I found this a good read; it appears to be building on the work of Francis Schaeffer.  I was glad see solid evangelical convictions conveyed by the author’s (i.e. “any unity not based on truth is a unity not worth having); and especially appreciated their early note about true unity being based on the gospel, the way of love and the way of grace.  The book contained an interesting history of fundamentalism, though I was a bit surprised by some comments by George Marsden regarding similarities in his opinion between American fundamentalism and Islamic militancy.  There was an odd comment to the effect that we should “avoid speculation” with reference to the “inclusivism” question (pg. 170).  It seems to me that Romans 1 and 10 are quite clear regarding the insufficiency of general revelation to save and the necessity of hearing the gospel to be saved.  But the overall message of passionately and tangibly loving Christ and our neighbors in a way that is visible and authentic, I heartily applaud.  The errors on either side of “speaking the truth in love” were clearly and necessarily highlighted: The rhetoric of denunciation on the one end and the pitfall of uncritical pluralism on the other.

I felt a little bit like a member of the proverbial choir, in that the things being preached were things that I heartily amen for the most part.  The spirit of the book was admirable; it exemplified the very humility and cross-focus that it sought to inculcate.  It wasn’t afraid to criticize evangelical shortcomings, but it did so in way that was respectful of legitimate diversities and didn’t major on minors.  The “prank” referred to on page 106, “You have been discovered; All will be revealed” was quite telling and sad, and perhaps reveals the soft underbelly of far too much credalistic/external Christianity on one end of the spectrum, and lax, antinomianism on the other extreme.  I whole heartedly agree with the message that this world longs to see a costly love and care without ulterior motives, without pretense and without hypocrisy.  Not an earth-shattering book, but profitable.

This book I ended up appreciating more after I went back though it writing down a number of things that I had highlighted and underlined.  It definitely sought to get below the surface with reference to the sins of the tongue and dealt with a number of issues that I think many authors would not have considered in writing on such a topic.  For example, seeing difficulties as God-given opportunities to see His fruit mature in me; understanding the sovereignty of God in providence; and recognition of the fallenness of all of humanity all have an important bearing on the responses of our tongues – as tongues reflect the responses of our hearts.  Spiritual adultery and idolatry often aren’t recognized, and we consequently make superficial attempts to deal with our sins – and sins of the tongue are basically reflective sins – they reveal deeper transgressions.

I think the biggest thing that I walk away from this book with is the fact that self-focus and “clinging to my rights” are the roots of so many improper responses in my heart that often make their way out my tongue.   I think especially of my children and my wife and how as Paul Tripp emphasizes, I need to maintain a “redemptive perspective” in these and all relationships.  I need to be never severed from a context of grace; and all my speech, including necessary reproof needs to encompass those graces delineated in the fruit of the Spirit.  The gospel and hope must accompany my firm words and stern statements, if such speech is called for.  The ten graces that Paul Tripp draws from Colossians 3:12-17 need to mark me – for without a doubt, if they did, I would likely be “the perfect man” that James speaks of in the third chapter of his epistle.  Glory to God and redemptive good to people – those ends ought to be sought in my speech – and my speech reflects my heart, thus, God’s glory and the good of people need to be my passion and my deepest desire.  I’m a fan of the Tripp brothers, this book is “good,” but for me it isn’t great.

I enjoyed this book.  Piper is thought provoking for me.  Though he may at times be somewhat verbose, and occasionally engage in overstatement, he frequently words things very insightfully.  I find him to employ very appropriate citations of texts, almost always clearly relevant to his point.  I appreciate his advocacy for “Christian hedonism,” defending what I would summarize in the words of Nehemiah 8:10, “…for the joy of the Lord is our strength.” I found this book to be very convincing and edifying.

“The essence of the Christian life is learning to fight for joy in a way that does not replace grace,” (pg. 44) and “doesn’t degenerate into technique and legalism” (pg. 54).  I’ve never heard of “the essence of the Christian life” defined that way, but I think it’s a helpful perspective and a nuanced way of simply saying that all that we truly desire is wrapped up in our God revealed to us in the life and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  All our joy is to be found here.   Christ is our life.  He came that we might have abundant, eternal life.  The enjoyment and magnification of His glory, His greatness, His goodness, His grace and His fame is why we exist and why we’ve been redeemed.  We’re motivated by the operations of the Spirit to find our all in all in Him.  The fight for joy reflects Christ’s work of grace in us.

The thrust of the book is his explanation of how we fight for something (joy) that we’re ultimately dependent on God to give us.  Clarity on this issue I do think is foundational, practical and liberating.  Grace doesn’t eliminate our work, “it enables it.” (pg. 41)  Foundational to our fight for joy is living out who we are as new creatures in Christ, or in the words of Piper, “Become what you are” (pg. 84).  All that I am in Christ positionally, and all that I shall be teleologically and all that I am incipiently in sanctification I am by the grace of God and the enablement of His Spirit to strive to increasingly be.  I know that was a mouthful, but I tried to think through that sentence, attempting to articulate that a certain kind of optimism ought to mark my pursuit of holiness and god-likeness/godliness.  The God who works in me “both to will and to work for His good pleasure,” (Phil. 2:13) works by the means of my regenerate, Spirit-dependent cooperation.   Joy is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), but we’re also commanded to go on being filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) – and I’ve long agreed with John Piper’s contention that being filled with the Spirit is parallel with “letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly”  (Eph. 5:18-19 and Col. 3:16ff) (pg. 99).  New Covenant conversion has “set me free from sin and enslaved me to God,” (Rom. 6:22) therefore I’m to “present myself to God as alive from the dead and my members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom. 6:13).

A number of points in the book I found very confirming, illuminating and helpful:

• “Seeing by Hearing.” It reminds me of a statement by Martin Luther to the effect:  “He who would see God must needs put his eyes in his ears.”  When Moses asks to see God’s glory, the Lord passes by proclaiming His greatness, goodness and grace (Ex. 33 & 34).   The emphasis near the latter part of the book on the worth of, meditation upon and wielding of the Word of God was an extra prod to my soul to be saturated with Scripture.  His very practical comments on the benefits and cumulative progress to be made by consistent, regular, even small chucks of reading were another good goad to press on in this endeavor.
• I really appreciated his concept, “gutsy guilt” (pg. 87ff).  Bold, broken hope in God against all real and invalid accusations is where we have to often stay in our ongoing appropriation of the Gospel.  I never outgrow the gospel and I never cease to need the refreshing and transforming influence of the Cross.
• I amen heartily the comments on “praying without ceasing,” especially the first point that “a spirit of dependence ought to permeate all we do” (pg. 157).  I’ve reveled for some time in the connection of a passage like I Thess. 5:16-18 to our ongoing fight to “never lose heart;” which seems to me to be the state opposite of what this book is all about.  That is, it’s our “fight for joy” that will best prevent our “losing heart.”
• A verse of Scripture was referred to in this book that has become door of sunshine for me to meditate upon, (pg. 141-142) Romans 15:13:

“Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,

that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

It has struck me that I seem to best apprehend hope by thinking of its opposite: hopelessness.  My role is to be relentlessly “believing.”   Living by faith, I shall abound in hope and be filled with all joy and peace, and that’s the life that I now live (Gal. 2:20) by His grace.

There were a few points in the book that I thought could’ve been stated better:

• (pg. 138) “But to go to the valley of darkness or to stay there is never our aim.” I agree that we ought not to stay there, but there may indeed be times to go there – I think especially when repenting, forsaking, and humbling ourselves before God in the confession of sin.  Supported by the very verses he quoted, James 4:9 and II Cor. 7:10.
• (pg. 139) In a section on prayer, John writes: “The central definition in the Westminster Catechism is ‘an offering up of ourselves unto God.’  Therefore prayer is the revealer of the heart.” I feel very sensitive to subtle “confessionalism,” whenever I see it.  A doctrinal “therefore” is never to be grounded in some confession of men, but solely on the word of God.  I admire the Westminster standards as much as many, but its statements must first be buttressed with Scripture before we use it as a proof-text.
• (pg. 159-172) The use of William Law’s comments from his classic, “A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life.”  I know that this book has blessed many, and I have no doubt it contains many useful and helpful instructions, but I found myself recoiling from some of the language and some of John Pipers endorsements.  I felt like it easily cloaked a believer in “Saul’s armor.”  For example:  “Law was persuaded that ‘sleep is…a dull, stupid state of existence’ and that ‘prayer is the nearest approach to God,…’  Therefore his book overflows with the benefits of early morning prayer.” He goes on to say (Piper) that he doesn’t want to give the impression that the morning is the only hour for prayer – but his use of Law seems to do exactly that.  I might be straining at a gnat, but I cringe a bit to read of this kind of reasonable logic that could so easily “bind” a weaker or younger Christian.

I applauded the endorsement of substantive reading as a means to increasing our growth and joy. A Puritan adage states that “examples show us that precepts are practicable,” and thus affirms the benefits especially of Christian biography.  But as John Piper and George Mueller remind us, weighty works of theology have a peculiar benefit to the soul as well.  I heartily agree that availing ourselves of the writings of the saints of the past is to merely benefit from the gifts of the larger body of Christ, transcending cultures and times.

The final chapter on depression and darkness was very good.  I especially appreciated a couple of points:

• (pg. 219) “…Let us cultivate distrust of the certainties of despair.” All can look so black and hopeless when someone is in that state, and it is truly helpful for them to recognize that the thoughts of those dark hours are as Piper says, “notoriously unreliable.”
• (pg. 221) He makes the helpful point that we’re not adding burden to already overburdened soul to tell them of their “duty” to rejoice and delight in God.  “The burden is already there and not added by calling it what it is…False comfort leads to artificial healing.” This balance is delicate and we must all pray for the wisdom of Solomon as physicians of the soul, but in its proper time and with proper measure, the truth is always good medicine.

I wasn’t too far into this book when I thought that it ought to be subtitled, “What We Can Learn From Eastern Orthodoxy.”  It troubled me that there was this wholesale endorsement of eastern orthodox and mystic authors without some judicious qualifications.  That theme continued throughout the book.  I was especially bothered by chapter seven, “Ears that Hear.”  I would subtitle that chapter, “The New Second Blessing: Learning to Listen to God’s Impressions and Voice.”  I honestly think that this chapter was a major reason he wrote the book.  Apparently it’s been revolutionary for him: “I cannot function without the Lord’s input everyday” (pg. 98).  In fact, of this “clear Biblical teaching” (pg. 100) he writes, “If God truly doesn’t speak, you might as well stop reading this book right now and toss it in the garbage can…”  I was tempted to. He had already said that if we didn’t agree with his view of subjective inspiration (or “impressions / knowing His particular will for me”) we “risk falling into practical atheism,” (pg. 89) and make the living, speaking God “a mute idol.” For a better understanding discerning God’s will I would point readers to Garry Friesen’s “Decision Making and The Will of God;” Kevin DeYoung’s “Just Do Something;” or Dave Swavely’s “Decisions, Decisions.”

I grant that there are many things to learn from a more incarnational approach the Christian life and Gary Thomas’s question on page 189 is very appropriate, “Or are we content just to be ‘declared’ righteous?”  So I resonate well with the thrust of living a “compelling life,” a “God-empowered life,” “God reliance,” and “character transformation” in our pursuit of Christlikeness.  I do want to “work with God instead of just for God,” but I didn’t find this book to be compelling enough or helpful enough to get me there.  I felt that the good points about living out God’s purpose for my life by cooperating with God and not reducing holiness to mere moralisms and prohibitions have been better stated by others. And there were too many red flags with the emphasis on Saints (used repeatedly in a non-Scriptural way) and the wisdom of the Ancients.  There were points where He would have served his purpose better by defining “legalism” for the reader (that can be so helpful).  I appreciated his balanced view of the grace of God; cooperative effort in sanctification; the high standard and the practical cost of holiness and obedience and the frank display of sin as “overpromising and underdelivering.” The book contains redeemable material, but there are far better books to read to inform and empower a godly life (Bryan Chapell’s “Holiness by Grace,” J. C. Ryle’s, “Holiness,” a number of John Piper books and Brian Hedges’, “Christ formed in You” to name a few.