Is Christianity A Drug?

This is drawn from a speech I gave at Toastmasters two nights ago:

"The eminent German economist, Karl Marx, once called religion an "opiate for the masses." Is he right? I would like to answer that question in two ways.

First, it can be. We come up with all sorts of "opiates" to deal with hardships in life--from the brokenness of our natures to tragedies that beset us. Religion can be a convenient way to baptize the opiates and gives us convenient ways to deal with these hardships.

Second, Christianity is the furthest thing from an opiate for the masses.

It is the further thing, first, because it is an insult to human pride. Jesus said that He came for the sick, not the healthy; the sinners, not the righteous. Nobody likes to hear that they're broken--that they can't please God in and of themselves. Yes, we have inherent dignity, but that dignity is corrupted. Christianity is the one religion that says, in essence, "You suck." It is the religion of the broken heart. That is why Christ was put upon a cross. He told us that we were great sinners in need of a great Savior. We killed him for it.

Christianity is not an opiate for the masses because it calls men to wage war against themselves every day for the rest of their lives. On a daily basis, I cannot simply accept each of my thoughts and desires for what they are. I have to consider what it means to obey God and glorify Him. And that requires me, each and every day, to wage war against myself. Christians have often been accused to waging war against others in the name of religion. But Biblical Christianity recognizes that our war is "not against flesh and blood, but against the powers and principles, the spiritual forces of darkness..." And the greatest kingdom of darkness is within our own hearts.

Finally, Christianity is not an opiate for the masses because Christians will inevitably be marginalized. Some would argue that Christianity has often gained great political and cultural power, but we must separate a "Christian culture" from the Christian faith. Moral principles do not make Christianity. As stated before, Christianity is an insult to human pride--telling us that we are great sinners in need of a great Savior. We do not like to hear that, nor do the people we tell about it. To be a Christian is be marginalized.

In conclusion, Christianity is not an opiate for the masses. It is a tough pill to swallow. Yet it is a pill worth swallowing. Those who have embraced Christ have found that He alone is truth, beauty, power, and meaning. It is a pill worth swallowing, but in Christ, we have life and life to the full."

How do you think I did? I am always open to feedback--positive and negative. This is a messy business and I am growing like the rest of you!

The man charged with evaluating me for the evening gave a very thoughtful and detailed evaluation. Stylistically, he loved my poise, energy, and ability to express all of my points without notes. He also thought that I talked to fast and that some of my sub-points and the impact of my arguments was lost in the process. At the same time, he repeated my argument and main points--which means that he heard a defense and basic propagation of the Gospel! Even though it was implicit, he also believed he heard a call to action: Embrace the Gospel.

Also stylistically, our "grammarian" noted that I started sentences over again seven times. That's a lot. What that means is that I raced to start a sentence, it wasn't coming out right, and I backtracked and straightened it out. That is also a consequence of my energy and speed.

Virtually every person had the same response to style--impassioned and personal, but too fast. This has always been an issue for me, and is even more of an issue in the slower-paced Midwest. Please pray that I would find a way to better control my tongue and better reach people with the Gospel!

As for substance, one evaluator believed that the message was "welcoming yet firm." Always a fine balance between warmth and clarity! Two people noted that the content could prove objectionable--one wondered if the subject would alienate, and another believed the tone "seem really appropriate for a sermon situation." Another fine balance--truthfulness and tact!

Another net gain in all of this--it leads to conversations after the meeting. One member explained to me that he was raised Lutheran, but left the faith once he became an adult. Some others have indicated that they are fellow believers and are cheering me on. It is worth risking marginalization!

I must admit, I have a tough time swallowing the pill at times. That is due to the fact that I have a tough time with myself. I cannot stand the remaining power of sin within me, and that fact that it will not be fully put to death until I am with God in glory. So I must take my own medicine--not the opiate but the pill, because I know that Christ is worth it and that nothing else compares to Him.

Are All Religions Basically the Same?

A few nights ago, I met with a new friend from one of the Meetup.com groups for my first ever fish fry. The fish was good; the conversation was even better. Yet, I had to stop the conversations mid-stream at one point due to a claim that this friend made (one I hear all the time): All religions are basically the same (ARBS, for short).

I find this claim astounding for a number of reasons (and my friend backed off this claim later):

1) No religions teach this. It is neither propounded by their texts or adherents. People have even fought wars (sadly) over the clear differences between religions. So these enlightened observers must know something that the "sacred texts" of these religions don't teach, and know more than devotees of these religions do.

2) This enlightened knowledge must come from somewhere. Religious claims are rightfully rooted in authoritative religious texts. Christians have the Bible; Muslims the Q'uran. Without a source of authority, our ARBS friends become an authority unto themselves. Pretty audacious to invest themselves with such divine authority.

3) What is the essential teaching that apparently unites all religions? Responses vary only by degree: love, the Golden Rule, etc. In other words, the essential teaching is ethical (a code of conduct). Yet, all religions root their ethics in metaphysics (above-physics, things higher than the human realm). Christians, for example, "love because He (Christ) first loved us." Behavior doesn't happen in a vacuum. It arises from more basic beliefs. So the essential element in all religions according to our observers is not essential to any of those religions.

4) Any good religion must offer some form of accountability, right? Something that calls us higher--to people and places beyond ourselves? Yet for those who make love the central teaching of all faiths, they can define love and exhibit it however they wish. The Golden Rule can easily become a cynical quid pro quo--"You better tolerate my behavior as I tolerate yours, or else!" There is no inherent call to submission or obedience to God or of self-denial toward one's fellow man. As with much of the "spiritual, but religious" movement, such a view enables each person to define spirituality around him/herself. Convenient.

5) Each religion is grounded in some form of authoritative source, and that authoritative source is concerned first with metaphysics, then with ethics. If the meat of a religion is found in its metaphysics, it would be fair to ask where religions differ in this regard?

I would find a partial point of commonality with the ARBS crowd here in that most religious systems, whether they deal with the Mosaic Law, Nirvana, reincarnation, etc--do believe that there are means by which men can secure God's favor and have a hand in their own salvation. Most every worldview follows the pattern of Plato's ladder, in which men can ascend to "the One" through reason, experience, ethical behavior, etc.

Yet I would also contend that none of these religious systems deal seriously with the world or the human person in their respective states of brokenness. While many religions account for brokenness in this world, they cannot satisfactorily explain how Humpty Dumpty can put himself back together again. It would seem that this ability to re-create the human person would belong only to man's original Creator--not to any Utopian scheme with no basis in reality.

Christianity is the one religion that replaces Plato's ladder with Jacob's ladder--where God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ comes down to be broken for man's brokenness and to offer man wholeness to a degree in this life and in its entirety in the life to come.

Some call religion an opiate for the masses, and for many, religion is simply a self-justifying system to placate festering consciences. Yet Christianity offers no such opiate. It does not offer you a shoulder massage of platitudes about being a good person. It tells you that you are sick and desperately need a remedy that you can't reach. It tells you that you are a great sinner in need of a great Savior.

No, Christianity is not an opiate. Rather, it is a tough pill to swallow. That's why the human race put Christ on a cross. We could not accept either the diagnosis from God or the divinely-supplied remedy. Yet that act of rebellion was performed in accordance with God's supreme love. Christ endured our insults so that we could endure the insult to our pride, bow the need before our Savior, and find in Him the way, the truth, and the life.

Talk about a satisfactory--even breathtaking--basis for our love. We can only rise up because He first came down.