I know that I'm long winded, but the brevity of his post leaves a lot of gaping questions and possible misinterpretations.  I'm sure that might be part of his purpose in writing it this way.  But, given the strangeness of contemporary American Christianity on a lot of topics in and out of the church, I figure I'll respond anyways.  I'm sure both Miller and I will sleep easier that way!

First off, I think his specification of the 'evangelical church' not being in existence when Song of Solomon was written is curious.  Why distinguish between the 'evangelical church' and just 'the church', or 'Christianity'?  I think Miller is probably making a comment on this particular strand of Christian thought & practice, but it's an incredibly narrow one, and I'm pretty positive the overall thrust of his musings wouldn't be blunted at all if he referred to the larger Christian church.  

Secondly, I'm not sure what he basis his assertion that Song of Solomon was written for "young kids" has.  The fact that adulthood arrived a lot earlier in Biblical times than it did today doesn't mean that a 14-year old 2500 years ago should be considered a 'kid' just because we consider 14-year olds today to be kids.  Definitions are important things, and we need to be careful how we use the words we use.  Chronological age is not tied completely and totally to maturity level and responsibility levels.  And I'm choosing 14 years totally at random here, assuming that his idea is that people married very young in those days and therefore they were kids.  My point is no, they weren't.  They were 14 years old, and in that time and place, that might very easily have been considered 'adult', even if we can't conceive of doing that today (a conception that I think is flawed in some fundamental ways).

I doubt that the culture of Solomon's day (or the day of the author, as many conservative scholars remain unconvinced that it is actually Solomon who wrote it), was any more libertine than ours.  In other words, I doubt that this writing - if it had been intended for widespread pop consumption as entertainment and diversion (which his analogy of this being an 'opera' seems to infer) - would have been universally accepted.  If this writing had been written for entertainment purposes in those days, I'm sure the author would have been vilified every bit as much as Miller implies evangelical Christians would vilify such a writing today (and routinely do).  One of the roles of a person of faith is to attempt to understand the theological and practical impact of something, whether that thing purports to intend theological or practical impact or not.  I'm pretty sure that the Israelites of 2500 years ago or more understood this, and obviously have felt for a very long time that this is not simply random erotic fiction, but does serve some deeper purpose, even if we aren't entirely in agreement about what that might be.

Miller basically seems to be asserting that the church today may not be in step with God.  Fair enough - given that the church is made up of sinful, broken people and God is not, I'm happy to agree with that.  But what his article leaves you with is the idea that the church has imposed a bunch of arbitrary limitations on our behavior and thinking, and that these are not necessarily the sorts of limitations God wants for us.  While this is very possible, we need to be careful about how we assert it, because of course, since we have Scripture, we have some recourse in determining whether or not the church is off base or not.

Yes, we are creative creatures and intended to create in imperfect and limited ways.  It is this acknowledgment that we are broken and imperfect and limited that ought to govern and filter our creative processes.  Submitting ourselves to the wisdom of our Perfect Creator to the best of our ability guides and informs and improves our own limited creative endeavors.  Writing erotic fiction for uneducated mass-consumption is probably not what Miller has in mind, but it's easily a conclusion one might reach by reading what he has written here.  I give him the benefit of the doubt that these ideas will be refined and honed and better expressed somewhere down the line.  But for now, they're rough and unrefined and actually misleading, and that's hard, knowing that there are people reading them who respect Miller and take what he says very seriously and even literally, and who may not stop to think that perhaps he has not said all that needs to be said or will be said on this topic.  

This is the heavy responsibility of writing, and particularly of blogging, since it is by it's very nature so prone to rough expression.  That's why, just as I urge my parishioners, I urge my readers to dialog and respond and interact.  I could easily be wrong about something.  Or mistaken.  Or misled.  My vocation is not a guarantee of accuracy, only an indication that I should at some level be able and willing to sort through and find or admit the errors I commit unintentionally while seeking to avoid intentional ones.  

So speak up and tell me when I'm wrong!