I am a hard-core Beatle fan. I also believe that the Bible is God’s authoritative revelation, and to understand the good and the true, that’s the primary source. Some people see the Beatles and the Bible as a marriage made in hell; they are all irreconcilable differences. But, somehow, it works out okay in my head. Perhaps I can put the reconciliation into words…
The Beatles were an international music phenomenon from 1963 through 1970. During that period they were in their 20s—blue collar boys from Liverpool. They achieved remarkable musical sophistication. You could even argue they were well exposed to the art world of their time. But as for religion or philosophy or even politics, only George Harrison pursued any of these (religion) to a serious degree.
Many young people of the 60s were caught up in Beatlemania, and they dissected and digested every word said by or said about the Beatles. This made the Beatles highly influential within this group…but it was the false influence that often comes to celebrities. We hang on the words of actors. Why? Does the skill of acting imply astute political judgment? We take special notice when athletes comment on societal issues. Does athletic achievement give individuals social insight? Becoming culturally influential was incidental to the Beatles—something thrust upon them more than it was something they sought. They were asked many inane questions, and they were asked some probing questions, many of which they were not well equipped to answer. But they did answer, and they answered with candor and humor, because that was who they were, and because they didn’t have the sophistication to be politically correct.
In 1966 the Beatles could do no wrong. They had taken America by storm in ’64 with their energetic music, their mop hairstyles, and their cheeky wit. But not everyone was amused. Some saw them as champions of hedonism and immorality. John Lennon did an interview in a British magazine in March of 1966 in which he said the following: “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; 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.”
These statements may have raised an eyebrow or two in Britain but there was no significant reaction until the interview was revived in a U.S. teen magazine four months later. The Beatles were about to tour the U.S. again and the article presented an opportunity for those who saw the Beatles as a threat. A propaganda campaign was raised up against them, which resulted in numerous public bonfires fueled by Beatle records and Beatle paraphernalia. You could say things got a little heated. Even the KKK got in on the act, burning Beatle paraphernalia, along with their more iconic cross. The press grilled the Beatles throughout their ’66 tour, putting John, especially, on the spot. John was deeply shaken by the fierce reaction against him. He made a public apology, though it was more of an explanation than an apology. He clarified that he did not mean to disrespect Jesus, that he was merely pointing out public trends.
In some ways John was right, of course. Looking at British poll data, belief in the divinity of Jesus was around 70% in 1955. This percentage slipped steadily and in 2010 the number had fallen to 40%. However, John was a bit parochial in his observations. The Beatles were enormously popular, and remain well known even today (in 2018, they were the #1 seller of vinyl records at 321,000), but their popularity is waning. The youth of Beatlemania are shuffling off to retirement homes. At the same time, while Christianity is fading in the West, it continues to grow rapidly around the world, particularly in China, sub-Sahara Africa, and South America. While the Beatles have been a best-selling musical group for 50 years, the Bible has been the number one printed book every year for the last 1600 years.
I can understand John’s perplexity at the vitriol, though. Anger directed at the Beatles didn’t synch well with the idea of turning the other cheek that Jesus called for. Neither is it likely that Jesus would have been concerned about how he fared in popularity polls. He was crucified by popular demand, after all.
The anger directed at Lennon culminated in 1980 when he was assassinated by Mark David Chapman. When Chapman was on trial, various psychiatrists assessed him as being psychotic or delusional or manic depressive. But Chapman refused to employ the insanity defense. He remains in prison today.
Chapman’s one-semester college career, spring of 1976, was spent at Covenant College. I was a Resident Assistant there at the time—a job that required regular stints behind the “Scots Desk” in the lobby of the Great Hall. Apparently, Chapman didn’t do much studying, but he did spend a good deal of time playing guitar in that lobby. I was certainly in that room with him on numerous occasions. It’s hard not to wonder about an alternate reality in this case. What if I had approached him and asked him to play some Beatle songs? Little doubt he would have known some, since he was a Beatle fan. (Chapman’s anger toward Lennon stemmed partly from John’s “more popular than Jesus” speech, but also from John’s rejection of the Beatles, as noted in the post-Beatle song “God”.) We might have struck up a friendship over our common interest. Maybe I could have tempered some of his violent ideas. I regret that didn’t happen.
John was no advocate for Christ, but he was closer to Jesus than those who cursed (or killed) him in Jesus’ name. You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, “You fool” will be liable to the hell of fire. – Matthew 5.21,22.
After the Beatles broke up, John wrote a song called, “Imagine”. I suppose it’s the most liked song he wrote post-Beatles. It’s a fine tune that can get into your head, and it is sometimes difficult to get out. But it is intellectually exasperating.
John asks hearers to imagine no possessions, so they are required to turn a blind eye to his comfortable life as a multi-millionaire. He asks them to imagine no religion, and he fails to recognize that the song itself is a call to an ideology that demands as much faith and commitment as any religion would. And he asks them to imagine all the people “living for today,” as if that would result in something beneficial. It is the philosophy of complacent opioid addicts. It’s a death sentence. To genuinely live only for today means there is nothing of substance worth living for…which is to say there is no reason to live in the first place. I cannot imagine anything more depressing. (Imagine only nothing; I wonder if you can…)
George was the “religious” Beatle. George took an interest in playing the sitar, which exposed him to Indian culture and Hinduism. Through George, the Beatles came under the tutelage of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Hindu guru, famous for developing Transcendental Meditation.
In February of 1968 the Beatles traveled to Rishikesh, India to study under the Maharishi. Ringo Starr and his wife, Maureen, managed to stay only ten days. Paul McCartney and his girlfriend, Jane Asher, stayed for 5 weeks before they, too, left. Not long after, there was an incident in which the Maharishi wrapped his arms around actress Mia Farrow, who was also there at the time. Mia interpreted the Maharishi’s action as an inappropriate sexual advance. She packed up quickly and left, as did George and John. John wrote the song, “Sexy Sadie”, originally titled, “Maharishi,” out of his disillusionment. “Sexy Sadie, what have you done? You made a fool of everyone…”. Mia later reversed her opinion and decided the Maharishi had not intended anything inappropriate. Relations mended somewhat between the Beatles and the Maharishi but, other than George, the love affair between the Beatles and Hinduism was over.
George came to embrace the Hare Krishna tradition of Hinduism. Adherents of Hare Krishna believe that good comes from chanting Hare Krishna’s name. They see Hare Krishna as the only God, while all the other Hindu “gods” are more like his administrators. Otherwise, Hare Krishna lines up with more widely accepted Hindu concepts, such as Karma and reincarnation. Hare Krishnas believe that what one is thinking at the time of death is crucial to where he will wake up next. Consequently, they practice a life of chanting and the discipline of good thoughts. This makes Hare Krishna, like nearly all religions, a system of salvation by human performance.
The idea of Karma also emphasizes the importance of performance. “What goes around comes around.” Karma encourages people to do good, but it can be terrifying to those who are aware of their frequent failures (which would include every honest person). The Bible, too, recognizes the relationship between behavior and consequences. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. – Galatians 6.7,8 But the broader truth in which this truth finds its context, is the grace of God. Salvation in Christianity is a gift from God. Because salvation is a gift, there is solid reason for hope. A loving and all-powerful God can save us. Humans are weak, corrupt, and unable to save themselves. We may strive and chant “Hare Krishna” from sun up to sun down, but neither doing this nor learning the lessons of a thousand lifetimes will be enough to save us. No matter how much we train we cannot jump the Grand Canyon. We are all as good as dead. Only Christ can raise us up again.
George was a gentle soul, and he brought a serious, spiritual element to the Beatles. He pushed Beatle listeners towards conscientiousness. One of his most loved songs is, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”. “I don’t know why nobody told you; How to unfold your love. I don’t know how someone controlled you; They bought and sold you. I don’t know how you were diverted; You were perverted too. I don’t know how you were inverted. No one alerted you.” The lyrics of this song will not likely make their way into a poetry anthology. Still, it’s a well-crafted melody, well played, and it carries a thoughtful message. And it is sad.
George’s Hinduism-inspired music all seems sad to me. Was it the hopeless cycle of life that left him in sorrow? Fundamentally, I think so, though George proclaimed a comfort within his beliefs, even as he obsessed about the world going to hell in a hand basket. So perhaps his sorrow was more about the brokenness of the world. “We were talking; About the love that’s gone so cold; And the people; Who gain the world and lose their soul. They don’t know; They can’t see: Are you one of them?” (From the song, “Within You Without You”.)
Paul and Ringo made up the lighter side of the Beatles. These two, though they were sociologically conscientious, didn’t dive deeply into religion or ideology. Ringo was mild-mannered, humble, and was disinclined to cause offense with controversial statements. Paul, the most congenial and charismatic member of the band, was like Ringo, disinclined to offend. Paul may have written, “Live and Let Die,” but his ideology was (is): live and let live.
Paul is sometimes criticized for being lyrically trite, but he wrote a number of songs that displayed a deeply empathetic nature. In this sense I see him as the most developed humanist of the group. “Eleanor Rigby…waits at the window, wearing a face that she keeps in a jar by the door: Who is it for? Eleanor Rigby; Died in the church and was buried along with her name; Nobody came.” From the song, “For No One,” he writes, “And in her eyes you see nothing; No sign of love behind the tears, cried for no one. A love that should have lasted years.” From, “She’s Leaving Home,” he writes, “Wednesday morning at five o’clock, as the day begins. Silently closing her bedroom door; Leaving the note that she hoped would say more; She goes downstairs to the kitchen; Clutching her handkerchief. Quietly turning the backdoor key; Stepping outside, she is free.” Then there’s “Hey Jude”: “And any time you feel the pain; Hey Jude, refrain; Don’t carry the world upon your shoulder”. And “Blackbird” (a reference to black women): “Blackbird singing in the dead of night; Take these broken wings and learn to fly; All your life; You were only waiting for this moment to arise”. And “Golden Slumbers”: “Golden slumbers fill your eyes; Smiles awake you when you rise; Sleep pretty darling, do not cry; And I will sing a lullaby”. And “Let It Be”: When I find myself in times of trouble; Mother Mary comes to me: Speaking words of wisdom, let it be”.
As a person to whom you might look for relational guidance, Paul would be a good candidate. But otherwise, Paul has the sensibility of an agnostic—he doesn’t spend much time or thought on the big questions of human existence. Humanism fails utterly at justifying itself. It does not explain why humans should be benevolent to each other; it does not explain the why of anything that humans do. As such, as attractive as Paul’s vision is on the surface, it remains superficial.
When it comes to the meaning of life and the motivations that drive us to live and act, the Beatles are of little help. But it’s also important to step back and recognize that the Beatles are not fundamentally guides. They have their views about life, but everyone must.
What the Beatles brought to the world was their music. Can you separate their music from their ideologies? No, not completely. But, from another perspective, to do so is absolutely necessary. Not that everyone has to be a Beatle fan but, more broadly, in order to enjoy anything in this world, it is necessary to exercise some intellectual filtering. It is necessary to apply some grace. There are no pure things or pure people on the planet, but the impurities should not stifle us from appreciating all that is wonderful.
A UPI reporter interviewed a 17-year-old girl in Memphis during the Beatles controversy-laden 1966 tour. Her brief comment said quite a lot: “I love Jesus, but I love those Beatles, too”. What did she love about the Beatles? Well, I can’t really say, though I can happily echo her words. In my next essay I will try to convey how very gifted the Beatles were, and how they shared those gifts with the world.
Recent Comments