Heard of McClelland's Theory?

"Money plays an important role for both high and low achievers, but for different reasons. The high need-for-achievement person wants concrete feedback about performance. Making a profit, receiving a bonus, or earning a large salary is a statement about success or failure. The high achiever will not value the money as an end in itself. The monetary reward is a symbol of success and feedback about job performance.

The lower achiever, on the other hand, views the monetary reward as an end in itself." (Organisational Behaviour, J. Champoux, p.158)

Yet to see a theory of motivation which doesn't have money as a key component. Don't even ask. People will look at you like you was some new bug species or something.

I once recommended to my Bible Study class that it could be an idea occasionally taking a 10-dollar note out of one's pocket and for the sheer symbolic value of it, tear it up.

I don't think any of my listeners ever did it, and I haven't myself. But there are times when I think we should. Fine, don't rip it to shreds, just give it away. Uncaringly, with abandon, unthinkingly. Forget the budgeting, forget the fears of shortage, forget how difficult the cash was to come by - just throw it to someone else. Fare-thee-well.

We take money too seriously. We are "in the story" written by Mammon. We are "in the story" when not only have we quit evaluating the 'ends' to which we're headed, but when we get pissed whenever it's suggested we should live in another story.

We don't even QUESTION if having more is necessarily good. Damn near every one of us is aiming for a bigger bank account (notwithstanding the appropriate nods to generosity, 'healthy spending', and so on). Hard work is for getting the hard cash. Accumulate, buy, spend, swipe the card first pay later. More's the word. Money doesn't just dominate the equation, it is the equation. You'd think that people can't live wholesome healthy lives without $$. If I'm not careful, I'd easily believe it, too.

But my son negates this ideology. Heck, he's obviously enjoying himself WITHOUT grasping the concept of money. He just wants to be with his parents, have fun, share a meal, go out. Yeah yeah, I know. Nicky isn't at the age where he's got to start worrying about bills. And now he doesn't have much responsibilities. But the idea remains: Life is full and free when we RELY ON a "bigger" Person to care for us.

I would never want Nicky to feel even one iota of anxiety over whether or not he'll go hungry, whether or not he's cared for, whether or not I will be there for him when he's in pain, confusion or sorrow. Why would I ever imagine our Heavenly Father feeling any less intense about loving His earthly children? Am I more 'souled-out' to Mammon than I care to acknowledge?

Maybe there's more to the Paris Hilton program than a babe (or two) half-dressing and fully messing her way through a town's normal existence. Maybe shows like The Simple Life (and Cars for that matter) is a subversive reflection of how hopelessly complex we've become and how we need to recover the gentle simplicity we know we've lost.