I HIGHLY RECOMMEND John Piper's book, The Pleasures of God: God's Delight in Being God. The book is based on his series of sermons he preached in the 1980s. Here's a link to the original sermons. The book is just a greater development of the concepts in the series.
The Pleasures of God sermon series:
https://www.desiringgod.org/series/the-pleasures-of-god
John Piper is famous, and in some circles or infamous, for his philosophy of life called "Christian Hedonism." I've considered myself a Christian Hedonist since the mid-1990s. With some qualifications, I still do. Here's a link to my blogpost where I explain areas of Christian Hedonism where I think it needs some minor tweaks and corrections.
Here's the webpage on John Piper's website that introduces Christian Hedonism:
https://www.desiringgod.org/topics/christian-hedonism#
The three main books that serve as foundations for Christian Hedonism are:
Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper
The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God's Delight in Being God by John Piper
Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God by John Piper
[The revised edition is very different from the original version. Piper got some flak for his phraseology and teaching in the original version. So he made some changes that he thought corrected some of the error of misleading, or unbalanced, or imprecise statements in the original.]
See also the book:
Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God by Sam Storms
John Piper's website is Desiring God
Sam Storm's website is Enjoying God
Paul Maxwell has recently apostatized from Christianity. Hopefully, he'll return to Christianity and the Lord Jesus Christ. During his time as a Christian he recorded a video where he critiques John Piper's Christian Hedonism. I'll link to the video below and then post the comments I posted on the video. Maxwell does present some legitimate concerns of Christian Hedonism. But they are not fatal to the movement and Christian philosophy of life. With the right minor tweaks, Christian Hedonism is not only Biblical, but livable.
Paul Maxwell's 5 Reasons Why I'm Not a Christian Hedonist
The following are my comments in the video with some formatting and added links that were not possible on YouTube:
I found this video after Paul Maxwell's deconversion. In this video, Paul Maxwell [hereafter, PaulM] doesn't refute Christian Hedonism/CH, all he does is disprove false understandings and incorrect applications of it. In other words, a strawman. I get the feeling PaulM hasn't actually read Piper's book 1. "Desiring God"; 2. "When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy", or 3. Future Grace, 4. listened to Piper's responses to his critics.
PaulM says at 21:26 //"Seneca can appreciate even the value of pleasure for Stoicism while putting pleasure in its proper place under conformity to God. For Seneca conformity to God, submission to fate and submission to the divine will is far more important than putting pleasure at the top of this experiential hierarchy."//
But Piper specifically states that in CH, God is not a means to pleasure. That would make pleasure God, rather than God Himself. Which is idolatry. Instead, CH makes GOD one's pleasure, and therefore making God one's God [i.e. at the top]. That's why Piper repeatedly quotes Ps. 37:4 which is a COMMAND [i.e. read DUTY] to "DELIGHT yourself in the LORD". Delight, meaning, take PLEASURE in the LORD. That's why there's no contradiction between duty and delight, because God commands us to take pleasure in Him. Which is none other than, Christian Hedonism.
PaulM says at 18:44 //"even if it's pleasure that we can conceive to have this ultimate point of reference or root or termination in God Himself"//
PaulM seems to not know [or forget] that it's all done out of love for God and love from God. Piper doesn't deny doing our duty. Nor does Piper advocate only performing our duties when we feel pleasure from it. Instead, when we don't presently feel pleasure in performing our duty, Piper appeals [among other things] to our reason [think, aligning one's mind and will to God, as in Stoicism] to remind us of the future pleasures we will have from obedience in the afterlife which includes God's approbation and rewards [one of the main points of Piper's book "Future Grace"] . The present and future pleasures [both in life and in the afterlife] we [will/do] enjoy in loving God and being loved and rewarded by God. Again, there's no contradiction between duty and pleasure, as Piper argued. There is a place for delayed gratification in Piper's CH.
PaulM says at 20:17 Seneca says, //"...true happiness therefore resides in virtue..."//
Contrary to "Euthyphro's Dilemma", God IS the Good. God is the standard of Goodness and the source of Virtue. In God is found the ancient philosophers' search for the Good, the True and the Beautiful. They meet at the top in God.
PaulM quotes Seneca at 20:53 "a man whose able to accomplish a Stoic posture will be accompanied by continuous cheerfulness and a profound happiness that comes from deep inside him. Since he is one who takes pleasure in his own resources and wishes for no joys greater than those of his own heart..."
In Christianity, the joy and happiness of the Christian is from God. It's not self-generated [Rom. 15:13]. The Christian does not take "...pleasure in HIS OWN RESOURCES", but in God's resources and grace [Phil. 4:19; Ps. 35:27; Ps. 84:11-12, passim].
PaulM says at 22:33 //"than a system that prioritizes pleasure above all things"//.
This again, makes me thing that PaulM just hasn't read Piper's books. That he's getting CH from second hand sources, rather than directly from Piper's books and sermons. Piper specifically denies pleasure as "above all things". He's an Edwardsian [for truth's sake!!!] who sees God and His glory as the uppermost reason and purpose of all reality.
[[By "Edwardsian" I meant a follower of the teachings of the famous American Calvinist theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards]]
PaulM says at 22:51 that CHists think "duty sucks". Again, another strawman. It's duty for duty's sake that sucks, is wrong, and is immoral. While duty for God's sake and our pleasure doesn't. There's a world of difference between the two. Remember, Piper modified the answer to the question in the Westminster Smaller Catechism's question what is the chief end of man? Piper changed it to "to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever".
At 23:34 is the first time in the video where I saw a critique that has some merit. My favorite apologist, the recently late Steve Hays of Triablogue, has made a similar critique. Where Piper goes wrong here is in implying we should and can only glorify and enjoy God directly. The fuller truth, which Piper doesn't see, is we are finite creatures, and we are to glorify God not only directly, but indirectly by enjoying creaturely blessings both in the next life as well as [deo volente] in this life. Piper's premillennialism is influencing his CHism. If he read some postmillennialist writers, he'd realize that God is also glorified in our enjoying [to some degree and as God permits] the pleasures of this life, of food & drink, of raising godly families, of enjoying the fruits of our labors, of reconstruction of society along postmil lines etc. Christianity doesn't have a Platonic aversion and hatred for the body or the material world. The body is not, as in Platonism, the prison of the soul. God created the soul and the body and God sees both as being good. We Chrisians believe in the RESURRECTION of the body. The eternal state of the redeemed in the Kingdom of God will not disembodied. It's ONLY in the temporary intermediate state in heaven where the saints exist in only a spiritual condition. Only with resurrected glorified bodies will believers be complete.
At this point, I've watched a little over half of the video. If I have more comments for the 2nd half, I'll post them in later comments.
Second Comment
At 24:31 PaulM speaks almost like a naturalist/materialist/atheist. Yes, there are such psychological limits that he describes. But, if Christianity is true, then God's grace can overcome those limits. Does God always grant such overcoming supra-supernatural grace? No, sometimes it's infra-supernatural grace. If the latter, it's so that we might learn to be dependent on God's continual grace. So, for example, God sometimes grants supra-supernatural grace such that a homosexual completely loses homosexual attractions. Other times, God doesn't so that we will learn to depend on Him continually [if Calvinism is true, then even THAT response on our part is a result of sanctifying grace working in the heart].
At 25:10. PaulM is right that there are other methods. Here Piper could be more clear and comprehensive. PaulM says CH proscribes or forbids other methods. Does it really? I'm not sure it does. I'm not sure that Piper would say that other methods are illicit, only that the CH method ought always be incorporated and is the highest method among all other methods one may/can use. For example, it can be useful and licit to help one keep in physical shape by recognizing that by exercising and eating correctly one will look better, feel better, be more attractive, have more energy [etc.]? I think the answer is clearly "yes". But if those motivations are not below the greater CH motivation, then they can become forms of self-centered idolatry and self-love/worship. Creature worship, instead of Creator worship [Rom. 1:25].
At 27:07 PaulM gives his 4th reason why he's not a CH. He says it might be the greatest reason. Because it minimizes pleasure, rather than maximizing it. Here again is where I think Piper get's it a bit wrong or off. Again, I would recommend Steve Hays' Triablogue comments on this issue. See for example, Hays' article "God is the Gospel" posted February 17, 2009 . Hays gives similar correctives that PaulM makes here and the rest of the video.
At 28:25 PaulM makes another good point. Piper's railing against the Prosperity Gospel is excessive. I myself, as a Calvinistic continuationist think there's both error and some truth to the Properity Gospel. See Vincent Cheung's articles "Faith Override"; "All Thing Are Yours"; "The Extreme Faith Teacher" . Along with other of Cheung's writings on faith, healing, prosperity. While I agree with some of what Cheung teaches, there are some problems. I think Cheung is too harsh on cessationists. I also disagree with his Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies and Clarkian Scripturalism [see Aquascum's articles refuting Cheung and Clark's Scripturalism. I think James N. Anderson might be "Aquascum"].
At 29:40, PaulM makes another good point. Piper's premillennialism is again peaking through. I used to be a premiller and it hampered me in the same way it does Piper. If only Piper read postmillennialist literature, he would see that God can be glorified in every area of life including business, entertainment, government, art, politics, prosperity etc. See Greg Bahnsen's audio and books. Even if you reject his theonomy, there's certainly much truth to what he says regarding reconstruction of society for the glory of God. See Cheung's article "He Blesses Us to Bless Us". I'll comment on the rest of the video after I quote Cheung's article.
Cheung's article He Blesses Us to Bless Us
//~ from email ~ Some preachers say that God blesses a person mainly or even solely because this person should bless other people, and because those will in turn bless others, and so on. They often assert this with no biblical evidence, but sometimes they might refer to a verse like Genesis 12:2: “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.” This is often applied not only to blessings in general, but also to salvation, so that these preachers would say that God saves you only because he wants you to help save others. The purpose of this teaching is to encourage selflessness, evangelism, and a lifestyle of blessing others. Sometimes the purpose is to defend the moral propriety of desiring blessings from God, because one receives from God only so that he can bring blessings to other people. The teaching is false, and in fact silly and stupid. If God blesses you only to bless others, and if he blesses these other people only because he wants to bless others still, then it means that God wishes to bless no one at all. If God saves you only because he wants you to help save others by preaching the gospel, and if he wants to save those who would believe your preaching only because he wants them to help save others still, then it means that God wishes to save no one at all. The whole chain of people are only means to an end, but the blessings never attain their end, or the one that they are meant to reach, not even once. The false doctrine says that God saved me so that I could preach to others, so that they could be saved. And he saves these other people through me so that they could preach to others, so that these others could be saved. But this means that he really wants to save no one, since everyone’s salvation is only the means to another’s salvation, who is also the means to still another’s salvation, and so on forever. Such means have no ends, so that God has no “end” in mind, meaning that he wants to save no one. The whole process makes no sense, because if God wants to save anyone, he can save him directly by the gospel, without going through another person, and without saving anyone that he really does not want to save. It is self-defeating to adopt such a ridiculous doctrine in order to encourage selflessness and evangelism, or to justify our desire to receive blessings from God. The truth is that God saved me to save me, and then he uses my preaching to save others whom he also wants to save, and so on. All those whom God blesses and saves could be both means and ends, or rather, both ends and means. A Christian should desire blessings from God, so that he himself can benefit from them and also so that he can help others.//
At 34:25 PaulM gives his 5th reason why He's not a CHist. Because it encourages emotional rules that shouldn't be universalized. Some of what he says is true. Yet, here I think PaulM is now the one who's being excessive in the truth he's attempting to express. Since there is a place in Christian spirituality for suppressing negative thoughts and emotions. The apostle Paul was able to say in 2 Cor. 6:10 that he could be "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing". Piper has often cited this passage as non-contradictory even though apparently paradoxical. Such a mental state doesn't deny the reality, permissibility, understandability of grief and sorrow. But it affirms that in times of legitimate sorrow, there ought to be, and we ought to foster, an inner peace and joy in the Lord. In the same letter, Paul says in 2nd Cor. 10:3-5, "3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 *We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ*,..."
Taking every thought captive is a Christian discipline and duty not just for the Glory of God, but for our own spiritual and mental health. It's not something foreign to the Bible which Piper invented. What about those who suffer mentally? They are the ones who all the more need to depend on the special grace of God as well as the ordinary grace of God through their exercise and strengthening of their wills to discipline their thought life. Sometimes mental illness is biological, chemical, organic, genetic [&c.]. God can sometimes supernaturally heal those issues. Other times we might need to also use ordinary providence which includes medication and other earthly/secular means. But our main and primary resource ought to be God. I'm not trying to judge PaulM. But his deconversion might partially be due to his over-reliance on his [obviously] superior intellect. I wish I were as smart as him. Maybe he's never been so desperate that he's had to fully depend on God. Being that smart, it's easy to stop reading the Bible because you already know the propositional truth of the Scriptures. He's got a seminary education. But part of the power of the Bible is its [general] narrative thrust and [particular] narrative details which the Holy Spirit uses to transform us in ways that mere propositional truths, facts and statements cannot.
Re: 35:41, Are we spiritual failures if we're not always brimming with faith and joy? Even the Lord Jesus wept at Lazarus' tomb, dreaded the cross, and was a "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" [Isa. 53:3]. Faith is not always expressed in rejoicing confidence. It's expressed in different ways, including exercising our wills in determined grit to persevere in doing what's right contrary to feelings. At the same time, we ought to strive to become that ideal Christian who, like our Lord, "for the JOY that was set before him ENDURED the cross, despising the shame" [Heb. 12:2]. Christians aren't perfect, but they are being perfected from "glory to glory" [2 Cor. 3:18], being "renewed day by day" [2 Cor. 4:16], "from faith to faith" [Rom. 1:17]. The Christian's upward trajectory isn't always obvious. Sometimes going upwards spiritually looks, from the earthly perspective of both the Christian himself and others, as spiraling downwards. Because sanctification is primarily internal, and secondarily external. C.S. Lewis said something like God sees Christians as crawling infants trying to walk and falling down. He's pleased when we succeed, but understanding when we fail. Lewis said something like "God is easy to please, but impossible to satisfy." We will only become perfect when we're glorified after death. So, Christians shouldn't get too down on themselves that they aren't all that they should be in faith, hope, love, joy and obedience. At the same time, we shouldn't lower the Biblical standard to meet our poor experience of the Christian life.
37:38 //"...and speaking less than truthful things about evil in the world in order to keep in step with your emotional obligations to God"//
But again, joy in the Lord isn't always at the surface level of our feelings or consciousness. Sometimes it's like a propane pilot light that's always burning. It's also manifested in a rational understanding and exercise of the will to find one's ultimate hope in the Lord, and trust in His good & wise overall providence despite present circumstances. Admittedly, this is easier to do if one is a Calvinist. [Though, subscribing to Calvinism can present its own unique difficulties as I can attest. But that's another topic.]
We are to "16 REJOICE ALWAYS 17 pray without ceasing, 18 IN EVERYTHING GIVE THANKS; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" [1 Thess. 5:16-18]. Notice, it's give thanks *IN* all things/circumstances, NOT FOR all things. Nothing can take away from Paul's command "REJOICE in the Lord ALWAYS ; again I will say, Rejoice" [Phil. 4:4]. Now, if Christianity is false, then this is impossible and impracticable. But if Christianity is true and a supernatural religion with a supernatural enabling grace, then living this way is possible [even if only incrementally].
38:12 But that's precisely what 1 Cor. 10:31 states, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Again, if PaulM had been faithful in his Scripture reading this verse should have immediately popped up in his mind to cause him to modify/adjust his position.
The rest of the video has partially correct comments which I've already addressed above and given recommendations. That is, to read [my favorite all around apologist] Steve Hays' article, Vincent Cheung's articles, and postmillennial resources like Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry.
It turns out that Steve Hays has commented on Paul Maxwell. He did in his article "Christian Manhood" [posted Sunday, December 23, 2018]
The above video reminded me of a passage in C.S. Lewis' famous sermon, The Weight of Glory
When I began to look into this matter I was stocked to find such different Christians as Milton, Johnson and Thomas Aquinas taking heavenly glory quite frankly in the sense of fame or good report. But not fame conferred by our fellow creatures—fame with God, approval or (I might say) “appreciation’ by God. And then, when I had thought it over, I saw that this view was scriptural; nothing can eliminate from the parable the divine accolade, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” With that, a good deal of what I had been thinking all my life fell down like a house of cards. I suddenly remembered that no one can enter heaven except as a child; and nothing is so obvious in a child—not in a conceited child, but in a good child—as its great and undisguised pleasure in being praised. Not only in a child, either, but even in a dog or a horse. Apparently what I had mistaken for humility had, all these years. prevented me from understanding what is in fact the humblest, the most childlike, the most creaturely of pleasures—nay, the specific pleasure of the inferior: the pleasure a beast before men, a child before its father, a pupil before his teacher, a creature before its Creator. I am not forgetting how horribly this most innocent desire is parodied in our human ambitions, or how very quickly, in my own experience, the lawful pleasure of praise from those whom it was my duty to please turns into the deadly poison of self-admiration. But I thought I could detect a moment—a very, very short moment—before this happened, during which the satisfaction of having pleased those whom I rightly loved and rightly feared was pure. And that is enough to raise our thoughts to what may happen when the redeemed soul, beyond all hope and nearly beyond belief, learns at last that she has pleased Him whom she was created to please. There will be no room for vanity then. She will be free from the miserable illusion that it is her doing. With no taint of what we should now call self-approval she will most innocently rejoice in the thing that God has made her to be, and the moment which heals her old inferiority complex for ever will also drown her pride deeper than Prospero’s book. Perfect humility dispenses with modesty. If God is satisfied with the work, the work may be satisfied with itself; “it is not for her to bandy compliments with her Sovereign.” I can imagine someone saying that he dislikes my idea of heaven as a place where we are patted on the back. But proud misunderstanding is behind that dislike. In the end that Face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised. I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God. By God Himself, it is not! How God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important. Indeed, how we think of Him is of no importance except in so far as it is related to how He thinks of us. It is written that we shall “stand before” Him, shall appear, shall be inspected. The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God...to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness...to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son—it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is.
See also John Piper's speculative article:
