Why does God Demand our Praise?
October 15th, 2006 by Stephen
There are some questions that arise again and again between Christians and non Christians, and one of these goes along the lines of “why does God demand our praise? Doesn’t that make him a self absorbed despot?”
The problem is not a trivial one. Christians would agree with non Christians that there is nothing praiseworthy in a person who demands our praise. That a leader of a country who demands he be praised by virtue of his position is little more than a selfish tyrant, or that an intelligent person who demands that their intelligence be recognised is little more than a bore.
In the history of protestantism there was a man named Emanuel Swedenborg, who was never an evangelical, but believed he had a message for the Church from God regarding the nature of the second coming of Christ, and of heaven and hell. However, Swedenborg was also never a modest man. On his return to Sweden on one occasion, he argued that all the professors of the universities there should have their salaries docked to pay for a chair for himself, and there are other examples of his self absorption that so consumed him that his own father seems to have despaired and oly mentioned his son two or three times in his voluminous autobiography!
And we would say that this was Swedenborg’s own doing. That there is nothing to be admired in a man so “full of himself” and so imodest.
So why should God be different? If we admire humility; if Christ himself taught us to admire humility, then why should we not agree with the atheist or non Christian who says that God is wrong to demand our praises, and wrong to be so absorbed with his own goodness?
There are many things that can be said here, but one of the clearest comments I have seen on the issue comes from John Piper, in his book “Desiring God”:
The second reason people stumble over the teaching that God exalts his own glory and seeks to be praised by his people is that the Bible teaches us not to be like that. For example, the Bible says that “Love seeks not its own” ( 1 Corinthians 13:5). How can God be loving and yet be utterly devoted to “seeking his own” glory and praise and joy? How can God be for us if he is so utterly for himself? The answer I propose is this: Because God is unique as an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient Being, he must be for himself if he is to be for us. The rules of humility that belong to a creature cannot apply in the same way to its Creator. If God should turn away from himself as the Source of infinite joy, he would cease to be God. He would deny the infinite worth of his own glory. He would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry. This would be no gain for us. For where can we go when our God has become unrighteous? Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable? Where shall we turn with our adoration when God himself has forsaken the claims of infinite worth and beauty? No, we do not turn God’s self-exaltation into love by demanding that God cease to be God. Instead we must come to see that God is love precisely because he relentlessly pursues the praises of his name in the hearts of his people.
The logic in the passage you quote can be summarized “God is unique, therefore it is not strange for God to have attribute X. If God did not have attribute X, God would cease to be godly.” The problem with this argument is that it could be used for any attribute given to God.
No, the logic cannot be summarised in this manner. The argument is not “because God is unique…” Indeed, I am unique, as are you. But the issue with God is over his attributes of infinite worth and glory. Piper’s proposition is this:
“God is unique as an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient Being”.
And so it follows that:
“he must be for himself if he is to be for us.” (and the rest of Piper’s logic shows you why).
Now in a logical argument you can argue that (1) the proposition is wrong (i.e. that you believe it false that God is an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient being). You can also argue (2) that the argument is fallacious (i.e., that the argument that for God to fail to then value himself would be idiolatry, is a non sequitur). However, to recast the argument in a form that you can demolish (as you did) is the straw man fallacy. The argument you have demolished is not the argument of the writer.
I also note that if you argue as in option (1) above, that God is not all-glorious, and you then derive from this an argument that God is wrong to praise himself because he is not infinitely glorious, then that argument would be a classic case of begging the question (the proposition you would be attempting to prove would be contained in the premise of your argument).
Of course, if you are not a Christian, I do not expect you to accept the premise that god is all-glorious. I simply note that the argument that God’s self-exaltation shows God to be less than perfectly good is logically fallacious.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Stephen
Swedenborg would not argue this way. His theology says that God is pure Love. And that Love has no element of love of self.
God doesn’t need praise. And He doesn’t need our prayers, exaultations, worship, etc. We do.
How it benefits us is that it humbles us to something that is greater than our own ego. And submitting the ego (Swedenborg calls it the proprium) to something else enables God to flow into our souls and minds with good.
He “demands” our praise, not because it is of any need or desire by Him, but because He knows it is the key to our spiritual regeneration.
The phrasing “demand” is very Old Testament — the way that law was given to the people of that Testament’s time who were very external and in the externals of worship only. For them, commands (”demands”) were the order of the day. This has shifted, first in the New Testament, and now in Swedenborg’s revelation (for those who subscribe to that revelation as from God).
(Why regeneration is so important to Him is another story.)
You really ought not try to play the “well, if you aren’t a Christian, you can’t understand” card; it is silly. Non-Christians can take premises and reason from them as well as Christians. More importantly, implies that you are making the assumption that the person you are responding to is not a Christian.
Assuming that my interpretation of the argument was wrong (which I am not fully conviced of, but I am not particularly attached to it so we may move on), I still disagree that it justifies an idea that God demands praise. The problem (other than the fact that I don’t quite see how the premises lead to any conclusion, let alone the desired one), as commenter number 3 points out, is with the word demand. We are getting confused by the limitations of language here. I would say, based not on logic (it’s too early in hte morning for that) but on my own experience, that once one has even the smallest knowledge of God, God demands praise in the same way gravity demands you move towards the earth. The closer we come to fufilling our role as spiritual beings, we cannot deny the “laws of Spirit” any more than our physicial being can deny the laws of Nature.
Swedenborg dude: I know Swedenborg would not argue that way, but my mentioning of Swedenborg was as an example of someone who was arrogant, and how we fail tob admire people who are so arrogant. You will notice that the criticisms of Swedenborg in his lifetime made much of his arrogance, and this would - I think - largely answer the question as to why so few have heard of him now.
Regards,
Stephen
Erika, I did not play an “if you are not a Christian, you cannot understand card”. I said that a non Christian should not be expected to accept the major premise of the argument (that God is all-glorious). The very point of the argument, however, is that if the Christian God is all-glorious, then it is fallacious to argue that his self-exaltation makes him less than all-glorious.
A non Christian can certainly understand the argument, without necessarily accepting the major premise as being necessarily true.
Neither did I assume you are not a Christian. I said “if you are not a Christian…” There is no assumption here.
Whilst I don’t have any problem with the term “demand” here, you make a valid point that it is important to define our terms carefully before proceeding with argument, and indeed, my title on this message does not fully do justice to Piper’s argument which is literally “why is God right to exalt himself”.
If one accepts that God is right to exalt himself, then it follows that his creatures are right to exalt him also. “But it is not only right, it is our duty and joy at all times and in all places to give him thanks and praise.”
As the shorter catachism of the Westminster Confession begins:
What is the chief end of man?
The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
So demand is indeed too strong a word inasmuch as it stresses duty over joy. However, explaining that in the title of my post would have made for a very long title
As for early in the morning… it is early evening here
Thanks for the comment
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen, it appears to me that Piper’s argument overly complicates things, because the Reformed mindset is so fixated on God’s glory that it makes glorifying God not only the chief end of man but also the chief end of God as well. I don’t think that the Bible supports this. God does things for His own glory, but I think this is a shorthand for saying that He does things so that His created creatures will glorify Him. (I.e., I think your original title is more correct than the question Piper sets out to answer.)
I prefer Lewis’s simpler explanation for why God calls on us to praise Him. It’s not that He needs our praise for any sort of ego gratification; it’s that it’s right and proper and beneficial to us that we praise Him. Just as in an aesthetic sense it does a person credit to recognize great art and praise it as such, it generates growth and joy in us to recognize God as worthy of glory and to give it to Him. God wants us to praise Him for our benefit, not for His.
I don’t think we can say anything about God’s own self-consciousness, other than that He is full of love and joy and peace to an infinite degree. I don’t know that God glorifies Himself within Himself (or among the Trinity); I suspect that concept would be meaningless. Glorification is the proper response of a lesser being to a greater; it is therefore the proper response of all His created beings to Him.
Hi Keith,
I don’t think that Piper’s theology has it that the chief end of God is his glory, but rather that “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.” - Psalm 115:3. And it pleases God to exalt himself, because he is all glorious.
We know that the Son glorifies the Father, and the Spirit glorifies the Son, and yet we also see Christ say that he does not glorify himself, but the father glorifies the Son.
You suggest that the Bible is using shorthand to say that God does things so that his creatures give glory to him. I cannot really disuade you from that opinion, because it is based on a difference in opinion as to how literally the description is meant - but I do note that if God created man to give him glory, then in a sense he is glorifying himself in that creation.
I think Lewis is right too. Lewis says God does not need our praise, and that is right. It is indeed right and proper that we praise God, and it is also our joy to do so. But where I think Piper has gone further is in the recognition that this joy in praise and worship, and this pleasure in God is found eternally in the Godhead too. That we can enjoy God forever, just as He has always and forever done so.
Thanks for commenting.
Stephen
I think people are confused because the initial post didn’t finish Piper’s statement. He quotes CS Lewis, who made the most obvious statement about praise. It’s simple, we praise what we enjoy. Think about it, is it unloving and selfish for a father to take a dispondent child to Disneyland so he can see some praise come off of his lips? What does the child do at Disneyland? “Oh wasn’t that ride great, let’s go again”, “This place is wonderful”, isn’t this all praise? God, forgive the poor analogy, but he’s our Disneyland, for us to be in his presence and not praise God’s infinite glory is the equivilant of a child going to Disneyland and saying, “Yes, this is ok, I don’t mind this, why are all these people praising it”. We’d know the child un-happy. Same with us, isn’t it, as Christians, truly our greatest joy to praise? Praise is not just a duty, it comes from a joyful heart, or as Lewis says, “It’s not a substitute for joy, it’s it’s consumation”. God loves us, and is self-less, his greatest gift of love to us is to elicit rapturous praise in God, for he desires our joy to be full.