Piper's 'Christian Hedonism'

[Romans922]

I was thinking through this the other day, what do you guys think of Piper's Christian Hedonism and the altering of Q#1 of WSC?

 

[MICWARFIELD]

My pastor loves it. He quotes it frequently. "God's chief end is to glorify himself and enjoy himself forever". Seems scriptural to me.

I havent read much Piper myself.

Mike

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Romans922
I was thinking through this the other day, what do you guys think of Piper's Christian Hedonism and the altering of Q#1 of WSC?

Are you referring to his statement, "Man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying him forever?"

Well, it may get a cold response from those who love the Standards above all else, but his take is very insightful and - I believe - helpful.

 

[Romans922]

Originally posted by MICWARFIELD
My pastor loves it. He quotes it frequently. "God's chief end is to glorify himself and enjoy himself forever". Seems scriptural to me.

I havent read much Piper myself.

Mike

WSC = "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."

Piper worked off of this (+Xian Hedonism) = "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever."

 

[Me Died Blue]

This thread gives the following comment that J. I. Packer reportedly made on Piper's word changing:

Originally posted by smhbbag
This last weekend at the Edwards conference, Mark Dever asked JI Packer, during a roundtable discussion, "If John Piper was helping draw up the WCF back then, do you think he could have counvinced them to change it to 'glorify God BY enjoying Him forever'? Dr. Packer, from what you remember, do you have any insights?"

Apart from the joke, which Dr. Packer thoroughly enjoyed, he basically said that John could probably have convinced them that it was biblical, but they would have left the WCF the way it was. Thought it was an interesting answer, to an interesting question....that's it, just thought you guys might enjoy that...:spin:

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
This thread gives the following comment that J. I. Packer reportedly made on Piper's word changing:

Originally posted by smhbbag
This last weekend at the Edwards conference, Mark Dever asked JI Packer, during a roundtable discussion, "If John Piper was helping draw up the WCF back then, do you think he could have counvinced them to change it to 'glorify God BY enjoying Him forever'? Dr. Packer, from what you remember, do you have any insights?"

Apart from the joke, which Dr. Packer thoroughly enjoyed, he basically said that John could probably have convinced them that it was biblical, but they would have left the WCF the way it was. Thought it was an interesting answer, to an interesting question....that's it, just thought you guys might enjoy that...:spin:

I think the point is that what Piper says is true, but not sufficiently true. There are ways that we can glorify God beyond enjoying Him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying Him, but God's glory is more expansive than this.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Exactly.

 

[DanielC]

I think it is often overlooked that the catechism does not say "The chief ends of man are to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" - as if they were two different ends, but rather "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Thus Piper has not added anything here, but merely taken away meaning by limiting the statement.

If we lived in a era when children were still catechized (and I mean not merely memorizing the catechism but rather also being taught what it means), I believe that Piper new definition would be found wanting - indeed, there would be no need for such innovation.

I'd prefer the term "love" to "Christian hedonism," but that wouldn't sell as many books (I'm not saying anything about Piper's motives, by the way - I'm simply commenting on the state of evangelicalism).

[Edited on 11-5-2005 by DanielC]

 

[Romans922]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
This thread gives the following comment that J. I. Packer reportedly made on Piper's word changing:

Originally posted by smhbbag
This last weekend at the Edwards conference, Mark Dever asked JI Packer, during a roundtable discussion, "If John Piper was helping draw up the WCF back then, do you think he could have counvinced them to change it to 'glorify God BY enjoying Him forever'? Dr. Packer, from what you remember, do you have any insights?"

Apart from the joke, which Dr. Packer thoroughly enjoyed, he basically said that John could probably have convinced them that it was biblical, but they would have left the WCF the way it was. Thought it was an interesting answer, to an interesting question....that's it, just thought you guys might enjoy that...:spin:

I think the point is that what Piper says is true, but not sufficiently true. There are ways that we can glorify God beyond enjoying Him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying Him, but God's glory is more expansive than this.

Like by obeying Him? For example, I don't think Christ thoroughly enjoyed being crucified, but He did it out of obedience.

[Edited on 11-5-2005 by Romans922]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Romans922

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I think the point is that what Piper says is true, but not sufficiently true. There are ways that we can glorify God beyond enjoying Him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying Him, but God's glory is more expansive than this.

Like by obeying Him? For example, I don't think Christ thoroughly enjoyed being crucified, but He did it out of obedience.

But remember that Christ endured the Cross "for the joy that was set before Him" (Heb. 12:2), so I think Piper would (rightly) say that joy was part of that obedient act on Christ's part.

So I think Fred's point is probably not so much that joy isn't properly a part of every act we do for God's glory, but rather that the glory He derives from those acts is derived from more than just our joy alone.

For example, God was certainly glorified by the Israelites' joy in His parting of the Red Sea, but His glory in that situation also came from the sheer factor of His power being so greatly displayed to them, irrespective of whatever joy they also took in it.

 

[Arch2k]

Rev. Jerrold H. Lewis has presented my opinion on the matter in his paper on the subject much better than I can say it. It can be found on this thread.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It really comes down to what you define joy as. If it's the same as modern evangelicalism, then he's way off. If it's biblical joy, which we keep in spite of suffering, then Piper is good. Though he doesn't seem to account for the suffering and self-denial aspects of enjoying God.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by puritansailor
It really comes down to what you define joy as. If it's the same as modern evangelicalism, then he's way off. If it's biblical joy, which we keep in spite of suffering, then Piper is good.

But even using the biblical sense of joy, he still misses the mark by logically making that joy ultimately the sole factor in our experiences from which God derives glory. Piper would say each experience of ours glorifies God through our joy in Him that it produces, whereas I believe the divines would say that that joy that should be produced by each experience is one of the ways God derives glory through that experience, but not the only way, as illustrated by the Red Sea example I gave above.

Originally posted by puritansailor
Though he doesn't seem to account for the suffering and self-denial aspects of enjoying God.

Actually, he greatly does give credit to that as being one of the most important factors contributing to our joy in God in chapter 10 of Desiring God entitled "Suffering: the Sacrifice of Christian Hedonism." Even so, I think he misses the mark on the role joy plays in our experiences serving to glorify God as I explained above.