readers' approach to The Chronicles of Narnia!)

I myself love more-direct allegory (which too often gets a bad rap). When I was younger, I ate up Pilgrim's Progress, and I find allegories popping up a lot, sometimes incidentally, in my own attempts at fiction.

But allegory can be overdone when one tries to find one-to-one parallels in even something like one of Jesus' parables. Augustine, brilliant as he was, tried to ascribe all kinds of odd one-to-one meanings to almost all the elements of Jesus' "good Samaritan" parable: he said the man making the journey was Adam, going down from Jerusalem (the heavenly city) to Jericho (equals the moon, meaning man's mortality) and that the robbers were the Devil and his demons. The Samaritan is thus supposedly Jesus, and his donkey is the flesh of His incarnation, and the inn where the Samaritan took the fallen man is the Church. Interesting, but I think it misses the main point of the parable about "who is my neighbor?".

Part of the misunderstanding about this has arisen because I didn’t provide a brief explanation for why misinterpreting the Song of Songs is a problem, or how (even incidentally) forsaking the Christ-loved-His-Church doctrine in certain hymns can lead people down all the wrong ruts of a wrong path. Without that, anything said could comes across as mere nitpicking.

I've been the victim myself of Christian nitpicking, even from the "Calvinistic" side, and I certainly don't want to pass along that unique joy.

I hope to offer more thoughts later about why overdoses on songs like "In the Garden" can be problematic not because of the song itself supposedly being Bad, but because of the very real risk of getting stuck in that mode of super-personal (even "Gnostic"-style) thinking.

But for now I'll stick with the Song of Songs issue.

The reason why I stress a "literal" love-poetry view of the Song first, instead of primarily an allegorical interpretation, is this: some Christians have too long a history of bypassing the plain unabashed-romance and physical love meaning of this book, and the fact that God made this and likes it and encourages it, because it makes people nervous or uncertain.

But with that bypassed, Christian marriages miss out on a lot, and have the view reinforced that more-direct romancing is something only for newlyweds or worldly people. Worse, ignoring the Song's primary meaning plays into the Godless culture's rather blasphemous idea that true pleasure, romantic/physical/mushy/whatever, can only be found apart from God, and God actually wants you to be all aesthetic and forsake pleasure altogether because that's the most Spiritual way to live.

Song of Solomon directly contradicts this lie with the truth -- that God created true and lasting romance and intimacy for loving, married couples. Very vivid, sometimes embarrassingly obvious descriptions of love, mush and more fill the chapters of the Song. They're not lurid at all; the descriptions are the height of tastefulness, especially because this is the Bible, but they are direct.

More about the Songs' interpretation throughout church history, compared with the literal human romance portrayed by the book, is in the book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. This is a great little layman-level guide (so I found it very helpful!) is all about the contexts of Biblical books and the best approaches to reading and comprehension the way the original hearers and readers would have understood it.

To be sure, the Song has a long history of odd interpretations called allegorizing. Because they were uncomfortable with its forthright, explicit exultation of human sexual love, some early interpreters—both Jewish and Christian—looked for a way around it. They found it in the allegorical “love songs” in the prophetic books—one way the prophets told the story of God’s love for his people, Israel, and how that love was rejected or abused (e.g. Isa 5:1-7; Hos 2:2-15). Since some of the same kind of language and imagery used by the prophets in these songs is also used throughout Song of Songs, they concluded that the Song was also an allegory. In an age when it was a common practice to allegorize virtually all of Scripture [here they refer to the pages of the parable example I cited earlier] some early church fathers argued that the Song should be read as an allegory of Christ’s love for the church. Indeed, an early church council (A.D. 550) forbade any other interpretation, so that it has prevailed until recent times.

But even on the surface, that is obviously not what the Song is about. Rather, it centers on human love—love between a man and a woman, celebrating both this love itself and their attraction for one another. After all, nothing in the prophets reads like this(!):

They then quote Song of Solomon 4: 1-4, which has a lengthy, dated description of the Beloved by her lover, who uses all kinds of metaphors, highly complimentary in Jewish Middle-eastern culture, to describe how he sees his bride. It's an approach other authors, playing both theologian and marriage counselor, encourage husbands (and wives too) to take for their brides. Yes, write her poetry based on your shared culture, telling her how you feel about all her wonderful attributes, they say. That includes physical attributes, and physical delights -- i.e. heavy mush.

It's for that reason that I suggested that maybe reading the Songs should be limited -- at least studying more deeply the imagery contained therein. But I did leave open that perhaps that was just my personal view.

So DiGs, I don't mind disagreeing with you at all if the disagreement is real! But I think again you've misread me as recommending the opposite error, when I haven't suggested swerving from "let's read the Songs all the time, because it's all about Jesus as the Bridegroom" to "let's never read the Songs, because it's way too salacious and tempting." Again, I recommend a balance between both extremes.

But like the book of Ruth primarily describes the very real story of Naomi, Ruth and Boaz (with echoes of redemption and Christ's love for the Church), Song of Songs is primarily about the joys of love, romance, mush and more in a very human marriage. Folks, I don't want to start posting verses here to prove that you simply cannot apply all of it to Christ and the Church. That's why I said things could get really gross, really fast.

I do note, though, that some people overdo this. A certain pastor whose views I mostly agree with likes to blare out all the Songs' subtle meanings in public, in church, with even more overt descriptions, with singles and little children and everybody listening. I don't know if that is appropriate, at least not in public. In private it's a different matter.

Finally (addressing smartypants' comment), though absolutely the Spirit gives a sort of enlightenment about what He inspired to those who are of Him (1 Corinthians 2:14), we also need to keep in mind how the original readers would have understood a text.

One should not read into a literal passage an allegorical meaning, or into a nonliteral, artistically honest Psalm -- such as the "imprecatory" Psalms that express hostility toward the infants of enemies! -- precedent that carrying out these actual actions are okay. Similarly, one should not read the Song and ignore or downplay its very real, very human meanings.

As a genre, the Song of Songs is not (primarily) allegory. This is not limiting Scripture, or saying there is no secondary meaning. But the main message of the Song is extolling the joys of human marriage and the attractiveness of lovers to each other.

Its closest parallels are indeed the love poetry of the Old Testament and elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the context of which was not just love of any kind but attraction in marriage. Love songs were probably sung routinely at wedding banquets and had great meaning for those involved. They speak of attraction, fidelity, warding off the temptation to cheat, the preciousness of love, its joys and pleasures, and the dangers of infidelity.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on all this. For now, I'll end, and come back later with more thoughts that I should have offered first, about why not just the "In the Garden" song itself, but getting stuck on those themes and not moving on to others as well, can be harmful. Maybe you haven't seen situations in which that has occurred. But I know of one I can relate to some extent, and maybe help others consider why this is a problem in a church, and also help explain that this isn't just controversy for the sake of controversy, or theological nitpickin'.

[220chrisTian]

I'll post something on the Song of Solomon discussion later. Right now, I want to talk more about the personal relationship issue, especially in Christian songs--then and now. Dr. Ransom, I think you make a good point about

getting stuck on those themes and not moving on to others as well, can be harmful.

There's more to the Christian life than what God does for us, yes? There's also worshipping God for who He is. It occurred to me last night that most Christian songs have 3 audiences: the Trinity, other believers, and unbelievers. Self shouldn't be one of those. When it is...

Also, most Christian songs have four basic messages or themes:
1. God's character, which produces worship = we look up.
2. Asking God to do X [save, heal, deliver, lift burden, etc] for us, like a prayer = we look up.
3. Praising God for doing X [salvation, healing, deliverance, etc], like a testimony = God did X for me and He'll do the same for you = we look out [believers and unbelievers].
4. Looking forward to our eternal home in heaven [death, rapture, Second coming, etc] = we look up and out.

Many Christian songs celebrate our personal relationship with Jesus, from the moment of salvation until we enter heaven. They celebrate the Christian life, the amazing truth that God in Christ is always WITH us! We celebrate the "with"! But the focus in such songs should still not be on us. It should be on Him and other believers. It's when the focus is on us that a song becomes sick and theologically questionable. Again, as you mentioned, we need a good mix of songs both about the Christian life [God "with" us, not just "us"] and songs about Jesus--His character, beauty, and goodness.

You said you didn't like some of the lyrics to "In the Garden." [Gaither song on Youtube, couldn't resist. ] I think it's a beautiful portrait of our spending time alone with Jesus. We need both personal and corporate worship and Bible study in our lives, not just one or the other. Spending time with God in church and nowhere else, on Sunday and no other day, can make us spiritually sick! Trust me, I know! We need that personal time alone with God. But we can't rely on personal worship and not spend time with other believers either. That can make us spiritually warped too.

1. "In the garden" ... maybe like those that appear in Song of Solomon?
2. "And He walks with me and He talks with me / And He tells me I am His own" ... How does God do this? Through His Word! One night this March God woke me up with these words from Isaiah: "Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee on the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me" [49:15-16]. In April, I was reading my Bible one morning when my eyes were suddenly glued to "A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation" [Psalm 68:5]. You have no idea what a comfort it is to know that God is a father of the fatherless, that I can call Him "Abba, Father" [Romans 8:15]. Jesus literally "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am His own"!
3. "And the joy we share as we tarry there / None other has ever known" ... I don't think it means that no one else knows God's joy. I think he's saying God's relationship with each individual is unique! It's different. Paul's relationship with God wasn't Peter's, and so on. Why? No two people are alike!
4. "And the melody that He gave to me / Within my heart is ringing" ... has God ever given you a song in the night [Job 35:10]? He does this for me often! Sometimes it comforts me, other times reminds or rebukes. God also gives us "songs of deliverance" [Psalm 32:7] and I'm grateful! This is what Selah's "I bless Your Name" [Acts 16, Paul and Silas in prison] and "Praise the Lord" are all about: "Reach out and praise / Defy those chains / And they will fall / In Jesus' Name!" ... "For the chains that seem to bind you / Serve only to remind you / That they drop powerless behind you / When you praise Him."

[smartypants]

Finally (addressing smartypants' comment), though absolutely the Spirit gives a sort of enlightenment about what He inspired to those who are of Him (1 Corinthians 2:14), we also need to keep in mind how the original readers would have understood a text.

I understand it may be important to understand how the original readers would have read it, but we are not the original readers. The great thing about God (one of the many things that is) is that in the OT, while Christ was not physicallly there, He was hinted at many times.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe Song of Songs is literally about human relationship, but it is also, in my beliefs, about Christ and the church.

[The Black Glove]

I do agree with The Black Glove that the Song of Solomon can have a secondary meaning. It's similar to how Christ's love for the Church can also be seen echoed in the story of Ruth, or even the awed and loving response Adam exhibits when he first sees the newly created Eve. All of the Old Testament points to Christ in one way or another; I did not mean to imply otherwise.

Why I say that it is both an allegory of God's relationship with Israel/the Church is because really, that's what marriage itself is meant to be: an allegory of God's relationship to His people.

As for Ruth, the point of the book is to tell us how God brought about the birth of David.

TBG

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

3. "And the joy we share as we tarry there / None other has ever known" ... I don't think it means that no one else knows God's joy. I think he's saying God's relationship with each individual is unique! It's different. Paul's relationship with God wasn't Peter's, and so on. Why? No two people are alike!

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but you make a very valid point here. I share your opinion that the song is talking about an individual's relationship with God.

To say that God convenes with us all identically is absurd. He created us to be separate individuals. Each of us has our own besetting sin, our own logic, our own set of ethics. Yes, they're all drawn from scripture (well, not the sin part ) but they're all different. If God had wanted a bunch of robots, he would have created us that way. Differentiation of the human species, is perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments that God, in His inifinite wisdom, ever invented.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

To say that God convenes with us all identically is absurd.

But no one said that, DiGs.

C’mon, brother — do you think I think that God’s relationship with each one of His sons and daughters is not custom-formed and unique? Some of you seem determined to ascribe to me (even in a general sense) the opposite error as soon as I point out where the possibility of another error exists. Why is that? Perhaps no one means it personally, but it’s kind of hard to avoid taking it that way.

Please don’t ignore what I’ve already said that I’m not advocating belief in the opposite-extreme error. What I’m saying is not black-and-white either you must believe this, or you must believe that. I’m saying, and have said, both/and. Technicolor. Re-read the both/and parts:

What I’ve been trying to say is not a false either/or dichotomy, but both/and, and pointing out that the song seems to be based only on the assumptions of one "side" of it.

It would be like singing a song only about how God is wrath, and punishes sin and sinners, without also mentioning His mercy and lovingkindness.

Perhaps instead of saying the song "dismisses the truth that Christ founded a community of believers, even an ‘organized’ one, and Christians collectively have this relationship with Christ," it would have been better to point out the risk involved when people who have that ideal sing this song, and others like it, and read those kinds of devotionals, and buy into that idea and don’t have anything taught at church to contradict it.

None of you seem to think that way — I think I used to — but many people do. Don’t dismiss that very real danger just because you haven’t seen it, or felt it, yourself. Saying, in effect, "well, what the song says is not a problem for me, so it’s not a problem!" seems more "fatalistic" than anything them annoying "Calvinists" have said on here.

I’ll [. . .] come back later with more thoughts that I should have offered first, about why not just the "In the Garden" song itself, but getting stuck on those themes and not moving on to others as well, can be harmful. Maybe you haven’t seen situations in which that has occurred. But I know of one I can relate to some extent, and maybe help others consider why this is a problem in a church, and also help explain that this isn’t just controversy for the sake of controversy, or theological nitpickin’.

Now perhaps I can do that, and show why concern about not just a particular song, but a mindset echoed in it, is valid. Again, you may not have seen it — you may have only seen the opposite error — but it’s real. And to some extent, if you don’t know the chance that if might affect you exists, it might affect you and you don’t know it.


For those of us who know mostly the Christians at our churches, it’s unlikely to run into the sorts of people who do over-personalize their relationship with Christ and dismiss the importance of Christ’s Bride on Earth. I’ve suffered from those wrong ideas myself, and rejoiced to find the truth (though not yet total victory over the wrong ideas) that Christians need to balance and have both personal and collective growth in delighting in and knowing God.

Too many professing evangelicals say things like "I love God, but I don’t need a church." Or they do acknowledge the Church, but not a need for growth in (Biblically supported) local churches.

There’s a whole demographic of people who like to refer to themselves as the "emerging church," as if they’re the sole holdouts of real living-the-gospel Christianity, and existing established churches are all or mostly cesspools of legalism and hypocrisy. I doubt people like that would love "In the Garden" any more than I do, but their sentiment is similar: I have a personal relationship with Jesus and that’s all I need. Some of them downplay or reject the Biblical truth that God made His people to be part of a community, the Church Christ founded and loves — yes, "organized religion," with pastors, elders, deacons, a hierarchy of mutually accountable servant leaders, followers and everyone to grow together.

That’s the "emergent church." But some of you may be more familiar with the kinds of Christians who do attend real churches, who believe it’s a good thing, but have still overdone the "me and Jesus" thing. Maybe they had more-rigid backgrounds that overdid the "you and the church" thing and they want to go the other way, or maybe they’re naïve, or else just set in their ways. I’m not talking about "baby" Christians here; rather, I’m talking about the churches are full of old folks — God bless ‘em — but they’re hooked on milk-theology, too-simple ways of thinking about God that not only C.S. Lewis but Paul said needed to be grown out of, in favor of using all the brains we can muster, as Lewis phrased it.

Someone I know well — let’s call him Elmer — recently ran up against this phenomenon. Elmer is a part-time music director at his church and recently tried to point the church members to more-Biblical standards of worship. Making music and singing to the Lord, especially for a special music performance (or presentation), should be done with similar standards for preaching a sermon or teaching a Sunday school class, Elmer tried to say. You ought not just get up there and not know if what you’re singing is Scriptural or not (and by the way, it’s not too good to get up there after not having even tried to practice).

But Elmer’s suggestions got shot down, because they were against the church’s status quo. Though it’s hard to know people’s hearts, it’s also hard not to avoid discerning the reason: mature Christians who should know better are still drinking spiritual milk, or spiritual baby food, and refusing to move on not only to new songs but to deeper and meatier knowledge of, delight in, and love for the Savior.


A Scripture about this could seem cold or legalistic — or worse, self-congratulatory — when quoted without first quoting all the Biblical book’s wondrous truths of how everything believers have is what Christ has given them! Still, I’ll attempt it here, from Hebrews 5:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Hebrews 5: 12-14 (ESV)

Here’s another one, more specifically about worship, from Colossians 3:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Colossians 3:16 (ESV)

My concern is not nearly so puny as picking just on the "In the Garden" song. But what if you were a church that only wanted to sing songs like "In the Garden" because that’s what it has always done? What if they only wanted songs about how me and Jesus are best buds, and didn’t want even to try songs about the need for evangelism, or the other aspects of God’s nature, or Jesus’ mission to die and take the penalty for sin? Maybe you see now why that would be an issue — and why liking or singing only songs like "In the Garden" would not help at all.

No one’s trying to ban "In the Garden" that I know of. I’m not. But regarding Christians who want only the messages of the song "In the Garden," and refuse to grow into other truths of God as well — neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews (possibly the same person?) encourage letting them stay where they are spiritually and not ever "picking" on them. Rather, they encourage such folks to go "further up and further in."

Here’s hoping this is clearly communicated, and isn’t read (again) as simply "he doesn’t like ‘In the Garden’; he thinks all people are robots," etc.


Now, I need to do this (as I did on the Facebook page from which I pulled and e-cycled a lot of what I’d written) to get the tune out of my head. Another little Christian-ish song, long lost to relatively recent history, that’s been making the rounds.

And here it is, from a 1980s band (or something) called "Sonseed."

Most cool Christians — including my wife — consider it especially dorky. But, well, I must admit — I kind of like it. It’s dare-I-say "cute," in an early-80s-dorky, hyper-pop-evangelical, so-bad-it’s-good sort of way.

I mean — this is even good theology!

"He is like a Mountie!
He always gets His man
And He’ll zap you any way He can
(Zap!)

"Jesus is a Friend of mine
Jesus is a Friend of mine ..."

I can get into that. (But of course, I wouldn’t want to sing only songs like this or focus on this truth alone!) Go look at the YouTube video. It won’t get stuck in your head. I promise. Really, it won’t.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

My dear Dr., and very good friend, I never meant those words to you. I never meant them to anybody. They were merely general observations that apply to the created world. They apply to nobody (or everybody I suppose ) I'm sorry if it seemed like I was targeting you, as that was not my intent whatsoever.

[220chrisTian]

I’ve suffered from those wrong ideas myself, and rejoiced to find the truth (though not yet total victory over the wrong ideas) that Christians need to balance and have both personal and collective growth in delighting in and knowing God. Too many professing evangelicals say things like "I love God, but I don’t need a church." Or they do acknowledge the Church, but not a need for growth in (Biblically supported) local churches. Some of them downplay or reject the Biblical truth that God made His people to be part of a community, the Church Christ founded and loves — yes, "organized religion," with pastors, elders, deacons, a hierarchy of mutually accountable servant leaders, followers and everyone to grow together. . . .My concern is not nearly so puny as picking just on the "In the Garden" song. But what if you were a church that only wanted to sing songs like "In the Garden" because that’s what it has always done? What if they only wanted songs about how me and Jesus are best buds, and didn’t want even to try songs about the need for evangelism, or the other aspects of God’s nature, or Jesus’ mission to die and take the penalty for sin? Maybe you see now why that would be an issue — and why liking or singing only songs like "In the Garden" would not help at all. No one’s trying to ban "In the Garden" that I know of. I’m not. But regarding Christians who want only the messages of the song "In the Garden," and refuse to grow into other truths of God as well — neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews (possibly the same person?) encourage letting them stay where they are spiritually and not ever "picking" on them. Rather, they encourage such folks to go "further up and further in."

You make some good points! And I sort of already addressed this in a previous post.

Most Christian songs have four basic messages or themes:
1. God's character, which produces worship = we look up.
2. Asking God to do X [save, heal, deliver, lift burden, etc] for us, like a prayer = we look up.
3. Praising God for doing X [salvation, healing, deliverance, etc], like a testimony = God did X for me and He'll do the same for you = we look out [believers and unbelievers].
4. Looking forward to our eternal home in heaven [death, rapture, Second coming, etc] = we look up and out.

. . . But the focus in such songs should still not be on us. It should be on Him and other believers. It's when the focus is on us that a song becomes sick and theologically questionable. Again, as you mentioned, we need a good mix of songs both about the Christian life [God "with" us, not just "us"] and songs about Jesus--His character, beauty, and goodness. . . .We need both personal and corporate worship and Bible study in our lives, not just one or the other. Spending time with God in church and nowhere else, on Sunday and no other day, can make us spiritually sick! Trust me, I know! We need that personal time alone with God. But we can't rely on personal worship and not spend time with other believers either. That can make us spiritually warped too.

We need to sing songs that are Biblically based, which is why I prefer songs with scriptural lyrics and why I have Psalms and Gospels playlists on my Youtube channel. Also, we need personal and corporate time with Jesus. By the way, I should add probably another category to my list of Christian songs above: missions, evangelism, seeking the lost. I have a Youtube playlist for that, too.

Okay, Song of Solomon!

Yes, it can be read literally read as human to human love, but I believe that you have to go deeper and ask for the Lord to reveal it to you personally.

If we're developed enough in our spiritual lives than there isn't a single reason why singles shouldn't read Song of Solomon.

Agreed! I have a suggestion for all of you. First pray for open eyes and ears. Pray for God to reveal Himself to you. Then read this book.

As a child, I thought Song of Solomon was a bit graphic but after reading it as a, yes single, adult, I have come to love its beauty, to admire its different levels of meaning, to bask in Jesus’ love for me. Few verses seem gross or overly revealing to me. Yes, it celebrates the marital love between Solomon and a Shulamite woman. This is the literal meaning. But we cannot forget the spiritual implications! The Jews read it at every Passover [God and Israel]. And what is Passover? The literal feast in Exodus and the celebrations thereafter spiritually foreshadowed and was fulfilled at Calvary. The same is true for Song of Solomon. It spiritually foreshadows and is a fulfillment of the love between Christ and His bride the church. And what makes that possible? Calvary! The theme [and symbolism] of sacrifice is abundant in this book, for it makes possible a holy love between Christ and us [just like sacrifice is the key to victory and peace]. If we neglect any level of meaning, we are in error. In this book, the king marries a humble shepherdess, like Jesus marries the church. What’s our entrance into the church? Humility at the foot of the cross! And Solomon gives the bride his name! [Remember the name discussion in the "Marriage" thread? ]

FYI: Scofield Reference Bible: “Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, whereas saintly men and women throughout the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. . . .The book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained by God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust—the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. Its [simultaneous!] interpretation is threefold: (1) as a vivid unfolding of Solomon’s love for a Shulamite girl; (2) as a figurative revelation of God’s love for His covenant people, Israel, the wife of the Lord . . .; and (3) as an allegory of Christ’s love for His heavenly bride, the Church. . . .” (705).

Note: The Holy Spirit revealed this to me as I was reading the book. I have not read this anywhere else [i.e. man’s interpretations]. It’s called comparing scripture with scripture, independent research.

1:2: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for thy love is better than wine.” 1:4: “We will remember thy love more than wine.” 4:10: “How much better is thy love than wine!”

Let’s compare these verses with 2:4: “He brought me to the banqueting house and His banner over me was love.” King David described something similar in Psalm 23:5: “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with oil, my cup runneth over.” What is our banqueting table? What do we feast on? What is our meat and drink? The Word! Oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. And it is He who reveals Christ to us, through the Word. The Hebrew word for “banqueting” in 2:4 is yayin, which means “wine (as fermented); by implication, intoxication." Christ’s love is better than wine. We should be intoxicated with Him, not with alcohol! We should “be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit” [Eph 5:18]. A similar word to yayin appears in 2:14, when the king calls the bride “my dove.” The Hebrew is yownah. At Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descends on Him “like a dove” [Matt 3:16]. This is Christ’s anointing for service [i.e. Lev 8:12]. But why does the king call his bride a dove? Jesus tells us to be “harmless as doves” [Matt 10:16]. And Paul says in Philippians, “Do all things without murmurings and disputing, that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” [2:14-15]. According to Scofield, in 2:14 “it is revealed what the bride is as seen in Christ, ‘My dove.’ In herself she is most faulty; in Him, ‘blameless and harmless’ (Phil 2:15), which is the very character of the dove” (706n3). When we are filled with the Spirit, we will be intoxicated with Jesus, anointed for service.

1:3: “Because of the savor of thy good ointments, thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.”

Let’s compare this verse with 1:12: “While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.” Does this sound familiar to you? It should! In Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 7 [debated], and John 12, as Jesus is sitting at a table, Mary breaks “an alabaster box of precious ointment and pour[s] it on his head” [Matt 26:7]. Jesus says, “She did it for my burial” [26:12]. What is the significance of this? Before He was arrested, Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane with His disciples (Matt 26:36, Mark 14:32, Luke 22:39, John 18:1). In Aramaic, Gethsemane means “oil-press” and comes from the Hebrew words gath and shemen. Gath means “a wine-press,” itself a Hebrew word that in one form, puwrah, means “crushing the grapes” and comes from the word puwr, which means “to crush.” In the Bible, this image frequently refers to God’s wrath [Isaiah 63:2-3, Lam 1:15, Rev 14:19-20, 19:15.] Shemen means “grease, espec. liquid (as from the olive, often perfumed); fig. richness.” In the Old Testament, oil was used to anoint priests [see Ex 30:30, Lev 21:10]. David said, “How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments” [Ps 133:1-2]. He’s describing when Moses anointed Aaron the great high priest with oil, for service in the tabernacle [Lev 8:12]. Jesus Christ the Messiah, our great High Priest, was anointed for service at His baptism in the Jordan River (Matt 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:31-34). [In Greek, Christ (christos) means “anointed” and comes from chrio, which means “to smear or rub with oil . . . to consecrate to an office or religious service.” In Hebrew, Messiah (mashiyach) means “anointed, usually a consecrated person” and comes from mashach, which means “to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; . . . to consecrate.”] So what is the significance of Gethsemane—crushed oil? On the cross, Jesus was crushed in the winepress of God’s wrath, the curse of God on sinners; physically, emotionally, and spiritually, He suffered what we should have suffered at the hands of God for our sins.

What’s the point of all this? That Christ must be broken. When He fed the 4000 and 5000, Christ blessed and broke the loaves and fishes [Matt 14:19, 15:36, Mark 6:41, 8:6, Luke 9:16, John 6:11]. He blessed and broke bread at the Last Supper [Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19], saying “This is my body which is broken for you” [1 Cor 11:24]. So also Christ’s body was broken on Calvary and His blood poured out for us sinners so His anointing can flow through us. We would not know God’s healing for broken bodies, lives, and souls except through Calvary, where Jesus was “broken and spilled out” for us. The name of Jesus is like a healing balm [Jer 8:22, 46:11], truly “ointment poured forth” [Song 1:3]!

1:12: “While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.”

The Hebrew for “smell” here is reyach, which comes from ruwach, a word that basically means wind or breath and is frequently translated as "spirit," i.e. the Holy Spirit. When His anointing flows through us, there is a sweet smell or fragrance! Paul says that God “maketh manifest the savor [fragrance] of His knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ” [2 Cor 2:14-15]. He uses the word again in verse 16 to mean “aroma.” And in Ephesians, Paul admonishes us to “walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor” [5:2]. What is Paul referring to here? When Noah offered a sacrifice to God after the flood, “the Lord smelled a sweet savor” [Gen 8:21]. In the wilderness, God told the Israelites to burn various offerings unto Him as a “sweet savor” [Ex 29:18]. The phrase “sweet savor” is ubiquitous in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. How do we exhibit this “sweet savor of Christ” [2 Cor 2:15]? When we “walk in the Spirit” [Gal 5:16] and “crucif[y] the flesh with the affections and lusts” [5:24]. We must be “crucified with Christ” [2:20].

Many spices with sweet fragrances are mentioned in Song of Solomon: “camphire, with spikenard, spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense, myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices” [4:13-14]. Frankincense and myrrh: do they sound familiar to you? They should! When the wise men visited Jesus, “they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” [Matt 2:11]. Why? Well, myrrh is a burial spice. After the Romans crucified Jesus, “they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh, but He received it not” [Mark 15:23]. After Jesus was taken down from the cross, in preparation for His burial, Nicodemus “brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes” [John 19:39]. And the caravan that buys Joseph as a slave and takes him to Egypt [an event foreshadowing Christ on the cross!] consists of “Ishmaelites . . . from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh” [Gen 37:25]. Jesus is the “balm in Gilead” [Jer 8:22, 46:11]. Myrrh is also a wedding spice. The Shulamite woman says, “A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts” [Song 1:13]. The king and bridegroom is “perfumed with myrrh and frankincense” [3:6]. [See also 4:6, 5:1, 5, 13.] The harlot Solomon warns his son against in Proverbs says, “I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon” [7:17]. In Esther, the women chosen as a potential bride for King Ahasuerus are given beauty treatments, “six months with oil of myrrh and six months with sweet odors” [2:12]. And in his prophetic psalm of the king [both Solomon and Christ!], David says, “All thy garments smell of myrrh and aloes and cassia” [45:8]. Finally, myrrh is used in anointing oil. God tells Moses to make the anointing oil for priests of “pure myrrh . . . sweet cinnamon . . . sweet calamus . . . cassia . . . and of oil olive” [Exodus 30:23-24]. Frankincense, like myrrh, is a wedding spice [Song 3:6, 4:6, 14]. But it is also incense used in Old Testament sacrifices, specifically the meat offering [Lev 2:1-2, 15-16, 6:15, Neh 13:5, 9]. God tells Moses to “take . . . sweet spices, stacte [gum from the myrrh tree!], and onycha, and galbanum . . . with pure frankincense . . . and thou shalt make it a perfume . . . tempered together, pure and holy” [Ex 30:34-35]. He also tells Moses to “put pure frankincense upon each row” of the shewbread, a symbol of the Word [Lev 24:7].

“Lord Jesus, make me a sweet savor of You in every place, that others may come to know You. Make me blameless and harmless, without rebuke. Help me walk in the Spirit.” Let this be our prayer today.

Songs from Song of Solomon
"Oh draw me Lord" [Selah] - 1:4
“Daystar” [Brooklyn Tab] – 2:1, 5:10
“He is fairer than the lily of the valley” [Brooklyn Tab? Maranatha?] – 2:1
“He’s the lily of the valley” – 2:1, 5:10
“The rose of Sharon” [Savior Oratorio] – 2:1
“Come away, my love” [Gaither #118] – 2:10-11
“Arise, my love” [Newsong] – 2:13 [Christ’s resurrection! EASTER! ]
“His banner over me is love” – 2:4, 16
"My Beloved" [Kari Jobe, CFNI] - 2:10, 3:7
“Love is the flag [banner!] flown high from the castle of my heart” – 2:4

Book: Hannah Hurnard, Mountains of Spices [allegory]

EDIT: Creation vs evolution
Someone sent me these links earlier today, with quotes by T. H. Huxley.

1. "'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being." --quoted in Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429. "An admission by Darwin's bulldog" Obviously, belief in God is what he refuses to admit.
2. "That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith." "Understanding the Origin of Life: What Has History Taught Us?"

[Pattertwigs Pal]

I have been having a lot of trouble with what one of the pastors at my church said last weekend. I have quoted a good deal of it below. It should be enough for people to get the gist of the message. I would like to hear others’ opinions on it. I don’t want to state my views as to why I’m having trouble with it because I want others to read it with an open mind.

Let me start with scripture. The way I read the Bible recognizes that the divine story is constantly dealing with the tension between our human desire to know what is right and wrong and what’s good and bad, and God’s desire for us to know life and how God does everything possible to keep us from knowing death. It’s a tension that goes back to the Garden of Eden. If you remember there were two trees that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. It is significant that the tree they found the most tempting, the fruit that seemed to them to be the most delicious was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And of that tree they ate and spoiled it forever. In the end, the only tree left protected by cherubim with a flaming sword was the tree of life. And ever since, we have been consumed with knowing what is good and evil after God had long ago given up on it in favor of bringing life to the world.

We see God’s disregard for good and evil throughout the scriptures because if God really cared about who is good and who is bad God would have been more careful in those he chose to be the key players in his plans for the life of the world. Instead God paid little regard for the rightness or the wrongness of people like Abraham, Moses, David, and all the rest. God doesn’t see it as a problem because the one and only thing God cares about is life and God will use even the most despicable characters there are to make sure that death doesn’t have its way.

And this is exactly why Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees were always butting heads. The Scribes and the Pharisees kept asking him about what was right and what was wrong and he kept telling them stories about finding life; life within and life with God and life with others. He even broke the law on occasion and did things that weren’t kosher to make his point. He wanted them to see that God isn’t worried anymore about what is right or wrong or about what’s good or bad, God’s only concern is for life in all its fullness.

And in the early church, when the believers started down that same old path of wanting to know good and evil once again, the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let them get sidetracked. The early believers, as Jews, thought everyone who followed Jesus needed to be a Jew first. In their minds it was no good to be a gentile and, at the same time, a Christian. Finally, Peter was led to the house of Cornelius, who was not only a gentile, but Roman soldier, and when Peter saw that his household, considered by Jewish standards to be all wrong and not worth entering, was alive with the Holy Spirit, he concluded that there was nothing to keep them from being baptized on the spot. He remembered that Jesus was all about life and nothing else. …
in my mind, the Bible is not a book about naming what is good and bad or what is right or wrong; it is ultimately a book about finding life; life within, life with God, and life with others. …

[FencerforJesus]

First question. Does the rest of your church believe this stuff? If so, I'd recommend looking for a different church. This whole sermon is loaded of "this is what I believe the Bible should be saying" instead of this is what is says. First off, he says from the beginning, "The way I read the Bible is...". Anyone who starts off with this must be treated with caution. I find it interesting how he can reference so much and yet only pick out the parts he wants. Yes, the issues of the conflict between good and evil is seen frequently in the Bible, but that is the not the central issue. Yes, God is interested in life, but that is not his primary purpose purpose. Now, I will go through paragraph by paragraph and point out where this pastor has gone off on a rabbit trail.

He says the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the most tempting. More tempting than what? The had only one choice to make. To eat of the tree or not. It wasn't that Adam and Eve went straight to the tree after creation. We don't know exactly how much time was between creation and the Fall, but we do know it was enough time for Lucifer to fall from heaven. Satan was created during the same time frame as every one else, and at that time God call it all good. So we do know that Satan's fall took place before Adam and Eve. He also metions God long ago giving up on the garden I guess. He doesn't understand who God is. There is no Plan B with God. What he sets out to do, he will accomplish.

Now here is where we really must be careful. [quote=pastor] We see God's disregard for good and evil throughout the scriptures...God would have been more careful in those he chose to be key players.[/quote]. Think about this. If the battle between good and evil was so important, God would most definately care about it. The god this pastor is preaching is not the God of the Bible, Jehovah. One read through Exodus 20-Leviticus and you will see how serious God takes sin. He struck down Ananias and Sapphira for lying in Acts 5. Achan sinned in Joshua 7 and it leads to Israel's defeat at Ai and his entire family being stoned. This pastor says nothing about the mercy and grace of God and how repentence leads to salvation. Abraham, Moses, and David all sinned. And all of them were punished accordingly. But they still sought after God and because of faith, repentence and ultimately, God's mercy, they were considered righteous.

Next paragraph, right and wrong had nothing to do with the Jesus butting heads with the Pharases. That was just the tool the Pharases used to go after Jesus. They didn't like Jesus because they had control over the people with their legalistic approach to what the Torah said and Jesus was showing them what it really said. Jesus was oftern not kosher, but he never, ever broke the Law. He broke the Pharases interpretation of the Law and set them straight, using the Law to straighten them out. He then says Jesus' motive was that God was only interested in life and its fullness. Yes Jesus did say he came to give us not just life, but abundant life, but he very wrong in saying God is worried about what is right and wrong anymore. God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He never changes.

Then he goes into the early church and the Apostles. He has the whole story about Peter and Cornelius out of order. Peter was ready to accept them before he got there, when Jesus told him the Law was fullfilled and the regulations didn't need to be continued. At that time, yes, early Christians did believe one needed to become a Jew before becoming a Christians. The fact that they beleived it was true, but that doesn't make what they believed true. Peter didn't remember that "Jesus was all about life and nothing else". He was told that the Law was fullfilled and what was once available only to Jews was now available to Gentiles.

He concludeds that all of that was his opinion but he was preaching as though everyone else should follow that position. This again is very dangerous to listen to. A pastor/teacher needs to start with the Scripture, formulate an opinion about it, let it get tested with the Scripture, then if it passes pass it on. This pastor started with an opinion that is completely devoid of the Gospel and along the lines of "God loves you and don't worry about anything else, especially the issue called sin in your life....". I strongly recommend taking anything you hear this pastor say and slam it against the Word. When he references Abraham, Moses, or David, go to the Genesis, Exodus, or Samuel and find out for yourself what these people were really like and how God treated them. When you read the Gospels, Jesus never got into the nit-picky with the Pharasees, but he does take sin very seriously ("if you right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out").

This reminds me a lot of a show I watch on TV from time to time called "Wretched" with Todd Friel. It plays on a Christian station in El Paso at 2:00 on weekdays and he addresses the hipocrasy he sees in the church and Christian leaders, always backing up his comments with the Word. I will say he can get a little rough on the judgemental side of things, but he will help you to cross-reference what you hear with the Bible and see what stands. I will pray however that this pastor will get a wake-up call on what he is believing and teaching.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Fencer -- great rebuttal, typos included -- I can tell you got really into this and I'm so glad you did. I just read it all aloud to both myself and my lady, here, on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

(Nice to see the shout-out for "Wretched," too. We were just listening to Todd Friel's Thursday radio broadcast during our less-lazy portion of the day, cleaning the kitchen.)

Two main points to enhance and put in italics from Fencer's rebuttal:

Jesus did not rebuke the Pharisees just because they followed the Law all the time. This is a lie to say that's what they were about. The Pharisees not only made up rules around the Law, but completely misapplied its intent, and especially so when they rejected the Savior and Messiah to Whom the Law was intended to point.

Without this truth, any teaching about "God loves" without the truth of sin's reality and the need for repentance will simply become "try a little harder" legalism that kills. If you downplay the reality of sin and the need to mourn over it and repent, you also throw out the reason for rejoice. The Bible, life itself, and even worse God Himself, are flatlined. There's no reason to mourn or rejoice. That is not only a boring story that appeals to selfishness, but it robs God of His glory.

Again, thanks for taking care of that, Fencer. And Pattertwigs Pal, I especially hope that was helpful for you.

[FencerforJesus]

I will have to admit I have had to learn to start discerning what a speaker says in comparison to the Bible. I have found myself taking speaker by his word and not really crossing it with Scripture. My church had a guest speaker that so happened to be right after Hurricane Katrina and he said a number of things that were very hurtful, even if unintended (my pastor did regret that decision). I have to confess that I took his word for it at the time and it has been recently that God has been warning me about that.

I have to be honest. For a while, I had respect for Joel Osteen because of his standing as a Christian preacher. I was awakened to what message he gives through "Wretched" and Todd Friel has shown me to judge a message by the Word of God. There are some (aside from those whom he warns us about) that still would question how he goes about it, but his message is real.

Just two days ago, (Thursday) my Intervarsity Chapter played a video for our Bible study. I don't remember what it was called or who the guy speaking in it was. But this guy is sitting in his room, watching an elderly woman shoveling a driveway from snow and he goes into the history of what it meant to be a disciple of a Jewish Rabbi and the history of the educational system of the Jewish boys. He described why Peter got out of the boat when Jesus walked on the water. He said it was because Peter wanted to be like Jesus and do what Jesus did. After that, he went on to indicate that the reason Peter sank wasn't he lack of faith in Jesus but lack in faith of himself. He also went on to claim that we can do anything as long as we have faith in each other. The video concluded with showing the woman shoveling her neighbor's driveway.

While the historical background to the whole thing was good, this guy's application to the story was off. He gave no reference to the fact that Jesus was God and it was only through Jesus' power as God that enabled Peter to walk on the water. He also never said anything that none of the other disciples, who were with Jesus for the same purpose as Peter, to follow thier Rabbi, didn't try to walk on the water. And he blamed Peter's sinking on his lack of faith in himself. This is not right. It is only through Jesus we can do anything remotely productive, let alone walk on water. He also failed to mention that Peter never walked on water again. So by that fact alone, we know that Peter's ability to walk on water was not from within. This guy had an interesting approach to the subject but because he started with the historical background and not the Word of God, he (hopefully inadvertently) ended basing his interpretation of the Bible on the historical aspect instead of seeing how the Bible was written to the understanding of those at that time. So be careful on what you read and what you hear. If it doesn't match every aspect of the Bible (because the Bible is the completely consistant, inerrant Word of God), be wary. You can't take the "God is Love" aspect without also taking the "God is Pure, Holy, Just, and Righteous" aspects.

This is yet another reason why I say it is so critically important for us to know what the Bible says. Satan is a really good liar and I will be honest in saying that he pretty well knows the Bible better than we do. And as Paul warned several times, especially to the Corinthians, watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing. Not every pastor is preaching God's message. One of Satan's best tactics is to get one of his servant's into a high position in one of our churches to corrupt it from the inside out. This includes bringing in false teachers and a false message to keep people from seeking after God. And with our propensity to drift away, it doesn't take much. That is why Paul also tells us to keep our guard up and watch out. So what does the Bible say? Take that to be the truth and anyone says anything about it, put the two together and take only what stands. The Bible always will stand true and its words will never pass away.

[Pattertwigs Pal]

Again, thanks for taking care of that, Fencer. And Pattertwigs Pal, I especially hope that was helpful for you.

Yes, thank you Fencer. It did help me.

First question. Does the rest of your church believe this stuff?

No, I’m pretty sure they don’t. Obviously, I had trouble believing it or I wouldn’t have posted it here. The pastor who was giving this “talk” said in part of it I didn’t quote that he might be wrong. This particular pastor isn’t my favorite, and this isn’t the first time I’ve had problems with his interpretation of the Bible. I didn’t quote the part where he said he might be wrong because I wasn’t sure if he actually meant it, and it didn’t relate directly to the parts I did quote. I’ve put it here in case anyone is interested.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this. My brothers and sisters who read the Bible differently than me could be the ones who have it right. And if they are I pray God will give me the eyes to see and the ears to hear the truth I’m missing. When it comes to the will of God, I don’t presume to have all the answers. That’s why we need each other; we always need people around us who think about things in a different way than we do. We need people who can challenge our assumptions and question our logic so that we don’t make God into an image of our own limited design. God is much bigger than any of us can imagine and it is only in our diversity of thought that we can keep from putting God in a box. We always need to be humble enough to acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong so that we can really hear what God wants us to hear.

I strongly recommend taking anything you hear this pastor say and slam it against the Word.

I try to compare what he says to the Word or at least question it thoroughly. I really felt that he was wrong in this particular case, but I was so shocked and troubled by it I didn’t really know where to start. I guess what I was really looking for was support from others who were detached from the situation. I’m feeling much better now. I’m no stranger to the Bible (I try to read a chapter a day and attend a Bible Study once a week. I’ve read through the whole thing 2-3 times). However, I’m not so good at remembering where I’ve read things or if I’ve read them in the Bible or formed the belief by reading what others have written about the Bible. I notice that people on this forum seemed a good knowledge of the Bible and where things are located, so I thought this would be a good place to go for opinions.

Satan is a really good liar and I will be honest in saying that he pretty well knows the Bible better than we do. And as Paul warned several times, especially to the Corinthians, watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing. Not every pastor is preaching God's message. One of Satan's best tactics is to get one of his servant's into a high position in one of our churches to corrupt it from the inside out. ... So what does the Bible say? Take that to be the truth and anyone says anything about it, put the two together and take only what stands. The Bible always will stand true and its words will never pass away.

I find this helpful advice too. I think it is very true as well.