"Here I am, waiting like a lover"

[VociMike]

It’s very sad that “lover” has only been given the connotation of a sexual partner over the past 50 years or so, but it is a reality that can’t be ignored. And if I did hear my own hypothetical children using that term to describe me or their father, I’d have to correct them. It could get them and us into a whole bit of trouble.

Quite right. We can and should bemoan any coarsening of language, including any once-expressive words that have become reduced to mostly sexual meanings. But bemoaning that reality doesn’t mean ignoring that reality.

Another example springs to mind - would we ever say that Jesus was gay, or had a gay time? Or would we have enough common sense to know that this word today means something different than it used to mean?

 

[EasterJoy]

Quite right. We can and should bemoan any coarsening of language, including any once-expressive words that have become reduced to mostly sexual meanings. But bemoaning that reality doesn’t mean ignoring that reality.

Another example springs to mind - would we ever say that Jesus was gay, or had a gay time? Or would we have enough common sense to know that this word today means something different than it used to mean?

When did the Church ever use the word “gay” to refer to Our Lord?

Besides, we’re not talking about lover not meaning lover in the sense of a husband. We’re not restricting it to mean “someone who loves”. Rather, we are using metaphorical language of a relationship parallel to that of husband and wife, as when we refer to the Lord as our Shepherd.

Unlike the word “gay”, the sexual connotation was always there when God was depicted as a lover in the Scriptures, as in the Song of Songs. Hosea referred to Israel as a whore. The only thing that has changed is what it means when something has a sexual connotation put on it. A sexual relationship is meant to be an entirely wholesome and holy thing. We must absolutely guard that attitude toward what sexuality is, and continue to be adamant about what sexuality is not, particularly in catechesizing our young people.

IMO, when we restrict the metaphors we use for God as Father and Shepherd, it becomes a way of infantalizing ourselves, of not being willing to commit fully or to fully admit the gravity of our sins. We are commanded to love and commit ourselves to God in a complete and adult sense, not just as children are attached to their parents or as sheep are dependent on their shepherd (although those metaphors fit, too), but, as the Body of Christ, as a wife faithfullly and totally committed to her husband. (And please, let’s not get off on what some people want “adult” to mean “in these days”!!)

We owe God that kind of complete fidelity, and God gives His Church that kind of intimacy, dignity, and splendor. When we choose to act otherwise, we can fairly be described as being responsible for our infidelities in an adult sense, as well. We are not just making mistakes like children or wandering off like sheep but truly committing acts of betrayal parallel to a cheating spouse.

Again, like or don’t like the song, but in doing so don’t diminish what God has always intended every pair of lovers to be. The metaphor cuts both ways, after all!

 

[JPUSC]

Maybe someone could make a hymn out of the scripture passage below.

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.
James 2:2-4 (King James Version)

 

[VociMike]

When did the Church ever use the word “gay” to refer to Our Lord?

Once again you miss my point.

Besides, we’re not talking about lover not meaning lover in the sense of a husband. We’re not restricting it to mean “someone who loves”. Rather, we are using metaphorical language of a relationship parallel to that of husband and wife, as when we refer to the Lord as our Shepherd.

Unlike the word “gay”, the sexual connotation was always there when God was depicted as a lover in the Scriptures, as in the Song of Songs. Hosea referred to Israel as a whore. The only thing that has changed is what it means when something has a sexual connotation put on it. A sexual relationship is meant to be an entirely wholesome and holy thing. We must absolutely guard that attitude toward what sexuality is, and continue to be adamant about what sexuality is not, particularly in catechesizing our young people.

IMO, when we restrict the metaphors we use for God as Father and Shepherd, it becomes a way of infantalizing ourselves, of not being willing to commit fully or to fully admit the gravity of our sins. We are commanded to love and commit ourselves to God in a complete and adult sense, not just as children are attached to their parents or as sheep are dependent on their shepherd (although those metaphors fit, too), but, as the Body of Christ, as a wife faithfullly and totally committed to her husband. (And please, let’s not get off on what some people want “adult” to mean “in these days”!!)

We owe God that kind of complete fidelity, and God gives His Church that kind of intimacy, dignity, and splendor. When we choose to act otherwise, we can fairly be described as being responsible for our infidelities in an adult sense, as well. We are not just making mistakes like children or wandering off like sheep but truly committing acts of betrayal parallel to a cheating spouse.

Again, like or don’t like the song, but in doing so don’t diminish what God has always intended every pair of lovers to be. The metaphor cuts both ways, after all!

I don’t give a fig one way or another about the song. I just think it’s absurd to pretend that “lover” doesn’t imply a strong sexual component. There’s a reason those teens and pre-teens were giggling. They understand the word, even if some here don’t.

 

[Kolbelover]

Easter Joy’s point is the crux of the Theology of the Body…

 

[VociMike]

Easter Joy’s point is the crux of the Theology of the Body…

Which theology is not going to be taught by this song. We’re not talking about a room full of theologians, but a church full of average folks, attending Mass and suddenly hearing or reading this phrase. And honestly compels us to acknowledge what will pop into their heads.

 

[JPUSC]

Which theology is not going to be taught by this song. We’re not talking about a room full of theologians, but a church full of average folks, attending Mass and suddenly hearing or reading this phrase. And honestly compels us to acknowledge what will pop into their heads.

The type of people who’d take the song the wrong way at Mass, haha:

youtube.com/watch?v=Hb5jS4tzPm8

 

[Sarabande]

I see what you are saying, Easterjoy, but how many of us actually refer to God as our “lover” in everyday talk? Yes, we have read it in the Bible, but for the most part, we don’t use it in our everyday language of describing our relationship with God. Perhaps we should start doing that. Perhaps we shouldn’t, although I think that should entail a lot of thought before going hardcore with the usage of the term in public. In private, that is a whole different matter.

If the Church began teaching our children and instructing adults to use “lover” as a common word for our Lord and everyone complied, the connotation could be added for something pure and good and there wouldn’t be a need for this kind of thread. But before then, that term can get a person into a lot of trouble or cause much judgement without a heavy explanation and proof. And I think that is one of the points VociMike is trying to make. We have to be aware of the reality around us that we are not always going to be in a safe haven where everyone will understand our reasons for using a word such as “lover” in anything other than a human sexual partner. To act as if the usage of that word or the encouragement of our children using that word will not bring any connotation or judgement or trouble upon us would not be the best choice.

Again, in regards to the song, what the writer could have done is add, “God” or “Lord” and there would be no question in the mind of the listener or reader and perhaps even bring to mind the Song of Songs. Other than that, the ambiguity of the lyrics lends itself to be interpreted either as a secular love song or a religious one.

 

[Kolbelover]

VociMike… I see your point and respect it

so… I understand the argument against using it for Liturgy. That stated, perhaps the fact that the term “lover” might be misunderstood by the Assembly says more about Catechesis in general than it does about its validity within the context of this song?

Some spirited discussion herein… there IS much to be hopeful about in seeing the passion you all have for Liturgy!

 

[VociMike]

VociMike… I see your point and respect it

so… I understand the argument against using it for Liturgy. That stated, perhaps the fact that the term “lover” might be misunderstood by the Assembly says more about Catechesis in general than it does about its validity within the context of this song?

You might be able to make a case for this, but I’m not aware that “lover” has ever been a common term used for Jesus Christ (or for us in relation to him) by the common Catholic. I don’t think that it’s a case of the term losing its common Catholic meaning as much as that it never had such a meaning among average Catholics.

If somebody has opposite evidence, that at one time average Catholics really did use the term “lover” in such contexts, then I would find that quite interesting.

 

[VociMike]

If the Church began teaching our children and instructing adults to use “lover” as a common word for our Lord and everyone complied, the connotation could be added for something pure and good and there wouldn’t be a need for this kind of thread. But before then, that term can get a person into a lot of trouble or cause much judgement without a heavy explanation and proof. And I think that is one of the points VociMike is trying to make. We have to be aware of the reality around us that we are not always going to be in a safe haven where everyone will understand our reasons for using a word such as “lover” in anything other than a human sexual partner. To act as if the usage of that word or the encouragement of our children using that word will not bring any connotation or judgement or trouble upon us would not be the best choice.

And speaking of reality, like it or not, we Catholics currently also have the reality of the priest sex scandal to live with. That is another very strong reason to avoid anything with sexual connotations, and especially being seen as exposing children to such things. The Catholic Church does not need to be seen teaching children to sing about being lovers. Any possible benefit would be far outweighed by the potential harm. So find other, non-charged terms to teach the same theology.

 

[JPUSC]

You might be able to make a case for this, but I’m not aware that “lover” has ever been a common term used for Jesus Christ (or for us in relation to him) by the common Catholic. I don’t think that it’s a case of the term losing its common Catholic meaning as much as that it never had such a meaning among average Catholics.

If somebody has opposite evidence, that at one time average Catholics really did use the term “lover” in such contexts, then I would find that quite interesting.

I can’t find any traditional Catholic hymns with the term “lover”.

There is a Protestant hymn called, “Jesus, Lover of My Soul,” but the words sound much more pleasant and meaningful than “waiting like a lover”.

cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/l/jlmysoul.htm

I’m going to take a guess that the ones defending “Here I Am” the most are females.

 

[EasterJoy]

Once again you miss my point.

I don’t give a fig one way or another about the song. I just think it’s absurd to pretend that “lover” doesn’t imply a strong sexual component. There’s a reason those teens and pre-teens were giggling. They understand the word, even if some here don’t.

No, they don’t understand the word. They have not the slightest idea what a lover really is. They may think they know what sex is all about, but they obviously don’t.

I see what you are saying, Easterjoy, but how many of us actually refer to God as our “lover” in everyday talk? Yes, we have read it in the Bible, but for the most part, we don’t use it in our everyday language of describing our relationship with God. Perhaps we should start doing that. Perhaps we shouldn’t, although I think that should entail a lot of thought before going hardcore with the usage of the term in public. In private, that is a whole different matter.

If the Church began teaching our children and instructing adults to use “lover” as a common word for our Lord and everyone complied, the connotation could be added for something pure and good and there wouldn’t be a need for this kind of thread. But before then, that term can get a person into a lot of trouble or cause much judgement without a heavy explanation and proof.

Or, in regards to the song, what the writer could have done is add, “God” or “Lord” and there would be no question in the mind of the listener or reader and perhaps even bring to mind the Song of Songs. Other than that, the ambiguity of the lyrics lends itself to be interpreted either as a secular love song or a religious one.

I can totally see having an objection to a song that doesn’t make it clear that God* is* the lover being referred to. I think it is clear, but I can understand those who think the song doesn’t make that clear. If you don’t like the song, fine. Have your choir ditch it.

My objection is to banning the word “lover” in reference to God. I object to abandoning all sexual metaphors because gravely wrong attitudes towards sex held by the secular culture have been allowed to co-opt the entire subject of human sexuality. I’m not willing to just throw my hands up and let the world teach our kids what sex is all about. Heaven forbid!

The love God has for His Church has all the intimacy of the love between a husband and wife, the Church has that kind of intimacy with and dignity before God, God’s love is the model and source of all the love within human sexuality that merits the name, and furthermore wives are to have that kind of dignity before their husbands. We (and especially our marriages) would do well if we would remind ourselves of it more often than we do.

Sorry, but we can’t afford for the state of marriage to come around before doing that. Marriage won’t come around until the way we look at marriage comes around.

Anyway, that was my two cents. I really like that song, but many people don’t. That’s OK with me. I may as well have a quarrel with why someone doesn’t like a date I set them up with…either the chemistry is there, or it’s not.

 

[Kolbelover]

I think VociMike and others are making excellent points about why we should avoid controversy and easily misinterpreted verbiage… Certainly, given the backdrop of our recent and unpleasant history, Liturgists would do well to consider how the language of this song is RECEIVED versus Mr Booth’s intent. Programming it will surely raise questions if not eyebrows, so clergy and music ministers should be prepared and unified in their responses to same. All of which gives credence to the sentiments expressed on this thread that ask, “isn’t there a better choice?”

at the same time, in considering the term “lover” contextually with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, we might do well to remember the Holy Father’s constant encouragement for us to “be not afraid”.

for the record, I am not crazy about the song!

 

[JPUSC]

I think VociMike and others are making excellent points about why we should avoid controversy and easily misinterpreted verbiage… Certainly, given the backdrop of our recent and unpleasant history, Liturgists would do well to consider how the language of this song is RECEIVED versus Mr Booth’s intent. Programming it will surely raise questions if not eyebrows, so clergy and music ministers should be prepared and unified in their responses to same. All of which gives credence to the sentiments expressed on this thread that ask, “isn’t there a better choice?”

at the same time, in considering the term “lover” contextually with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, we might do well to remember the Holy Father’s constant encouragement for us to “be not afraid”.

for the record, I am not crazy about the song!

The song was intended for “Lifeteen” Masses. When I was a pre-teen, I remember everyone in class laughing when they heard the word “pinnace” in a book.

As for adults, if the song does use “lover” as a metaphor for God being like a spouse, then not everyone can relate to that feeling as many people are single.

 

[Sarabande]

My objection is to banning the word “lover” in reference to God. I object to abandoning all sexual metaphors because gravely wrong attitudes towards sex held by the secular culture have been allowed to co-opt the entire subject of human sexuality. I’m not willing to just throw my hands up and let the world teach our kids what sex is all about. Heaven forbid!

I wouldn’t condone just throwing my hands up either. My parents taught me the beauty of what a sacramental marriage and human sexuality was both in a spiritual and physical sense, as they are both medical professionals. So I got it all in the clinical sense and reading my father’s med school books. But they never referred to God as my lover. In high school we read the passages in the Bible that referred to Him as a lover (Song of Songs was actually one my favorite books and it was always something I chose to read in front of my religion class when it was my turn) and that’s fine.

In the privacy of a family’s home or even in church groups, if people want to use that term freely to teach their children about spiritual love and human sexuality, that’s fine. But we still do need to be aware of the consequences when these kinds of words are used in public outside of our safe zones. And honestly, if I heard a child use that term to describe an adult I would act upon it before allowing that child to come back in contact with that adult. I’ve known too many people who have been affected by that perversity (I mean child sexual abuse) and have been affected by it myself. My first reaction, and I believe other people’s reactions would be to protect the child and not think, “That child must be meaning it in the pure, spiritual sense.” And the last thing I’d want is to have an innocent family or an innocent person’s reputation hurt because the parents of the child did not teach the child that he/she probably shouldn’t be using that term so freely and openly. Perhaps if a parent truly wanted to teach the child that term at a young age, they need to make distinctions so that it wouldn’t be misconstrued by an outside listener, especially someone who isn’t versed in the Bible.

I may as well have a quarrel with why someone doesn’t like a date I set them up with…either the chemistry is there, or it’s not.

Haha! So true!

 

[BSHoop96]

Good point, but the idea of “love pure and chaste from afar” is more an invention of the Victorian Age than the Middle Ages. Medieval men and women were, by and large, a rather crude, lusty lot.

– Mark L. Chance.

Tell that to all troubadours in the middle ages that poured out their hearts in poetic love poems to their queen and/or different high-born women.

 

[EasterJoy]

I wouldn’t condone just throwing my hands up either. My parents taught me the beauty of what a sacramental marriage and human sexuality was both in a spiritual and physical sense, as they are both medical professionals. So I got it all in the clinical sense and reading my father’s med school books. But they never referred to God as my lover. In high school we read the passages in the Bible that referred to Him as a lover (Song of Songs was actually one my favorite books and it was always something I chose to read in front of my religion class when it was my turn) and that’s fine.

In the privacy of a family’s home or even in church groups, if people want to use that term freely to teach their children about spiritual love and human sexuality, that’s fine. But we still do need to be aware of the consequences when these kinds of words are used in public outside of our safe zones. And honestly, if I heard a child use that term to describe an adult I would act upon it before allowing that child to come back in contact with that adult. I’ve known too many people who have been affected by that perversity (I mean child sexual abuse) and have been affected by it myself. My first reaction, and I believe other people’s reactions would be to protect the child and not think, “That child must be meaning it in the pure, spiritual sense.” And the last thing I’d want is to have an innocent family or an innocent person’s reputation hurt because the parents of the child did not teach the child that he/she probably shouldn’t be using that term so freely and openly. Perhaps if a parent truly wanted to teach the child that term at a young age, they need to make distinctions so that it wouldn’t be misconstrued by an outside listener, especially someone who isn’t versed in the Bible.

I think I see the source of this hoo-haw. Let’s please remember that the lover metaphor is used to refer to Christ and the Church or God and Israel, or God and Jerusalem, not between Christ and individual Christians. The wedding metaphor is a communal metaphor. An no, kids should not be taught to use the word “lover” to refer to those who love each other but aren’t married. I have not said that the words “lover” and “beloved” should be used interhcangeably! “Lover” is properly a term used to refer to the relationship proper only between spouses. Therefore, outside of marriage, it refers to relationships that are by their nature illicit. (Your dad is NOT your lover! Your boyfriend should NOT be your lover. Your finance should not be your lover. Your husband and your husband alone is to be your lover, just as the Church should have no lovers but God Himself!)

I would be hard-put to think of an instance in which the Scriptural metaphor did not refer to the relationship between God and His People. I don’t think there is one. The problem with that song, then, seems not to be confined to confusion over whether “I” refers to God or not. There seems to be confusion as to whether “you” is meant to refer to the individual or the Church!

I guess I didn’t get this because it is used as a song during Holy Communion at our parish, and I don’t see that as a “me and the Lord” moment. I see that as a “we and the Lord moment”. To me, it is a moment when our identity as the Body of Christ is reinforced and fed. We are made one by Holy Communion. Mass is the wedding feast of the Lamb, and we are His Bride. Not I am His Bride. We are His Bride.

Am I alone in hearing the song that way?

It’s like the priesthood. Priests uniquely share in the way Jesus is Bridegroom of His Church. That doesn’t make them husbands to every individual Christian!

Instead, priests share the singular and unique Priesthood of Christ, who alone is Bridegroom of the Church. They are devoted to Her and give themselves over to presenting Her to the Lord “without stain or wrinkle or anything of the sort”. Likewise, when a religious sister is a bride of Christ, it is in a similar sense. It is put that way as a metaphor, not implying a literal one-to-one marriage between the professed religious and Christ.

 

[Kolbelover]

EasterJoy… Christopher West calls the Theology of the Body the “New Evangelism”…

you are just ahead of the curve…

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy… Christopher West calls the Theology of the Body the “New Evangelism”…

you are just ahead of the curve…

Yes, well, I have to be careful or people are going to think it more kink than curve.

I was honestly mystified over the response on this thread, but I’m beginning to get it. Christian metaphors and figures of speech are thrown around very freely sometimes, especially by non-Catholics, which can really louse up catechesis.

I think the marriage metaphor too rich and traditional to be abandoned, especially considering how it illustrates the profound dignity and importance of the married state. Still, I’m more able to see where this song could cause some problems, in the wrong setting. Yikes.