Live at Radio City by Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds, Part 1 [Theological Liner Notes]
August 22, 2011
I am pioneering a new sub-genre of theological writing, here. Maybe Tony Hunt would care to follow suit with some of his hipster indie music, or even Shawn Wamsley with some his angry music (if he can find some that isn’t of the devil).
++++
At first glance Dave Matthews may seem like an unlikely source for discourse on Christian spirituality. He grew up a Quaker, but in a 1998 interview Matthews spoke of how the death of his sister led to the losing of his faith, “I’m glad some people have that faith. I don’t have that faith. If there is a God, a caring God, then we have to figure he’s done an extraordinary job of making a very cruel world.” In 2001, he indentified himself as an agnostic. However, in some ways he and his music are natural places to turn. His songs are filled with theological references and biblical allusions; he is undoubtedly the heir to a long, venerable folk-rock songwriting tradition, which includes Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and others, and which is deeply conversant in Christian scripture, theology and spirituality.
Focusing on songs from his seminal 2007 RCA release Live at Radio City which Matthews recorded with long time collaborator, Tim Reynolds, I want to explore some themes in the lyrics of Dave Matthews’ music which speak about Christian faith and practice, and to experiencing—or more accurately, confronting—God in surprising and authentic ways. Some of these themes are bluntly critical of certain aspects of Christianity, while others seem to document an authentic search for God, who appears in the music almost as an unrequited lover to agnostic Matthews.
Don’t expect to find anything systematic about theology a la Dave Matthews. We’ll be relying on two sometimes-competing hermeneutical principles. Sometimes Matthews makes overt references to God and the Church, several of his songs are directed at God specifically as agnostic prayers. These we will interpret in a straightforward way, relying on authorial intent. Other songs, however, allude to scripture or use theological language to speak about human relationships and experience without trying to say anything about Christianity or the divine. In these cases, we veer toward a hermeneutic of audience created meaning, reading God and the Church in where Matthews probably did not intend. If this methodology irks you, you should be reading Justice Scalia opinions, not this.
As an example of these two hermeneutical methods being used together in a single song, I will briefly look at one of my favorite songs on the album, “Two Step.” The song itself is about two lovers celebrating life in all its bitter-sweetness. The chorus offers this:
“Celebrate/ Celebrate we will / ‘Cause life is short, but sweet for certain/ Hey, we climb on two by two/ to be sure these days continue.”
“We climb on two-by-two” references the animals boarding Noah’s ark. By alluding to Noah’s mission of repopulating the earth after the flood, Matthews seems to be suggesting that it is our God-given duty to live, and enjoy life, and make babies. So we arrive at a two-liner theology of sex that isn’t too far away from where Matthews intended to go.
Within the same song we find these lines:
“Hey, my love/ You came to me like wine/ Comes to the mouth/ Grown tired of water all the time/ You quench my heart…”
Here, Matthews is obviously making no allusion to God or the Divine at all, but that doesn’t mean I am not free to rip it from its context and find in it a wonderful bit of Eucharistic poetry. Doesn’t Christ come to us, like wine in our mouth? I certainly grow weary of the blandness of a watered-down, purely symbolic understanding of Communion, and I certainly find my heart sated in taking the Eucharist. It’s a completely unintended interpretation—Matthews would probably be appaled by it—but still provides an accurate and poignant theological reference point.
So, you’ve been warned. I will play loose and free with lyrics.
++++
It is almost cliché to say that much of Matthews’ music is about love and sex (almost as cliché as it is to say that much of Matthews’ concerts are about pot). Many songs are very simply rhapsodies in praise of having sex with beautiful women (i.e. “Two Step” above). While some might find these conjugal hymns shocking, there is, with a few notable exceptions, nothing in the lyrics that explicitly denies biblical sexuality. In fact, they are a site of resistance, an oasis of refreshment for those of us who have grown up dealing with the puritanical, and quite simply repressive body-hatred of certain parts of Evangelical church culture.
On the whole, love for Matthews is a keystone thematic principle that transcends sex. Love is the only sure thing; the bedrock of life. For example, “When the World Ends” is a song about two lovers who will endure the end of the world in each other’s arms. Typical lyrics include:
“When the world ends/ Passion rising from the ashes,”
and
“When the world ends/ We’ll just be beginning.”
Matthews makes a bold claim here that love transcends catastrophe, even apocalypse. In the song “Oh,” we find a similar theme, but this song is written not about lovers but Matthews’ grandfather:
“The world is blowing up/ The world is caving in/ The world has lost her way again/ But you are here with me/ But you are here with me/ It makes it okay.”
Love makes anything bearable; disaster and suffering lose their finality in the presence of a beloved one.
In a third song from the album, “Eh Hee”, Matthews makes the claim that, “with the love that my mother gave me/ I’m gonna drop the devil to the floor.” Here love is martial. Love does not simply make evil bearable, love destroys evil. Back in the chorus of “Oh,” we discover that this love is intense, unstoppable, and gratuitous:
“I love you oh so well/ Like a kid loves candy and fresh snow/ I love you oh so well/ Enough to fill up heaven/ Overflow and fill hell.”
All three of these songs are speaking of human relationships with lovers, grandfathers and mothers; yet in each, Matthews’ images of love are couched in eschatological and theological language, leaving an opening for us to apply these ecstatic visions of love to God and to Divine love. When St. John writes that God is love, and when St. Paul writes that nothing can separate us from the love of God, did they mean to go as far as Matthews goes? Can the imagination of the Church keep up with Matthews’ imagination when trying to understand the unfathomable love of God? Does God’s love for all of us “fill up heaven, overflow and fill hell?” Some Christians’ definition of hell is precisely that place where God and his love end. And yet Matthews’ love for his grandfather transcends that boundary, as did St. Paul’s love for his kinsmen (Romans 8). If God is God, can his love for his children be any less?
When applied to love that God’s children are commanded to have for each other and the world, Matthews’ vision of love certainly stands in contrast to some prevailing notions in the Church. Whereas, like St. Paul’s, Matthews’ concept of love overcomes evil, some in Christianity at least appear to believe that love is optional and that hateful rhetoric, militarism and the tea party will somehow conquer evil and end suffering in the world. Can Matthews’ lyrics call the Church back to a place where indefatigable love for all people is truly our bedrock; where we stop striving with the weapons of this world and rely on the self-sacrificing love of Christ to transfigure everything with which it comes into contact?
Part 2 (coming soon, with reflections on “Don’t Drink the Water,” “Save Me,” “Eh Hee” & more!)
Anglican Identities: Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu
September 4, 2010
In the tasty casserole that is theology there are many layers. Some layers tend to be more important than others, but to forget any one layer always lessens the whole. In theology, there are at least three layers: study, prayer, and action. I think all three are vitally important for theology to really be theology. But is one more important than the others?
The Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, while clearly a participant in the first two layers of theology as a profound thinker and educator and as a man of prayer, is perhaps best known as a theologian of action. Beginning in the late 1970s, he non-violently fought an unrelenting war on the injustice of apartheid, preaching peace and justice ex cathedra (as bishop of Johannesburg, Lesotho and finally Archbishop of Cape Town), and preaching from the streets, amongst the protesters, risking his life on nearly a daily basis for two decades until he saw apartheid fall. Immediately, he began working for reconciliation and forgiveness. He chaired what is arguably the most extraordinary committee every convened by a government, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is credited for preventing a race-war that would have destroyed South Africa and would have had devastating consequences for the entire continent. That work completed he moved on to champion the causes of eradicating HIV/AIDs and poverty in Africa, as well as continuing to call all people of the world to peace, forgiveness and reconciliation. How beautiful the feet of them who preach the Gospel of Peace.
His theological action, as well as his career as bishop was preceded by a successful academic career, but still much of his theological writing has grown out of his lifetime of theological activism. His themes are relatively simple, forgiveness, unconditional love, justice, peace and non-violence and yet these Sunday School ideas are lent a deep profundity by the power of Desmond Tutu’s witness. It is his right theological action that gives him authority to speak. Furthermore, these mainly ethical concerns of his are radically rooted in the theology of creation, anthropology, and Incarnation; all good Christian ethics is really theology, and all good theology leads to good Christian ethics.
One central and influential theological concept that Archbishop Tutu is credited with bringing to the attention of the Church is the African theological concept of Ubuntu. As Tutu puts it, Ubuntu means that “my humanity is inextricably bound up with yours, so that we can only be humans together.” There is a no more elegant theology of the Other than Ubuntu theology.
I fear–partly due to recent controversy–the idea of Ubuntu has been written off by some as a liberal theological fad that has no root in orthodoxy, but before one makes hasty judgements one should consult Archbishop Tutu on the subject both in books like No Future without Forgiveness and in some of his recorded interviews (ignore the ridiculous guy in the beginning), speeches, sermons (like one linked to the word “liberal” below), and lectures.
Archbishop Tutu is one of the main reasons I began to look into the Episcopal Church. He is, I believe, one of the finest examples of a Christian anywhere in the Church universal, and certainly in the Anglican communion. While many in the Anglican communion, especially many of his brothers in the global south, feel that he is entirely too liberal, and while many in the Episcopal church may even feel that he is a bit too traditional, and while many others think he is just plain silly, I feel that he is quintessentially Anglican. Aren’t we too liberal for some, and too traditional for others? Aren’t we the “laughing-stocks” of Christianity (praise be to God)?
His life and example point to one of the things that fascinates me very much about this church: how does the Anglican church–which for much of its history was an imperial church, spreading the imperial gospel of English domination–how does such a church produce remarkable men like Desmond Tutu? How did it turn itself around like that, from being a force of oppression and injustice to being one the most stalwart and proven means of their dismantling? The Anglican communion may not always have the recipe just right, but one must admit that those three elements of study, prayer and action are vividly present in this weird, troubled, and hopeful church. One should also admit that in Desmond Tutu the Anglican church has an incredible witness of God’s coming reign of peace and justice.
Holiday Rants and Marriage Advice from Your Favorite Crazy Uncle
October 30, 2009
I was listening to a talk radio show on my way to work this morning; and they were discussing an article about the dangers of Halloween published by one of the contributors at CBN.com – it included claims that Halloween has no basis as a real holiday only the kind of vile pagan ritualism we should associate with human sacrifice, that Halloween is a covert attempt by Satanists to ruin the minds of young children, and that witches working at candy corporations have “laced” Halloween candy with “time release” curses. I thought long and hard about launching into a sugar induced tirade about the idiocy of Christian Fundamentalists that want to ruin the holiday season with their asinine “historical proof” that modern holidays are all rooted in paganism and therefore constitute some form of witchcraft or idolatry while wearing my custom fit prosthetic vampire fangs and a cheap, pre-packaged, Wal-Mart brand Harry Potter costume made out of nylon. However, something more interesting happened today, and I think the group would be better served to discuss something else (though, I certainly hope someone takes up the clarion call to mock wacko fundamentalism of any brand – and especially of the Pat Robertson brand during the holidays).
I was approached by a young man wanting advice about relationships today. I frequently get approached by young couples in their early twenties and late teens asking for advice about their relationship. There was nothing particularly unique about today’s experience. Both the young man and his significant other have supportive, Christian families that want the best for their children. Both of them are reasonably mature for their age. Both of them are getting the same advice from their parents that ultimately sends every couple my way. Their parents want them to break up after high school, go to different colleges, and try meeting new people before they commit to one another.
I have never contradicted the authority of parents (nor will I ever), no matter the age of the people asking. Consequently, this conversation always goes the same way. I address what I perceive to be the fear of their parents. We talk, instead, about what makes marriage successful. I am going to share the essential elements of that conversation with you, dear reader, because I’d love to hear what other wisdom is available…AND, because I have never once had this conversation and not left contemplating the health of my own relationships. So, here is an outline of what I discuss with these young couples (yes, it happens so often I have an outline):
- Let’s validate the concerns of your parents: the institution of marriage is in a critical state; a person’s maturity has, at least some, corollary relationship to their age; choosing a spouse is one of the most important decisions of your life, and too often people want to make that decision independent of their families.
- Anyone who is in a relationship (marriage or otherwise) in order to get something out of it for themselves is going to fail at that relationship. We don’t thrive in communities when we are only out to satisfy our own needs.
- Most people who are trying to get something selfish out of a romantic relationship do not have a fully developed sense of self or independence. Which certainly is not to say that we do not all continue to grow into our own identities and independence, but someone who needs a relationship to validate who they are is probably not going to succeed in a marriage.
- Relationships are successful when those involved in them understand what it means to genuinely receive benefit from serving the other person. When we are finally able to see that it is fulfilling to serve the needs of another person, and can see the benefit of sacrificing for those we love, we are probably able to have a healthy marriage. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that all failed marriages got that way because one or both of the people involved quit looking out for the best interest of the other person and started worrying about pleasing themselves first.
- Do you understand and appreciate that you are entering into a relationship with that other person’s entire family (in the case of romantic relationships)? I have said repeatedly, “you are not just marrying that person – you are marrying their entire family.” Do the families of those involved in a relationship get along? Are they prepared to deal with the stress of having family members that will not approve of or support their relationship? Can you serve and sacrifice for your significant other’s family in the same way you are devoted to serving your significant other?
- If you’re considering a relationship with someone, why? Do you understand the rich personal fulfillment of raising and sacrificing for a family? Do you understand what it means to enter into a covenant with another human being? Interestingly enough, most of these young couples do indeed understand what real love means, and they have it.
(Here’s the important one)
Origins and Love
August 26, 2008
Tony (Sr.) has shared with me several times his distaste for the removal of narrative from the throws of theological discourse. I agree, in this case, a narrative is the perfect outlet for proper theological development.
—-
Paul Sandbourne had been in love with Estelle Ventido ever since he could remember. Estelle has always been close to him geographically, despite his propensity to travel here and there, he always found her very near himself in thought.
After a long time in waiting and some good advice from his mother, Paul bought land for his love. The land was vast, hundreds of acres and full of trees, grass and soaring sky.
Paul looked upon the land and was happy.
Then Paul thought, my love cannot come to my land if she has no house in which to dwell. So he built her a fantastic mansion, with hundreds of floorboards, large windows and a big front door with an enormous ‘welcome home’ sign upon its frame.
Paul looked upon the house and was happy.
Then Paul thought, if my love had nothing to drink how would she survive in such a place? At once Mr. Sandbourne built a deep spout. At its base was a deep, flowing river that shot water up and out its enormous mouth. The water was clean and cold, refreshing to the touch.
Paul looked upon the spout and was happy.
Then Paul thought, how could my love survive in such a house, she has nothing to eat? Then with painstaking effort, Paul tilled, planted and watered a garden. From the garden large tomatoes grew, along with cabbage and a plentiful supply of carrots.
Paul looked upon the garden and was happy.
After many years and awesome acts of love the land was ready for Estelle. She came and was happy in the land. After many children survived and thrived on the land they looked at the gifts bestowed upon them, forgetting Estelle and Paul,
they continued along in the grace of their love.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
