WI: Christian Beatles

When I was much younger and less knowledgeable about the world, I heard George Harrison's song "My Sweet Lord."

At first, I thought it was a Christian song due to the lyrics (including repeated use of "Hallelujah") and the fact the Beatles were English (Britain being a predominately Christian country, probably more so in the 1950s and 1960s than today).

Then he started singing "Hare Krishna" over and over again.

So here's an idea? What if, rather than dabbling in Eastern mysticism, Hinduism, etc., the Beatles were Christians?

This does not necessarily mean they'd be particularly weird Christians--you could associate them with the Jesus People movement if you want, but them being plain Anglicans would be fine. I would imagine this was the faith they were raised in, after all.

Obviously this George Harrison song would not exist and if John Lennon were a bit more continent, we would be spared Yoko Ono.

However, there are probably some greater socio-cultural effects. There might not be as much interest in Hare Krishna, for example, and that would mean less or no "deprogramming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Krishna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming
 
in 1977 john lennon was a devout christian, he was even trying to convert ono, however by 1980 he had converted to an eastern religion.
 
Paul and John were embued with Christian or Christian-like sensibilities through most of their creative careers as members of "The Beatles". Don't forget "Mother Mary". In the 1960's and 1970's it was not uncommon for Anglican priests and other "mainline" clergy to dabble in eastern mysticism, so even George's interest in Indian traditions is not that wierd. Also, unlike now, in the 1960's and 1970's, Christianity (Roman and Protestant) was identified with most, if not all, of the main progressive social movements in the world, from antiwar activism to civil rights.

In retrospect, the Beatles were supremely adept at being chameleons - able to make their largely inoffensive and cleverly constructed music work for many types of people.

However, if they had became a self-identified "Christian band" with every song about Jesus, it would have ruined their careers. Does anybody really take "Christian Rock" seriously?
 
However, if they had became a self-identified "Christian band" with every song about Jesus, it would have ruined their careers. Does anybody really take "Christian Rock" seriously?

Yes, many do.

Christian rock is a very specific subculture. If a high caliber band like the Beatles had written overtly Christian songs in the 60s, maybe there would be more Christian bands pursuing a mainstream music career.
 
Yes, many do.

Christian rock is a very specific subculture. If a high caliber band like the Beatles had written overtly Christian songs in the 60s, maybe there would be more Christian bands pursuing a mainstream music career.

High caliber bands do write Christian rock, but because it's a subculture considered unbelievably dorky by most people, the Beatles would have crashed and burned if they'd tried it.
 
Paul and John were embued with Christian or Christian-like sensibilities through most of their creative careers as members of "The Beatles". Don't forget "Mother Mary". In the 1960's and 1970's it was not uncommon for Anglican priests and other "mainline" clergy to dabble in eastern mysticism, so even George's interest in Indian traditions is not that wierd. Also, unlike now, in the 1960's and 1970's, Christianity (Roman and Protestant) was identified with most, if not all, of the main progressive social movements in the world, from antiwar activism to civil rights.

1) I associate the 'eastern mysticism' people were dabbling in more with Buddhism (which seems far closer to Christianity, to me), than Hinduism. (Also with Orthodox mysticism, which is another 'eastern', 'tho Christian, tradition.)

2) Mad Magazine (in the late 60's???) had a '25 years later - where are they now' where Paul was an Anglican priest, so it obviously didn't seem too outlandish then.
 
I wasn't suggesting the Beatles become "Christian rock" aficionados--I was just wondering what would happen if they didn't get involved with Hare Krishna, the meditation stuff, etc.
 
You may not believe this, but "Mother Mary" isn't referring to Mary-the-mother-of-Jesus. Paul McCartney's mother's name was Mary McCartney. She died when he was 14.

Didn't know that. But this does not eliminate the probability that this was a deliberate double entendre to also evoke that other Mary in the ears of listeners.
 
I wasn't suggesting the Beatles become "Christian rock" aficionados--I was just wondering what would happen if they didn't get involved with Hare Krishna, the meditation stuff, etc.

Well, I guess Ravi Shankar would have stayed an unknown Indian sitar player - unknown by western popular music at least.
 
Yes, the Beatles as a "Christian band" would crash and burn, HOWEVER, the Beatles as a band that happened to be made up of Christians is completely believable. Their music might be exactly the same, but their lyrics would have Christian undertones like U2. "The real battle yet begun (sunday, bloody sunday) To claim the victory Jesus won (sunday, bloody sunday) On... Sunday bloody sunday Sunday bloody sunday..." -U2
 
Didn't know that. But this does not eliminate the probability that this was a deliberate double entendre to also evoke that other Mary in the ears of listeners.

I think "Let it Be" could very well be interpreted as Marian hymn. Many other Catholics, and perhaps some Protestants, think so as well. The refrain could be interpreted as a brief paraphrase of the Magnificat verses from the Bible. There, Mary praises God after conceiving by the Holy Spirit.

It shouldn't be sung at Mass, but it's fine for private devotions.
 
"The Beatles" are primarily the first super Rock band for being in the right sound at the right time , with the right message. Change any of that historical triad and you loose the intensity of that combination and they just become another great band of that time , like "The Who" or "The Stones". A big part of that message was love, not religion of any shape and size. In fact the more the religious overtones appeared the more it lessed there appeal. It can equally be said that "U2" was the right sound at the right time with the right message, to work for the 1980s. It was just the right amount of relgious fanatisism [incontext] to work for that time.
 
Top