Great stuff, 220chrisTian, as usual!

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!

"Eewwwwww!"

(That may be the first time I used the Spare Oom Twue Wuv series mascot here in the Christianity series.)

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! Well, that was the case for me, anyway.

Fully agreed that we need both truths, that Christ died in place of both for the Church corporately, and individuals personally. Depending on a believer's heritage or previous exposure to imbalanced or wrong teaching, his/her friends or teachers might want to stress one or the other to him. But as with many things, one must be careful to avoid throwing the pendulum back in the opposite direction.

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.

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.

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

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'.

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]. 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]. 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]? He does this for me often! Sometimes it comforts me, other times reminds or rebukes. God also gives us "songs of deliverance" [Psalm 32] 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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Let’s compare these verses with 2 “He brought me to the banqueting house and His banner over me was love.” King David described something similar in Psalm 23 “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]. 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]. This is Christ’s anointing for service [i.e. Lev 8]. But why does the king call his bride a dove? Jesus tells us to be “harmless as doves” [Matt 10]. 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 “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 “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 it on his head” [Matt 26]. Jesus says, “She did it for my burial” [26]. 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]. 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.