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.

Excerpts and commentary on “Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes” Part 1

I hope to make this a long series on at least a dozen examples of the hermeneutical brilliance of this book by Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brian. “Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes” is essentially a book that wishes to correct a major error in modern evangelical hermeneutics. That being, Christians today believe that the Bible was written to us and that we should read it as if it was written in   21st century American society. In reality the culture the Bible was written in had a completely different perspective than we do today, and when we read scripture, we must do so while keeping this perspective in mind. We do the same with language, we don’t read a verse in isolation, nor do we pretend the Bible was written in english. It is actually a really curious thing why so many scholars and theologians put such a heavy emphasis on linguistic analysis of the text today, I may even write a book on it one day.

That aside, I would like to give an example from the book that demonstrates how important an in depth study of ancient cultures is to reading the Bible.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15-16)

This was spoken by Christ to the church at Laodicea and those who are even somewhat familiar with the Bible will know how it has been interpreted. In our western eyes we see this “either/or” statement as a dichotomy between hot, or positive, and cold, or negative. Thus to be hot is to be “on fire” for Christ and to be cold is to clearly reject Christ. Lukewarm, on the other hand, is sitting on the fence. Its interesting to note also how our society seems to condemn indecision as well. This, however, is significantly different from how Laodiceans would have interpreted this passage.

As Dr. Richards points out, two cities near Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossae were famous for there fresh water springs. Hierapolis had astonishing geological formations produced by hot water springs. Such springs, have formed white calcium deposits which appear to flow down the mountains on which the springs reside. You can see pictures of these springs here; http://www.marmaris.org/things-to-do/pamukkale/. Colossae, by contrast, had cold water springs, which were equally remarkable. Laodicea, however, had no springs, and had to import water from these two cities. But, by the time the water got there, it had lost its remarkable qualities, leaving the citizens of Laodicea with all the lukewarm water they could drink. With this in mind, Christ’s exhortation of the Laodiceans becomes clear. Their discipleship was unremarkable, it was neither hot nor cold, just lukewarm. Thus the lessons which should be taught about this passage, it seems to me, is that we need to be careful not to just be average run of the mill Christians but outstanding in our discipleship. We should not be teaching that this passage means to tell us that God would rather us reject Him, than be a lukewarm Christian. That’s not what the text is saying.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean that the Bible elsewhere doesn’t teach what modern interpreters generally think Revelations 3:15-16 teaches, which leads me to ask the question; do you the reader believe that being an undevoted Christian is worse than not being Christian at all? Why or why not?

God and Free Will

Is it possible to have free will and yet to choose the same thing in every possible world? It would seem that if an entity were to make the same choice freely, in every possible world, such a choice would be necessary. And yet, one of the apparent requirements of free will is that it be possible for the agent in question to choose otherwise. This is quite a quandery.

Fundamental Assumptions of Liberal Ideology

At least some of  the assumptions of Liberal and Postmodern ideology have to do with the issue of tolerance. Those of a liberal and/or postmodern persuasion appear to believe, in many cases at least, that believing a behavior is immoral without proper justification. Such justification must consist of showing some way in which the behavior harms other people. So, for example, murder is wrong because it does harm to an individual and his/her family. Harm therefore, can be defined as any detrimental effect on a persons physical and/or psychological well-being. When an action is defined as immoral that doesn't cause harm in this way, a red flag is raised in the eyes of the socially liberal. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, where homosexual acts tend to be seen as a reflection of a persons very identity. It is concluded from this, that homosexuals have a right to openly practice homosexual behavior. So two assumptions can be established so far; harm is the basic qualifier for immoral behavior, and people have a fundamental right to express themselves, especially in regards to what gives them their identity.

A third assumption seems to exist in the Postmodern conception of tolerance as well, however. Tolerance seems to be viewed as not only reluctantly coexisting with people of differing philosophies, ethnicities, theologies etc., but also gleefully accepting those differences as within the confines of what one considered good, moral, beautiful etc. If taken to its logical conclusion, this principle would seem to imply that to believe that a different lifestyle, belief system, ethnicity etc. is not good or less good than yours is to commit a cardinal sin. To counteract this illogical conclusion, the first two assumptions are employed, implying that tolerance must be employed to those behaviors, viewpoints and backgrounds which do not cause harm to others and/or reflect a persons right to be who they are. 

This maneuver however, still leaves problems. For one thing, the principle of tolerating others as postmodern's define it appears to be self-defeating as it seems to require believing that anyone who disagrees with the principle of tolerance is immoral, even though such disagreements don't cause harm, and may even violate someone's rights to express themselves in regards to what gives them their identity. Another problem it leaves is that the postmodern system of thought doesn't adequately address the central dilemma of tolerance, that being how do we disagree with one another without hating one another? Postmodernism simply says that we should believe that all positions are good, at least those that do not lead to harming individuals. But this seems to dilute a persons position considerably, what use is believing that another person is wrong on an issue if you are forced to believe that their position is just as good as yours? Isn't the whole reason you hold a particular view is that your's is the best? There would seem little use, then, in having diversity as the only thing which really divides people is personal preference.

Christianity, I think gives a better answer to the dilemma of tolerance. While it is true that other viewpoints contrary to Christian teaching are wrong and therefore in some sense evil, it is the Christian's duty to respect and care for those who hold those positions. It is the Christians duty for a number of reasons. First of all, Christians hold to the idea that all of us humans are in the same boat in terms of righteousness, as such, we are in no position to condemn, judge or punish other people for their immoral behavior and lifestyles. Additionally, Christians do not generally hold that they are somehow better because they have figured out the truth whereas others have not. Christian theology and Biblical teaching are pretty clear that our knowledge of God and His salvation is not something which can be credited to our discovery, but God’s self-revelation. Another major reason Christians have a duty to care for others is the intrinsic value we all have being created in God’s image. We have been given unparalleled worth in all of creation and we should treat each other appropriately. Finally, Christians are commanded by God to love others. Mark 12:31 records that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. So Christians have no excuse, they have an obligation to tolerate others.

It should be important to note here, however, that this tolerance is not as those of a moderately postmodern persuasion define it. It is not accepting others positions as good, it is accepting other people despite their wickedness and despite their flaws.

Additional note; I am only referring to a more moderate version of postmodernism, particularly how it is portrayed in popular culture such as on tv shows like “The View”. Thus, this basic critique may not hold up against more sophisticated versions of postmodern thought, though, from what I’ve seen, I doubt it won’t.

Gods Silence Part 1

There seems to be a series of questions which can be posed against the Christian as to why God is so hidden or silent in the world.

Question #1: Why didn't God wait to send His son until humans had the technology to document his miracles, death and resurrection?

Like all questions there is an argument behind this. The reasoning of this argument, I believe, goes as follows;

1) If Christ would have come when His miracles could have been documented He would have convinced the most  people of His existence and the truth of His claims.

2) Christ did not come when His miracles could have been documented.

3) Therefore Christ did not convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims.

4) Christ came to convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims

5) Therefore, Christ failed to convince the most people of His existence and the truth of His claims

6) God does not fail

7) Therefore, Christ is not God

Now, this argument could be attacked in a number of ways, but the most vulnerable premise seems to be 1. There are a number of problems with 1. First of all, there is the issue of how it is possible to know what would happen if Christ came later. How would history have played out if Christianity had not existed? How would technology and society have developed? These questions don't seem answerable by agents in our position. Whats more, there are some serious problems with God waiting to send His son. For one thing, we know in this timeline it took 2000 years for recording technology to be developed. That's 2000 more years of hundreds of millions of people not being saved. Additionally we know first hand how fast Christianity can and has spread throughout the world. today 2.2 billion people affiliate themselves with Christianity. Interestingly most of the regions of the greatest growth are in Africa and Asia, continents with a great many 3rd world countries as well as nations who are not so friendly to the Christian tradition.

Is Christian ethics based upon fear?

Does Christianity teach that our primary motivation for doing good is the fear of hell?

The reasoning behind this seems to be that because there is the threat of going to hell for doing evil, that threat must be the motivation for Christians doing good. Well there's just one tiny problem, Christians, at least Protestants, don't believe its possible to get out of that punishment by doing good. The only way to get out of hell is to do commit one's life to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit for sanctification. Aha, the atheist will say, that only pushes the question back one step, isn't your only motivation for salvation then to escape hell. No but it is a motivation certainly, the main motivation should be, at least, to desire to worship and enjoy God forever.

Honestly, I don't see why atheists view this as a serious objection. For one thing it assumes motivation is a central part of what makes ethical decision ethical. But why should we believe that, especially on a naturalist view? The objection may be more effective if posed as an objection against the consistency of Christian ethics. But that even has shortfalls as it can easily be shown that there are noble and ethical motivations for doing good. Additionally, even the Christian worldview allows for the idea that an action can be moral even if one or more of one's motives is not moral. Which is another problem with this argument, it seems to assume that there can only be one motivation for an action. This seems obviously false.

In conclusion then, it would seem that if the atheist wants to make any sort of argument out of this objection, they have some work to do.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/fear_morality.html