I'm Not There

UPDATE: Here's an excerpt from an article on the upcoming film from yesterday's New York Times:

August 21, 2007
Dylan Movie to Open Like a Rolling Premiere
By JOHN ANDERSON

Imagine you’re a film distributor, handling an experimental movie by one of the country’s most iconoclastic directors. The subject is an enigmatic occasional recluse who is being portrayed by four actors, an actress and a 13-year-old boy. Where do you open that film?

If you’re very lucky, you get to book it at Film Forum, perhaps the most exclusive art-house cinema in Manhattan.

Now what do you do with a movie that stars Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, Christian Bale and Heath Ledger; whose subject is Bob Dylan; and whose director is the Oscar-nominated Todd Haynes?

Same answer. Same film. Which is what’s making the planned Nov. 21 release of “I’m Not There,” Mr. Haynes’s rumination on Mr. Dylan’s lives and times, something of a curiosity.

In addition to Film Forum, the film’s distributor, the Weinstein Company, will be opening the movie in just three other theaters, one more in New York and two in Los Angeles, giving it the kind of debut that might be afforded a Mexican documentary. Even “Velvet Goldmine” — the previous Weinstein-Haynes collaboration, about the British glam-rock scene of the 1970s, which starred an unknown Jonathan Rhys Meyers — began in 85 theaters in 1998.

But Harvey Weinstein, the company’s co-chairman, said the slow rollout was the best way to nurture an unconventional, nonlinear movie like “I’m Not There,” in which the above-mentioned stars play Mr. Dylan at particular stages of his life. Shot in styles that correspond to each Dylan epoch, “I’m Not There” sometimes looks like “A Hard Day’s Night,” elsewhere like “McCabe and Mrs. Miller,” with Mr. Dylan’s life being imbued with mythic American qualities.

“With a movie like this you have to build it,” said Mr. Weinstein, who founded the company with his brother, Bob, two years ago after an acrimonious split from the Walt Disney Company saw them relinquish control of Miramax. “I don’t think you can go out on 500 screens. The reason for Film Forum is you go where the best word of mouth is on the movie. I like the movie; I think it’s adventurous. The audience is going to have to work — work in a good way.”

Mr. Weinstein said that a similar approach had worked for two of Miramax’s biggest successes. “Good Will Hunting” opened in New York and Los Angeles and eventually brought in nearly $140 million at the domestic box office, while “Chicago” began the same way and grossed $170 million. Those films had larger openings, however: “Good Will Hunting” (with the rising stars Ben Affleck and Matt Damon) in 7 theaters, “Chicago” in 77.

“I’m not saying this movie’s going to come anywhere near those,” Mr. Weinstein said, “but I have a tendency to start small and go big. If we threw this movie out wide, I don’t know what it would do. I think we have to start somewhere.”

The “somewhere” means Film Forum, “a real cathedral of cinema” according to Mr. Haynes’s longtime producer, Christine Vachon, which has presented the premieres of work by Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard, Hal Hartley, Claude Chabrol, Spike Lee and Lars von Trier, among many others. But rarely does it get star-laden films like “I’m Not There.” And for it to agree to have another theater share a New York premiere is a rare move.

“We did it with ‘Saraband,’ ” said Karen Cooper, Film Forum’s director, referring to Mr. Bergman’s last American release. “Lincoln Plaza opened it the same day, and I don’t think either of us were happy. I thought the same crowd that lined up to see ‘Scenes From a Marriage’ would want to see ‘Scenes From a Divorce.’ I was wrong.”

Ms. Cooper said that she was offered shared openings all the time and regularly turned them down. But she said that she and Mike Maggiore, Film Forum’s programmer and publicist, decided the Haynes film was so remarkable that they would not mind sharing it with Lincoln Plaza. In Los Angeles, “I’m Not There” will open at the Westside Pavilion and ArcLight Cinemas.

Conventional movie-business wisdom says that if a film fails to catch fire at its opening theater, it will not move much farther. But Mr. Weinstein said there was “not a chance” he would not take this film into more theaters and cities, regardless of its fate on the coasts. “I’m going to play every major city in the United States with this movie,” he said. “I’ll play 100 cities, at least.”

He said he also planned to position Ms. Blanchett, who plays Mr. Dylan during his “Blonde on Blonde” phase, for an Oscar. (Mr. Bale corresponds to “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan,” Mr. Ledger to “John Wesley Harding.”)

“I may be jumping the gun,” Mr. Weinstein said, “but if Cate Blanchett doesn’t get nominated, I’ll shoot myself.”

Read it all here.

Must Read: Kendall Harmon offers essential Critical Analysis of the orthodox Anglican movement and the crisis of The Episcopal Church

In fact, Kendall Harmon offers a magnificent overview of the entire Anglican crisis in his talk, now featured at StandFirm here (part one) and here (part two). But this section, just put up, really caught my attention. What Kendall calls "careerism" we might call "clericalism." It flies in the face of the renewal movement in the Episcopal Church where the emphasis turned the Church upside down - we are the priesthood of all believers. The job for the clerical order, as it were, is to train up the laity to the ministry (not the other way around). Careerism or clericalism is infectious and it leads to assumptions that the laity will just blindly follow. Well, take it from here - that is an unwise assumption. We remain Episcopalian here at the cafe for a reason - we want assurances that we are not simply reinventing the same problem, just with a different cast of characters. We know the cast of characters we've all ready had, we need assurances that we will not just move from the Broadway Cast to the West End Cast instead. It's time to change the play. We must recognize that the DNA is in us, brought to us by the Mother and Daughter branches of our larger fellowship. Kendall offers tough self criticism but it is necessary. Part of the problem is that we will want to put it off until things calm down. It doesn't work that way. Repentance is what brings calm.

Kendall, who still remains inside The Episcopal Church, writes as one still inside The Episcopal Church. In the Anglican District of Virginia (which blends both CANA and Uganda congregations and their bishops) we have maintained that it is essential that we remain in as close as communion as possible with our Episcopal brothers and sisters. This is not easy and sometimes it has to be intentional, for all our sakes.

Here's a sampling from Kendall's talk - and we do encourage you to read it here and read it all.

What an amazingly scary thing happened right before the first Common Cause meeting in Pittsburgh. Now we really go to stepping on toes.

I'm sitting there, I'm reading, and out of nowhere, all of a sudden ALL of these new bishops are being announced in the Common Cause partnership. All my friends are bishops all of a sudden! The Common Cause partnership has more bishops per communicants than the Episcopal Church, and I've been complaining for years that the Episcopal Church has too many bishops and overtuffs too many bishops at Lambeth, compared to the rest of the Communion. And the Anglican orthodox movement has re-duplicated this same purple fever among us! HELLO?! We've got to look in the mirror folks. This is scary stuff. Something about that isn't right. There are too many people who have been consecrated, in too many places, too quickly. And that's a symptom of something worse under the surface.

We live in a church, the Episcopal Church, where LEADERSHIP is appallingly absent. It's amazing to me - we were talking about this last night at dinner. I mean, the level of leadership of the average diocese is just amazing. I read more diocesan newspapers than most people do in a year in a week, because I'm editor of the "Anglican Digest". The main phrase I would use to describe the ministry of the Episcopal Church in terms of its bishops is this: VAPIDITY. Business as usual, maintenance, bureaucracy.

If you read what people write, it's about "us' and "ourselves" and the "next program" and the "next choir" and the "next thing we are doing at the church camp". There is no deep theological reflection, there is no engagement in mission, and there is absolutely NO call to evangelize people who don't know Jesus and need to come to know Jesus! So we have a vacuum of genuine leadership.

Now, that's not to say we don't have a number of good people involved, "Kendall said all the bishops were bad people." I didn't, be careful. I said we have a vacuum of leadership in the Episcopal Church. One of the things that a number of people have asked me repeatedly is "How in the world did Katherine Jefforts Schori get elected Presiding Bishop? I'll tell you the answer, and the answer is, "Because the field against which she competed was so miserably bad". That is the real answer. The real scary thing is that none of the others could get enough votes to even compete with her. It's actually not so much a statement of her as about the leadership system as a whole. It's sad, really sad.

And so you look at the American conservative movement and what do you get? Where are the leaders? I mean have you actually sat down and thought about what our bishops have been able to do? It is amazing to me. They are so inadequate, so incapable of doing what needs to be done. Bob Duncan's life is miserable, mainly because he has to deal with other Episcopal bishops.

The first significant meeting of this whole movement, which happened at Truro Church, in the underground, in the Underloft, at the end of July 2003, so this was BEFORE General Convention. There are three groups of people gathered in that room; one was a group of Anglican primates from around the Global Communion, especially the Global South. No surprise. Among others, the Archbishop of Sydney was there, the Archbishop of Nigeria etc. People like that. Another group were faithful clergy and lay people, but especially clergy, from the Episcopal Church. Many of the names would be names you would recognize, somebody like John Yates, for example was there. And then the third group of people were bishops from the Episcopal Church - Bob Duncan, John Howe, Ed Salmon, etc, etc, etc. So we start this day and we have all this crucial stuff to do.

And what happened?

The Anglican primates were outstanding. They were by far the best. They're leadership was inspiring, they were terrific, they were eager, they were able, they were clearly able to get the most done the fastest, and set the tone for the whole meeting. They were the best.

Second best were the clergy and the lay people. A lot of good discussions. Someone like Ron McCrary, who works with D.O. Smart was there, and was very articulate and effective. Martyn Minns was effective. John Guernsey, who was there, was effective. There was great energy in the room, we were all doing this stuff, and the agenda has, you know, - we get these questions, and the primates deal with it, the clergy have to deal with it, the lay leaders have to deal with it, the bishops have to deal with it . .

We're sitting there, and the bishops go into another room, and you hear YELLING, you hear silence . . . It took them. . . They could not get anything done.

The rest of us were done not only with what we were assigned, but we were dealing with other things, because we ran out of time, and they were still stuck. It was so bad that the whole meeting nearly ground to a halt, because the bishops got in such a donnybrook with one another that they couldn't function! And that's merely one illustration of the struggle of leadership among the Anglican orthodox bishops.

Is there a message here?

We live in a church with a leadership vacuum and we have a movement with a leadership vacuum. The whole way we go about raising leadership needs to be called into question. The whole way we TRAIN leaders needs to be called into question. Hello? Is anybody listening?

How about this: We're in a church which is under indictment because we have immorality practiced by our leadership; in fact we sanctioned it at an official level in 2003. Well, that's great. I'm not going to comment about the case in Colorado because I'm going to be much disciplined in my comments, but I will comment about the situation with two friends of mine, just as illustrations of the fact that, guess what? The Anglican orthodox movement is in a mess over the practice of immorality at a public level.

My friend Sam Pasco, who's involved in the AMiA, and a great missionary, gospel guy in northern Florida, who was part of Grace Church, and then went over to the AMiA, it's announced, that he's having an affair, and all of a sudden he's got to be disciplined, bang, bang, bang. And then there is my friend Purveen Bunyon. I'm sitting there one day, and I'm reading, you know, the standard, non-stop streaming internet stuff, and there it comes. Purveen's been involved in an inappropriate relationship, and this and that, and I'm sitting there, thinking; "Now this is just in the last year and a half!" I'm not making this up. You can look it up. Now don't get mad at me, it's out there! Those are two leaders. So we're in a church where we're mad about the practice of public immorality by leaders, and look, you talk about the need for self criticism, and the need to face some tough questions?

And how about this last one?

Nothing bothers me more about the establishment leadership of the Episcopal Church than its own lack of self criticism. It's amazing. They're dying, they're ineffective.

They're in an organization that has all kinds of questions that need to be raised about them. And what are they doing? They're doing the whole Rob O'Neill thing - everything is fine. That's obviously, self-evidently not true, I mean by any reasonable criteria. But the other thing they are doing is spending all their time criticizing the orthodox. I mean if you read some of the liberal blogs, for example, one in particular I'm thinking of, almost every single day, he's got something else he wants to say about the conservatives.

Now, look, we need criticism, and we've got to become more self critical, but it is amazing to me that in a church, which is under this much judgment, and clearly needs so much self assessment, it's not being self-critical. I mean where are the bishops who are asking hard questions in these blogs? It bothers me.

Then we come over to the Anglican orthodox movement, and we're doing the same thing. We're not asking hard questions about ourselves. We're not asking presuppositional questions. Have you got my theme? Do you see what I'm doing? Careerism, leadership vacuum, the practice of public immorality, the lack of self-criticism, all of which is true of the Episcopal Church, is also true of us. So when I say, "We have to die, and be purged", I am dead serious.

One of the things that was GOOD about Plano was that there was a feeling of repentance that was there. I was blessed by D.O.'s story about Ridgecrest, I was not there. I am glad some of the bishops got down and repented. I will tell you this, very forcefully, that is the beginning of the kind of thing we need to be doing much more often going forward, or we're not going to get to where God wants us to go. There is a lot of public repentance and re-doing things that we ourselves have to be involved in before we are going to get to the future. So let me ask you just three very personal questions, and then I'm going to get to this passage.

Can you trust yourself no matter what that God knows what He's doing in history, and give up your desire to control the future the way that you want? That's a really hard question that all of us have got to face. There are parts of every one of us that have got a grip on some way that God has got to work His will on. Remember the story of Abraham and God, and Abraham kept getting into these interesting situations, and people would say things about his wife, and Abraham kept trying to do God's will for Him. Remember that part of the story; Abraham would kind of help God. He would say, "Well, she's not really my wife, she's my sister. I mean, you know I just kind of help God out." That's the temptation. And that's got to be given up.

Some of us need to die to a sense of careerism. Some of us need to die to a sense of an institution that nurtured us, and therefore has some special place. If God wants to take it and do with it what He wills, well, we've got to give it up.

Again, read (or listen to) Part One here and Part Two here.

The Rev'd Dr. Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina, was the keynoter speaker for the Communion Clergy and Laity Fall conference in the Diocese of Colorado, November 3, 2007.

Commentary on "I'm Not There" - He's not there

Director Todd Hayne's film "I'm Not There" which is an unusual look at the life of Bob Dylan has opened. You can read past cafe blog entries (including preview clips) of the film here.

In the Hayne's film, I'm Not There, Bob Dylan is portrayed by six different actors playing seven different Dylans. The clips are dispersed and are not linear. There are elements of this film that are just extraordinary, especially the visual narrative, the photography, the composition of the scenes and set design, costume, and lighting - truly remarkable, but in my opinion, tonight, it misses the mark almost completely - but the fact that it misses the mark is precisely why Dylan remains a substantial figure in American music - and American culture - today.

There is a scene in the film where we are looking down on the Dylan portrayed by actress Cate Blanchett called "Jude." Jude is sitting on the floor in front of a typewriter surround by cutouts from magazines of pictures and stories and they are spread all around the floor as Dylan - I mean Jude - is typing. It's a terrific shot and one that really explains what makes this film great - and what makes this film fly off the rails.

Haynes has filmed interpretations of the elements that marks Dylan's life and he's filmed them brilliantly, but where he misses the mark is that he completely misses the point of Dylan's life. no small deal! It's not his political contribution or his struggle with his political identity or anything really having to do with politics. He made that quite clear when he gave a speech to the the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee in 1964. His journey isn't political - it's spiritual.

The spiritual aspect - though touched on briefly but without any context, as though they might have actually been reporting that Dylan left briefly to go live on Mars - is just completely missing. The "cutouts" are there, but the context is missing. Because the film is so brilliantly filmed, what I want to do is take all the elements that Haynes has put together, spread them all out on the floor as Blanchett's Dylan does and start over. And that may be why the film is good - it's an accurate portrait of one way (told from seven points of view) but still only one way to look at Dylan. All that work and it's still on dimensional.

It misses the mark because it's not seven points of view of seven different realities - hence, six different actors playing seven different Dylans. There is only one reality to Bob Dylan - life and death, or as he put it better "he who is not busy being born is busy dying." Over and over again throughout Dylan's music - from the very beginning - is this spiritual journey of biblical proportions. He is a pilgrim on the trail, he is a modern Pilgrim's Progress. As in Pilgrim's Progress he goes to many lands - including perhaps more than one Slough of Despond - but he is one pilgrim on a journey.

One way we know this to be true and that Haynes has completely - though ironically almost brilliantly - missed the point is that no where in this film (as I can recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong) do we see Johnny Cash.

There is no excuse that anyone can tell the story of Bob Dylan - even in an arthouse film - and leave that man out. It's just impossible. And it reveals that, though perhaps he tried hard, Haynes still missed the point. Cash comes in early (we see him in Don't Look Back in 1966, but he had come into Dylan's life years earlier, at least at one of the Newport Folk Festivals where stories are told that after one of Dylan's early performances at Newport Johnny Cash gave him his own guitar. To tell a story - even a edgy one like Haynes story - and leave out Cash may say more about the filmmaker than it does about the subject.

The elements do appear in the film - however briefly, including the scene from the never-released in the US Dylan film, Renaldo and Clara, where Dylan and Ginsberg go to visit Jack Kerouac's grave and wander about looking at the other gravestones, including one that is a crucifix of Christ. The scene of Ginsberg and Dylan standing at the foot of the crucifix is in the film, but it lacks context. In fact, it's the character of Ginsberg that actually moves the scene more than Dylan (who flippantly asks, "How does it feel?"), Ginsberg's response to the looking at the cross appears far more poignant and then the flippant Dylan. That's not how it appears in the original film and the almost switching of subjects in Haynes film is perhaps inadvertently quite telling.

"I'm Not There" is the sort of film that Dylan fans can watch and then go out afterward and take apart over drinks. It's a remarkable film, very well done, filled with imagery and an extraordinary accurate feel of time and place, especially in the Jude scenes and the earlier "Woody/Dylan" scenes. In fact, the actor playing Woody basically steals the entire film, which is quite a feat for someone so young.

My favorite scene though is the one that was shown in the early released clips, where the Jude/Dylan is riding in a car as Dylan did a lot of in "Don't Look Back" and meets Allen Ginsberg for the first time. It was one of the funnier aspects of the film - but seemed to be lost on most the audience:



The line about "Zimdom" was actually spoken by John Lennon in the famous "taxi ride" film that appeared at the end of another never-officially-released Dylan film, Eat the Document. Haynes comes close to what could have been the real theme of the film (not this film though): Dylan's quest for salvation.

I do not agree with the Haynes view of Dylan, which basically ends almost on the road (or riding the rail) of despair. It misses his humor and replaces it was biting sarcasm (Dylan could be sarcastic, but usually for a reason - as in exposing hypocrisy, even his own). And the spiritual element, the spiritual depth of Dylan's music is just completely ignored in the narrative (though the music is present in the soundtrack which at times is almost a separate narrative all itself and the selections are terrific). This could be the view of the almost-fan, who knows a lot about the particulars of Dylan but doesn't quite get it yet - has not yet gone deeper into the soul but is still fascinated by the look, even the feeling - but not the transformation. Dylan is all about transformation. Haynes assembles all the ingredients - and it does it extremely well - but he seem doesn't seem to know how to mix them together to make the pie. And he leaves some key ingredients out. It might good but it doesn't taste so hot.

There are moments - moments that nearly tease us that he may "go there" but then doesn't. When the Woody/Dylan is in the boxcar with the two old guys riding the rails they share a loaf of bread which they pass around amongst themselves, tearing each piece off as though it was the Eucharist. But the image doesn't go anywhere. Which again, is one of the reasons I wish I could get all the pieces of the film and re-edit the parts. But again, that's why Bob Dylan continues to be such a force in American music and culture. We all continue to try to splice it together and figure out the whole. He won't tell us a darn thing - he says it's in the songs. He finds his religion in the songs. Perhaps he finds his salvation in the songs - in my circles that's called worship.

Dylan is about being a Truth teller. Not different truths - which is sort of what this post-modern view of Dylan attempts to do. Dylan will write that there are different points of view, but there is only Truth - not your truth or my truth or his truth, but just Truth. His fidelity to seeking the Truth, no matter where it might take him, even if he takes a path that leads through thicket of thorns, he will - and does - keep on going. But that journey, the Truth Seeker's journey is missing from this film. It's aimless, which perhaps many of those who seek after Dylan to explain the meaning of life are at times, but Dylan is not - at least, not in his music. It's precisely because he's not been aimless that has gotten him booed at over the years.

Another crucial aspect of Dylan's music and persona has been his humor, which again does not come through in the film. We see earnestness in the beginning in the Woody character, but we never see his deadpan wit. We see sarcasm, plenty of sarcasm - but not his humor which continues even to this day ("I'm no pig without a wig, hope you'll treat me kind"). While the film fortunately does not take itself - or even Dylan - too seriously (in fact, there are times when I wondered if the film itself was drifting into satire or even parody - an example of this was during the Scorsesesque-interviews" with Julianne Moore portraying the Joan Baez character. I thought they were very funny precisely because they seemed satirical of Baez (nearly unheard of in the liberal community where she continues to be revered) and it was all I could do to not laugh out loud because the audience where I saw the film was in silence and I would have laughed alone, perhaps not wise when one does not know the politics of everyone around her). Haynes is GenX - he films as knows the stories not by living them, but by reading about them.

So here's the real deal - this Dylan is seen a lot in Todd Haynes' film and we might as well see the real deal here. Since he's still with us, I'll stick with seeing the real deal. Even when he's in a bad mood.

From 1965 in London:



LATER: Here's a very positive review of the film and well-worth the read.

Bono opens up on his Christian faith

From here:

Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don't let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that's my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that's not so easy.

Assayas: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn't so "peace and love"?
Bono: There's nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that's why they're so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you're a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

Assayas: Speaking of bloody action movies, we were talking about South and Central America last time. The Jesuit priests arrived there with the gospel in one hand and a rifle in the other.
Bono: I know, I know. Religion can be the enemy of God. It's often what happens when God, like Elvis, has left the building. [laughs] A list of instructions where there was once conviction; dogma where once people just did it; a congregation led by a man where once they were led by the Holy Spirit. Discipline replacing discipleship. Why are you chuckling?

Assayas: I was wondering if you said all of that to the Pope the day you met him.
Bono: Let's not get too hard on the Holy Roman Church here. The Church has its problems, but the older I get, the more comfort I find there. The physical experience of being in a crowd of largely humble people, heads bowed, murmuring prayers, stories told in stained-glass windows.

Assayas: So you won't be critical.
Bono: No, I can be critical, especially on the topic of contraception. But when I meet someone like Sister Benedicta and see her work with AIDS orphans in Addis Ababa, or Sister Ann doing the same in Malawi, or Father Jack Fenukan and his group Concern all over Africa, when I meet priests and nuns tending to the sick and the poor and giving up much easier lives to do so, I surrender a little easier. 

Assayas: But you met the man himself. Was it a great experience?
Bono: [W]e all knew why we were there. The Pontiff was about to make an important statement about the inhumanity and injustice of poor countries spending so much of their national income paying back old loans to rich countries. Serious business. He was fighting hard against his Parkinson's. It was clearly an act of will for him to be there. I was oddly moved by his humility, and then by the incredible speech he made, even if it was in whispers. During the preamble, he seemed to be staring at me. I wondered. Was it the fact that I was wearing my blue fly-shades? So I took them off in case I was causing some offense. When I was introduced to him, he was still staring at them. He kept looking at them in my hand, so I offered them to him as a gift in return for the rosary he had just given me.

Assayas: Didn't he put them on?
Bono: Not only did he put them on, he smiled the wickedest grin you could ever imagine. He was a comedian. His sense of humor was completely intact. Flashbulbs popped, and I thought: "Wow! The Drop the Debt campaign will have the Pope in my glasses on the front page of every newspaper."

Assayas: I don't remember seeing that photograph anywhere, though.
Bono: Nor did we. It seems his courtiers did not have the same sense of humor. Fair enough. I guess they could see the T-shirts.

Later in the conversation:
Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?
Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.
Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.
Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.
Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.
Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?
Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched.

Bono later says it all comes down to how we regard Jesus:
Bono: If only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.

Read it all here or pick up this excellent book here.

We are looking for clarity and honesty

INTERVIEW:
Rev. Martyn Minns
June 9, 2006 Episode no. 941
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week941/interview2.html

Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with the Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia:

Q: How key is this General Convention to the future of the church, not only to the overall denomination but also to your parish in particular?

A: It's very important. In many ways this is the decision point for the Episcopal Church, whether or not it wants to continue to be within the mainstream of the Anglican Communion or to go into a separate place. And that's a very important question for us, because as a church we really see our identity as a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and that's kind of how we're defined, and if the Episcopal Church isn't, then that causes a great deal of tension for us and, indeed, I think, some more deliberate separation.

Q: What would you like to see happen at General Convention? What would make you, and churches like you, feel that the Episcopal Church is going in the right direction?

A: Well, I think, first of all, I'd like to see some honesty. I mean, I think right now there's lots of talk about listening to each other, but in fact the truth is I believe the Episcopal Church needs to decide whether it wants to keep pushing the agenda that it has embraced or whether it wants to basically turn back and to move more in step with the rest of the church. I think, to me, all I'd like to see is honesty, you know, and not subterfuge, not some fudge, but really just be clear, and I think that would make life easier for all of us. It's a battle that we've been fighting for way too long, and I think the time has come for those who believe this is what they need to do, they need to get on with it, and for those of us who cannot, we need to be given the freedom to not have to follow that path, but to go where we believe God's called us.

Q: Do you think anything can happen at General Convention that would make it possible for people like you to still be part of the Episcopal Church?

A: I'd love to believe that. I mean, I'm a Christian, so therefore I'm always fundamentally optimistic. I believe God is still at work. I'd love to see the Episcopal Church say, "Whoops, we've gone in a wrong direction here; we need to listen to the rest of the church and turn back." And we pray for that, and we work for that. But honestly, it seems highly unlikely. And I think the response from our special committee that had the resolutions -- they are even more of a compromise than the Windsor Report itself, which itself was a compromise, so a compromise of a compromise doesn't seem very much, and if that's the direction we're heading, then I think it's just a very sophisticated fudge, and that's not really going to help.

Q: How important is the election of the presiding bishop? Will that send a signal?

A: I think it will, but less so, because I think in many ways most of the candidates are not that easy to separate from each other, and I think they all seem to be much more in track with where this new thing of the Episcopal Church is. I think it will be an important signal, but I think they're deliberately positioning it after the discussion of the Windsor Report. I think they understand that that's the main piece -- where are we with the rest of the church? And once that's decided, then the presiding bishop actually becomes a secondary issue.

Q: If, indeed, there isn't a signal at General Convention that the Episcopal Church is going to move in a different direction or turn back from the direction that it's been going in, where does that leave your church and churches you've been networking with?

A: I think it places it in an increasingly alienated place from the rest of the diocese, particularly, and the rest of the wider church. And I think, for me, honesty would call for us to begin to find some way to disengage. I mean, I think that's -- in a way we already are disengaged, but I think that would become more finalized and more concrete, and that's sad, but I think that's an honest reflection of where we are right now.

Q: What are the complications?

A: Well, the complications are that those, if you like, who have the control are reluctant to recognize that reality, and I think that, for me, is going to be a challenge. I think that the diocesan structure still wants to kind of keep things the way they were, and [it is] not willing to recognize sometimes that things have really changed radically. And it's complicated because there's lots of issues, legal issues, in terms of how we're standing, how we're defined, and I think also a desire in some ways to hold onto the way things were in the past, and I think it's always hard. Change is hard, you know, and so I think to move forward with some new, creative ways -- I think it's going to be a bit of a challenge, but I think we have to do it.

Q: What kind of realignment would you like to see in the U.S. Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion? How you would like to see these creative new ways that you're talking about take shape?

A: Well, I think what's happened right now, and I think it's interesting in terms of just how the world's working, is that there's far more networking, relating to people just not simply by geography or by national origin. And I think what we're looking for is, you know, to embrace that fully. The Anglican Communion is a vibrant church. It's a growing church, an evangelical church, and that's who we are -- mission-minded, engaged with all these kind of ministries, and I think that's the identity we've claimed for ourselves and want to continue. I think, for me, we want to be free to do that. That's why what I think we're looking for is that kind of freedom. I think that's going to be important -- that we need to find ways to live into that freedom.

Q: Up until now, it hasn't been the case that churches like yours could be identified with the worldwide Anglican community if they were not part of the U.S. Episcopal Church.

A: Correct. Well, I think in some ways the Episcopal Church has claimed what I might call a kind of unique franchise -- that you cannot be Anglican unless you're in the Episcopal Church, and in some ways it's a rather restricting idea. But that's -- some would say they're still living in the old paradigm, really, of geography defining your identity, and I think what we're saying [is] no, that's no longer the way it works -- I mean, just the way the world is -- and we need to change that, and I think that is changing, and I think we want to embrace that more fully. Now the specifics of how we relate to other jurisdictions -- that, I think, we're working on. We've got right now a number of our own congregations where they've actually been adopted by a bishop in Uganda, and obviously that's a temporary thing, because it can't really work in a long-term relationship, but I think it's a creative way where they begin to share their life together, and that's a wonderful thing, but it's rather frowned on by our own structures. We're looking for something new that's creative, that's got more fluidity, where we can begin to live into a far more international, relational model of the church and far less rigid and bureaucratic model of the church.

Q: And you feel that you are part of the majority of the rest of the world, if not the majority of the U.S. church?

A: Well, I think the truth is the views we hold aren't very new. I mean, that's basically the way the church has been functioning for a long time. I mean, obviously we're engaged in the culture in creative ways, but truly we are simply living out the faith that's been the Christian faith from the beginning, where we believe every person is loved by God; there's no marginalization of any person, but we also believe that God calls us to be transformed and to live into a new way of relating to each other. And I think, for me, it's that radical inclusion, that radical transformation that we want to live into, and I think that's part of who we are as a church. We want to express that freely.

Q: How much of the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion would share your view?

A: Oh, by far the most of it. I think it's mainly what we call the global South, but I think that even in England there are also significant chunks of -- especially growing churches. For instance, the whole Alpha network is very much a part of this understanding of the gospel. And within this country, there are a large number of congregations who were not the voice that you hear in terms of the kind of denominational voice.

Q: You were talking earlier about alternative structures. Bishop Peter Lee has asked Archbishop George Carey to do some confirmations in Virginia. He told us that he is really trying to find ways to accommodate people who are unhappy with him. Are you pleased with that? Is there enough he can do to keep churches like yours part of the fold?

A: I think this is important. We're not unhappy with him. I'm very sad about the things that he's done, but it's not a personal thing with him at all. I respect him as a man who is operating out of his own convictions. His convictions are different from mine and, in fact, right now, it seems to me, irreconcilable. I spent years meeting with him, talking with him, trying to find a way to reconcile these different views, and we've haven't been able to find it. And the Windsor Report itself says this is what we want you to do as a church. We want you to stop what you're doing, turn around, and if you don't want to come back, then recognize that by so doing you are walking apart. And that's the vision of the church that Bishop Lee shares. It's one I don't share with him. He's been gracious to us, and I appreciate that. He's not used law to go after us, but we still are not free to express our faith in ways that we want to do. We're not free to have the kind of churches that share our views. So there are many aspects of that freedom that have been curtailed, and frankly we've been waiting to see whether or not the Episcopal Church would turn around. We cannot live in this place where he's no longer connected to our life in any way, and I think that's the temporary place that we appreciate, but it's not a way to go forward.

Q: You talked about the worldwide Communion coming up with creative ways of reorganizing. Are there things that could happen under the auspices of the Episcopal Church here and the diocese here that could do that?

A: I'm not sure, because the bishop is such a central figure, and I think his vision, his theology, sort of, in a sense, kind of is the prevailing theology of the church. I think there needs to be more structural relief, more structural separation. Sadly, I think that is the way we need to be heading, because I think it is a very different view of the Christian faith, and I think that sort of overlays everything.

Q: Do you indeed feel the views are so different that they are not all part of the same church?

A: Well, it depends on what you mean by "church." I've got a lot of Christian friends in the Catholic Church, and the Pentecostal church, and the Baptist church. So, I mean, in that sense we are united through lots of different ways. In no way am I questioning Bishop Lee's Christian faith at all. It's just a view he holds that is clearly, I believe, held sincerely, but I believe he is sincerely wrong.

Q: How central an issue is property? If you were to separate, what happens to this historic property?

A: That's a big question the lawyers, I'm sure, have already been thinking about. Property is not the essence of the issue. I mean, property is important. I mean, we all like to live in houses and not live in tents, and we like to worship in beautiful buildings and not under the trees, but that's not the fundamental question. The fundamental question is, what is the vision of the church? Who are we, what are we about, and how do we relate to each other? I live in a house on this property, and I'd like to keep my home. The church here has been invested in this property for many, many years, and it seems to me that this is their home, so why should they abandon their home when, in fact, they've not changed anything? It's the rest of the church that's changed, not us. And so, in that sense, I think the question really should be on the other side, because why would they want to take away from us our own property when they're the ones that are kind of changing the rules, not us? I think that the fundamental question is, how can we do our ministry with integrity and, the question is, in as high a degree of communion as possible? In other words, what degree of separation do we have to have to continue that way? And that's exactly what we are exploring. Property is one of the questions; clergy is another question -- how we do ministry. All these things are part of it right now. I'm not a lawyer, but I think what I understand is this: first of all, you've got some competing claims between property laws, which tend to be state laws that are not in federal courts, and then canonical laws, which are church rules. And what you're finding right now is that they are actually -- they contradict each other at times. They say different things about how the property is handled. The question is, does the property, for example, at Truro Church, belong to the national Episcopal Church? Some would claim maybe it does. Others say no, it doesn't. Typically, in Virginia, there's very much, clearly, a local investment kind of a mindset in terms of, kind of, who's locally here, who uses it, who has maintained it, as a higher claim. In California, the judge has so far ruled that, indeed, the local community is entitled to the property, and it doesn't simply defer back to the hierarchical church.

Q: As you are looking toward General Convention, what are you praying for? What is the outcome you would like to see?

A: Clarity. Honesty. If people really believe what they're saying, I want them to be able to claim it and do it and not keep fudging and hiding, saying, "We're waiting." So I guess I'm praying for clarity, and unfortunately the church is very good at not being clear. You go about your business to help make sense [of] what they say, and I'd like it not to require all of your efforts to do that -- that the headlines actually make sense, that they're clear what they have done and get on with doing it. Fundamentally, I'd like to see Christ honored in all this, because I think he does weep when his body is torn, and I'd like to find a way in which we can celebrate the Christian faith that is our life.

Q: How frustrated are some of your parishioners, as well as others who are very upset about what's been happening? Some conservative leaders have been saying, "Let's just wait until things are ready." How frustrated are people about being in limbo?

A: I think they're very frustrated. We've lost 75 families over the last two or three years, key families, people we love who simply said we cannot keep on with this battle, it's too much, too distracting. We want our children to be in churches where the teaching is clear, and time is too short. So it's been very difficult. I think our congregation has sort of held together because of their commitment to the Lord and support for what we're trying to be about as a church, and also because our identity is far more, if you like, in the Anglican world and far less narrowly focused within the Episcopal Church. But I think they've about had enough, and I think it's a time of saying, "Let's be clear." I guess that's my constant thing, is let's be clear, let's get this thing out in the open. If people really do believe something different, they should own it and get on with it and be willing to pay the price for it, not keep fudging it, and that's what I fear keeps happening. I think there are folks here who are very frustrated with that; they're looking for clarity.

Q: Some people in other churches say they are sick of dealing with this. A lot of people are just tired. They feel that all people want to talk about in the church is sex. Do you hear that? Are you concerned that other issues haven't been adequately focused on?

A: We've worked hard to make sure that isn't the case. I think we want to make sure that everyone knows they're welcome. We're all broken, and we all need God's transforming love. And so I think we try to keep the particular issue of human sexuality, you know, as an important one but not the fundamental one. What's even more than that is, you know, you rightly say that, really, it is an anthropological question: What does it mean to be human, you know, is part of what's underlying this. What does it mean to have biblical truth undergirding our life? So there are bigger issues. But I think we're trying to stay mission-minded and reaching out to new folks and doing those things. It is a big distraction, and I think that's what I'm saying is I'd rather get clear if folks want to believe this and teach this and live this. I disagree with them, you know, but I think this battle has got to stop so that we can get on with the work of the ministry.

Q: This is about more than sex or homosexuality, isn't it?

A: I think it's several issues. I think, first of all, it is an issue of anthropology. What does it mean to be human? Is it male [and] female? Are there other variations? And how do men and women relate? What is the way in which they are designed to relate? I think that's part of it, if you like -- an anthropological, sociological question. It's also a theological question, and that is: How do we understand truth? Is it we kind of make it up as we go along, or is it that it's been given to us? Also, how do we understand the power of the gospel? Is it able to transform lives, or do we simply come as we are and stay as we are? And to me, I've been involved in ministry around this country where I've seen human lives transformed by the power of God, and I can't deny that. And to say that someone is simply locked in a certain behavior pattern, I simply can't say it. It's also, I think, about being a church where everyone is welcomed and loved and cared for and can experience the love of Christ within the context of a community, and no one is marginalized. So I think these are the big issues. As you know, the presenting issue has been on homosexuality, but I think that's simply like the tip of the iceberg, and there's far more that's underneath it.

Q: Do you have any other concerns?

A: I think there is another topic being discussed at General Convention which you might want to note, and that is this whole disciplinary approach to how we discipline laypeople that is called Title IV. That's how we regulate our lives. This Title IV thing is a fascinating development in the Episcopal Church, where they're actually trying to discipline laypeople, you know, if they step out of line. And that's a whole area that I think some folks aren't watching. And I'm very disappointed by that, because it seems to me that we're moving in, instead of what I would call a freer, more fluid kind of structure, I see the response of the Episcopal Church right now, it's become more bureaucratic and more rigid and more legislative. And to me, that's the very opposite of how the church should be moving or how the rest of the world's moving. … And I'm disappointed by that, because I think, to me, the church is going to miss a very important opportunity to show the world how truly we can live in that kind of relational way. So I think that's the fear I have, that we're going to become more legalized and all rules and regulations about how to discipline laypeople who get out of line. It's also a power issue, I suspect. What I see is that power is being more and more consolidated in the hands of the bishops, when in fact I think it needs to be the very opposite. I mean, I can't imagine starting to have laypeople have to go before these ecclesiastical courts. I mean, really. It feels bizarre, but that's what they're trying to do. I think that's a bad move.

Q: How are some of the churches around the world going to view this? How closely are they going to be watching General Convention, and what are you anticipating their reactions are going to be?

A: Good question. I think, first of all, they're watching closely. They also will not be easily deceived by fudge. They're very sophisticated people, and I think, thanks to the Internet and rapid communication, they'll be very much aware of everything that is being said. I think their prayer still is that the Episcopal Church will turn around. They really are praying for that, and even though it's been a long time and the pattern seems pretty clear, they still see the power of God in their own lives and want to see the Episcopal Church change. If it doesn't change, then I think they'll have to reevaluate their relationship with the Episcopal Church but also, particularly, all those congregations in this church that share their faith and how they relate to them. Right now it's a bit messy, and my anticipation is that it will become a little more organized and a little more coherent. They've held back on that for now, because they want to basically give the Episcopal Church a chance to essentially turn around, but if it doesn't, then my suspicion is that there'll be an effort to bring a little more finality and structure into the relationships so that they can be more helpful.

Q: How messy do you anticipate things to be, and for how long? Is this something that's going to happen right away?

A: Oh, no. I'm afraid the church tends to move slowly. But we're people, you know -- people have a hard time with change, so I think it's going to be messy for a while. Again, in the middle of all this I'm hoping that we can still keep clear about our message, which is God's transforming love, and keep that out there all the time.

Bob Dylan's speech accepting award as Person of the Year

This is Bob Dylan's acceptance speech as Person of the Year by MusiCares, a charity organization sponsored by the Grammy's that aids musicians in need.  He gave it Friday night at the Los Angeles Convention Center. From here.

I’m glad for my songs to be honored like this. But you know, they didn’t get here by themselves. It’s been a long road and it’s taken a lot of doing. These songs of mine, they’re like mystery stories, the kind that Shakespeare saw when he was growing up. I think you could trace what I do back that far. They were on the fringes then, and I think they’re on the fringes now. And they sound like they’ve been on the hard ground.

I should mention a few people along the way who brought this about. I know I should mention John Hammond, great talent scout for Columbia Records. He signed me to that label when I was nobody. It took a lot of faith to do that, and he took a lot of ridicule, but he was his own man and he was courageous. And for that, I’m eternally grateful. The last person he discovered before me was Aretha Franklin, and before that Count Basie, Billie Holiday and a whole lot of other artists. All noncommercial artists.

Trends did not interest John, and I was very noncommercial but he stayed with me. He believed in my talent and that’s all that mattered. I can’t thank him enough for that. Lou Levy runs Leeds Music, and they published my earliest songs, but I didn’t stay there too long.

Levy himself, he went back a long ways. He signed me to that company and recorded my songs and I sang them into a tape recorder. He told me outright, there was no precedent for what I was doing, that I was either before my time or behind it. And if I brought him a song like “Stardust,” he’d turn it down because it would be too late.

He told me that if I was before my time — and he didn’t really know that for sure — but if it was happening and if it was true, the public would usually take three to five years to catch up — so be prepared. And that did happen. The trouble was, when the public did catch up I was already three to five years beyond that, so it kind of complicated it. But he was encouraging, and he didn’t judge me, and I’ll always remember him for that.

Artie Mogull at Witmark Music signed me next to his company, and he told me to just keep writing songs no matter what, that I might be on to something. Well, he too stood behind me, and he could never wait to see what I’d give him next. I didn’t even think of myself as a songwriter before then. I’ll always be grateful for him also for that attitude.

I also have to mention some of the early artists who recorded my songs very, very early, without having to be asked. Just something they felt about them that was right for them. I’ve got to say thank you to Peter, Paul and Mary, who I knew all separately before they ever became a group. I didn’t even think of myself as writing songs for others to sing but it was starting to happen and it couldn’t have happened to, or with, a better group.

They took a song of mine that had been recorded before that was buried on one of my records and turned it into a hit song. Not the way I would have done it — they straightened it out. But since then hundreds of people have recorded it and I don’t think that would have happened if it wasn’t for them. They definitely started something for me.

The Byrds, the Turtles, Sonny & Cher — they made some of my songs Top 10 hits but I wasn’t a pop songwriter and I really didn’t want to be that, but it was good that it happened. Their versions of songs were like commercials, but I didn’t really mind that because 50 years later my songs were being used in the commercials. So that was good too. I was glad it happened, and I was glad they’d done it.

Purvis Staples and the Staple Singers — long before they were on Stax they were on Epic and they were one of my favorite groups of all time. I met them all in ’62 or ’63. They heard my songs live and Purvis wanted to record three or four of them and he did with the Staples Singers. They were the type of artists that I wanted recording my songs.

Nina Simone. I used to cross paths with her in New York City in the Village Gate nightclub. These were the artists I looked up to. She recorded some of my songs that she [inaudible] to me. She was an overwhelming artist, piano player and singer. Very strong woman, very outspoken. That she was recording my songs validated everything that I was about.

Oh, and can’t forget Jimi Hendrix. I actually saw Jimi Hendrix perform when he was in a band called Jimmy James and the Blue Flames — something like that. And Jimi didn’t even sing. He was just the guitar player. He took some small songs of mine that nobody paid any attention to and pumped them up into the outer limits of the stratosphere and turned them all into classics. I have to thank Jimi, too. I wish he was here.

Johnny Cash recorded some of my songs early on, too, up in about ’63, when he was all skin and bones. He traveled long, he traveled hard, but he was a hero of mine. I heard many of his songs growing up. I knew them better than I knew my own. “Big River,” “I Walk the Line.”

“How high’s the water, Mama?” I wrote “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” with that song reverberating inside my head. I still ask, “How high is the water, mama?” Johnny was an intense character. And he saw that people were putting me down playing electric music, and he posted letters to magazines scolding people, telling them to shut up and let him sing.

In Johnny Cash’s world — hardcore Southern drama — that kind of thing didn’t exist. Nobody told anybody what to sing or what not to sing. They just didn’t do that kind of thing. I’m always going to thank him for that. Johnny Cash was a giant of a man, the man in black. And I’ll always cherish the friendship we had until the day there is no more days.

Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Joan Baez. She was the queen of folk music then and now. She took a liking to my songs and brought me with her to play concerts, where she had crowds of thousands of people enthralled with her beauty and voice.

People would say, “What are you doing with that ragtag scrubby little waif?” And she’d tell everybody in no uncertain terms, “Now you better be quiet and listen to the songs.” We even played a few of them together. Joan Baez is as tough-minded as they come. Love. And she’s a free, independent spirit. Nobody can tell her what to do if she doesn’t want to do it. I learned a lot of things from her. A woman with devastating honesty. And for her kind of love and devotion, I could never pay that back.

These songs didn’t come out of thin air. I didn’t just make them up out of whole cloth. Contrary to what Lou Levy said, there was a precedent. It all came out of traditional music: traditional folk music, traditional rock ‘n’ roll and traditional big-band swing orchestra music.

I learned lyrics and how to write them from listening to folk songs. And I played them, and I met other people that played them back when nobody was doing it. Sang nothing but these folk songs, and they gave me the code for everything that’s fair game, that everything belongs to everyone.

For three or four years all I listened to were folk standards. I went to sleep singing folk songs. I sang them everywhere, clubs, parties, bars, coffeehouses, fields, festivals. And I met other singers along the way who did the same thing and we just learned songs from each other. I could learn one song and sing it next in an hour if I’d heard it just once.

If you sang “John Henry” as many times as me — “John Henry was a steel-driving man / Died with a hammer in his hand / John Henry said a man ain’t nothin’ but a man / Before I let that steam drill drive me down / I’ll die with that hammer in my hand.”

If you had sung that song as many times as I did, you’d have written “How many roads must a man walk down?” too.

Big Bill Broonzy had a song called “Key to the Highway.” “I’ve got a key to the highway / I’m booked and I’m bound to go / Gonna leave here runnin’ because walking is most too slow.” I sang that a lot. If you sing that a lot, you just might write,

Georgia Sam he had a bloody nose Welfare Department they wouldn’t give him no clothes He asked poor Howard where can I go Howard said there’s only one place I know Sam said tell me quick man I got to run Howard just pointed with his gun And said that way down on Highway 61

You’d have written that too if you’d sang “Key to the Highway” as much as me.

“Ain’t no use sit ‘n cry / You’ll be an angel by and by / Sail away, ladies, sail away.” “I’m sailing away my own true love.” “Boots of Spanish Leather” — Sheryl Crow just sung that.

“Roll the cotton down, aw, yeah, roll the cotton down / Ten dollars a day is a white man’s pay / A dollar a day is the black man’s pay / Roll the cotton down.” If you sang that song as many times as me, you’d be writing “I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more,” too.

I sang a lot of “come all you” songs. There’s plenty of them. There’s way too many to be counted. “Come along boys and listen to my tale / Tell you of my trouble on the old Chisholm Trail.” Or, “Come all ye good people, listen while I tell / the fate of Floyd Collins a lad we all know well / The fate of Floyd Collins, a lad we all know well.”

“Come all ye fair and tender ladies / Take warning how you court your men / They’re like a star on a summer morning / They first appear and then they’re gone again.” “If you’ll gather ’round, people / A story I will tell / ‘Bout Pretty Boy Floyd, an outlaw / Oklahoma knew him well.”

If you sung all these “come all ye” songs all the time, you’d be writing, “Come gather ’round people where ever you roam, admit that the waters around you have grown / Accept that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone / If your time to you is worth saving / And you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone / The times they are a-changing.”

You’d have written them too. There’s nothing secret about it. You just do it subliminally and unconsciously, because that’s all enough, and that’s all I sang. That was all that was dear to me. They were the only kinds of songs that made sense.

“When you go down to Deep Ellum keep your money in your socks / Women in Deep Ellum put you on the rocks.” Sing that song for a while and you just might come up with, “When you’re lost in the rain in Juarez and it’s Easter time too / And your gravity fails and negativity don’t pull you through / Don’t put on any airs / When you’re down on Rue Morgue Avenue / They got some hungry women there / And they really make a mess outta you.”

All these songs are connected. Don’t be fooled. I just opened up a different door in a different kind of way. It’s just different, saying the same thing. I didn’t think it was anything out of the ordinary.

Well you know, I just thought I was doing something natural, but right from the start, my songs were divisive for some reason. They divided people. I never knew why. Some got angered, others loved them. Didn’t know why my songs had detractors and supporters. A strange environment to have to throw your songs into, but I did it anyway.

Last thing I thought of was who cared about what song I was writing. I was just writing them. I didn’t think I was doing anything different. I thought I was just extending the line. Maybe a little bit unruly, but I was just elaborating on situations. Maybe hard to pin down, but so what? A lot of people are hard to pin down. You’ve just got to bear it. I didn’t really care what Lieber and Stoller thought of my songs.

They didn’t like ‘em, but Doc Pomus did. That was all right that they didn’t like ‘em, because I never liked their songs either. “Yakety yak, don’t talk back.” “Charlie Brown is a clown,” “Baby I’m a hog for you.” Novelty songs. They weren’t saying anything serious. Doc’s songs, they were better. “This Magic Moment.” “Lonely Avenue.” Save the Last Dance for Me.

Those songs broke my heart. I figured I’d rather have his blessings any day than theirs.

Ahmet Ertegun didn’t think much of my songs, but Sam Phillips did. Ahmet founded Atlantic Records. He produced some great records: Ray Charles, Ray Brown, just to name a few.

There were some great records in there, no question about it. But Sam Phillips, he recorded Elvis and Jerry Lee, Carl Perkins and Johnny Cash. Radical eyes that shook the very essence of humanity. Revolution in style and scope. Heavy shape and color. Radical to the bone. Songs that cut you to the bone. Renegades in all degrees, doing songs that would never decay, and still resound to this day. Oh, yeah, I’d rather have Sam Phillips’ blessing any day.

Merle Haggard didn’t even think much of my songs. I know he didn’t. He didn’t say that to me, but I know [inaudible]. Buck Owens did, and he recorded some of my early songs. Merle Haggard — “Mama Tried,” “The Bottle Let Me Down,” “I’m a Lonesome Fugitive.” I can’t imagine Waylon Jennings singing “The Bottle Let Me Down.”

“Together Again”? That’s Buck Owens, and that trumps anything coming out of Bakersfield. Buck Owens and Merle Haggard? If you have to have somebody’s blessing — you figure it out.

Oh, yeah. Critics have been giving me a hard time since Day One. Critics say I can’t sing. I croak. Sound like a frog. Why don’t critics say that same thing about Tom Waits? Critics say my voice is shot. That I have no voice. What don’t they say those things about Leonard Cohen? Why do I get special treatment? Critics say I can’t carry a tune and I talk my way through a song. Really? I’ve never heard that said about Lou Reed. Why does he get to go scot-free?

What have I done to deserve this special attention? No vocal range? When’s the last time you heard Dr. John? Why don’t you say that about him? Slur my words, got no diction. Have you people ever listened to Charley Patton or Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters. Talk about slurred words and no diction. [Inaudible] doesn’t even matter.

“Why me, Lord?” I would say that to myself.

Critics say I mangle my melodies, render my songs unrecognizable. Oh, really? Let me tell you something. I was at a boxing match a few years ago seeing Floyd Mayweather fight a Puerto Rican guy. And the Puerto Rican national anthem, somebody sang it and it was beautiful. It was heartfelt and it was moving.

After that it was time for our national anthem. And a very popular soul-singing sister was chosen to sing. She sang every note — that exists, and some that don’t exist. Talk about mangling a melody. You take a one-syllable word and make it last for 15 minutes? She was doing vocal gymnastics like she was on a trapeze act. But to me it was not funny.

Where were the critics? Mangling lyrics? Mangling a melody? Mangling a treasured song? No, I get the blame. But I don’t really think I do that. I just think critics say I do.

Sam Cooke said this when told he had a beautiful voice: He said, “Well that’s very kind of you, but voices ought not to be measured by how pretty they are. Instead they matter only if they convince you that they are telling the truth.” Think about that the next time you [inaudible].

Times always change. They really do. And you have to always be ready for something that’s coming along and you never expected it. Way back when, I was in Nashville making some records and I read this article, a Tom T. Hall interview. Tom T. Hall, he was bitching about some kind of new song, and he couldn’t understand what these new kinds of songs that were coming in were about.

Now Tom, he was one of the most preeminent songwriters of the time in Nashville. A lot of people were recording his songs and he himself even did it. But he was all in a fuss about James Taylor, a song James had called “Country Road.” Tom was going off in this interview — “But James don’t say nothing about a country road. He’s just says how you can feel it on the country road. I don’t understand that.”

Now some might say Tom is a great songwriter. I’m not going to doubt that. At the time he was doing this interview I was actually listening to a song of his on the radio.

It was called “I Love.” I was listening to it in a recording studio, and he was talking about all the things he loves, an everyman kind of song, trying to connect with people. Trying to make you think that he’s just like you and you’re just like him. We all love the same things, and we’re all in this together. Tom loves little baby ducks, slow- moving trains and rain. He loves old pickup trucks and little country streams. Sleeping without dreams. Bourbon in a glass. Coffee in a cup. Tomatoes on the vine, and onions.

Now listen, I’m not ever going to disparage another songwriter. I’m not going to do that. I’m not saying it’s a bad song. I’m just saying it might be a little overcooked. But, you know, it was in the top 10 anyway. Tom and a few other writers had the whole Nashville scene sewed up in a box. If you wanted to record a song and get it in the top 10 you had to go to them, and Tom was one of the top guys. They were all very comfortable, doing their thing.

This was about the time that Willie Nelson picked up and moved to Texas. About the same time. He’s still in Texas. Everything was very copacetic. Everything was all right until — until — Kristofferson came to town. Oh, they ain’t seen anybody like him. He came into town like a wildcat, flew his helicopter into Johnny Cash’s backyard like a typical songwriter. And he went for the throat. “Sunday Morning Coming Down.”

Well, I woke up Sunday morning With no way to hold my head that didn’t hurt. And the beer I had for breakfast wasn’t bad So I had one more for dessert Then I fumbled through my closet Found my cleanest dirty shirt Then I washed my face and combed my hair And stumbled down the stairs to meet the day.

You can look at Nashville pre-Kris and post-Kris, because he changed everything. That one song ruined Tom T. Hall’s poker parties. It might have sent him to the crazy house. God forbid he ever heard any of my songs.

You walk into the room With your pencil in your hand You see somebody naked You say, “Who is that man?” You try so hard But you don’t understand Just what you’re gonna say When you get home You know something is happening here But you don’t know what it is Do you, Mister Jones?

If “Sunday Morning Coming Down” rattled Tom’s cage, sent him into the looney bin, my song surely would have made him blow his brains out, right there in the minivan. Hopefully he didn’t hear it.

I just released an album of standards, all the songs usually done by Michael Buble, Harry Connick Jr., maybe Brian Wilson’s done a couple, Linda Ronstadt done ‘em. But the reviews of their records are different than the reviews of my record.

In their reviews no one says anything. In my reviews, [inaudible] they’ve got to look under every stone when it comes to me. They’ve got to mention all the songwriters’ names. Well that’s OK with me. After all, they’re great songwriters and these are standards. I’ve seen the reviews come in, and they’ll mention all the songwriters in half the review, as if everybody knows them. Nobody’s heard of them, not in this time, anyway. Buddy Kaye, Cy Coleman, Carolyn Leigh, to name a few.

But, you know, I’m glad they mention their names, and you know what? I’m glad they got their names in the press. It might have taken some time to do it, but they’re finally there. I can only wonder why it took so long. My only regret is that they’re not here to see it.

Traditional rock ‘n’ roll, we’re talking about that. It’s all about rhythm. Johnny Cash said it best: “Get rhythm. Get rhythm when you get the blues.” Very few rock ‘n’ roll bands today play with rhythm. They don’t know what it is. Rock ‘n’ roll is a combination of blues, and it’s a strange thing made up of two parts. A lot of people don’t know this, but the blues, which is an American music, is not what you think it is. It’s a combination of Arabic violins and Strauss waltzes working it out. But it’s true.

The other half of rock ‘n’ roll has got to be hillbilly. And that’s a derogatory term, but it ought not to be. That’s a term that includes the Delmore Bros., Stanley Bros., Roscoe Holcomb, Clarence Ashley … groups like that. Moonshiners gone berserk. Fast cars on dirt roads. That’s the kind of combination that makes up rock ‘n’ roll, and it can’t be cooked up in a science laboratory or a studio.

You have to have the right kind of rhythm to play this kind of music. If you can’t hardly play the blues, how do you [inaudible] those other two kinds of music in there? You can fake it, but you can’t really do it.

Critics have made a career out of accusing me of having a career of confounding expectations. Really? Because that’s all I do. That’s how I think about it. Confounding expectations.

“What do you do for a living, man?” “Oh, I confound expectations.”

You’re going to get a job, the man says, “What do you do?” “Oh, confound expectations.: And the man says, “Well, we already have that spot filled. Call us back. Or don’t call us, we’ll call you.” Confounding expectations. What does that mean? ‘Why me, Lord? I’d confound them, but I don’t know how to do it.’

The Blackwood Bros. have been talking to me about making a record together. That might confound expectations, but it shouldn’t. Of course it would be a gospel album. I don’t think it would be anything out of the ordinary for me. Not a bit. One of the songs I’m thinking about singing is “Stand By Me” by the Blackwood Brothers. Not “Stand By Me” the pop song. No. The real “Stand By Me.” The real one goes like this:

When the storm of life is raging / Stand by me / When the storm of life is raging / Stand by me / When the world is tossing me / Like a ship upon the sea / Thou who rulest wind and water / Stand by me

In the midst of tribulation / Stand by me / In the midst of tribulation / Stand by me / When the hosts of hell assail / And my strength begins to fail / Thou who never lost a battle / Stand by me

In the midst of faults and failures / Stand by me / In the midst of faults and failures / Stand by me / When I do the best I can / And my friends don’t understand / Thou who knowest all about me / Stand by me

That’s the song. I like it better than the pop song. If I record one by that name, that’s going to be the one. I’m also thinking of recording a song, not on that album, though: “Oh Lord, Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood.”

Anyway, why me, Lord. What did I do?

Anyway, I’m proud to be here tonight for MusiCares. I’m honored to have all these artists singing my songs. There’s nothing like that. Great artists. [applause, inaudible]. They’re all singing the truth, and you can hear it in their voices.

I’m proud to be here tonight for MusiCares. I think a lot of this organization. They’ve helped many people. Many musicians who have contributed a lot to our culture. I’d like to personally thank them for what they did for a friend of mine, Billy Lee Riley. A friend of mine who they helped for six years when he was down and couldn’t work. Billy was a son of rock ‘n’ roll, obviously.

He was a true original. He did it all: He played, he sang, he wrote. He would have been a bigger star but Jerry Lee came along. And you know what happens when someone like that comes along. You just don’t stand a chance.

So Billy became what is known in the industry—a condescending term, by the way—as a one-hit wonder. But sometimes, just sometimes, once in a while, a one-hit wonder can make a more powerful impact than a recording star who’s got 20 or 30 hits behind him. And Billy’s hit song was called “Red Hot,” and it was red hot. It could blast you out of your skull and make you feel happy about it. Change your life.

He did it with style and grace. You won’t find him in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He’s not there. Metallica is. Abba is. Mamas and the Papas—I know they’re in there. Jefferson Airplane, Alice Cooper, Steely Dan—I’ve got nothing against them. Soft rock, hard rock, psychedelic pop. I got nothing against any of that stuff, but after all, it is called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Billy Lee Riley is not there. Yet.

I’d see him a couple times a year and we’d always spent time together and he was on a rockabilly festival nostalgia circuit, and we’d cross paths now and again. We’d always spend time together. He was a hero of mine. I’d heard “Red Hot.” I must have been only 15 or 16 when I did and it’s impressed me to this day.

I never grow tired of listening to it. Never got tired of watching Billy Lee perform, either. We spent time together just talking and playing into the night. He was a deep, truthful man. He wasn’t bitter or nostalgic. He just accepted it. He knew where he had come from and he was content with who he was.

And then one day he got sick. And like my friend John Mellencamp would sing—because John sang some truth today—one day you get sick and you don’t get better. That’s from a song of his called “Life is Short Even on Its Longest Days.” It’s one of the better songs of the last few years, actually. I ain’t lying.

And I ain’t lying when I tell you that MusiCares paid for my friend’s doctor bills, and helped him to get spending money. They were able to at least make his life comfortable, tolerable to the end. That is something that can’t be repaid. Any organization that would do that would have to have my blessing.

I’m going to get out of here now. I’m going to put an egg in my shoe and beat it. I probably left out a lot of people and said too much about some. But that’s OK. Like the spiritual song, ‘I’m still just crossing over Jordan too.’ Let’s hope we meet again. Sometime. And we will, if, like Hank Williams said, “the good Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.”

The BBC Interviews Bishop Minns and Bishop Kings

Transcript of Interview with Bishop Minns and excerpt from interview with Bishop Kings, from here:

MARTYN MINNS

Q: Bishop Martyn Minns is from the Anglican Church in North America and sits on the Secretariat of the GAFCON Primate’s Council. I asked him what did GAFCON leaders regard as the fatal flaw in the Anglican Covenant.

+Minns: The fundamental thing I think is that trust is gone. Decisions and documents that have been worked on in the past have not been honored. I think there’s simply a lack of trust in the process. I think also the introduction of this whole roll of the standing committee in terms of how the covenant is actually exercised has also caused great consternation. But I think, in fact I have a direct quote from one of the Primates who said, “ look, why do we keep going?. All the decisions have been made. The documents we signed have never been honored. There’s no point.”

Q: Is it your sense that this is not punitive enough?

+Minns: I don’t think it’s an issue of punitive. It’s simply that it’s been watered down. The content and the process has shifted from the Primates themselves to this Standing Committee which it’s still not clear cut what it is. So it’s not a matter of punitive. It’s simply I think that there’s a breakdown in the trust from the earlier conversations.

Q: Why did the Primates of GAFCON decide to release their statement rejecting this covenant just as the General Synod was debating it?

+Minns: The decision was frankly simply providential. There was no attempt to time it. What we’ve tried to work hard is to make sure that the documents of this sort that everyone whose name is listed has had time to reflect, take advice, and to agree to the wording. And every time that’s happened its complicated and long. It just so happened that it was done on the day. There was no planning or coordinating that at all.

Q: There are critics who will say that this was a tactical possibly even manipulative approach by GAFCON, what’s your response to that allegation?

+Minns: Well that’s simply not true. The attempt to get everyone on board at a precise moment is simply not possible. Finally, after everyone had read through it, thought through it, prayed through we were ready to release it. I think most of them had no clue the Synod was even meeting.

Q: Archbishop Williams has clearly worked very hard to get this covenant through the Synod, isn’t this a slap in the face for him?

+Minns: I don’t think there’s anything personal in this at all. I think there’s a lot of affection for Archbishop Rowan. Frankly the process had been going for many many years. And it’s the lack of trust and a lack of willingness to listen to those in the Global South is really what’s behind this.

Q: Well what would it take to persuade you to tarry longer with this process and to engage further with it?

+Minns: I think it would be to honor the decisions and documents that have taken place in the past. I think that trust has to be rebuilt.

Q: The Anglican Communion is now faced with what looks like a two tiered communion, would you accept that?

+Minns: I wouldn’t say its two tier. I think the structure is shifting and I think moving frankly from a fairly colonial structure in to a much more of a global structure. And I think it will be far more of a network than a hierarchical structure.

Q: Some liberals of course have their own reasons for not welcoming this covenant. Liberals, conservatives, traditionalists struggling with the covenant does this now signal the end-game for the Anglican Communion?

+Minns: By no means. I think the Anglican Communion has got a huge contribution to give to the world. I think in many parts of the world it’s thriving and growing and doing some remarkable things. I think it’s simply the way in which we operate together that has to change. I think it’s a testament to its effectiveness. Its grown so much globally that the sheer weight of it and the vision and …(unintelligible)… of the Communion is no longer in England. I believe that the Anglican Communion is incredibly healthy and doing some remarkable things. Structurally, it’s the institutional structure that’s simply not kept up with its life. And I think that that’s what needs to change. And as you know institutional change has always been very hard. Those in power are always reluctant to give it up.

Q: Was it GAFCON’S intention all along to reject this covenant?

+Minns: Not at all. GAFCON folk actually were instrumental in the very beginning and actually the first draft. Archbishop Drexel Gomez and a number of the Global South folk were actually involved in producing the very first draft.

Q: At what point did GAFCON leaders and primates know this covenant was unacceptable?

+Minns: I don’t believe there was a single point. I think it’s been an unfolding realization.

Q: What are those Primates who are part of GAFCON, is it now the case that they will en masse refuse to attend the next Primates meeting of the Anglican Communion?

+Minns: I believe that that’s what the statement says. And I believe that it’s not just those primates but also a number of other primates in the Global South that have communicated that.

GRAHAM KINGS

Q: Are you at all sympathetic to the GAFCON Primates who plainly believe that other member churches of the communion cannot be trusted to honor any covenant?

+Kings: No I’m not. I’m sympathetic to the leadership of the Global South Anglican movement which is different from GAFCON. GAFCON is a subset of that. And the chair of the Global South Anglican movement is John Chew, the Bishop of Singapore, Archbishop of Southeast Asia. John emailed me and said the Singapore diocese had passed the covenant. He was involved in the commission that brought it together. And similarly Mouneer Anis, Bishop in Egypt and Presiding Bishop in the Middle East is still in favor of the Covenant there’s still some questions. And Ian Earnest who is the chair of CAPA…these three moderate Global South Anglican leaders are still in favor of the covenant and so its just not the case that the whole of the Global South – GAFCON is not the whole of the Global South Anglican movement.

Q: What did you make of Martyn Minns’ comment “this is not the end game” for the communion but a revolution in how the communion organizes itself and its conversations?

+Kings: First of all, Martyn’s not…although he’s part of the Anglican Church in North America that is not The Episcopal Church in America. There is a long standing church there, The Episcopal Church…The Anglican Church in North America is a split off. Martyn and Robert Duncan they’ve formed their own church. They just invented their own church. Now I’m sympathetic to their views. I’m conservative on sexuality myself but not the way they see the church. And I don’t want the church and the communion to be split. They’ve split off in the states and I don’t want that to become a model. I was worried when Martyn spoke about reducing the Communion to a network…Networks are very different from an organic communion.

Read it all here.  The point is that the GAFCON document itself was written in a voice and tone that is not at all helpful to sensitively and compassionately address the very serious issues facing us, nor is it a teaching document for the larger Anglican community (it fails the "Pub Test"), and sadly it did not even appear to attempt to build social network bridges, but burn them down.  The release of this document the day that the CoE General Synod voted to affirm the Anglican Covenant may have been providential, but perhaps in the divine hope that we may be confronted with our own lack of humility (who would have thought that the one person to strike the most appropriate tone and Christian message would be the Queen of England?).  The GAFCON statement in fact contributes to the broken trust and that is a major disappointment.  At the same time, Graham Kings may want to reconsider waking up and smelling the proverbial winter roses - we have left the Industrial Age on which the original Anglican Communion's structures were built.  Bishop Minns is absolutely correct in his support of creating and sustaining networks that transcend old industrial borders - the Information Age, in which the Communion now must learn to adapt to or perish, flourishes in the building of vibrant and dynamic social networks.  

In fact, the greatest Social Network of them all is the Trinity.