Here I offer up for discussion the lyrics of the 1981 "Shot of Love" single, "Property of Jesus":
Go ahead and talk about him because he makes you doubt,
Because he has denied himself the things that you can't live without.
Laugh at him behind his back just like the others do,
Remind him of what he used to be when he comes walkin' through.
He's the property of Jesus
Resent him to the bone
You got something better
You've got a heart of stone
Stop your conversation when he passes on the street,
Hope he falls upon himself, oh, won't that be sweet
Because he can't be exploited by superstition anymore
Because he can't be bribed or bought by the things that you adore.
He's the property of Jesus
Resent him to the bone
You got something better
You've got a heart of stone
When the whip that's keeping you in line doesn't make him jump,
Say he's hard-of-hearin', say that he's a chump.
Say he's out of step with reality as you try to test his nerve
Because he doesn't pay no tribute to the king that you serve.
He's the property of Jesus
Resent him to the bone
You got something better
You've got a heart of stone
Say that he's a loser 'cause he got no common sense
Because he don't increase his worth at someone else's expense.
Because he's not afraid of trying, 'cause he don't look at you and smile,
'Cause he doesn't tell you jokes or fairy tales, say he's got no style.
He's the property of Jesus
Resent him to the bone
You got something better
You've got a heart of stone
You can laugh at salvation, you can play Olympic games,
You think that when you rest at last you'll go back from where you came.
But you've picked up quite a story and you've changed since the womb.
What happened to the real you, you've been captured but by whom?
He's the property of Jesus
Resent him to the bone
You got something better
You've got a heart of stone
Copyright © 1981 Special Rider Music
4 comments:
No doubt as to what Dylan's saying here. Nothing to discuss, really. The believer believing rather self-righteously, and not with a great deal of charity. Nothing particularly noteworthy lyrically. "It's All Right, Ma," and "Maggie's Farm," plowed this field earlier on - with much more wit.
However, as an exercise, substitute any religious figure for Jesus - Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Zoroaster - and the song makes just as much sense.
Verdict: Property of Jesus is an exercise in platitudes - good tune, not very danceable, even though the all star rhythm section cooks. Great musical energy has contributed to my affection for the song even though it's Dylan-drek.
I agree with most of what you say Richard. There is indeed no doubt as to what he's saying. That is one reason I chose this one. It is very straightforward. And for the followers of any religious movement, I am sure they could substitute their guru's name and find that it makes as much sense (except for those which don't espouse self-denial or have a belief in "salvation", or whose beliefs are so shallow that no one finds anything within them to object to).
But, Dylan does not leave the name of his religious figure vague. He specifies that he is singing about a follower of Jesus. Some songs, even so-called "Christian" songs are so vague about their subject that one wonders if the singer is singing about God or his girlfriend. Dylan is bold here, maybe too bold for some.
But what strikes my interest in the song is the timing of its release. This is from his third "Christian" album (I know, I know, there are plenty of people arguing that they're all Christian, or that none are Christian, etc. But humor me). Slow Train, Saved, and Shot of Love are all very explicit in their Christian content. And they all come from the period of time when Dylan was doing "Gospel-only" shows to a mostly negative reception from his critics. What I wonder is, does this song reflect his own sentiments as he was rejected by many during this era? Is it a specific rejection, or the culmination of a wave of criticism that prompts the song? Or does it have nothing to do with his own experiences at all?
When Slow Train came out, I was four years old, and not very interested in the music of Bob Dylan. I preferred "Disco Duck" and the Chipmunks at that time. If I had been older then (no reference to My Back Pages intended), I'm not sure I would have gone with Dylan down the Gospel Road. I was an atheist until 1992, and I was one of the ones he was singing about in this song. But now I find myself "Property of Jesus" and resented to the bone by stone-hearted people (some of whom are INSIDE the church!). So the song really resonates with me as I identify with the scorn that this follower of Christ experiences in the song (be he Dylan or just some Bible-thumper).
I also wonder about the timing of the song, because not long after this, Dylan moved away from such explicit references to Christian faith. While his music continues to be biblically informed, as it always has, there is no overt effort to evangelize, and no exclusive claims (like in Serve Somebody, et al.). So, I can't help wondering what happened? It is a big leap from "Property of Jesus" to the ideology of "Masked and Anonymous." Did the scorn of others cause him to begin to shy away from his commitment to Christ? I don't know. I know it has happened to others, so I wouldn't say it is impossible.
I'm sure we will all answer that question differently, but only Bob and God know for certain.
As for "platitudes," well, all worldviews and belief systems have "platitudes." Those within the respective systems would probably call them "propositions," "claims," or "convictions." Those outside refer to them pejoratively as "platitudes." Atheism has a-plenty of them. But followers of opposing systems gain no ground dismissing one another's claims as "platitudes." What is needed is charitable conversation wherein the merits of each view are shared, and the flaws in each view exposed and discussed. I believe that a fundamental principle in debate is that the maker of a claim bears a burden of proof. So, Christians (or any other people for that matter) must not just issue "platitudes," but must make our claims and be prepared to "give a reason for the hope within us." But this burden of proof is also shared by those who make competing claims.
I believe there is such a thing as truth (with a capital T, absolutes). That means that we can't all be right. We may all be wrong, but we can't all be right. And it is through reasonable and generous discussion that we help one another get closer to that truth.
Platitude, as in prosaic, as in dull or unimaginative. Doesn't mean untrue, just means presented without much wit. Every stanza reeks of mundane thought and language. These lyrics are like a bunch of disgruntled people sitting around complaining about the in-group, or the popular kids. They may have a point, but it's not artfully made - and that's Dylan's job, to make art. This isn't song-writing or poetry of much caliber. (But like I said, its got a wicked drive.)
As to motivation, I think it's Bob finger pointing and being snotty in the same manner as Positively 4th Street, only that song was a new thing that turned song writing and poetry on their ears by using the vernacular in a new way. Bob's turning the burn onto the non-believers in his life, and in what he perceives as general anti-christian sentiment and scorn. And as far as christian ethics go, returning scorn for scorn is not exactly "the other cheek." The lyrics may be honest, but they're also disgraceful. As in shameful, and as in lacking in grace and love.
I find it very interesting that you are resented in your own church, and I wonder how you handle it.
Has Dylan moved away from his commitment to Christ? So many of his concerts still carry the message - especially when he was playing with Charlie Sexton, et al, and they were doing country gospel. Remember, Dylan is an original fusion guy, mixing beat poetry, folk music, and rock and roll - maybe he's also mixing the truths that all the religions contain in order to find his own truth.
As far as absolutes: yeah, there are absolutes, Thou Shalt Not Kill is one of them. But, as I'm sure you can tell, for me the supremacy of Christianity is not.
One of the reasons I love Dylan is because he's as confused as most of us, and he's trying to get to heaven before they close the door.
Sorry to be so long responding -- I've been swamped. Anyway, key in discussions is definitions and we missed each other on the meaning of "Platitudes." I assumed you meant "empty words" or "meaninglessness." I think I could agree that there's not a lot of artistry in these words, and yes, its pretty much a rant. But rock 'n roll music has always been a playground for ranting.
I'm not sure he's returning scorn for scorn. I think he's "judging the tree by the fruit." People who think that his statements about someone having a heart of stone are not Christ-like would probably have a hard time with much of what Jesus Himself said.
You mentioned "resentment" in "my church." Well, I mean more generally, THE church, that is, the Christian community at large, but yes, it takes shape sometime within my own congregation (and has in every congregation I've ever been a part of). Anyone who stands for truth will not always be popular, but sometimes it is necessary to declare that the emperor is naked. How do I handle this? Well, I don't return evil for evil, and I don't compromise truth. I am driven to more prayer and more dependence on the grace of God to love that person through me (which may be why God allows it in the first place). But ultimately, I know that I don't live to please those individuals -- I am concerned primarily about an audience of One, and if at the end of life I can say that I have lived to please Him, then little else will matter. It takes thick skin and a tender heart, and those two characteristics are difficult to cultivate at the same time. By God's grace, He is helping me in both areas.
Glad to know you haven't imbibed too much on the kool-aid of postmodernism that would reject all absolutes! That may work well in the classroom, but it is bankrupt in real life. "Thou shall not kill" is certainly an absolute moral law. But moral laws don't arise by themselves. Where there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. C. S. Lewis builds much of his case in "Mere Christianity" on this very platform. It is my firm conviction that the moral lawgiver who declared "Thou shall not kill" (a principle established before the Mosaic law), is the God who created this world and all that is in it, and who became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.
While there is a near universal recognition of moral absolutes, there is also (wherever honesty is found in an individual) an awareness that none of us have perfectly lived up to those moral absolutes. We have all failed, the Bible calls it sin. But Christ alone lived a perfect moral life, and therefore is uniquely qualified to offer up His life as a substitutionary sacrifice for sinners.
You ask, "Has Dylan moved away from his commitment to Christ?" Then you say, "maybe he's also mixing the truths that all the religions contain in order to find his own truth." You answered your own question. One cannot do both. John 14:6 is pretty exclusive. His music (his art) is still saturated with certain aspects of the biblical worldview, as it has always been. Certainly his roots have influenced this and it has been fostered by his evolving views on religion. But it is possible for non-Christians to make Christian music. Mastery of vocabulary, concepts and forms would be all that is necessary. It is no reflection of the condition of one's heart.
I am not Bob Dylan's judge, and I don't know the spiritual secrets of his heart. But just as he does in "Property of Jesus," we judge a tree by its fruit (to quote Jesus). What does Bob Dylan believe when he's not wearing his Bob Dylan mask? Here's a quote from Newsweek, 1997:
"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light" – that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs."
That is a far cry from biblical Christianity. So, I would say, based on his own words, that he has moved away from an exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ.
I'm glad for this interaction with you Richard. It is challenging, intellectually stimulating, and enjoyable.
Have you read the book I mentioned in the first post: Bob Dylan and Philosophy, edited by Vernezze and Porter? I think you'd enjoy it. I couldn't put it down.
Post a Comment