Christian Hedonism

iMonk has a good post on Steve Brown's response to John Piper and Christian Hedonism.  Pretty good critique that Piperites need to hear.

Comments

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
Have you blogged on Piper yet?
If not, I'd like to hear your take on his Desiring God.

[Lee]

At the very least, he's dead-on about okra.

[Steve McCoy]

Scot, I'm a Piper fan. I've heard him speak numerous times. I've heard him at 2 mission confrences, at a seminary lecture series at SBTS, on dozens of tapes of his church preaching, and at his annual Desiring God conference last September. I've read many of his books (including Desiring God twice), articles, devotionals, etc. I think he is saying some great stuff.

Just this past Sunday our church finished an 8 week DVD teaching series by Piper. It was good.

Piper's love for Edwards and the Puritans is great. His love for preaching the truth and finding a way to explain practical spirituality is really needed. I'm glad he's around for all of our sakes. And I have learned tons from him.

All that said, I think Piper tries too hard to tie everything down in his logic grid. He thinks a little too systematically for me at times. And I think Brown sees an interesting problem that isn't a big problem for me, but it should be open for discussion. Even Piper has lately been talking about becoming more monastic (intentional deprivation), as if Desiring God isn't enough. It's interesting.

[Scot McKnight]

When Desiring God came out, I read it and liked it. I passed it on to a friend, who read it, and then never gave it back. Recently I was sent a new copy, and I've dipped in again.

I love his love of God's glory, and all that.

The use of "hedonism" to me is full of rhetorical edginess that makes us think. I didn't have any problem with that.

And I'm no Calvinist, but thrilled with any theology that falls head over heels into God's glory and love and beauty.

Story: on my first day at TEDS, as an adjunct, I got to go to the Faculty retreat. Piper spoke and railed away about Arminianism, blaming everything but cigarettes on them. Then Stu Hackett, bless his heart, stood up on his chair and told "Johnny" that he should know better than that. I thought the world of TEDS just for that beginning of the year. Priceless.

[Steve McCoy]

I know you are saying more than this, but if I read you right, you are implying that it's not Piper's Calvinism you are concerned with (though you disagree), but how he holds it (uses it). Is that fair?

[Bob Robinson]

Steve,
I love Piper's stuff too. Desiring God is still one of my top books. It is quite inspiring.

But I had the same experience that Brown talks about: I wanted to concentrate on "enjoying God," but found that it was exhauasting. And it created a dualistic life--one in which the enjoyment of "movies or ice cream cones" was guilt-ridden.

It was then that God introduced me to another aspect of Reformed Theology--the kind that said that all of life--even movies and ice cream cones--are a part of the God-centered life. Abraham Kuyper talked a lot about it. An excellent (and I believe a MUST READ) book is Michael Wittmer's Heaven is a Place on Earth, in which he writes, "In [a] more or less typical day, look at how much time you spent on activities other than Bible reading, prayer, and evangelism. If Christianity speaks only to these personal acts of piety, then it does not address most of our lives at all. If life includes more than Bible reading, prayer, and evangelism, then the Christian life must include more as well.

This whole-life discipleship is what we must be seeking to live. Piper's theology, while excellent in it's theocentricity, may over-emphasize our pietistic love for God while (non-intentionally) deemphasizing our love for others and God's creation.

[Kiki]

The problem I see with Brown's perspective is that he was attempting to "work" at loving God hedonistically.

He says, "In fact, once I realized that I could glorify God by enjoying Him, I started really, really working on enjoying Him, expecting that, in the enjoyment, I would glorify Him. It didn't work. The more I worked at it, the less I enjoyed God. In fact, by trying to enjoy God, I ended up desiring to...well...uh...go to a movie or buy an ice cream cone."

We can only love God THROUGH God. We do not have the power in and of ourselves. Apart from Him we can do nothing.

[Tim]

Okra is the evil. Agreed. I would add liver to that but liver doesn't grow on trees. Then again, neither does okra. So maybe it is fair game after all!

I got the impression that Brown was critiquing a misunderstanding of Piper's piety. As the monk said, I am sure that Piper would advocate enjoying God not by gnostically ignoring His creation but through his creation as well. I can see how someone might make the mistake of thinking like Brown did. But then all they need to do is listen to more Piper!

As far as his stressing loving God seemingly to the exclusion of loving neighbor, Piper would insist that that cannot be done. If you love God as he is advocating, then you love what he loves and he loves his creation, especially man. Indeed, the love of neighbor is what is (secondarily) behind his theology of missions. Missions exists because worship does not. What better thing can you do for a person than to draw them to the throne of God in order to worship him? This is why the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love your neighbor. That is the proper order.

That said, I agree that Piper's theology could do with a good critique. But, alas, we're still waiting. What Brown dealt with was (a misunderstanding of) Piper's piety, not the theology that underlies it. And really, to get to that, one would have to critique Edwards' theology and that is No Small Task. To argue against Christian Hedonism would seem to imply that one is advocating stoicism or idolatry. There must be a third position that exalts God but not in the manner Piper is advocating. I just can't think of it.

Scot, if you dip into this thread again, did Piper imply or sound like he was saying that he was unsure that Arminians can go to heaven?

[anne]

I am not bothered by Piper's Calvinistic tendencies, they appear fairly consistent with "traditional" mainstream theology. It's his whole "puruit of pleasure is the cheif end of living" stuff that bothers me. Found a pretty good (but somewhat harsh) critique of the theology of Christian Hedonism at: http://thefaithfulword.org/studyhedonism.html

[Mathew Sims]

I believe you consider what Piper writes carefully that you will realize Piper himself would say that all of your life is the enjoyment of God. Piper more than anyone I know (looking at the first couple chapters in The Pleasures of God) enjoys nature and other things through God. I believe this debate is misleading. If you truly love God, enjoying him is not a burden, but is itself a delight

[anne]

Piper wrote: "Christian hedonism says more, namely, that we should pursue happiness with all our might."

Piper also wrote: "The radical implication is that pursuing pleasure in God is our highest calling."

And Piper wrote: "Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when it makes the joy of worship its goal."

and "I came to see that it is unbiblical and arrogant to try to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in him."

Personally, I am willing to respect the man enough to believe he means what he writes. He believes that the reason to worship God is for no other reason than "the pleasure to be had in him."

It is that radical (extreme?) pleasure-centered position that I reject.