Books

Categories Book Reviews, Homemaking

Book Review: “Handmade Home” by Amanda Blake Soule

3 Comments by

My friend read it and loved it.

“You’ve got to read this book,” she said.

I dutifully placed it on my TBR list and waited for it to become available at my library.

It took awhile. It’s a popular book.

But once I got it, I knew why.

It’s filled with gorgeous projects for re-purposing old items into new “pretties” (and “usefuls”) for your home.

Projects range from bags and pillows to children’s toys to “green” items (cloth diapers and women’s cloths) to clothing items to curtains, banners, and table runners.

And there’s the lovely towel rug that I decided to make for myself. I have dozens of vintage towels I saved from my Grandmother’s collection, intending to repurpose them into something. I originally thought I’d make a throw–but for the last year or so, I’ve been thinking I’d use them to make some easy washable bath mats.

Towel rug

Soule’s towel rug, made with a towel and a garage-saled pillowcase, fit the bill perfectly. Having made this one, I’m keeping my eyes peeled for more garage sale/thrift store sheets and pillowcases. ‘Cause I don’t think I’ll be done until I’ve made a whole set of these!

Towel rug

Rating: 4 stars
Category: Sewing Crafts
Synopsis: 30 Household Sewing Projects from Amanda Blake Soule, blogger at SouleMama.com
Recommendation: Lovely projects, pretty pictures, engaging commentary. Sewers and crafters will want to take a peak at this book.

Visit my books page for more reviews and notes.

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review: “Heavens to Betsy”

2 Comments by

Neither of us knew what book mood we were in so Grace and I started playing the “find a Christian book” game at the library.

The “find a Christian book” game has absolutely nothing to do with finding interesting books to read–and has everything to do with seeing how good you are at identifying Christian novels from their spines. The best players can identify using only the color, font, and graphics on the spine. In other words, the best players don’t even have to read the book’s title.

I, of course, am among the best players :-)

But even I went out on a limb when I selected Heavens to Betsy by Beth Pattillo as a Christian novel. From the spine, it could have been a Christian novel or it could have been some really low-quality chick-lit. But I’d already been successful at several rounds of our game and I was ready to be bold (“Be Bold! Be Strong!” as my dad would sing.)

I turned out to be right. On both counts.

Heavens to Betsy is Christian, of a sort. And it’s chick-lit, of a sort. And its quality is rather poor. But while I generally avoid talking about poor quality, pseudo-Christian chick-lit, I just can’t help but want to say a few words about this title.

It’s about a female pastor.

A single female pastor.

Who is convinced by another single female pastor to do a makeover show.

And who falls in love with another single pastor (this one a guy.)

Yeah.

Wow.

I really don’t have a lot more to say about it.

Except that the whole thing is totally wrong. In so many ways.

The thing that bothered me most?

The assumption the author makes that a woman can’t minister, or even be “in the ministry” unless she’s a pastor.

Completely mistaken.

Very sad.

But what should I have expected from an author who is herself a pastor in the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ (not to be confused with the more conservative independent Christian churches)?

Why’d I read it?

I don’t know.

I guess I sometimes find chick-lit entertaining. I sometimes find Christian novels entertaining.

And Heavens to Betsy was mildly entertaining–if only for the shock value.

Rating: 0 stars
Category: Christian chick lit (of a sort)
Synopsis: Reverend Betsy Blessing struggles with her awkward role as a single, female, interim senior pastor of an aging Nashville congregation.
Recommendation: No need to read. Just gasp along with me as you read my “review”.

Visit my books page for more reviews and notes.

Categories Books, Flashback Friday

Flashback: Bookworm Reminisces

7 Comments by

I’m a reader and I’ve always been, which makes Linda’s book-related Flashback prompt this week kinda fun for me!

Flashback Friday buttonPrompt: Did you like to read when you were a child? What were your favorite genres, books or series? Did you read books because of the author or because of the title/plot? Did you own many books?…

I learned to read at my mama’s knee, and once I had completed the final reader in the “Little Patriots Read” series (I think it was the purple covered Sounds of Joy), I was allowed to get a library card. From then on, I was an avid reader and library patron.

I’m a binge reader–always have been.

The Little House books, the Chronicles of Narnia, and Frances Hodgson Burnett’s A Little Princess were some of my earliest favorites. (I own several copies of each of these today.)

Then I had times of serial mystery binges: Boxcar Children, Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, and the rare Trixie Belden I could find at a garage sale or used store. (A couple years ago, I finished re-reading all the Nancy Drew mysteries–now I’m working on both the Boxcar Children and the Hardy Boys from my local library.)

By my pre-teen years, I was avidly reading Christian romances: Janette Oke, Lori Wick, Gilbert Morris, Michael Phillips. (Lori Wick was one of the first authors I “closed out” on my “read every book” goal–and I’m currently working my way through Oke.)

In fifth or sixth grade, I became addicted to popular pablum. My sister and I collected way too many Babysitter’s Club and Sweet Valley Twins and Friends books. (We threw them all away under conviction in our seventh?, ninth?–sometime during Junior High or High School.)

Then I started reading Harlequins. First, the “Love Inspired” Christian twaddle–and then clean Regency romances that my mom had pre-screened. Then I moved to the not-so-clean Regencies. While I still love certain aspects of the genre, I deeply regret the thoughts and images I allowed into my mind during this period.

In ninth grade, we started a co-op literature class taught by my aunt–and my reading grew up a bit. I started reading Hawthorne and Austen and Beowulf and Hemingway.

I’d read non-fiction throughout my life, but I became a real fan in my late teenage years. Educational theory, medical innovation, grammar, history, memoirs… I loved it.

And most recently, I’ve been binging on…theology.

With regular snacks of all my old favorites, that is!

Visit Linda and follow the links to read some more stories about books!

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review: “The Homeschool Liberation League”

2 Comments by

Have I ever told you about the time I decided to drop out of school?

I haven’t?

Well, let’s correct that now.

I was sixteen years old and had just finished reading Grace Llewellyn’s The Teenage Liberation Handbook (subtitled “How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and Education”). Llewellyn suggested an unschooling approach to education and I thought it sounded amazing. That was it. I was dropping out.

I was reminded of my teenage dropout days when I started reading Lucy Frank’s The Homeschool Liberation League, in which Katya gets fed up with school and with the person she is at school and takes a radical step: she turns around and leaves.

In camp that summer, she’d learned how much she COULD learn when she was interested in the topic she was studying–and now the mind-numbing, sleep inducing dreariness of teachers who don’t care and fellow students who only care about popularity has become too much for her. She wants to learn like she did at camp–and she thinks she has the solution.

Homeschooling.

One of the girls at camp did it, and it sounded fantastic.

So Katya’s returned home from the first day of school, determined to drop out and be homeschooled.

Now to convince her parents.

Lucy Frank says that this novel is her “tribute to the range of learning possibilities available to kids today”–and I’ll say it makes a pretty good tribute. It plays with some of the concepts many a homeschooling mom has explored–from unschooling to “school-at-home” to an “eclectic” approach to homeschooling. It shows students alternately having difficulties with and thriving under some of the many options available to kids–from public schools to charter schools to private schools to homeschool co-ops.

I didn’t get the impression that Frank is a sold-out believer in any one system of education (public/private/homeschooling/etc.)–she portrays each setting as having its own challenges and advantages, as I think she ought. Frank also does a good job of showing how different learning environments can be ideal for different students.

That being said, this isn’t a didactic book, all about different methods of learning. Really, it’s just a story–a story about a girl who wants to learn but finds that school just isn’t cutting it for her. It’s a story many of us can probably identify with.

I know I can.

After all, I was sixteen year old homeschooler who read a book about unschooling and decided to drop out of school. :-)

Katya and her parents tried a number of different approaches as they tried to figure out what was right for her–and the ultimate solution turned out to not be what any of them expected.

My dropout days didn’t quite end like I expected, either. I had goals, you see. College, a career. I wanted to be a scientist. I wanted to be a dietitian. I could drop out of “school”–but I’d still need to take chemistry at the public school like I was already doing. I’d still need to finish my trigonometry (that I was doing at home.) I still wanted to do our co-op literature class.

Basically, I could “officially” drop out of school–but it wouldn’t really change anything. Because even if I wished I could just have fun learning about this and that whenever the yen struck me, I had goals–and the program my parents and I had already come up with was designed to achieve those goals.

Maybe I’m just an idealist–but I get the idea that a student reading The Homeschool Liberation League might take it almost like I took The Teenage Liberation Handbook. They might realize that maybe school should be interesting–that maybe even they could enjoy learning. They might start to explore and to discuss with their parents the many options that are available to them as students.

And I think that’s probably a good thing.

Rating: 4 stars
Category: Young Adult Fiction
Synopsis: Katya leaves school to be homeschooled–if she can convince her parents to let her be homeschooled, that is.
Recommendation: A fun read, an interesting exploration of the many schooling options available to students nowadays. Both young adults and older adults will likely enjoy this title.

Visit my books page for more reviews and notes.

Categories Book Notes

Menter’s Hierarchy of Needs

1 Comment by

If you’re a student of psychology (or a student in any field that applies the behavioral sciences), you’ve likely heard of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow suggested that humans have a collection of fundamental needs, and that these needs are “hierarchical”. That is to say, some needs must be met in order to go on to seek after the “higher” needs.

As per the diagram below, Maslow suggests that physical needs are the base, followed by the need for safety, and then for love/belonging, and then for esteem. At the pinnacle, Maslow has placed “self-actualization”–a vague term for a number of feel-goods ultimately summed up in “reaching one’s potential”.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs
Image from the Wikimedia Commons, licensed under a CC 3.0 license

Maslow’s theory has been critiqued for its insistence that the “lower” needs be met before the higher needs are sought. Experience teaches us that even a hungry child still seeks love and acceptance (to fulfill a “higher” need). Additionally, while Maslow’s hierarchy may have utility in explaining Western patterns of behavior, it breaks down when applied to Eastern cultures where community is regarded more highly than individuality.

I don’t really care to discuss Maslow’s hierarchy–I’d much rather propose my own.

Enter Menter’s Hierarchy of Needs Induced by the Fall of Mankind:

I propose that the fall of mankind followed a progression–and that the redemption of mankind requires a reversal of that progression.

When Adam and Eve were tempted by the serpent, their first step towards sin was to turn their eyes from God to self.

“…the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise…”
~Genesis 3:6a

Having turned their eyes from God, they chose to obey the tempter rather than God.

“…she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
~Genesis 3:6b

And once they ate, they experienced the consequences of sin.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked…”
~Genesis 3:7

The fall induced three vital needs in the spirit and soul of every man.

He needs to be saved from self-centeredness, he needs to be saved from the mastery of sin, and he needs to saved from the consequences of sin.

I propose that, at least for most people, the awareness of each of these needs follows the reverse progression.

First, man becomes aware of the consequences of sin–and seeks to escape them. He experiences guilt or shame. He sees broken relationships, physical and emotional suffering. He fears death. And he needs a Savior to free him from these consequences.

He receives Jesus as Savior. “Free me from hell,” he cries.

Get-out-of-hell-free card safely in hand, he discovers his second great need. He becomes aware of his bondage to sin. He wants to do what is right, but he finds himself unable to do so. Even recognizing that he IS freed from sin through Jesus Christ, he still finds himself inclined towards sin. He needs a new master.

He receives Jesus as Lord. “I will submit my life to Your mastery,” he affirms.

Watching his steps carefully, anxious to be obedient to his new master, the man discovers his final need. He is discontent with this. Somehow, this falls short. Is this all there is? he wonders. He might even wonder if it’s worth it. What has he gained by submitting to Christ’s mastery? He needs a new treasure.

And at some point, by the grace of God, he receives Jesus as Treasure. “You are worth everything,” he proclaims.

There, as he is lost in the greatness of the Treasure, his needs disappear. Christ has met them, He has fulfilled them. For really, all of our needs are simply metaphors for our truest need–God Himself.

(This is a reflection on John Piper’s concept of receiving Christ as Treasure, as articulated in the second chapter of Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review-”Manufacturing Depression”

3 Comments by

I started reading Gary Greenberg’s Manufacturing Depression with a good deal of interest. The first few chapters certainly intrigued me (as noted here). Greenberg laid out his idea that depression is an “invented” disease and that the medical diagnosis of depression rewrites the narrative of human suffering as a medical problem rather than an existential problem. He proposed to explore the history of the “invention” of depression throughout the rest of the book.

And he did. He wrote of the history of the “disease” called depression. He wrote of the creation of the nomenclature for depression. He wrote of how depression is not identified based on empirical evidence of pathology but upon a collection of symptoms somewhat arbitrarily assigned based on the effects of psychoactive drugs. He wrote of how drug companies marketed depression to consumers at the same time as they marketed their drugs to “fix” it.

Greenberg uses this information to mount a case against the modern medical model of depression. His main argument against the model is that it doesn’t have as much scientific support as it has been advertised to have. However, Greenberg offers no evidence that proves (or even suggests) that the medical model to be incorrect. His sole argument is that the model is “not as proven as some might claim”.

The history of the medical model of depression is fascinating–but I had a hard time with Greenberg’s obvious bias against the medical model, because I felt like he had no viable alternative model to offer.

Greenberg is a therapist. He uses the medical nomenclature of the DSM to get paid. The fact that he has clients visiting him implies that something is wrong with their lives–something they need help with. But if this is not a medical problem, what is it? It’s not a coping problem, says Greenberg–he disapproves of cognitive therapy that teaches coping skills.

So what is it? How is human suffering, particularly the chronic kind that seems unresponsive to changed circumstances, to be understood? What causes it? What can be done to change it?

Greenberg offers no solutions. Sure, he puts in a plug for his own free-form Freudian version of therapy–but he correctly notes that his own version of therapy really has no theoretical, philosophical, OR empirical underpinnings. He simply asks what he feels like asking, explores what he feels like exploring, goes with his gut in therapy. Ultimately, he offers no alternative narrative to the medical one.

While Greenberg rightly points out misuse of the scientific method in the development and marketing of both depression and its cures, he appears to conclude that this invalidates any scientific inquiry into suffering. I object.

Perhaps this is simply the difference between my ideology and his. I am trained in a science, in a field where scientific inquiry is admired, where we want to make sure that any theories we form are scientifically validated. I am a health-care provider who thinks highly of evidence-based medicine.

I’m also in a field that has a thousand self-proclaimed experts with a thousand different theories and recommendations, few of which are supported by ANY science, much less the preponderance of evidence.

So I tend to have a low view of pseudo-medical professions that base their practice off of ideology rather than testable, provable facts.

Basically, I felt like Greenberg’s main reason for writing this book was to discredit depression since his own brand of Freudian talk therapy has fallen out of vogue. Much of what Greenberg said may have been true–but I doubt his motives in sharing, especially because he offers no evidence to support his own version of depression and its treatment (in fact, he derides the very idea of evidence-based practice.)

I found Manufacturing Depression to be interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Greenberg ends his exploration of depression with a word of advice to readers. He urges them to write their own narrative about suffering–not to let the medical “experts” write their story for them. But what he fails to do is offer any better alternative narrative. Even if the medical model of depression is full of flaws (and I have no doubt that it is), it’s still the best explanation so far.

I’m a scientist–and I’m not going to throw out an explanatory theory unless I have good evidence against it or a better theory to replace it with. Greenberg offers neither.

Rating: 2 stars
Category: Medical History, Depression
Synopsis: Greenberg tells the history of depression as a modern disease.
Recommendation: Interesting but unsatisfying, as Greenberg attempts to discredit a model without offering any better alternative.

Visit my books page for more reviews and notes.

Categories Books

Four Year Reading Update

4 Comments by

Sunday marked a special day for me–the four year anniversary of the beginning of my project to read every book in Eiseley library (except the ones I don’t read).

In that four years, I have consumed 2174 library items, 1890 of which were books, 857 of which were “full length” (not picture books or children’s easy readers).

Library Item Use in Past 4 Years

Per Year Per Month Per Week Per Day
Total items 543.5 45.3 10.5 1.5
Total books 472.5 39.4 9.1 1.3
Books (excluding children’s picture books) 214.3 17.9 4.1 .6

Notes on Each Category of Books

Items over 4 years Items in last year Notes:
Juvenile Picture Books 596 472!! Author last names beginning in “A” closed
Juvenile First Readers 49 0 3 authors closed
Juvenile Chapter Books 79 2 6 authors closed
Juvenile Fiction 238 53! 20 authors closed
Juvenile Nonfiction 68 6 Favorite category? Biographies
Adult Fiction 297 49 43 authors closed
Adult Nonfiction 503 94!! See my little challenge below
Videos/DVDs 125 33 These seem to be coming in too fast for me to watch them–I’m not much of a movie person
Cassette Tapes/Compact Discs 159 60 The more I travel, the more I listen to. I’ve been traveling a bit this year.
Periodicals 57 16 I haven’t figured out how to do these, since the collection expands so rapidly!

I don’t have much of a “system” for reading–I pretty much read what I want to when I want to. But I do have a special tab in my planner set apart for books.

First, I have the categories from the Dewey Decimal system all typed out (to the ones place, meaning I have 000-Compute science, information & general works, 001-Knowledge, 002-The book, etc. up to 999-Extraterrestrial worlds). “Closed” categories are highlighted.

Second, I have a list of closed and open authors for each category (picture books, first readers, chapter books, juvenile fiction, juvenile nonfiction, DVDs, and adult fiction). One side of the list contains closed authors written in pen. The other side houses penciled in “open” authors–that is, those authors that I have started to read but whose works I have not finished. These serve as a reminder for me to grab books from open categories (and to avoid reading new acquisitions from categories I’ve already closed–unless I really feel like it.)

Finally, I have my TBR lists. These are divided into sections of the library, and contain penciled titles plus the appropriate call number. When I’m not sure what I’m in the mood for at the library, I run about and collect titles that are on these lists.

When counting up my nonfiction reads, I discovered that over half of my reading came from two large Dewey decimal categorizations (hundred’s place). I was wondering if any of my readers could hazard a guess as to which categories are my favorites. Here are your options:

000-Information (Computer Science, Library Science, Encyclopedias, etc.)
100-Philosophy (Psychology, Logic, Ethics, etc.)
200-Religion (Bible, Theology, Comparative religions, etc.)
300-Social Sciences (Politics, Economics, Law, Education, Traditions, etc.)
400-Language (Linguistics, Grammar, Foreign Languages, etc.)
500-Mathematics/Science (Math, Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Life Sciences, etc.)
600-Technology (Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture, Home ec. Management, Buildings, etc.)
700-Art (Landscape art, Architecture, Decorative arts, Photography, Music, Performing arts, etc.)
800-Literature (Poetry, Drama, Essays, Speeches, Letters, Satire, and Literary criticism)
900-Geography and History (Travel, History)
Biographies-Self explanatory!

So, what do you think? What two categories are my favorites?

Categories Book Notes, Theology

God’s passion for His glory (Part 2)

2 Comments by

At the end of last week, I posed the question:

Is God primarily passionate for Himself, or for people? Is the idea that God is passionate for His own glory contradictory with the idea that God is love?

This week, I’ll share the conclusions I’ve drawn about the subject.

First, comparing God’s purpose to man’s purpose, as Piper does when he states

“The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.”

is invalid. Man’s purpose is to glorify God, whether man consciously decides to do so or not. This is because man is a created being–and the purpose for which he was created was (at least in part) God’s glory (“Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” Gen 1:26). God, on the other hand, is not a created being. He has no “purpose” for existing. Rather, He exists because He exists, because He is. The question then, when referring to God’s purpose, is not about God’s purpose in existing, but His purpose in acting.

Now, to a certain degree, God’s existence is explanation enough for His actions. When questioning any of God’s purposes of acting in a particular way, a perfectly appropriate answer is “He acted in this way because this way of acting is consistent with His nature.” In other words, God does what He does because “that’s just the way He is.”

God demonstrates mercy because He is merciful. He exercises justice because He is just. He displays His glory because He is glorious.

Perhaps the idea of God being passionate for His own glory is merely another way of saying “God’s purpose is to be Himself–that is, to be gloriously Himself.”

But Piper’s thesis–and I daresay Scripture itself–would suggest that God’s passion for His own glory is not merely a way of saying “When God acts in accordance with who He is, the result is God’s glory–therefore, God is passionate about His own glory.” No, it seems that Piper, and Scripture, would say that this is indeed a driving passion that influences God’s activity. It implies that just as I read out of a passion for learning, God acts out of a passion for being glorified.

Which brings us right back to the initial problem of God being self-seeking.

But what if God, though one in deity, were three in person? What if God were triune (which He is, indeed)–and each member of the Trinity were passionate not for His own glory, but for the glory of each other member of the Trinity? What if the Father’s supreme end was to glorify and delight in the Son and the Spirit? What if the Son’s supreme end was to glorify and delight in the Father and the Spirit? What if the Spirit’s supreme end was to glorify and delight in the Father and the Son?

If that were so, then God’s “self-love” would not be self-seeking. The paradox would be resolved. God could be both love and passionately God-centered.

And I think this idea has Scriptural support.

In John 8:49-50, Jesus states that He does not seek His own glory, but that He honors His Father. John 16:14 states that the Spirit glorifies the Son. In John 17, Jesus prays that the Father would glorify Him (the Son) so that He (the Son) might glorify the Father. In Hebrews 5:5, we read that Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but that God the Father “promoted” Him to that position.

God can be at once both gloriously God-centered and gloriously un-self-centered. For each member of the Trinity submits to the others’ will, and each wills the others’ glorification–with the end that God glorifies God and enjoys Himself forever.

(This is a reflection on the first chapter of John Piper’s Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)

Categories Book Notes, Theology

God’s passion for His glory (Part 1)

2 Comments by

God is uppermost in His own affections, John Piper would say. God’s supreme and driving passion is for His own glory.

It’s perhaps the most provocative and uncomfortable of all of Piper’s statements.

It’s been the source of a dozen heated discussions between myself, my sister, and my dad. Anna and I take Piper’s side; Dad argues that Piper can’t be right. God is love (I John 4:8,16) and love does not seek its own (I Cor 13:5). Surely the whole of Scripture, the redemptive story reveals that we are uppermost in God’s affections, that God’s supreme and driving passion is for our redemption.

I don’t like to admit it to my dad, but I sympathize with his argument–an awful lot. (Believe it or not, even “perfect” homeschooled daughters like myself have difficulties admitting that they agree with their parents!)

I see Piper’s point and agree with it. God is certainly jealous for His own glory. It is certainly in man’s best interest that God be glorified rather than man. God’s glory is undoubtedly a major theme of Scripture.

But God is love. And love does not seek its own.

Piper’s response to this–that it is in man’s best interest that God be glorified rather than man–does not fully address this issue. Basically, it says that “love does not seek its own” except when we’re talking about God’s love. The rules are different for God because God’s self-seeking is for our best.

I don’t really buy that. The rules aren’t different for God–the rules exist because of who God is. Love isn’t self-seeking because God, from whom love is defined, is not self-seeking.

I’ve wrestled with this question on and off for years–and while I can’t claim to have come to a full understanding, I do feel that I have come to a position that I have some degree of peace about.

I’ll discuss my wrestlings, and the conclusion I’ve come to, a bit more next week–but first, I want to hear what you think about the topic. Is God primarily passionate for Himself, or for people? Is the idea that God is passionate for His own glory contradictory with the idea that God is love?

(This is a reflection on the first chapter of John Piper’s Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)

Categories Book Notes, Following Christ

Inciting Passion

2 Comments by

This year, I have been concentrating on exercising my mind towards the things of God.

No doubt my longer-term readers have noticed the emphasis of this blog shifting from anecdotes to thinking and theology. Those who have seen my book lists have seen weightier books appearing more often on my lists–and have seen a greater emphasis on critical evaluation in my reviews. Those who know me personally have likely seen or heard some of my intellectual struggles of this past year as I’ve wrestled with the role of the miraculous gifts in today’s church, with what might appropriately induce someone to leave a church, with the role of Christians in government, with non-violence as a Christian virtue, and more.

Now, as I return to the classroom, teaching again, I still intend to exercise my mind towards the things of God–but to that I add one more goal.

I would like to stir up my passions towards God.

I want to incite within my soul such a thirst for God that I find the murky waters of this world unfulfilling. I should like to develop such a taste for God that I will turn aside from every trifle this world offers. I would like to desire God so deeply, so fully that the desire for Him drowns out every desire for any other person or thing. I should like for Him to become my consuming passion, my deepest longing, my forever quest.

I am reading John Piper’s Desiring God–and as I read, I am crying:
“Lord, awaken my hunger. Lord, awaken my thirst. Lord, awaken longing. Awaken my desire–for You.”

“I know of no other way to triumph over sin long-term than to gain a distaste for it because of a superior satisfaction in God.”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O Lord, I desire to find such superior satisfaction in You!

“…it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us…We are far too easily pleased.”
~C.S. Lewis, quoted in Desiring God

O Lord, may I not be easily pleased by the small joys this world offers.

“…This persistent and undeniable yearning for happiness was not to be suppressed, but to be glutted–on God!”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O that I may be glutted on You!

“God is glorified not only by His glory’s begin seen, but by its being rejoiced in.”
~Jonathon Edwards, quoted in Desiring God

May my life bring You glory as I rejoice in You.

“The pleasure Christian Hedonism seeks is the pleasure that is in God Himself. He is the end of our search, no the means to some further end.”
~John Piper, Desiring God

O, that I might delight in You, not as a means to my heart’s desire, but because You are my heart’s desire.

(This is a reflection on the foreword and introduction to John Piper’s Desiring God. For more reflections on Desiring God, see my notes here.)