Ads


John Lennon’s Bad Theology

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:

12.8.2011 | 11:25am
Mike says:
From the point the Beatles became popular in the US when I was ten years old, I thought that the hype, interest, and reaction to a group of pop singers was way over the top. I do enjoy some of John Lennon’s more melodious ballades such as “Yesterday” and “Let It Be,” but that didn’t make him Bach, Beethoven, or Brahms. And, above all, it certainly did not make him a credible theologian.

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.
12.8.2011 | 12:00pm
Jon Rowe says:
Re the original Jesus quip, if I remember correctly, the context of Lennon's remark was that he COMPLAINED about peoples' reaction to the Beatles, that he didn't think four guys -- however talented they may be -- should be deified.
12.8.2011 | 12:00pm
Randy says:
Lennon's religious philosophy, or absence of religious philosophy, comes from a belief that all humans are born peaceful, good, generous, loving, kind to strangers, etc. and something (probably a combination of Christianity and capitalism) ruins them Well, he got it exactly wrong. Humans are born selfish, disruptive, covetous (of attention,) and distrustful of strangers. We certainly forgive a baby. That's their survival instinct. But later, it's their learning and applying the lessons of Christ (directly or indirectly) that can make them truly good, truly generous, and capable of sacrificial love.
12.8.2011 | 12:04pm
Thomas R says:
I think "Yesterday" was more Paul McCartney than Lennon.

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.
12.8.2011 | 1:09pm
Fred says:
Mike,

"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.
12.8.2011 | 1:29pm
Martin Gomez says:
When Lennon sang "God is a concept, by which we measure our pai-ain", he was obviously not talking about an actual god, as implied by the author, that some people might actually worship. What he was stating, in other words, is that God is just "the man in the sky" that people need because they cannot bear the thought of so much pain in the world with no way out.
12.8.2011 | 2:09pm
Mr. Hennessey's characterization of "Imagine" as a North Korean propaganda ditty is right on target. Though its offenses are not nearly as grave as "Imagine," the dreadful "Happy Christmas/War Is Over," with its manipulative children's choir, relentlessly depressing melody, and utter lack of seasonal cheer is a carol that only the Grinch, perhaps, could love.
12.8.2011 | 2:12pm
CKG says:
As Mike says above, the theological pronouncements of rock-n-roll singers probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. And, as Jon Rowe notes, Lennon's original 'Jesus' quote (as opposed to his subsequent 'explanation') admits of an interpretation to the effect of, 'This is crazy, this adulation we're getting'. And of course, the larger social impact of those four guys from Liverpool WAS out of all proportion; how many people my age first tried drugs because the Beatles did?

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. . ."
12.8.2011 | 2:36pm
Mike says:
Fred, thanks for correcting my errors (proves I'm not a Beatles aficionado). I was never, and I'm still not, a big fan. However, I have to admit that over 4-plus decades some of their tunes have grown on me, including the McCartney pieces you mentioned. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think McCartney ever publicly discussed theology a great deal.
12.8.2011 | 2:53pm
CKG says:
@ Mark Chait -

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'. . .)

;)
12.8.2011 | 3:02pm
On this Feast of the Immaculate Conception and with the Feast of the Virgin of Guadelupe and Christmas coming up shortly,Lennon's hubris looks very dated when viewed in light of the reality of the continuing love so many have for the Christian Religion, for the Ever Virgin Mother of God and for Gesu Bambino. I just read that about 7 million pilgrims will go to the Guadelupan Basilica in the week surrounding la Morenita's Dec. 12 feast (out of a total of 20 Million pilgrims this Year). And that does not reflect all the other contemporaneous celebrations of her feast throughout the US (often associated with the torch run from Mexico City to New york's St. Patrick's Cathedral.

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!
12.8.2011 | 3:11pm
Silvana says:
I appreciate your thoughts and have had many similar thoughts regarding this artist. I recently wrote a post about his song Imagine outlining exactly what he is asking us to imagine. It begins as follows:

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/
12.8.2011 | 3:49pm
astorian says:
At the very end of "The Killing Field," the Oscar-winning movie about Dith Pran's daring escape from the concentration camps of Pol Pot, we see Dith Pran reunited with his old friend, journalist Sydney Schanberg. As the two men embrace, we hear John Lennon's "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????"
12.8.2011 | 4:05pm
AL says:
Yeah, but Lennon was always all over the place, and by the end he had given up on the atheist nonsense. Not that he became orthodox--he called himself a Zen Christian, and seems to have thought in terms of some kind of mystical pantheism--but this author's anxiety is silly, excessive, and entirely unwarranted. As for the "concept by which we measure our pain" line, it is frequently justified by experience. This column is a waste of space, and really takes issue with a few fleeting moments in the life of a man who's unhappy childhood and troubled young adulthood left him fluttering from one extreme formulation to another. In the end, he seemed to be achieving some degree of emotional and intellectual stability, and to enjoy being a father in the proper way for a change; and then someone murdered him. A sad story, but one that doesn't require inane commentary of this sort.
12.8.2011 | 4:06pm
**“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.**

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.
12.8.2011 | 4:11pm
Oops. After I wrote my last comment, I went back and read the original essay again (should have done it before I hit "submit"), and I realize that the author didn't refer to John Lennon's thoughts on religion as "Theology". I guess I "imagined" it. :-)

My apologies to the author for criticizing him for something he didn't write.
12.8.2011 | 4:37pm
Spooky says:
The Beatles were nothing more than a marketing juggernaut. While they were competent musicians, even the monicker of "HIPPY" was not quite accurate. True revolutionarys gave up on Lennon-McCartney tunes with "Let It Be" which was widely viewed as reactionary.
12.8.2011 | 4:53pm
NYa says:
Lennon changed his mind often "Don't you know that you can count me.." out...er, in...um, out...

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..."
12.8.2011 | 5:12pm
Margaret says:
Paul McCartney disputes the popular notion that the Beatles were anti-materialistic. He says that is "a myth", and that they were anything but. He said that when he and John sat down to write a song, they'd literally say, "OK, let's write ourselves a swimming pool".
12.8.2011 | 5:31pm
bobster says:
"Imagine" is nowhere near Lennon's masterwork. Silly people may think the lyrics are meaningful but they reflect only the self-absorbed desire of John to be more than he actually was. The Beatles were much greater than the sum of the individuals. I am certainly prejudiced for having lived through the era but the Beatles were a phenomenon that none of the separate parts could recreate.
12.8.2011 | 6:34pm
c matt says:
Imagine may have been nihilistic drivel, but "Revolution" was quite anti-communist/anti-utopian. They actually dis Mao (or maybe they just needed something to rhyme with "how"). And it was rather humorous that so many revolutionaries of the time took to it. Today, it seems to be a perfect lampoon of the OWS movement. For that, I am grateful.
12.8.2011 | 7:07pm
Steve says:
I am disappointed that FT would devote a pica to an opinion that appears to have been dashed out at deadline with no more thought than that given to picking lint off a sleeve. Admittedly, I am more familiar with Mr. Lennon's work than I am with that of Mr. Hennessey, and expect that to remain the case for many, many years to come.
12.8.2011 | 7:35pm
greggo says:
" Christ, you know it ain't easy. It's as hard as can be. The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me." The Ballad of John and Yoko --Prayer, poem, pop song or blaspheme?
12.8.2011 | 8:30pm
Rick says:
I think the charge that Lennon was a nihilist is misplaced. Nietsche was a nihilist--someone who believes there is no basis whatsoever for morality beyond what the individual creates for himself. Therefore, any indulgence in personal power and exploitation of others is not only permitted--it is the mark of a superior being.

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!
12.9.2011 | 1:41am
Ernie says:
Lennon says: I don't believe in etc., etc., just Yoko and me. Yeah.
12.9.2011 | 6:08am
This is painful to read.As anybody who has truly studied the question of Lennon and Religion knows he did not say a lot about it.First Things writers tend to have a manichean vision of life and especially of people.Lennon was only discovering the Gospels towards the end of his life.Check out the playboy interviews and you will see that.It would be funny to see Matt Hennessy getting playboy to read an interview on theology.Anyway my point is that articles like this say a lot more about us catholics than they do about John Lennon.
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.
12.9.2011 | 10:55am
Rachel says:
When one studies early Christianity, one is struck by the fact that the Arian heresy was promoted by the songs of sailors that spread throughout the Mediterranean. In our era Imagine serves the same function. Song lyrics matter and influence what people believe, and always have. Imagine is iconic because it reflects the deeper values of our culture.
12.9.2011 | 12:35pm
Cosmos42 says:
"'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."

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.
12.9.2011 | 1:06pm
Fred says:
Cosmos42, I think the North Korea comparison was meant to be humorous (at least I found it so). It does make a serious point, though. Even a cursory glance at the lyrics of "Imagine" should tell you Lennon is expressing the essential communist vision. You may like that vision; you may disagree with Hennessy that it or its expression in the song is a bad thing, but you cannot deny that it _is_ the vision expressed by the song. You also cannot deny that it is precisely the vision used to justify Stalin's purges, Mao's cultural revolution, and the Khmer Rouge's genocide. You may argue that there is no necessary connection between the vision and those episodes of mass slaughter, but they do seem to go together with a distressing consitency. And precisely what is it about Hennessy that you see as the reason atheism is rising and Christianity is dying off (assuming arguendo that that is, in fact, the case)?
12.9.2011 | 3:24pm
Meagan says:
Okay well, Matthew Hennessey. You are so mean, and stupid, and just plain a jerk! John Lennon was one of the best most talented people to walk on this earth! His death was unnessesary, and so is this article! 1. The Beatles are NOT a mear children's band! The are famous world wide! No one will ever forget them, and their music!!! They changed the world as we know it! 2. It is true that he said that The Beatles were more important that God, but that was just a reaction to everything going on at that time! 3. John Lennon will be remembered for his music, his infulence, his 'Give Peace A Chance' champain but only stupid, people will remember him for his comment! Why don't you just stick to writing articles, NOT PUTTING JOHN LENNON AND THE BEATLES AND THEIR FANS DOWN!!!!
12.9.2011 | 3:46pm
Fred says:
Meagan, Was your comment writ ironical?
12.9.2011 | 5:16pm
Dave2 says:
Cosmos42...do a little research. Christianity is THE FASTEST growing religion...nothing even comes close, including Islam. Here's a good place to start:

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.
12.9.2011 | 6:46pm
Mick Leahy says:
The ironic thing is that Lennon was 'thick and ordinary', not the likes of the great Church Fathers. The Beatles stopped playing live because they weren't very good at it, and depended on the studio and George Martin to deliver the goods. Lennon probably felt the need of controversy and publicity to compete with the status of Bob Dylan, because he didn't have Dylan's genius and he knew it. Unfortunately a legion of gullible fans, critics, and academics swallowed it. Looking back, Lennon is long dead, the Christian convert Dylan, while no saint, lives on, and if you're looking for Truth in rock music, remains the main man-have a listen to his sincere, humble and unique(!) Adeste Fideles in his recent Christmas In the Heart' album. Lennon lacked humility, he thought he had all the answers, rather than looking to a Higher Power, perhaps this contributed to his downfall.
12.10.2011 | 8:40pm
Larry Linn says:
John Lennon was a singer, songwriter, musician, and poet. He was not a theologian. As a songwriter, his power was to make the listener think. "Imagine" that.
12.11.2011 | 10:13am
Paul says:
The Beatles and the other supposedly epochal musicians cited above were merely ephemeral popular entertainers, notable primarily for their pandering to an adolescent mentality which they themselves shared.

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.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact