February 12, 2009

Removing Song of Songs

The Holman Christian Standard Bible, the translation published by the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing house, is removing the book Song of Songs. At least that is what I assume after reading a Baptist Press article attacking Mark Driscoll for talking openly about sex. The piece accuses him of using "vulgarity" and "references to sexual matters that Baptist Press tried to veil somewhat in order to lessen the possibility of offending readers." However, everything in the article seems quite mild compared to what is in the biblical book Song of Songs. So I assume it will be soon removed to make sure that such vulgarity does not show up in the pulpit.

6 comments:

  1. To be fair to BP, the original profile also referred to his language as vulgar and referenced folks calling him the "cussing pastor" (or something along those lines). That profile was actually pretty interesting. The writer was definitely intrigued by Driscoll.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian,

    After reading the linked BP article, I don't what you're ranting on about.

    Probably the worst post I've read on your blog.

    Did you talk yourself into this one just because the BGCM's Tolliver is quoted?

    For God's sake, shut up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Factual correction in previous comment:

    Missouri Baptist Convention's Tolliver, not BGCM's. I had the conventions' names backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the comments!

    Jennifer: That is true about the original piece, but the concept of "cussing pastor" is quite old and he has stopped that. Also, there are clearly some problems in the BP one, particularly since at least one person quoted in it claims they were not speaking about Driscoll (see: here).

    CD: First of all, Tolliver is with the MBC (get your facts straight, man). Second, do have any originality? Third, read the response from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary attacking the BP piece and you will see it's not just me. Fourth, since you don't seem to understand, let me explain it again. They are attacking Driscoll for talking about sex when he is actually very mild compared to Song of Songs. So, if they have a problem with him, then surely they must have a problem with that book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, good job on the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian,

    I don't find Song of Songs using profanity or referring to Nymphos, an_l, or or_l sex in explicit terms.

    This is what you defend as "mild" compared to God's Word?

    I read the response from Southeastern, and think it's just as whacked as yours.

    What's your question in point "Second"? It's not a complete sentence.

    ReplyDelete