Dear Chris,

Thank you for considering my response to your first post. My foremost difficulty with Christian Hedonism is that it rests solely on a foundation of philosophies, cobbled together not from Scripture, but from various men, some of them noted Christians. My opinion is that the resulting philosophy contradicts Scripture on some major fundamental doctrines, and therefore ought to be treated as a curiosity rather than a model for Christian living and faith--as should any invention of man that clashes with God’s revealed Word.

Chris posted: "My aim in selecting just that portion of the text was to make the connection between ‘a hypocrite’ and someone who does something when their heart is not in it. … And, sometimes, it may even be that this battle of desires I just described is spontaneous and not drawn out in my mind - I just do what FEELS BEST at that moment without thinking all that much about all my competing desires."

We probably do not agree on the use of Mark 7:6,7 for the purpose you specify. The word "heart" means "all that comprises me--the repository of the consequences of all my actions: my thoughts, my intents, my will, my intellect, my good purposes, my bad purposes, my skills, my gifts, my personality (good traits and bad). I may be misunderstanding you, however, it appears you mean to make "heart" to be synonymous with "emotions" or "desire". The word is simply not that narrow in most of its uses throughout the Scriptures.

Chris, your comment, "I just do what FEELS BEST at that moment without thinking all that much about all my competing desires" is the phrase that drives to very core of this discussion. King Solomon was the ultimate hedonist (read a little about that in the article "List of Bible Verses that Challenge Hedonism" [or the article "Pursuing Pleasure and Pursuing the Wind--Solomon’s Lesson on Hedonism"]). He did not withhold from himself any pleasure or any desire. He did just as he felt like doing, and he found this philosophy to be "vanity" which also led him to great apostasy. So very much of Scripture advises us NOT to indulge our feelings (Ephesians 2:3) but to use our mind’s "sound reasoning" to overcome the desires of our hearts (Titus 2:6). Actions must be based on clear biblical judgements and discernment, not on what feels good.

Chris, you refer to "hypocrisy" as doing something you do not "feel like" doing, even if the thing you do is Scriptural and is meant to be beneficial to someone other than yourself. Chris, that is "love" and "obedience," not hypocrisy. Paul said, he desired (had feelings of desire) to give up his salvation so that other Jews would be saved because of his great love for them (of course God did not allow him to do so, yet, this is the decision he would have made if he could have made it, but his desire was not hypocrisy, it was love)--see Romans 9:3.

Paul also said he would prefer to die and be at home with Christ for that is where his final rewards were and that is where his greatest joys would be. Yet Paul chose to dismiss his "feelings" and continue living, to continue enduring persecution, jail, beatings, illness, and suffering. Why? For the benefit of the Philippians (Philippians 1:23,24). Even though being in heaven would have been "very much better" for Paul (his words), he chose to stay alive on Earth, not out of hypocrisy, but out of love for his kinsmen and love for Christ.

Jesus died on the cross, not to please Himself but to bend to the will of the Father (Romans 15:3). This was love, not hypocrisy. When Jesus said, "not my will but yours" (Luke 22:42), this was not a statement of hypocrisy, but of loving obedience.

People are not animals, driven solely by their emotions, feelings, and genetic programming (instincts). To argue that human decisions are only made based on "lust for pleasure" is an ages old fallacy. That idea is nowhere taught by the Scriptures as a doctrine. It is a humanistic philosophy taught by men, not taught by God.

Men rise above hedonism when they decide with their heart (intellect, spiritual discernment, and wisdom) to chose to do good for another at the expense of pleasure for themselves. This is called "love" in 1 Corinthians 13:5. Doing something other than what we most "desire" so that someone else may attain genuine good is what separates man from the animals, and possibly separates the saved from the unsaved. Certainly, it is what separates those who love from those who hedonistically pursue their own pleasure.

Making a choice motivated by love (to bring someone else "good" even if I get little or nothing in return) requires the ability to bring all manner of tools and judgments to the decision. Is this the "right" thing to do according to God’s Word (Ephesians 6:1)? Will this please God (1 Thessalonians 4:1)? Am I capable of doing this (Luke 14:28)? How will this be good for the other person (1 Thessalonians 5:15)? Will it be good for them even if it causes them pain and is not pleasurable (Hebrews 12:9-11)? Deciding to act out of love is almost never a question of, "what will give ME the most pleasure?"

On the other hand, saying I will act out for the sake of love, yet actually taking action based on what will give me pleasure is in fact the true definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing something different. Hypocrisy is not feeling one way, but suppressing that feeling in favor of doing something better than my feelings would have led me to do.

If all choices are morally contingent on the primary consideration of "how will this bring me the most pleasure?", which is exactly what Christian Hedonism teaches, please quote the Bible passage that actually teaches that doctrine.

Christ posted: "So, why would these individuals choose one of these alternatives over any of the others? My position is that every one will do what he wants most at that moment."

Permit me to offer this observation, your main argument has become inconsistent with your last quote. No longer are you saying, "men ONLY do what brings them the most pleasure," which was your main thesis up till now, but now you have changed your thesis to: "men ONLY do what they want most at the moment." Logically, you must mean that all men "most want" pleasure at any given moment, otherwise, your contention that men ONLY do what brings them the most pleasure is admittedly incorrect. For the two statements would ordinarily be in conflict.

Do not feel badly, for In fact, that is the problem with "hedonism." It starts with the extra-biblical premise that "men ONLY do what brings them the most pleasure." But this is an obvious deficiency for it is well documented that men are genuinely motivated by an entire plethora of motives and feelings (love, hate, sorrow, duty, sympathy, anger, depression, righteousness, empathy, pride, patriotism, etc). But the idea that men only choose pleasure as the only motive for every decision and every action ever taken is inconsistent with the Scriptural commands to "do nothing from selfishness" (Philippians 2:3,4) or "love does not seek its own good" (1 Corinthians 13:5) or "even Jesus did not please Himself" (Romans 15:3).

Men have the ability to put "pleasure" aside as a decision-making criteria by a simple act of their will, and focus instead on what is good for someone else. Animals cannot do this, but men can. When men put the good of others ahead of their own pleasures, they are acting beyond selfishness. What these unselfish men will themselves to do is act out of love, not act out of pleasure. Therefore it is a fallacy to argue that the following two expressions are the same: "men ONLY do what brings them the most pleasure," and "men ONLY do what they want most at the moment."

What some men want most at the moment is to give their bodies to be struck by a car so as to bring good to another by moving the stranger out of the way of harm. Such men are not acting with pleasure as their motive-of-the-moment, but acting selflessly, demonstrating love. Putting aside pleasure, their greatest want is to please God by loving others even though it cost them the pleasure of using their legs for a lifetime. The "want" that motivates men to act is simply not always pleasure. Further, the Bible says pleasure is not what should drive us: "The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure." (Ecclesiastes 7:4).

At one point, Chris, I asked: "What passage of Scripture says that the pursuit of pleasure is, and should be, the greatest genuine motive for all choices in life?"

Chris posted: "Again, I equate a motive with a pursuit of pleasure or a desire or an appeal or a drawing toward something or a seeking after something. And I believe that the source of this is my heart. Jesus said this, ‘The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.’ (Luke 6:45)"

Chris, I am sorry, but I must respectfully profess that in no way do I see Luke 6:45 teaching the doctrine "that the pursuit of pleasure is, and should be, the greatest genuine motive for all choices in life."

When you said you interpret Luke 6:45 by first applying this formula, "I equate a motive with a pursuit of pleasure or a desire" you approach Luke 6:45 with a presupposition that is simply unproven. The "pursuit of pleasure" is not the basis for all choices or desires. It is because of that unproven assumption that when you read Luke 6:45 you see it inferring a "pursuit of pleasure."

What Luke 6:45 teaches, along with the other passages you cite, is that if a man’s heart (the cumulative consequences of all he has done or thought, his will, his intents, his loves, his studies, his God/gods) are evil, then his words will be evil as well. If a man’s heart is saved, redeemed, and immersed in righteousness then his mouth will speak righteousness. The heart is the repository of all that a man is, not only what he finds pleasant.

Chris posted: "Our treasure. Isn't that really the same thing as saying ‘that which we find pleasure in’ without quite so many words?"

Actually, no. A careful exegesis of the passages you cite would uncover that the word "treasure" is not quite what you have indicated it is. In Matthew 12:35 the word "treasure" (Greek "thesauros") simply means "an accumulation of things." These could be of great value, or none, they could be pleasurable, or they could be heartbreakers. What we have stored up for ourselves, within ourselves, in fact the very essence of what we have become including the "consequences" of what we have done, are both good and evil, pleasant and unpleasant.

That which has pleasure is not innately valuable. Satan gives much pleasure, and even his form is pleasing, yet he is not innately valuable to the Christian.

That which has value is not innately pleasurable. A blazing multi-colored sunset over Las Angeles may be pleasurable to the eyes of some, but often it is only "pretty" because the choking poisons of intense air pollution are refracting the light--and there is no innate value in carcinogenic air pollution.

Why is God of value? Is it because He gives pleasure? Or is it because He is the fearful Creator who molds us into His image, for His name’s sake, so that we might become righteous? I would argue that God is "of value" because of Who He is, whether people see pleasure in Him or not. Pleasure is at best a weak indicator of value or worth.

This has gone on quite long. Please permit me to wrap up with this request:

If the Bible teaches that all decisions in life are to be morally acceptable only if one makes his first consideration the question of "how will this bring ME the most pleasure?" then please quote the Bible passage that actually teaches that doctrine.

In Christ’s Service,
C. W. Booth

-----

Posted by C. W. Booth on 21:26:14 3/25/2005: