Christian Hedonism: Good or Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daniel Ritchie said:
What do you all think of John Piper's Christian Hedonism?
Click to expand...

Piper, for good or ill, is a polarizing writer. After reading many of his books, then reading his critics including some on PB, I find his work mostly biblical and helpful and his critics too often off base. I suggest therefore that you read him carefully. In particular, don't fall into the error of making more of Piper's points then he does. For instance, at least one critic has overlooked the fact that Piper specifically disavows that his Christian Hedonism is in any way that God is to be used as a means to help us get worldly pleasures. (Or to put this another way, the adjective "Christian" must be seen as decisively modifying "hedonism" and not vice versa).

Tim
 
"Hedonism" is still a poor word-choice.

I won't add much to what's been said about him in earlier posts. I listen to him preach occasionally and am seldom disappointed but he makes mistakes with words for themes. For example "God is the Gospel" just isn't true. He needs to be more careful with word choice so he doesn't go into error and lead his devotee's into the same. They tend to be 20 something rather than older saints so he needs to be extra careful with those who have not been around the block theologically.

Here's a defintion of Hedonism:

1. the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2. devotion to pleasure as a way of life: The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism.

He's too close to the edge of sin when employing unnecessarily provocative titles.
 
It has been a very long time since I read that book, and I have a copy of it on my shelf. While I cannot pick it apart theologically, I gleaned a lot from Piper's book, and much of what he said in the book helped to turn me away from rigid fundamentalism to a more positive view of God. This has made a big difference in my life.
 
Haven't read it.

No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
 
staythecourse said:
No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
Click to expand...

But to understand what Piper was saying would require a reading of the book. Certainly he is not saying that God is the gospel and that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not the gospel. The book simply states that the end of the gospel (what the Christian receives) is God, and not simply the gifts of God.

Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.
 
I once listened to a series of messages he delivered over Christian Hedonism. I remember the very first thing he said in them is that the name Hedonism is not a great term for it, but its the only one he could knew to use. I think the way he uses and defines the term is completely biblical.
 
God Is The Gospel -- John Piper

Barnpreacher said:
staythecourse said:
For example "God is the Gospel" just isn't true.
Click to expand...

Just curious, have you read the book he wrote by that title?
Click to expand...


I've read it. It's not too bad. And at 179 pages, a fairly quick read. The following quote from page 143 shows what Piper is getting at by saying "God is the Gospel"-- I think his point is well taken:

All the enticements to God that are not God are precious and precarious. They can lead us to God or lure us to themselves. They may be food or marriage or church or miracles. All of these blessings bring love letters from God. But unless we stress continually that God himself is the gospel, people will fall in love with the mailman--whether his name is forgiveness of sins or eternal life or heaven or ministry or miracles or family or food.
Click to expand...

Piper very masterfully deals with seeing the blessings which accompany salvation as the gifts and graces extended to us in light of the truth that God Himself is the greatest gift of the Gospel in and above all others!

This book is also filled with many wonderful quotes of Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, and many others.

Hopefully you won't see this as too:offtopic:, but you asked!

You may not like the title, but the book God Is The Gospel is well worth the time it takes to read.:2cents:
 
How is God not the Gospel? Is not Jesus Christ Lord?
Click to expand...

I dont wanna step on anyones toes here, but I think that this is sort of what is being discussed about Piper using clever sayings that are in need of definition.

God is not the Gospel in that I can tell you much about God without ever mentioning the gospel, I can tell you much that is true about Jesus without ever mentioning the Gospel. I attended a church for 15 yrs of my life where I was taught about God weekly and never heard the Gospel.
 
Clever and Provactives sayings

A professor once told his class, "If you come up with something that no one else has discovered in the Bible you're probably wrong."

Piper made a false premise "God is the Gospel" and then has to clarify the point: "Don't create an idol out of God's blessings" I can't help but notice that this seems like an appropriate book to clarify a previous book entitled "Christian Hedonism."

But, I concur, I have enjoyed him and will continue in the future. May he stay on track Biblically for all to enjoy God in Christ more.
 
Barnpreacher said:
staythecourse said:
No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
Click to expand...

But to understand what Piper was saying would require a reading of the book. Certainly he is not saying that God is the gospel and that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not the gospel. The book simply states that the end of the gospel (what the Christian receives) is God, and not simply the gifts of God.

Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.
Click to expand...


Although it has been a while (maybe a year) since I have read anything by him, that is the general impression I have got as well.
 
Although Piper might not be perfect, I found his "Christian Hedonism" very helpful against legalism. Those who think his book titles are misleading or need "clarification" should read the content of that book (if haven't done so already) before criticizing, as the "much needed clarification" is in the book!
 
Barnpreacher said:
staythecourse said:
No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
Click to expand...

Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.
Click to expand...


I agree with this at face vlaue. The problem with anyone is when much reading has to be done to "correctly understand"" the person. For some odd reason, when I hear someone say 'You must read his whole works' to get the proper understanding, I am left with wondering why does it take 1000's of words to boil down to one simple point!!!!!!!
 
Amazing Grace said:
Barnpreacher said:
staythecourse said:
No doubt it is full of good. I believe there would be several here who have though. I should have been clear that the statement itself "God is the Gospel" is not true.
Click to expand...

Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.
Click to expand...


I agree with this at face vlaue. The problem with anyone is when much reading has to be done to "correctly understand"" the person. For some odd reason, when I hear someone say 'You must read his whole works' to get the proper understanding, I am left with wondering why does it take 1000's of words to boil down to one simple point!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Who asked you anyway, AG? :p Where have you been by the way?
 
Last edited:
Barnpreacher said:
Amazing Grace said:
Barnpreacher said:
Piper is one of those guys that a lot of people take little clips and statements that he makes and they come away with a misunderstanding of him. That is why Tim's advice above is very discerning. Read his work, listen to his message and I think people will tend to misunderstand him a little less.
Click to expand...


I agree with this at face vlaue. The problem with anyone is when much reading has to be done to "correctly understand"" the person. For some odd reason, when I hear someone say 'You must read his whole works' to get the proper understanding, I am left with wondering why does it take 1000's of words to boil down to one simple point!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Who asked you anyway, AG? Where have you been by the way?
Click to expand...


Rich benched me for a month. So I was playing in the minor league for the 30 days!!!!:lol::lol:

Good to see you Barney.
 
Well, I'm glad to see you got the call back to the majors.

Notice I edited in a goofy smiley face above so people wouldn't think I was really serious about not wanting your opinion. In fact, your thoughts have been some of the most helpful to me since you joined the board.
 
Barnpreacher said:
Well, I'm glad to see you got the call back to the majors.

Notice I edited in a goofy smiley face above so people wouldn't think I was really serious about not wanting your opinion. In fact, your thoughts have been some of the most helpful to me since you joined the board.
Click to expand...

Well thank you brother. But I snuck in the back door!!!! Dont tell anyone.

Getting back to Piper though, he does have a tendacy with all 'popular' writers to use pithy sayings to attract attention.
 
Please don't wink or point with the foot my friend. I had to read Piper for seminary. I just did not read God is the Gospel.
 
Christian Hedonism??!?!?

Big deal...how about Luther calling the book of James and epistle of straw?
How about Paul telling the Galatians he wishes the Judaizers would go the whole nine yards and cut their genitals off?

Piper uses stark language to engage people in the western church...if he did not do this it would not get the attention it does. Now attention and stark language for their own ends would indeed be wrong motives...but would anyone seriously argue that Piper is not waving the banner for living as the redeemed people of God, but rather some sort of antinomianism??? No more than Luther was really saying, "I'll decide the canon thank you very much."
 
Posting of some Private Messages

Hi:

I have received quite a few inquiries concerning John Piper over the last several days, and I thought to share my responses with you all.

Thank you for the kind message. Most, but not all, of the criticisms of Piper's book usually do not represent Piper's position correctly. Thus, they end up attacking a straw man, and, because of this tempers flare. I will try to point out my misgivings concerning Piper's book, and hopefully, we can have a fruitful dialogue.

I read Piper's book when it first came out in 1986. At the time it was highly praised by many as a good representation of Reformed Experimental Religion from the tradition of Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, I had previously picked up the Banner of Truth's edition of Edwards' Works and had read most of his major sermons and treatises.

First, I would like to explore Piper's own "conversion" to Christian Hedonism. He gives Five "points" that illustrate this conversion (you can find it in the introduction to the book):

1) He says that Blaise Pascal was introduced to him.
2) Then he says C.S. Lewis was influential.
3) He quotes both Lewis and Pascal.
4) He then refers to Lewis again.
5) Finally, he quotes the Bible, and especially the Book of Psalms.
Click to expand...

Can you see the possible problems with this presentation? One of the fundamental problems with Piper is his hermeneutic. He does not start with the Scriptures, but with Christian philosophers. He then goes to the Bible to find support for a preconceived notion.

Towards the end of the introduction he writes:

If I cannot show that Christian Hedonism comes from the Bible, I do not expect anyone to be interested, let alone persuaded.
Click to expand...

When you start with a preconceived notion, then you can most certainly find it in the Bible. In certain places in his book Piper is right on the money, but in other places, and more crucial, he is way off the point to the degree that he is teaching heresy.

and this one,

I should point out that I believe that John Piper is a Christian, and knows the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I believe that his pre-commitment to his Christian hedonist philosophy causes him to misrepresent the teachings of the Bible and the creeds. Since Piper begins his book by referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism I will address that first. He wrote:

Quote:
You might turn the world on its head by changing one word in your creed. The old tradition says,

The chief end of man is to glorify God AND enjoy him forever.

"And"? Like ham and eggs? Sometimes you glorify God and sometimes you enjoy him? Sometimes he gets glory, sometimes you get joy? "And" is a very ambiguous word! Just how do these two things relate to each other?

Evidently the old theologians didn't think they were talking about two things. They said "chief end," not "chief ends." Glorifying God and enjoying him were one end in their minds, not two. How can that be?

That's what this book is about.

Not that I care too much about the intention of seventeenth century theologians. But I care tremendously about the intention of God in Scripture. What does God have to say about the chief end of man? How does God teach us to give him glory? Does he command us to enjoy him? If so, how does this quest for joy in God relate to everything else? Yes, everything! "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

The overriding concern of this book is that in all of life God be glorified the way he himself has appointed. To that end this book aims to persuade you that

The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever.
Click to expand...

A subtle shift in language, but a profound change in theology. The "old theologians," as Piper calls them, used the exact language of "and" for a very definite purpose. Piper is changing the wording because he has a very definite purpose in mind. The pre-commitment to Christian hedonism shines out here: We glorify God BY enjoying Him forever. The implication of such a statement is that one cannot glorify God if he/she does not have joy in him. It is with this understanding that Piper explicates all of the Christian life in the following chapters.

James Fisher, in his catechism, tells us what the "old theologians" taught concerning the first question in the WSC:

Q. 44. Why is the glorifying God made the leading part of man's chief end, and set before the enjoyment of him?
A. Because, as God's design in glorifying himself was the reason and foundation of his design in making man happy in the enjoyment of him, Rom. 11:26; so he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Piper has reversed what Fisher has said. Piper claims that we glorify God by joy. He has made "joy" the way and means of glorifying God. He has said in a sermon on this topic: "Without joy one cannot glorify God."

Fisher claims that as we seek first to glorify God we then come into the enjoyment of Him.

A clear example of Piper's misusing of "Christian hedonism" to interpret the Bible is found in his explication of Matt 13:44 in the second chapter of his book. The Bible text reads:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Click to expand...

He writes:
This parable describes how someone is converted and brought into the kingdom of heaven. A person discovers a treasure and is impelled by joy to sell all he has in order to have this treasure. The kingdom of heaven is the abode of the King. The longing to be there is not the longing for heavenly real estate, but for camaraderie with the King. The treasure in the field is the fellowship of God in Christ.

I conclude from this parable that we must be deeply converted in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, and we are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy.

The Creation Of A New Taste

How then does this arrival of joy relate to saving faith? The usual answer is that joy is the fruit of faith. And in one sense it is. "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing' (Romans 15: 13). It is "in believing" that we are filled with joy. Confidence in the promises of God overcomes anxiety and fills us with peace and joy. Paul even calls it the "joy of faith" (Philippians 1 :25).

But there is a different way of looking at the relationship of joy and faith. In Hebrews 11:6 the writer says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he is the rewarder of those who seek him." In other words, the faith which pleases God is a confidence that God will reward us when we come to him. But surely this does not mean that we are to be motivated by material things. Surely the reward we long for is the glory of God himself and the perfected companionship of Christ (Hebrews 2: 10, 3:6, 10:34, 11 :26, 12:22-24, 13:5). We will sell everything to have the treasure of Christ himself.

So the faith which pleases God is the assurance that when we turn to him we will find the All-satisfying Treasure. We will find our heart's eternal delight. But do you see what this implies? It implies that something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!
Click to expand...

In the original edition of the book Piper has a sentence which he omitted, "Joy is the root and fruit of faith." This phrase is a very concise view of what he wrote above - especially the last paragraph. His argument has been building up to this very last statement - that joy preceeds faith in conversion:

It implies that something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!
Click to expand...
I have no problem with Piper when he says that joy is a fruit of faith. My problem with him is that he says that joy preceeds faith in our salvation. This is where his pre-commitment to hedonism causes him to go beyond the bounds of inscripturated revelation.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith, Rom. 1:17

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference, Rom. 3:22.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, Gal. 2:16,17.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me, Gal 2:20
Click to expand...

It is by faith that we live our lives now to the glory of God - it is not by joy. Seeking joy first before faith is an overthrow of everything Christian. If "joy" preceeds faith, then we would be justified by joy. In following this logically Piper shows a weakness concerning justification here that he had to correct (illogically according to his own principles of "joy preceeding faith") in order to vindicate his orthodoxy. In other words: In order to remain orthodox, and teach Justification by faith alone, he had to (temporarily) abandon his views concerning "Joy preceeding faith." Otherwise, faith would not be alone, but be mixed with "joy." However, a look at his website shows that he has not departed from "Christian hedonism," but has followed orthodox teaching despite the logical implications of his own philosophy.

The very parable that Piper uses to prove his point militates against him. The parable requires the man to see or find the treasure. If the man does not see or find the treasure, then he will walk right by it and not sell all that he has. If he does see it, but does not understand the value of it, then, again, he will not sell his all to purchase the field. Seeing, in the Scriptures, is an act of faith:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Heb 2:9.
Click to expand...
The Bible uses the term "blind" to mean "unbelieving." Thus, the parable is teaching that we must first have faith in order to "see" the treasure, then, because of faith, we comprehend the value of it with joy we sell all that we have and purchase the field.

Piper in the quote cited above uses the word "taste": "a new taste has been born." The problem is that "tasting" in the Bible is an analogy of the act of faith:

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him, Ps 34:8.
Click to expand...

Spurgeon writes of faith:

Faith is the mouth which feeds upon Christ. Before food can nourish us, it must be received into us. This is a simple matter—this eating and drinking. We willingly receive into the mouth that which is our food, and then we consent that it should pass down into our inward parts, wherein it is taken up and absorbed into our bodily frame, All of Grace, Chapter 9.
Click to expand...

We receive joy after we taste something sweet. Joy is the product of the grace of God which comes to us through faith. It does not come to us before we believe.

From a logical standpoint I have asked John Piper the question: "How can you have joy in something that you do not believe in?" I have yet to receive an answer.

The basic problem is that John Piper is overthrowing the Biblical basis upon which the Christian life is lived. The life that we now live is lived by faith in the Son of God. Piper replaces "faith" with "joy." And, by doing so, he destroys the very thing that he claims to uphold.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
Last edited:
CalvinandHodges, you brought up some good points about Piper's "Desiring God." However, as I'm sure you can tell from my user name, I tend to disagree with you. The biggest point I disagree with is what you said about joy preceding faith.

First, if joy were to precede faith, it does not mean that we are justified by joy instead of faith. A lot of things precede Christ's sheep coming to faith, which are all means by which they are brought to faith. Yet the cause for our justification is not anything that precedes our faith. Rather, the cause for our justification is our God-given gift of faith in Christ. Thus, I don't see how it must logically follow that if something precedes faith then we are justified by that something instead of by faith.

Second, I am curious to know if you believe that regeneration precedes faith. Perhaps I am reading more into Piper than he actually explains, but it seems to me that the idea of a joy preceding our faith makes sense if our regeneration precedes our faith. What happens when we are regenerated? Doesn't the Holy Spirit awaken in our hearts a desire for God and for salvation through Jesus Christ, that immediately leads to our putting faith in Him? For who comes to faith in God unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them and gives them the desire to come to faith in God? It seems to me that Piper is calling this desire we are given "joy," and thus a joy in God is awakened in us when we are regenerated, which immediately leads us to having justifying faith in Christ.

In Christ,
Dan
 
Daniel Ritchie said:
Zadok said:
You might like to listen to the following mp3, which is a message that Dr. Peter Masters (of Spurgeon's Tabernacle) gave at a fairly recent School of Theology:

Christian Hedonism - is it right?
Click to expand...

I read an article by Peter Masters against John Piper some time ago, and I did not think that he fairly represented him when I read it.
Click to expand...

Daniel

I have not read the article you refer to and cannot therefore comment on that. All I can say is that in Dr Masters' message, to which I referred earlier, he deals with the central thesis of Christian Hedonism and having read Desiring God etc. I cannot see that he is unfair in his criticisms of Piper. Do listen to the message for yourself. I would be interested to hear how fair or otherwise others think this is.
 
Truly, the internet is a theater of dilettantes.

I don't want to say even "good guys" aren't immune from criticism here on the PB. You know, like JoelD'oh!steen and JackHugee take their lumps, so too the Pipers and Sprouls, right?

My personal feeling? I'm not worthy to polish Piper's shoes.

Subjecting him to withering criticism, when he has done more to bring people to sound, calvinistic soterioolgy than any 50 of us, or maybe 100; and this quibbling over terms, by so many who not only haven't a fraction the breadth of his earning, years of experience, or mantle of office.

Piper isn't a snake-oil salesman. He isn't a psychologist, charismaniac, or a professional eschatologist parading as a preacher.

Any man's public statements or published writings leave him open to legitimate critical responses. Although it's typically fair-play to let a man clarify or contextualize himself.

Those of you who know Piper by the title of a book, do everyone a favor and don't type anything, Prov. 17:28. As for others, just remember the standard of your measurement, Mt 7:2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top