tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post5483785011789932261..comments2024-03-13T19:43:37.378-07:00Comments on From Bitter Waters to Sweet: WTH on Driscoll's SOS part 4bMara Reidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16385458933795539928noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post-78200652895498426102011-10-12T19:17:08.892-07:002011-10-12T19:17:08.892-07:00I have been convinced for years that Driscoll has ...I have been convinced for years that Driscoll has the world's biggest tin ear for poetry. He doesn't think in poetic terms but in terms of propositional statements and formal arguments. This isn't just manifest in his approach to Song of Songs, it's also revealed perhaps even more tellingly in the fact that in fifteen years he's never done any substantial preaching from the Psalms. He did some okay work in the 2004 Advent series going through the songs in Luke but that was obviously more than half a decade ago.Wenatchee the Hatchethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13208892745502555715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post-30871062003724400912011-10-10T23:12:09.110-07:002011-10-10T23:12:09.110-07:00I have really enjoyed your series, Wenatchee, and ...I have really enjoyed your series, Wenatchee, and I really appreciate Mara's putting you on as a guest blogger.<br /><br />I have not heard any of Driscoll's teaching about SoS, but it sounds like what he has been doing is using it as a tool to get his wife to do whatever he wants in the bedroom. Whatever SoS is, it is NOT about "you'd better do this for me, wife, because the Bible says so!" Such an attitude goes completely against the spirit of giving with which Paul told married couples to approach sexual relations in 1 Cor. 7. Me-centeredness, rather than, "how can I show you love?" is inappropriate in marriage.<br /><br />If I'm understanding Driscoll's interpretation correctly, I think Driscoll completely fails to understand how poetry works. SoS is, first and foremost, a poem. There is a primary meaning of romantic love, and certainly we can move from there to metaphorical meanings. That's part of what poetry does. <br /><br />But this whole business about homo-eroticism in the application of the metaphor to Christ and ourselves, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the community vs. the individual. It is not as individuals that we are the Bride of Christ. Is is the church, the community, that is the Bride-- therefore, literalizing the husband-wife metaphor into something physical between Christ and any individual, simply falls apart. Jesus deliberately refused to go there, by never taking a mate on earth. Driscoll has no business going there, and then rejecting where he just went in order to strip the poetry of any typological application. The poetry needs to be allowed to bless us with its beauty, not be reduced to a sex manual.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post-78907010809682745552011-10-10T16:09:44.322-07:002011-10-10T16:09:44.322-07:00There are many ways to read SOS, and even more ass...There are many ways to read SOS, and even more assumptions apparently on how to read it. It is not even clear how many parties are in conversation, that is how many actors there are to be when it is put on as a play.<br /><br />Driscoll made a hack of 1 Tim 5 by wearing his blue lenses, he should remove them so he can see more clearly.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post-3506816666244491132011-10-10T15:41:22.554-07:002011-10-10T15:41:22.554-07:00Unfortunately the Abishag theory has been the linc...Unfortunately the Abishag theory has been the linchpin of his teaching on SoS since as far back as 1999 and he has stuck with it since. Sure, he can joke as of 2008 that if he had to bet "your mortgage" he'd wager the woman is Abishag, but he doesn't even get around to subjects such as whether the man is Solomon and whether or not, as some scholars contend, Solomon is probably the villain in the poems trying to steal the shepherdess from the shepherd. There's not discussion of the possibility that make-believe as part of the play among married people could account for Solomonic references in the work. Driscoll also skates past the polygamy and references to concubines in his effort to build his interpretive approach around Abishag and Solomon being in a monogamous relationship when the songs were composed. Even if I were discussing Driscoll's interpretation of Song of Songs as JUST being about sex I would have issues with how he approaches the text. <br /><br />If Driscoll had a history of introducing any of the above points instead of hanging his whole expository approach on his Abishag/Solomon theory I'd be able to take him ever so slightly more seriously. By his own account he turned to SoS because he was frustrated by the lack of sex he was getting in his marriage. He has been vocal in proclaiming that 1 Timothy 5 says that stay-at-home dads are sinning and this demonstrates a history of reading his own conscious and personal concerns into biblical texts and then applying them as universal precepts. I'm glad that he felt guilty that he let his wife be the breadwinner at the expense of her health but attempting to claim that 1 Timothy 5 speaks against stay-at-home dads is a free-spirited extrapolation from Paul's isntructions to Timothy about who should and shouldn't be on the list of widows taken care of by the church in Ephesus.Wenatchee the Hatchethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13208892745502555715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421420703803149726.post-73320630050107216372011-10-10T09:24:37.883-07:002011-10-10T09:24:37.883-07:00I do not think there is any question that Driscoll...I do not think there is any question that Driscoll does not suffer from an inferiority complex.<br /><br />I have not heard of this Abishag theory before, but it is clearly just that, a theory.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.com