Friday, March 31, 2006

Song of Songs (2): a little hymn and a little history

Song of Songs doesn't get a whole lot of air time in the churches I've been to. And for a text that's identified as a 'song', it doesn't get sung much. The one exception I can think of is a chorus we used to sing in Sunday School, 'His banner over me is love'. For which I still have a soft spot! Historically, however, there have been a few attempts to make the Song 'singable' - one of the few is by the godfather of hymn-writing, Charles Wesley.
Let me start with a little context for this hymn. It comes from a series of hymnbooks that Charles Wesley published in the mid-eighteenth century, entitled 'Short Hymns on Select Passages of Holy Scripture'. Together, these hymnbooks make up a kind of poetic commentary on the whole of Scripture. They include 21 hymns on the Song of Songs. The following is the first hymn in the series (the title indicates which verse Wesley is responding to).

'The song of songs, which is Solomons - i. I.
1. Hence ye profane! far off remove
Ye strangers to redeeming love,
Sinners, who Jesus never knew,
The song of songs is not for you!
Away ye worldly goats and swine,
Who trample on this pearl Divine,
Which only wisdom's sons esteem,
While fools and infidels blaspheme.

2. With deepest shame, with humblest fear,
I to Thine oracle draw near,
To meet Thee in the holiest place,
To learn the secret of Thy grace:
Now, Lord, explain the mystery,
Display Thy precious self to me,
And when Thou dost the veil remove,
My heart shall sing the song of love.

3. Thou heavenly Solomon Divine,
To teach the song of songs is Thine,
Thy Spirit alone the depths reveals,
Opens the book, and breaks the seals:
O might I find the bar removed,
And love my Lord as I am loved,
This moment gain my heart's desire,
The next within Thine arms expire!

What I find most interesting about this hymn is the tension about the text that it communicates. Anxiety that it will be misunderstood by 'the profane' (presumably those unbelievers who read the Song as a poem about human sexual experience), but also concern that it will be unintelligible to the believer. It is a text that must be approached 'With deepest shame, with humblest fear'; the language of veils, depths, seals and bars suggests that its meanings are hidden. Even when understood as an allegory, the use of the erotic as a metaphor is one that Wesley clearly experiences as dangerous.
Wesley's hymn certainly supports my overall suggestion that Song of Songs has historically been seen as a disruptive text. Why? Well, plenty of other people have written about the historical and theological reasons that Christians have worried about sex. In the Methodist context, though, I think the erotic is particularly dangerous because it's a threat to self-control. Early Methodists placed a very high value on the mastery of one's own body and emotions. Sex was one of the greatest challenges to that mastery (the other, I would argue, was suffering). How frightening, then, to read a text that deliberately describes and evokes sexual desire. And how important to begin any reading with a strong denunciation of 'profane' interpretations and with an attitude of 'shame' and 'fear'.

4 comments:

Simone R. said...

Do you think that this hymn would have ever been sung? The only context that I can imagine it being used would be after a passionate sermon on S of S 1:1 urging correct interpretation.

Did Methodists preach on the song, or was it considered too dangerous for public hearing?

Joanna said...

The hymn might well have been sung, although it seems more likely to me that these collections of 'Short Hymns' were used for personal devotion. I don't think there were any objections to preaching on The Song - John Wesley wrote about it in his commentaries on Scripture.

W. said...

Interesting, to say the least. I have heard it said quite a few times and from quite a few different types of sources that, after the Gospels, the Song of Songs was the most often commented upon book of the Bible ... that is, until the Reformation and the split into the many denominations. The alleged resistance to discussions of sex and/or the general protestant attitude towards sex that you have alluded to are what I have been told squelched the Song of Songs from frequent commentary. Just stating what I have been told. I am not an expert on the protestant mindset during those centuries so can only consider what others say about it.

Thanks for the post. Will keep reading.

Joanna said...

Thanks W. - my own reading about the Reformation (and again, I'm no expert!) would suggest that it's not quite as simple as that. The medieval church treated the Song as an allegory, not as a celebration of erotic desire, and it was in that context (following Bernard) that it was read and appreciated. While in one sense you could see the Reformers as pro-sex (after all, they affirmed marriage rather than celibacy as the ideal Christian state), they seem to have been pro-marriage and pro-procreation rather than pro-sexual desire. There are some interesting exceptions in the development of Protestantism - the Moravian pietists, who were the theological descendents of Jan Huss, were very enthusiastic about sex and gave marriage and sexual counselling to their members and others.