This week marks the thirty-first anniversary of John Lennon’s death—as good a time as any to analyze our enduring fascination with the former Beatle’s peculiar religiosity and his lasting impact on our cultural imagination.
We should begin at the beginning, or very near it. In August 1966, as a mop-topped 26-year-old, Lennon told a British reporter that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.” When this infamous declaration finally made its way stateside several months later, it caused a stir. Church ladies across the Bible Belt showed up to picket Beatles’ concerts. Stunt-happy small town disc jockeys urged listeners to trash their “Please Please Me” 45s and “Meet the Beatles” LPs. A few intrepid reporters managed to dig up some guys in white sheets and pointy hats denouncing the wicked influence of the satanic and Christ-hating Liverpudlians.
All of this went straight into Beatles lore unedited. Lennon later claimed that the protests and implied Christian violence that shadowed the band during its August 1966 U.S. tour led directly to the Beatles’ decision to cease touring and concentrate solely on studio recordings.
If true, partial credit for Sgt. Pepper’s belongs to the Ku Klux Klan. Kidding aside, the Jesus v. John Lennon flap always said more about the savvy of the Beatles’ biographers than it did about Christian America. Even the novice student of Beatle lore knows that this was the moment when the Fab Four morphed from a nice little R&B outfit into Very Important Artists. Previously, the Beatles were thought of as kids’ stuff; too pretty to be important. Other groups, like the Rolling Stones, the Byrds, and Bob Dylan, were considered true artists with social import.
But cosmopolitans everywhere picked up on Lennon’s message: Christianity was too musty, too intolerant, too repressive, too much a part of the ancient regime that rock ’n’ roll intended to overthrow. You say you want a revolution? You better free your mind instead.
For his part, Lennon claimed to have been misquoted. It’s worth remembering, though, that he made his remarks with some vehemence:
“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. . . . I don't know which will go first—rock ’n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.”
Thick and ordinary? That’s strong stuff. Hadn’t Lennon read C.S. Lewis, who pointed out that Jesus was either exactly what he claimed to be—namely, the son of God—or a liar? In any case, you can hardly blame his disciples and church for “twisting it.”
As the 1960s became the 1970s, Lennon’s legion of admirers would follow him in his forays into Indian mysticism, transcendental meditation, and primal therapy. In 1970, now a post-hippie but still a seeker, Lennon sang of a personal god that was neither omniscient, transcendental, nor redemptive, but merely “a concept by which we measure our pain.” This clever bit of pop theology was instantly embraced by an exhausted and defeated flower-power generation searching for moral renewal at the dawn of the new decade.
But, appealing as this view of God was—and remains for a great many Lennon enthusiasts—it came with troubling implications. If God is merely a concept by which we measure our pain, then, ipso facto, where pain can be eliminated, God is no longer necessary. This perhaps explains the escapism and drug abuse of so many of the 60s generation, including Lennon, who himself battled heroin addiction throughout the early 1970s. Radicals, freaks, and lotus-eaters everywhere finally had a deity they could relate to. One who didn’t judge them, or tell them how to live their lives. You know, a god who just lets you be yourself and doesn’t harsh your mellow.
It must be said that Lennon’s lyricizing for the Beatles and his first solo albums were merely a prologue for his enduring masterwork and most famous composition, 1971’s “Imagine.” Much ink has been spilled about this song, treasured by millions the world over for its supposed message of peace and harmony. It is regularly ranked one of the greatest compositions of all time by the editors of music magazines and radio programmers.
“Imagine” is in fact a blatantly nihilistic evocation of an atheist global utopia where the triple-scourge of possessions, greed, and hunger have all been abolished in the name of international brotherhood. Think of it as a North Korean propaganda film with a great piano riff and a nice string arrangement.
When I regard the life’s work of John Lennon these days, I do it with a high degree of ambivalence. His music, and the Beatles’ vast catalog, retains its enormous appeal. But I can neither sanction Lennon's godless vision of the world nor separate it from the experience of listening to his music. I would go so far as to call it dangerous.
And I’m not the only one.
Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter@MattHennessey.
Comments:
I do like the Beatles for doing songs about the lonely, elderly, and misunderstood. (Eleanor Rigby, When I'm 64, Fool on a Hill, etc) It's not necessarily an obvious choice in pop-rock. Also for some of their more symphonic or nostalgic pieces. (In My Life, Penny Lane, etc)
Lennon is probably the one I like least. George seemed pretty sincere about being some kind of Hindu, which to me is better than just being transgressive and nihilist as indicated. Ringo is, well I don't know Ringo. Paul is maybe a bit odd, but affable enough I guess.
"Yesterday" and "Let It Be" were Paul McCartney songs. Lennon did write some beautiful stuff, though, "Cry Baby Cry," "In My Life," "A Day in the Life," and "Dear Prudence" to name a few. In addition, he wrote some of the Beatles' most rocking tunes, e.g., "Yer Blues," "Hey Bulldog," and "Me and My Monkey." Full discolsure, as much as I loathe Lennon's politics and theology, I am a lifelong Beatleolotor.
Back to 'sphere of expertise' question - I can remember more than one of my college professors, back in the 70s, pronouncing from the front of their lecture halls that the Laws of Physics (or whatever) conclusively prove the non-existence of God, and thinking to myself, "I pay tuition for you to teach me Physics; stick to what you're qualified to talk about. . ."
And yet. . . Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime" might be even worse, with its trite holiday-party cheeriness. . .
(And, as Beatle fans go, I've always been a 'Paul guy'. . .)
;)
And, of course, there is the still relevant Christian celebration called Christmas. I have as much concern as anyone with the secularist attacks on Christmas and with the overcommercialism of the holy day, but Christmas is the greatest reality of the Year. The Government can declare all sorts of days holidays and make them days off for most workers, but the reality is that Christmas is bigger than Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth, Labor Day, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving all wrapped up into one. In fact, I'll go even one further: throw in Halloween and even the new secular holiday of Black Friday.
The new commercial phenomenon lately dubbed Black Friday is as big as it is precisely because it is the official start of the Christmas shopping season and not because Beatles--or more relevantly, Sean Paul's--recordings may be on sale that day. No doubt, commercial interests do everything they can to turn Christmas into a buying splurge instead of a holy day, but that is just an application of the old wisdom that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Commercial interests hitch their stars to Christmas not for sectarian reasons but because it is the day of the Year that engages people's emotions--the hopes and fears of all the Years--most deeply. Even 48 years after the Beatles' first US trip, people are still celbrating His mother and Him....Imagine!
Imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you try….
Who exactly would find this an “easy” thing to do? I would think it would be easy for the person who was living a relatively carefree, happy life. One who had no major health issues. One with happy, fulfilling relationships. One with no physical body deformities–especially one born beautiful and desirable. One who is intelligent, talented, and capable. One well fed and clothed. Essentially all who find the living of life on this earth in the here and now to be, at the very least, a step above pain, misery, and sorrow.
But what about those who are not so well situated. How about those who have ever only known life on earth to be only about suffering and struggle? I think of those with physical ailments beyond cure; the outcasts, the rejects, the tossed about and thrown away. What about those for whom the word hope has no practical, personal application? Should they be encouraged to buy into this idea of no heaven? ”Sorry, but this is it. What you see is all there is, ever was, ever will be. Life is difficult for you, and by the looks of it things will never improve for you. Not now, not ever. There is nothing beyond the grave.” Is it “easy if you try” for these individuals to cast away any hope they had in an eternal destiny where “the last shall be first?”
To read more: http://oakhillvignettes.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/some-thoughts-on-john-lennons-imagine/
Now, this was a touching scene, but even as I sat in the theater watching, I couldn't help thinking, "Isn't a world with "no possessions... and no religion, too" PRECISELY what Pol Pot and hismurderous Khmer ROuge were trying to create????"
Really?
I gotta say, as a reader, I consider this kind of hyperbole totally nonsensical. It is a common trap that many essayists fall into - they've got a point to make, but then they take it too far, and it ruins their credibility (at least for me).
Popular figures like John Lennon are given too much credit when their opinions on religion are treated as "Theology". Theology is "the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths." Under what pretext do you even begin to consider John Lennon's musings to be a systematic and rational study of religion? It's like criticizing him for not being a serious enough economist when he says, "Imagine no possessions!" No Nobel Prize in economics for you, Mr. Lennon!
The message in "Imagine" is simple - there are many social constructs which can serve to divide people and even provide a basis for dehumanizing the "other". So what if, when dealing with others, we focus on our common humanity instead of on disparities in wealth, religious outlook, national origin, etc.? How would that effect the way we treat each other? Hardly a bad topic to muse upon.
Of course, the point is easily missed if you insist on deconstructing it beyond all original intent to support an argument that doesn't require it to begin with.
Agree or disagree with Mr. Lennon's personal views on religion (and note that I refrain from referring to it as his "theology") to describe him as a North Korean propagandist is about the most ridiculous thing I can "imagine".
And for my money, the best song John Lennon wrote was "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)" about his son Sean. Really lovely.
My apologies to the author for criticizing him for something he didn't write.
He swung to the right later in life:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009562/John-Lennon-closet-conservative-fan-Reagan.html
And that's something that the left would love to leave covered up or explained away.
Also, in the early 80s, he and Yoko were among the first to donate to the NYC Police dept.'s new bullet-proof vest fund.
But surely the man changed, the same man who became a stay-at-home dad to his son Sean and wrote songs for him like:
"Before you go to sleep, say a little prayer, Every day, in every way, it's getting better and better..."
Lennon was clearly a seeker after some sort of spiritual truth. Granted, it was an unstable and aimless search, but at least he was searching. Many "unstable" hippies and spiritual seekers of the era, like me, finally had their personal encounters with God's spirit, became Christians, and found their stability. In a sense, Lennon may have been more spiritual than the great bulk of the English population today. About 7% of the English have any active religious affiliation and attend services of any kind...and most of that 7% are muslims!
The only Beatle who seriously thought about Religion was George Harrison and he was a Hindu so it would be more beneficial to speak of him.But then you would have to explain the attraction of hinduism.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, only instead of making a comparison with Hitler, you're making a comparison with North Korea. In other words, you have no argument.
Sorry, your fallacious appeals to fear don't change the fact that people like John Lennon aren't the ones causing all the problems in this world.
If you want to know why atheism is rapidly rising and Christianity is dying off, take a good look in the mirror.
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/fgr.html
As for John, if he had lived long enough, we might have found him embracing Christianity as there were hints he was doing, much like many in that generation have done later in life. It's not untypical. Once you've had everything there is to have, done everything there is to do, and been and seen everything you care to see... you begin to question WHY AM I HERE? ...and if it's to just to experience all the pleasure you can, then die...it seems pointless.
My guess is, John was in the same place the writer of Ecclesiastes was...too bad it was all cut short, but then none of us has a guarantee when we will die or how soon. Even Christopher Hitchens is questioning it all...at least he is being given the chance.
When the Baby Boomers have passed out of living memory, these bands will be as thoroughly forgotten as vaudeville headliners, and their music will be as inaccessible as that humor is to us.
And this is not to pick on that generation unfairly -- JK Rowling, too, will go the way of Karl May. Unalloyed modernity is a solvent, and makes nothing that lasts.



Think how silly it would be for someone like Billy Graham or Pope Benedict to write and perform rock music. They’re theologians, not musicians. Now think how silly it was for Mr. Lennon to espouse theology (for an example, see Mr. Hennessey’s above commentary). Theology was clearly not Lennon’s expertise or skill set.
I might suggest this account. I’ve heard that a reporter once asked Elvis Presley to share his views on the Vietnam War. Presley responded that he was an entertainer, and did not know enough about foreign policy to credibly comment. He understood that being a singer did not qualify him as an expert in a different discipline. I must admit I think that the hype over Presley's career was also over the top. However, with all his foibles, I think his response here was dead on.