Old news for musicologists--it's nothing compared to the flurry of highly eroticized counter-reformation church music that appeared in the early 17th century. For obvious reasons, settings of the Song of Songs were particularly popular in that moment, but the musical settings of that era go way beyond the typical conventions in often strikingly transgressive ways. I'd describe, but this is a family blog...

If these contemporary worship songs are merely portraying Jesus as a boyfriend, then Lisa should count herself lucky!

Phil Gentry

This is an old problem (look at the statue of St. Teresa for an extreme case -- or read her). The trick is to get through the metaphor of complete sexual union with one's lover to the complete union with God. Given the present climate, the chances of a sniggering distraction are very high, even in high-minded, prepared seekers. And the number of teeny boppers (or whatever they are today) with "I [heart] Jesus" bracelets just feeds the flames. Yet there is great truth there to be proclaimed. It just is that "It is no secret", with interchangeable lyrics, is not the way to do it. I think.

Well, let's make sure nobody tells her about Psalm 63...

Let's not forget the Song of Songs...

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth."
"Let my beloved come into his garden and taste choice fruits."
"I have taken off my robe... My beloved thrust his hand through the opening, my heart pounded for him... I opened for my beloved."

The problem is not the sexualization of the Divine. The problem is the desecration of sexuality.

The Simpsons commented on this:

"Christian rock's just like regular rock; you just replace the word "Jesus" with "baby".

Uhh, doesn't anyone here watch South Park? This was the exact story line they used when Cartman decided to make a best selling Christian album by taking pop love songs and substituting the name 'Jesus.'

To do a minute's apologetics, the evangelical charge to "write a song about Jesus that could also be about your boyfriend" isn't supposed to mean "write a sappy song about Jesus." Instead, it's connected to a theology that your most intimate relationship in life can be with God, and this comes through Jesus's humanity. (We incarnation-loving Anglicans ought to be fine with at least half of that)

The trick to their charge is an assumption that most people don't spend much of their day in theological contemplation. The intimacy they DO know? Romance.

Back when I was studying Greek, we'd often laugh about how little any of us were trained in English grammar. Sure, there IS a subjunctive ("If I WERE to write that . . ." vs "If I WAS to write that . . ."), but we don't know to call it that. Fewer and fewer of us can even use it properly. Where do Americans learn grammar these days? When they study a foreign language. Where do Christians learn about the intimacy of relationship with God?

I'm not sure that setting the imagination to work on whether it is or isn't like a relationship with your boyfriend or your brother is a bad thing.

The REAL thing I think needs work is the tools the average person has available to think theologically. I'd rather have a provocative pseudo-romantic praise song than a hymn people sing on autopilot.

But we're the denomination ridiculed by Eddie Izzard; can't we have our cake and eat it too?

Adam Wood FTW!

[What is it about those Carmelites? From Teresa de Jesus's "tranverberations" to Juan de la Cruz's prelude to "Dark Night of the Soul": ALL about the smexy times w/ God! :-0]

JC Fisher