Hedonism is the devotion to pleasure as a way of life. For a hedonist pleasure is the highest good and your goal in life is to seek happiness. I find it strange then that John Piper encourages people to be Christian Hedonists. The two terms seem kind of opposite to me, because Christians follow Christ, and hedonists follow pleasure. But John Piper says a Christian Hedonist is one who believes that their chief end is to "glorify God by enjoying Him forever". This is not a new concept that he just came out with. But a 20 year old idea that John Piper has been using since (or before) he began his ministry Desiring God.
I want to say before I begin that I like John Piper and his preaching. I believe that he is right on alot of issues. My purpose for writing this is not to bash or speak badly about him. My intent is to bring to light things that I find strange or peculiar in Piper's theology. The article that I'll be referring to is found here.
I'll start out with this quote:
"Christian Hedonism says more, namely, that we should pursue happiness, and pursue it with all our might. The desire to be happy is a proper motive for every good deed, and if you abandon the pursuit of your own joy you cannot love man or please God - that's what makes Christian Hedonism controversial."
What makes no sense to me is how we are called to take up our cross and follow Christ, as well as deny ourselves (Matt. 16:24) and do both only in the goal of seeking joy for ourselves. How is God glorified if we seek our own happiness through doing good deeds only for the rewards? Are we not supposed to obey God because He commanded us to do so? It seems to me that good deeds should flow out of a love and thankfulness to God because of Christ's sacrifice. (Titus 2:14) The promise of rewards should just be a bonus and not the goal.
"Sunday at 11 a.m., Hebrew 11:6 enters combat with Immanuel Kant. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." You cannot please God if you do not come to him as rewarder. Therefore, worship which pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God in whose presence is fullness of joy and in who hand are pleasures for evermore. (Psalm 16:11)."
I am very confused by this quote. Mainly in that John Piper says that we cannot please God unless we come to Him as a rewarder. A rewarder is to give a reward. I had to look that definition up to make sure that I understood this right. Even after looking it up I still don't understand what Piper means by it. What do we have to reward God with? I suppose we can offer Him praise or devote our lives to Him. But how is that a reward?
The main issue I have with Christian Hedonism is that it takes joy and puts it at the forefront of sanctification. Joy is not the only fruit of the Spirit. There is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, thankfulness, goodness, and self-control. (Gal. 5:22) As you can see, joy is not the only fruit that the Holy Spirit grows in us. If joy is given by God, then why should we seek joy over God? It is like putting the cart before the horse! I know that Piper says that we glorify God by enjoying Him forever. But when you read what his article says about Christian Hedonism, it is as though John Piper encourages you to only seek the joy that God provides.
That is the majority of what I find strange with John Piper's Christian Hedonism. If you are interested in this subject, you can also check out this article written by Dr. Peter Masters concerning Christian Hedonism. Dr. Masters is the pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.(For those of you who don't know, the Metropolitan Tabernacle is the church at which C.H. Spurgeon was the pastor.) Dr. Masters article is what got me thinking about this subject. This is an interesting quote from his article:
"When delight is everything, doctrine suffers a setback. When subjective emotions are unduly elevated, the proving and testing of all things become impossible. On charismatic matters, and on modern worship matters also, Dr. Piper is - to put it gently - an unsafe shepherd, and the fault lies not in his Bible, nor in his capacities, but in his system. As the better aspects of his ministry earn respect from his readers, so the poor guidance on potentially disastrous issues will mislead them."
I agree with him that Piper's emotion driven concept is dangerous. I believe that Dr. Masters' has a lot of good points in his article. But I would not go as far as saying that John Piper is an unsafe shepherd. I suggest that when we use any of John Piper's resources that we eat the meat and leave the bones.
