Bright Eyes (Conor Oberst) was on Leno in May. The video of his performance is online and I encourage you to watch it. It's called "When the President Talks to God."
If you haven't heard or watched it, some of you are about to be seriously offended. Others of you will be sympathetic to his views. Still others will like what he says but not be happy with his approach.
Honestly, I couldn't care less to discuss the politics of his ideas. I'd rather think and talk about how we listen (or not) to what he says. I'd rather discuss what it means to hear what a person is really saying regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their views.
So watch the video. The lyrics are available at the above link too (though you won't miss them on the video), and let me know what you think.
The performance was great, and the music was cool, and the questions he asks in the song are fair. I'm not saying all of the guy's politics are right, and I am not saying Bush is merely a politcal Christian. But what's worth dealing with here is the issue of following Jesus and political identity. Does God rubber stamp every Republican (or Democrat) policy? Does God back one party? Or does one Party speak for God? I believe Bush is a Christian, though he makes mistakes just like me. I also believe Bono is a Christian who also makes mistakes like me. Now that could be a fun (if judgmental) conversation: Which public figure looks more Christian? They both swear, and... okay never mind.
As far as listening, Conor has put heart into that song. He is saying something about politics, but also something about himself. Something that reveals a need for redemption, something that the Gospel addresses. But if you are Kelly Boggs (check out his recent rant) you don't care why people do or say what they do.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 07/16/2005 at 09:26 AM
I'll disagree with Joe about the music's quality and style. It stunk. Just read the stupid poem at a coffee shop and leave the guitar at home. Egads.
I support Conner's (or Bright Eyes or whatever he goes by) right to say what he wants to, how he wants to. This was obviously a 60's era protest type song (Joplin or Baez come to mind), and that is about the level that it rose to.
I cracked up at Leno though, at then end, "Good job, buddy." Like he didn't even remember his name. That was great.
Posted by: Marty Duren | 07/16/2005 at 09:41 AM
Marty, your comment could be written by a staunch liberal atheist. Do you see nothing beyond rejecting the style or your idea of quality music (sorry no Hank Jr. for you on my blog)?
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 07/16/2005 at 10:25 AM
The performance was "great," which goes beyond the music. The music was simply "cool" in that it was acoustic, interesting and provacative.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 07/16/2005 at 11:04 AM
actually it sounded a bit like Hank Williams Sr. Hank Sr. wrote some really depressing voice over songs(half singing/half talking similar to Bright Eyes vocals) They were so depressing that Hank had to come up with a second personality. Fans were used to upbeat songs, so Hank released these songs under the name Luke the Drifter. I think a Christian can appreciate the skepticism of this song and then turn right around and vote and campaign for the same guy.
Posted by: John Mark | 07/16/2005 at 11:29 AM
I was afraid this would happen.
Hey, throw away political thoughts and style thoughts. Now what do you think?
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 07/16/2005 at 11:32 AM
I swear I wasn't trying to go political or style on you. :) It is difficult to deal with that level of skepticism in a song, whether from Hank Sr. or Bright Eyes. Music pulls our emotions into a song and gets us to think the thoughts of the author/singer. We don't like being pulled that close to skepticism, so we make the artist come up with a pseudonym so we can handle it better. It might be how some people feel reading a McLaren novel. We are compelled to keep reading, but it makes us uncomfortable at the same time. We want to lash out at the author but we can't because it's fiction.
Posted by: John Mark | 07/16/2005 at 12:05 PM
JM, that's better. :) Getting pulled into a song is a good thing because we need to see the world inside the shoes of other people. I think we need to "get" them, rather than just respond to their bad rants with our intellectually and biblically superior rants.
For all his politics and God comments and obvious anger at Bush, he is doing more than making his points, IMO. I think he is baring his soul a bit, and our quick retorts about the politics or God comments can keep us from feeling his frustrations and offering hope, real hope, (not just to convince him that Bush is okay).
Agree or disagree?
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 07/16/2005 at 12:18 PM
Good songwriting has a lot in common with good poetry. Its power lies in its ability to bring someone else a little way into your experience of the world in which you live. And to evoke in them a shared emotion. It's intensely personal and can be nothing else. It reaches beyond simple reason.
Ever notice that a lot of the bible is written in various poetic forms?
Hope is not reasonable, so perhaps it is best offered in a form like song or poetry?
Posted by: Scott M | 07/16/2005 at 12:57 PM
Steve,
I guess the way I should have said it was, in my case, the music nad presentation made it impossible for me to be drawn into the song.
You said, "I'd rather think and talk about how we listen (or not) to what he says." I thought that my comments would have fallen into that category. Sorry that I was out of bounds.
Posted by: Marty Duren | 07/16/2005 at 01:18 PM
It reminded me a little of angry preaching. In fact, I think that's what it was, and I say that agreeing with some of the questions he asked.
It is interesting that we are looking for alternatives to confrontational, "in your grill" style preaching and evangelism. This doesn't get much farthur up in your grill.
From a communication standpoint I think he makes his message pretty easy to reject - in fact I came away wanting to reject his message simply because of the style.
Posted by: Paul | 07/16/2005 at 05:06 PM
if you want to see in your face art, go see Willy Wonka. it is a major slap in the face to parents in the U.S. the oompa looma lyrics were a little hard for me to make out, but i think they mocked bad parents.
Posted by: John Mark | 07/16/2005 at 05:49 PM
somebody here could probably make some money by creating a parenting bible study using both versions of willy wonka. you could have your stuff next to the Andy Griffith/Beverly Hillbillies bible studies at lifeway.
Posted by: JM | 07/16/2005 at 05:54 PM
Just in case you guys weren't aware of this-- this song is available as a free download from the iTunes Music Store.
Posted by: K. Cawley | 07/21/2005 at 02:56 PM