So in the midst of pondering the "are women more easily deceived" question (which I'll continue to address in future posts), I started thinking about Karl Marx and his claim that religion is the opiate of the masses. What Marx actually said in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right is:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
It seems that Marx was arguing that the world's economic situation was so painful that people needed the drug of religion to provide both relief and a hope of happiness in the next life. If the root economic causes of people's pain and suffering were dealt with, people would no longer need religion.
While I heartily disagree that Christianity is designed to keep people numb to the realities of the world, I wonder if Christians hold some beliefs that serve as an opiate. These are beliefs that lack a biblical foundation but are commonly considered to be "Christian." We cling to these ideas not because they are true and scriptural, but rather because they make us feel good about ourselves and our choices.
One opiate that I think is currently popular among Christians is the idea that Christians have no power over sin. We love Romans 7:22-24 where Paul says, "For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"
We read this and think, "Paul has completely captured the Christian experience! Even though I want to follow God, I continually fall into sin. I guess this is just something I'll have to deal with until I get to heaven." This makes us feel so much better about ourselves! I mean, if the apostle Paul didn't really have power over sin, there's no way we non-apostles can have any hope of conquering it. There's no need to worry about diligently addressing areas of sin in our lives, because we'll never really defeat sin this side of heaven.
Although this line of thinking may make us feel better about sinning, it's tough to reconcile it with Scripture. Romans 6:5-7 is pretty clear, "For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin." The New Testament is chock full of admonitions to follow Christ and conquer sin through the power of the Holy Spirit. And when read in context with chapters 6-8, I think Romans 7 actually supports the idea that Christians have power over sin.
This is just one opiate that I thought about, but I know there are many more and I'd like to get your thoughts. What do you think are some common opiates that are plaguing Christianity? And how do you think the church can become drug free? I'd love to read what you have to say.
In the meantime, I'm off to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Just kidding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think people use the biological family as an opiate. It always amazes me how little the New Testament actually talks about the biological family. Moreover, when it does talk about the biological family, it is often in subversive terms. Yet, Christians continue to spend SO much time focusing on the biological family without considering how this unit should fit into the surrogate family of God. To me, the surrogate family is the priority, and biological families will only begin functioning properly when they see themselves in this broader familial context.
Sheesh Jeff, I get the hint. But if you thought I was being too clingy you could have just told me instead of letting the world know on my blog.
You make some really excellent points. What do you think biological family worship stems from?
I'm really not sure. Part of it could be that so much of modern psychology reduces all of people's problems to traumatic childhood experiences. The more people imbibe this, the more they start to think that creating some sort of idyllic household will solve every emotional problem. I also think that Christians are rightly reacting to our culture, which is constantly undermining the biological family (I would say, however, that it is more directly undermining Christianity). Other than this, I'm stumped. I should also say that I do think Christians have an obligation to their families. I just think it is overemphasized
Hey,
do you think emotionalism in worship is an opiate?
Ooh, that's a good one. I think emotionalism while we're worshiping God through singing can be a wonderful gift - especially when it stems from an understanding of God's goodness, holiness, compassion, etc. But even if those emotions simply come as the result of a really sweet piano arrangement, I believe that God created us to respond emotionally to music and those emotions can be totally appropriate and God-glorifying.
I think emotionalism becomes an opiate when we use it to determine the status of our relationship with God. I believe we can be rebellious and not submit to God as our King, yet fool ourselves into thinking we're following God closely because we had an emotional experience while singing. We can get into serious trouble when emotions become our litmus test for how closely we're walking with God instead of obedience.
What do you think? And how about this one: It's all right to be mad at God. Truth or opiate?
Good question. As far as I can tell, the primary biblical support for getting "mad" at God comes from the Psalms. David says stuff like, "how long O Lord?" (Psalm 13:1), etc. It seems that often times, the emotional state of the writer is one of lamentation, not anger. Furthermore, once David "vents" he immediately begins to praise God for what He is doing (cf. Ps 13:4-5). It seems to me that the application here is that we should be honest with God about how we truly feel. If one is frustrated with God, she should say, "God I am frustrated with you." However, this does not mean this emotion toward God is commendable. It simply means that one has correctly identified her emotional state. I certainly think it's true that once an emotional state has been identified, it's a lot easier to grow and heal. That, however, does not entail the validity of the emotional state. Finally (I know I'm rambling), I think we learn a good lesson about this from Job. Job gets frustrated with God. God DOESN'T say, "thanks Job, I'm going to explain everything now." He tells Job that he should shut up and that settles it. This might be a good thing to consider when people think they need to get mad at God about something. Lastly, I've seen the "get mad at God" theology lead in dangerous directions. Walter Bruggeman certainly is heading into dangerous theological waters with his whole pain and legitimate structure thesis. Ok, that's all.
Well, I have no Christian opium in mind (or in hand, unfortunately - I could use a fix), but I do have a comment about Romans 7. I think it's absurd that people somehow take comfort in the idea that Paul struggled so deeply with sin.
For one, I don't actually think he is saying that. But if he was, that is not encouraging at all: it is positively depressing. If Paul himself struggled with sin at so deep a level that he felt that he just could not defeat it no matter how he tried, how ought I to feel? Up a sinful creek without a paddle, most likely. And if we really believe sin is so bad for us then there is nothing encouraging about such a notion.
Post a Comment