I first read Desiring God in the late 1980’s after hearing about it from someone I knew. I was a young Christian at the time. Like Knowing God, it would be one of the books to lay the foundation for my life as a Christian. But not all books hold up over time. So I am reviewing the revised edition from the perspective of an older Christian who has read this book a few times. Does it hold up? Why should I bother with a revised edition? Those are the questions I come to the book with.
Does it hold up? Classic books stand the test of time. There are books that are very popular when they are released, but 10 or 20 years later people won’t point to them as significant long term. This is a book people still talk about. This book is chock-full of good theology. Piper not only defends his assertions regarding Christian Hedonism, but he lays out lots of good theology. In other words, his theological distinctive (you can actually see similar teaching in Calvin, Burroughs, Owen and other Reformed pastors, not just Edwards) does not exist in a vacuum. Piper has to work through the sovereignty of God, the character of God and the nature of salvation. I think I used more ink in my new copy than in my old one.
People often misunderstand his position based on the name. But the point is that a Christian Hedonist seeks their pleasure in God, one of the many things were are commanded to do in Scripture. Piper shows how Scripture not only teaches but feeds Christian Hedonism. He unpacks the doctrine to see how it plays out in marriage, money, missions and more. One subject that is missing would be work (perhaps in the 30th anniversary edition). This is a very practical theology book, but one that is rooted in theology.
The message is rooted in the Gospel. It does not neglect the hard things in life, suffering and sacrifice. Piper’s rationale for self-denial in a consumer culture is rooted in the gospel in a way I don’t see Platt or Chan’s. 25 years from now I suspect people will still be talking about this book and not really talking about those books.
Why should I bother with the new edition? There is far more to it than just the chapter on suffering. The chapter on suffering is quite important however. It is a welcome addition to the book, and helps strengthen his case.
The main Bible translation is now the ESV instead of the NIV. This reflects the shift that has taken place in the most likely audience for this book. This is a helpful shift moving forward since the NIV (1984) is fading into obscurity. Fewer people will be familiar with it. But they don’t always follow through. They will quote a large section of a passage from the ESV, but as Piper works through it the words will be different. He’s quoting the NIV (or perhaps his own unnoted translation). The editor did not always make the necessary changes.
The end notes are now footnotes. I prefer footnotes. I don’t like flipping back and forth. My end notes were filled with ink as I learned a great deal from them. I discovered new books to read and Piper often worked through lesser points in his arguments in the end notes. The end notes, for me, were an important part of this book (and all this books). There are updated notes as well, often showing where an idea of his was more fully developed in another book. I just wish the print wasn’t so small. I needed to break out the reading glasses for them.
They also included a study guide to help you think through the material. Each lesson ends with praying through a Psalm. The guide is helpful for groups or individuals to internalize the message of the book.
Overall, they made this classic book better. I hope it helps shape the thinking of a new generation of young Christians just like it shaped me. Actually, I hope it shapes lots of generations of young Christians.
[I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purposes of review.]
Cavman Considers 
Haven’t read the “new edition” but it sounds like the new content is pretty good.
The problem I always have had with Piper’s “Christian hedonism” (apart from the abrasive contradiction of the name, for anyone with enough philosophy background to understand hedonism) is that it seems to me that his fundamental premise is, well, wrong.
Piper takes Q #1 from the WSC: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever” and changes it slightly to reflect his premise: “… to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” He argues that we glorify God the most when we are enjoying Him.
My beef is that I think Piper has it backwards: I would contend that, rather, we enjoy God most when we are glorifying Him. In other words, when we live our lives oriented around worshiping God, we enjoy Him the most.
I think Piper still has some good ideas in the book, but this undermines the whole thing for me.
I think his statements regarding worship hold true: we only worship that which delights us. The glorifying and enjoying are symbiotic. We do enjoy Him because He is glorious, but because we delight in that glory we glorify Him. Because we delight in that glory we seek to be conformed to that glory.
I understand the hesitation with “hedonism”. But I think Lewis and Pascal are correct- all people are seeking pleasure. The question is how you define that- hedonism, epicureanism, etc. What Piper is trying to say is that we were made to delight in, reflect and glorify the Trinity instead of food, drink, sex, power …. Pleasure is not bad: God made us to feel pleasure of all kinds. But to whom do we turn to discover that pleasure?
I think his exegesis on the passages dealing with self-denial help. We deny ourselves of self-oriented pleasures for the greater pleasure of knowing and serving God. Just like Jesus enduring the pain & shame of the Cross for the greater joy of bringing people back to God.
But since this was a review for the publisher, I didn’t interact with that as much. In addition to my blog, it goes on their site and on a seller, like Amazon. Delving in to the deeper issues of the book is not as practical or helpful in those circumstances.