A folk singer said to me, “I want to fall in love with you.” Of course I bought his CD.
I didn’t know he was coming. I was sitting in my coffeeshop downtown, doing research for my foreskin essay, when he came in. I marked him as 58 years old, married to a blue heeler, owner of 11 8-tracks and a stained Mr. Coffee. He had a denim handle on his guitar case, if I remember correctly. It complemented his cap.
I don’t know why I feel responsible for people. Had I sandwich-boarded downtown for a few hours that afternoon, I could have ensured that more than three people would have been in the coffeeshop by the time he started playing. I had no idea he was coming in to play that evening, but surely I could have prepared just in case? Thus, when one person left after the first song, and the second left after the third, I, who wanted to leave after the fourth, felt obligated to see it through. No way I’m leaving this guy. I owe him.
Folk singers like to tell stories between songs. I learned in counseling classes that, for the sake of communicating concern and attention, the optimal seating position is 45 degrees, slightly leaning in. But it was hard to do that while trying to hide pictures of foreskin on my laptop. If he sensed lack of concern on my part, he hid it well. He just kept singing, kept telling me stories about rivers and pea gravel between songs. He was there for me.
I’ve never been in a relationship longer than 5 months. I think I know why. Among other reasons, I get anxious when anyone dotes on me. I hate feeling obligated. So when, for his 11th number, the singer covered Chris Isaak—his cobalt gaze into my soul, his beautifully intoned and oily “. . . and I want to fall in love . . . with you”—I began to get that wanderlust, began thinking of ways to break up without damaging his psyche. I was afraid that calling things off might lead him to a life of misery, or worse, that he might fuel a steel drum with his guitar.
I decided to place the burden on him by telling him that maybe I needed a smoke break. He took it well, saying that he thought a break might be a good idea, and went to the bathroom. I sat outside, smoking, feeling awful, and I’ll be honest—I wanted to run. But my laptop with the foreskin pictures was inside, and I didn’t want to have to call him later and ask him to return it.
I ended up going back inside and listening for a few more songs before suddenly coming down with diarrhea. I think he believed me. In a final attempt to assure him that it was me, not him, and knowing that most coffeeshop folk singers like to leave CD’s behind for the shop to sell, I asked him, “So will you be leaving some CD’s here? I don’t have any money on me now, but you’re really great.” As a matter of fact, he wasn’t planning on it, but he would be glad to leave one there for me, and he would pick the money up later in the week.
I packed my bag and left, vowing never to get involved with a folk singer again.
Have really been enjoying your writing. Curious - why did you take the foreskin essay off?
Posted by: Gypsy at February 6, 2004 11:48 PMThanks, Gypsy. It's down for slight revision, among other things.
Posted by: jeremy at February 7, 2004 12:56 AMFunny, you're now the top google search result from my frequent query "junkmail for blankets."
Posted by: junkmail junkie at February 7, 2004 12:54 PMi just read your (i am assuming it was yours) article on "did Jesus smoke?" it was interesting how i responded. my strict conservative fundamentalist background rose up and immediately condemned those people until i got to the part about Christ touching the lepers. the scripture passage that was called to mind was to be in the world but not of the world. also to be a light and salt.
in short based on those verses, i disagree with Christian's smoking. but our treatment of Them is a sad statement of fundamentalists (i hate that term...) today. in truth i think conservative Christians could learn a great deal from the liberal Christians in the area of love and so forth.
thank you for the article.
Posted by: hill at February 7, 2004 02:01 PMhill,
thanks for reading. and posting. concerning "being in the world but not of the world" and "salt and light," it depends on your hermeneutic for those verses. does the world passage address the physical circumstances we find ourselves in, or the worldview, the mindset with which we approach those circumstances? moreover, is it legitimate to place smoking in the category of "in the world"? if so, with the article in mind, how? as far as salt and light, i wonder if this is not so much a mandate to behave a certain way depending on a situation (since we already are salt and light by virtue of our union with Christ [i.e. we can't not be salt and light]) as it is to make sure that our external behavior, regardless of the situation, is consistent with our internal state, which is consistent (thus, loosely related, avoiding situational ethics). thus, our behavior shouldn't change depending on the situation, in a very general sense--regardless of the context, we are to be a winsome, consistent presence, the physical nation of israel in the midst of trading routes, making righteousness an attractive lifestyle.
anyway. and i've never been labeled a "liberal" Christian--i'm wondering if i should celebrate or be concerned. either way, pour me another.
take care,
jeremy
where in the Bible IS that in-the-but-not-of-the-world verse, anyway? :)
Posted by: joy at February 8, 2004 07:01 AMto my dear friend, mac...
i love your writing and i love your
friendship...
guinness says hello.
jeremy,
i wasn't meaning you as the liberal christian. i was thinking of a class i was recently in and our pastor saying that. heavens to betsy! sorry it came across like that. i don't know you or your views so to make a call on what or who you are would be erronious on my part.
as to hermanutics joy, =). interesting thing is i have never had it. most of what i know has been taught to me and i have not searched it out for myself. therein i am wrong for spouting out my ideas. (it is funny how i get on others about saying things w/o research and don't see how much i do it in my own life!)
back to jeremy again...smoking as "in the world." maybe this is my upbringing. maybe this is way off base. i have always viewed smoking as bad. something "They" do. not something a nice girl would. so that has always been my view. i guess i have always labled it as something distinctive of the world.
i have always been told that based on romans 12:1 that my body is the temple of the holy spirit. and if i damage that sanctuary of where He lives than i am in the wrong.
thoughts on that?
hill
Posted by: hill at February 9, 2004 02:56 PMhill,
thanks for the gracious reply. did you read the article closely? I deal, somewhat at length, with the "body is a temple" argument, which comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Rom. 12:1 is probably where you're getting the "in the not of the" idea.
jeremy
Posted by: jeremy at February 9, 2004 03:04 PMi printed the article out.....i will read it again and try not to put my foot in my mouth a second time??!?!?!?!? if that is possible! =)
hill
Posted by: hill at February 10, 2004 01:00 PMA conversation I remember:
I am four years old, sitting on the radiator in the kitchen of the Koininia house and eating carrot sticks out of a dixie cup. My mother is only slightly older than all the hippies and the Jesus freaks but she is not a hippie; she is the preacher’s wife and she is cooking huge metal pots of sloppy joes and sheet cake size trays of brownies to give to the college kids that come in looking to be fed. Two girls and a boy I have never seen before come into the kitchen offering to help wash dishes. I am in awe of them. They are the most beautiful people I have ever seen. They wear long white robes and have bare feet. They don’t really look like the other hippies. They look like Bible People. They tell my mother that they are traveling with their white robes and their bare feet to spread the message of Jesus Christ and peace and love. As they work they slowly smoke hand-rolled cigarettes. Their fingers are stained from the tobacco. They have no shoes. They have no car. They have no money. They do not know where they will sleep each night. The only thing they carry with them is a pouch with tobacco and what they need to roll cigarettes. My mother asks them about the tobacco. They explain that they smoke to be like Jesus. They say that they were converted and saved after they met Jesus - actually met Jesus. They say they hung out with Jesus for a few weeks when they were in Albuquerque - and he was smoking.
After they leave my mother tries to tell me that the beautiful people were mistaken - that Jesus does not smoke. But I know Bible People when I see them.
you have x-ray vision
Posted by: jeremy at February 15, 2004 08:35 PMFake diarrhea is the perfect escape hatch out of any undesirable situation.
Speeding ticket? Tell the officer you've got diarrhea and you're trying to get home in a hurry.
Girls, want to avoid a good night kiss from your lame blind date? Tell him you've got diarrhea.
Mormons at the door? Tell them you've got diarrhea.
Not sure how to get rid of a really persistent telemarketer? You guessed it, tell him you've got diarrhea.
Thanks to Jeremy, we now also know that it's a perfect way to get rid of pesky folk singers.
Posted by: magic grizzle loaf at February 16, 2004 09:00 PMdear grizzle,
i can always count on you to bring us back to the big picture. we are indebted. i would write more in your praise, but i have diarrhea.
Posted by: jeremy at February 16, 2004 09:04 PMPeople are just smart enough to not be happily ignorant.
Posted by: Grindle Alex at April 26, 2004 06:46 AM