Ballad in Plain D

This is what makes Dylan great: So much music I hear today has no lyrical significance. I love Dylan because I love stories. He can tell anecdotes with more than just words. His words stand on their own, but the ingenuity of his works is that he adds melody to produce the visceral aspect of the story. AHHH, I love this story....Enjoy!

"Ballad in Plain D" from the record Another Side of Bob Dylan 1964

I once loved a girl, her skin it was bronze.
With the innocence of a lamb, she was gentle like a fawn.
I courted her proudly but now she is gone,
Gone as the season she's taken.

Through young summer's breeze, I stole her away
From her mother and sister, though close did they stay.
Each one of them suffering from the failures of their day,
With strings of guilt they tried hard to guide us.

Of the two sisters, I loved the young.
With sensitive instincts, she was the creative one.
The constant scapegoat, she was easily undone
By the jealousy of others around her.

For her parasite sister, I had no respect,
Bound by her boredom, her pride to protect.
Countless visions of the other she'd reflect
As a crutch for her scenes and her society.

Myself, for what I did, I cannot be excused,
The changes I was going through can't even be used,
For the lies that I told her in hopes not to lose
The could-be dream-lover of my lifetime.

With unknown consciousness, I possessed in my grip
A magnificent mantelpiece, though its heart being chipped,
Noticing not that I'd already slipped
To a sin of love's false security.

From silhouetted anger to manufactured peace,
Answers of emptiness, voice vacancies,
Till the tombstones of damage read me no questions but, "Please,
What's wrong and what's exactly the matter?"

And so it did happen like it could have been foreseen,
The timeless explosion of fantasy's dream.
At the peak of the night, the king and the queen
Tumbled all down into pieces.

"The tragic figure!" her sister did shout,
"Leave her alone, God damn you, get out!"
And I in my armor, turning about
And nailing her to the ruins of her pettiness.

Beneath a bare light bulb the plaster did pound
Her sister and I in a screaming battleground.
And she in between, the victim of sound,
Soon shattered as a child 'neath her shadows.

All is gone, all is gone, admit it, take flight.
I gagged twice, doubled, tears blinding my sight.
My mind it was mangled, I ran into the night
Leaving all of love's ashes behind me.

The wind knocks my window, the room it is wet.
The words to say I'm sorry, I haven't found yet.
I think of her often and hope whoever she's met
Will be fully aware of how precious she is.

Ah, my friends from the prison, they ask unto me,
"How good, how good does it feel to be free?"
And I answer them most mysteriously,
"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"

Generating Conversation...

I don't believe in a fiery hell

I don't believe in a God who has the power to fix things but doesn't

I don't believe in an unchanging, immutable, stoic, sky-God 

I believe God is processing through this world with us
I don't believe I'm elect and you're not

I believe Calvin missed the big picture

I don't believe in tradition for tradition's sake

I believe God is the supreme Liberator
I believe a lot of my beliefs are relative and subjective
I don't believe Jesus is relative

I believe in subversive living
I believe in the outrageous
I don't believe God is small enough to depend on me to save God's creation
I don't believe I'm right and you're wrong

I don't believe my problems are always God's problems
I believe God can help fix our problems if we agree to take on God's problems
I don't believe Jesus is magic
I believe it is self-sacrifical love that makes the world go 'round
I don't believe you have to agree with me, just don't be an asshole about it

Summer Listening: Avett Brothers, Bon Iver, and Delta Spirit

Is anyone still trying to find that record that's going to perpetually remind you of summer 2008? Well, thanks to my David Brent-Quoting friend Will Frei, my music collection expanded immensely. Here's what I've been listening to lately and recommend.

Avett Brothers- South Carolina punk-bluegrass pop fusion. A must! Enjoy the melody drenched, pure, non-pitch corrected harmonies. It's catchiness and authenticity (recording and lyrically) rolled into one. Check out the record "Emotionalism" for your first listen. You may find yourself needing their earlier stuff subsequently. That's great too.

Avett brothers Myspace

Bon Iver- If you haven't yet, what planet are you living on? Wisconsin cabin-dweller, Justin Vernon hibernated for a winter in Northwestern Wisconi with an old reel-to-reel recording set up, and produced one of the most emotive and evocative records I've heard in years. Eerie at times, this mostly falsetto sung record has a unique production quality and should be listened to intently. This one is not for the happy-go-lucky drive to the beach, but more for the summer morning coffee situation. Check out Flume here on youtube. I love this song passionately!

"Flume" Live

Delta Spirit- Right now I am listening to these cats. This one of the bands Will introduced me to. Don't know much yet, but so far the record, "Ode to Sunshine" and song "People, Turn Around" are rocking my face off. The feel is quazi-folk and anthemic in nature. Beautiful and melodious. Enjoy this one too...

"People, Turn Around" Live

What are you listening to? Let me know your summer listening...What do you recommend?

If you're going to San Francisco...

This past weekend, I took my second trip to San Francisco. As I wandered around the city I found I had great affinity for this place. San Fran is a melting pot of people with architecture and culture unmatched by most cities in the states. Now I am no expert, but did some research and dragged my lady-friend around as I explored. What a good sport she was! Here are some of the places I visited and recommend.

First off, if you are gay, and haven’t been, you’re simply missing out. This place is as gay as two dudes watching “Will & Grace” in the dark. It truly is your Mecca. Go there! Gay or Straight, if you love culture, San Francisco is wrought with it. Someone told me that in San Fran, you can go anywhere in the world and eat any kind of food imaginable, anytime you want.

If you are a reader: Do not miss visiting the “City Lights” bookstore. It’s more than a bookstore really. Arguably the Mecca of bookstores in the states (that’s two Meccas in one city!), this was the home of the Beats. Here you can browse around upstairs wherein lies City Lights’ exhaustive collection of Beat literature. We got caught up in this small yet, overflowing den of introspection for far longer than we planned. I accessed my inner elementary schooler and enjoyed picture books of the lives of the Beats while Janelle enjoyed some beat poetry (who’s I can’t remember) I wanted to buy up most of the Beat section, but due to my student-induced poverty, I opted for a poster of my boys Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady.

“City Lights” is in the North Beach district, adjacent to Chinatown, and a block from Little Italy. As I see it, the North Beach district is the culmination of culture in San Fran. This was the highlight of the trip. After we finished up in “City Lights” we cruised up Columbus St. and got ourselves a couple of Philly cheesesteak sandies at “Buster’s Cheesesteak” on the corner of Vallejo and Columbus. We sat and ate on a bench on the sidewalk, listening to the conversations of the passers by. It was at the turn of 2am when we were sitting here, so you can imagine the types of conversations we enjoyed. It was colorful to say the least. It felt like I was shoved into an episode of This American Life.

(And don’t miss Chinatown. It’s said to be the most authentic Chinatown in the states. You’ll see why…)

As the Beats led to the Hippy Movement, so “City Lights” led me to the Haight-Ashbury district. Contemporarily, it seems to not be the Haight-Ashbury that birthed the Hippies, but there are still remnants of the movement. The streets are now lined with head shops and vintage clothing stores. It seems to have taken up a Hippy tourist vibe that seems subversive to the Hippy sentiment, like “manufactured hippydom.” If I were a hippy, I’d be pissed at its disingenuousness, but fortunately, I’m not a hippy and loved it for its history. We found a bookstore called, “Anarchy Books” that truly had anarchist literature. As you walk in, there is a picture of John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Atop their photos it read, “Fuck These People.” Then it proceeded to tell me why I shouldn’t vote at all. These people infringe on my freedoms and are simply puppets of the big bad government. I was thoroughly entertained!

As Janelle and I walked up (and I mean vertical!) Haight street, we conversed about the ethos of the Haight-Ashbury district. I commented that we had just seen the center of what was going on in the sixties. But then we tried to figure out what is going on today. In the nineties it was Seattle’s grunge-alternative Nirvana-led vibe. But what now? Is there anything? Where is it and what’s happening today? We were perplexed and pretty let down. If you know, please inform me! I wanna go!

I suggest you skip the Fisherman’s Wharf. Yeah it’s a tourist’s staple, but it is probably the most unoriginal place in San Francisco, full of outlanders and some San Franciscan entertainers. San Francisco is chock full of culture, expression, and I suggest you avoid the tourist hotspots. You have the chance to get cultured in San Fran and the best way to see it all is by walking. (Or, if you trust your brakes and navigability try renting a scooter. You can whip around quick from spot to spot and parking is less of a bitch with a scooter. Don’t drive! If you need to get into the city from a surrounding city or town, take BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) similar to LA’s Metro, or Minneapolis’ light rail.)

Again, I’m no San Fran expert. I was led by a quick read of San Fran’s wikipedia article to all these places. So I’m sure I missed a bunch. Please, if you’ve been there, share your San Fran experience and where you suggest I go next time!

Meta-Motifs, Contexts, and Theological Humility

Hello bloggerites! This post is simply a response to some of the criticisms of my last post “Religion or Education: “The Chicken or the Egg.” A lot of what I have heard in response to this was similar to, and is a summation of Mr. A’s critique. (I suggest you read his critique in the comment section) Mr. A has such an invaluable and crucial perspective on this issue, and religion itself. Throughout this past year, Mr. A has been giving me a perspective that looks at religion from an agnostic perspective in which he asserts a more anthropologic look at religion. I have found his perspective to be more than necessary for a Christian theologian to consider. He makes me realize my context, and criticizes with respect, yet conviction. Our dialogue on religious beliefs has been a constant in my blogging career. So once again, thanks Mr. A. Keep up the criticism! Let me respond to some of his criticisms.


I’ll break down his comments and reply to them individually. Here is the first of his criticisms:

“Do you really think it's simply a matter of reading or not reading particular passages of the Bible? I would guess that Fred Phelps has read every word of the Bible. I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept. Should education come before faith? Sure, but who is doing the educating? The intelligent Christians? The PhD Christians?”


A great criticism! I have found myself giving this exact criticism for those who hold and argue that their biblical perspective is simply correct down to the detailed tenets. The truth (my use of this word bleeds irony right now) is, we all have our situatedness. We all have our context that shapes the way we reason, the way we perceive, and in turn, shapes our beliefs and worldview. Mr. A helps illustrate this well. I agree with much of the postmodernists’ sentiment, especially regarding truth claims. As Derrida argued, we all have our texts. To think that we can wholly separate ourselves from our situatedness, is simply absurd. This is a mainstay in my theology/philosophy (One that has me deemed “liberal” by many “labelers.”) I know, I know, I bleed Westernism…

But I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in what I meant in my post. I do not assert that I have an exhaustive understanding of the biblical texts. What I would assert, is that I have an objective understanding of the very few main overarching motifs of the bible. What I mean to argue is that, these main motifs are not difficult to exegete. One needs not be a Christian or a scholar to see these motifs. These are plainly evident in the text. Jesus preached an ethic that toted outrageous self-sacrificial love. This doesn’t take a PhD to understand. Nevertheless, with a lack of education I think some people pervert this basic motif of the holistic text (or metanarrative, meaning the themes and message of the entire bible). This is why I asserted that education is seemingly crucial in my previous post) A Fred Phelps takes minuet passages out of context and makes an entire worldview out of these passages. This, we call “proof-texting”. This occurs when one asserts meaning without placing the text in its own social context, literary genre, and/or overarching meaning from the whole book. Fred Phelps argues from the Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3 passages to argue that God hates certain people (homosexuals). The passages he use read:


Malachi 1:3
“’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’

Romans 9:13- “‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

(For more on this particular passage, see this link. I am not endorsing this site, but this article, illustrates the a sound exegesis of this passage. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-Esau-love-hate.html)


Phelps strings this argument together: Since God hated Esau, God endorses hatred. God also condemns homosexuality in Phelps’ opinion, and so ‘God hates Fags’. What a boob! His perverted theology is more than uncouth.

Phelps failed to engage in a study of this text. He takes ‘hatred’ for its 21st century English meaning as the opposite of love. But this is simply not the case in the Ancient Near-Eastern definition of the word. He has used “hatred” anachronistically. James Butler, (Ph.D (Princeton) and Old Testament scholar) asserts that “hatred” should be translated as “not preferred” or “did not choose” for its correct meaning for the 21st century mind. These texts assert that Yahweh “chose” Jacob to carry on the covenant, and “did not choose” Esau to carry out the covenant. Phelps has given an uneducated misinterpretation of this text and oppresses people unabashedly with his absurd fallacy. Again, this is why we need education and critical thinking before we assert a truth claim or belief.

With that said, I offer three musings.

1) Religious texts can be difficult to decipher. I don’t deny this. I equate much of this to differences in cultural context. We need to contextualize texts to gain sound meaning. (eg. Language can have different meanings in different situations) It is critical that we engage in good textual criticism. Without it, we can get grossly perverted theologies and messages from texts. 21st century CE American has vastly different social constructs than 13th century BCE Mesopotamia! To turn your head from these differences is pure and foolish ignorance. Fred Phelps, I’m lookin’ at you buddy.

2) If minuet passages in religious texts don’t seem to align with the text’s “meta-motifs” or overarching messages, you probably have a perversion of what the text really is getting at. Love, mercy, and justice are “meta-motifs” in the Hebrew Bible and concepts of self-sacrificial love are championed in the New Testament. Hate simply doesn’t fit. The logical thing to do then, would be to dig deeper, contextualize, find genre, and language differences and so. Wa La! Seeing the differences in language rids us of this passage’s translation ambiguity.

3) I hope I have demonstrated that a simple, yet closer look at texts can relieve a lot of ambiguities. I would accuse a lot of Christians of doing horrible exegesis (interpretation of what a text means in its own context). A lot of these terrible ideas stem from the lack of good exegesis combined with a rushed theological stance without criticizing a theological claim. (It’s terribly frustrating to me). Here’s where education is integral to doing good theology. If we don’t educate ourselves with good methods of doing theology, we get these horrifying perversions. We are far too quick to hold a belief, without first thinking critically about its facets.

Concluding remarks to, “...I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept…”

I would argue that there is always a correct interpretation, and always a wrong interpretation. Nevertheless, I think our contextual situatedness as humans restricts us from ever fully revealing an exhaustively correct interpretation of the whole text. I don’t recall what theologian said this, but a textual critic argues that the text cannot mean what it never intended to mean. So the writer of each text always means to say something objectively. The meaning is not subjective when it comes to these texts. The problem is that we cannot assume to gain an objective meaning. Our interpretation is always subjective in some regard. Therefore, there is a correct interpretation. We simply cannot know it exhaustively. So let’s exercise some theological humility!

Nevertheless, I would still assert that the biblical “meta-themes” are not difficult to exegete, but are easily perverted by silly interpretations and proof-texting. Biblical texts must be looked at holistically. If one wants to quote a passage from let’s say Matthew, they should see the quote in light of the whole book of Matthew. So particularizing a passage, should be done after gaining a holistic theology of the text, if done at all.


Phelps is the proverbial zit on the face Christianity. Good biblical exegesis is the Clearasil.

Mr. A’s critique calls all theologians to exercise humility in doing theology. We must study these texts meticulously prior to making theological claims, and we must allow the text to be ambiguous at times and be okay with simply saying, “I don’t know.”

Education or Religion? The Chicken or Egg?

Last night I swung down to the Red Lion German Pub in Silver Lake for Amy's birthday to have a beer, and enjoy some conversation.  As we sat in the sweltering heat (I guess German's like it hot) sweating ourselves dry, we couldn't help but get into a friendly debate.  It's kind of inevitable when you mix a pub with eight theologians.  Wes, my favorite barista at Coffee By the Books here in Pasadena (try his Oreo Frapuccino; it's a gentleman's delight!) and all around great man and scholar, sat next to me.  I couldn't help but turn to him with this week's lurking and seemingly imponderable question that has been weighing on my mind.  I turned and asked (after much unnecessary prefacing and qualifying), "What comes first, Education or Religion?"  I won't recite our whole conversation, but here were my thoughts.

As a Christian, when I look in retrospect at the two-thousand-year history of Christianity, I cannot help but be appalled.  From Constantine to the Crusades, from the Thirty Years War to the recent divisions in Ireland, Christians have not acted Christlike toward each other, or their "enemies."  We Christians have done a horrible job of being Christlike by serving our enemies, and praying for those who persecute us.  This is Christianity 101 and since our beginnings, we've brutally and embarrassingly made a mockery of this basic Christian teaching.  In my internal dialogue this week, I have tried to find a sound and coherent reason for why Christians have looked far more like Western Imperialists, than "dying to self" Christ-mimickers.  Here's the best I can do.  

I submit to you that an uneducated Christian is bound for misinterpretation.  Faith without education seems to be ridiculously destructive.  Our faiths breed a zeal that can be beautifully constructive for the building of Christ's Kingdom, or they can be painstakingly destructive to the Kingdom.  It seems to me that the worldview that is wrought with education usually makes for the more constructive faith  (though not an absolute).  I feel like I've seen many Christians who blindly follow a certain denomination, creed, or tradition, but never take the time to look at it critically.  They follow as blind sheep!  Without an element of critical examination of one's tradition, we are bound to confuse beliefs with our own criteria, ideas, and concerns.  We see this, I would argue, in Just War Theory, nationalism in American Christianity, and remember Manifest Destiny?!?!?!  It makes me nauseous just thinking about the ways Christians have perverted the gospel throughout history. 

But I wonder if those "Destiny Manifesters" ever read the Sermon on the Mount?  How would they respond to Jesus' pacifistic teachings in the gospels?  How would Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" cronies respond to Jesus' words, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you..."  or these simple words, "Do not resist an evil person."  I wonder if they recall the beatitudes as they are protesting Gays' and Soldiers' funerals? "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."  

Their lack of education leads to these atrocities.  How did they get so misinformed?  I don't know?  But they did?  I'm not suggesting that I or some have it all figured out, we don't, and have a long way to go at that.  But I would assert that there are some basics and fundamentals of the gospel, that are simply not complicated like, humility, service, love, and self-sacrifice.  But these essentials; these are even susceptible to becoming perverted by some who believe they bear the name of Christ.  How could this be?!?!?  It's outrageous!  Where is the humility in Fred Phelps?  What does God have to do with hate?  Isn't Jesus the antidote to hate?  Christians have been so easily duped into horrifyingly bad theology.  We must make educated decisions with our faith. Its crucial for the well-being of all humanity.

So I can't help but argue that we Christians absolutely must educate ourselves along with our faith.  Now you could argue that the Holy Spirit guides you, and education is some type of Western construct that is non-essential, but if we simply get pragmatic with it, where was the Spirit during the Thirty Years War?  Where was the Spirit in the Crusades?  Where was the Spirit during the Slave Trade?  I would imagine that all these oppressors believed they had the Spirit.  But did they?  I don't know?  What is true of all these situations, is that they all perverted Jesus' words.  If they were educated in their faith, how could it have happened?  If they truly set aside their own agendas and followed the gospel by the gospel's standards, could they oppress in this way?  Is there a way to release oneself from one's context and think critically about what it is they are blindly following?  God I hope so!  What's so complicated about, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"?  Can we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us?  I don't know?  Christian history suggests otherwise.  Perhaps if we educate ourselves in the gospel and look to the Spirit to guide us alongside our studies with humility, then maybe we gain some ground.  

So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Faith or education?  

I want to make music...

As we closed our last session of the class "Topics in theology: Pop Music" I was left thinking about what I want to do with music.  The last taste of music was one of the most beautiful, evocative, and emotive songs I've heard in years.  It was a Sigur Ros tune which I should blog about later since that's not what this post is trying to accomplish.  We also watched a Nick Cave video "Into My Arms" which should leave anyone with a soul with a dash of despair.  I suggest you youtube that one.  Whatever the case, I was left thinking about my place in the world of music.  What do I have to offer?  Who do I want to affect?  What should my songs accomplish?  So I wrote this quick poem...

I want to make music

I want to make real music

Music that takes the mundanity out of people's lives

Music that hurts

Music that inspires

Music that shoots you in the guts when you hear it for the first time

Music that makes you consider otherwise

Music that makes you say, "YES!"

Music that makes you say, "Fuck!"

I want to make music 

Take the blog out of your own eye...

Mission #1 for the summer:  Blog three times a week

The First Whirl

For the first ever post here at Faux Real?, I'd like to offer y'all a piece of what I am most passionate about.  I love writing essays, blog responses, and theological and political exhortations, but if I am to put forth a piece of writing that I can be proud of, it is in a song.  So I offer you the latest of tunes I have written.  

This one is a long time comin' for me.  I knew, leaving White Bear Lake, MN to set up a new life in Pasadena, CA would bread a multitude of songs, and there would be one that would simply be an attempt to capture the visceral moment when I pulled that S-10 out of my parents driveway.  On the road I kept a notepad and pen by my side knowing that introspective thoughts and phrases would come to my head and soon thereafter allude me.  So I compiled many of these thoughts and phrases and sat on them for a few months.  I wanted to wait on the writing process of this tune until the precise melody came to my bean.  About three months later during one late night of retrospect, the melody was birthed and thus, came what I am calling, "The Departure Song."  

My thought in writing this song was to record a history.  Now--as we all know--history usually involves names, dates, themes, and motifs about the simple happenings of the human situation, but I was perplexed as to how to record the emotion of an historical moment.  How does one simply capture the feeling of a time and place in words alone?  Is that even possible?  To an extent I'd say yes, if you are one of the great Russian novelists or a Beat writer/poet.  But I, sorry to say, am not.  And far from one.  Nevertheless, I can write melody to a mediocre body of text.  That's a start, eh?  This is my advantage as a songwriter.  When writing song, your lyrics lean upon the melody to give it a visceral and emotive flavor that even the best of text alone cannot fully accomplish.  (eg. Dylan, "Blowing in the Wind," Lennon/McCartney "All You Need is Love," shall I go on?) 

All in all, this song is my attempt to capture not only the historical moment, but capture the historical emotion in its entirety.  If any of you bloggerites have left home you know that its filled with an unease in which you remind yourself of how good it is at home, and how many friends and loved ones you have.  You begin to question if you should really be leaving at all!  Then you get used to being away and its all good.  Without further ado, here's the tune.    

You look left

I look right

We don't see an end in sight

Four more years

and three more fights 

Gotta make it through these city nights

Figure out just where to show

the 21o sign is a ways to go

In the rear view mirror

I saw my home

but it all gets smaller as I push on

(Chorus)

Is all I say a waste of your time?

This is not a lie

And with a song I'll say, you're on my mind

That's not a lie

You get yours

and I'll get mine

But we don't see eye to eye

It's moving time

and my choice is clear

I've got to kill my pretense and persevere 

But these fabricated notions that my plan will fail

is leading me to scour this Minnesota trail

Blessings, 

Late Night