Commentary on First Peter (51)
Some have taught that it is in a sense appropriate for believers to adopt a sanctified hedonistic attitude toward the Christian life, for God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. However, the biblical basis for this assertion is questionable. Moreover, such a principle brings our immediate focus upon our own satisfaction, even though the satisfaction is supposedly enjoyed within the context of faith, and the ultimate goal is allegedly to glorify God.
It is far better to say that both our immediate focus and ultimate goal must be to glorify God. If a Christian cannot live a fulfilling and productive life with this attitude, it just means that he is either not a believer at all, or that he still needs to grow in maturity and sanctification. The solution is not to change the biblical principle. This other teaching almost makes the glory of God a by-product of our satisfaction, even though it is allegedly the real ultimate end. Also, it makes our satisfaction based on something other than the glory of God. That is, we are not satisfied because God is glorified; rather, God is glorified because we are satisfied, and we are satisfied because of something else. On the other hand, the biblical principle makes our satisfaction a by-product of God's being glorified. If God is not glorified, we will never be satisfied.*
It is true that the teaching encourages us to delight in God, and in itself this is correct. But again, to say that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him diverts our immediate attention from God's glory. Those who have studied the presentations and defenses of Christian Hedonism will protest that this is a misrepresentation of the teaching, since it does affirm the place of self-denial and sacrifice. The problem is that at the points where the presentations and defenses of this teaching are biblical, they invariably make it inconsistent to still call it a form of hedonism. Failing to notice this, my comments would appear to be a misrepresentation.
To offer a rather simplistic analogy, if we say that a form of "atheism" fails as a system of thought because it does not believe in God, but then it defends itself by showing that it does believe in God, then even if it succeeds in defending itself against the charge, it can no longer consistently call itself a form of atheism.
The least we can say is that the teaching is poorly expressed, to the point that it becomes misleading and unbiblical. There are better ways of teaching the biblical elements in this teaching without adopting its perspective, emphasis, and gimmicky expressions. In any case, we must have a truly God-centered theology of salvation – not one that is just ultimately God-centered, but one that is God-centered at every point.
*As mentioned before, the footnotes that accompany the text will appear only in the final version when the commentary is distributed in book form. But to prevent confusion, I should make an exception here and include the one that is attached to this statement:
"Here I am referring to satisfaction in a difference sense. That is, even if God is not glorified, we can still be satisfied in him, although we will not be satisfied about the general situation. It would make the text more precise but too cumbersome to say "satisfied in him" or "satisfied in general" in every instance. Notice that this does not affect the point I am making, which is that we cannot make God's glorification a by-product of our satisfaction."