a rolling stone gathers no moss

Around 1500 AD, the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (commonly referred to as ”Erasmus”) published a compilation of ancient Greek and Latin adages (proverbs) called the Adagia. Included in this compilation was the proverb ”a rolling stone gathers no moss”. The commonly understood meaning is that people who don’t call any one place home are generally free of the types of entanglements (relationships, responsibilites, etc.) that bind or restrict most others. In ancient times, this type of lifestyle and its lack of “commitment” was considered undesirable (a stone with no moss). In modern times, we’ve turned the old proverb on its head by celebrating the lifestyles of well-known “rolling stones” or “rounders” – particularly those who are performing artists.

In 1948, the blues musician Muddy Waters wrote a song called “Rollin Stone” in which he included the following phrase: “I got a boy child’s comin’, He’s gonna be, he’s gonna be a rollin’ stone…” Fourteen years later (1962), the song inspired a new British rock group who were fans of Muddy Waters to call themselves “The Rolling Stones”. The rest, as they say, is history.

On Wednesday night, my wife (Barbara) and I went to see the latest Stones concert film – “Shine A Light“, directed by Martin Scorsese. It was playing at the local IMAX theater, with sound rivaling a live performance. I went not because I’m a big fan of the Stones (which I’m not), but because I was curious about their longevity in our youth-obsessed culture. This year, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will be 65 years old, Charlie Watts will be 67, and Ronnie Wood – the “baby” of the group – will be 61. If you watch any of the movie trailers on the website, you’ll see the map of life etched on their wrinkled faces. I’m betting that a lot of young people will recoil at the numerous closeups in the film, but being an “old guy” myself, I was able to look past the wrinkles and see the unmistakable intensity and energy they brought to the performance. In that regard, I thought the film was phenomenal. We weren’t just watching a concert, the camera work actually made us feel as if we were onstage in the midst of the performance.

The movie really got me to thinking. When I was younger, the intensity, focus, and energy needed to accomplish things was easy to summon. I now realize how much of it was expended on things that were ultimately frivolous. No regrets there, that’s the joy and sometimes, the folly of youth. However, as I’ve gotten older, I realize that I have to make a conscious effort to summon the personal resources I need to accomplish things that are important to me. From my perspective, the process of “finishing well” that I’ve written about in previous posts is directly related to this effort. The older one gets, the more purposeful and deliberate must be the preparation. As Barbara put it, Mick Jagger couldn’t perform today at the intensity level he does without strict adherence to physical conditioning, diet, lifestyle, etc. In that regard, watching the Rolling Stones continue to pursue their life’s passion at their age, with such a high level of intensity and energy, was oddly inspiring. That they are, as their name indicates, “rolling stones” is undisputed. It’s the path they’ve chosen and the price they’ve paid for 40+ years of live performing.

I was left with a final question. By naming the movie “Shine A Light”, was Martin Scorsese trying to say that the Rolling Stones shine a unique artistic light on our lives? I’m reflecting on that as I go back and revisit my January 16 post entitled “Shining the Light”. What are the differences between ”cultural light” and “spiritual light”? In our post-religious (and clearly post-Christian) culture, can people tell the difference? If not, what are the implications?