This post is devoted to a conversation with a friend who has been wondering about happiness and holiness. His initial Facebook post included the following question:
“Saw this on a friend’s timeline and was left wondering: “God doesn’t want us to be happy, but holy” give this exact impression?”
“If we give the impression that the main effect of Christianity is to make us miserable, then it is not surprising that ninety percent of the people are outside the Christian church. ‘Miserable Christians,’ they say, ‘look at them!’ And they add that they have life, they have joy, they have fullness. Shame on us Christian people! But it is not merely a question of saying shame on us. What a terrible responsibility is ours if we are so misrepresenting this ‘glorious gospel of the blessed God’ (1 Timothy 1:11). We are meant to be witnesses to all people that we are filled to overflowing. We are meant to show the truth of the psalmist’s words: ‘My cup runneth over!’ (Psalm 23:5).”
– Martyn Lloyd Jones
My response:
“I think so many phrases like this are so misleading… and are taught often on Sunday mornings! And as the gospel! And it makes me mad. So mad that I have been resorting to a commitment to not telling people cliches but reaching to the depths of philosophy to reconsider not what is the truth, but how to convey it in ways unheard of… in ways not entrenched with connotation already. Example: “it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.” Well… James 1 says otherwise. Another, of a higher order: Romans Road to Salvation… John 1:11-13 says it’s not by the will of man but the will of God (“He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”)… quoted to say that belief is not humanly manufactured, but is the result and necessary consequence (as natural is to spiritual), for the born-from-above person. If belief is there at all… it’s a gift of God. If it’s not present, then Paul advocates that we remember some plant seeds and others water, and God adds the growth! (If he wants to; he doesn’t always add the growth… it’s sort of part of… I dunno… being Sovereign…) I think people don’t have a right sense of happiness when they make being happy at odds with a concept of “joy.” I think today Aristotle is too under-appreciated, but more than that, the Socratic sense of the cave and getting out of the cave is even more relevant. There is an outside of the cave that is the world… it’s called the Kingdom of God”
His response to that: “What is a right sense of happiness, then?”
I responded with the following:
“Boethius comes closer than so many in telling of a right sense of happiness. He is influenced by Aristotle. As Aristotle says “Happiness is that which all other goods seek,” Boethius then says, “God is that happiness.” All goods point to God, as John says, “all things were made through him and by him and for him.” So, in this sense, I associate the logos (truth) with happiness, and as one is led along to know this Shepherd who is that very logos, happiness is increased and is present. I think the Socratic sense of being a philosopher is helpful here: lover of learning, lover of truth. So then truth is a what, but it’s also a who. And we both know who that is. It’s unhelpful when people say “God is a who, not a what.” He is both! He is of divine nature, and is love, and is just.”
He then asked: “does God care that we are circumstantially happy? Of course, we suffer sometimes, while other times good, even wonderful things happen to us. Is it that both types of experiences contribute to our holiness?” (via Facebook)
My response:
“‘Circumstantially happy’ still seems to depend on a sense of happiness that could otherwise be called “pleasant.” Your question rephrased in this way would be: “does God care that [our lives] are circumstantially pleasant?” I am compelled to interpret your question this way because of your next few sentences where you contrast suffering with good and wonderful things. Suffering, if you mean it this way, can be directly contrasted and compared to with pleasant conditions as its opposite. I can understand how “wonderful” can be associated with things pleasant, but to then use the word “good” here is a bit telling of the whole underlying idea being considered. The question you ask could be rephrased this way, perhaps: “does God’s sense of goodness include our suffering sometimes, specifically against what would be pleasant for us?” The answer is yes. James 1, Job, etc. If we know how God boasted to Satan, which THEN prompted Satan to accuse Job before God, then we can see that God, being God, willed that Job would suffer by allowing Satan to go as far as the limits set by God. Did God do wrong to Job? No. Did God harm Job? No. Did God provide opportunity for Job to be tested and like metal, be purified in his soul? Yes. Did Job go through the trials perfectly? No. There are many senses of holiness throughout the Bible: 1) set apart for a special purpose, 2) a kind of goodness, 3) a kind of perfection, 4) a kind of godliness, 5) a kind of difference between light and dark, good and evil, holy being of light and good. Perhaps there are more. Perhaps suffering is one of God’s most important tools for transforming us from the flesh that we not are, simply, but were only before being born-from-above (born-again), and as [Friend 2] said once in a sermon on sanctification, making us righteous in actuality (perhaps making us progressively more righteous along our lives’ paths). This is evident in Hebrews (and Proverbs!) when it says that fathers chastise the children whom the love. Those not chastised by a father are illegitimate children, i.e., NOT children. God, our Father, chastises us. It’s not always through harsh suffering as at other times, so maybe chastisement should not be rated in terms of its harshness, but in terms of the character of soul that is addressed.”
Another friend (Friend 2) then said things about being content:
“God wants us to learn to be content in every circumstance.”
– and –
“Rejoice always, In everything give thanks – sorrowful, yet always rejoicing.”
Then Friend 1 (the initiator of the conversation) said:
“So therefore the end goal is not happiness but contentment. Further, from God’s point of view, do good and evil then become defined by whether they result in contentment or holiness?”
And my response was:
“I think [Friend 2] is saying something like: happiness is contentment. Good and evil would be defined in relation to whether the human is content in God and his Providence. We could say in specific contrast to the first temptation–as the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is esteemed of by Eve as: 1) pleasing to the eyes, 2) good for food, and 3) to be desired to make one wise–that happiness is contentment with what God has provided in his permission rather than what he *hasn’t* provided–and to go against this isn’t a good exercise of human will, but is properly called: rebellion.”
Friend 1 then said: “I guess my real question is, “If holiness is God’s purpose for our lives, and suffering is good for our holiness, why does God allow times of peace and emotional happiness for us? He knows we are prone to fall into idolatry, so why does he let us feel happy sometimes, if it is better that we be holy?””
My response:
“There is a sense where peace and emotional happiness is good, too. If we were rightly ordered (in the Platonic, Republic sense), then we could appreciate peace and emotional happiness (pleasantness) correctly. I suppose those who wanted Jesus’ miracles, but really left him when he told them further truth, are examples of people who weren’t rightly ordered in the soul, especially not born-again.”
Friend 2 then said:
“My point is not that happiness and contentment is the same thing. My point is that God chief end is not to make sure our circumstances make us happy. He calls us to contentment in every circumstances – this contentment can actually lead to an ability to be happy even when life in a broken world is difficult. Joy, Rejoicing, Thanksgiving, Contentment should transcend circumstances.”
I then replied:
“I consider that what we take to be “happy” is affected in part by the culture we live in. For example, as [Friend 2] says here, “God’s chief end is not to make sure our circumstances make us happy,” that which we think is the contents of “happy” seem to still be revolving around pleasant conditions. If we, however, understand “happy” to be the the results of sanctification, then it is among God’s chief end to sanctify us, and therefore make us truly “happy.” By us being more sanctified, we are then capable and motivated to glorify and love God even better and more deeply. Also, being further sanctified, instead of thinking of “happy” in fleshly, selfish terms, we would consider that parable of the people put to work at different times of the day. As the parable goes on, at the end of the day, when wages are given, there was a complaint that those who worked all day received the same as those who worked only a few hours. If we interpret our inheritance like that, we will be bitter. Yet if we interpret our inheritance like the following, then we can consider that God’s will is to make us “happy”: our inheritance or wages is not some Greek coin or Dollar or worldly good. It is a loving Father, Son, and Spirit and an eternity with God and brothers and sisters as true family. So, while in this life, God does arrange for our happiness in this sense, and that will of God definitely includes suffering… suffering that is aimed at making us yes content in hard circumstances, but more than contentment, able to be that good soldier of Christ, fit and able to use the whole armor of God amid this spiritual war, enduring hard conditions knowing the outcome is beyond understanding.”
Friend 2 then responded to me:
“Jesus wasn’t happy on the cross – but he endured it willingly for the Joy that was set before him. He was content, willing, yet in sorrow, pain, torment – he wasn’t happy.”
However, my reply:
[Friend 2], I can agree he wasn’t in pleasant conditions—it was the absolute worst of conditions and most suffering—but I can’t say he wasn’t “happy” because he was doing God’s will. [For] example, to live is Christ, to die is gain. [Therefore], we are called a living sacrifice.
Friend 2 then said:
He wasn’t happy – sorrow is not a sinful state although it is the result of life in a fallen world. Jesus suffered in his life and death like we all do, he wept – happiness is not a necessary condition of being in God’s will – God wills that we weep with those who weep – that is not being happy
– and –
The gain is what is set before us after we endure much sorrow – it is not a present state
– and –
it is also important not to take common words which are easily understood by a 3 year old and turn them into undefinable philosophical categories. Everyone understands what it means to be happy. And God often wills that we are not happy – Jesus wasn’t happy all the time, it is self evident.
My (hopefully final) response:
[Friend 2], If by happy you still mean having pleasant conditions, then fine. I will concede to what you are saying. We don’t need to have equivocal speech. But I believe being right in the center of God’s will is happiness, in one of maybe a few right senses of it. To be clear, we are speaking about definitions of a word in English, “happy,” that has been treated philosophically and translated so many times from so many underlying senses of it that I wonder why it has such purchase today? It could be the way it’s crystallized in American history via the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” All this to say: Aristotle didn’t use the word “happy”, his Greek word was eudaimonia. More literally: “Good soul-spirit.” So, what makes for a good soul-spirit? I say justification, sanctification, and glorification. Jesus on the cross was still God, and could not be rid of his goodness of soul-spirit.
I then added the following:
I can say, to temper what I say, it’s also relevant that “he became sin who knew no sin…” so I am not the one who originally argued that he was happy on the cross, per se, (except in defense of a sense of happiness) but exploring what happiness is… on the one hand, Jesus was still God on the cross, and on the other hand, he is said to have become sin. Maybe in this sense he was happy as God due to his unchangeable divine nature and at the same time, due to taking on sin, not of (humanly speaking) good-soul-spirit.
And I add, finally:
Maybe Paul’s natural-spiritual distinction is helpful here. That spiritual sense of Jesus’s being was good, the natural sense was sinless but then he took on sin in the flesh. A lesson emerges for us: we are good spiritually because we are justified and being sanctified, which is our spiritual “happiness,” in the midst of having remaining natural flesh, which pulls at our soul-spirit, between which there is war.
I Love Philosophy 