Marx's opium

Reminded by Rivendell45 (referring to comment left to my previous post "Catholicism") I re-read some of Vinoth Ramachandra's Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatry and Christian Mission. On my first glance-like read-through of this book, I was slightly put off by the extent of the author's vocabulary and his fluency in "-ism's." However, on my second read I found I comprehended almost all of the points put forth. Without being able to say what caused my expansion of reading comprehension, I must admit that Ramachandra manages to substantially revitalize my faith in the Christian message. If you read my last post "Sermon on our ineffectiveness..." you will have a pretty clear picture of my sentiments against the modern church's lack of relevance in 'the real world.' It seems to me that we border on letting ourselves fall directly into Marx's age-old attack of being "opium for the masses." This, Ramachandra confirms me in thinking, is quite the opposite of the Christian message, richly conveyed in scripture and by the early church fathers en masse. Take for example "the great Cappadocian Father," Basil of Ceasarea's passionate rebuke of the rich Christians,
"That bread which you keep belongs the the hungry;
That coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked;
those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoe-less;
that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy.
Wherefore, as often as you wer able to help other, and refused,
so often did you do them wrong."

I sat with Vinoth Ramachandra in a small meeting a couple of years ago, as the group of Christians at my school had invited him to one of our evenings. To me he seemed very harsh and uncomfortably uncompromising even down to his choice of words, but in retrospect I understand him and can only commend him for actually choosing the life-style and taking to heart the Christian message in a way that I have long dreamt of. Yes, it does inspire me.

One example of his challenges to us, which struck quite close to home with me, was his rebuke for our spending so much money on clothing when there was perfectly fine clothing in the second-hand stores down the road for a fraction of the price. It shocked me that he'd actually say it, but isn't he right? Shouldn't we also be accountable for our income versus spendings when we could easily fund relief for the millions who have no means of sustenance. Not only should we devote our money to it, we should devote our time. But to devote our time, we suddenly find we must take it a step further and devote our lives, our very beings, to carrying out the heart of God: loving those in need.

In writing this, I find that I am challenged beyond what I can bear at present time. I find myself protesting on the basis of my previous picture of my evangelical function as challenging the reigning culture in the West. Now, just this reaction makes me realise that I would relish an evangelical function in the West because it is a dream largely compatible with the comforts of the same Western lifestyle. Indeed, this shows me a glimpse of how deeply rooted in me is what Ramachandra labels the "essentially escapist gospel... simply a religious image of the secular consumerist culture in which modern men and women live." It is in this paragraph he makes the point, "it lays itself wide open the the full blast of the savage criticism of Marx and Freud."

However, the comfort for my hope of comfort can be found in that one should not choose or rule out one's evangelical function on the basis of comfort. But my problem is in my heart, that I even hope for comfort. I want to want to hope for the relief of the dying.

PS: I'm sure any author would want a disclaimer here, that if you think what I'm writing above sounds off, take it out on me. The above is not intended to be a sober summary of Vinoth Ramachandra's point, but it is my interpretation of his writings.