Pastor's Giedrius Saulytis pages

 Welcome | My Testimony | Academic Works | My Church | e-mail me

During my high school years, my friend and I founded a kind of informal club. We would meet and read, and discuss together different works of philosophy and fiction. Although, none of us was raised in Christian families, all of us were in pursuit of truth and meaning in this life. At the time, it was not difficult for us to conclude that chief good in life was pleasure. Ancient Greek theory of Hedonism seemed to articulate and to define our values most adequately. Thus, the title of the club became Hedone. Our fascination with Hedonism as well as our club was short-lived, though. Later, both my friend and I became Christians. Therefore, I must admit that it was a big surprise (and I suspect I am not alone in this astonishment) to be introduced to Hedonism once again, only this time not by Chrestomathy of Philosophy, but by one of the leading evangelical pastors in the United States.

Sure enough, the approach of John Piper is very intriguing and has the full attention of his readers from the very first pages of his book Desiring God – Mediations of a Christians Hedonist. Christianity and Hedonism. What can be in common between the two? Is it possible to harmonize the search for pleasure and the desire to worship God? Piper's bold answer is yes. He dedicates the whole book to argue and to develop the theory of Christian Hedonism. The size of this paper does not allow me going into a detailed assessment of this theory. My interaction with Piper will be limited to the Introduction as well as the fourth chapter of his book.

Defining Christian Hedonism

“The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever” – says Westminster Shorter Catechism. By changing preposition “and” into “by”, Piper makes his main proposition: “The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”¹ Evidently, it is this key word “enjoying” that leads Piper to the term Hedonism. His sequence of thought is clear: since, it is a Christian and not an unbeliever that seeks pleasure, hedonism has to become Christian Hedonism. Pleasure Christian seeks is not found in anything but God. Piper is very much aware that the term will arouse emotions, leading to misunderstandings of his readers. Thus, he tries to justify his invented or, perhaps, borrowed from C. S. Lewis term Christian Hedonist. Piper unwraps the meaning of the term not only in Introduction, but also in the Appendix 4, in which he gives six reasons why, despite of the warnings of ecclesiastical authorities he stands by the term. Piper's arguments are coherent and persuasive. However, I was not quite convinced that this is the best term, defining the Christian passion after God. In my opinion, Piper could as well have arrived at formulating the same notion by another term. However, he is not willing to do that because the term itself already accomplishes a part of Piper's intention, which is to awaken Christians from passionless dutiful relation and service to God. In my judgment, the term is justifiable, only providing the above-mentioned purpose. However, I find the term to be very ambiguous and not plausible for at least three reasons.

First, Hedonism as the doctrine of philosophy was hostile to Christianity. Two hedonistic theories were expounded in ancient Greece. The Cyrenaics, or egoistic hedonists, espoused a doctrine in which gratification of one's immediate personal desires, without regard for other persons, is considered the supreme end of existence. Knowledge, according to the Cyrenaics, is rooted in the fleeting sensations of the moment, and it is therefore futile to attempt the formulation of a system of moral values in which the desirability of present pleasures is weighed against the pain they may cause in the future. Unlike the egoistic hedonists, the Epicureans, or rational hedonists, contended that true pleasure is attainable only by reason. They stressed the virtues of self-control and prudence.²

Now, having briefly defined hedonistic theories that prevailed in the ancient Greece, let us ask two questions.

1. Was it by accident that Epicurean philosophers in Athens were confronting Paul while he was preaching good news about Jesus and resurrection? (Ac 17:18)
2. If Christianity and Hedonism as theories are so close to each other, only having the different methods of attaining pleasure and different concepts of pleasure, why did the Hedonists in Athens not recognize that?

The answer to the first question is no. Epicurean philosophers who cherished the theory of hedonism were disgusted with the Gospel. Therefore, they disputed with Paul and even mocked him, saying, “What is this babbler trying to say?” (Ac 17:18). The values of Hedonism were so different from those of Paul's message that it did not take long for Epicureans to conclude, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods” (Ac 17:18). Thus, for the genuine Hedonist the gospel truths were foreign gods. Neither do we see Paul trying to persuade them that the gospel he preaches is another form of Hedonism. Hence, we conclude that in their original form, Christianity and Hedonism are entirely different systems of beliefs with antipathetic perspectives on the meaning of human life. Paul's negative view towards Hedonism is evident in some passages of his epistles. I will point out some of them later in this paper. At this point, it is suffice to indicate that there is a vast gap between Hedonism and Christianity.

The second reason why I find the term Christian Hedonism confusing and not plausible is simply this. The term Christian has no need of strange epithets attached to it in order to reinforce its meaning. Christian by definition is Christ-like. Christ-likeness already entails the notion of glorifying God and enjoying him forever. If we are willing to emphasize the need of living relationships with God that are marked by genuine love and passionate authentic worship, it is possible to use some biblical words and come up with the terms like Christian Zeal or Fervent Christianity, but not with Christian Hedonism.

Finally, I suggest that the term Christian Hedonism is intentionally constructed. Depending on one's intention, it is possible to use such terms as Christian Altruism or Christian Asceticism. They would be no less biblical, perhaps, even more biblical than Christian Hedonism. For example, Altruism is a theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action. It is not difficult to ground that concept in the biblical data. In a particular context, this concept could be very helpful in confronting selfishness and self-centeredness of the Christian. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that the concept is wholly true in the light of all biblical data. The same could be said about Piper's concept of Christian Hedonism. It is coherent, but far from being all-inclusive, as Piper seems willing to argue.

Let us briefly discuss other main propositions Piper makes in his Introduction. In his own testimony on how he was “converted” to Christian Hedonism, Piper states that it is unbiblical and arrogant to worship God for any other reason than pleasure to be had in him. By supporting his arguments with references to Blaise Pascal, C. S. Lewis and of course some passages from the Bible, Piper points out that humans are created in such a way that they can not live without seeking pleasure and happiness. Piper agrees with C. S. Lewis that the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing has crept into Christianity from Kant and the Stoics. Thus, we think that in order for an act to be morally good it has to be free from pleasure seeking. Even in worship, says Piper, we try to eliminate self-interest, making it dull duty instead of most enjoyable experience.

I agree with the author, that lifeless and dutiful worship makes us the hypocrites who honor God with their lips, when their heart is far from him (Matt 15:7-8). However, I am not sure whether Christian Hedonism solves the problem. Hedonism purports that virtue consists in the very act of pleasure seeking. Is this the main thrust of the Gospel?

Another issue addressed in the Introduction and redundant in many of the chapters of the book is the concept of self-denial. According to Piper, self-denial in the Bible is never the end in itself. It is for the higher good, always. God finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. Therefore, God continuously announces the rewards for those who will seek him. It is not bad to seek our own good. It is bad to be content with lesser good. The desire for happiness does not have to be suppressed. On contrary, it has to be glutted – on God. Only when God is our most enjoyment, we become his true worshipers. We glorify what we enjoy the most and adore only what delights us. If we are to worship God genuinely, he has to become the “all-satisfying” Object. According to Piper, it is impossible to achieve worship with no self-interest. If we try to abandon the pursuit of our own pleasure, we fail to honor God. Therefore, Piper concludes that the biblical data is more in favor of philosophy of hedonism than that of self-denial.

A few passages of Scripture, in my judgment, come as objections to Piper's arguments. First is from the first epistle of Paul to Timothy, “But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives” (1 Tim 5:6). Living for pleasure Paul defines as spiritual deadness. Similarly, in his second epistle to Timothy, Paul puts pleasure loving versus God loving. He argues that people in the last days will be lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Tim 3:2, 4). How would Piper answer these objections? As to the pleasure seeking, Piper does explain that Christian Hedonism, as he uses the term, does not mean that God becomes a means to get worldly pleasures. God is the end not the means to some further pleasure. As to the issue of loving one's self more than those around, he dedicates the whole chapter to which we now turn our attention.

The main thesis of the fourth chapter, which is titled Love – the Labor of Christian Hedonist, is this: the pursuit of pleasure is the essential motive for every good deed done for others. Just as one cannot please God by abandoning the pursuit of pleasure, so also one cannot love people by aiming to abandon it. Piper argues that even such passages as 1 Co 13:5 or Rom 15:1-3, which speak that love does not seek its own, and that we should please others and not ourselves, do not eliminate the joy and pleasure. One of the key statements Piper makes in this chapter is that love is more than feelings, but it is not less than feelings. I absolutely agree with this proposition. However, it seems that the author fails to prove the former part of his statement. Majority of arguments, if not all, contend that love is not passionless, not joyless and not without delight. When it comes to proving that love is more than feelings, there is hardly any argument in support for the statement. One may still wonder how love that is more than feelings does look like. In my opinion, the reason why the argument is absent is this: it would produce serious challenges for the notion that love is motivated by self-gratification and rewards of pleasure. Piper's explanation that love does not seek its own private, limited joy, but instead seeks its own joy in the good of others, is more than doubtful. Is it possible to seek your own and to love others? I would suggest that one eliminates other. If we seek our own pleasure, we are not capable of having true concern for others. If we find joy in the good of others, we are not pursuing our own happiness any longer.

Another thing I cannot agree with is Piper's notion that everything about love is joy. Scripture repeatedly describes painful sufferings of Jesus Christ on the cross. Paul writes, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). John agrees, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). The sufferings of the loving Savior are God's expression and proof of his love towards us. Piper does address the sufferings of Christ and his agony at Gethsemane. Yet again, he focuses on Christ's inward feeling of joy that sprang from his hope of resurrection. More than once Piper cites Heb 12:2, making his point that it for the joy set before him that Christ endured the cross. Did not Christ say, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death”? Was it not painful to suffer the death on the cross? Would it not be more truthful to say that the cross is the best prove that love is more than feelings? I agree that Christ had faith in God and hope in his resurrection when he chose to die. However, why should we try to insert joy and pleasure even in the midst of the most severe sufferings? My suggestion is that the term Christian Hedonism compels Piper to beg the question of pleasure and joy. As an example of that, let us compare Piper's definition of love with Paul's words in 2 Co 2:4.

• Paul writes, “For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.”
• Piper gives us the following definition, “Love is the overflow of joy in God which gladly meets the needs of others.”³

Evidently, Paul and Piper disagree on the issue of feelings that love entails. Piper realizes this discrepancy and therefore seeks the way to explain it. Under the heading, Love Weeps he gives us a very short rationalization the gist of which is that “the weeping of compassion is the weeping of joy impeded in the extension of itself to another.”⁴ Piper assumes that there is a lapse between our perception of a person's need and our eventual rejoicing in the person's restored joy. Weeping takes place in during that interval. In other words, sadness is the delayed joy. I just cannot agree with that. Sadness is sadness and joy is joy. Often joy comes after the sadness, but that does not make sadness joy. Yes, we Christians hope that our sorrows will be turned into joy as Psalmist says, “Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy. He who goes out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with him” (Ps 126:5-6). However, the fact that sadness results in joy does not mean that sadness is joy. For example, God can turn our hatred into love, as in the case of Saul from Tarsus. By the grace of God, the persecutor of the Church became her sacrificial lover and servant. Yet, hatred is not love. We do not dare to say that Saul from Tarsus loved the Church all the time, only his love for a time was impeded by his hatred. Nevertheless, it seems that it is exactly what Piper asserts, explaining the relation between sadness and joy in love.

I conclude that the definition of love given by Piper is one-sided. Yes, there is joy in seeing the needs of others met. However, there is much sadness and anguish in love too. Love is much more than overflowing joy. Before Paul says that love rejoices with the truth, he does state that it does not delight in evil (1 Co 13:6). The space does not permit us to discuss different feelings of love. It is suffice to emphasize that love is more than one feeling. We have already seen that anguish of the heart and tears can be true signs of love. Another characteristic of love that Scripture tells us more than once is jealousy (Ex 34:14; SS 8:6; 2 Co 11:3; Jas 4:5).

Finally, when Christ commands us to love others, he does not suggest that it is going to be pleasant for us. As love leads Christ to the cross, so it does us. There is sacrifice implied in the act of love. All of us are depraved by sin. By the virtue of this fact, all of us are inclined to seek the good for ourselves, and not for others. We are able to love others only by crucifying self-centered, self-seeking “ego” of ours. I have to state again that it is impossible to have true concern for others, not putting aside our own interests. To the degree we focus on ourselves, we overlook others. The joy we find in our good deeds is the outcome and not the motivating force for our service to others. Just as writing this paper. It was assignment, a command, and not seeking of my own joy, that forced me to write it. However, it is such a joy to have it completed!

Desiring God – Meditations of Christians Hedonist reveals author's passionate pursuit of authentic relationship with God. Piper's arguments are coherent and persuasive. There is a good chance for one to start reading the book as skeptic, and end up as Christian Hedonist. However, in this paper I have attempted to show some biblical challenges the author faces in trying to squeeze the Gospel into the framework of classical Hedonism.

First, I pointed out that Christianity and philosophy of Hedonism are contrary to each other as to their values. Secondly, I pointed out that the term Christian Hedonism is intentionally made and thus is limited by its presuppositions. Thirdly, I critically evaluated Piper's definition of love, showing from Scripture that love is more than one feeling. Finally, I proposed that joy and satisfaction is the result and not the motivation of love.

Works Cited

John Piper, Desiring God. Sisters: Multnomah Books, 1996.
“Hedonism” Microsoft® Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation.