Monthly Archives: October 2011

Like Rolling Waters: A Reflection on the Lectionary Readings for 6 November 2011

31 October 2011

Revised Common Lectionary Page for 6 November 2011 (21st Sunday after Pentecost, Year A)

Joshua 24:1-3a, 14-25 and Psalm 78:1-7  •  Wisdom of Solomon 6:12-16 or Amos 5:18-24 andWisdom of Solomon 6:17-20 or Psalm 70  •  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18  •  Matthew 25:1-13

I don’t suppose I should be surprised when Biblical texts present intellectual challenges, but Chris Gehrz’s recent post on “rally texts” for activist Christianity makes me remember my days in seminary when a text like Amos 5 was far less ambiguous.  I’ve come to think that education, whether it means to or not, always involves establishing those educated as a differentiated class (think of Plato’s guardians, U.S. Marines at boot camp, or medical school residents), and seminary is no exception to that.  When I was in seminary, the distinction between those educated and those to whom we imagined ourselves sent was a difference in awareness of social justice.

Despite caricatures and abuses, I really don’t think the urge towards social justice began as a window-dressing for activism without self-awareness or for the replacement of sexual moralism with economic and environmental moralism.  I’m not going to be the one to deny that both of those have happened and likely will continue, but to make the abuses identical with the good impulse is to ignore what the Social Gospel movement and other social-justice groups stand to remind me about the Bible, namely that the Old Testament and the New Testament hold forth a reality that is nothing less than a re-ordering of human relationships, a true Way that stands in contrast to the murderous and duplicitous ways of the world (to use John’s language).  When Amos in today’s reading calls for mishphat and tzedakah (justice and righteousness) to flow like water, these are divine expectations that encompass interior life, economic life, political life, and all other facets of human existence.  There is no absolute separation between “individual” and “community” in Biblical thought; even when the individual must stand as prophetic voice for the sake of community, the prophet does so as one part to another rather than as an “us” crowing at a “them.”

Perhaps that’s why the first several verses in today’s Old Testament reading struck me as they did: Amos begins not by congratulating those who seek “the day of the LORD” but pointing out to them that divine judgment will not allow easy escapes.  You might get away from the lion of state violence, but the bear of violence delegated to the consumer public is waiting there if you’re not watching.  And you might just get snake-bitten if you consider the “house” of partisan allegiance, no matter what flavor, is a place where one escapes the clutches of injustice and unrighteousness.  The Day of the LORD is all gloom; nobody should presume to stand apart from “those people” when the chips are down.

Certainly I don’t want to minimize the role of Christians in doing serious political philosophy and thinking hard about the inner workings of political parties and the policies of national leaders and such.  But if Amos teaches us anything, Amos teaches us that self-congratulation is always about two verses away from divine retribution.

May our eyes for justice see our own sins as well.

Christian Humanist Forum Up and Running

29 October 2011

I’m going to be modifying the boards in the course of the next few weeks, but I figured I’d provide a link to the new forums and invite folks to propose books to discuss, request new toys, and other such things.  Look as well for some redesign in the right margin of this page and the podcast’s home page some time soon.

If you want to copy and paste an address into your bookmarks or whatever, the forums will reside at http://www.christianhumanist.org/chf for the foreseeable future.

Project Link-Way

28 October 2011

My Kind of Theologian: A Review of Earthen Vessels by Matthew Lee Anderson

26 October 2011

Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to Our Faith

by Matthew Lee Anderson

231 pp. $14.99.  Bethany House.

The preface to Matthew Anderson’s book is subtitled, “In Which I Clear my Throat.”  How could I but love this book?  Oh, and in one of the concluding chapters, he takes an “emergent” Christian author to task for putting the Western preference bodily presence at the feet of Descartes.  Yes, those of you who have read some Enlightenment philosophy, he said that Descartes regards the body too highly.  And Matt Anderson takes him to school in a blistering and funny endnote.  What chance does someone like me stand?

What’s really remarkable about this book, though, beyond the erudite sense of humor, is the strong balance between self-criticism and an insistence that some ideas are better than others.  Some books are so self-critical that it’s hard to understand why the author wanted to write a book in the first place, and others (the majority of bad books) become so convinced of their main ideas that they treat any who differ as idiotic, morally deficient, and otherwise unpleasant as human beings.  Anderson, instead of these extremes, starts out each of his first few chapters reciting common pronunciations and then qualifying them.  Do people say that evangelicals shade into Platonism as they hate the body?  Behold, Anderson insists, the evangelical delight in weddings and our language of being bodily present with God in the resurrection.  And while you’re at it, read some Plato beyond the Phaedo (54).  Does modern Christianity shade into Gnosticism in its preference for disembodied bliss as a picture of the afterlife?  Go read some actual Gnostic texts, Anderson suggests, and stop using “Gnostic” as a catch-all pejorative (37).

(I have to note that I too have noticed the almost infinite flexibility of “Gnostic” as an insult for one’s enemies.  But Anderson published it in a book, where my observations have been mainly conversational.)

Earthen Vessels is my sort of book because it knows and owns its influences.  Although Anderson cites a wide range of ancient, medieval, and modern theologians along the way, his intellectual framework is without a doubt an Augustinian one: his account of the Fall (66-67) is one in which material creation, human beings included, are good, very good.  Logically prior to the distortions and travesties of the sin-warped world are the inherent goodness and God-belovedness of bodies, of minds, of all things seen and unseen.  Not once in the course of the book does Anderson pine for a world without bodies, even as he treats with deft exegesis those passages in the Bible that seem to point to such states.  At all points in the book he proceeds not as one trying to articulate “a new kind of” anything in particular but as someone who’s inherited a rich tradition.

Anderson’s humble Augustinianism serves as a handy toolbox as he takes on questions as diverse as tattooing (chapter 6), the death of the body and contemporary America’s obsession with vampire stories (chapter 9), the importance of architecture for Christian worship (chapter 5), and abortion as the logical outgrowth of consumerism and individualism (chapter 4–this was the second time in the first four chapters that I experienced at once the gratification of seeing a published theologian writing what I’d been saying for some years and the horror of realizing that I’d have to quote Anderson if I published my own thought at this point).  The real joy of this book is seeing how Anderson unpacks Augustinian theology as a genuine guide to Christian faithfulness for the twenty-first century.

One especially helpful move that the book makes early on is to step beyond the impasse that happens when, to use Anderson’s terms, one side of a question deploys the “legalist card” and the other side the “libertine card” (28).  Taking his own reasoning beyond that impasse, Anderson calls for a (tentative) stance of suspicion towards arguments that make the individual’s conscience the final arbiter of such things (29), preferring public reasoning that actually might bind the lives of Christians if we take seriously the contours of our own tradition.  Of course, such a move puts him in a position where both the civil libertarians (“you can’t tell me what to do with MY BODY”) and the economic libertarians (“you can’t tell me what to do with MY CASH”) will likely call foul, but from that starting point he can actually proceed to think theologically about the ways that we human beings relate to God, to self, and to others.

As someone who’s tried to think theologically about LGBTQIAW questions on this site, I especially appreciated his chapter on homosexuality, a chapter that begins with entirely too many provisos and apologies but really articulates some interesting points about the ways we frame the debate.  (In other words, even where my answers might differ from Anderson’s, we share a sense that folks tend to ask questions that won’t lead to answers that do any of the work that we want those answers to do.)  The chapter begins with the concept, central to an Augustinian theology of the human person, that desires are integral to who human beings are but are not constitutive in way that makes the death of those desires an entirely bad thing in all cases.  In other words, he begins with the conviction that conversion is possible and that conversion might actually transform what once we thought of as the core of our being (143).  He rightly points to the rhetoric of gay-marriage and gay-ordination advocates as having its roots, historically, precisely in evangelical speech about sexuality’s place as the core of identity and about sexuality as being constituted of “needs” that one gets fulfilled by means of marriage (146).  Rejecting the idea that traditional Christian theologies of sex begin and end with “clobber verses” condemning temple-prostitution and pederasty exclusively, Anderson uses the image of the iceberg (153) to indicate that the traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality do not get the prohibitions of “abominations” and “pederasty” tacked on as meaningless codas but rather have at their “underwater” core a picture of mutuality and complementarity that logically leads to a picture that holds forth a robust picture of mutual self-giving that renders alternatives not terrifying so much as sadly inadequate by comparison.  In other words, Anderson’s is a theology of sexuality that attempts to find its roots not in the “needs” language of modern psychology but in the mutual self-giving of the Trinity, which in turn takes its shape from the counsel of Scripture.

Such is not to say that the question thus becomes easy, and Anderson readily admits that pastoral concerns, such as those that might arise should atheist gay couples adopt children and then convert to Christianity, will require some genuinely difficult deliberation (158).  Such thoughtfulness does not mean that ultimately Anderson’s theology of sexuality is going to satisfy those with genuine and strongly-held political differences, but I for one respect his honesty as he takes on more interesting questions than I see answered in most exchanges on the subject.

The other chapter in this fine book that particularly interests me is that on “spiritual practices” as often advocated by liberal (or progressive, if you prefer that name) Christians.  Anderson’s chapter argues that such “spiritual practices” as yoga and Eastern meditation could be harmless or destructive, that variables as complex as interior disposition, influence from other human beings, and the ability to assimilate body positions into an orthodox account of existence make any attempts globally to say “good” or “bad” about such things inescapably reductionist.  Following up and addressing those who say that their “spirituality” happens when they take walks on windy days, hike mountain trails, or play with children; Anderson makes a helpful (and very Augustinian) distinction between bodily pleasure, which is inherently good but subject to abuse, and those means of grace that Scripture sets aside as genuinely spiritual, namely reading and meditation on the Scripture, solitary prayer to God after the manner of the Psalms, and gathering around the Eucharistic table.  Anderson grants that listening to particularly good rock albums and laughing at an particularly good joke are good things but insists that they’re simply not the same as those practices that Scripture and traditions set aside as particularly Christian (190).  After yours truly got a slap in the face from a certain Cynthia for neglecting a range of spiritual practices mentioned in another book, Anderson’s chapter on Christian spiritual practices was a welcome read.

For the sake of the suspicious, I will mention here that Anderson contacted me and sent me a complimentary copy of this book for review, but as the review just mentioned should tell anyone who’s suspicious, a free book don’t always become a book that I like.  To his credit, Anderson contacted me the day after that review went live, showing that he does not fear the scrutiny of a reviewer with a nasty little personality like my own.  For that reason, but for many other and better reasons within the book itself, I can recommend this volume without reservation to thoughtful Christians looking to think through some of the hardest questions about living as embodied existences in this fallen but God-beloved world.

 

The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #62: Aeschylus

25 October 2011

General Introduction
- Flowin’ like a bottle of Drano
- What’s on the blog?
- A listener vastly overestimates us

Who Is Prometheus?
- Deflating Gilmour’s balloon
- Zeus as new god on the block
- Sympathy for Prometheus

Zeus’s Role in the Play
- Bodily absent, present via agents
- Translating Zeus’s helpers
- (Browning’s translation comes from 1833)
- Descriptions of Zeus
- Zeus’s justice
- Divine ambiguities
- The suffering of Io

Divine Suffering and the Dionysian Festival
- Prometheus as crucified god
- The ambiguities of the festival itself
- Dionysus as suffering god and cause of suffering
- Improper worship
- Why Hephaestus limps

Bad Fortune as a Character
- Lady Fortune knocks some sense into Boethius
- The sublunary world
- Randomness, not malice
- Wyrd fortune
- Wheel! Of! Fortune!

Milton’s Prometheus
- Selfishness
- Satan’s public and private voices
- Milton critics as grumpy Muppets
- Ancient patterns of heroism

Unbinding Prometheus
- Shelley’s dissatisfaction
- The information Prometheus has on Zeus
- How fan fiction “corrects” the ending
- Appealing beyond Zeus
- Why use the Roman names?

The Nü Atheists: Stealing Fire?
- Why theodicy and anti-theodicy is nothing new
- Bart Ehrman’s immense self-satisfaction
- Higher justice and the Catholic Church
- Why Ivan Karamazov is a better Prometheus
- Dawkins and the bigger questions
- Is Prometheus an atheist?

Prometheus Bound and the Modern Christian
- The play as a corrective to syncretism
- Mythology as the good dreams of man
- The punishment for pity
- Shattering the unified “Greek mindset”
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aeschylus. Aeschylus II: The Suppliant Maidens and the Persians, Seven Against Thebes and Prometheus Bound. Ed. David Grene and Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992.

Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. Victor Watts. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Dante. Inferno. Trans. Mark Musa. New York: Penguin, 2002.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Trans. Susan McReynolds Oddo. New York: Norton, 2011.

Ehrman, Bart. God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

Euripides. Euripides V: Electra, The Phoenician Women, The Bacchae. Ed. David Grene and Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1969.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2009.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. New York: Norton, 2004.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe. Prometheus Unbound. London: Black Box Press, 2007.

The Seat of Moses: A Reflection on the Lectionary Readings for 30 October 2011

24 October 2011

Revised Common Lectionary Page for 30 October 2011 (20th Sunday after Pentecost, Year A)

Joshua 3:7-17 and Psalm 107:1-7, 33-37  • Micah 3:5-12 and Psalm 43  • 1 Thessalonians 2:9-13  • Matthew 23:1-12

Today’s was the sort of Lectionary reading that surprises even someone like me who thinks he knows the Bible.  And for that matter, it’s a reading that makes me reconsider some of the big-picture theological moves that I tend to make, or at least those that I make without thinking.  I came into the theological scene in the mid-nineties and went to seminary at the turn of the twenty-first century, when the cardinal sin was hypocrisy and “orthopraxy” and “incarnational” Christianity were coming into their own as “the big things.”  (Yes, those trends were around fifteen years ago.)  We challenged the champions of right doctrine to show us how those doctrines played out and gloried at the fact that the lives that resulted were seldom appealing lives, according to our particular, college-senior-and-grad-student aesthetic.  (Yes, those were also around fifteen years ago.)

But in this week’s Gospel reading, Jesus insists both on the teaching and the way of life, on praxis and on doxa.  The hypocrisy (Jesus used forms of that word, after all) of the Pharisees nobody can miss in this pericope, and anybody trying to minimize the same is not reading carefully.  But just as plain is the injunction to respect the content of Pharasaical doctrine, to acknowledge the authority of the Seat of Moses.  And the metaphor here is not merely ocular: one must not merely see as the Pharisees see but follow what the Pharisees teach.  The verb is unmistakable, and I can only with great effort resist the urge to joke about Jesus calling himself not so much a Jew as a Pharisee-follower.

Okay.  I didn’t resist.

Humility, to salvage what little bit of serious thought I had going here, means at a minimum, then, an acknowledgment that the best teaching is always the best teaching, even if the best teachers happen to be wretched human beings.  What Jesus enjoins here can’t possibly be a blind eye turned to their wickedness, but it also can’t be a rejection of teaching based on an evaluation of the teachers (much less a facile psychoanalysis of the same).  To live in that impossible place, lowering one’s self to follow the reprehensible because they bear the divine word, is precisely what makes going to church every Sunday so difficult.  (And I say that as one of my congregation’s main teachers.)  But difficult might just translate into the narrow way, the cross to carry, the foolishness to those perishing.

May our humility always shape the ways we relate to our teachers.

 

First as Tragedy, then as a Link

21 October 2011

The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #61: Euripides

18 October 2011

General Introduction
- What is a triptych, anyway?
- We stand outside of time
- What’s on the blog?

Euripides the Man
- What do we know?
- Making fun of Euripides
- Misogynist
- Troubled loner
- The “happy plays”

Hippolytus
- His unfortunate story
- Other sources for the myth
- Euripides’ first version
- Those amoral gods!
- Who’s really to blame here?

The Deus Ex Machina
- Petty yet ultimately vindictive behavior
- Aphrodite as metaphor
- Being kind to Aphrodite

Hippolytus’ Suffering
- For what does he suffer?
- Plato’s criticism of Euripides
- The realistic turn
- Absence of hamartia
- Hippolytus’ modern heirs
- Immoderate celibacy
- Misogyny

Medea
- Her long, troubled fate
- Never give a witch an inch
- Is she a proto-feminist or a monster?
- Medea’s original reception
- Rapidly changing characters
- Aegeus’s cameo
- How does it compare to Seneca’s version?

Euripides’ Influence
- Medea as godly woman
- Euripides and Paul’s advice
- The dark side of paganism
- Melville’s quarrel
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Aristophanes. The Frogs and Other Plays. Trans. Shomit Dutta. New York: Penguin, 2007.

Aristotle. Trans. Joe Sachs. Newburyport, Mass.: Focus, 2005.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. New York: Norton, 2005.

Euripides. Alcestis and Other Plays. Trans. Philip Vellacott. New York: Penguin, 1974.

—. Medea and Other Plays. Trans. John Davie. New York: Penguin, 2003.

McIntyre, Alasdair. A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century. South Bend, Ind.: U of Notre Dame P, 1998.

Melville, Herman. Pierre; or, the Ambiguities. New York: Penguin, 1996.

Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. New York: Penguin, 1998.

Murray, Gilbert. Euripides and His Age. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2011.

Ovid. Heroides. Trans. Harold Isbell. New York: Penguin, 1990.

Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. New York: Hackett, 1995.

—. Republic. Trans. Allan Bloom. New York: Basic, 1991.

Seneca. Six Tragedies. Trans. Emily Wilson. New York: Oxford UP, 2010.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. New York: Arden, 1997.

His Eye Was not Dim: A Reflection on the Lectionary Readings for 23 October 2011

17 October 2011

 

 

Revised Common Lectionary Page for 23 October 2011 (19th Sunday after Pentecost, Year A)

Deuteronomy 34:1-12 and Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17  •  Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18 and Psalm 1  •  1 Thessalonians 2:1-8  •  Matthew 22:34-46

 

Perhaps teaching Dostoevsky to my English majors and minors recently has sent me down this path, but looking at this week’s Old Testament reading  reminds me that, when one takes a step back from particular books of the Bible and tries to take the whole collection of sacred Scripture as authoritative, an immensely complex picture arises.  (As I’ve noted more than once, I find readings of the Bible that take the extremes as themselves inspired more compelling than those that try to grind down what seems an inherent plurality in favor of a less-compelling “harmonized” reading.)  Abraham is the exemplar of faithfulness, but he’s also so fearful and self-serving as to pimp his wife out not to one but to two separate men of power in two separate episodes.  And in some places, his place as paragon of faithfulness derives not from striking out for Canaan but for being willing and ready to murder his own son.  King David is a man after God’s own heart and one who will attempt to manipulate God into saving the son of Bathsheba, the one conceived in the course of his murderous plot, with ostentatious public mourning, only to cut the mourning off instantly and to pull one of his wives into bed to replace the lost child within a verse or two of his son’s dying.  His last words to Solomon (conceived perhaps minutes after his elder brother’s death) are the strange mix of a holy man’s vision for constructing  a temple worthy of YHWH and a gangster’s final hit list.

Moses is no different from the men who are in some ways his forerunner and his successor in the imagination of Israel: he’s a terrorist assassin rejected by the Hebrews because they cannot trust a murderer to save their lives, and he’s a man so plagued by his own insignificance that YHWH must appoint a mouthpiece to speak for him.  He’s the singular figure for a generation of Israel’s pre-history, and he’s barred most violently from taking any part at all in the generation where Joshua must loom large.  He’s the most humble man who ever lived and one barred from entering the land promised to the humblest of nations.  And perhaps most importantly, he’s an inescapably particular human character, one whose wrath and whose reserve are undeniable; and he’s a figure whose individuality fairly often gets subsumed into the grand story of God.  It’s just as sensible to talk about Moses as a novel character, with all of the self-awareness and self-deception that the great figures of literature exhibit, as it is to write about the life of Israel in the Land as the Post-Mosaic period, to treat the man as himself a historical period.

And since the gospel of Matthew especially takes pains to frame Jesus as himself participating in that larger-than-life Moses reality (he escapes the child-killing wrath of an evil king, emerges out of Egypt, preaches five long sermons just as there are five books of Moses, ends the book of Matthew atop a mountain, and follows a man named Joseph as the male lead in the book) but does not allow even Jesus to colonize the peculiarity of Moses (unless you consider “take this cup from me” to be on a par with “who am I to go to Pharaoh,” which I don’t), the death of Moses can and must remain the Hebrew shepherd’s peculiar story.  The fact of the matter is that, unlike Jesus, who is with his followers always (it says so at the end of Matthew), Moses can never join the people in Canaan.  His part in the story must always be a sort of prelude, not one that lacks the power to define and inspire future experience but nonetheless not paradigmatic for Israel’s life as Israel.  When the Jews (and Jesus and the Church) have moments when Moses is clearly their (our) paradigm, those must be moments when we look forward to something that Moses never could experience, namely to be welcomed in to the place of rest.

Moses, who in turn could and did turn away the wrath of YHWH against the idolatrous Hebrews and take up his own sword to cut them down in their idolatry, can never fully be us.  His loneliness on that mountain, knowing that the story of Israel would really begin only after the story of Moses came to a definitive ending, was the loneliness of the clear eye, not one that takes death as the “natural” diminution of human powers but that grieves the unspeakable horror of a God who will save a nation only after the singular figure of the nation’s pre-history is dead and gone.  His sight on that mountain will never be ours because our own vision of the future can and must be a hopeful one, never discounting the possibility that the coming of the Kingdom might reach its consummation in this moment.  Or the next.  Or the next.  Only the hope of the resurrection can keep Moses from becoming (or remaining) a tragic figure, whose fate at the dark decree of the divine is never to enter in.  Only the resurrection will let any of us escape just that tragedy.

May our prayers to the God of faith and hope and love some day find us alongside Moses in the rest of God.

 

 

 

Yesterday Is Gone Like the Wind

14 October 2011

When Chris Gehrz (of CWC: The Radio Show semi-fame) and I first started emailing back and forth a few years ago, we talked a lot about our shared tastes in music, especially as they involved two bands: Minneapolis heroes The Jayhawks and indie rock mainstays Wilco. With both bands releasing highly anticipated albums this year, we figured it was a good time for us to talk about them again—with the difference that this time our conversation was at least somewhat formalized and recorded for your perusal and/or benefit.

As you’ll see, we mostly agree about the respective quality of the two albums—The Jayhawks’ Mockingbird Time and Wilco’s The Whole Love—so I’m afraid that if you’re looking for a critical cage match, you’ve come to the right place. But we hope that our thoughts might give a few people a new way of looking at these albums.

 

Michial Farmer: Chris, you wrote briefly about the new Jayhawks and Wilco albums on your blog this week as part of an excellent larger post about wanting your favorite singers to share your religious convictions. From that post, I gather that you like The Whole Love quite a bit and are, let’s say, underwhelmed by Mockingbird Time. I largely share your feelings, though I suspect I like the new Jayhawks record a bit more than you do. What’s your problem with it?

 

Chris Gehrz: I should probably start, Michial, by saying that “underwhelmed” is a relative term. I had pretty much given up on seeing anything new from the band (with or without Mark Olson) as we got farther and farther away from 2003 and Rainy Day Music (which felt increasingly like an appropriate send-off). So the prospect of finding the band reconvening for a 4th decade was exhilarating.

Given that starting point, almost anything was bound to collapse under the weight of my expectations. But what can I say? Despite repeated listens, I can only think of it as something less than the sum of its parts: not as tuneful or adventurous as the Louris albums, not as literate as Olson’s solo album (The Salvation Blues).

Like some other ‘Hawks records, the strongest material is frontloaded; to me, the first four tracks far outpace most anything else on the album, with “She Walks in So Many Ways” being the clear stand-out. (Am I legally required to make a Byrds comparison at this point?) But despite some typically fine Louris guitar work (his acoustic picking on “Pouring Rain at Dawn” makes it my favorite cut on the second half of the album) and the small joy of hearing Karen Grotberg chime in on some of the harmonies for the first time in ages, I found most of the album forgettable. Pleasant, but forgettable. And in a couple of cases, pretty awful.

Do you want to talk about the title track, or should I? :)

 

Farmer: I’ll talk about the title track–and of course you can add to my thoughts–because I think it’s a microcosm of my problems with Mark Olson’s songwriting in general. “Mockingbird Time” is the sort of ponderous ballad that believes it has something heavy to say, man, and just to make sure you get the point, it says it four times in the first four lines:

Yesterday is gone like the wind
Like the wind, it is gone
Yesterday is gone like the wind
Like the wind, it is gone

The best songwriters in the country idiom take clichés and rejuvenate them; Olson is at least intermittently capable of doing so. (I haven’t heard Salvation Blues, but “Pray for Me,” from Tomorrow the Green Grass, is a good example of his elevation of clichés.) But he doesn’t do it in this song: “Yesterday is gone like the wind” is the sort of cliché that has long since been stripped of any literal or metaphorical meaning, and inverting it and repeating it twice doesn’t do much to bring it back. And the melody is boring, too!

Throughout the album, in fact, Olson seems to content to take country/Americana stock images and reproduce them in simple grayscale, adding nothing at all interesting. “Tell us what to do, Black Eyed Susan,” he says at one point. Is he talking to a woman or a flower? More importantly, who can force himself to care? Occasionally he’ll get a good one off; there’s a bizarre line in that same song where he talks about a typewriter at a business college, and it’s just arcane and left-of-center enough to be compelling. But mostly his lyrics are bad, bad, bad.

I read an interview with Olson—who, I should say, seems like a perfectly nice guy and who has written or co-written at least five of my favorite songs in the world—where he pointed out that Gary Louris tends to write straightforwardly, whereas he writes with a “little more mystery.” This is the surface-level difference between the two of them, yes—but the difference is that Olson tends to hide the pedestrian beneath the “mystical” and Louris tends to cover something profound with something straightforward. I always think of “Stick in the Mud” from Sound of Lies; addressing, I assume, his ex-wife, he says, “Let me be nice to you / You’re still my best friend.” Those simple lines—maybe the saddest I’ve ever heard—contain depths that nothing I’ve heard from Olson (certainly nothing on Mockingbird Time) gets at.

I think you’re right to point to “She Walks in So Many Ways” and “Pouring Rain at Dawn” as highlights. It’s also interesting that these are two songs that downplay Olson’s involvement. “She Walks” has really beautiful four-part harmonies (and, as you mention, a stolen Roger McGuinn riff), and “Pouring Rain at Dawn” is unquestionably a Louris song.

But I may be being too hard on Mark Olson. You’re more of a fan of his than I am; I like the Jayhawks much more when he’s not with them, and I’ve never sought out an Olson solo record. Am I missing something in his songwriting or singing?

 

Gehrz: I think we’re closer on the great Louris/Olson debate than I may have intimated, Michial. I was shocked how much I liked Salvation Blues, and generally play Sound of Lies and Rainy Day Music more often even than Hollywood Town Hall and Tomorrow the Green Grass. (Let’s not speak of Smile.) And I think we agree that Louris also was generous enough to share some of his best songs with Golden Smog. (Not to mention the Dixie Chicks! If you want to go down that road . . . Do you think Louris has a house in Spain called Casa Everybody Knows?)

To be sure, Louris is capable of writing clunkers. It turns out that repeating a line (and then doing it again, and maybe again) doesn’t actually make it more profound. (cf. “High Water Blues” and “Hey Mr. Man”) But I think you’re exactly right in your analysis of the distinction in writing styles: “Olson tends to hide the pedestrian beneath the ‘mystical’ and Louris tends to cover something profound with something straightforward.”

Which is why “Closer to Your Side” is probably the best Olson lyric on here. There’s some inversions that I can take or leave (“You my heart I can give it to / You my soul I can make it with…”), but for the most part, he plays it straight: “Please let me be the one / To see you in the day”; “It’s hard to make things better / Go ahead and try, go ahead and try.”

I’m actually more of a fan of Olson’s voice than his lyrics. One of the nicest features on the DVD that accompanies the album is a brief documentary built around clips of an interview with Olson and Louris. Around the 5:00 mark, as they talk about the famous meshing of their voices, Olson explains:

I’ve always thought of melody in terms of the viola. Like when I sing along with a song, I’m always singing this weird counter-melody. When I learned other songs, I never really sang the correct melody.

There’s also something distinctive about his phrasing (and the way it shapes his writing) that I’m not a good enough singer myself to understand or explain, but the viola analogy clicked. I’ve known a few viola players, and they all have this slightly off-kilter approach to both melody and harmony, never quite going the direction you’d expect.

Then you add in Louris, who explains as the interview continues that he has an ear for high harmony (and, I’ve heard him say before, a voice that he thinks sounds like a woman’s), and you’ve got the unique phenomenon of two harmony/counter-melody singers, neither of whom sings a traditional lead part, fronting an often quite melodic band. Where the new album best recaptures the old magic that blend is front and center: “She Walks in So Many Ways” and especially “Pouring Rain at Dawn.” On the latter, Olson’s harmony isn’t particularly complex (at times he’s in unison with Louris, or an octave lower), but the way the vocals and guitars intertwine is lovely.

For better (those harmonies) and worse (some of the lyrics), the album made me think of CSN(Y). Like that group, The Jayhawks work only when those other-worldly voices unironically singing neo-hippie sentiments (C/N) are grounded in sounds and rhythms that still recognizably descend from roots music genres like country and blues (S/Y).

If you don’t mind my moving the conversation towards Wilco . . . Is Jeff Tweedy the lyricist mystically pedestrian, straightforwardly profound, both, neither, or something else entirely?

Farmer: In a lot of ways, Tweedy seems to have a more interesting progression as a writer and musician than either Louris or Olson, who have maintained a fairly steady style over the years. But Tweedy started off writing very straightforward punk/country songs–both with Uncle Tupelo and in the early years of Wilco—and then took a sharp left turn, spurred on by drugs, Henry Miller, and Jim O’Rourke. I tend to think Tweedy’s lyrics are at their most effective when they are most obtuse, which means I dig what he does on Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and A Ghost Is Born more than on any of his other albums.

But “obtuse,” like “underwhelmed,” is a relative term. Tweedy’s written some strange stuff over the years, but it’s usually pretty obvious what he’s getting at even when he dances around direct statement. “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” is a good example. I don’t know what “Take off your Band-Aid ‘cos I don’t believe in touchdowns” means, exactly, but the “meaning,” if you want to call it that, of the song itself is fairly obvious on an emotional level. Ditto an even stranger lyric like “Spiders (Kidsmoke).” 

Besides all that, I’m oversimplifying Tweedy’s progression as a lyricist, since through all eras of his songwriting he has maintained a certain quota of (occasionally embarrassing) straightforward songs. So even on Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, you have “Heavy Metal Drummer,” and on other albums you get songs like “Hate It Here,” “Walken,” and “Everlasting Everything.” The Whole Love, likewise, while it’s got the cutup poetry of “Art of Almost,” has as its centerpiece two of the finest and most straightforward Tweedy songs of the last decade: “Capital City” and “Open Mind.” It’s the instrumentation rather than the lyrics that carry those songs, but the lyrics don’t get in the way, at least.

Which brings me to my next question: Do you listen to Wilco primarily for the lyrics? I think at their best, Tweedy’s lyrics merely mesh with whatever the musicians around him are doing. Very few of them would work as standalone poetry–and if you don’t believe me, you can read his book of poems, Adult Head. The best I can say about it is that it’s better than Billy Corgan’s Blinking with Fists, which came out around the same time. Every now and then a Tweedy lyric will grab me, but it’s usually more for mellifluousness than for “meaning” as such. Do you disagree?


Gehrz:
I hope you didn’t have your heart set on an Aykroyd/Curtin-style Point/Counter-Point, since I’m going to have to agree with you yet again. Tweedy is capable of some amazing lyrics. (Some of my favorite lines are back-to-back on Ghost: the metaphors of “A fixed bayonet through the great southwest / to forget her” and “in the deep chrome canyons of the loudest Manhattans” from “Hummingbird,” and then “if I ever was myself / I wasn’t that night” from “Handshake Drugs.”) But for the most part, Tweedy’s words (and his voice, which has worn well and become more nuanced over time) are just another instrument in the band. Detached from that context . . . Er . . .

Take “I Might,” for example: “A cow’s neck / Bad shave / In the low blow slo-mo” or “The Magna Carta’s / On a Slim Jim blood / Brutha!” Sheer nonsense. “Hoodoo Voodoo” for adults. But, Lord help me, add a sprinkle of glockenspiel and a dash or two of Cline and shake it all together with some thundering fuzz bass and . . . Well, I might just keep it looping for the rest of this conversation.

I think what it points to is that Tweedy was self-aware to realize that he was much better as a part of a band than apart from one. (I think this is why I don’t really love Summerteeth so much as admire it from a distance: it feels less like a band than anything else in the Wilco canon.) I don’t know of too many other frontmen so willing to share the spotlight with their sidemen as Tweedy does on The Whole Love. Most satisfying for those of us who’ve been with Wilco for most or all of their run, bassist John Stirratt (the only founding member left besides Tweedy, and perhaps the nicest, most unassuming guy in rock’n'roll now that R.E.M. is retired and Mike Mills has more time to play golf) is allowed to be the star of the first two tracks. (Ever since Ghost is Born, it could be argued that Stirratt is Wilco’s MVP. Not the most talented player, but the indispensably stable core who can lock in a rhythm or, as on that album’s “At Least That’s What You Said,” anchor the guitar heroics in melody.)

I’m trying hard, by the way, not to talk about Wilco by comparison or contrast to The Jayhawks; they’re different bands trying to accomplish different things. But having the two albums come out so close together, and then listening to them one after the other for a week, it’s even harder not to notice that one of these bands is vastly more adventurous than the other.

Earlier I compared The Jayhawks to CSN(Y). In the case of Wilco, the (Y) is clearly the point of comparison (all for the best, as far as I’m concerned). Not just because Wilco does a pretty good Crazy Horse impression (see “At Least That’s What You Said” again), but because they exemplify what the liner notes to Rust Never Sleeps describe as “Young’s conviction that an artist’s reach must always exceed his grasp; that the alternative to creative growth was stagnation and irrelevancy.” I admire Tweedy & Co. for their willingness to let the world listen to them overreaching. I’m not sure anything they’ve released is either as weak as Young’s early 1980s experiments or as consistently brilliant as Rust (or as compelling/scary as Tonight’s the Night), but let’s face it: no one who listened to 22-year old Jeff Tweedy insist that “We don’t care what happens outside the screen door” could have predicted that, twenty years after No Depression, his new band would release an eighth album that begins with a track so unlikely and innovative (“Art of Almost”) that the L.A. Times published an oral history of its evolution.

Of course, that same restless (or tiresome, for some) spirit makes it hard when someone asks (as did our friend Sam Mulberry on the CWC podcast) for a representative Wilco album that would be a good starting point for someone who hasn’t heard the band before. I said something to the effect of, “Whatever’s the newest album.”

What would you recommend, Michial? Is The Whole Love the place to start for a Wilco neophyte?

 

Farmer: I’d forgotten about the lyrics to “Hummingbird,” which, as you note, are very good—even if they’re mostly paraphrases of Henry Miller.

Now it’s time for my “Chris, you ignorant slut” moment, I guess: I don’t like “I Might” very much. In fact, when the band released the track as a single a few months back, I was convinced that it signified another slide in quality from a band that had been on the decline for at least six years. In the context of the album, I do like it more; its exuberance is catchy, but it’s also tempered by the weirder songs around it on the record. But it’s still likely my least favorite of the new songs.

In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that I don’t think the record really coheres until its fifth song, “Black Moon,” which sounds almost like an outtake from Uncle Tupelo’s March 16-20, 1992—with some added Nels Cline weirdness on the top of it. It’s less a song than an atmosphere, but as I mostly listened to the album while getting ready for work every morning around 5:45, it’s the right sort of atmosphere for me.

Tweedy is definitely best as part of a band, and to his credit, as you say, he seems to recognize that. Have you read Greg Kot’s book on Wilco, Learning to Die? Reading that book, I was left with the distinct impression that Tweedy’s talent is the sort that doesn’t have legs on its own; rather, he needs another person to serve as his catalyst. In Uncle Tupelo, obviously, that person was Jay Farrar. For the first half of Wilco’s run, it was Jay Bennett. (I’d go so far as to suggest that your dislike of Summerteeth is a distaste for Bennett . . . to quote myself.) Then it was Jim O’Rourke, in the Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and A Ghost Is Born era, not to mention the two strange records he and Glenn Kotche made with O’Rourke as Loose Fur. I’ve spent the last half-decade wondering if Nels Cline—incredible guitarist though he is—might be responsible for Tweedy’s lackluster musical output. The Whole Love largely eases those fears, but I do wonder if my theory still holds and if Cline serves as his most recent (and longest-lasting) catalyst.

To tie this back into the Jayhawks, Gary Louris in particular is a much more conventional co-writer; he clearly prefers to write songs with other people rather than sitting down and coming up with something wholly alone. So when he’s not writing with Olson, his credits usually include people like Kraig Johnson (of Golden Smog), the Dixie Chicks, Jayhawks bass player Marc Perlman—and of course Tweedy himself. As a songwriter who finds it very difficult to write anything with other people—I always gave full songwriting credit to all the members of the band I was in, but usually I came in with the song fully written and they tweaked the arrangement—I’m fascinated by Louris’s ability to play well with others.

But back to Wilco. Sam’s question is a difficult one because all the albums are so different. I think Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is definitely their best, but if the person to whom you’re recommending it isn’t comfortable with moderate experimentation, it’s probably not a great place to start. You’re probably better off with Being There, which has songs that run the gamut of what Wilco could do in 1997. They’d be capable of much more later on, but that album is quality.

Stirratt, for what it’s worth, is indeed one of the great underrated bass players in rock music. The opening instrumental salvo of “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” simply wouldn’t be what it is without that bass line, which is earth-shattering but strangely melodic. I’ve also always enjoyed his high harmonies, from “A Shot in the Arm” to “Theologians” to the title track on The Whole Love, which also features a great punchy bassline.

Here’s a question for you: What does it say about me and my religious convictions that my two favorite songs on The Whole Love are the two most explicitly anti-Christian: “Born Alone” and “One Sunday Morning”?

 

Gehrz: It says that you’re a person of deep religious convictions and impeccable musical taste, Michial, because they’re two of my favorite songs as well. (On top of any meaning Tweedy intends and/or we attach, they’re just very pretty songs.) I’m sure some of the same ambivalence you’re feeling came through in my post on being a Christian fan of Wilco (where I quoted both songs). Perhaps what it means is that—for all that we just wrote in praising the weird, the inscrutable, and the nonsensical in Tweedy’s lyrics—we can appreciate the bracing splashes of candor as well. Sometimes I need singer-songwriters to stop trying to be artistes and just tell it like they’re Merle Haggard (another of our mutual favorites, I believe).

I ended up recommending Being There on the CWC podcast, simply because it was the first Wilco CD I ever bought and that worked out alright. (It’s still my sentimental favorite. So no, I don’t dislike Jay Bennett, so long as he’s playing the role of insanely talented double-threat sideman—my happiest moment as a guitarist was when I bought my Telecaster and learned to play the riff on “Outtasite”—and not that of the Pro Tools-wielding Brian Wilson wannabe for whom, as Stirratt put it in Kot’s book, “the studio became an end in itself.”) But I’m not sure that The Whole Love‘s not the place to start. It’s easily the most interesting and accomplished album of the three produced by this current incarnation of Wilco (not counting the live double-album, Kicking Television), and with that lineup feeling so settled, probably a good indicator of what to expect down the line.

And in that configuration, I’m not sure if Tweedy has a single catalyst, or if his bandmates will push him (to further heights as an artist or to the edge of insanity) in the same way that the Jays (Farrar and Bennett) did. Both Cline and Kotche come across as rare examples of musical prodigies who are utterly selfless, happy to do whatever much or little is necessary for the song. Likewise, Pat Sansone (who helped produce and mix the new album and seems to play at least half a dozen instruments on every song) brings Bennett-like versatility, studio expertise, and (as Tweedy says in another LA Times piece) “infinite stamina for the details,” but I can’t see him driving Tweedy as crazy as Bennett seemed to do during the Yankee Hotel Foxtrot sessions. (See the documentary I Am Trying to Break Your Heart, in which it occasionally feels like Jay Bennett — may he rest in peace; I really don’t dislike him—is trying to break Tweedy’s mind).

If the title track on the previous album was a valentine from Tweedy to fans (“Wilco / Wilco / Wilco will love you, baby”), I can’t help but read its counterpart on The Whole Love as a pledge from Tweedy to the band: while acknowledging that “I know that I won’t be / The easiest to set free,” he will “still love you to death” and hope to “know when to show you my / Whole love.” The band has never felt more, well, whole, and Tweedy (channeling Lou Reed on “I Might”) might actually be “all right.”

Of course, that song might be for his wife, or his children, or his country (disappeared), or the Cubs, or—I do pray—his God. Or all of the above. Or none. I fear that my attempt to play critic is starting to make me sound more Christgau and less Chris, so I’ll make this my final word and invite you to close us with a benediction, Michial.

 

Farmer: Of course, Haggard doesn’t always play it exactly straight, either, does he? I remember his remark about the line from “Okee from Muskogee” that says “We don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogee.” “That’s about the only place I don’t smoke it,” he said.

My Wilco listenership began with Summerteeth, which means it holds a special place in my heart. I also find Being There to be rather overstuffed; other than “Sunken Treasure” and “Someday Soon,” I rarely listen to that second disc. For all its virtue, I suspect The Whole Love will fall into that category, as well. I’ll probably return to “Black Moon,” “Born Alone,” “Open Mind,” the title track, and “One Sunday Morning”—and the rest of the album will take up residence on the external hard drive where I store songs I don’t want to listen to regularly. But I still feel much better about it than I did about Wilco (The Album) and Sky Blue Sky. If it’s not as good as their classic-period albums, they at least sound vital again.

The same, obviously, cannot be said for the Jayhawks on Mockingbird Time. They sound for the life of them like a band that ran out of collective steam a decade and a half ago, and I guess they did: When the Olson/Louris partnership ended, Olson went on to make what you claim as very good solo records, while Louris trooped on with the Jayhawks, with Golden Smog, and eventually on his own solo album. It seems that they would have been better off doing their own thing, or maybe coming together for one song every decade, as Simon and Garfunkel did with “My Little Town.”

Either way, I’ve enjoyed reviewing these albums with you, Chris, and I hope we’ll find occasion to do it again sometime.


Gehrz:
Likewise, Michial. I understand you’re a big fan of Lady Gaga . . .

Next Page »