The Bible and...: Part 5i: Theology: Christian Hedonism

The Bible and...: Part 5i: Theology: Christian Hedonism
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 by Dr. James W. Walraven

Categories: Apologetics / Contemporary issues / Scripture discussion / Spiritual deception / The church / Thought for Today

Eyes have recovered enough to resume posting…

What are the biblical problems with the theological construct of “Christian Hedonism”? We looked at three problems in the previous post: (1) the secular culture’s worship of eros; (2) basing it on, and possibly misusing, the Westminster Shorter Catechism; and (3) the inadequacy of the catechism’s answer to the first question.

There is a fourth problem, the most important one of all:

The Bible never defines God’s love in terms of eros. Not once. That is worth repeating: the Bible never defines God’s love in terms of eros.* One always finds God’s love described and defined in terms of agape. Probably the best known passage describing that love is 1 Corinthians 13. To describe God’s love in terms of eros risks reducing, and even potentially redefining, God’s love in unfortunate ways. It is far better to teach about God’s love in ways that God, Himself, defines it.

A good friend of mine made a remark to the effect that we don’t get agape, but do get eros (his comment related to eros within the confines of the marital relationship). To me, the remark was made in support of Piper’s system. Big picture, my friend was correct. We don’t truly understand God’s agape love. We don’t “get it”. Yet, Ephesians 3:14–19 includes a precise prayer that we would come to comprehend God’s agape love, and that love in terms of agape, not eros.

To me, it isn’t wise to replace agape with eros. Note that we’re not talking about using the marital relationship as a passing illustration in an “agape is sort of like this, but not really” kind of way. We do see something like that in Ephesians 5:31–32. Rather, we are talking about an entire theological construct built around the concept. Aren’t we better off seeking to strive after, with the Spirit’s help, a better understanding of God’s agape love? Aren’t we better off trying to emulate God’s perfect love, however poor our emulation may be at any given moment? Isn’t that better than substituting another type of love for it? Do we really want to risk denigrating God’s love by our own theological conceptions?

There is even a deeper danger. Within the past year or so, I started reading a number of LGBTQ “Christian theologians”. Given the topics I write about, it is important to know what is actually being said and written, rather than just to respond to sound bites, potentially deliberately misleading or inflammatory sound bites. For at least some in that community, wherever you see the word “love” in the Scriptures, that means “sex”; in the present context, think “eros”. It doesn’t take long to realize how blasphemous that is. To me, there is a dangerous parallel between Piper’s Christian Hedonism, a theological construct that predates current cultural trends, and what our secular culture now espouses.

As we’ve seen, elevating theological constructs, no matter how well-intended, above Scripture, or to interpret Scripture through those constructs is problematic at best, and at worst, disastrous. Piper’s “Christian Hedonism” is best avoided. We are far better off teaching what God states directly through the Scriptures.

*Yes, one can point to allegorical interpretations of Song of Songs (Solomon). But allegorical interpretations by fallible humans aren’t the same as Scripture. Even if the Song of Songs is truly allegorical, it would be just that, allegorical, not literal. Remember, God’s name is never mentioned in that book. One doesn’t interpret allegory, or poetry, the same as didactic biblical texts. God’s love is literally defined as agape. Period. It is also worth noting that emphasizing allegorical or symbolic meanings of Scripture in large part traces to Origen, a self-described Gnostic Christian, a “church father” from the Alexandrian School who blended (syncretized) Christianity and Gnostic thought (as did the Alexandrian school in general): not someone or something we should seek to emulate.

Share This Blog: