Non Believer

The lyrics seem to delve into the complexity of human relationships and the often blurry line between love and need. At its core, the song appears to address a triangle of sorts, involving the singer, the person they are speaking to ("you"), and a third party ("she"). The repeated warnings against believing "her" suggest a narrative where the person being addressed is potentially being misled or deceived in love.

The refrain "All that we are, all that we need / They're different things" is a profound meditation on the distinction between our desires and our necessities, especially in the context of relationships. It implies that what we yearn for in a partner and what we genuinely require for emotional fulfillment are not always aligned. This chorus could be seen as a reminder or an awakening to this reality, urging a deeper reflection on one's motivations and expectations in love.

The term "non-believers" could symbolize those who doubt the sincerity or viability of the relationship in question, possibly voicing concerns that are dismissed by "you" who is blinded by love or desire. The singer positions themselves as "just a preacher," suggesting they are trying to convey wisdom or truth about the situation, though possibly without any personal stake in its outcome.

The mention of "burning skies" and a "broken creature" evoke a sense of dramatic, perhaps catastrophic emotional states, reinforcing the intensity and potential pain involved in these entanglements. The "broken creature" could symbolize the person being warned, damaged by their pursuit of an unattainable or harmful love.

Finally, "Give you my all and you're taking my everything" speaks to the imbalance and sacrifice one might endure in relationships, where giving your all may still result in losing everything, highlighting the risks we take for love and the importance of discerning what we truly need from what we merely desire.

In sum, the lyrics explore the pain of unrequited or misguided love, the conflict between our desires and our needs, and the importance of heeding wisdom from those who might see our situations more clearly than we do ourselves.

This is a gem of a song and I am surprised it doesn’t have any interpretations as of me scribbling this one down. Although, as with some of the best London Grammar songs, it’s imagery is subtle and has a touch of the surrealist, and is difficult to pin down.

I have listened to this song over and over, and it doesn’t paint an obvious picture to my mind, but invokes feelings attached to specific life events, which makes it so good. But without wanting to damage this effect, and having thought about this song a lot, my interpretation, for what it’s worth, is that it’s about a religious figure. Probably an obscure one if it is. But, in my western upbringing, it draws on the story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, possibly borrowing from the apocrypha and other interpretations of the characters (as portrayed in the movie “Mary Magdalene” (2018).

The singer perhaps is one of the apostles, warning Jesus of Mary’s fitness for the Discipleship, on account of her being a woman and reputation as a prostitute. And perhaps Jesus’s reputed favoured love for her (possibly sexual in nature), over the other disciples too? Alternatively, it could be that it’s the moment when Mary testifies to the other disciples that she saw Jesus risen again, and was initially disbelieved by some?

It’s seems the singer is talking to Jesus as a idealist who “healed the earth behind a broken creature” - a reference to his own crucifixion?

Then the moving lines of “what we are and what we need, are different things”, is an obvious universal truth, but one which might refer to Jesus being a human being, denied earthly needs such as sexual love and a family life? Or perhaps his divinity vs. the earthly needs of his human form? Or Jesus’s teachings that we just need love (and to love), but we are in fact in biblical and Christian beliefs, born sinful and mainly exist as hateful creatures?

Whatever the inspiration for this song, the fact that it is called ‘non believer’, makes it impossible for me to see it as anything but a religious vignette of some kind.

I hope others can put some other perspective on it ????????