Greetings Everyone

Let me begin by saying, Wow!!! We expected a bit of controversy, but this subject is as controversial as the 2000 presidential elections in Florida. You'll see we're more than fair and include both sides to the The Original Love Song quest in the radio interviews, and in the blogs below. But I'm afraid that some have erroneously judged the product, dismissing it as another sleazy marketing ploy before having had a chance to listen to the entire presentation in the proper setting.

Even though we expected these types of responses, it still genuinely saddens us. These critical type responses could cause many to miss out on the message portrayed in The Original Love Song... a message of loving communication between a man and woman in a committed relationship. The Song of Solomon is one of God's greatest gifts toward that goal.

Although the Song can certainly be made into an allegory, that is not its intent. And seeing it as allegory certainly puts limits on its potential as a tool to help grow a relationship into what God illustrates throughout the Bible... a relationship that shares, trusts, connects and understands. That is intimacy!

With regards to the music being paganstic, as far as we're concerned, that theory couldn't be further from the truth. The music structure is based on a natural system of mathematics and frequency intervals. These documented and measurable 'natural resonant frequencies' are produced on Earth, by the Earth. And if I remember my Bible correctly, Earth was created by God. That's pretty much it. Nothing sinister or paganistic at all.             back

And still most importantly, the entire Original Love Song is word-for-word from scripture. We did not make anything up for titillation's sake. Strict copyright laws do not permit us to print the text, but I assure everyone that this is the real deal. We spent three months dwelling over each line from six different translations of the Bible. There were many debates and interpretations amongst the narrators themselves as to which line was most appropriate, it's meaning, and it's intention.

Deb and Lauren had absolute, final say over the sensual dialogue. There was no way on this Earth that they would have permitted anything but the word of God to be spoken. And Deb strongly voiced her opinion from day one that she would take no part in a production about the Bible that was sexy for sex sake. They have seventy years of church between the two of them... do think I am going to argue with them? :)

Here are some comments and reactions posted on an excellent blog. To view the entire thread please visit challies.com. There were so many responses that with their permission, I copied a few diverse comments/responses from his blog, and pasted them below.

COMMENT BY WEBMASTER (commenting on an opinion from another popular and well received blog webmaster)

Just a few minutes ago, Ingrid posted a link to a new product called "The Original Love Song."

Ingrid says, "no, Mr. Bickel, that's not what we're "all" looking for. Why do we need Christian porno to titillate? I really believe that we're going to see a day when there will be an evangelical version of temple prostitutes in our churches, acting out the Song of Songs. People are justifying absolutely everything these days by misusing the Bible and worse, for financial gain. That Dr. Geisler would be so excited about this is really disturbing."

My first reaction - my knee jerk reaction - to this product was, like Ingrid, one of disgust. But then I began to wonder why that is. There is nothing wrong with "Song of Solomon." There can't be - it is part of the sacred Scripture, it is inspired by God and is meant for our edification (and perhaps even titillation). There is nothing wrong with hearing the Scripture read aloud. There can't be - God intended for the Scriptures to be read aloud. There is nothing wrong with hearing the Scripture read with expression and emotion. There can't be - God doesn't intend for His Scripture to be read in a way that is deliberately boring. So now the question is, is there anything wrong with dramatizing the reading of Scripture? And further, is there anything wrong with adding a musical soundtrack behind the reading of Scripture?

Having listened to them (the examples on the site) I have to respectfully disagree with Ingrid that there is anything pornographic about this. But I will admit that this is not to say that such a recording is wise or good. Still, I do not feel this is pornographic or dirty... I have learned to exercise caution with my snap judgments.

COMMENT BY mike garner:

I've often wondered if a church would preach through Solomon's Song of Songs. It is in fact Scripture and it is definitely neglected. The other extreme is a recent mega-church that I saw advertising "R-Rated" sermons where children should be sure to be in Sunday School.

There seem to be two wrong extremes. We can present the material in a way where it is so wordly that we are in fact tacking bible verses onto temple prostitutes. However, the other extreme, and the extreme that people in my circles are more likely to fall into, is to not even talk about what is said.

If we were promoting audio version of the Gospel of John that were musical then there would not be much uproar. However, when we do the same with a book that deals largely with intimate relationships then we have a problem and would even call in pornographic.

I wish that Pastors and Youth Pastors would do more preaching on sex. I wish teenage boys got there "pornographic" material from a recording of Scripture than from a late night internet visit. Sex, like every one of God's gifts, can be abused. Should we guard against that? Absolutely. Should we guard against it to the exclusion of the parts of Scripture that are uncomfortable? We cannot and we must not.

A COMMENT BY Julian:

What's the point of any Bible passage, if not to engage us on some level, in order to bring about a reaction, and subsequent action?

Romans engages on a more theological / rationally philosophical level, but the desire is clear: engage the mind to get to the heart, so that we will understand the righteousness of God in the saving of sinners like us. Then once we're engaged, and we understand that we were sinners justified by grace alone through faith alone, he desires that the truth we know would bring about action: hence Romans 12-16. Is anyone going to argue that a dramatized version of Romans is wrong?

How about the Psalms? Same thing... they're emotive in nature, calling out to God from the depths of despair and the heights of joy so that the reader, too, will be persuaded to call out to and worship God. It's intended to engage us, as David's experiences become our own, we are to worship God as a result of what he is doing in our lives. We sing the Psalms in church sometimes. They're designed to bring about a response.

The Song of Solomon is more like the Psalms than Romans. Maybe the problem is that we're just instinctively prudish because of our immoral contemporary culture... but we must beware the pendulum swing. Sex between husband and wife is a fantastically, wonderfully, amazingly beautiful thing!

Why not celebrate BIBLICAL sex? Wouldn't that make us stand out as salt and light more effectively than priggishly suggesting by silence on the topic that we really hate the dirty deed, but do it nonetheless for procreation's sake?

A COMMENT BY LRR:

Let me preface this by saying that I have heard the recording in its entirety. WOW!! I am so blown away by the diversity of everyone's views.

HAVE WE ALL FORGOTTEN THAT NONE OF US HAVE THE MIND OF GOD?! To take the view that God inspired men to write the Word in a way that is one dimensional is putting man made restrictions on the mind of God. In my view, He inspired the Word to be written in the manner and imagery that He so chose. In that I mean the the Word has so many more meanings and symbols than our feable human brains can comprehend. To say that SOS was written for ONLY one purpose is a scary & sad proposition! I believe it was written, at the very least, with these themes in mind: how Christ loves the church (HIS BRIDE!); how Christ loves each one of us on a personal level; and how and husband and wife should communicate with eachother.

BY THE WAY...HOW DID YOU ALL MISS THIS? Song of Solomon (and the way it is portrayed in "The Original Love Song") is MOSTLY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE MAN & WOMAN AND THOUGHTS OF ONE ANOTHER.....NOT THE SEX STUFF. If you really listen to it, it shows a type of love language that we all yearn for from our earthly mate. In this world, we are not taught how to speak to eachother. The gap between the sexes is so wide that the meaning of what is said is so easily lost. A woman might say "Why are you at work so late?" She means "I miss you & want you home" but the man hears some form of correction or scolding. SOS really explores the nuances of the differences in the needs of men and women in communication. Why do we get so easily stuck on the "sex thing"? YES, GOD WANTS GREAT SEX FOR MARRIED PEOPLE BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY HE WANTS US TO LOVE EACHOTHER & SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE. Let's not miss the fact that TRUE intimacy comes from knowing one another. You can't know your spouse until there is clear communication. I really feel that "The Original Love Song" chose its manner of delivery as an aid to people's comprehension of the SOS.

COMMENT BY George Henshaw:

I remember when I was a child and sat through my Grandfather's many sermons on SO. He taught that this book was God's guide in how to conduct Love, with purity and romance and desire from the heart, for the person God has selected for you; that Love, romance, and sex are spiritual in nature and to be shared only with God's "chosen" for you . When you feel these emotions described in SOS, you know God is awakening your heart and body to Love. He also pointed out that this book was written in an ancient time and agricultural culture, in which this flowery language was the norm. In my opinion anyone who confuses this beauiful book of Divine poetry with a sex manual or pornography has a very pornographic mind.

How can you confuse God's own words with carnality and pornography. I thought the OLS was very tastfully done and the background muisic and rural rustic sounds took one back to a time when these two people were were so totaly in love. My wife and I (of 20 years) were re-inspired in our love for each other and in God's infinate love for us.

We both would and have recommend OLS to our friends. We found it made a wonderful wedding gift; as let's face it, most young (& old) people in the church have not been taught about God's idea of Love and Divine Union.    back