The Pursuit of Happiness
What do people want? Why do people act the way they do? Are the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell good reasons to follow Christ? What is truth? What is good? I hope this post offers a perspective by which to view and answer these questions.
There is one thing all people want – maximum happiness. Happiness may not be the right word; contentment might be better, but I cannot articulate a real difference between them (at least in how I look at the two concepts).
I am convinced that everything a person does (except for unconscious behavior such as sleep talking and reflexive action) is directly related to that person’s concept of personal happiness. There are many factors that go into the bizarre range of differing human activity all geared toward the same exact goal. I think some of the most important factors are the conflict between getting immediate versus long term happiness, a person’s inherent personality (nature), a person’s environment (nurture), and a person’s “worldview.” Obviously, the short term/long term pleasure conflict and one’s “worldview” are closely related to each other and to aspects of nature and nurture.
Two examples of the short term versus long term conflict are a person who wants to lose weight but is enticed into eating a large bowl of pots-de-crème, and a Christian with his eye set generally on pleasing God, but who in some specific instances succumbs to lustful sins. If you combine personality with the long term versus short term struggle, you will notice some people with more inherent patience than others. These patient people will be more likely to give in less often to the persuasive power of “Now!” An example of pure personality as it applies to achieving happiness and affecting difference of behavior would be the difference between somebody who loved cake but disliked movies and somebody who loves movies and dislikes cake. The one will eat cake; the other will watch a movie. A person who is raised in a violent family will more likely be violent, while a person raised in a peaceful home will more likely abstain from violence. This is an example of the affect of one’s environment, his nurture. Finally, there is one’s worldview. Even if one has a personality that succumbs easily to indulging in hours of video games and television per day, a general worldview that heavily favors achieving useful tasks and eschewing wastes of time will often induce such a person to leave the couch and do more important things with his valuable time. The Apostle Peter provides a great example – before a drastic worldview change with the resurrection of Christ, he denied Jesus three times. Afterwards, he preached Christ until he got crucified for it. An urge for short term happiness, a reasonable personality, and any conceivable past environment Peter could have had would all point heavily towards saving himself from this excruciating death.
If all people want happiness, then the fact that true happiness is found in Heaven and true unhappiness is found in Hell should be a powerful incentives to follow Christ. Of course, one must believe in Christ before one can possibly follow him. And once someone comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, Hell isn’t even an option anymore, so it should, I suppose, drop out of the picture entirely. What did Peter have that weighed against immediate pleasure, nurture, and nature? He had a firm belief in Heaven; he believed that the way he would get supreme and complete happiness was to courageously stand for Christ through suffering and death.
I wonder, though, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Also, was there no way that he could have saved his life without forfeiting his soul to Hell? Surely he could have quietly slipped off to some island or distant land where he could have remained a Christian, gone to Heaven, and avoided Hell altogether. This, I suppose, would give him the same end result – ultimate happiness in Heaven. So, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Or did his worldview go further than a belief in a future reward? What makes different people happy? If you are familiar with The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, you know that some people feel great when you give them a gift, others when you speak a kind word to them, others when you serve them, others when you spend quality time with them, and others when you show them physical affection. These are, I think, primarily related to personality (nature), but can be heavily affected by nurture as well. However, when Peter suffered upside-down crucifiction, as already noted, he behaved against most nature and nurture – to him, because of his worldview, the supreme happiness came through this: he knew that he was serving and pleasing Christ, and that Christ was in him and that he was in Christ. He knew two things (1) he would live with Christ forever following his death, and (2) he was living with Christ each and every day, even during the time of his suffering. If this is indeed so, then Peter did not have quite as violent a present pleasure versus future pleasure conflict as we might suppose. Perhaps there was very little struggle at all.
Ultimately, I think that while the idea of future rewards and punishments can be helpful in getting a person to understand both a necessity and desire to follow Christ, the only thing that will really change a person’s life is for their present and future pleasure to be their unity with Christ.
What is truth? How is this elusive question related to doing what you want because it makes you happy? These issues get into a partial apologia of Christianity. I will put this off until my next post. What I intend to explore is this – If the ultimate goal of all men (who live now, who ever have lived, and who will ever live) is to be happy, then if by living according to Biblical principles, one most closely attains true happiness, then is this not at least circumstantial evidence that what the Bible says is true? And there is that tricky word – truth. So I will also ponder whether there is a corollary between truth and happiness. After all, if truth and happiness are completely divorced, then just because Biblical principles make you happy doesn’t mean anything as far as their truth is concerned. I also hope to get into the relation that goodness has to either or both happiness and truth.
There is one thing all people want – maximum happiness. Happiness may not be the right word; contentment might be better, but I cannot articulate a real difference between them (at least in how I look at the two concepts).
I am convinced that everything a person does (except for unconscious behavior such as sleep talking and reflexive action) is directly related to that person’s concept of personal happiness. There are many factors that go into the bizarre range of differing human activity all geared toward the same exact goal. I think some of the most important factors are the conflict between getting immediate versus long term happiness, a person’s inherent personality (nature), a person’s environment (nurture), and a person’s “worldview.” Obviously, the short term/long term pleasure conflict and one’s “worldview” are closely related to each other and to aspects of nature and nurture.
Two examples of the short term versus long term conflict are a person who wants to lose weight but is enticed into eating a large bowl of pots-de-crème, and a Christian with his eye set generally on pleasing God, but who in some specific instances succumbs to lustful sins. If you combine personality with the long term versus short term struggle, you will notice some people with more inherent patience than others. These patient people will be more likely to give in less often to the persuasive power of “Now!” An example of pure personality as it applies to achieving happiness and affecting difference of behavior would be the difference between somebody who loved cake but disliked movies and somebody who loves movies and dislikes cake. The one will eat cake; the other will watch a movie. A person who is raised in a violent family will more likely be violent, while a person raised in a peaceful home will more likely abstain from violence. This is an example of the affect of one’s environment, his nurture. Finally, there is one’s worldview. Even if one has a personality that succumbs easily to indulging in hours of video games and television per day, a general worldview that heavily favors achieving useful tasks and eschewing wastes of time will often induce such a person to leave the couch and do more important things with his valuable time. The Apostle Peter provides a great example – before a drastic worldview change with the resurrection of Christ, he denied Jesus three times. Afterwards, he preached Christ until he got crucified for it. An urge for short term happiness, a reasonable personality, and any conceivable past environment Peter could have had would all point heavily towards saving himself from this excruciating death.
If all people want happiness, then the fact that true happiness is found in Heaven and true unhappiness is found in Hell should be a powerful incentives to follow Christ. Of course, one must believe in Christ before one can possibly follow him. And once someone comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, Hell isn’t even an option anymore, so it should, I suppose, drop out of the picture entirely. What did Peter have that weighed against immediate pleasure, nurture, and nature? He had a firm belief in Heaven; he believed that the way he would get supreme and complete happiness was to courageously stand for Christ through suffering and death.
I wonder, though, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Also, was there no way that he could have saved his life without forfeiting his soul to Hell? Surely he could have quietly slipped off to some island or distant land where he could have remained a Christian, gone to Heaven, and avoided Hell altogether. This, I suppose, would give him the same end result – ultimate happiness in Heaven. So, was it only a future happiness that he looked to? Or did his worldview go further than a belief in a future reward? What makes different people happy? If you are familiar with The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, you know that some people feel great when you give them a gift, others when you speak a kind word to them, others when you serve them, others when you spend quality time with them, and others when you show them physical affection. These are, I think, primarily related to personality (nature), but can be heavily affected by nurture as well. However, when Peter suffered upside-down crucifiction, as already noted, he behaved against most nature and nurture – to him, because of his worldview, the supreme happiness came through this: he knew that he was serving and pleasing Christ, and that Christ was in him and that he was in Christ. He knew two things (1) he would live with Christ forever following his death, and (2) he was living with Christ each and every day, even during the time of his suffering. If this is indeed so, then Peter did not have quite as violent a present pleasure versus future pleasure conflict as we might suppose. Perhaps there was very little struggle at all.
Ultimately, I think that while the idea of future rewards and punishments can be helpful in getting a person to understand both a necessity and desire to follow Christ, the only thing that will really change a person’s life is for their present and future pleasure to be their unity with Christ.
What is truth? How is this elusive question related to doing what you want because it makes you happy? These issues get into a partial apologia of Christianity. I will put this off until my next post. What I intend to explore is this – If the ultimate goal of all men (who live now, who ever have lived, and who will ever live) is to be happy, then if by living according to Biblical principles, one most closely attains true happiness, then is this not at least circumstantial evidence that what the Bible says is true? And there is that tricky word – truth. So I will also ponder whether there is a corollary between truth and happiness. After all, if truth and happiness are completely divorced, then just because Biblical principles make you happy doesn’t mean anything as far as their truth is concerned. I also hope to get into the relation that goodness has to either or both happiness and truth.
posted by Jaired B. Hall at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home