Christopher Rush

Christianity has a difficult time with happiness.  Such a difficulty is somewhat understandable, considering Christianity itself comes from Jesus, the Man of Sorrows.  This difficulty has manifested in diverse ways throughout the centuries, mainly as opposition to activities prone to bring happiness to people: dancing, reading fiction, playing games (especially those with dice, six-sided or otherwise).  While Christianity should, as a matter of course, stand in opposition to activities that bring happiness through sinful behavior, one wonders if the accretion of antagonism to things deemed “worldly” or “secular” have come from an outright conflation of “happiness” and “sin.”  An investigation into that notion is beyond our scope, so we, admittedly somewhat pusillanimously, wonder it in passing and turn instead to a kind of rescue attempt on behalf of both happiness and Christianity, since both would be enhanced if they operate in tandem and not in opposition.  Even the Man of Sorrows had a habit of making people feel better, see better, hear better, and even sustained the occasional shindig by improving the comestibles – what is this if not increasing the happiness of the people?  Desiderius Erasmus’s In Praise of Folly may seem, now, an odd embarkation point from which to begin such a rescue operation, but the work, even from the voice of Folly herself, provides many helpful insights for this cause, offered in a lighthearted tone that lends itself to a more persuasive posture than a more overtly didactic approach likely would to prove happiness is not just for fools but for Christians as well.

Before fully turning to the reunification of happiness and Christianity, we should begin by briefly refuting the popular notion in Christian circles that happiness is unnecessary because of joy; next to joy, happiness is ephemeral, trivial, and downright small potatoes compared to the full satisfaction of joy.  After all, the Man of Sorrows did say and do much of what He said and did to impart His joy into His audience, not in dribs and drabs but to the full.  Admittedly, it would be foolhardy (and not in a clever, Erasmusian way) to deny or refute Jesus’ words, so we shall not do that.  The problem, as indicated above, is the artificial distinction between happiness and joy – and if not artificial, then it has always struck me as more Epicurean than Christian: why seek, says this idea, the temporary pleasures of happiness when the fuller, more mature satisfactions of joy can be found (whatever those are)?  But if happiness can be severed from sin, surely there is nothing inappropriate about enjoying life and being happy while one waits for the complete impartation of Jesus’ joy?  After all, might not happiness be a kind of precursor to joy?

Erasmus discusses happiness, indeed, all his topics in Praise of Folly, through the voice of Folly herself, so it is difficult at times to know if Erasmus is lightheartedly jesting at the topic, more intellectually satirizing the issue, or outright ridiculing the subject at hand.  Such is the difficulty with (potentially) satirical works such as these.  Happiness is a frequent subject throughout the work, so an exhaustive study is far beyond our scope here.  We shall focus on two brief passages to show happiness and Christianity are not truly at odds in Erasmus, and thus they should not be for us, either.

One interesting discussion on happiness comes in chapter thirty-seven, in which Erasmus (through Folly) contrasts the lives of fools and so-called wise men and is worth quoting in full:

To return to the happiness of fools. After living a life full of enjoyment, with no fear or awareness of death, they move straight off to the Elysian fields where their tricks can amuse pious souls who have come to rest. Let’s now compare the lot of a wise man with that of this clown.  Imagine some paragon of wisdom set up against him, a man who has frittered away all his boyhood and youth in acquiring learning, has lost the happiest part of his life in endless wakeful nights, toil and care, and never tastes a drop of pleasure even in what’s left to him. He’s always thrifty, impoverished, miserable, grumpy, harsh and unjust to himself, disagreeable and unpopular with his fellows, pale and thin, sickly and blear-eyed, prematurely white-haired and senile, worn-out and dying before his time. Though what difference does it make when a man like that does die? He’s never been alive. There you have a splendid picture of a wise man. (16)

Those who prefer joy to happiness might highlight that the happy people in this example are fools who live for enjoyment and trick and romp and do not seem to live meaningful lives.  That is not Erasmus’s point here, though – rather, those who eschew happiness do not seem to be living admirable lives, either: “miserable, grumpy, harsh and unjust to himself, disagreeable and unpopular” … these are not noble qualities of a Christian life spent waiting for joy.  The main distinction here is a life of play versus a life of study more than sin versus Christian living, to be sure, but the essence of Erasmus’s distinction can easily be translated into Christian terms.  A “life in endless wakeful nights, toil and care,” even for the glory of God, is not somehow more holy just because it results in pain and discomfort.  Are Christians to fear death?  No, they are not.  Can Christians “[live] a life full of enjoyment”?  Yes, they can – and they can experience happiness while doing so.  A life without happiness may be no life at all.

An even more important idea for happiness’s alignment with Christianity is tucked away in the middle of a thought earlier in the book, in chapter twenty-two: “…for the most part happiness consists in being willing to be what you are …” (8).  Though this comes from Folly, the almost casual way Erasmus has Folly mention it in passing, as if it is a well-known fact that needs no discussion or explanation, seems significant.  The context again requires some finessing, since this remarkable notion occurs in the midst of Folly praising Self-love, but this is not an insuperable barrier to the truth of this idea.  Our present goal is not to align everything Folly says with Christianity, only happiness itself.  If the idea is true, even if it comes from Folly, what better reason for Christians to accept happiness, as it is a byproduct of being who we were created to be by God?  Simply by being willing to live the Christian life, Christians can be not just content and stoically (apathetically?) waiting for joy but also they can be happy.

Surely Jesus’ words to “take heart” since He has overcome the world need not be simply an intellectual acknowledgment of future redemption or mild stiff-upper-lippedness.  Why not an active happiness, even while suffering trials and being strengthened by the joy of the Lord?  Christianity should not have difficulty with happiness.  Happiness can happen not just from doing things in this life that bring pleasure but also from being the kind of person we were created to be.  Let the conflict between happiness and Christianity come to an end.  Christians, do not be afraid to be happy!