Mankind’s search for purpose and pursuit of happiness has led some of the world’s greatest philosophers and theologians alike, from civilizations throughout history, to define our desired yet elusive state.  They each saw “flourishing” as the goal but differed on what that word entails:

• Plato and Aristotle – Achieving life’s ultimate end (eudaimonia) by “living well and doing well”, striving for virtue both in terms of internal (e.g. intellectual and moral) and external (e.g. relationships and charity) excellence.
• Bible – “Life as God intended” or “Shalom”, encompassing peace, wholeness, righteousness, completeness, purpose, abundance, community, justice, salvation, as well as right relationships with Jesus, others, and His creation.
• Harvard – High scores on a Flourishing Index around five Domains (happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships) by working down four Pathways (family, work, education, and religious community).

While certain elements of those definitions overlap, the importance of the topic and its resurgence in America today warrant a closer look by Christians uncomfortable with any attempts to (re)define the meaning of life.  In 2016, Harvard established a Human Flourishing Program around measures outlined in a professor’s paper entitled, “On the Promotion of Human Flourishing”.  Harvard has been open to discussion and partnerships with church and ministry leaders to ensure their voices are heard and findings are leveraged in the Christian community.  I’ve had an opportunity to work alongside some of those leaders and to speak with Harvard about biblical concepts I felt needed additional attention and concerns worth consideration:

1. Participation in Religious Community is Viewed in a Utilitarian Sense – The correlation cited by Harvard is between church attendance (not faith) and flourishing.  They found that regular religious participation builds social capital and enhances “virtue”, leading to happiness and better mental health.  According to the study, the same can be said of family, work, and education.  Harvard doesn’t attribute the positive outcomes from religious community to any spiritual factors (i.e. knowing Christ as Lord and Savior).  Like Nietzsche, the issues and solutions proposed revolve around the usefulness of “religion” – the value it adds (or doesn’t) to individuals and communities.  The insinuation is that if you’re “flourishing” without religious community, then you probably don’t “need” it.  If you’re not “flourishing”, then going to a church, mosque, or synagogue may be useful.  Yet attendance is not a proxy for spirituality.  As the saying goes, standing in a church doesn’t make someone a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes them a car.
2. Does Not Take into Account that Christianity is America’s Predominant Faith – When measuring the value of religious participation, Harvard does not factor in the high percentage of Americans who profess to be Christians – 62% today (although down from 78% in 2007).  The study does not distinguish between religions or weight the benefits proportionally, giving equal credit to all religious communities for helping attenders “flourish”.  On the surface, a confession by a highly respected secular institution that religion can be beneficial seems encouraging.  However, Harvard offers no admission that Jesus or Christianity is good or distinct from any other faith in its connection to flourishing.  Yet we know only Christ can deliver on His promise of abundance in this life and salvation for the next.
3. Lack of Research into How One’s Flourishing Can Diminish Another’s – In our flawed and sinful world, seeking to maximize one’s personal Flourishing Index may cause others to suffer.  Not all thrive linearly – achieving aspirations and ambitions may come at the expense of family members, coworkers, and communities.  A dad may rarely be home for his children because he works hard for promotions and status within the company.  An employee steps over colleagues on the way to the top.  A leader institutes policies that elevate and enrich themselves on the backs of those they were supposed to serve.  Harvard envisions utopia but human nature is inherently evil, so entropy is the order of the day.  Harvard’s data collection methodology surveys individuals to solicit feelings about their personal happiness, health, sense of purpose, character, and relationships.  While some statistics are gathered to assess whether a community is “flourishing”, no surveys are conducted to ask those closest to a participant whether that person is making their lives better or worse.
4. Focus is on Worldly Methods to Drive Up the Five Domains – Findings based on self-centered feelings without a foundation in the truth of Scripture may lead to harmful solutions.  Assuming the four Pathways are the primary drivers of human flourishing, all that Harvard apparently believes is required to move the needle are changes in policies and incentives around family, work, education, and religious community.  That argument has merit in a nation where laws and social programs have weakened families, disincented work, fostered educational underperformance, and undermined church growth.  However, the pursuit of flourishing through those channels is likely to overemphasize secular institutions and methods to manipulate outcomes.  If the premise for their recommendations to promote human flourishing is based on an inaccurate world view, then rest assured Domain scores for true life satisfaction, mental health, meaning, virtue, and relational unity will not increase.
5. Addresses Implications of Not Flourishing, but Not in All Forms – Material poverty is commonly seen as the antithesis of flourishing.  But Jesus turns the world’s economy on its head, calling the poor rich and rich poor.  Relatively uneducated and underemployed people are often more satisfied with their lives and possess higher character and closer relationships than Ivy League executives.  The temptations of the “flesh” that accompany wealth can produce a spiritual poverty that the four Pathways – even religious service attendance – can’t fix.

The Flourishing Index is likely to become widely adopted and does contain redeeming, valuable insights, so we hope Christian leaders will continue to collaborate with Harvard to introduce principles grounded in flourishing according to Scripture.

Flourishing from a Christian World View

Harvard’s flourishing Domains and Pathways are valid, derived by statistical and scientific methods.  However, the definitions provided, questions formulated, and answers given are subjective.  They’re shaped by perceptions of reality not reflecting the facts that humans are made in God’s image, intended for identity as children of a heavenly Father, designed for the purpose of glorifying Him, and destined for eternal life with (or apart) from our Savior Jesus Christ.  If the Domains and Pathways had been developed from that perspective, they may have looked something like this:

Domains:

• Joy and Contentment – Happiness without joy is transient.  Satisfaction without contentment is shallow.  Their selfish pursuit can cost others dearly.
• Mental and Physical Wellness – Wellness does not depend on health.  A more holistic picture considers not just mind and body, but soul.  The “unhealthy” often gain a perspective and platform to flourish in ways the “healthy” miss.
• Identity and Value – There’s no purpose without identity.  There’s no meaning without worth.  True fulfillment is only possible as a child of God faithfully living out the Prayer-Care-Share lifestyle Jesus modeled.
• Character and Virtue – Harvard’s survey asks about promoting “good”, but our society views tolerance of immorality as its epitome.  Biblical character and virtue are about truth and unconditional love, which many see as intolerant.
• Fellowship and Community – Authentic love and unity are found in Christ alone, so our closest social relationships may be with those who know Him while leaving space for intentional connections with non-believing “neighbors“.

Pathways:

• Family as God Designed – Not just any parent, but a caring dad and mom
• Earning a Living Wage – Not just any job but a calling to a sustainable career
• Wisdom Rooted in Truth – Not just education or knowledge acquired in school
• Faith and Discipleship – Not just regular attendance at any religious service

Harvard adds a Domain to “preserve the others”, Financial and Material Stability, which could be renamed Stewardship and Generosity to account for God’s ownership of everything and our responsibility to do more than simply ensure our own security.

It’s Your Turn…

As a Christ-follower and student of Scripture, what adjustments would you make to Harvard’s model to better align “flourishing” with “life as God intended”?