We’ve all heard the misquote, it goes like this, “Money is the root of all evil.” The real quote is from 1 Tim 6:10 and goes, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” There is a subtle but important difference between the “love of money is the root…” and “money is the root…” Why, though, is the love of money a central source for sin? Aquinas offers a few powerful insights.

First of all, Aquinas divided wealth into two different categories: natural and artificial wealth. Natural wealth is that which “serves man as a remedy for his natural wants” such as food, shelter and clothing. However, artificial wealth is that which we use as a symbolic exchange and measure of value for the necessities of life. We call this artificial wealth money. In fact, as Aquinas points out, we would never seek money for its own sake if it did not procure for us the necessities and luxuries of life. It would be like yesterday’s newspaper, something to dispose of.

Humans generally have a limited capacity for natural riches. You can only own and enjoy a limited number of cars, boats or cloths. You might own a thousand pairs of shoes (it’s been known to happen) but it is unlikely that you would bother procuring 50,000 pairs of shoes for your personal use. On the other hand, as Aquinas points out, “the desire for artificial wealth is infinite.” Why, though, would someone want unlimited amounts of money? Well, the answer is that money serves something else. Money is the “servant of disordered concupiscence, which is not curbed.” “Disordered concupiscence” is an old fashioned way of saying that someone’s desire for pleasure is out of control. If someone cannot control their desire for the pleasures and luxuries of life then an unlimited amount of money is a very handy thing to have. So, we love money for what it can buy, which is pleasure. Too much pleasure, of course, is a very dangerous thing. It causes such things as obesity, STD’s, and drug overdoses. This is why Paul says that the love of money leads to “many sorrows.”

The antidote to the love of money-for-pleasure is the virtue of temperance. Temperance is the virtue by which we “say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:12). From a Christian perspective, one needs God’s grace in order to be a temperate person. This is why Titus 2:11 says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say ‘No’…” In other words, God’s grace not only forgives our sins through Christ’s death, it teaches us how to live temperately in this life.

“Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity” has an article by S. M. Hutchens titled “Please Me, O Lord” which forcefully delves into the subject of the origins of today’s romanticized worship music. Our current genre of sensual worship songs have been derogatorily called “Jesus-my-boyfriend” tunes which could be easily adapted for Boy-Band use in order to be sung to hyper-sexualized girl Tweeners. The full article can be found at: http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.4docs/17-04-013.html.

In recent months a number of articles, blogs and books have been written about the trend within Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Evangelical) toward a more feminized version of the historic faith. It has been noted that the result of this trend has been that men have increasingly stereotyped Christianity as a religion for women, children and unmanly men. Further, it has been noted that within mainline denominations a militant feminism is virtually triumphant and is causing the hemorrhaging of its membership. Finally, these trends have been identified as part and parcel of a generalized feminization of Western culture whereby female virtues of nurturance, egalitarianism, “communication,” and non-competitiveness are in ascendancy over the classic male virtues of competition, action, achievement, responsibility and role definition.

My purpose here is to expand on one idea within Hutchens article that I not only agree with, but also have been thinking about for some time. In the following quote, Hutchens writes about the effects of saccharine-sweet worship and dumbed-down preaching.

“…full of the warmings sought by Evangelicals, and marked by preaching and music that present no particular challenge to the mind or tastes of a child of ten—a child that in traditional cultures has not yet, as Leon Podles observes in The Church Impotent, left the society of women. The church feminized is not only the church demasculinized, but inevitably the church infantilized as well.”

It is this last insight that I find intriguing and challenging. Essentially Hutchens is noting that a demasculated church leaves its congregations at the life-stage of a child. Children under the age of 10 have a limited intellectual capacity and are very sentimental. To grow up, children must eventually leave the apron strings of “mommy” and enter the world where “dad” forges a tough living. Granted, a large percentage of women work outside the home; however, the point is that these are socio-psychological stages of personal development. In short, the contemporary church appears to be tied to mommy’s apron strings.

This insight was driven home to me recently when my wife and I were driving to a pastor’s conference. I was gleefully demonstrating to her my new iPod with its huge storage of downloadable music. We listened to a wide array of Christian music from contemporary “Passion” worship to ancient liturgical Eucharistic chant. My wife is a skilled family therapist and quickly noted the various maturity stages of the different genres. What was most fascinating to me was she noticed that much of the latest contemporary worship music is singing about one’s own experience about Jesus. It is not about Jesus, but about “my” experience of Jesus. This, she said, is equivalent to spiritual thumb sucking. Compared to the deep resonate tones of ancient Orthodox worship and the complex and theologically centered choir anthems of high Protestantism, much of contemporary worship seemed vapid and, frankly, just plain childish.

I love little details in the Bible that teach big lessons. One of these is that the book of John presents a picture of Christ after His resurrection as bearing the scars of His Passion. John 20:27 shows Jesus instructing Thomas to touch his wounds. Revelation 1:7 seems to indicate this as well when it states, 7 “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.” However, there seems to be quite a difference in reaction.

For the believers at the end of time gathered around Christ, the marks of his disfigurement will be signs of wonderful splendor and beauty. Christ’s scars will engender awe and worship as it did with Thomas. It will remind the faithful that they have been saved through the sufferings of Christ. It will also tangibly describe to them that God’s mercy and love are beyond comprehension. How can anyone fully comprehend the love of God that would allow His Son to be crucified for the sake of sinful humanity?

On the other hand, those that have scorned the love of God will view the scars of Christ as signs of bitterness and gall. Revelation 1:7 states that the unbelievers “will mourn because of Him.” It seems ironic that God’s infinite love could be so adamantly rejected and disparaged. However, it is my reading of the New Testament that those headed for hell will not be remorseful when they proceed to a God-less eternity. It is my understanding of the phrase “gnashing of teeth” that it was a colloquialism for resentful anger. Jesus noted that in hell there will be “gnashing of teeth” meaning that those in hell will continue in their steadfast rage against God. Those who in this life who resist the love of God expressed in Christ’s atoning sacrifice will never do so.

The unbeliever’s scornful response to God’s love does not diminish the glory of Christ’s disfigurement. Pardon the tried cliché, yet it is true, His scars are meant to become our stars.

The Associated Press is doing its best to stay up with the tectonic changes taking place in global Christianity. Richard N. Ostling in his article “Christianity’s center shifts to the ‘Global South’” identifies some the mega-trends that are changing the face of Christendom. Working off the research done by Penn State Historian Philip Jenkins and Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks, Ostling sees the fact that 62% of Christians now live in Africa, Asia and Latin America as, perhaps, the single greatest shift in the history of Christianity. No longer is the dynamic center of Christendom found in the developed West. This is creating a dramatic cultural confrontation between the increasingly secularized West and the vibrant and traditionalist “Global South.”

An obvious example of this cultural conflict can be found in the Anglican Communion’s pitched battle over sexual issues. American Episcopalians have allowed same-sex blessing ceremonies, gay clergy and an openly gay bishop. This has been vociferously repudiated by African and other Anglicans from the southern hemisphere. It is not that these sexual practices are seen as religious disputable matters; no, they are seen by the traditionalist from the Global South as signs of utter “corruption, sin and death.”

Christians from the Global South are not only strong adherents of the authority of Scripture, they actually believe in a supernatural form of Christianity that is often derided or deemphasized by their Western counterparts. They take seriously the components of Scripture that deal with miracles, exorcisms, witchcraft and spiritual warfare. Of course, the primary reason for this is that they often live in societies that are steeped in paganism, the occult and appear to be in the grip of demonic powers. Economic and political liberation are seen as connected to spiritual deliverance.

Another interesting difference between the Christianities from the West and Global South is over the “health and wealth” gospel. Seminaries, Evangelical leaders, and conservative pastors as well as liberal Christians roundly criticize the prosperity gospel. However Penn State’s Jenkins notes that in the Global South where money and doctors are absent, “it seems impossible to survive without miracles.” On this issue Western Christians may end up being seen as people who got their slice of the blessing-pie only to wag their tongues and fingers at their impoverished brethren admonishing them to not believe that God intervenes supernaturally in the daily lives of people.

Could it be that even Western conservative Christians are more comfortable with a sedated and neutered version of the Risen Lord Jesus?

If you want to get a modern sort-of-religious person really upset just mention the anger of God. Either the sort-of-religious person will deny that God gets angry or they will have the mistaken notion that God’s anger is just like human anger. Well, God does express anger but not in the way that humans do. To understand this, let’s take a few moments to dissect anger.

Human anger has both a bodily aspect and a mental aspect. It is natural for all animals to react against anything hurtful. This is part of the survival instinct implanted by God into His creatures. There are some animals that are naturally more prone to anger than others. For instance, a male African Wildebeest (from the Dutch language, aptly, meaning “wild animal”) is known for its very aggressive temperament whereas a rabbit is much more prone to fear. Humans are by temperament somewhere between a Wildebeest and a rabbit. The point is, when animals and humans are threatened by a hurt they react to protect themselves. However, with humans the mind plays a large role in anger. In one way, because of our high intelligence, men can note possible slights and injuries to us or our loved ones that animals would never identify. Additionally, humans can override their reactive anger by overlooking hurts and slights. Because of our mental capacities, humans can be either more aggressive or gentler than animals. In summary, Thomas Aquinas noted: anger is "the name of a passion. A passion of the sensitive appetite is good in so far as it is regulated by reason, whereas it is evil if it set the order of reason aside." (ST II, Q. 158, A. 2)

For humans anger can be aroused when a person sees an injustice. Now, injustice is an intellectual concept, and only an intelligent creature can apprehend something as abstract as justice (dogs and cats do not become indignant). That is why anger is not just a sub-human or irrational force within us, but a human passion that can originate in our minds and is perfected and governed by reason, and should not always be suppressed, as if it were some irrational force.

Pre-modern Christians (unencumbered by Political Correctness) understood that the object of anger is actually a good, namely retribution. Retribution is something very different from revenge. The truly just person always wills that what is due should be rendered to another person, to a group of people or even to a community. That is why the person of justice is not indifferent to punishment, but actually wills it. See, the essential point of punishment is the restoration of an order of fairness--an order that was disturbed by an offender’s willful violation of the rights of others. The disrupted order of fairness is restored by depriving the criminal of his ill-gotten advantage. Unfortunately, many people today (including Christians) really don’t understand this essential purpose of punishment. It is generally misunderstood as a kind of revenge, an irrational inflicting of pain upon another. This is why we see more and more leniency today in the decisions of our courts. Leniency, however, is a vice and not a virtue.

Now, when we speak of anger in God, we are not speaking about a bodily passion but the actual judgment of injustice. God wills to take vengeance against sin (Rom 12:19). However, as opposed to human anger, a man cannot threaten or harm God. Yet, man can act against God in two ways. One way is to refuse to do God’s commandments and, therefore, show that he despises the things of God. Another way is that when men disobey God they only harm themselves; but, that harm reflects negatively on God because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) and in a special way is protected and loved by God. In both of these ways men cause a disrupted order of fairness violating the rights of God, man and even of himself. For these reasons the anger of God is expressed as the judgment against man’s injustice by divine punishment.