Desiring God by John Piper Review
I've reviewed many books, but never one I didn't like, so I thought I'd give that a try. Today it's Desiring God by John Piper.
A few qualifiers first
First, I'm a fallible man, and anything that comes out of my mouth is fallible. I could be completely wrong, and if I am, please correct me. I would greatly appreciate it.
Second, I've never liked Piper's preaching or his style of communication, but I'd never read any of his books. This book was brought to me by people who mean the world to me and have influenced my life considerably, so I feel I came to it without bias. I'm sure he has taught good things and helped the kingdom and those who listen to him. I'm not attacking him, or anyone who appreciates his work. I'm simply reviewing this book.
The book and the author
It's 312 pages, 343 with the study guide, a typical glued paperback. John Stephen Piper was born on January 11, 1946, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. His father was an evangelist for over 60 years. He married Noël Henry in 1968, and they have five children, one of them an adopted daughter. This is Piper's most popular work, and his ministry takes its name from it. It was written in 1986 and has gone through many editions.
The chapters: the happiness of God, conversion, worship, love, Scripture, prayer, money, marriage, missions and suffering, each one framed as part of "Christian hedonism," followed by an epilogue, an appendix on why he calls it Christian hedonism, a study guide and indexes. (I always do love a good index.)
My concerns
I've been told by people I sought wisdom from that my conclusion is right but my means of getting there may not be. Hear me out, and judge for yourself.
1. The whole book is built on a misreading of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Question 1 says the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Piper changes it to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. That implies the only way we can glorify God is by enjoying Him, and we know from Romans 9 that even those made for dishonorable use will glorify God in the end. I think it's a complete misunderstanding of the Westminster divines.
2. Hedonism is not Christian. Hedonism is seeking pleasure, doing things because they make us feel good. We don't serve Christ because it makes us feel good, but because He commands it and because He is worthy. Ecclesiastes 12:13: "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." If we were simply doing it for our own pleasure, there are worse things we'd want to be doing. We've had whole decades built on "if it feels good, do it." When we seek pleasure, we turn to the world, not to God.
3. It goes against Reformed teaching. We believe in a sovereign God and in the glory of God. Piper is a known Calvinist, but based on this book he seems Calvinist by name more than in teaching.
4. It focuses Christianity on the individual instead of God. In the chapter on prayer he raises the question of whether prayer is self-centered and answers that, as the pursuit of our pleasure, yes, it is. I was appalled. At the end of that chapter I wrote: We do not pray for the sake of feelings; rather we must pray and have faith even when our feelings are vacant. That is faith. Our feelings are up and down, and some days they're gone completely. "I believe in the cross of Christ and His atoning blood on my behalf; though I feel nothing, I kneel before You, God." That's faith.
He also brings marriage into it, as a matrix for Christian hedonism. But marriage is not based on feeling, for if it were, none would last. It's based on commitment and perseverance. Marriage is actually a good example of why hedonism and Christianity don't mesh.
5. He sets aside J. C. Ryle's warning. Anyone who's followed the channel knows I'm a Ryle enthusiast. In his epilogue Piper acknowledges that the name "Christian hedonism" risks ignoring Bishop Ryle's counsel against "uncouth and new-fangled terms" in teaching sanctification, but he stands by the term anyway. That makes me angry for two reasons. He sets aside what we know to be wise, biblical counsel, and he didn't even need to bring it up.
6. It's a new idea. You don't find Christian hedonism in church history. He quotes the Bible, Jonathan Edwards and C. S. Lewis, and they're good quotes, but I don't think hedonism is what they were talking about. Paul Washer has said that if you discover some grand new idea in Scripture, compare it with all of church history, and if church history stands against you, who's probably wrong? I described Christian hedonism to someone as a different version of the prosperity gospel. That's a harsh thing to say, and I must be careful saying it. But the prosperity gospel offers money and comfort, and this offers pleasure and good feelings. Either way, the focus moves from God to the individual.
Are there better books on this topic?
Yes. Half joking, almost any book I've read has made me desire God more than this one. I know it's a popular book in Reformed circles and people think highly of it and its author, and I don't mean to come across as if I know more than a man with doctorate degrees. These are simply my concerns.
Would I buy it?
No. It only confused me. I didn't feel edified or closer to God, and afterwards I even felt weird praying, as if I were praying for the wrong reasons. Am I reading Scripture for my own gain, or to understand God better and serve Him for His glory?
If you were edified by this book, please tell me in the comments on the video. I want to know what I missed. I really do want to think higher of it than I do.
Soli Deo Gloria!
.jpg)
.png)