Weren’t C.S.Lewis and the Apostle Paul both Christian Hedonists?

Question 33.

Weren’t C.S.Lewis and the Apostle Paul both Christian Hedonists?

Answer 33.

It is somewhat insincere, and even a bit academically reckless to apply a label to a dead celebrity and thereby assume him into a modern special-interest community which did not exist during his lifetime. Imposing your label onto someone who is no longer able to speak for themselves is an inappropriate means of establishing a constituency.

“Christian Hedonism” as a philosophy did not appear until the publishing of a book a little over twenty years ago entitled, Desiring God–Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. At the core of the philosophy is the premise that God wants men to pursue pleasure in Him as their highest calling–pursuing that pleasure with all their might–and that the true goal of worship is the attainment of pleasure (“I came to see that it is unbiblical and arrogant to try to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in him.” – Piper, Desiring God, page 16, 1996 edition).

So, was C.S. Lewis a Christian Hedonist who believed that pursuing pleasure in God was our highest calling and most important duty? C.S. Lewis did in fact use the word “hedonism” once when discussing the concept of pleasure in a personal correspondence (these correspondences have been published as a book called Letters to Malcolm). However, Lewis’ definition of hedonism was very different from the way Christian Hedonism uses the word.

In Letter Seventeen we read that Lewis found that it was sufficient in this life to simply happen upon a lawfully pleasurable experience and then to ascribe to God the honor for having generated that glimpse of glory for us. Lewis did not go looking for pleasurable experiences (as we will see later the idea of actually pursuing pleasure was repulsive to him) but he desired to trace each pleasure back to its source, God, so that he could imagine the experience to be a sort of “sensing” of the glory that is God. “I have tried … to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration” (Lewis, Letter 17, Letters to Malcolm). This ascribing to God glory and thanks for every pleasurable experience was what Lewis postulated might be a form of hedonism.

Lewis also found that all pleasure was “in God”. There were not sacred spiritual pleasures which were somehow different from worldly and sensual (sensory-based) pleasures. All pleasures of this Earth are “in God” and to attempt to differentiate between sensuous (corporeal) and aesthetic (spiritual) pleasures was pointless.

I was learning the far more secret doctrine that pleasures are shafts of the glory [corporeal displays of the glory of God] as it strikes our sensibility. As it impinges on our will or our understanding, we give it different names–goodness or truth or the like. But its flash upon our senses and mood is pleasure. …

You notice that I am drawing no distinction between sensuous and aesthetic pleasures. But why should I? The line is almost impossible to draw and what use would it be if one succeeded in drawing it? (Lewis, Letter 17, Letters to Malcolm)

All pleasures of this life, according to Lewis, are “in God”. This is the same understanding we take away from God’s Word. Every good thing is a gift from God, is not to be rejected, and is to be received with gratitude; every pleasure is from God and in God.

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:4,5)

C.S. Lewis did not stop there. He warned against pursuing pleasures as if they were goals. He feared Christians would become greedy and petition God for repetitive pleasures.

“Greed. Instead of saying, ‘This also is Thou,’ one may say the fatal word Encore.” (Lewis, Letter 17, Letters to Malcolm)

He was not opposed to happening upon a pleasurable experience and then ascribing to God adoration for that event, but he was against saying, “Encore, God give me that pleasure again and again.” In simple words, he did not believe it was right to pursue pleasure in God.

Deadly concerned that Christians would see the pleasure found in a simple event (like eating a piece of buttered bread) and ascribe to it a glimpse of God’s glory and then at the same time judge himself as a superior Christian because he has found God in a simple event while others do not even find the same experience overly pleasant, Lewis urgently warned against spiritual elitism which he called “conceit”. In his mind, focusing on lawful pleasures, no matter how well intentioned the act, makes one predisposed to pride when they begin to compare their experiences to others.

“There is also conceit: the dangerous reflection that not everyone can find God in a plain slice of bread and butter, or that others would condemn as simply ‘grey’ the sky in which I am delightedly observing such delicacies of pearl and dove and silver.” (Lewis, Letter 17, Letters to Malcolm)

Lewis was also very frightened that someone might use his concept (that all lawful pleasures can sensually show a bit of God’s glory no matter how tiny these pleasant experiences may be) and develop a philosophy around the pursuit of pleasures. He told Malcolm that there was in fact more to be pursued in life, more to be “wanted,” than merely seeking out these infinitesimally small pleasures. For this reason Lewis cautioned against turning the wanting of pleasurable experiences into a philosophy.

“One wants a great many things besides this ‘adoration in infinitesimals’ which I am preaching. And if I were preaching it in public…I should have to pack it in ice, enclose it in barbed-wire reservations, and stick up warning notices in every direction. Don’t imagine I am forgetting that the simplest act of mere obedience is worship of a far more important sort than what I’ve been describing (to obey is better than sacrifice).” (Lewis, Letter 17, Letters to Malcolm)

Since C.S. Lewis, in his own writings, was against pursuing pleasures (he called this greed) and was worried that focusing on pleasure would lead to pride (he called that conceit), and since he felt that experiencing pleasures in God was infinitesimally trivial in comparison to even the “simplest act of obedience” it is surely a leap of the worst kind of logic to imagine that Lewis would have adopted for himself the label of “Christian Hedonist.”

Finally, it is clear that Lewis did not see any difference between lawful pleasures “in God” and lawful pleasures “in nature.” This being true, with Christian Hedonism calling men to pursue pleasure in God as their greatest duty, this pursuit of pleasure could have been of any or all lawful pleasures–they are all the same. It is my opinion (and merely my own opinion) that Lewis would have found chasing pleasures as the chief end of life to be a distraction to the real business of worship (which is obedience), and for that reason he would have been morally opposed to “Christian Hedonism.”

Was the Apostle Paul a Christian Hedonist? Once again we wrestle with the tangible fact that he never called himself by such a label and that the very philosophy itself was not even in existence in his lifetime. Therefore, a more adequate question would be, “Did Paul in his writings ever endorse the statement ‘pursue pleasure’ as if it were a command?” And, “Did Paul ever state that Christians should pursue their own happiness with all their might?” Finally, “Did Paul leave any evidence that he believed that the goal of worship was to seek our own pleasure?”

Such quotes as would lend evidence to answer any of these questions in the affirmative are pointedly absent in any of his epistles. In fact, some of his inspired comments might actually be construed as being in conflict with the principles of Christian Hedonism.

For example, Christian Hedonism teaches that all “acts of virtue” have as their foundation the self-interest of the pursuit of pleasure as the driving motivation. Yet Paul seems to find such thinking selfish. He cares so little for his own self-interests when compared to his love that had it been possible he would have traded places with his Jewish countrymen and gone to hell in their stead so that they might have gone to heaven. This is pure love.

Paul’s Philosophy Statements	Christian Hedonism’s Philosophy Statements
On Love: I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons… (Romans 9:1-4a)	“[Love] is not a resolute abandoning of one’s own good with a view solely to the good of the other person.” (Piper, Dangerous Duty, page 45 )
On Self-Interest: “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” Philippians 2:3,4	“Christian Hedonism answers: the pursuit of pleasure is an essential motive for every good deed. If you aim to abandon the pursuit of full and lasting pleasure, you cannot love people or please God.” (Piper, Dangerous Duty, page 39)
On the Pursuit of Pleasure: For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me. Romans 15:1-3	Christian hedonism says more, namely, that we should pursue happiness with all our might. (Piper, quoted from www.desiringgod.org on May 29, 2003) “The radical implication is that pursuing pleasure in God is our highest calling.” (Piper, page 21, The Dangerous Duty of Delight)
On the Goal of Worship: What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (1 Corinthians 14:26) Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. (Romans 12:1)	“Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when it makes the joy of worship its goal.” (Piper, Desiring God, page 85, 1996) “I came to see that it is unbiblical and arrogant to try to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in him.” (Piper, Desiring God, page 16, 1996 edition)

Paul’s summary philosophy of all that the Bible teaches might have been expressed this way:

and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9b,10)

Paul felt the summary of all that God taught through thousands of years of history is that we must love God and love our neighbors–love is the fulfillment of the law, our highest calling. Paul nowhere allows that the pursuit of pleasure is even a valid pursuit much less elevating it to our highest calling as Christian Hedonism does.

While it is possible to lay claim to any dead person as if they were always a card-carrying convert to someone’s modern philosophy movement, in the case of C.S. Lewis and the Apostle Paul the weight of historical and written evidence argues against posthumously enlisting them into the ranks of Christian Hedonism.

So Piper pushed the pendulum back to the other side, away from dead unemotionalism, what’s wrong with bringing some emotional balance back to the churches?

Question 32.

So Piper pushed the pendulum back to the other side, away from dead unemotionalism, what’s wrong with bringing some emotional balance back to the churches?

Answer 32.

When this question comes up, and it comes up a lot, the Christian Hedonist most often explains to me that the only way to correct the dull, boring, dead, joyless church services of today are by energizing them with a new peppy philosophy of ministry and life. "Sure," they tell me, "Dr. Piper has taken liberties with certain Bible texts and invented a few new shocking phrases, but it is for the purpose of correcting the joyless attitude in churches today. In this case, an infusion of joy-seeking and pleasure-craving that will drive the church forward." They then tell me, "You see, it’s like a clock pendulum, it has swung all the way to the side of being anti-emotional and all Piper has done with hedonism is to swing it back to the other side."

Let us proceed with that analogy for a bit. If we were to go into a clock maker’s workshop and tell him:

"Hello. My grandfather clock runs quite rapidly and so it keeps poor time. Can you correct this for me?"

The clock maker congenially answers back:

"Well, yes, I can add a bunch of extra weight to the pendulum and that will really slow the thing down, heh, you won’t see it strike but 4 hours in any given day."

That’s not what we want at all! That’s not what anyone wants. We don’t want to add so much weight that the pendulum is unbalanced in the other direction. What we want is perfect balance. Precisely accurate time keeping. We only want to add what was missing, not force the pendulum to swing wildly back the other direction.

Hedonism is so extreme (pursue pleasure with all your strength) that it swings the pendulum of doctrine so hard the other way in such an unbalanced fashion that it fairly well smashes through the clock’s cherry cabinet and ruins the entire thing.

Theology is not a clock mechanism. Theology is not tuned by use of exaggerations and hyperbole. Exaggeration and hyperbole when made about Scripture are really just inaccuracies and falsehoods, unsound doctrine. One cannot correct the behavior or doctrine of the church universal by overemphasizing the need for some other quality because eventually it too will need correcting. And once bad doctrine becomes believed and entrenched, it is notoriously difficult to unseat, even with the best of teaching.

Accurate Bible exposition is required. Always. It is required by book writers, by pastors, by Sunday School teachers. If joy seems to be lacking in a congregation it cannot be "restored" or "balanced out" by inventing hedonism and imposing that philosophy as if it were just another run-of-the-mill doctrine. Christian Hedonism is an imprecise, inaccurate caricature of the doctrine of "rejoicing in the Lord." As such it can do nothing to bring real joy to the congregation and will ultimately lead to other imbalances and problems.

If joy seems to be sincerely lacking (and how would someone even know with any degree of certainty?) it becomes necessary to embark on a truthful and painstakingly accurate study of the concept of joy and emotions in the Word. What emotions are described in the Bible? How are emotions to be used? Why did God give us emotions? After such a careful and in depth study, and only then, should the congregation be more properly instructed. And when this occurs, the effects of legitimate study will be manifested because the Word, when correctly studied, accomplishes its mission and changes the believer from the inside out. The Word has power to change men for righteousness; hyperbole and exaggeration have the power to confuse and eventually destroy.

Has the pendulum swung too far in one direction? It cannot be corrected by overcompensating. It can only be repaired by precision balancing, adding back only that weight that was missing. So it is with doctrine and behavior. Poor behavior can only be rightly corrected with sound doctrine accurately taught from the very Word of God. Once precision has been restored the pendulum will not swing wildly to any one side or the other.

You quoted Dr. Piper’s writing well enough, but the quote does not really communicate what he really wanted to say.

Question 31.

You quoted Dr. Piper’s writing well enough, but the quote does not really communicate what he really wanted to say.

Answer 31.

This is similar to the often noted objection, "Dr. Piper did not actually mean what it appears he said", or, "he was actually just using hyperbole to make a point."

Some have told me Dr. Piper really did not mean that experiencing the pleasurable sensation of joy was really the goal of worship, though that is what he appears to have said. Others have told me that Dr. Piper did not really mean that one must become a Christian Hedonist to be saved, though that is what it appears he has written. Still others have told me that he does not actually believe that the pursuit of pleasure is man’s highest calling, even though his writing certainly says this.

To me, this is an odd type of apologetic. Dr. Piper clearly writes that Christian Hedonism is about the pursuit of one’s own pleasure with all one’s strength as one’s highest calling and chief end which is a prerequisite for salvation, yet, those who would adhere to this philosophy of hedonism argue that its founding author did not understand English well enough to write just exactly what he meant by the term. Could it be that he did just miswrite all those concepts? I am unconvinced.

There is another possibility available to us. Perhaps the would-be adherents to hedonism are simply so embarrassed by the actual tenets of the philosophy that they wish that these comments had not been penned, and they simply and desperately desire them to be inaccurate representations of their adopted philosophy.

It must be kept in mind that the philosophy of Christian Hedonism is over 20 years old, and that there have been three re-printings of the book Desiring God (each with edits and new material added), and one publication of a condensed version of Desiring God called The Dangerous Duty of Delight (2001). If the above quotes were genuinely misstatements, written in error, and did not communicate what the author intended to say, they would most surely have been corrected by now.

The quotes stand, they mean what they convey. The philosophy is what it advertises itself to be. Dr. Piper must have meant and understood what he wrote.

If one is going to call themselves a Christian Hedonist, why not gladly embrace the above premises of the philosophy and be done with it? Why deny that the philosophy is what it is? And if one is inclined to feel that the above quotes are simply improper Christian doctrine, then why not gladly abandon the philosophy of Christian Hedonism?

Whatever the case, Dr. Piper wrote what he wrote, he has not modified his stand over the decades, his words are clear, and he has defined the philosophy as it is. Denying he means what he writes does nothing but a disservice to all individuals involved.

If I find a Bible verse that calls me to be joyful, haven’t I proven Christian Hedonism is correct?

Question 30.

If I find a Bible verse that calls me to be joyful, haven’t I proven Christian Hedonism is correct?

Answer 30.

Many times we are called upon by God in His Word to express joy and gratefulness to God for all He has done and for the salvation He has granted us. Expressing joy and gratitude is not hedonism. And being commanded to express joy is not a command to pursue hedonism.

Hedonists in order to get from a command to rejoice to a command to pursue pleasure put the logic together something like this:

• God tells me to rejoice in the Lord.
• Rejoicing is emotionally laden and fun.
• Because rejoicing is fun and pleasant, the command to rejoice is actually a command to have fun and to chase after pleasure.
• Since God commands me to have fun, pursuing my pleasures is a command from God.
• Pursuing my pleasures is now the highest calling of mankind and my greatest pursuit.

I am still unclear how the logic step is taken to get from "pursuing my pleasures is a command from God" to "pursuing my pleasures is now the highest calling of mankind and my greatest pursuit".

Suffice it to say that the hedonist’s logic is faulty and that God does not command us to "pursue pleasure" when He commands us to "rejoice in the Lord."

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. (Philippians 3:1)

.

Why rejoice? Why "be full of cheer" (Gk: chairo)? In this case because Epaphroditus did not actually die and was able to minister to Paul, completing the ministry that the Philippians had left unfinished with regard to taking care of Paul. And rejoice that Paul is able once again to provide instructions that will safeguard the flock. So rejoice that the Lord’s church is thriving and that the Lord guides and protects.

This rejoicing is not a personal command for the Philippians to pursue pleasure. This rejoicing is to be an expression of positive gratitude (and relief) to God that Paul and Epaphroditus are well and working for the Lord. It is not a command to pursue pleasure so that they can be filled up with good sensations, it is a command to acknowledge that God is good.

What is the difference? The goal is different. "Pursue your own pleasure and happiness so that you feel good" is different than "rejoice in the Lord because Paul and Epaphroditus are able to do the Lord’s work." Not only are the goals different, but the outcomes are different. When one rejoices in order to feel good, he ends up focusing on himself, striving for ever more exciting feelings and sensations. When one rejoices for the purpose of praising God with thankfulness, the focus is on the Lord and the fact that the person may feel some pleasure in that is simply the natural human response. Since pleasure is not the goal, the celebrant is not so concerned about filling themselves up with ecstasy as they are on thanking God and pleasing Him.

While it is sloppy scholarship to equate "rejoice in the Lord" to "pursue your own hedonistic pleasures" it is unconscionable to equate "rejoice in the Lord" to "pursuing my pleasures is now my highest calling and my greatest pursuit."

Isn’t the command to delight in God the same as saying we are commanded to "pursue pleasure"?

Question 29.

Isn’t the command to delight in God the same as saying we are commanded to "pursue pleasure"?

Answer 29.

First, we need to take inventory. There is no actual passage that says, "God commands you to pursue your own happiness".

Second, even if such a command were "found" or even "construed", such a directive would be only but a minor one, subservient to all the other commands, such as "pursue love", "love God with all your strength", "obey God and keep His commandments." Therefore, attempting to make a pursuit of pleasure so weighty that it deserves to be called "hedonism" or a "philosophy of life" is a gross distortion of revealed Scripture. The pursuit of pleasure, must behave just as all the legitimate commands from God’s Word behave: they must be second to the greatest commandment, love God. Since the pursuit of pleasure is not permitted to rise above all the others in importance, it is a false commandment to say that the pursuit of pleasure is our "highest calling" or our most important duty. Elevating the "pursuit of pleasure" to the rank of a weighty command is the equivalent of majoring in the minors–but that is a topic for

a different FAQ.

Context

It is true that there is a passage of Scripture which says in part to "delight in God". However, to quote that fragment of the passage is misleading. The entire thought within that passage is about God making us a promise. Here is a paraphrase of Psalm 37:3-6.

If we cultivate faithfulness toward God,
And if we do good,
And if we trust in the Lord,
And if we delight in Him,
Then He will give us the desires of our heart (which are desires for ourselves to become righteousness and to be safe from evil men)
And He will also give us discernment as enlightened and penetrating as the noon sun.

If one were to hear Christian Hedonists quote a fragment of this promise one might believe that God was placing a premium on delight above other qualities, for which God would reward the obedient soul with everything his heart could desire (gold, jewels, even the birth of children or grandchildren).

But the more proper understanding of this passage is that God desires for us to cultivate and grow our faith, do good, trust in Him more, delight in Him and His Word, and then He will give us discernment to judge between good and evil and He will give us other gifts of spiritual righteousness which we desire. Delight by itself will not accomplish this.

But if we knowingly fragment the passage, and understand that delight alone will not get us the discernment or righteousness we desire, can we still not say that "delight is a command"? This is not a point I am ready to concede, though I understand that some might see doing so as being of small consequence.

Breaking thoughts and promises apart like that, into smaller fragments, then calling each fragment a command is not a very good method for Bible study, nor is it the best exegetical approach. Sometimes fragments must stay within the confines of their broader context. What would only delighting in God accomplish? It would not get you the desires of your heart, nor would it get you the righteousness or discernment you seek. It takes the balanced life focused on godly behavior to gain these things.

An Inferred Command?

All that said, what if we did say that this passage at least implies that delighting in God is a command. Perhaps we can call it an "inferred command". For the moment, let us consider that.

What does delighting in God mean as an "inferred command"? The root word for "delight" in this instance means "to be pliable and soft, ladylike, delicate, and delighted". In context it can just as easily mean we should be pliable and moldable as clay is in the hands of God; ladylike in being subject to Him and taking our orders from Him; delicate and self effacing allowing Him to control and lead us; and allowing His control to be more favorable to us than would be our own attempts at control.

To argue from this passage that it is a full fledged command for us to pursue our own emotionally gratifying pleasures in God is a mighty stretch that brings valid Bible interpretation to a dangerous tearing point. It would be far more proper to interpret this passage as:

"and take comfort in and look favorably upon God’s leading and control, and He will give you what your heart desires: safety and righteousness."

Asking men to take comfort in God’s leading and asking men to look favorably upon God’s sovereign controlling influence is a far cry from calling this passage a "commandment to pursue our own pleasure in God".

Since this passage cannot support, nor really infer, a commandment to pursue our own pleasures and happiness, and since this passage in no way bolsters the idea of elevating the pursuit of pleasure to some weighty commandment, Christian Hedonism must again turn elsewhere for even one passage of Scripture to validate its claim "that we should pursue happiness with all our might."

For more insights into Psalm 37, please consider reading Delight Yourself In the Lord: Command or Promise?