Does God Want Christians to be Happy?
Christians often ponder this question because it is popular to proclaim that God is more interested in our holiness than in our happiness. However, is it really possible to separate these two notions?
In a very practical sense, one wonders how attractive Christianity would be to the world if Christians were curmudgeons! But Scripture seems to suggest that we of all people should be happy. In fact, the English word “blessed” translates the New Testament Greek word makarios, which means “happy.” In his Sermon on the Mount, none other than Jesus himself described as “happy” those who live faithfully in the Kingdom of God (See Matthew 5:1-12).
It is interesting that ancient Greek philosophers for several centuries prior to Christ wrestled with this very issue. They were in search of the key to eudemonia, that is, happiness or human flourishing. They concluded that it was arête and phronesis, that is, virtue and practical wisdom respectively. But they were interested not in a person who just does good and moral things, but in a person who was indeed internally virtuous. Only such a person could be said to be happy and flourishing. So far the Bible would agree. But unfortunately, these thinkers did not entertain a doctrine of sin and, therefore, sought in futility to achieve this end through human effort alone.The beauty of Christianity is that it completes the puzzle by providing the enabling power to achieve such a condition, and it does not restrict this gift to philosophers, but offers it to all people. This power resides in the person of the Holy Spirit who is given to and resides within all those who believe. It is the power that raised Jesus from the dead and that now also works within us, enabling us to become actually “holy” persons, that is, truly internally transformed human beings.
Therefore, it is true that God is infinitely concerned about our obedience which leads to holiness, our inner transformation and progressive deliverance from the power of sin. But this is also the very path to happiness and human flourishing, so God must be infinitely concerned about our happiness as well, so concerned that he has graciously provided us with the power to achieve it!
Hence, happiness in a biblical sense is not about the nature of our circumstances or the stuff we possess, but about living faithfully in the Kingdom of God. By so living, we learn to enjoy those things that God gives us in life as gifts without clinging to them as necessary components of our eternal well being. In addition, we learn that we need not fret when the wicked prosper, or when hard times and suffering come our way, but in the midst of these challenges, we may instead continue to delight ourselves in the Lord, who works all things together for the good of those who love him and who are called according to his purpose, and who gives us the desires of our heart (Romans 8:28; Psalm 37:1-4; Proverbs 13:12).Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Categories: Devotional, Devotional Reflection
Tags: Christian Happiness Holiness Holy Spirit eudemonia Human Flourishing Arete Phronesis
Hello Arnie,
I came across your site searching for some Christian commentary on the value of happiness in Christianity and what it means to be happy.
I agree with what you said above, but not too long ago Sam Harris started pushing for this "science of morality" and I read on this one Wikipedia page about this very topic the following information:
"At the time of writing his book, Daleiden summarizes empirical evidence on various topics: he declares that evidence supports decriminalization and regulation of drugs, euthanasia under some circumstances, and allowing certain non-normal sexual behaviour (he says that evidence indicates homosexuality is clearly an example of this). Daleiden further argues that empirical evidence about what enables people to suffer renders abortion not just permissible to some extent, but at times a moral obligation to the mother and future child. Like all empirical claims in his book, however, Joseph Daleiden is adamant that these decisions remain grounded in empirical data."
The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
So could you perhaps comment on these issues, where sometimes people's subjective feeling of happiness does not in fact line up with holiness? Note that "science of morality" claims what is moral is that which helps us flourish and that happiness helps us flourish, according to their beliefs.
While the drug claim merits very little attention I believe, and homosexuality truly only leads to "happiness" (more like a form of hedonism, really) for those who practice it, many people indeed seem to be "happy" when they abort a baby due to selfish reasons, and euthanasia does seem to make those people who only value a "quality" of life rather than life itself more happy. These are examples of when the feeling of happiness does not line up with morality in any way.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks.
Reply to this
Greetings, Akos,
Thanks for your comment. Since I am leaving on a vacation devoted to being "unplugged" for several days, I am unable to construct a reply that does justice to your question until I return. However, a quick glance at the Wikipedia article suggests to me that the entire project may be self-defeating since, according to the article, "Harris wants it clear that, it is the flourishing of every conscious creature that is "morally good".[7][note 2] On the premises of the Science of Morality, upon what grounds may such an assertion be made? The statement is so densely packed with rich philosophical and theological content, one wonders how he could arrive at such a point of insight with the resources of a science that he appears to agree is just "budding". And of course, this assertion is the basis for the entire project. But where did it come from? Certainly not from the science itself, since it appears to be an a priori proposition that drives the science in the first place.
To reply to this objection by further asserting that everyone should be able to recognize when something or someone is "flourishing" and what constitutes a "conscious creature" or what behavior is "morally good" is to blatantly beg the question. So in this sense, and without time at the moment to do deeper reflection, I suspect the science to be self-defeating. It is dead on arrival. If this is true, then the science is incapable of bridging the gap between an "is" and an "ought" without at least very serious modifications, if any there be that might rescue it.
I will give this more thought and respond more fully upon my return.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Hi, Akos,
It is clear from the Wikipedia article that the advocates of the science of morality adhere to the ideology of metaphysical naturalism. That is, they believe that the world is a closed physical system of wholly material and efficient causes. But just because we can talk about moral goodness and still adhere to metaphysical naturalism does not mean that notions of morality are compatible with or have in any way been or can be wholly derived from a naturalistic science of morality.
To claim that anything that sustains human flourishing is "morally good" is to utter a decidedly philosophical position, a maxim of reason, as it were, that cannot be derived from empirical observation of nature alone. It is to presuppose a certain philosophical human constitution that is consistent with its own flourishing as an optimal end, and to then innately deduce the nature of morality accordingly. Such an axiom does not appear out of whole cloth, but can only impress upon us from on high. It cannot be the end product of induction, but the point from which all induction begins. It is what is given in our being, what we encounter immediately and intuitively in our souls, and what equips us to venture into the world and to make truthful judgments, lest we be faced with bare facts without a framework.
The moral law is exemplified in conscience, and "conscience always supposeth the being of a God" (George Berkeley). And this is why I believe that the science of morality is internally inconsistent. It must depend on universal moral axioms in order to get off the ground. It is a fiction of any science that is motivated by metaphysical naturalism that all knowledge can be empirically grounded. The notion that all knowledge can be empirically grounded cannot itself be empirically grounded, and so the project self-destructs.
In addition, the science of morality seems to me to have a sinister bent. It's advocates deliver effusive disclaimers that their project will not in the end devolve into an Orwellian nightmare, but I am afraid that the science is by its very nature destined to this end. A moral ideology that does not recognize transcendent being and creaturely soulishness possesses no notion of true virtue, since virtue is the product of divine truth and inner transformation. All an empirical science of morality can abide is the "improvement" of factual, physical behavior, and such "improvement" can only be the result of technical modification. The article strongly hints that this must be the case. But once the notions of transcendence and virtue are stricken from our metaphysical and epistemic nomenclature, empiricism reigns, and religion takes a distant back seat to psychology, sociology, and brain science. Then, what is "right" and "good" can only be measured in terms of the pleasurable and useful, and the technical methods necessary to achieve these ends as decided by the scientific elite will be enforced by those to whom this power has been ascribed. We see evidence of these tendencies in our culture even now.
If the good, the true, and the beautiful do not eternally abide, then each generation will write its own rule book, and self-deprecating, socially destructive, and inhumane practices like homosexuality, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide will find easy justification, and one wonders if this is what the project of the science of morality really is at its core: an attempt to sooth and to sear conscience rather than to enlighten it. We do not need a science of morality. We need a spiritual revival, a return to first principles of reason and conscience, and a restored recognition of the true nature of human worth as exemplified in the image of God reflected in all persons. Moral value can only be ascribed to human beings if there is something about them that separates them from other creatures. The notion of personhood cannot be a matter of "degree" if we really want humans to flourish. Without first fully affirming the intrinsic uniqueness and the weight of the value of all humans, there can be neither moral goodness among human creatures nor well-being among non-human creatures.
But given such a renewed awareness, we come to understand that "happiness" and "flourishing" are what the Scriptures call "beatitude", a genuine sense of blessedness in relationship with God regardless of our life circumstances, a cooperation with his Holy Spirit as we move from glory to glory in obedience to his will, being thus transformed in our inner being by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead, and a growing anticipation of the ultimate beatitude when we at last see him face to face.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this