Now we’re talking. I love to make lists and put little symbols next to the priorities. I have different symbols to indicate priority levels. Before you know it, I’ve spent all my time ‘prioritizing’ my to-do list over any of the items actually on it. Does anyone else find that happening, or is it just me? I really do make a lovely to-do list. Anyway.

I clearly have an expansive definition of ‘priority,’ and I’m self-aware enough to know it. I know I need fewer priorities, but three? That’s it? I am very skeptical, but onward.

Priority 1: God. This is no surprise, considering the author’s background, intended audience, and the purpose of the book. She writes we need to know God, not just have a passing acquaintance with God. Okay. Never fear, gentle reader, Ortlund has provided a guide. 1) practice God’s presence; 2) alone-time with God; 3) extended time with God; 4) regular worship attendance. There’s not much explanation beyond ‘Jesus did’. I am very impressed, however, that she did her alone-time with God at 2AM when she had three kids under three. My spirit quails at the thought.

Priority 2: commitment to the body, as in Body of Christ, specifically your home congregation. Here, she argues that there is a line of thinking that pits the (nuclear) family and the church against each other. Basically, doing things for/at church takes time away from the family, so not doing those things is good for the family. Hmm…okay. I’m not sure all the people not at church are at “home with [their] families in front of the television with [their] feet up and munch[ing] corn chips” (Ortlund, Disciplines of the Beautiful Woman, 30).

Then she quotes a passage from an 18th-century sermon on brotherly love. Well, sort of. She quotes her husband’s paraphrase, which is “not in 1750 Philadelphia talk which we wouldn’t understand too well” (Ortlund, Disciplines of the Beautiful Woman, 31). Being an historian, I looked up the original (available through the Evans Early American Imprint Collection). I had no trouble, but then again, historian. As a medieval historian, I’m thinking: what? It’s in print. It’s in modern English. I can also understand Jane Austen (yes, I know, she wrote after 1750 by a few decades) and Samuel Richardson. Moving on before I get really worked up.

Priority 3: caring for the needy in the world, lest we become “introverted and provincial” (Ortlund, Disciplines of the Beautiful Woman, 33). Amen. I wish she had spent more time here–the anecdote was nice, but there’s so much that could be said about this idea. Her description of how the three priorities build on each and flow is depressing because it is short, shallow and superficial. This deserved so much more than a handful of sentences. There is meat there, and I feel like I’ve only tasted the sauce before the plate was taken away. It aggravates me for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I feel she’s short-changing herself here. Why didn’t she go deeper and really explore this instead of burying it under a bouncy tone amid anecdotes?

I’ll leave you with this unexpected gem: “If I’m guided in my ‘to do’ list by these three priorities, then the important takes precedence over the urgent” (Ortlund, Disciplines of the Beautiful Woman, 35).