Book Review
Desiring God
by John Piper
John Piper’s book, Desiring God, originally published in 1986
and now updated in a 2003 edition, is being applauded by many evangelicals:
Jerry Bridges, Larry Crabb, Os Guiness, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and J.I.
Packer. Piper lays his foundation by changing the answer to the first question
in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (which he calls the “old tradition,” p.
18) to read, “The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him
forever” (p. 19). In other words, we glorify God the most when we are satisfied
in Him. Piper dubs this with the term “Christian Hedonism,” which in his view
is a call to abandon the short-term, low-yield pleasures of the world for the
magnificent joys of knowing God in whom is fullness of joy.
A dear friend’s recommendation of this book, along with a fellow pastor’s
positive review of it, whose opinion I respect, had me very much looking
forward to sitting down to a good read (and I thank John Piper for the free
copy I received in the promotional campaign). But while I agree that there are
things to praise here, I have some serious problems with several points.
First, and foremost, I have to say that when I read the
term “Christian Hedonism,” the book was for the most part ruined from there.
Now, let me say up front that this does NOT mean that the author
advocates an antinomian, do-as-you-please, eat, drink, and be merry lawless
hedonism, nor does it encourage people to ask God to give them the weak,
godless pleasures they enjoy. But the fact of the matter is that to make the
term “hedonism” into something positive, much less Christian, is patently
ridiculous. A quick look at the use of the term in both Classical and New
Testament Greek verifies this beyond question.
“Hedonism” is a rough transliteration of the Greek hēdonē,
which originally “meant something pleasant to the taste, and then pleasant
generally.” To Herodotus (c.484-c.425 B.C) it meant “the pleasures of the
senses,” and Aristotle (384-282 B.C.) “uses it as a synonym of chara,
joy, in expressing pleasure in the practicing of the virtues and for aesthetic
pleasure in works of art.” In later Hellenism, however, the term took a turn
for the worse; it “was confined to its ethically bad elements,” was actually “used
in contrast to chara, joy, and aretē, virtue,” and
finally came to mean “the pleasure of the senses, of sex, and then the
unrestricted passions.” This meaning is clearly carried over into the New
Testament, where the term appears only five times, all in “later books,” and
always with “a bad connotation.”1
In the Parable of the Soils, for example, the thorny-ground hearer is one
whose life is characterized by the “riches and pleasures of this life,” which
choke the seed of the Gospel (Lk. 8:14). Paul reiterates that the lost man’s
life is typified by “lusts and pleasures” (Tit. 3:3), and Peter asserts that he
who seeks “pleasure” will “receive the reward of unrighteousness” (II Pet.
2:13). Finally, James declares that fights and fusses among Christians come
because we all are seeking our own “lusts” (4:1) and that we often don’t
receive what we pray for because we’ll just “consume it upon [our] lusts” (v.
3).
With that etymology in mind, how can we possibly view hedonism in any
positive light? It simply has no positive side as used in Scripture, regardless
of any adjective we might put in front of it. One writer, in fact, makes this
profound contrast, “We must beware of confounding hēdonē
with the desire for true joy (chara) which is never rejected in the
New Testament. Joy is satisfied rather by communion with God, often even in the
midst of suffering and persecution.”2 While Piper actually does a
good job of making the same point as the second sentence of that quotation, he
undoes it with the term hedonism. The quoted writer is saying, “Don’t mix the
two; hedonism and joy are not the same.” Indeed, trying to make
hedonism Christian is like trying to make “gay marriage” an “acceptable
alternative lifestyle.”
Which leads me to a question: why invent a term that you then
have to spend several pages (or even a whole book) defending and explaining?
Why not write a book on a Biblical term, such as the word JOY (chara).
Piper could have written his entire book based on that Biblical word
and done it much more easily. Why not do so? Why pick a provocative and
contradictory term that has nothing whatsoever to do with real joy? Is the
reason simply cleverness and marketability or is it a misunderstanding of
language? In either case, it misses the Truth.
May I also interject that I found it a little presumptuous to use
quotations from Jonathan Edwards (and others) in such a way as to imply that
his words support Piper’s thesis. Now, while C. S. Lewis (whom Piper also quotes)
might have agreed with the term “Christian Hedonism,” in my wildest imagination
I can’t fathom Edwards doing so. He knew what words mean. And speaking
of Edwards, what about J. I. Packer’s recommendation on the back of the book?
“Jonathon Edwards, whose ghost walks through most of Piper’s pages, would be
delighted with his disciple?” Ghost?! Doesn’t that push even poetic
license a little far?
Piper also at times leaves out portions of verses to make his point,
thereby leaving a false impression. For example, he quotes Psalm 147:11 thusly,
“The LORD takes pleasure in . . . those that hope in his stedfast love” (p.
54). But he leaves out the middle portion of the verse. The entire verse reads,
“The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his
mercy” (KJV). I apologize for mentioning a translation issue (see my sixth
point), but the Hebrew hesed is best translated “mercy,” not
“love,” and the ESV’s use of “stedfast” is not even supported by a Hebrew word.
Another example is Piper’s quotation of Jeremiah 32:40-41: “I will make with
them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them
. . . I will rejoice in doing them good . . . with all my heart and all my
soul.” But here he leaves out half of verse 40 (“ . . . but I will put my fear
in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me”) and the middle of verse
41 (“. . . and I will plant them in this land assuredly”). In both these
instances the foundational principle of the fear of God (Ps. 34:11: 111:10;
Prov. 1:7; 9:10; etc.) is left out. Is this because that particular concept
might cast a small shadow on the author’s premise, which would then be one more
thing he would have to explain?
Second, the oddest language Piper uses is in reference to
salvation. I most certainly agree that just because someone says, “I believe in
Jesus,” that doesn’t make them a Christian (pp. 54-55); I totally reject the
“easy-believeism” that plagues the Church today. But Piper goes on to make some
rather odd (if not disturbing) statements. For example, he writes: “There are
other straightforward biblical commands besides, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus,
and you will be saved’ [Acts 16:31] . . . Could it be that today the most
straightforward biblical command for conversion is not ‘Believe in the Lord,”
but ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’? And might not many slumbering hearts be
stabbed broad awake by the words, ‘Unless a man be born again into a
Christian Hedonism he cannot see the Kingdom of God’?” (p. 55; emphasis in
the original). Apparently simple Biblical wording is not enough. Excuse me, but
the Bible says believe, not delight. Later he adds, “The pursuit
of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow
into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your
‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (p. 73). Should this be our
new definition of faith?
Third, Piper reports (p. 112) a letter of criticism he received after preaching on his thesis. It
read: “Is it not the contention of morality that we should do the good because
it is the Good? . . . We should do the good and perform virtuously, I suggest,
because it is good and virtuous; that God will bless it and cause us to be
happy is a consequence of it, but not the motive for doing it.” Another popular
writer also wrote: “For the Christian happiness is never a goal to be pursued.
It is always the unexpected surprise of a life of service.” Instead of taking
this godly counsel, however, Piper regards these statements “as contrary to
Scripture and contrary to love and, in the end (though unintentionally),
dishonoring to God.” Really? How about I Corinthians 10:31? “Whether therefore
ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” While Piper
quotes this verse three times (pp. 18, 56, 320), he doesn’t seem to get the
full implication. The Bible simply does not say “that the pursuit of
pleasure is an essential motive for every good deed,” as Piper teaches and
goes to great lengths to “prove.” The Bible says that our motive is to give God
glory.
Fourth, in a footnote on page 124, Piper writes,
“Historically, ethicists have tended to distinguish these two forms of love
[which he mentions in the text] as agape and eros, or benevolence and
complacency. Not only is there no linguistic basis for such a distinction, but
conceptually both resolve into one kind of love at the root. God’s agape does
not ‘transcend’ His eros, but expresses it. God’s redeeming, sacrificial love
for His sinful people is described by Hosea in the most erotic terms (11:8-9).”
What?! I had to read that three times to even believe I read it. Here
is another example of ignoring language. There is a very good reason why erōs
(English “erotic”) never appears in Scripture, namely, because it speaks of the
physical and sensual. Erōs is not used even for the physical
relationship of a husband and wife because their love transcends sex alone.
What is the history of erōs? “The Greeks’ delight in bodily
beauty and sensual desires found expression here in the Dionysiac approach to,
and feeling for, life. Sensual ecstasy leaves moderation and proportion far
behind, and the Greek tragedians (e.g. Sophocles, Antigone., 781 ff)
knew the irresistible power of Eros—the God of love bore the same name—which
forgot all reason, will, and discretion on the way to ecstasy.”3 Another
writer adds that the meaning of erōs (and the related eran)
had degenerated so that they stood for lower things. Christianity could hardly
have annexed these words for its own uses.”4 So Piper’s blending erōs
with agapē, that high, selfless, Divine love in Scripture, is totally
unbiblical and frankly appalling. And words escape me on how to respond to the
thought that God possesses erōs!
Fifth, the section heading on page 168, “Glorifying God
Not By Serving Him, But by Being Served By Him,” is just one more example of
Piper’s skewed premise. I just find such statements totally onerous at best and
offensive at worst. Here are a few verses that are absent from Piper’s book:
“Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling” (Ps. 2:11); “Yea, all
kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him” (72:11); “Take
diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the
LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and
to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all
your heart and with all your soul” (Josh. 22:5); “Wherefore we receiving a
kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God
acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire”
(Heb. 12:28-29).
Sixth, while my intention is not to open the Bible
translation can of worms, in spite of all the hype and marketing of the English
Standard Version (which is one of the changes in the 2003 edition of
Piper’s book), I am compelled to mention that this version is simply a
resurrection of the corrupt Revised Standard Version. Yes, it makes some
changes, but it’s just the new flavor of the month and another will come along
soon.
To conclude, in my view, what could have been a wonderful book on true joy, John Piper’s Desiring God is more of a philosophical thesis than Scripture exposition. It’s founded at best on a questionable premise, which is then propped up by the author’s own reading of Scripture, not on sound principles of exegesis. It proves once again that much contemporary literature lacks sound interpretation and replaces it with “jargon that sells.” Read Puritan Stephen Charnock’s The Existence and Attributes of God instead; it will provide a lifetime of meditation.
Dr.
J. D. Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace
Bible Church
Meeker,
CO
NOTES
1 Colin Brown (General Editor), The New International Dictionary of
New Testament Theology (3 Vol.). (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 1,
pp. 458-9.
2 Ibid, p. 460.
3 Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 539.
4 William Barclay, New Testament Words (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1964, 1974), pp. 17-18.
Back to Book Reviews Back to Home
Page Back to "Diet of Book Worms"