Christian Hedonism: Pipers Perspicuous Presumptions

John Piper is well known for his view on the worship of God he has coined, “Christian Hedonism.” He states his view quite clearly as; “God is most  glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” This seems rather uncontroversial, but Piper doesn’t leave it at that. He continues by stating that all of our actions are motivated by pain and pleasure. He points out that Blaise Pascal stated that, “all men seek happiness.” To top it all off Piper claims that the Bible doesn’t condemn people for seeking happiness, but for seeking it in the wrong places.

The great presumption of Pipers Christian Hedonism is that he equates the bi-conditional; if and only if we are most satisfied in God then He is most glorified in us, with the idea that we only are most satisfied in God when we seek pleasure from God. It is this presumption that I have issue with. For one thing scripture does warn about the emptiness of seeking pleasure and making happiness our ultimate goal. Ecclesiastes 2 describes Solomon’s seeking after all things including pleasure from worship, from riches, from women, from hard work and achievement but did not find meaning. He sought wisdom and knowledge but still did not find what he was looking for. In Ecclesiastes 12 he comes to his conclusion that we must obey God and deny ourselves to find meaning and hope. Note he does not say we should seek pleasure from God, he simply says to obey God.

Christ echoes this mentality in his life, death and resurrection. He denied Himself constantly, obeyed God, suffered and was shamed more than most, and sought not his own happiness but the happiness of others. Christ’s end goal was clearly not to be happy but to save those He created.

Philosophers have long noted this paradox of hedonism. By explicitly seeking pleasure we become miserable. The only way to find fulfillment and meaning in life is to have a worthy purpose, challenges to overcome, to make sacrifices and to learn from mistakes. This is what Piper misses. We do not seek God for the pleasure He brings us, that is our old nature speaking. Our old nature desires only happiness for its own sake. Our new nature in Christ desires the happiness of others and God for their own sake. Satisfaction in God is and was always meant to be a by-product of this pursuit. To make it the centerpiece of what it means to worship and glorified God then, is a serious mistake.

Other good critiques of “Christian Hedonism”:

http://www.thefaithfulword.org/againsthedonism.html
http://philosophicalorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-think-john-pipers-christian.html

A philosophical explanation of ethical hedonistic theories;

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/

The Importance of the Principle of Charity

One major problem with atheists, theists and people of all persuasions on the internet is that they often ignore the principle of charity. Essentially the principle of charity involves approaching a piece of literature with the base assumption that they are rational and competent. This approach involves being suspicious of irrational interpretations of literature and outright rejecting those when a rational interpretation is available. Many atheists do not employ this approach to the Bible at all but rather seem to assume that the authors of the Bible were delusional psychopaths hallucinating and worshiping a sadistic deity. This approach is a poor one because it precludes the conclusion that the authors of the Bible were stupid and or insane by assuming it from the outset.

An example of this error can be seen in Proverbs 26:4-5 which states, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” Sites like this; http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/pr/26.html readily claim that this verse is an absurdity and that because of verses like this the Bible should be thrown out as a stupid book. Unfortunately, any sort of literary criticism from philosophers reviewing the works of ancient thinkers to modern school teachers grading papers of students could not function given this approach. Imagine if you turned a paper in and your teacher gave you an F because he assumed that you erred in your essay when he simply misunderstood what you were saying.

In the case of Proverbs 26:4-5 the apparent  contradiction can readily be explained when the passage is interpreted as a dilemma. The author is simply pointing out that getting in a heated discussion with a fool is a lose lose situation, if you answer the fool you look like an idiot, if you don’t answer the fool, the fool looks wise. If the irrational interpretation of this passage is to be favored reasons must be given as to why such an interpretation should be preferred.