Desiring God

John

I recommend, quite strongly, that you read the book but not because it represents soudness but because it is one of the best sources for a believer to refine their discernment regarding bad theology presented with a mix of some orthodox theology. The most popular concept in the book is Christian Hedonism and is fundamentally its worst concept and has been rebutted, very thoroughly, by other Teachers. But of course some others embrace it so you will have to determine for yourself. But I do believe Piper is symptomatic of our current state of undisciplined theological pursuit and associations within conservative Evangelicalism. There was a day when such a publication would have been acknowledged for the contents of its orthodoxy in the places it might be found within the book but ultimately rejected by a great majority within orthodox Evangelicalism and certainly conservative Evangelicalism, because of its conflict with or deviation from orthodoxy in many places as well as its pattern of self-contradictory arguments, in my view.

Piper's teaching, as I have observed along with others, is emotionally laden and sentimentally charged and this is reflected in the book where he asserts that our emotions must experience God or that through our emotions we are commanded to experience God. He is very confused (and he is not alone and I am afraid his material has opend the door to a great amount of confusion on the subject in conservative Evangelicalism) regarding the role of emotions both anthropologically and spiritually and his suggestions are no where forwarded in Scripture. Now you will find references to joy and peace and so on but Piper's great error and that of many of his followers, either close or distant, is the view that these refer to emotions themselves and not a state of mind or more precisely, a mind controlled by God's Spirit; "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" "Do not be drunk with wine but be controlled by the Spirit". While emotions are present in our experiences, these nor their manifestations are what are substanatively in view (they are anecdotal) when such references occur with respect to spiritual contexts and that of the human mentality under the tutelage and control of God's Spirit.

Piper takes many liberties to make his arguments, inappropriate ones in my view. Since I am limited in space but as well need not repeat what I will link to, examples of these liberties can be found at a fantastic critique of Desiring God here:

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/12/reasonable-christian....

I have found that many followers and defenders of Piper to be sycophantic, hence little is questioned by them and they are quite hostile to any critique which normally results in ad hominem attacks (personal insults toward the person introducing questions or criticisms and my belief is that this stems from a frail ego that has attached itself in an unhealthy manner to one Guru thereby giving the experience of a personal attack on them when their Guru is questioned). But there are others who will concede problems exist with Piper but still falling short of a willingness to fully examine the trajectory or end of his teaching of Christian Hedonism which is theologically unsound and leads to both theological and practical errors for which one cannot compensate.

Best wishes reading.

John,

Apart from Piper's departures from historically conservative Evangelical views in certain places (in my view, due to his use of imprecise exegesis and casual theological force in the development of his interpretations or conclusions) and with respect to his writing/communicating style, I believe that two main things contribute to Piper's tedious style:

1. He states the obvious (often) as if it is not so obvious, hence, giving the impression that his audience ought to treat this as a profound insight. While the obvious may be profound, stating in a manner couched with language that intimates its enlightenment is recent and no so clear to many, does become wearisome.

2. He is not economical with his words and this periphrastic characteristic of Piper's (or anyone) demands more patience than should be expected for the reader. And this lends itself toward a kind of repetition that is uninstructive. Not that all reading should be to our ease but there is a different between mechanical styles with great substance and those that, regardless of style, have a great deal of unnecessary filling.

As to the books, I do not know of each one's contents so I would have to take time to review them in some manner before recommending one above the other.

John,

I have read Lutzer and as a Calvinistic leaning teacher I find him quite readable (I am a former Calvinist and though I argue against the TULIP, I do not reject all teachings within Calvinism since many are orthodox) and edifying in many places. And from what I have read of your posts, John, you are exceptionally evangelistic, maybe gifted to fulfill the office of Evangelist at some point (that would be for those in your ecclesiastical periphery to determine). And with readings from Lutzer, I am sure it will compliment and help with your spiritual acceleration and aid in your ministry toward others.

Alex

Sorry, I haven't read desiring god. But I'll comment on others:

Future Grace was a boring read, I didn't finish it.
I find his sermons to be quite the opposite.

His new book, a sweet and bitter providence is much easier to read. In fact, it's one of the few books I have read quickly - finished it in 2 days. You should take a look.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/a-sweet-and-bit...

Future Grace isn't the best theological work. Much truth, but sometimes he clearly stretches the text.

Although I believe in 'christian hedonism,' I can't recall too many verses. It's clear we must LOVE christ. (If any many phileo not the lord jesus christ, let him be anathema maranatha.)
It's clear we must come to God as rewarder.. (But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.)

But whether joy in God is required..
Deu 28:47 Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
Deu 28:48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

It's not true religion if it doesn't involve the emotions.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

And now an analogy. We're children, He is our father. What would be your response if your children said they will obey you perfectly from this day forward, no more disobedience: but they will NEVER love you?

This isn't quite what you were asking, but I think I addressed some things in the thread. Hopefully it helps.

And yes, my estimate is many people avoid Piper because he's too calvinist.

Where in the world do I start? I'm struggling with where exactly to begin, so I'll just write.

Personal History
I've read "Desiring God," "The Pleasures of God," "God's Passion For His Glory," "Pierced By The Word," portions of "Future Grace," "The Justification of God" (John Piper's exegetical work on Rom 9), many articles and sermons. Also, it is exceedingly helpful to have read Jonathan Edwards before or during your reading of Piper in discerning what he is saying. I certainly have not read everything of Piper's or Jonathan Edwards, but it is a decent amount to be acquainted with the thoughts contained therein.

Suggested Reading Order
Personally, I would not suggest that you read "Desiring God" first. I really found that I understood "Desiring God" much better after reading "The Pleasures of God". This is to say that "The Pleasures of God" is foundational to "Desiring God".

The book "God's Passion For His Glory" is a good read in the following sense. Piper recounts his history of reading in Jonathan Edward's works, so you begin to get an understanding of how Jonathan Edwards has had an influence upon him. This accounts for the first third or half of the book. The second part of the book is just a work of Jonathan Edwards what it is spelled out what God's end was in creating.

As part of the reading order, I would really suggest alternating between Jonathan Edwards and Piper, or one should just read Jonathan Edwards first. However, Jonathan Edwards is not immediately accessible to the average reader, as his writing style is sometimes difficult to penetrate, and his thinking is massively condensed, and people are often not equipped or used to the mental strain that his thinking will produce. This just means that he is not a light read. Restated, Piper and Jonathan Edwards are not for the entertainment oriented reader or the "fast food" theologian who just wants a quick read or a theology that requires no thought. If you are going to read Edwards, then I would recommend reading his sermons first, since they are the easiest to read. His books should be read last, and "Freedom of the Will", "Nature of True Virtue", and "On Original Sin" are probably the hardest of his books to read. I would recommend "Religious Affections" before any other of his books except perhaps the "Life And Diary of David Brainerd".

Biases And Presuppositions
To preface what I'm about to say, most likely he can and will respond with the same type of comment aimed at me; and I would agree. I often find people of an Arminian like persuasion, and/or a person who holds to a libertarian form view of human freedom, and/or a person who tends to agree with a Ryrie-like view of soteriology, will not enjoy a reading of Piper. From my personal interaction with Alex, I've found his remarkably biased against Piper, and he will take the time and energy to blast away. It is a popular pastime for those of his persuasion because Piper is hitting and attacking key presuppositions of theirs. Their form of human nature will not allow for the spiritual realities that Piper advocates, and so they see him as abusing text after text; but this is predetermined by their view of human nature which then converts into how a person is to worship and live the Christian life. However, I certainly do concede that some of Piper's views of texts are a little stretched or stretched, but the wholesale tossing of Piper out the window is a gross disservice to the Christian community that some seem to be ok with. Also, if you are opposed to a Reformed view of soteriology, then you will not enjoy reading Piper. In the next part I would like to address what I think to be his best contribution.

I have often see people say that "Christian Hedonism" is unbiblical and has been disproved, but I also often see that they are either misunderstanding the terminology, and/or they are forcing their own presuppositions upon the discussion. In short, when I read that the terminology is refuted, I just see a person who is rather mired and controlled by their presuppositions, and thus they cannot appreciate the contribution. Certainly, Piper himself says that the label "Christian Hedonism" could be misleading, but he encourages one to be ok with dismissing the label, but one should not dismiss the point or content behind the label. The point though is not the label but the reality of which Piper is speaking. The terminology is there just to get the person to think; it is not meant to be a infallible label.

Key Contribution
Personally, what I find to be Piper's and by connection, Jonathan Edwards', key contribution to the church of our time is this. He radically guns down a purely mental or affectionless Christianity. He makes his reader consider what it really means to love and worship God. Christianity is much more that just doing one's duty; it is more than just a libertarian will doing deeds; it is more than just a Kantian disinterested benevolence. One's quality of Christianity and living worship is challenged. "Affections" are a necessary part of the Christian life with regard to God. God is to be loved with one's entire being. He is to be rejoiced in. He is to be a person's all. He is to be the One of which a person's life is completely oriented around. Like no other person of this time, Piper has encouraged me to love God with all of my being and to move past the rampant formalism found so often. He hit the heart! If you go into a reading of Piper with this in mind, then you can love and enjoy what he is doing, and you can also leave out the areas where you disagree. He challenges you to radically make God your all, and for that his contribution is invaluable. This ultimately cuts cross grained with easy believism, and he challenges the orthodoxy of that antinomian notion. He encourages a person to be passionately pursuing God.

Style
With regard to style, I need to write something. "Style" with respect to writing is just a way of speaking toward Piper's accessibility to the readers of this age. If you think of his style as boring, then I would suggest that perhaps you are approaching the read with the wrong assumptions in place. His style is not so much about being boring or not, but his style is meant to convey real substance, and thus it is typically not a light read. You have to think! So if you approach his work as a casual reader and not one who is interested in reforming the mind, then you will find the work boring and overly complicated. I just mention this to point out that sometimes we approach books with certain prejudices that lead us to miss the amazing content found in them.

I hope that this has been helpful.

That's probably why Caleb said the following:

Thanks, Caleb, for your thoughtful and balanced summary of Piper's writings.

Alex, you're in fine "how to win friends and influence people" form today.

But to do something on topic...
I read about 2/3 of Desiring God (hard to tell for sure how much because it was audio book while driving). I'm not delighted (pun intended) by the "Christian hedonism" terminology, but he makes a very persuasive case that
a. Human beings delight in something (i.e., they are all "hedonistic" in the sense that what drives them is what they delight in... or what they delight in drives them--both.)
b. Human beings ought to delight in God.

Beyond that, things get a bit confusing for me. The relationship between the pleasures of life in this world and the pleasure of enjoying God was a bit difficult to sort out. I don't want to be too critical since I didn't finish it... yet. Maybe it gets more clear later.
But I also thought he was taking the concept too far to say that a person is truly born again unless he makes the decision to delight in/desire God above all. (Or something like that. One of Piper's gifts is his vocabulary and I can't remember his terms. But basically he defined both sin and conversion in terms of pleasure in God. This is a problem because, though the affections are a huge component in what sin is and what conversion is, they are not whole thing... and Scripture does not seem to put the emphasis where Piper puts it.)

It's a good idea to read Edward's Religious Affections before reading Desiring God. Alas, I haven't finished RA yet either!
...soon.
...as soon as I think I can properly enjoy it.

But DG is not a book to lightly set aside. The kind of thinking going on in it is worth chewing on, even if it does raise more questions for you than it supplies answers. He is asking very important questions in the book that I had not seen anyone else raise (but that was before reading Edwards, who is interested in many of the same questions).

Don't read it unless you want to do a lot of thinking.
Edit: I overlooked Caleb's post (hard to do... much there and helpful POV). So much of my quick eval. here is a bit redundant. Glad to see he also points toward Edwards.
I don't think Edwards is that hard to read, really. It's a bit plodding because his reasoning is so methodical. ...but I like methodical.
So, FWIW, some find Edwards easier to understand than Piper, odd as that might seem.

Alex,

I'm glad that you were amused, and I hope that you will continue to have wonderful joyous emotions with all the levity surrounding this thread.

With regard to my making unsubstantiated accusations, please note the following links that have been provided. One can also note how Alex actually agrees with me with his statement: “anthropological realities with regard to emotions and thought.” This is exactly what I was talking about. Somehow my comments are unsubstantiated, but then Alex substantiates them (contradiction). Yet, in case there is any doubt, the following links have been provided as well as post #s to provide easy access.

-See post #66’s correspondence with my comments.
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith

-See also posts 1-8 correspondence with my comments.
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-ministry-of-john-piper-mike-riley

-I am sorry for the fact that I could not find the posting where, from my memory which is certainly fallible, Alex said something to the effect that the libertarian free will position certainly has some merit or that it was not too far from his position. Perhaps, it would be a stretch to say that this would mean that he holds to libertarianism; this is unknown because a fuller accounting would be needed to understand whether or not indeterminism was a part of his view.

However, what is clear is that Alex “definitely” has an axe to grind against Piper and other evangelicals, and it involves the role in which emotions play in an authentic Christian life. The second link especially plays this out, and it is very very very clear that this is a hot button for Alex, so I’m not surprised with the response I’ve received in this thread, as it is very much the same kind that others received who challenged him in the second link provided above. Note the condescending words like "epic fail" etc.

I did not try to argue against you Alex; otherwise I would have written much more; I was only stating why some disagree with Piper (you were an example), and I was trying to make room for a second take on Piper. If people agree with your mind & will view of man, then your critiques of Piper are valid because they hold the same anthropology as you. However, if someone disagrees with your doctrine of man, then they will come to completely different conclusions.

As to how presuppositions determine the meaning of Scripture, please see Alex’s post #19 in the second link provided above. This is a great example of how one’s anthropology is determining the meaning of the text. Emotions “cannot” be the subject of command in this verse because of how Alex’s anthropology says that they cannot. My speculation is that perhaps the “ought implies ability” objection is really behind why the passage cannot mean certain things, but again this is speculation.

Further regarding presuppositions, it was not my intent to argue against you Alex. My intent was to describe how one reads Piper and cries out in agony, like yourself; another reads Piper and cries out in joy. A description is not a complaint; it is only a stating of how things are. Presuppositions are a necessity of thought, so you are wrong to assume that my ascription to you of presuppositions is some kind of argument. This is precisely because I assign presuppositions to myself as well. Presuppositions are just the nature of how people reason and argue; I was describing what is. Your “duplicity” label is only a misunderstanding of the situation. Further, if I was really arguing against you, then I would need to invalidate or demonstrate the absurdity of your presuppositions; your foundation for arguing would then be invalidated.

Alex, I am sorry if I’ve treated you wrongly; I did not intend to. I have documented my comments now, rather than relying upon my memory from having read you in the past. I hope that this helps to mend things a little.

Indeed it can be articulated with brevity but with the understanding that this error is further exacerbated with many qualifiers by Piper so that it is not merely the substructure but the house itself which makes for a comprehensive mess.

And some would disagree with a precise articulation of its fundamental premise but I suspect that most would agree that if this is not it, then it is at least a substantial part of the foundation which I believe with two main properties.

1. Theological/philosophical error.
2. Anthropological error.

So let me begin with Piper's own words which reveal his motif:

Had a college freshman uttered such Biblically nonsensical claims, it would be understandable to the claim that to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in him is simply ludicrous to begin with but its sadness is multiplied when such postulates come from someone who is broadly received by many tender souls who are misled into confusion by this.

And this basic premise, of course, is pursued by Piper in many ways.

There are many Reformed sources who reject Piper so this being about Piper's Calvinism or Reformed type leanings is simply hogwash, for those whose imaginations seem to have captured them.

Had a college freshman uttered such Biblically nonsensical claims, it would be understandable to the claim that to worship God for any other reason than the pleasure to be had in him is simply ludicrous to begin with but...
Well, declaring it to be "biblically nonsensical" doesn't make it so.
But I'm open. Support that claim.

There are some intriguing and important words even in the statement you quoted. How could it be "arrogant" to worship God for other reasons than the pleasure to be had in Him?
That in itself, is a major clue that he is not talking about the pleasure of a sinner in the things that appeal to his sinful nature.

(I perceive that I'm going to find myself in the awkward position of trying to clarify somebody else's teaching that I only partially understand myself, and already know I only partially agree with... but it seems likely so far that I understand it better than many of its critics. If we're going to reject it--which I'm open to--let's get it right first.)

Well, I'd still be interested in your answers..

On the second paragraph there, you've granted that he is not talking about the sinful desires/pleasures that are natural for sinners, so a follow up: What sort of pleasure do you believe he is talking about and what sort being is it that seeks this pleasure?
(Where I'm headed is an effort to try to pinpoint exactly what's wrong w/Piper's view... precisely.)

As for the "you just don't understand" argument. It should be easy to counter by demonstrating that you do understand. I'm certainly open to the possibility that you do.

... how about if we try agian.

If it's not about pleasure, then what is it about?

You asserted that Piper's fundamental premise was wrong. I asked what the fundamental premise was, in your view.
The gist of your reply to that was this:

You declared this to be biblical nonsense, and sad and so forth.

So if the pleasure part of "Christian hedonism" is not the problem, what is the problem?
Is he wrong that people want to be happy?
Surely the problem isn't the "in Him" part.
What is it, then?

I believe I understand the objection: the centrality of pleasure/delight in God is the point in dispute?

In that case, I don't have much to argue because I also dispute the centrality of delight in God.

At the same time, I cannot disagree with Piper in so far as he puts delight in God among the things that are central to worship, sanctification and everything else.
Jesus declared the greatest command to be "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength."
Love is a complex idea, but "heart, soul, mind, strength" must mean that our heart's desire to please God is among the things that matter most (and a desire to please is also a pleasure in pleasing).

As I reflect on it, the question is, what else would occupy that central place? At the moment, faith is the only thing I can think of. And even faith is partly cognitive, partly volitional. It's a combination of regarding something as true (cognitive) and trusting/embracing it as true (volition/will). In Edwards, the affections are just about indistinguishable from the will--if I remember right.
If they are distinguishable, they are still inseparable (as in, no distance can be put between them, even though we understand them to be different things).

So if Piper is following Edwards in his understanding of pleasure/desire/will, then the pleasure one has in God and the faith one has in God are also much intertwined.

It would seem that desiring God/delighting in Him is about 1.5 of the two things I can identify as central to Christian living.

Most of my beef with Piper would be in how he works out the application of this idea, not so much with the idea itself.

(It's been a while since I looked at DG... I seem to be remembering now that, in places, Piper made much of the distinction between doing something because we are pleased to do it for God vs. doing something because we want to please Him. This was one of the things I disagreed with. If Piper had simply argued that acting "to please God" is not enough, I'd say amen. But he seemed to almost set pleasing God against pleasing-myself-in-reference-to-God... and this is folly. I should do what honors God even when it does not please me. Jesus goes to the cross despising the shame. But, at the same time, I should seek to have a heart that finds its own pleasure in whatever pleases God.)