My older brother has been a subscriber to Sports Illustrated for many years. Every so often, because he knows I am a sports addict also (but too cheap to get my own subscription), he bundles up a stack of issues and gives them to me. And I devour them, catching up on month’s old sporting news that I missed and reading about events that I saw but didn’t read quite enough analysis (if that is even possible - if there is one thing that is over analyzed in our country it is sports on all levels. But I digress.)
For the purposes of this Bible Study, however, I mention this only to make this one observation, in all the years of handing me stacks and stacks of Sports Illustrated magazines, he has never once passed on the Swimsuit Issue.
For those who don’t know, every year sometime in February Sports Illustrated publishes the famous (or infamous) Swimsuit Issue. Page after page of nubile young women, posed in exotic locals, wearing tiny bits of cloth (or not wearing tiny bits of cloth) that are presented as this year’s designs of bathing attire that won’t be worn by human beings anywhere on the planet - unless you are a model for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Because they aren’t designed to be worn by 99.9% of the bodies in the world. There is even information given as to the makers of the suits and the costs and where you can buy them, but won’t in all likelihood.
Which, of course, begs the question as to why such an issue is even published by this mainstay of sports reporting. If they aren’t selling swimsuits then they must be selling ... um ... magazines. The issue is one of their biggest sellers, but it elicits a variety of responses. Some subscribers write in about how much they love it and look forward to the issue on a cold February day. Others write in to complain about the issue saying it amounts to pornography or at the very least tackiness. And lest I go any longer impugning my brother’s reputation, I suspect that the reason he has never passed on a copy of the Swimsuit Issue is because he doesn’t get one. Sports Illustrated lets you opt out of that issue when you subscribe, and knowing my brother I am sure that is what he has done.
ESPN the Magazine has gone one further and publishes yearly what they call “The Body Issue.” Athletes from a variety of sports, both men and women, are chosen to pose naked or nearly so, artfully arranged so as to cover specific parts. Again, the response to such a pictorial is wide-ranging to put it mildly. Some are offended, others compare the photographs to ancient art like Michelangelo’s David, still others are titillated by the hint of hidden flesh.
The body issue. There are those that argue that the church has a body issue. But rather than displaying them, we hide them, or are embarrassed by them, or simply ignore them. Bodies, and what you do with them, just isn’t something that you are supposed to talk about in church, right? We are of a much more spiritual bent, or so we like to believe. Besides there was Paul with all this “flesh vs spirit” stuff, which certainly gives the impression that bodies are bad, or at least less important than spirit - whatever that is.
And that’s the thing, we can point to bodies, but we have a harder time identifying spirits. It is something ethereal, something disconnected from where we live and breathe and have our daily being. Which is a part of what contributes to the idea that our faith is not really very useful in the real world. Let’s face it, when we do talk about bodies it is in the negative. Don’t do this with your body, don’t let your body do that, don’t, stop, quit. For shame.
That’s where we end up. For shame. Bodies are sources of shame. So cover them up, hide them away, consign them to the darkness, let us never talk about this again. Which brings up the question in your mind, no doubt, why did I bring all this up? What in the world could this have to do with any part of the bible? Well, funny you should ask. The question I chose to respond to this week was from the section titled “I would like to know more about____” And someone, don’t blame me, wrote in “Song of Solomon.”
Ah, you are thinking to yourself, that explains it. That’s the book we used to sneak looks at when we were kids. The one that actually mentions a variety of body parts that don’t often appear in sermons. Well, I grabbed a few verses to read and chose, call me coward, to pick a few of the more tame verses to read on Sunday morning. But it is really the whole book that is up for examination during worship. Take a look:
Song of Solomon 2:8-13 The voice of my beloved! Look, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, bounding over the hills. 9 My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look, there he stands behind our wall, gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice. 10 My beloved speaks and says to me: "Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; 11 for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone. 12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land. 13 The fig tree puts forth its figs, and the vines are in blossom; they give forth fragrance. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. ... Song of Solomon 8:6-7 Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly scorned.
Not so bad there, was it? There are a couple of fascinating things about Song of Songs (which is the title I prefer, which actually translates at The Best Song, or The Greatest Song) or Canticles (which is another title, which means song or chant of praise - in this case in praise of love, or even of bodies). One of those fascinating facts is that it is the only book in the whole bible that is told largely from a woman’s perspective. The verses in a woman’s voice outnumber those in the man’s voice. The second thing is that like Esther, this book never mentions God.
Or does it? Historically, commentators have insisted that this isn’t about human love at all, it only appears to be so. It is really about the love between God and God’s people, or from the Christian point of view, between Christ and the Church. Or, since it is mostly from the woman’s point of view, it would be the love the church has for Christ. Now that’s interesting isn’t it?
But I can’t buy the allegorical interpretation completely. Certainly it is about God and God’s people, but it is also about bodies, about human love expressed with joy and with mutuality, in intimacy and passion, within the context of covenental relationships. Yes, I realize that last clause changes everything. It calls into proper question the display of bodies for monetary gain, or purposes of seduction, or objectification. It honors a relationship sealed and blessed by God. But within that there is a celebration of the physical expression of love. Or the physical dimension of love, because expression sounds somehow less than profound. Love is physical as much as spiritual or mental or emotional. We can’t say to be in love if we never act lovingly.
A key understanding needed to appreciate the Song of Songs is that in Jewish thought, we don’t inhabit bodies, we are bodies. Soul and body aren’t so separable in Jewish teaching. So maybe we just need to get over our body issues. We are made, it says in Genesis, in the image of God. I know that doesn’t mean God looks like you, or, heaven forbid, like me. But it does mean that we carry in our bodies something divine. Maybe that is worth celebrating, worth paying attention to, worth taking care. Worth singing a song of praise. The body issue.
Shalom,
Derek
For the purposes of this Bible Study, however, I mention this only to make this one observation, in all the years of handing me stacks and stacks of Sports Illustrated magazines, he has never once passed on the Swimsuit Issue.
For those who don’t know, every year sometime in February Sports Illustrated publishes the famous (or infamous) Swimsuit Issue. Page after page of nubile young women, posed in exotic locals, wearing tiny bits of cloth (or not wearing tiny bits of cloth) that are presented as this year’s designs of bathing attire that won’t be worn by human beings anywhere on the planet - unless you are a model for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Because they aren’t designed to be worn by 99.9% of the bodies in the world. There is even information given as to the makers of the suits and the costs and where you can buy them, but won’t in all likelihood.
Which, of course, begs the question as to why such an issue is even published by this mainstay of sports reporting. If they aren’t selling swimsuits then they must be selling ... um ... magazines. The issue is one of their biggest sellers, but it elicits a variety of responses. Some subscribers write in about how much they love it and look forward to the issue on a cold February day. Others write in to complain about the issue saying it amounts to pornography or at the very least tackiness. And lest I go any longer impugning my brother’s reputation, I suspect that the reason he has never passed on a copy of the Swimsuit Issue is because he doesn’t get one. Sports Illustrated lets you opt out of that issue when you subscribe, and knowing my brother I am sure that is what he has done.
ESPN the Magazine has gone one further and publishes yearly what they call “The Body Issue.” Athletes from a variety of sports, both men and women, are chosen to pose naked or nearly so, artfully arranged so as to cover specific parts. Again, the response to such a pictorial is wide-ranging to put it mildly. Some are offended, others compare the photographs to ancient art like Michelangelo’s David, still others are titillated by the hint of hidden flesh.
The body issue. There are those that argue that the church has a body issue. But rather than displaying them, we hide them, or are embarrassed by them, or simply ignore them. Bodies, and what you do with them, just isn’t something that you are supposed to talk about in church, right? We are of a much more spiritual bent, or so we like to believe. Besides there was Paul with all this “flesh vs spirit” stuff, which certainly gives the impression that bodies are bad, or at least less important than spirit - whatever that is.
And that’s the thing, we can point to bodies, but we have a harder time identifying spirits. It is something ethereal, something disconnected from where we live and breathe and have our daily being. Which is a part of what contributes to the idea that our faith is not really very useful in the real world. Let’s face it, when we do talk about bodies it is in the negative. Don’t do this with your body, don’t let your body do that, don’t, stop, quit. For shame.
That’s where we end up. For shame. Bodies are sources of shame. So cover them up, hide them away, consign them to the darkness, let us never talk about this again. Which brings up the question in your mind, no doubt, why did I bring all this up? What in the world could this have to do with any part of the bible? Well, funny you should ask. The question I chose to respond to this week was from the section titled “I would like to know more about____” And someone, don’t blame me, wrote in “Song of Solomon.”
Ah, you are thinking to yourself, that explains it. That’s the book we used to sneak looks at when we were kids. The one that actually mentions a variety of body parts that don’t often appear in sermons. Well, I grabbed a few verses to read and chose, call me coward, to pick a few of the more tame verses to read on Sunday morning. But it is really the whole book that is up for examination during worship. Take a look:
Song of Solomon 2:8-13 The voice of my beloved! Look, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, bounding over the hills. 9 My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look, there he stands behind our wall, gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice. 10 My beloved speaks and says to me: "Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; 11 for now the winter is past, the rain is over and gone. 12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land. 13 The fig tree puts forth its figs, and the vines are in blossom; they give forth fragrance. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. ... Song of Solomon 8:6-7 Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. 7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly scorned.
Not so bad there, was it? There are a couple of fascinating things about Song of Songs (which is the title I prefer, which actually translates at The Best Song, or The Greatest Song) or Canticles (which is another title, which means song or chant of praise - in this case in praise of love, or even of bodies). One of those fascinating facts is that it is the only book in the whole bible that is told largely from a woman’s perspective. The verses in a woman’s voice outnumber those in the man’s voice. The second thing is that like Esther, this book never mentions God.
Or does it? Historically, commentators have insisted that this isn’t about human love at all, it only appears to be so. It is really about the love between God and God’s people, or from the Christian point of view, between Christ and the Church. Or, since it is mostly from the woman’s point of view, it would be the love the church has for Christ. Now that’s interesting isn’t it?
But I can’t buy the allegorical interpretation completely. Certainly it is about God and God’s people, but it is also about bodies, about human love expressed with joy and with mutuality, in intimacy and passion, within the context of covenental relationships. Yes, I realize that last clause changes everything. It calls into proper question the display of bodies for monetary gain, or purposes of seduction, or objectification. It honors a relationship sealed and blessed by God. But within that there is a celebration of the physical expression of love. Or the physical dimension of love, because expression sounds somehow less than profound. Love is physical as much as spiritual or mental or emotional. We can’t say to be in love if we never act lovingly.
A key understanding needed to appreciate the Song of Songs is that in Jewish thought, we don’t inhabit bodies, we are bodies. Soul and body aren’t so separable in Jewish teaching. So maybe we just need to get over our body issues. We are made, it says in Genesis, in the image of God. I know that doesn’t mean God looks like you, or, heaven forbid, like me. But it does mean that we carry in our bodies something divine. Maybe that is worth celebrating, worth paying attention to, worth taking care. Worth singing a song of praise. The body issue.
Shalom,
Derek
No comments:
Post a Comment