Isn't Christianity Just a Crutch for the Weak?

QUESTION “Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx is quoted as having once said.  Isn't Christianity just another way people try to feel better about themselves? Can Christianity be just a crutch for people who are too lazy or afraid to deal with reality?

RESPONSE: Great question, and one that many people voice who assume that in a modern world the only people who need religion are mentally weak, delusional or unintelligent.

First, let's list a definition of 'crutch' that people have in mind when they make this objection to Christian faith. ‘Crutch’: artificial, needless prop, or expedient.

Used in this sense, I would agree that there are some Christians whose faith is a cop out, and they cover their confusion, insecurity, ignorance and failed relationships with platitudes and ‘churchspeak’. They treat their faith like a drug, to make themselves feel better without really considering its larger implications.  Therefore, these people place in importance the beliefs and behaviors of Christianity far below the feelings they get in Christian worship services or concerts.

But surely this is a horrible distortion of Christianity itself. Jesus called his followers to radical acts of servanthood and sacrifice to God and mankind. He called for high ethical standards, justice, and for the intrinsic worth of human beings no matter their gender, social status or moral performance.  Jesus also told his disciples to expect to be marginalized for their devotion to him, thus to expect suffering, insult and general disapproval.

To think this kind of uncompromising call to bold action and counter cultural living is a psychological prop is ridiculous. In fact, in Jesus own time, many who wanted just a “feel good” message abandoned Jesus because they found that Christianity is not for the faint of heart. (John 6:66)

Rather, if taken seriously, life in the Kingdom of God as Jesus envisioned it, would radically knock over all other crutches that people use to feel better about life, such as hedonism, narcissism, careerism, materialism, even intellectualism and moralism.   Real Christian living forces a person out from behind such crutches that cover pain, or that encourage apathy or pride.

Contrary to a materialist view of religion, Christianity is not about the inducement of serotonin or endorphin levels in the brain.  It is not first a psychological question at all.  It is first an historical question about this man, Jesus of Nazareth. Strong evidence shows Jesus really existed in Palestine, lived a perfect life, claimed to be the Son of God, was executed by a Roman leader named Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead, being seen alive by many eye witnesses.  If I decide, based on this evidence, that Jesus was all he said he was, then I ought to commit myself to him and his leadership regardless of the psychological challenges or benefits his leadership brings (and my experience is that it brings BOTH!).

But now let’s now consider the simplistic idea that all crutches are bad. Obviously, if I break my leg, a crutch is not a sign of weakness!  So, here’s another more nuanced definition of ‘crutch’: something used for support or reassurance, that enables a person to meet a real need.

By this definition, crutches are good things and everyone needs them. Every human has common inner needs for which they need support and reassurance: loneliness, sadness, depression, guilt or wonderment about their purpose, or the meaning of life. Does anyone really get over these things by wishing them away? Can mere mental acuity or knowledge make them go away?

No, they show no signs of going away even in our smartest scholars and best saints.

To condemn Christianity for being a solution to these universal needs is like condemning the use of food because it satisfies hunger. To reject a cure because it is a cure is silly. We should only condemn false cures, those crutches that work only for a short time, or those that make the condition worse over time.

But finally, what about those needs?  Why do humans have such universal, pervasive existential needs in the first place?  Maybe these inner needs were not meant to be ignored and muscled through, because maybe they are revelation. And what they are revealing is that something is wrong in us spiritually.  In short, something in us needs "support," to be set right, or healed.

Jesus said,

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Mark 2:17)

So he was saying in effect, “I’m not embarrassed by those who need crutches. In fact, it’s only those who acknowledge their deepest guilt and need who find my healing touch. I can’t help people who don’t think they need rescue. I came to mend people who know their need and reach out for my grace.”

So in that sense, yes, Christianity is a crutch... or - if we understand our predicament properly - more like the whole hospital!  This "crutch" is not for the lazy, weak minded and fearful, just as the walker used by physical therapists is not for the lazy or the weak - but rather for (and ONLY for) all those radically in touch with their own need and with a passionate desire to be made well.  Such a "crutch" is only for the intellectually honest who face their brokenness squarely and for the faith-filled who will trust the "crutch" can and will lead to their healing.

Just like that, Jesus claimed he could only help people willing to see their own brokenness, fully face their own sense of guilt and come humbly to him for help and wholeness. I dislike saying 'Jesus is my crutch,' only because it grossly undersells how much I need him.  "Crutch" can make it sound like I just need a little temporary leaning post, when in reality, I need a radical surgery for a mortal wound.  You can call such people weak or lazy or duped if you want, but Jesus called them ransomed children of God!  For that reason Christians have never been afraid to admit, "I'm am weak" for “when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10)

How can pastors/ministries justify charging money for messages?

Question:

How do today's pastors justify charging money for their messages? Even Christian counseling radio programs are like infomercials to sell the books they have written. It is so discouraging to see the merchandising of Jesus and even Christian concerts require money to purchase a ticket. If Jesus didn't ever sell anything, how do today's ministries justify doing so? When I have asked these questions, not one of them will respond. I don't understand how pastors can even justify charging for their mp3 downloads, are they in complete denial, or serving the god of money?

Answer:

  Well, let me say first that I share your frustration over the fact that Ministers of the Gospel and certain ministries seem to put the money question out in front of everything else. And it's deeply troubling to me that they then give the impression that they are 'selling their messages'. That impression is a real problem, regardless of the reality behind it, because it means that people like you may be lead to believe that God only wants your pocketbook, or that the message of salvation can be bought.

Now underneath that impression, I think the reality is probably a lot more complicated than you realize. For example, when a radio ministry promos a book, in most cases I know of, they will send that book to you for free if you don't have the money to pay. Most of their listeners can pay and they offer the book for a "suggested donation". This is not to justify the saturation of a program with items to buy, but it should mitigate your feeling that all such ministries wouldn't distribute their message except for a exorbitant profit. The fact is, books cost money and unless a single donor covers the cost for many others, the writers of such books have to charge money to cover those costs through a retail price, or stop printing books. Which is better?

But what about pastors who simply preach the Gospel and then make the audio available online? What about Christian artists who paint inspiring paintings or write inspiring songs? The list of ways that we package our Message is pretty diverse and in each of these it's probably not hard to imagine the substantial costs that are involved in making that message available. The only way for such messages to get out through such diverse media is through money. Even a man standing on the street corner preaching a message requires money, in this sense: he must forgo other work he could be doing with that life energy that's going into preaching, and that life energy represents potential money. If he preaches on the street corner, someone is still PAYING for that to happen. It's himself, or his hearers. It's not free, even it it's offered for free.

So, is it completely unbiblical and un-Christ like to create opportunities for those who receive such messages, the readers, the listeners, the concert goers, the downloaders, and watchers, to be willing and to be expected to pay for what they have received? This might surprise you to learn, but the oft repeated answer from Scripture, from Jesus himself is, no it is NOT unbiblical. Check this out:

1 Cor 9:10-11: Paul says: Did not God speak about this because of us. For sure, this was written for us. The man who gets the fields ready and the man who gathers in the grain should expect some of the grain. We have planted God’s Word among you. Is it too much to expect you to give us what we need to live each day?

Paul felt it was the right for a minister who preaches the gospel that he/she should be able to make a living from gospel recipients. He uses the illustration from the old testament about oxen not being muzzled as they tread grain. When the ox is working, you do not keep him from eating some of the grain that the ox itself is threshing out. Let him eat a portion of what he's creating. The point is, a preacher is producing fruit in lives turned to God. Those lives now turn all their life resources over to the direction of God. Paul says, the preacher/ teacher/ servant should share in part of those resources he is helping to generate.

The call is really to the recipient more than the preacher. Rather than the preacher demanding it, God's Word tells those who are helped by Christian ministers to be generous with them. If the Church operated the way the Bible tells us to, then you would never hear any appeals for money because God's people would just obey the principle of the Bible and generously support those who support them in their faith. You’d hear on the radio about a certain book offered for free, but no Christian would think about getting it unless they sent in the retail price and maybe a little more. (This is a gentle challenge: before you criticize those who charge for messages, ask: Do I spontaneously and generously offer up compensation for messages I benefit from?)

Paul underlined this again in 1 Tim 5:17, 18

Leaders who do their work well should be given twice as much pay, and for sure, those who work hard preaching and teaching. The Holy Writings say, “When a cow is walking on the grain to break it open, do not stop it from eating some” , and “A person who works should be paid.”

And since you mentioned that Jesus never sold anything I should bring up the fact that this principle – that a Christian worker should be paid by those who benefit from their labor – is from Jesus himself. He said in Luke 10:7

Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

It's true he didn't tell his followers to write books and sell them. Or to perform songs and charge admission... but the idea that Christian workers should be paid by those who benefit from their labor, is biblical and derived from Christ himself.

Now, a door charge, or a set "fee" turns the issue around so that the Christian leader is demanding the payment, instead of the recipient spontaneously offering the payment. But perhaps in our culture, the fee or the "suggested donation" is often easier and more appreciated.

To illustrate: in my own case, I receive a set salary, which could be termed a "fee" for my gospel labor. However, this way of doing it has this benefit: the minister always gets a set, agreed upon (and in our case a publicly known) amount of compensation. Some Christian ministries run into problems because the giving to those preacher is direct and very generous and very spontaneous. Without a set amount to live on, those preachers often are the ones who become scandal laced headlines as they have no built in governor on their income. It ebbs and flows with the gifts that come directly to them. Without a set 'fee' they take ALL that's given and the generous giving of God’s people corrupts them. This violates another Biblical principle, that a plurality of leaders ought to oversee the churches donations and there should be transparency. (2 Cor 8:20)

As a Christian pastor, I have no problem receiving a salary for my full time Gospel work because of these biblical principles. But when I go to other places beside my home church, I don't expect any payment. But true to this biblical model, in most cases, those people readily offer me some gift for my service rendered.

Christian ministers should be paid, and some might even argue, paid well. It's what they then do with that money that legitimately comes to them, that's the issue. In fact, how they use it SHOULD be a further blessing to the people who support them. I say to my people, “watch how I live, watch how I give, and follow my example of living simply, setting a standard of living and not letting it chase my income, and giving generously to God's Work”. It's a tricky little balance: my salary is public knowledge, but I keep my giving numbers private to honor Matthew 6:3, yet I tell them what I do (I tithe, at times I give above and beyond the tithe) to lead them in giving. Meanwhile, there are people who DO know what I give, and I’d be a fool to preach giving if those people knew I never gave. Also, our church books are open, and all that that builds trust.


If the ministries you mention have open books, (and they should) you can see who is making what and where the money goes. In most cases, I bet, you would be pleased with the distribution of fees, ticket charges, suggested donations, and other income. If they don't have open books, stop giving to them.