A couple of me pals are really into 'Christian Hedonism', the chief proponent of which is John Piper.  Some of his key essays on the movement (if one could call it that) are below:
  • Outlines of Christian Hedonism
  • Is God for Himself or for Us?
  • God's Passion for His Glory (by Jonathan Edwards)
    • The following is my VERY tentative response - do read this only AFTER you at least take a glance at what CH is all about.
    (This is an extract from something I wrote in an e-mail exchange I'm having with probably the top Asian promoter of CH, my friend Mr. DC, *grin*)

    ...God's glory flows from His love. The heart of God is love, and it is BECAUSE He loves that He is so glorious. He love begets His glory, He shows His glory because He loves us, His glory is the glory Someone who Loves. He is a Loving Person who longs to show His glory to His creatures that they may be satisfied in Him, beholding His glory (again, the glory which can belong to only Him who is Love).

    Semantically picky, yes, but conceptually significant. (I'll explain a little below, and hope to elaborate more later).

    ...Christian Hedonism reminds us that it is not only right but beneficial for us to take pleasure in God and find our satisfaction in Him (I think our brother DC has emphasized this more than anyone, and for that we owe him our thanks). Against this goal who can argue? Surely loving Him with all our heart and soul brings us pleasures evermore; without a doubt our God who so loves His creatures has built-in this 'feel good' or 'enjoyment' aspect to worship as part of His great bestowments upon us.

    As a homilectical tool to focus our hearts on always leaning on His bosom (in return for which we obtain 'eternal pleasures at His right hand'), then, I gladly embrace the Christian Hedonists' directives.

    However, I believe there are some issues Piper still needs to think through, especially in light of his firm conviction (surely) that Christian Hedonism is a perfect piece in the theological puzzle known as Reformed Theology:

    "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him". This makes good sense if we're talking about a God who has given His creatures the freedom to DECIDE to be 'satisfied' in Him (or at least work towards this end - with His help of course, *smile*). But it becomes hopelessly complicated if we assume that God has determined everything.

    Because there are MANY people who HATE God - obviously, this means that God is less glorified in them than He could be. Problems arise when we recall (the Calvinist doctrine) that God has determined that they hate Him, so another conclusion pops up: God, from the beginning of time, does NOT want Himself to be 'most glorified' in them.

    This is surely a weird way for God to handle His 'supreme goal', as per what DC writes: "The supreme goal of God is to be glorified in the enjoyment of His creatures in ALL that He is. That is love! The supreme goal of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever."

    (Why would God eternally decree that many people NOT achieve their supreme goal which, presumably, He has set for them...??)

    Add to this Piper's strange remark (see below) that "God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil." (emphasis mine) and we're in dire intellectual straits indeed.

    On one hand, God is 'most glorified' when people are satisfied in Him.  Yet on the other God is 'more glorious' when there is evil. This suggests to me that the God which Piper speaks of REQUIRES evil without which His glory cannot be manifest.  But evil is the absolute antithesis of being 'satisfied in God', is it not?
    I doubt I'm the only one who suspects a contradiction here...(or could we assume that maybe God's 'secret' will is NOT to be glorified?)

    With everyone, I think we can be grateful for Piper and DH for promoting the striving for pleasure in God.  Still, perhaps we need to think through exactly how such hedonism 'fits' in a world where everything's been fixed by God.  Christian Hedonism ironically works best when it is divorced from the kind of God which the main proponents of the movement speak of.  Only a God of Love who does not unconditionally ordain evil can be the source of deep and endless pleasure to our souls.

    Rgds,
    AL
    p.s.: Piper's article (in which some overstated, IMO, exegetical claims were made) is extracted below:

    "So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be
    proportionably imperfect.

    So the answer to the question in the title of this message, "Is God less glorious because he ordained that evil be?" is no, just the opposite. God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil."

    I have some reservations about Boyd's "God At War" thesis (which Piper critiques in his essay), but Piper's 'solution' to the issue of theodicy is, I feel, much worse than the problem itself.


    Back to Main Page