It used to be said that "money is the last taboo." In fact, preachers are still writing about it as a topic that's difficult to discuss in church. They seem to think it's because the folk wisdom that "money is the root of all evil," is valid and money is the objectification of greed, one of the seven deadly sins. And, at the same time, it's pretty obvious that money is needed, especially now that almost everyone in the civilized world has been hooked on its use.
So, the preachers are conflicted.
They need not be. Read below the curlicue and I'll rationalize why.
Money is not the essence of greed and it certainly isn't the root of evil. Even whether the "love of money" qualifies as the latter is debatable. I think one has to qualify love as obsessive desire -- i.e. as an attraction that goes beyond appreciation and liking to possession. If so, then the impulse to acquire, accumulate, have and hoard money for one's own personal use and without sharing, is what would categorize it as a "deadly sin," along with wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth, lust and envy, and self-defeating as are all obsessions. That obsessions are inherently self-defeating isn't true because Socrates counseled moderation in all things, but because obsessions can never be satisfied and the obsessed person ends up being consumed.
Whether there is a sense of self and a self to be defeated in the first place is actually questionable. Obsessed people may not have enough self-awareness to know they are on the road to perdition. But, in any event, the object of their obsession, whether it be money or food or postage stamps or other people, is not the cause. Though, instinct-driven people do seem to be mainly reactive to various kinds of prompts (like a light bulb responding to the flipping of a switch) and prone to "blaming" their behavior on whatever or whoever set them off.
Is that evil? I don't think so. If a persons sees a coin or a sparkly and can't resist picking it up, I don't call that evil, unless the purpose is to deprive someone or destroy what someone else has. I'd even go so far as to assert that wanton destruction is the essence of evil. Which, in turn, leads to the conclusion that the ideologues who came up with the theory of "creative destruction," to justify their destructive urges with the rationalization that something better would be created and rise, like the phoenix from the ashes, all on its own are pure evil because they not only wreck havoc, but do so on purpose.
Destruction, especially man-made and wholesale destruction requires a tool, because, as nature made him, man is a frail creature and not able to do a whole lot of serious damage on his own. (Which is why our legal system can presume, for example, that most individual behavior is good--not so group or corporate behavior). Man is a tool-using creature. It used to be thought that was a trait unique to man, but closer attention to other creatures has revealed that they can do it too--use things to serve their interests. What is perhaps unique to men is their use of tools to destroy their own kind for no other reason than that they can.
Some tools are made for destroying. Others are made for other purposes and sometimes abused. Money, I would argue falls into the latter category.
But, apparently, that money is a tool to begin with is not entirely obvious. If it were, talk about it wouldn't be taboo and how it is to be used wouldn't be surrounded with mystery. Perhaps the problem is that the physical shape, unlike that of a hammer or saw, doesn't provide a clear indication of how money is to be used. Or even that it is to be used, rather than secreted in pockets and stored like other valuable assets in vaults. If you think of money as a lubricant of exchange and trade which not only facilitates the extension of transactions over time and space, it not only seems almost magical, but lubrication as a component of tool-using has to be understood. Everybody knows "a squeaky wheel gets the grease," but do they know why?
Money is a tool. It facilitates trade and exchange. These are mostly material transactions, but not necessarily so. Indeed, money can facilitate (by helping us remember) a promised transaction that will occur much later in time. Which means that money incorporates intent and that intent depends, in turn, on an ability to conceive of a future time and events that haven't yet happened. And that's not material at all. So, money can be a material representation of an immaterial reality and that makes it not very different from the symbols readers are deciphering on this page. That is, money is like writing. Which is probably why it has historically also been referred to as script. Writing is the spoken word made flesh. And money similarly gives material form to what humans value.
Money is a tool and tools, even if they are not made for that purpose, can be used as weapons. Which is why it has long been convenient to deny people we don't like the use of the money we have decided they need to access the necessities of life. Indeed, money has proved particularly useful as a weapon because, unlike a bullet or a knife, it leaves no tell-tale trace to reveal who's wielding it or visiting deprivation on their enemies.
If it seems a rather under-handed strategy, it is--ideally suited to the cowardly individual consumed by irrational obsessions. It may not be obvious, but once we recognize it, the abusive use of a tool is actually quite easy to reverse. Not only can the abuser be disarmed, but, especially when the tool is made of self-replenishing trees, we can make money in any quantities we please to ensure that the deprived are made whole. All we have to do is decide that's the right thing to do.
You know, there was a time when some humans were actively denied the skills required to read and write. Denying some people the use of money is not very different. Issuing some people vouchers instead of the currency in common use is just another form of discrimination and not at all egalitarian.
If teaching a man to fish is good, teaching him how to use money is even better. It means that not everyone has to live by the sea or seine all the fish from the stream.