With the economy bouncing up and down and the “R” word breathlessly being uttered, it might be a good time to think about money. Let’s consider why money cannot be the source of happiness. What I mean is that money—literally—cannot make men happy.

First, we need to define happiness. Happiness is not emotional exhilaration. As Aristotle noted, all men seek happiness. In the Declaration of Independence there is that wonderful misunderstood phrase that tells us that all men are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to “pursue happiness.” Rightly understood, happiness is the ultimate end or purpose of human life. Happiness is pursued for its own sake. For instance, you don’t pursue happiness go get money. That is absurd. People pursue money thinking it will make them happy. In short, an intimate relationship with God is what makes humans happy. That is the ultimate purpose or end of life.

Now, of course, everyone gives lip service to the fact that money doesn’t bring happiness. Meanwhile people turn right around and pursue it with their whole hearts. Americans are famous for this. We jabber on endlessly about how wretched it is to pursue money for happiness; meanwhile, we are obsessed with watching those inane cable-channel programs that show the over-the-top material excesses of rap artists and the Paris Hiltons of the world.

So, why is it that money cannot bring happiness? Let me list a few reasons.

First, material wealth is only desired for the sake of other things. Money is useless unless you can purchase something with it. In the simplest of terms, money is used to acquire things for the maintenance of life or some other reason. Happiness though, is desired for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. Therefore, money cannot be the source of happiness. Money is only a means to an end.

Second, the object of man’s purpose in life must be something higher than himself. For instance, people are naturally amazed when an animal can do something that seems above itself; but, we are naturally disgusted when a dog eats its own vomit. Likewise, when men act like animals we are repelled. Man is better than money. Riches are but things that are subordinated to man’s use. When men make money the object of their happiness they are like a dog eating vomit.

Third, when people give money or resources to those in need, it is praiseworthy. Remember the wonderful outpouring of generosity during Katrina or the Tsunami a few years back? People recognize that it is more praiseworthy when people generously help those in need then when people by luxuries for themselves. We also see this kind of generosity as virtuous. We also call people misers who hoard their resources to themselves. Classically, hoarding resources was described as a “vicious habit”—a vice. Consequently, piling up money for oneself cannot be the road to happiness.

Finally, money is often involuntarily lost. A lot of people are discovering this as they read the daily returns from the stock market. Additionally, often evil men are able to amass wealth through unjust means. Because the acquisition and maintenance of money is so unstable, it cannot be the natural means of attaining happiness. The road to happiness must be something that all mean are able to attain.

For these and other reasons, money does not bring real happiness. Unfortunately, millions of Americans, while giving lip service to this truth, are living like money actually brings happiness. They may become very unhappy in the near future.

Today I wrapped up a series of sermons from Genesis simply titled “Creation.” The sub-title, though, was “Beyond the Debate.” With this series what I attempted to do was sidestep the heated debate over the “how” of creation and get at the “why.” Instead of getting all bound up in the various Christian and non-Christian theories of how God created all things, I simply assumed that He is the Creator and worked at allowing Genesis 1-3 speak their own ancient message. For some people in my congregation, this approach may not have been fully satisfying, but I sure learned a lot. I started the series with a great respect for the opening chapters of Genesis and I came away nearly awestruck. In my view Genesis 1-3 towers over Western Civilization as a document defining our place in the universe. Whether people are Christians, agnostics or atheists; if they live in the West, they must wrestle with or against the Genesis creation story.

Since I’ve just spent several weeks immersed in Genesis, I would like to share two “Big Ideas” that I think are amazing.

I have written a number of posts on how we can discover a lot about God through what He has created. To me this seems so obviously true that I find it hard to believe that people would think otherwise. I remember in art school, during my undergraduate days, we learned to tease out of a piece of art many insights about the artist. This is one of the primary disciplines within both art history and the study of artifacts in archeology. Likewise the artistry and personality of the Creator can be seen in His artifact which is the universe.

Here is a “Big Idea.”

If the universe came into being after not existing (in other words, it had a beginning) then the existence and non-existence of things must result from the will of the Creator. In short, if God permitted things not to be, then He must have willed them to come into existence when He made them. Hence, we can see from the fact that the universe had a beginning that God is a willful being. He is not just an amorphous force as in Star Wars. Since he willfully brought things into existence we can also see that things exist as long as he wills them to be. Therefore, His will is what preserves all things. Wow, God is right now willing your existence!

Here is another “Big Idea.”

The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” mentioned in Genesis 2 and 3 has a very profound and contemporary meaning. When Adam and Eve “ate” of the tree they were not simply breaking a rule. The Hebrew word used for “knowledge” has the meaning of a deep and intimate knowing. It is a more experiential knowing than our Western intellectual concept of knowledge. A modern colloquial way of describing Adam and Eve’s actions is to see them as taking for themselves the prerogative of deciding what is right and wrong; good and evil. God had reserved for Himself the “tree.” In other words, He alone has the authority to decide what is morally right and wrong. However, Genesis 3 tells us that man took it upon himself to rebel against God and make himself the arbiter of morality. This is man’s first and greatest sin—making up our own moral codes. This sin also is known as both relativism and moral subjectivism. It is deadly.

Genesis is very profound.

There are two different ways that people respond to God’s law. One is from within and the other is from without. From within, men do God’s law out a voluntary response to what God prescribes. This kind of person does so out of love for God and his neighbor. The principle here is that he who loves someone gives what is due to him spontaneously and joyfully. In fact, this kind of person even goes beyond the law and adds to the requirements of the law with a certain generosity. The point is that a person who responds to God’s law internally does so out of love. St. Paul, of course, states in Romans 13:10 that “Love is the fulfillment of the law” and Jesus says that “on these two commands,” that is, on the love of God and of neighbor, “the whole law depends” (Matthew 22:40).

There are people, though, that are not disposed to internally respond to God’s law. These people do not spontaneously do what the law prescribes. They, therefore, must be forced externally to fulfill the just requirements of the law. In other words, they are forced to obey the law out of fear of punishment or by being punished. They do not fulfill the law voluntarily. They do not do what is just out of love and freedom, but out of servility.

Those people who are internally motivated by love actually do not need the law because they live above justice at the level of generosity. Consequently, the external law has the purpose of inclining those who would not otherwise be inclined by themselves to do what is right. In fact, Paul makes this exact point in 1Timothy 1:9 “…knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners.”

Unfortunately, some people have wrongly thought that believers are not obliged to obey God’s moral law. The truth is that believers are to be inclined by themselves to do what is just, even without the law. They are to be internally motivated by love to spontaneously, joyfully and generously do God’s will.

One of the reasons I enjoy reading medieval theology is that I often stumble across amazing insights that I never encounter any other place. Let’s face it, we moderns tend to think that we are way superior to people living before us—particularly if they lived in the so-called Dark Ages. Well, take a read of this little insight from ol’ Thomas Aquinas. He is writing about how God continues to extend the grace of forgiveness to us after we are baptized.

“It those, moreover, who sin after baptism cannot return to grace, their hope of salvation is entirely lost. But despair is the way to sinning freely, for the Apostle speaks of some who ‘despairing have given themselves up to lasciviousness unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness’ (Eph. 4:19). This is, then a very dangerous position which leads men to so great a cesspool of vices.” (SCG, IV, Ch. 72, 6)

Wow, did you get what Thomas said? He said that the idea that men cannot return to God after sinning actually causes people to despair and fall into deeper sin. I love his statement, “But despair is the way of sinning freely.” Moral rigorists, of course, think the opposite. Their idea is that we should hold people’s feet to the moral fire and take “no prisoners.” They think that “cheap grace” causes moral laxity. Thomas, I think, would disagree—not that grace is “cheap.” In fact, Thomas’ insight reminds me of the powerful story of Jesus and woman who washed his feet with her tears. The moral rigorists were outraged that Jesus would allow such a gesture by a woman of ill repute. His response was to say, “But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little” (Luke 7:47).

As I showed in my last post, there are those who overly emphasize the humanity of Christ in the sense that they make him out to be some sort of gloried human. Consequently they do not affirm Christ’s true divine nature.

On the other side of the coin are those who over emphasize the divinity of Christ and make his humanity out to be a mere appendage or like a three-dimensional image. An ancient example of this is the error of the Valentinians. Valentinus (c. 100 - c. 160) taught that Christ did not have an earthly body; rather, he brought one from heaven that was spiritual in nature. Valentinus based his view on John 3:13 and 31 which speak of Jesus descending from heaven.

One of the big problems with this error is that it undercuts the scriptural teaching that we are truly one with Christ as his brothers and sisters and that he suffered the same weaknesses and travails that we have. As Hebrews states:

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Generally, the philosophical premise for the overemphasis on Christ’s divine nature is dualism. Dualism posits a stark dichotomy between a good spiritual realm and an evil material realm. Consequently, with this philosophical view, the idea of a truly human Christ becomes very problematic. His human physicality would be inherently evil. Therefore, the so-called Christian Gnostics such as Valentinus devised ways of spiritualizing Christ’s appearance in human flesh.

While there are certain contemporary Gnostic-type Christian sects, they tend to be esoteric and inconsequential. On the other hand, there are many Christians who unwittingly overemphasize the divinity of Christ to the detriment of his real humanity. One example of this is very prevalent in Charismatic circles. There is popular teaching that describes Christians as being a “spirit, having a soul and living in a body.” This view of human nature is essentially flawed and, if projected on to Christ would make his bodily human nature simply his “earth suit.” While these Christians normally would defend the teaching of the real humanity of Christ, they propagate a view of human nature that is Gnostic or dualistic. Gnostics oven viewed humans as spiritual “sparks” of divinity trapped in evil human bodies. Classic Christianity defines human nature as a composite of body and soul. The human body is affirmed as essentially good by Christianity. Additionally, God is a spirit as are the blessed angels. Humans, though, are not spirits. This means that Christ’s human nature included a real body and soul. Therefore, the divine Son assumed a fully human nature including a soul and body. His human nature was not just his soul. It was both his soul and body.

One of my seminary professors had a simple motto. He would say, “Bad theology produces bad behavior.” Inevitably, the overemphasis on either the divinity or humanity of Christ to the detriment of its counterpart will eventually produce bad fruit in those who hold such beliefs.