"To Be Alone with You" is among the most explicitly Christian of Sufjan Stevens' songs. The narrator is speaking to Jesus Christ in reference to their relationship....
I'd swim across Lake Michigan
I'd sell my shoes
I'd give my body to be back again
In the rest of the room
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
You gave your body to the lonely
They took your clothes
You gave up a wife and a family
You gave your ghost
To be alone with me
To be alone with me
To be alone with me
You went up on a tree
To be alone with me
You went up on a tree
I've never known a man who loved me
I'd sell my shoes
I'd give my body to be back again
In the rest of the room
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
To be alone with you
You gave your body to the lonely
They took your clothes
You gave up a wife and a family
You gave your ghost
To be alone with me
To be alone with me
To be alone with me
You went up on a tree
To be alone with me
You went up on a tree
I've never known a man who loved me
Lyrics submitted by vwkeychain
Track duration: 02:45
Add your thoughts
Log in now to tell us what you think this song means.
Don’t have an account? Create an account with SongMeanings to post comments, submit lyrics, and more. It’s super easy, we promise!
The first verse is a current realization: Sufjan's longing to be near his saviour, he'd give anything to feel present, without distraction; one with God.
The second verse describes what Sufjan feels Jesus gave up to be close to his broken people. The Lonely who took the clothes were the Roman Soldiers. Jesus gave up having a wife and a family. He did not marry. He gave his ghost....death. How can one be alone with someone if they are dead? Christians say Jesus rose again. This cannot be describing just any human.
"To be alone with me you went up on a tree". the Bible calls the cross a tree. Christians sometimes still refer to it this way.
the part about sufjan never knowing a man who loved him is a realization again. A sudden understanding of the existence of a different love. That love; beyond any love of a friend, a family member, even the deepest romantic love....is often unknown to us in this world. a sacrificial love that would give up anything for you and would love you even if you outright hated them.
like i said, the first verse dwells on a man's sacrificial thoughts for love or god or whatever, but it connects to the meaning by saying that no matter how hard you try or whatever you do, you will stay be alone like every body else and feel that that common, inevitable feeling of lonliness.
the second verse is the protaganist talking to a prostitute and a man who left his family, and he refers to them because he is saying that no matter who you are also, you're going to feel the same feeling like the rest of the human race.
so yeah, maybe my perspective of the meaning makes more sense now, haha.
the first stanza is very well about the instensity of the character's sacrificial thoughts...
the third stanza is providing two different perspectives of people who would be deemed as lonely in our society, and just unloved or lacking love--a prostitute and a man who leaves his family...
and who they are being alone with? with each other. not with god, not with jesus christ, not with a gay lover, but with each other. that's what i feel that this song is about, the fact that there are 7 billion people in this world and counting, yet we all feel alone, together. yeah, i took a long time to get to that simple conclusion, but there it is. that's what that line, "to be alone with you" and "to be alone with me" means. not necessarily literally being alone with someone in a room or spirtually, but being alone individually but being alone individually as a whole. wow. that doesn't make sense when i say it like that but i don't know how else to explain myself. maybe someone will get it.
and the confusing, outlier line of "I never knew a man who loved me" is finally alluding to god, but in a negative sense. he never knew of the Man loving him, nor did the human race, because in the end we are still alone.
The most significant input I can provide for everyone who has left messages on this board and to those who have yet to contribute is that the biblical references here are allusions and create a frame of reference within which we should seek to understand the gravity of this very real and very human love. The way he describes the limitless lengths he would endure for said love in the first stanza speaks less of a spiritual love than a passionate one in that we are dealing with purely physical manifestations. These lines remind me quite a bit of another song called "these old shoes" by deer tick in which a young man is willing to go to any length to reunite with his lost love even if it means traversing states and cities on foot. Clearly Stevens takes this idea a step further when he suggests continuing his journey not only on foot but shoeless. A christ-like sacrifice perhaps but one that he is willing to make for the only man that has ever loved him. It should be noted that even here we can assume that these lines should not be taken literally, the swim and the shoeless journey are being used to explore the depth of emotion and desperation at play within our writer's heart. The line "I'd give my body to be back again, in the rest of the room" reinforces the belief that these two men are physically separated, he speaks of bodies (your body my body) and rooms which are physical. I don't think he is talking about "heaven's room" or the "church room" otherwise he might have simply said "I'd swim across lake michigan to cry in the church pew again like i did as a little boy" or "i'd give my body to sit beside you in the great beyond." Rather Stevens presents a hypothetical scenario in which he, as a spirit/ghost/otherwise bodiless being, is haunting the man he is so desperate to reconnect with, a dissatisfying reunion no doubt what with the inability to consummate said love etc. If nothing else this simply makes ever more concrete the depth of his love in that he is willing to sacrifice his own body, and therefore his earthly delights, in order to be with him again. Some would argue that this applies to jesus however it's obvious that the image presented is one of a physical man being surrounded by the spirit of his desperate lover.
The second stanza serves to exalt the virtues of said lover, a man who is again christ-like in that he has sacrificed and perhaps has subjected or is willing to subject himself to crucifixion for their love. I do not mean a literal crucifixion mind but relative in the way that being gay can open the gates for social scorn and public humiliation. Especially for those that are from strictly religious families or communities. Stevens is drawing links between jesus' actions in life and the reflection of these actions in his lover. I agree with other commentors when they suggest that the lines "you gave up a wife and family, you gave your goals" refer to a wife and family that could have been and life goals that are now no longer available to him having chosen to "be alone" with the writer. Perhaps Steven's intention with this song is to sanctify the practice of homosexual love. To imbue his listeners with the understanding that the physical love between two men can deserve the same respect (from the church) as the love between men and women through the attribution of these sainted qualities (most notably sacrifice and deeply spiritual love).
Some have stipulated that the last line "i never knew a man who loved me" refers to the love of jesus a man who the writer has never in fact known personally what with jesus having died two thousand years ago and whatnot. I can't help but think that this extrapolation makes no sense whatsoever. That's unfair, it does make sense but it's a little juvenile, "i never knew him cause he's dead!" It seems far more reasonable to assume that the line can be interpreted as "i never knew a man who loved me (until you)" or "i never (before) knew a man who loved me" which would imply that this is the first or that he hopes this man will be the first to love him. This applies in that we know they are still apart, and have perhaps not yet had their chance to be together completely. Far less of a reach in my opinion than abstract notions of knowing or not knowing an omnipotent spiritual guiding force-type person. If Stevens is truly singing to jesus and the last line should be interpreted as such then why not say " i KNOW a man who loves me" if we can suppose that it is possible for jesus and Stevens to be alone together in a room than surely they know each other? how do we define knowledge of jesus? and if true "knowing" only occurs in life, on the physical plane, as the former interpretation suggests (i never knew him because he died before me) then the physical nature of the first stanza no longer makes sense. It seems clear to me that he is talking about a real person (not jesus) who he loves with great and perhaps even religious fervor.
For some reason when I think of the song as being a love song to jesus it becomes less meaningful, less deep. I know what you're thinking "a song about the love of a man for his creator, what's more meaningful than that!" and if you are then you misunderstand me. A love song to Jesus seems to me too direct of an interpretation. Too superficial. I don't mean to suggest that religion is superficial or that Jesus is superficial but rather that if the imagery is meant to be taken literally I think that a lot of really powerful and culturally relevant meaning is lost. The song has the potential to be viewed as a progressive examination of pure love between men and I think it unwise to negate that possibility in favor of surface-value allusions that are BY NATURE intended to be examined further.
i think it's the idea that, no matter what you think about religion, you listen to him, and you just love it and you want to convince yourself that it's not religious or that it is, so you can feel good about yourself listening to it.
guys, it doesn't matter how many times you analyze these lyrics. he's religious. he's said it. he means it. he's not going to write bad about it.
oh, but here's the best part:
it doesn't matter! he's a visionary, a vangaurd for his generation, and maybe, you should all stop fighting. if you like his music, listen to it, and stop hating. their his beliefs, you don't need to go around and change them, and you know what? you don't need to! so, stop fighting, i don't think sufjan would've wanted this anyway. if he wants to write about religion, it's his choice, and you should respect it.
and another thing: the whole, "sufjan's gay, look at his lyrics!"
we cannot determine whether or not he's gay or straight, and frankly, it doesn't matter. he can be whatever he wants to be, and we're not the judge of his lifestyle. let him live. he plays music because he loves it, and we're here on the sidelines listening to it, and that's all, and that's it.
<3