I agree! 'Imagine' is a stupid song!

John Lennon's song 'Imagine' came out in 1971 when I was in my early twenties. I loved the music, but as much as it's idealism appealed to me, the lyrics jarred because, as Lennon himself stated, the ideas could be out of the Communist Manifesto. That's not pleasant company. The song was used with a children's choir at the finale of the London Olympics in 2012, and now it appears at the opening of the Tokyo Olympics. Enough already! The song is a  failure - at least as an appeal for a united world. What Lennon proposes would destroy the unity of humanity.

The song's revival in Tokyo has prompted a video retort that dives into why 'Imagine' fails. From Los Angeles, Bishop Robert Barron, opens up how Lennon is way off track with his key ideas. In a slightly edited form, here's what Barron says: 

I’ve been a Beatles fan since I was about 12. Their songs have worked their way into my soul. In fact, I would say they probably provide my idea what good pop music sounds like, and of the four Beatles my favourite is John Lennon, who I consider to be perhaps the greatest popular songwriter of the 20th century. I love John Lennon with the Beatles, I loved him in his solo work.

I remember when he died in 1980 when he was killed. I was a college student in Washington and I deeply and sincerely mourned him.

now i say all that… just to let you know I’ve got absolutely nothing against the Beatles or against Lennon's work, But I must say I do not like the song “Imagine”.

This came to my mind when at the opening of the Tokyo Olympics the song was played and was sung by children's choir and then there were pre-recorded versions by different pop stars.

It was done as a kind of secular anthem. It was very clear that it was a song that should bring us all together.

I love the music. I think it's got a great arrangement. I love the way Lennon sang it - but I hate the lyrics of ‘Imagine’ and I bemoan the fact that it seems to become something of a secular anthem.

Look at some of these words: It begins this way, “Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us; above us only sky”.

Frankly, I can't imagine anything worse than that! To say “imagine there's no heaven, there's no hell”, means there is no finally absolute criterion of good and evil. There's no way finally to measure the difference between one person's private inclinations and another person's private inclinations.

There's no final moral judgment and, therefore, it's an invitation into a very dangerous space, the space described by the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky.  Once you stop believing in God then anything is permitted – a very dangerous space!

If you doubt me on this score, take a good hard look at the 20th Century. There were a lot of people in very influential political and cultural positions who imagined there was no heaven, and they piled up millions upon millions of corpses [under Hitler’s regime and the Communist powers in Russia and China]. This is nothing to get dreamy about. It’s a very dangerous proposition.

“Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too.”

First of all, I find it very amusing that they were singing this right after the parade of nations! So, into the Olympic stadium come all the different nations of the world and yet we're singing “Imagine there's no countries…”.

Again, the problem is not countries in themselves - that's just a way of naming what you know is particular to a given people. There's particularity to one's culture, one's political arrangement…, nothing wrong with countries in themselves.

The problem is when you bracket any moral consideration [with the idea that] there's nothing by which we can judge the activities of nations. We can say, “Well, that behaviour by a given country is no good and that one's better.”

See, [with] “imagine there's no heaven”, … there is no way to adjudicate disputes among nations.

Warfare comes from that much more than from countries in themselves. But what particularly rankles me in that verse – “no countries…nothing to kill or die for” - that's what we're always fighting about. But then the line at the end “and no religion, too” …

So, we've imagined there's no heaven, therefore there's no transcendent, there’s no God and now very clearly John Lennon wants us to imagine in this sort of dreamy-eyed way that there's no religion.

The implication common to many people on the secular left is that … nationalism is bad enough, but the real source of mischief is religion - that’s what people fight about.

Since about the 16th century [it’s been the] standard view that religious warfare is the source of all of our struggles. There was a study done about 20 years ago, a very, very careful objective study of all the wars in human history of which we have records. The conclusion was something like six percent of all the wars fought in human history could reasonably ascribe to religion. Far more deadly were tribalism disputes, political and colonial disputes.

In fact, look at the 20th Century again. Atheistic ideologies were responsible for far more violence than religion, so to this canard that religion is what we have got to get rid of if we want peace, I'd say au contraire: it's precisely when we bracket God, we bracket the transcendent, we bracket a sense of objective morality - that's when we have trouble.

Now I must admit the one that made me laugh out loud was when all these celebrities … singing this line: “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can. No need for greed or hunger; a brotherhood of man”.

I think all a lot of people hear is “brotherhood of man”. Now that is a wonderful thing, but go back to that opening line “imagine no possessions” and i tell you every single person singing that song was a multi-millionaire and I don't think it takes too great a leap of imagination to say that they probably all have multiple homes and fleets of cars and closets full of clothes.

In other words, I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money that they've got lots of possessions and I will give up my possessions the minute they give up theirs, and let's not hold our collective breath on that one.

Catholic social teaching would say there's nothing wrong with possessions in themselves. In fact, we defend the legitimacy of private property. The problem is if I lack a moral vision that allows me to place my own possessions within a wider moral context of the common good. That's when possessions can indeed become problematic - not possessions in themselves, but possessions apart from heaven.

Finally, if you want, apart from religion, apart from considerations of God, … to dream about that brotherhood of man [you have know] it is simply impossible to have a brotherhood and sisterhood of all human beings if you bracket our common Father.

We can have economic and political and social and cultural organizations, and bonds with one another, but if you're talking about real brotherhood and sisterhood, in other words, a relationship of siblings, then that's impossible apart from a common father. If you bracket heaven, and bracket religion, you also ipso facto bracket anything like a brotherhood of man.

So, here's the bottom line: I love the Beatles, love John Lennon, love the music of ‘Imagine’; I mean, when it comes on the radio I still listen to it and sing along with it, but I don't take the words seriously.

We know that John Lennon was "a dreamer" - Lennon said he wanted a "nice" Communism - that he had a big heart, and a sharp social conscience, but this song showed he lacked a strong mind, the insight into the impact of sin that is needed to create a world where truly we all live as one. 

[] Subscribe to Bishop Robert Barron’s YouTube channel here

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.