Refuting John Piper's "Desiring God" theology
© 2006-2008, By Martha K. Miller
Page 1 of 2
First of all, you know I love God's word and the truth that sets us free. I'm also not eloquent of speech, but my bluntness is NOT meant to be rude nor am I trying to usurp any authority over anyone. I know that I can be wrong and be misinterpreting what is being said. I'm just making my observations known, and am not personally attacking you nor John Piper. I'm not "judging another man's servant," I'm just trying to be a Berean. 1 Cor. 2:15 "He that is spiritual judges all things."
Hedonism Defined
CARM's dictionary of theology:
"The teaching that pleasure is the principle good and proper goal of all action. Self-indulgence."
[emphasis mine]
"the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life. The ethical theory that achieving one's own happiness is the proper goal of all conduct."
[emphasis mine]
1. Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses. 2. Philosopy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. 3. Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. [Greek "hedone," pleasure]
[emphasis mine]
As Sandy Simpson wrote, "John Piper cannot rewrite the English language....we can see clearly that the term "Christian hedonism" posited by John Piper is an oxymoron. The two cannot exist together, for to obey Christ is to abandon hedonism, and to embrace hedonism is to become a hypocrite like the Pharisees." (i.e. self-indulgent, full of dead men's bones...). In his rebuttal of Piper's rebuttal, http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/secondrebuttal.html, Simpson also shows how Piper misquotes C.S. Lewis and other men of God to manipulate his point.
John Piper redefined hedonism, over-generalizing it; and changing a word's definition brings confusion. Hedonism has always been defined as self-indulgence and self-centered, sensual pleasure. So, am I supposed to be self-indulgent and sensual for God? That's an impossibility, we can't be self-indulgent and serve God. Neither can we be self-indulgent and sensual with God; He's holy not sensual. This is an extremely subtle way to pull people into emotionalism and "experiential Christianity." Andrew Murray says in his book 'Absolute Surrender' (pg.30), "And how can I learn to love? I cannot learn to love until the Spirit of God fills my heart with God's love, and I begin to long for God's love in a very different sense from which I have sought it so selfishly-- as a comfort, a joy, a happiness, and a pleasure to myself." [emphasis mine]. So, we're not to seek God's love for selfish pleasure, or to get a good feeling.
The Lord gave me the privilege and honor of repenting of believing the lies I believed, by telling me His absolute truth-"You're guilty". But the joy and zeal that comes after repentence of hedonism is beyond anything I can conjure up with my own will or desires. It was God and God alone who supplied that joy and zeal, not my fleshly (works-oriented) attempts at "pursuing, enjoying, or desiring Jesus," nor even my fleshly attempts at glorifying God with my life. It all must be accomplished through and by the Holy Spirit of God, and YES, YES, YES, it is worth it! Piper's teaching seems to be another way of making us work to get an emotional "high" or "fix" at the expense of God's grace and sovereignty. It's the same teaching of man ascending rather than God decending to us through His grace. Andrew Murray said (on pg. 11), "God does not ask you to give the perfect surrender in your own strength, or by the power of your will; God is willing to work it in you." [emphasis mine]. Philippians 2:13 states, "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." [emphasis mine]. We are to do God's good pleasure, not our own. And it takes a work of God to change our hearts, not a conscious effort of our own. Murray later states (pg. 15), "When God has begun the work of absolute surrender in you, and when God has accepted your surrender, then God holds Himself bound to care for it and to keep it." Piper, seems to want to make "us" responsible for desiring God, when we don't have that desire in our nature. It has to be God doing it.
Piper's theme for his ministry is "spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ." Does that even make any sense? I don't have a problem with the first part "spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things" nor the part that says, "through Jesus Christ." It's that "for the joy of all peoples" which sounds similar to the ecumenical, seeker-friendly philosphies. Whatever happened to "for the glory of God"? It smells a lot like he's teaching people to be self-absorbed. Making our service to God more pleasurable (hedonistic) is an appeal to the selfish nature of "getting something in return for our service," or making it "easier" to be a Christian. Moriel Ministries describes these types of teachings as "the sensual gratification of personal experience." That may not be the way you meant it, but I see it as the way Piper means it. Joy is one of the attributes of the fruit of the Spirit, and is only in our hearts as we walk in the Spirit. Hedonism is a fleshly act--an external work--with selfish motivations. His definition of hedonism is just the same as seeking the blessing rather than the Blessor; seeking a feeling rather than seeking God despite our feelings. It reminds me so much of the positive confession teachings. "If you admit you're unhappy, you must not be right with God." = "If you're not a Christian Hedonist, you don't supremely love God in everything." Now that philosopy IS "judging another man's servant."
I also have a problem with his statement "...God is most glorified in me when I am most satisified in Him." That is NOT true. God is most glorified when I am out of the way, totally. Also, knowing I don't deserve it, but God still does it anyway-- that's when God is most glorified. Look at the unsaved person's life. Does he find the most satisfaction in God? No, he's pleasing his sinful nature. But isn't God most glorified when a sinner comes to repentance? The angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner that is saved. I don't know of any other time mentioned in Scripture that angels rejoice over the obedience of man. So, God is most glorified, when we are least involved. That, to me, is the greatest news of all--He did it all for me!!
Piper's Education
I don't doubt that he is an educated man, and he does teach some sound doctrine, but Piper's website says, "He went on to earn degrees from Fuller Theological Seminary... While at Fuller, John took as many courses as he could from Dr. Daniel Fuller, the most influential "living" teacher in his life. Through Dr. Fuller he discovered the writings of Jonathan Edwards, his most influential "dead" teacher." According to