Mark Sullivan, More Popular than Jesus - Essay Example

Mark Sullivan, More Popular than Jesus: The Beatles and the Religious Far right s), Popular Music 6/3 October (1987 31326 Introduction It is not surprising to witness the claims by mortal men that they are popular than Jesus. In their belief, Christianity will one day completely vanish and be forgotten. In order to give roots to such claims made by the Beatles, the music industry has been used as a principal instrument of winning followers against the belief in Jesus. In the 4th March 1966, the most controversial statement in history was made by John Lennon (Sullivan, page 313). In his speech, he argued that Christianity would go, that one day it will shrink and vanish. He claimed that that rock artists were popular than Jesus and visualized a time when he would be proven right. However, he expressed his preserve attitude towards Jesus but declared his distrust with the doings of the disciples of Jesus. He said he did not know which would first between ‘Rock ‘n ‘Roll and Christianity. The famous quote by Lennon received much attention in the United States when it first appeared in the Datebook teen magazine (Sullivan, page 314). It was then that a backlash against the Beatles ensued leading to the ban of the Beatles music in Radio stations in the Southern ‘Bible Belt. Such bans were also made in other countries like South Africa and Spain. Criticised by many religious leaders of the time and somehow supported by a few, Lennon issued a semi-apology about his statements. The Vatican accepted his apology, but the religious far-right has never accepted it. The Claim by the Beatles was taken a communist plot to soften America for the Bolshevik takeover. The Summary According to Mark Sullivan, the rock music as used by the Beatles disclosed them as anti-religious as perceived by many believers (Sullivan, page 316). However, in America, the rock music was seen as an intention of the Russian Communists to ruin the American Youth. The quotes made by John Lennon toady appear in the most recent anti-rock treatise, ‘The Legacy of Lennon: Charming or Harming a Generation? by Reverend David A. Noebel. As a pioneer of the anti-rock movement and the anti-Beatles movement, in general, Noebel wrote and preached to warn against the evils of the Beatles. It may probably be thought that all rock music is evil and anti-religious. However, such thinking would be misleading. Some preachers are said to have taken a positive interpretation of the claim by Lennon to strengthen the values and standards of Christianity. They were opposed to a mere critique of the reality that some things are valued more than Christianity. The rock music by the Beatles was viewed as preparation for a revolution that targeted the youngsters as described in the ‘Be Ware the Red Beatles’ article (Sullivan, page 317). Noebel used several names to describe the Beatles. He referred to them as profane, rude, vulgar, atheistic, anti-Christ, anti-Christian and many more names. He claimed that the Beatles were a potential tool for the Communist takeover of the United States. However, disagreement appeared to hinge on whether the Beatles are willing fellow travellers or just ignorant dupes. The first anti-rock track by Noebel on Hypnotism, Communism and the Beatles was produced in 1965. In its subtitle, it aimed to analyse the communist master plan of using the rock music to take over the United States. He believed that the Communists were still using the psychological warfare. Noebel expressed the fear that the Beatles had the potential to demoralize, create mental illness through artificial neurosis and prepare the Americans to riot through revolutions. These revolutions would destroy the American form of government and the principles of Christianity that governed their lives. According to the Director of Music Therapy, in New Jersey State Hospital, the rock and roll rhythms are rarely any good for their ability to arouse the basic instinct in persons that are emotionally insecure. He asserts that all delinquents are emotionally vulnerable and hence the direct bearing of rock and roll on delinquency (Sullivan, page 318). He describes the Beatles as a union of young people with loose morals, sick minds, and little desire to defend themselves against those who will bury them. The revelation of the potential of the Beatles to affect the most important political institutions in the US was discussed in length. The ability of the Beatles and the communists to use all kinds of Rock and Roll music to destroy the teenagers was expressed sincerely with caution. Noebel used a juxtaposition of the textbook samples of the symptoms of artificial neurosis with those of Beatlemania. He wanted the readers to understand the relationship between the Rock and Roll, Beatles and the communist control of the mind. He adduces evidence to the communist involvement in cultural matters through the House of Committee Un-American Activities. The irony in the whole agenda lies in the Beatles rather than the Rolling Stones becoming the Devils of the Christian anti-rock movement (Sullivan, page 319). Noebels booklet is said to have targeted the rock and roll more than the Beatles despite his self-expression to the Beatles in particular and the rock and roll in general. With no comments on any particular song, it had no reference to any particular Beatle. The Beatles were British and young. The sufficient difference between them and the American Christian Fundamentalists outstood until the irreverent remarks by Lennon. The reality reflected in the ‘more popular than Jesus remark forms the basis for fundamentalists antipathy. They are conservatives of the word in its full sense and are wary of any change. Campaigns against the rock music, comic books and television [programming have been made in an effort to save the young from potential corruption in the US. The opinion of the Beatles ability to ruin the youth is held firmly by the conservative faction. However, the vulnerable target is not enough to ensure a successful moral crusade. The focus of the public attention on the matter is of paramount importance. Despite the apology by Lennon, Noebel and Bob Larson laboured on against the rock music and the Beatles (Sullivan, page 320). The release of the ‘Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’ was a mark of a continued debate on drug lyrics in Rock music. The Beatles were again implicated in another scandal. In response, Noebel released a new book, ‘The Beatles: A Study in Drugs, Sex and Revolution’. In it he associates the Beatles to sex, drugs and revolutionary culture. Bob’s book, ‘Rock and Roll: The Devil’s Diversion’ of 1970 focused on the Rock music in general. It aimed to disclose the psychological and the sociological effects of the rock and roll music. Conclusion The difference between Larson and Noebel as pioneers of the Anti-Rock movement is based on the ideology they maintain about the adverse effects of the Beatles. Noebel places emphasis on the pro-communist aspects of rock and roll while Larson concerns himself with the anti-Christian dimensions of the Rock music (Sullivan, page 323). The attention of Lennon and his album ‘Double Fantasy received more attention after his death in 1980 in New York. Despite the criticism of the Beatles and the Rock music, the critics appear to ignore the changing moral context. The argument of Rock music is losing effectiveness in the Christian circles. What of the Christian Rock? The controversy is that even the anti-Rock movement leaders like Larson have endorsed the Christian rock. We are prompted to contemplate about the detrimental influence of the Beatles and their potential to introduce Satanism through rock music. Who then is more popular, the Beatles or Jesus? Works Cited Sullivan, Mark. "More Popular Than Jesus". 1987. Print. Read More