One of my unmet goals on the internet has been to start a blog devoted to a critical discussion of the theology of John Piper. I love Piper and his work has a huge place in my journey, but I am ever more convinced that his “Christian Hedonism” would greatly benefit from rigorous assessment. There are great strengths, and some fairly serious problems, especially in the area of Christian experience.
So I was surprised to find Christian Hedonism critically assessed by Steve Brown of Key Life Network. Steve Brown has to be one of my favorite “reformed” teachers, if for no other reason than he has a great sense of humor and an unending appetite for the gospel of grace. His current on-line article at Key Life’s website won’t be there long, so I want to excerpt his assessment of the possibilities for the spiral of despair in John Piper’s theology of Christian Hedonism. I’ll excerpt from the mention of Piper to the end.
Now let’s talk about God.
John Piper, of course, has written a lot about “Christian Hedonism.” And, contrary to what it sounds like, he is not a heretic. In fact, what he says is quite orthodox and profound. He says, for instance, that being a Christian is desiring or delighting in God. Thus, playing off the well-known words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism–Q. What is the chief end of man? A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever–Piper says that our chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever, that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.
While I agree with that, it is a bit too religious for me. 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.
Then I started feeling pretty guilty about the movie, the ice cream and all. It became a spiral of guilt. I decided that I was a “worm” and, after all that Jesus had done for me, I ought to enjoy Him more. What kind of Christian was I anyway if I enjoyed a movie and an ice cream cone more than God?
I decided that I probably wasn’t even saved.
That was when I had an attack of sanity.
Have you ever decided to enjoy something by working at it?
For instance, I don’t like okra. I’ve never liked okra, I don’t like okra and I will never like okra. I’ve tried to enjoy it because I have some weird friends and family members who think okra is one of the major food groups and that everybody ought to enjoy it. On the contrary, I think okra is hairy and slimy and, even after one fries it, one can’t get out of one’s mind what it was before it was fried…hairy and slimy.
(Just as an aside, I’ve decided that the forbidden fruit tree in the Garden of Eden was an okra tree. In those days, snakes walked. Why shouldn’t plants be trees? God said, “Don’t eat that stuff. I never meant for you to eat it. It’s hairy and slimy.” Adam and Eve said, “We don’t care. We’re going to eat okra anyway.” And you know all the trouble that caused. Now you know: It started with okra.)
Enjoyment is a hard thing to program. I figured that maybe enjoying God was an acquired taste. So I stayed with it which led to more guilt…which led to more effort…which led to more guilt…which led to more effort…which…well, you get the picture.
So I went to a movie and here is the important and surprising thing: God went to the movie with me!
In fact, God was everywhere I was and wouldn’t let me alone. I tried to keep Him in “His place” at church but He pursued me…gently, kindly and graciously. God never demanded that I love Him or enjoy Him the way He loved me and, it had become apparent, enjoyed being with me. He was fond of me and you can’t hang around someone who likes and enjoys you without growing to like and enjoy him or her back.
Do you know the only time I can remember Jesus ever asking anyone if they loved Him? It is found in John 21. After breakfast, Jesus said to Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” (vs. 15). Then, two other times, Jesus asked the same question. It was almost as if Jesus wanted to make sure of Peter’s heart…or, better yet, to have Peter sure of his own heart.
Please note three things that had happened before Jesus wanted Peter to understand about how love worked. First, Jesus chose Peter because Jesus liked Peter. Second, Jesus had been hanging out with Peter for three years. And third, Peter had messed up terribly and, each time, had been forgiven and loved. It was then that Peter realized how much he loved Jesus…and enjoyed Him. Later, Peter, after talking about the great grace of Christ said, “In this you rejoice!!!” (1 Peter 1:6, exclamation points mine). You can file that under enjoyment.
Let me give you a good quote and some good advice:
The quote: Martin Luther said, “A law driver insists with threats and penalties; a preacher of grace lures and incites with Divine goodness and compassion shown to us, for he wants no unwilling works and reluctant services; he wants joyful and delightful services of God.”
Now the good advice: Quit trying to do and be something you can’t do and obviously can’t be. That’s religion and it will kill you. In order to pull that off, you have to be dishonest with God and with everybody else. Trust me. I’ve been there, done that and bought the T-shirt. It just doesn’t work and it will make you so religious that nobody will be able to stand being around you.
Instead, go to a movie and have an ice cream cone. Invite Jesus to go with you. John the Apostle said this: “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us…There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us” (1 John 3:16, 4:18-19).
That’s it. Just let God love you and the time will come when–almost without knowing it–you will find that you love Him back and, not only that, you enjoy hanging out with Him…big time.
Steve Brown is articulating, in his own way, an ever more frequent criticism of Piper- a criticism that has increased since the publication of “Future Grace”: The command to delight yourself in the Lord has the potential to become a new legalism, and has real possibilities for bringing us to despair. (And I would add, to fanaticism.)
Brown is making a devotional point, but the critical point is one that needs to be roundly discussed. Is Piper underselling depravity and imposing a kind of “hedonistic legalism” on Christian experience? Will it drive us to joy or despair to constantly seek to delight in the Lord?
I believe Piper would say that we can delight in the Lord in the movie and the ice cream, and such experiences are not antithetical to a God-centered delight in God. But I also feel Piper often leaves hearers/readers feeling that the movie was a waste of life and time; a waste that could have been better spent in prayer, Bible reading, or otherwise “delighting” in the Lord.
Brown is raising a criticism that I first heard years ago, when someone quoted Bonhoeffer telling someone that on the subject of sex, one ought not attempt to be more religious than God himself.
Your comments?
The Internet Monk Archives 
hello. I must admit that i did not read all of the comments (there quite a few) but a lot of the discussion seems silly to me (especially if you know the WHOLE of Piper’s teachings). I read about people who said that they dont like CH because it basically says your going to hell if you dont delight in God..well DUH!! what do you think heaven is?? Its delighting in God for eternity..if you dont want to do that then you arent going. Also, i think many have divorced CH from Calvinism (and Piper claims to be Calvinist because of CH) and this causes mis-understandings. Piper says “God commands of us what we cannot possibly do on our own. That is my definition of Calvinism” and i think that should be kept in mind. We CAN’T delight in God on our own power, thats why we must rely on Christ to do a miracle in our hearts every day so that we may see the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ”. Piper says its not easy and thats why he wrote “when i dont desire God” You need the calvinism because “it is God who works in you to will and to do His good pleasure”. you dont do it on your own, and therefore it cannot be legalism. The ability to find delight in God is a blood bought gift from God. That is the whole concept behind calvinism. We cant desire God without a miracle. God reveals to our hearts how amazingly satisfying he is, and we gain an appetite for something more wonderful than the world can offer.
LikeLike
Hi,
I’m enjoying your discussion. Thank you. I am on a mission to find teammates for a team in Asia that seeks to ignite a churchplanting MOVEMENT. We need radicals…who are willing to die, even though we are not in a terribly sensitive area,(though it is difficult) but we want that kind of radical faith, because,
we want to disciple in a way that believers will treasure Christ above all things. Interested?
Contact me! We are a family of 5 who arrived on site 4 months ago and are in language learning. We are in a large urban center and the field is ripe for harvest!
If your interest is sparked, email me.
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m posting a comment months later when probably only myself will read this. But then again is God not able to inspire me without the applause of men? I like Edwards and Piper and most all Calvinists precisely because they DO tend to drive people to the point of despair. That is the whole point! The more areas in our lives we start to approach despair in, the more potential for us to rely on God for his assistance. The just shall live by faith. As Piper alludes to, it is only in dissatisfaction that we seek to be satisfied. No one finds adequate fulfillment in God. That’s the journey God is worthy of. Life this side of heaven is sanctification, a process.
LikeLike
Having read and listened to Piper for some time now, I believe his whole “Desiring God” philosophy is more rooted in grace than legalism. Truth: Christians are to delight in God. Truth: Sometimes we don’t. Truth: Sometimes we need to fight for joy.
I think what maybe convinced Piper to write so much about joy, though I’ve never heard him say this, is that Evangelical Christianity has polarized somewhat: on one side you have cold, dead orthodoxy, with no joy. On the other side there’s a total thirtst for experience, and when the experience doesn’t materialize, people are left joyless.
Piper is just saying if we delight in God, the outflow will be one of sustaining joy.
LikeLike
If Piper’s “unrealistic high standards” makes you despair and therefore is to be rejected teaching, you’re really going to have a problem with Jesus (Love God with ALL your heart/soul/mind as a command still in effect, Be perfect, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, anyone who does not hate his life/take up his cross/die to self cannot be my disciple), Paul (Aim for perfection, I beat my body and make it my slave, work out your salvation with fear and trembling, test yourselves, we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ… therefore since we know what it is to fear the Lord we try to persuade men), the writer of Hebrews with his repeated warnings of fearing drifting away and like the Isrealites disobeying and therefore not ever entering our heavenly rest but instead throwing off EVERYTHING that so easily entangles us in running the race with perseverence and struggling against sin beyone the point of shedding our own blood because without a practical holiness noone will see the Lord, or James who says that a faith is shown by the superior Christian nature of our actions without which it is a worthless/dead/unjustifying faith and ends calling his Christian recipients adulteress people simply because they were not meeting James’ practical standards, or Peter’s repeated focus to the persecuted throughout his letters on “being holy” rather than belief/faith in the objective truths of justification and his admonitions like making every effort to ADD quality traits to their faith saying IF you possess these qualities you will be effective in your faith rather than nearsighted and blind and nullify in your mnind your cleansing from sin and IF you do these things you won’t fall, or John’s epistles over and over again making practical love and obedience and holiness the test for whether someone is truly a child of God or the devil despite what they claim or believe…
Heck, the New Testament is full of a bunch of unrealistic legalists who expect that if we’re saved we should be acting like something other than ‘mere men’! Good thing we have so many evangelical teachers today to set our minds at ease and put our focus back in the right place.
LikeLike
I think the emphasis of the article was on “entertainment” and not delight. You can be entertained by a movie and you can be entertained by God. They arouse a certain feeling in you that draws your appetites out to them temporarily. I think Piper isn’t talking about changing your entertainment as much as he is talking about changing a much deeper part. You delight in entertainment, therefore you see a movie or you pray -vs- you delight in God therefore you do what that would drive you to do
As Americans we think of pleasure merely in the form of titilation, not of deep abiding pleasures. We are so wired to think about immediate gratification that we get tickled by God, not consumed by Him.
So I think the criticism of Piper’s work comes from differing definitions of delight. If we are going for a shot of adrenaline from either the Bible or a movie, the movie will usually win. If we are going for the satisfaction of something much deeper, I don’t know a movie that would suffice.
LikeLike
Carl F.H. Henry once said: Faith without reason leads to skepticism and reason without faith does so also.
the question at hand is: What does God think of JP’s Desiring God?
the answer can be found in only one place: the Bible.
Acts 17:11: 11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
iMonk has every right to express his doubts about certain aspects of Christian Hedonsim… but my question is on what ground do we do that?
i know that iMonk is on the side of Karl Barth, as a result there is almost no final authority on which to rest upon.
John Piper on the other hand, considers God’s inspired word to be the ground of his theology.
so go ahead …. raise your objections, but please do it based on something more than : I feel so … I think so …
let’s do like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures every day to see if what JP said was true.
LikeLike
I think it’s a matter of taste. If you would like to glorify God in all you do, go ahead. I do that too. But other people sometimes just CAN’T.
Still have to think a little about it, though…
LikeLike
I mean that if I can expect a mystical infusion of joy in the middle of repenting/confessing for the hundreth time, then someone should say so. The Charismatics say as much. If my primary sin is I can’t love/delight in God 24/7 with all my heart, then I will despair. If the Christian life is a command (law) then where is the Gospel?
As I’ve said, this would be Luther’s critique. Where does the despair the law brings stop and the joy begin?
LikeLike
I’d like to know what you mean by mystic and charismatic.
An “infusion of joy from the Holy Spirit” is alright with me, I think we see such things in Scripture, but cannot argue either way whether they are charismatic or mystical (mystical in a gnostic way? charismatic in an ecstatic way?). Irritation is a difficult condition for me, so any infusion of joy from the Spirit is always good and welcome.
I think you are in the right direction when you say this lands us back to depravity and sanctification.
LikeLike
Yes…I think “When You Don’t Desire God” is a good book, but really raises the issue of spiraling despair.
Frankly, I have to wonder if Piper should be explaining to us if he is a mystic or a charismatic who believes in a mystical infusion of joy from the Holy Spirit? In which case, the issue again comes around to depravity and sanctification.
LikeLike
Yes, Christian Hedonism does lead to a spiral of despair if it is not specifically Christian, void of God’s gracious giving.
Perhaps some of this despair is false expectation. One becomes convinced of the clear biblical witness to desire and take pleasure in God through Christ. There is great energy and joy in the new profound truth that “God’s glory and our joy are not enemies, but are one and the same thing”(piper project). Yes! Pleasure is good if it is in God, I want pleasure all the time and God is most pleasurable all the time so I will be pleased all the time! Wrong expectation. Romans 6-8 are appropriate antidotes to this spiral of despair.
I mentioned in another post to a Amy W. who was requesting really good books to read, that perhaps reading the Bible a whole lot might be more beneficial with Piper and Packer and McGrath and Grudem tacked on the end. Some of these conversations seem so he said she said and i said. I am not surprised that we screw up grace and God’s glory, but I am surprised when we are surprised we do.
Alas,I hate sounding like a Piper defender, but he seems to have answered this question repeatedly and more extensively in “When I don’t Desire God” I would assume you have read this. Yet, perhaps he exasperates the despairing spiral by saying, pray and pray like this, and read the bible and read it like this, and look at how other christians did it, like Mueller and pray that God give you this passion. Maybe, we really see here how Piper handles his own “fight for joy” to overcome despair. He dedicates the last chapter to the “problem” of when the joy never comes. A a very sad recent sermon by Bryan Chapell for a friend and fellow pastor,Petros Roukus, who comitted suicide may perhaps be helpful in this regard. see http://www.byfaithonline.com, use search icon, type:Petros Roukas: Blessed are the poor in spirit
Piper mentioned on 9marks.org in an interview that Christian Hedonism is what he longs for not necessarily attains. He admitted his own struggle for joy/happiness. Yet, he seems constrained by what appears to him as the “duty of delight.” Should this lead to despair? It may.
Finally, we should all be open to challenge on our positions. Again, we screw this up all the time.
grace and peace
LikeLike
I agree that Brown’s article only hints at the critical assessment that needs to be made, but I recognize the substantial question being raised: Does Christian Hedonism lead to despair?
In this comment thread, I listed several questions regarding Law and Gospel that are substantial questions.
In all my essays on Piper (The Piper Project, Wretched Urgency II) I suggest questions and concerns that need to be answered.
In my mailbox are letters from people at BBC who have raised the question of the spiral of despair…repeatedly raised the question.
When Piper answers a critic, he does so extensively and graciously.
But there are still many Calvinists who believe that any criticism or questioning of their version of the reformed faith is Phariseeism. A theology that can’t be questioned- with silly or substantial questions- isn’t in the spirit of the reformation.
LikeLike
Bloghedrin, that’s new on me, very catchy and sadly funny.
iMonk, you wrote, “I am ever more convinced that his “Christian Hedonism” would greatly benefit from rigorous assessment.” (I think John Piper would welcome this, at least my experience with him so far proves this; he tends to listen to his critics).
You are right to ask for a critical assessment of JP. I agree. Which probably means we should all be very prepared to read J.Edwards on mostly everything he ever wrote or preached, especially the difficult, “End for which God created the world.”, and probably Fuller’s Unity of the Bible and the little book about the Gospel Law Continuum (Piper wrote intros for both), and probably E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation. At least to grasp the very basic basics of Piper’s framework. All this to say, if we are going to have a so-called critical assessing let it be that and nothing of this Piperish drivel from groupies. Nor, bore us with petty criticisms which lack any real insight, depth or challenge. Restatements of Piper’s position only prove our acceptance and parroting skills. Piper would be impressed, right?
To which I might add, in my spew, Steve Brown did not give a critical assessment. He gave fluffy, silly trite generalities (typical). Go watch a movie and LET God love you and LET Him hang out with you, cause he really likes hangin with you! Huh?
Steve Brown is simply too easy to argue against. No Piperites are seriously challenged by Brown’s “critical assessment”.
I really believe you have serious questions. How about you ask them for now on. We trust your depth much more than Brown’s.
Grace and Peace.
LikeLike
iMonk–
Yep, gnat straining. You have failed to demonstrate any real weakness in Piper’s position. I can’t think of a single author out there who has done more in the past decade to enjoin the American church to enter the twin joys of both glofifying God and enjoying Him. The “tsk, tsk” of the bloghedrin just gets wearisome sometimes, that’s all.
LikeLike
aMonk…
How is one slightly critical assessment- Just ONE- qualify as a “gnat strainer?”
I’ve spend several hundreds of dollars to read and hear Dr. Piper since 1980. I have a couple of hundred tapes. All the books. And I have some questions, too. Even some criticisms. Is that “gnat straining?”
LikeLike
Bravo, Kelty. I just don’t get Brown’s complaint. Only read one of his books, which came off like an apologetic for mediocrity and unaccountability. Have heard him on the radio many times, but can’t for the life of me recall anything he said. Piper, on the other hand, is always memorable. It would be good for Brown to put his gnat strainer away.
LikeLike
I don’t know, I read this stuff about personality types and excess and I think, where in the Bible does it even border on such evaluations of what a godly person is? That is, who cares if Marsden thinks JE was fanatical? Is Marsden then so honorable in his lack of fanaticism? What is fanaticism? Wasn’t Paul considered mad as he gave his defense of the gospel? Didn’t they tell Jesus He had a demon? Is JP over the top because he thinks fasting is probably a good idea because the Bible tells us to fast?
Each man is subject to his Master, including Piper and including me. Happy is the man who’s conscience doesn’t condemn him. Can you consider all things rubbish/dung like Paul and not feel as though you are being a hypocritical prig, too spiritual or may it never be, religious(!)?
There are much worse things to be concerned about in this world and desiring God more than anything else just doesn’t rank on my list of things to avoid. So, I guess I don’t get it. I must be taking Paul too seriously when he says to flee the lusts of this world. Poor Piper, he must be too.
Brown’s article is interesting in its criticism only because it is so soft and lacking in any real antidote to JP, as Brown says, “That’s it. Just let God love you and the time will come when–almost without knowing it–you will find that you love Him back and, not only that, you enjoy hanging out with Him…big time.”
Uh, ok. So is the danger now trying real hard to just LET God love me?!?!
LikeLike
By the way, all you Piper fans might enjoy the following:
http://shafovaloff.com/sermons/
It has quite a few piper mp3 collections you can’t normally find on the internet.
LikeLike
Martin Luther said, “A law driver insists with threats and penalties; a preacher of grace lures and incites with Divine goodness and compassion shown to us, for he wants no unwilling works and reluctant services; he wants joyful and delightful services of God.”
—
So there can’t be both? With all due respect to Luther, this assumes that a message that includes threats is opposed to one’s joy and delight. There’s no WAY I we can get around the fact that both the OT and NT are full of accompanying threats and promises.
Three of many, many examples:
7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. -Galatians 6
9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. 10 For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; 11 let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” -1 Peter 3
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. -Mark 9:43
LikeLike
Someone spoke about how we confuse love as feeling over commitment. I’m not sure that’s a relevant issue but another confusion is an issue. We confuse love, the action, with love, the enjoyment.
John Piper explains that the essence of loving God is being loved by Him.
What’s the problem?
LikeLike
Perhaps it is best to take John Piper’s thesis s in Desiring God with a pinch of salt to guard against wresting Piper’s thoughts to produce a spiritually bad result. What I mean is this. Even if any of us could say we truly desired God, our desire would not be perfect or lasting. Thus we can never rest on our desire for God as evidence of our salvation, and Piper’s thesis should never be pressed so far. It seems to me that those who react against him are reacting against not so much against Piper but against this extension of his thought. I find I am guarded by this error by remembering the lines of the hymn “My hope is built on nothing less/ than Jesus blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame/but wholly lean on Jesus name.”
Tim Cunningham
LikeLike
Have to agree with D.R. Its a fair assessment (the attribution notwithstanding). May we all have a little more Christian charity in our disagreements.
LikeLike
Sorry Monk,
I misread the post. I got confused as to when you stopped commentary and quoted Steve Brown (I think I have read too much on the internet today — the bold type to regular type was just too much for me) But, that is all — just a simple mistake, OK? I apologize for misreading the post, but I do think that it seems that Mr. Brown was basically saying what I said above. I stand by my assessment.
D.R.
LikeLike
As an addendum. Dinah Clarke above: she NAILED it. We are commanded to LOVE and there is no other way to read the bible honestly and remove the “affectional” component (although many have tried). It is true that if you “love me you will do as I command.” (John 14:15) But this does NOT mean that if you do as he commands then you love him. That would make it too easy. We have jettisoned the damning implications of the great commandment so that we can trust in and rest in ourselves rather than throw ourselves at the mercy of our Great Savior when we find ourselves loving 100 other things more than him. Is this a “spiral of despair?” Only if we don’t repent and cling to Christ. We must always and forever join in the struggle.
I would really like a further explanation of the law and gospel question? Isn’t there law IN the gospel? Doesn’t even the gospel have requirements in the sense that the Gospel frees us from the POWER of sin? Certainly the gospel does not free me to live as I please. To the contrary, it makes me into his bondslave. And to the extent that I struggle with sin I am not enjoying the full benefits of the Gospel.
I think this is a key point with regards to the Piper question. When I say that the gospel has set me free from the law am I not saying that the Gospel has set me free from rule-keeping? Rule-keeping is the very definition of the “spiral of despair” in my book. But it doesn’t set me free to do as I please it sets me free to love. That is John Piper in a nutshell…the REQUIREMENT to love.
It IS hard because I DON’T love as I ought. But then I am reminded that he loved me first. And I keep on however faultingly and with amazement that I have been empowered to make the journey at all.
Soli Deo Gloria
Seth
LikeLike
DR Randle: I didn’t say any of those things. Neither did Brown, at least not if you understand what he wrote.
How do I wind up saying EVERYTHING!?! 🙂
LikeLike
Seems pretty simple: loving God (desiring God, delighting in God, enjoying God, etc.) is the greatest commandment, which is a sum of the Law.
According to one of the Three Uses of the Law, we’re supposed to be beaten down by the fact that we don’t love God as we ought, and driven to Christ our Savior, who loved God perfectly where we fail miserably.
According to another use of the Law, loving God is the ultimate obedience for which Christians aim, and when it happens (to whatever degree) in the hearts of God’s people, he is most honored.
The problem is that too many of us are fixated on the formulae for producing love for God, and too little affixed on the substance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Find a church that preaches the Gospel and, if the Holy Spirit’s at work, you’ll find yourself changing, and a real Christian Hedonism coming into your heart through the back door. What is impossible for you to manufacture is everyday work for the Spirit of God.
LikeLike
Maybe this makes me a legalist but I insist that people should read and understand what they comment on, especially critically, and D.R.Randle, you fail this test. Go back and re-read iMonk’s post at the top of these comments. Hint: most of it is a quote of somebody else.
LikeLike
I think one problem with what iMonk says in his critique is that basically, he tried CH, it made him feel guilty and made him work harder and then he decided it wasn’t for him. I noticed that he didn’t challenge Piper’s texts for this and that in the end made more of a emotional argument than a theological one. This is striking to me because, as I have been reading John Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners I have noticed that Bunyan does indeed find relief for his sinful conscience, but it doesn’t come easily or swiftly. He finds it after years of searching and heartfelt cries. I think that may be what Piper is encouraging, especially in his new book, When I Don’t Desire God. That if you do see CH as true and you know it doesn’t ring true of you, then you should be heart broken and you should seek that pleasure in God, but realize (unlike Bunyan) that it will come eventually. For if we are truly saved, God will through the process of sanctification bring that about in your life. It is not an easy road, but delighting in God is what Paul strived for and beat his body to obtain. Isn’t that what we should do as well and isn’t that all Piper is advocating? Why do we have so much trouble in the 21st century with this when others have felt it was the calling of all Christians — to suffer and to grope? At the very least it reminds us of our depravity and of God’s grace to get us where we can’t take ourselves.
Soli Deo Gloria,
D.R.
LikeLike
Maybe this is a huge misreading of both Piper and Brown, but perhaps the problem with the whole “Christian Hedonism” thing is that it tries too hard. IOW, it seems that practioners of CH have to do some real stretching to “make” God present so they can enjoy him, rather than recongnizing God’s presence irregardless of my disposition. It’s the “stretching” that Brown is criticizing.
LikeLike
People are different, with different temperaments – so some find emotions harder to deal with than others. For these people, John Piper can sound threatening … because what he is in fact speaking out against is a hard-line evangelical teaching that emotions are not necessary or even advisable in our relationship with God – obedience and duty are all that is required. And how they get around the commands to love in the Bible is to differentiate the meaning of love, elevating the word “agape” to a unemotional altruism.
What they cannot see is that this makes the command to love easier and more within our reach. Because they are quite right – emotion cannot be commanded.
BUT – John Piper’s point is that if we really see God then love is the only appropriate emotion. And the remedy, if we don’t feel this is not to rationalise away the necessity, but rather to fall down on our knees before God and cry for mercy, and humbly ask for the ability to love.
What John Piper is talking about is only what Christians down through the ages have always talked about e.g. Augustine, St.Francis of Assisi, Frank Laubach etc.etc. Summed up very ably by Brother Lawrence as “Practicing the Presence of God.”
If the heart is right, then anything can be a means of serving God and delighting in God.
Thanks be to God.
LikeLike
It seems to me that any system, Christian hedonism included, has the potential to become legalistic. Let’s face it: we feel safer with rules, with a proscribed pattern to follow so that we are “safe.”
Best way to avoid legalism? Stop making comparisons to other people. Simply stop measuring. As soon as the question passes from being “am I doing what I need to do” to “am I doing X as well as Brother Y” it ceases to be a productive question. We can admire the good qualities in others, and strive to imitate them, but when we start to measure and compare, it turns nasty.
LikeLike
To clarify: Ultimately will not God be pleased with all that he has accomplished? Does he not pursue that which is most pleasureable – that is his own glory, receiving praise? And does he not achieve his own plans, which certainly bring him pleasure. Even when crucifying his son, scripture records that the Father took pleasure in bruising the Son. And the Son endured the cross for the joy set before him. All the pain and anguish is always comingled with or even dominated by the joy of being sovereign – God is a happy god, doing WHATEVER pleased him.
LikeLike
Daryl said “God is the ultimate hedonist.” This makes me nervous. LetÂ’s test whether “God is the ultimate hedonist.” What is that hedonists do? Hedonists choose to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. If God is God, and if God is a hedonist, he has the power to avoid all pain and to only experience pleasure all the time without exception.
Yet God does choose to experience pain, and anguish, and unpleasantness. So I donÂ’t think it is proper to say God is a hedonist, much less the ultimate hedonist. I think people are far more hedonistic than God
LikeLike
I often think about the 1st cent. Ctians and how becoming a follower of Christ changed their lives. Not the ones whose names are in the Bible, but the others, the ones like me. The picture I have in my mind is that they went on with their lives; they kept living and as they went they shared in various ways that they had come to believe that Jesus from Nazareth had indeed risen from the dead and saved them from the wrath of God. And after they shared this belief, they either answered questions or kept on going one with whatever they were doing.
I count myself a Christian Hedonist and consider Steve Brown a spiritual mentor, but the foundation for Christian Hedonism is NOT my level of delight in God, rather it is the fact of the Happy God; God delights in Himself! He is the ultimate Hedonist; seeking the highest pleasure! Most of the time I do not know what my level of delight in God is (I don’t know of an accurate gauge), so I keep going on with my belief about God’s delight – – in Himself. If I know little else, I know God is pleased with Himself and his Plans and that mostly makes me smile 🙂
LikeLike
I sort of discovered Christian Hedonism through the back door. I had reached a point where I just wanted to chuck the faith because I was living a double-life and had NO POWER to overcome sin in my life. Then I discovered JOY, deep-rooted and sincere, in Christ and suddenly found that faithfulness was not a chore but a great delight. My journey and discovery started with the preaching of Tim Keller as he articulated the gospel in his Love and Practical Grace sermon series.
Then I discovered Piper. It was wonderful to find someone saying what I had learned about the Christian life. My first Piper book was Don’t Waste Your Life and now I have read several others and am teaching a sunday school series from When I Don’t Desire God. For me, the message articulated by Piper and Edwards and many others before him literally saved my life. I have to agree with the others who have commented that even teaching like CH can lead to legalism. I also agree with Seth’s comment above that you cannot be too fanatical in your love for Christ (as long as it is a Christ-like, humble, contrite and charitable fanaticism).
Scott
LikeLike
This discussion is very welcome to me because I just bought “Desiring God” (on the iMonk’s recommendation) and have found myself tossing it across the room in anger. I think the aspect of Piper’s theology that induces “wretched urgency” is not the challenge to us to enjoy God, but the suggestion that we will go to hell if we don’t. He indicates that to be saved, not only must you be a nominal Christian, you must have this authentically passionate relationship with God. Combined with Piper’s overemphasis on love as feeling rather than commitment (a very American fallacy!), this leads to unhealthy preoccupation with the ebb and flow of our uncontrollable moods. Piper’s God sounds to me like the kind of controlling, narcissistic parent who is constantly probing your expressions of devotion to see whether they’re sincere and intense enough, but nothing you do can satisfy his infinite demand, and so you are condemned as an ungrateful child. Doesn’t sound very Christlike to me.
LikeLike
I should state up front that I probably, at times, elevate Piper and his teaching to a higher level than one should elevate a man and his teaching. With this in mind, I was sort of glad to see this essay that looks at the faults of his teaching.
I do think there could be problems with the Christian Hedonism view. However, I honestly don’t think Brown’s critique is even a serious effort at exploring those faults. It seems to border on being quite silly, actually. I just cannot connect the dots that Brown does. I mean, he tried to enjoy God and found that he wanted to watch a movie–so what? I don’t see how you go from that to trying to enjoy God leads to despair.
The question with the movie or the ice cream or even your conversation has to be–does this glorify God? If you can honestly say that is does, then you should do it with pleasure. If not, then why do it? It is not about filling your life with only “deeply spiritual” things. It is about looking at the choices in your life as God would look at them.
Of course, we will never measure up (in this life) to the standard of finding all our joy in God. But, Jesus knew that when he said that any he would not cast out any who came to him. To have overbearing, paralyzing guilt in regard to our bad decisions and sin is to ultimately say that Jesus’ sacrafice wasn’t enough. I don’t see how this guilt or despair is a result of Christian Hedonism. I mean if you want a statement that will break your heart (and I suppose possibly lead to despair) in your bad times, you don’t need John Piper to supply it. Think about Jesus’ words when he said, “You are to be perfect because your Father is perfect.” Is that legalistic?
As a side note, Michael, I find your brief replies in this comment thread and at the end of the essay to be a much more thoughtful analysis of Piper’s teaching. I hope you flesh those out at some point in the future, that could be good.
Brian Coffey
LikeLike
In response to Jay’s very important question (Is delighting yourself in the Lord the most important command?):
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
— Matthew 22:36-40
If you want to further explain what Jesus meant by ‘love’, i.e. whether he commanded an affective love or some other form of love, I think his parables about the kingdom answer that question. For instance, Matthew 13:44 says: “”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.”
I would emphasize “in his joy”.
This joy comes as a result of the work of the Spirit making a new creation and working to bring the illumination of a great truth to a previously dead and dark soul. That great truth is that God lives, He reigns, and He sent His son who died that you could not only be at peace with Him, but also be his friend, though you don’t deserve it.
If Piper is only applying law when he says “Delight yourself in the Lord”, then, by that very same reasoning, we must also say that Jesus applied the law only when he said “love the Lord your God with all your heart”. If Piper merely skirts a dangerous line, then we must say it is a line skirted by Jesus.
This conversation has helped me evaluate Christian Hedonism. When I first read Piper (Desiring God), it turned my world upside down, the Bible as a whole began to make some sense, and I saw that creation (and my life) were about God.
But after some reflection and discussion, I think the clear teaching of Jesus himself upholds CH, as do these verses:
“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus as Lord.” (Phil. 3:8)
“Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Colossians 3:2)
“‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is constructive” (1 Cor 10:23).
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:7-10).
I have shared the experience of trying to will myself to be more sanctified and falling short. Yet this bad experience does not change the clear teaching of Scripture. It just means that I was going about my sanctification in a sinful way. I relied on my strength instead of, in faith, praying for the Spirit’s help and power. There is a necessary heart change that must be done by the Lord, both in conversion and in sanctification, though sanctification is, to some degree, a cooperative endeavor. Whenever we try to ‘be good’ or ‘be better’ on our own, we’re going to fail.
I found Brian P.’s comments illuminating and correct.
Please, if we’re going to debate basic approaches to viewing the Christian life, can we use Scripture more explicitly?
Grace and peace,
Drew
LikeLike
If nothing else, Steve Brown’s comments have made us all think about our ability to delight in God and those things which God provided for us to enjoy. I have so much respect for John Piper and his teaching. Possibly my comment will be too simplistic and not worthy of the level of discussion I have just read.
I have been around people that love to brag about their children. I have been invited into a home to view the artwork proudly displayed on the fridge. To hear them describe how much they delight in these pictures or how they still use the ashtray little Johnny made in 2nd grade….well, it makes me feel “guilty”, wondering if I delight enough in my daughter, when fact, I know I do.
Are some just threatened by John Piper’s ability to articulate a level of joy and delight that he finds in God? Maybe threatened is too harsh a word, possilby some just cannot comprehend it? I’ll admit that I have felt that way after reading Desiring God.
I hung my daughter’s pictures on the fridge but never invited the neighbors over to view them and I cannot find the ashtray. But, my joy and delight in being her father is, well….not easily articulated.
Good comments from all of those who worte previously!!
LikeLike
Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said “condemn”.
Let me re-phrase my point: If we acknowledge that there is a potential for abuse of JP’s teaching, can we think of any significant teaching that does NOT carry some similar potential for error?
After all, the law was directly taught by God Himself, and it begat the abuse of legalism. If God’s own teaching can become a source of abuse, what hope have our poor words?
It seems to me that a teaching that cannot be potentially abused is a teaching so simple it becomes a tautology.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
LikeLike
The stars are out tonight! Come for drinks, buffet dinner and dancing. This is a DON’T miss party.
TWENTIETH ANNUAL BALL FOR LIFE
Benefiting Good Counsel Homes which serves women and their children in crisis pregnancy situations.
HONORING
Peggy Noonan and Ambassador Faith Whittlesey
Honorary Co-chairmen Larry Kudlow & Sean Hannity
Black tie
Friday, June 3, 2005
8:00 pm – 12 midnight
New York Athletic Club
180 Central Park South
New York City
Order tickets here NOW – limited space! http://www.ballforlife.org
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone is “rejecting” or “condemning” John Piper by raising questions this basic.
Question: “Delight yourself in the Lord:” Is it LAW or GOSPEL? “Be God-Centered:” Law or Gospel? “Don’t Waste Your Life:” Law or Gospel? “Be satisfied in God:” Law or Gospel. Seek Martyrdon for the sake of the nations: Law or Gospel?
I find it personally significant that when JP did a bio on Luther, it basically turned into an admonition to learn original languages (and he’s right.) But to not wrestle with the significant LUTHERAN critique of all these “Dangerous Duties of Delight” is just avoiding the obvious. I’ve heard JP in person many times, and I always want to ask this question: How does Christian Hedonism look under a law/gospel analysis?
If we can’t see the possibilities of a “spirial of despair” in the command to delight yourself in the Lord something is wrong.
BTW- I addressed some of Brown’s issues in Wretched Urgency II: My not so guilt pleasures
https://internetmonk.com/guilty.html
LikeLike
I want to make clear from the outset. I DO NOT think that Piper should be given a free pass. He is a man and makes mistakes. In the past, I think criticism of Piper (and “Christian Hedonism”) has only made him a better man and his ministry even more relevant. Unlike many, Piper listens to his critics.
I personally think that “Broken Messenger” is touching on one of my personal complaints, namely that Piper uses the language of “affection” (a true and important language) rather than the language of love. Both are true but one is more biblical and able to deflect criticism.
I recently heard Piper (with all the attendant and necessary warnings) promoting religious ascetism. I took mental note.
But, like the Internet Monk, Piper believes in using provocative language to get his message across. I believe that it works. He has not taken the safe road.
There is so much more that could be said (and I probably will put a backtrack post to my own blog soon.) But at the end of day, John Piper is having a HUGE POSITIVE impact on modern evangelicalism. His ministry has changed my life. NO…his ministry has SAVED my life. And I PERSONALLY KNOW at least a dozen people whose life has been nearly totally transformed by his message. He does have a message that is HARD. No doubt about it…he DOES call Americans to more intensity and personal devotion. He DOES describe this as the pathway to personal obedience. But he has done this in a way (and with a message) that is MOSTLY CARROT AND VERY LITTLE STICK. He has restored motive to outward obedience and has done us all a HUGE favor. In short, his message is perfectly targeted for comfortable American evangelicals. It is a message we need even though it will be hard sometimes.
I would end by saying this. ALL GREAT CHRISTIANS ARE FANATICS. No exceptions. I look at the fruits of such fanatics and it shuts my mouth. Right now I am reading the autobiography of John Paton, missionary to the New Hebrides. He was a fanatic. (Back in Jonathan Edwards day they called it Enthusiasm.) I just completed a section of the book in which John Paton spends several pages defending Mr. Gordon who was a laboring missionary 50 miles away on a neighboring island. What was Mr Johnston’s great crime that inspired this defense. HE WAS MARTYRED. The natives conspired to kill him and they did and his wife. Back in the safety of civilization this inspired the armchair critics to say that Mr Gordon had not been careful. In response, John Paton wrote this:”Some sever criticism, of course, were writtne and published by those angelic creatures who judge all things from their own safe and easy distance. Mr Gordon’s lack of prudence was sorely blamed, forsooth! One would like to see these people just for one week in such trying circumstances.”
In conclusion, my favorite poem which I post here for your enjoyment:
To Be Of Use by Marge Piercy
****************************
The people I love the best
jump into work head first
without dallying in the shallows
and swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element,
the black sleek heads of seals
bouncing like half submerged balls.
I love people who harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart,
who pull like water buffalo, with massive patience,
who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward,
who do what has to be done, again and again.
I want to be with people who submerge
in the task, who go into the fields to harvest
and work in a row and pass the bags along,
who stand in the line and haul in their places,
who are not parlor generals and field deserters
but move in a common rhythm
when the food must come in or the fire be put out.
The work of the world is common as mud.
Botched, it smears the hands, crumbles to dust.
But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.
Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.
*******************************
So by all means bring your critiques. But don’t forget to look at the fruit and ask yourself, “Is it a message we need?”
Grace
Seth
LikeLike
Perhaps it is just me, but is it possible that in our enthusiasm to support Piper we are stumbling over the obvious? One writer got close when he said it is about extremes.
“Delight yourself in the Lord “ is just one little Old Testament command, and one among so many others. Is it good of us to give it the highest place of honor? Is it not extreme to say this one command is more important than all the rest? Since in our minds it is the unquestioned supreme command we have favored it by giving it a special name and we never again question whether it is the right one to make the chief of all commands.
HereÂ’s what I take away from Steve Brown: do the right thing and ignore the emotional aspect. After you do the right thing, all the fluffy emotions will follow, but if you concentrate on the fluffy emotions ahead of doing the right thing, we fall into the trap of legalism because we are pursuing the wrong pursuit.
Like I said, it is probably just me, but is it worth asking question, “Is ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’ the chief command?”
LikeLike
First of all, I have to admit, I’m biased. Piper was my window into the door of theology in the first place, and his miistry still challenges me daily. I’ve never heard of this Brown guy (but he doesn’t like Okra so maybe I need to check him out). With that said:
I think the whole question is about extremes. Piper’s “wretched urgency” taken to its extreme produces a group of insane men locking themselves in their rooms to memorize the Bible and every apoligetics essay ever written, then unleashing themselves on an unsuspecting public. It’s more than legalism; it’s fanaticism. There is no love in that. However, who can argue that the American church NEEDS a sense of urgency? When our churches resemble the world so much that people stop seeing God’s power at work in our lives, we need a wake-up call. We need to see sin as grieving to God, and we need to mourn for a lost world. We just need love while we’re doing it.
As for the legalism of “delighting in God”, can it be forced? Can someone force themselves to delight in God? I don’t think so (the last time I tried I think I ended up shouting at God for an hour). But what we can do is adopt a mindset that sees things differently. We can (oh my, what a concept!) listen to the Bible and actually rejoice in our sufferings. We can be like the Psalmist, who complains to God about his present state, but then has the belief to say that God’s love endures forever. Delighing in God doesn’t mean you have a smile on your face every second, it just means you have a mindset that God is bigger than your circumstances.
As for Brown, I agree, sometimes I think God delights in us having fun, eating chicken, playing football, etc. However, if this is all we do, I think we’ve missed half of what delighting in God is all about. Delighting in God also means beginning to come to a point where the “religious things” that done in and for themselves can be legalism, become fun as well! I’ve begun to find amazing joy in serving in other countries on missions, in preaching the Word of God, and in prayer. Part of delighting in God has to involve delighting in God’s will, which means proclaiming His glory to the world.
Dios le bendiga,
Steve <><
LikeLike
If Steve Brown said it, I believe it, that settles it. (What a sexy voice, too!)
LikeLike
My thoughts:
I think the criticism is not so much of Piper (who, as the man says outright, is thoroughly orthodox) as it is of human flesh — sinful nature.
Flesh is like that. Flesh will take any kind of teaching, good or bad, and make it into either an excuse for depravity or an excuse for legalism.
No teaching — by itself — can defeat this tendency. We see that Martin Luther’s Sola Fide has been used an excuse by some people for “grace abuse”, where you can sin like the devil and not feel repentence. We see that the Catholic church’s confession — a living out of the command to “confess your sins to one another” — can be turned into yet another arena for works-based theology, where any sin is paid for with a certain number of prayers and discipline.
So I don’t think it’s fair to condemn Mr. Piper’s teaching, because it is susceptible to fleshly perversion. Flesh does that to ANY teaching, his or anyone else’s. It started doing it with the Law, making that which was good and an attempt to show people the right way an occasion for death and destruction. Why? Because sin and the flesh are utterly sinful, producing death through that which is good (Romans 7:13).
The solution is not more or better teaching, the solution is to learn to live by the Spirit, which allows us (bit by bit, little by little) to see past the Flesh’s tricks and self-deception. For some, Mr. Piper will help. Others, Mr. Piper will hinder. That’s why perfectly reasonable Christians can argue heatedly about his work and both be at least partly right.
For my part, I find Mr. Piper’s work useful because I come from an extreme ascetic background, and I NEED to hear that God is not merely a tyrant, but that there is a delight in knowing him. Another person, from a more gluttonous background, may need more of the ascetic side of Christianity. But I already am so far over to that side of the faith I NEED the Pipers and the Lewises to counterbalance my tendency.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
LikeLike
I’ll throw this out. It’s what struck me about the topic.
I have a bunch of kids. They have taught me more about God than they will ever know … at least until they have kids.
Today, my 14 year old son just came came up to me out of the blue, hugged me and asked if I would play catch with him.
We threw the ball for a little while until it started pouring rain. Then he went back to making the universe safe from aliens (x-box).
It was a great time that I got to enjoy my son. Nothing spiritual was discussed. We just played catch and it meant the world to me.
My 13 year old daughter was griping about being tired when I came into her room to chat. We talked about “nothing” for about 20 minutes or so. That also was a great time (at least for me) of just hanging out. “Getting ice cream or catching a movie” type of stuff.
I think that those times with “dad and child” mean a lot. I wonder if God likes to just hang out with us like that? Just hanging out.
I think that maybe He does. I know being with my kids today made my whole day.
PS. Okra is of the devil.
LikeLike
Just for the record: Please don’t assume that I agree with Brown, and especially with all that some of you are concluding about him. I believe there are some issues with Christian experience that Piper needs to articulate more effectively. I mean, this is a man who titled a book “The Dangerous DUTY of Delight,” yet took Chuck Colson to task publically for using the concept of duty in a talk on the Christian life.
I’ve been reading and listening to Dr. P since the first edition of DG and back when the tapes were sent to me by an older couple in the church. I admire him, but there is an issue of grace on one hand, and this call for constant personal instensity on the other.
The recent bio of Edwards by Marsden confirms what I have long suspected. Edwards personal spirituality bordered on unhealthy fanaticism at times. I think there are combinations of doctrine and personality types that are confusing in what we hear/see as the example of the Christian Life. I personally find that to be the case here, especially on some issues.
LikeLike
Monk,
I have a few thoughts on the Piper critic. First, its probably not fair that Piper is criticised not on Biblical grounds but on experiential grounds. However, I know that a person can have it all good theologically and still ruin and mis-lead people, so I guess its fair to give ear to this assessment.
Second, Piper is not the originator of using words such as “delighting in”, “rejoicing in”, “enjoying”, “desiring”, etc. It can be found very much in the works of Jonathan Edwards (Piper’s hero) and several of the Puritians. I do not think by using these terms Piper is trying to redifine what a relationship with God is, rather they seem to be a means to get language around the concept of what a relationship with God entails. It is not just mental acent and agrement to some set of beliefs, rather it is an inner change of heart and mind set. As Paul would term it, it is being made a “new creation”. Piper utilizes this language to hone in on the fact that when we are new creatures (or living by the Spirit, etc), our whole heart’s desire is changed and renewed (though this is not perfectly, as we struggle to ever be changed and conformed to Christ).
Third, the command to “delight yourself in the Lord” frees us from any idea of legalism rather than binds us to it. Indeed, it has been Piper who has really opened my heart to be set free from the idea that I must make myself do good works to show myself to be being sanctified. Rather it is from and out of a joy in God that I am set free to live a life holy unto the Lord. It is when I set God in his proper place, and finding all my satsifaction in him that I no longer need, nor crave the less satisfying, temprary, and fading “thrills” of sin.
Indeed we must be about fighting for joy in God. Otherwise we set ourselves up to find our joy in other things: be it sin or God’s gifts or creation itself (Rom. 1:25). But this fighting for our joy in God is not to the exclusion of all things that do not directly appear “religious” (by this I mean, Bible reading, prayer, church, etc..) Rather, we can find our joy in God in and through his creation (indeed God, himself does; Ps. 104:31). This means that in going to a movie we can delight in God’s ability to do a million times more than a Jedi night using th force (Piper picks up this same type of illustration in a message he delivered for one of the “OneDay” conferences in connection to the Lord of the Rings movie, that he had recently seen). Or we can delight in God and glorify him in drinking oragne juice (which starts off with a discussion on man’s depravity, interestingly enough). *Links for these two illustrations are provided at the end*
I hope these thoughs spur you on in you faith, and help you do wreste further with what it means to “delight yourself in the Lord” (Ps. 37:4) and to see that Piper would much rather set you free from any hint of legalism, than to imprison you to it in any way.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/sin/orange_juice.html
http://www.desiringgodstore.org/store/index.cgi?cmd=view_item&parent=104&id=440
LikeLike
I have to agree with Graham. It seems that Brown’s real issue is not really anything Piper wrote, but his own problem in working out the concept of Christian hedonism in his own life. Maybe he didn’t really “get it?” Or maybe he is just one of those people who tends to turn anything and everything into legalism. At least he recognizes that trait in himself, and can laugh at himself for it. I appreciate Brown’s honesty, but I’m not ready to judge Piper’s theology by somebody’s mistaken response to it.
LikeLike
Okra is my favorite food. Good Article.
LikeLike
I remember a comment made by Piper at a conference several years ago. I wish I could exactly replicate it so as to be fair, but the gist of it was that he said anyone who did not have a “vibrant emotional life” with God was probably going to hell. I will grant that he said that at a Reformed conference (which probably could have used such a shake-up) but I can easily identify with those who see this as an incipient “legalism of the heart”. Just one more piece of evidence that there are few places in American Evangelicalism for an ISTJ to set his foot. ;-}
LikeLike
Monk,
Couple thoughts on the criticism. First, I think Piper would in fact talk about how deligting in ice cream and the movie are not antithetical to delighting in God. In fact, I think Piper says that a whole lot b/c of the misunderstanding Brown is articulating. I can see, however, how one could get that impression from Piper. He’s a very serious man, but he’s also a very joyful man. He might do well to peruse “Wretched urgency” once or twice, but my feeling is that we need more guys like Piper. I can see in my own life how the greatest threats to worshipping God are His gifts. I’m recently engaged and my fiance is both my greatest blessing and the greatest threat to my walk with Jesus. Concerted time in prayer and in the word gets lost in her deep hazel eyes and her flowing dark brown hair and… I’m getting mushy; I should stop 🙂 And in the end, if I’m not spending time alone with Jesus, I am in no position to lead and love her. All that to say that a consistent reminder to us that movies, ice cream, and fiances are all streams of joy leading us to the ocean of God is always welcome in my life. They are beams of sun light, but God is the sun (to paraphrase J. Edwards). That’s why I read Piper. He snaps me out of the daze and triviality of much of what passes for my life. Then he helps me find Jesus in ice cream and movies and fiances and baseball and orange juice and music (except for pop music. That’s just a bunch of crap.) (Note: the previous comment about the crappiness of pop music is solely the opinion of J Rig and in now way reflects the position of Michael Spencer, Internet Monk, Boars Head Tavern or any of their affiliates.)
The other thing i wanted to comment on is your question about Piper “underselling” depravity? I found that to be an interesting take on the issue b/c Piper is such a hard core, dyed in the wool Calvinist (I think he’s about an 18 pointer now). The more common criticism I hear is that he is too focused on depravity. In all my readings and listenings, Piper consistently emphasizes that joy in God is a gift from God. It’s not something we work up. In the words of Donald Miller, it’s something that happens to us. (Miller actually said that in regards to faith, but the point holds true in this case too). I think Piper would say that our joy in God is the heart’s natural and inevitable response to the God-initiated, grace-driven, awe-inspiring, breath-taking revelation of Jesus Christ (I didn’t want to, but I couldn’t resist. I had to throw in multiple hyphenated words. I mean, c’mon. I’m speaking for Piper arent I? 🙂 The best we do is to place ourselves in the way of God’s grace. (See Don Whitney for great stuff on the Spiritual disciplines that put us in the way of GOd’s grace).
Finally, I will say that one thing that has helped me immensely in dealing with the tensions between enjoying life, Calvinism and Christian Hedonism as well as loving people (and perhaps the more difficult task of liking people) is something I recently heard Mark Driscoll say. It was something that was always playing around the edges of my mind and had already begun to show itself in practice. Driscoll, in talking about Calvinism, said that he liked the 5 points, but he doesn’t think it’s the best way to organize b/c it starts with total depravity and not creation in the Imago Dei. I think that’s a massive theological statement that we of Reformed ilk would do well to deeply ponder. Think about it. Because people, including ourselves, are seen FIRST as sinners worthy of hell and God hating rebels, as opposed to image bearers made by God for God, Calvinists become some of the meanest, most pessimistic people on the planet, and also some of the most guilt-ridden. Perhaps I should say that I, as a Calvinist (i’ve only got 14 points :), have been at times one of the meanest, pessimistic, angry people, and also the most guilt ridden. That way I don’t speak for anyone else. I think a healthy corrective to Calvinistic thinking would be the restoration of the imago Dei at the beginning of our confession. Let’s talk about sin and depravity and evil and the hopelessness of man, but let’s first talk about the pinnacle of God’s creation in the garden (that would be man and woman) and how that image was defamed, corrupted and tarnished, but not destroyed when our first parents ate the fruit (or okra. Sorry, that was from another post.) We still see vestiges of the imago Dei all around us (like in ice cream and movies and fiances).
That’s my rambling two cents. I’d love to hear your comments, Monk, especially on the last part. I think it actually ties in quite nicely with what you’ve said recently about Calvinism and Calvinists. In fact, I think it might explain a lot of the history of “angry Calvinism.” (Incidentally that’s what I love about Driscoll and the Acts 29 bunch. There’s a bunch of guys who love Reformed theology, German beer, and sex with their wives. If that’s Christianity, count me in.)
Peace
LikeLike
graham,
Maybe when you cut out the expletives, you’ll have enough room for real, deep joy.
LikeLike
It’s a fair comment. I haven’t personally read any Piper since… probably a couple of years. But I’ve never felt this way.
I wonder how much it is unfair of this guy (never heard of him) to criticise Piper for how he responded to Piper’s teaching.
I seem to remember a Fresh Words about glorifying God in how we drink OJ?
However, I find that Piper *over*-states depravity and, with all his talk of joy, is a little too serious. Sometimes he reminds me of a preacher I heard who went on and on about joy, deep joy, not “happiness” but “real” joy. One got the impression that this joy was so damn deep that you could never actually find it!
LikeLike
I can appreciate Brown’s comments here for many reasons. Piper’s theology often puts an emphasis on “experience” rather than just on love itself. Certainly, within love there is “experience” at times, but not at all times.
We have seasons in life where we are tested and tempted and certainly we do not “feel” like we are enjoying God, though we may be faithful and exhibiting love through obedience and perseverance. There is nothing wrong with desiring love, Paul told us to “pursue love” (1 Cor.14:1. But, as Brown points out, this can lead our own sinful interjections within the pursuit when we begin to measure and evaluate every step of the way.
My concern with Brown’s comments is that they seem to lack an emphasis on love, which is supposed to be the center of our faith. His criticism would have been complete had he been able to show the supremacy of love while underscoring the dangers of an unhealthy worry over it – a worry which ironically is self-defeating anyway…
LikeLike
This Brown chap sounds like a man after my own heart!
LikeLike