Chapter One of Single Ever After explores what God’s word says about the meaning, dignity and purpose of singleness. (Spoiler Alert: the answer has eternal significance). That’s why this chapter is the doorway into the rest of the book.
Dani, I appreciate your viewpoint here, but a question I've been wrestling with.
Speaking broadly, Christians would not hesitate to affirm the intrinsic goodness of marriage. For Christians, it pictures the relationship between Christ and the church. And within true (e.g. monogamous, male-female, for life) marriages even among non-believers, Christians would also affirm the goodness of marriage, perhaps using natural law, family, etc. Additionally, as Piper writes: "[portraying the covenant love between Christ and the church] is done obscurely even in a lifelong, promise-keeping, adultery-avoiding, unbelieving marriage. So marriages accomplish some of God’s purposes imperfectly, even when the spouses are unbelieving."
I agree that Christ redeems the single life (like Danylak argues in his book) and that eschatologically, singleness points to how believers will relate to one another in the new heavens and new earth. But would you say that singleness is intrinsically good even for the non-Christian (similar to my example of marriage)? Or is its goodness contingent on the single being redeemed by Christ?
Hi Fred - thanks for your question. I think there is a correspondence between the institution of marriage itself being a foreshadowing of one aspect of the new creation reality to come and the single situation itself being another. Of course, it is God's people who grasp the significance of those foreshadowings, and so being a Christian who is either married or single means we have a depth of understanding, appreciation, even lived experience that those who are not do not (even as we long for them to). But just as a non-Christian marriage can (imperfectly) testify to the eschatological goodness of marriage itself, so too can non-Christian singleness (imperfectly) testify to the eschatological goodness of the reality that none of us will be married to each other in eternity.
I personally resent how you rope in widows and divorcees. Singleness is not the same, not even close. Never having is not the same as “having and losing.”
And it feels like you don’t intend to be serious — just marketable. It still feels like you’re playing the church game where truly single people and their challenges are never taken seriously in their own right.
Annie, I hear where you are coming from. As someone recently divorced myself, being "roped in" with never-married people sometimes makes me uncomfortable and indignant. It is absolutely true that some of the struggles of "having loved and lost" are unique to widows and divorcees.
However, without seeking to minimise the aforementioned hardships, I believe there is significant overlap in the challenges faced by different "kinds" of single people in the church, and they all stand to benefit from shared discussion in churches and Christian communities in order to work on the resolving these problems. Having met and spoken to Dani in person, I think her aim with this book (as with the previous one) is to spark such discussion in the hope of bringing about positive change.
That said, yes - Dani is ultimately promoting her book in this post. Our world is so interconnected and overconnected that such "marketing" is necessary if we want our words (particularly in print) to be seen and read. Can you clarify why her words are making light of the challenges faced by singles in the church? I would find it valuable to understand your perspective better as I continue to form my own.
I think there are some difficulties which single people will experience whether they are never-married or have lost their partner and others which are different. My personal view is that, while we shouldn't lose sight of the difficulties which are unique to the different 'types' of singleness, at the same time, anything which raises awareness of the issues is surely a good thing. And learning more about the difficulties that other people face can surely only be beneficial to us all in the long term.
Annie, I had intended to reply to your first comment (indeed, I drafted a reply, but a technical glitch meant I lost it, and I planned to rewrite it as time permitted). However, now that I have seen how rudely you have responded to Wein Lau's genuine attempt to interact with you, not only do I no longer plan to reply to you, but I have blocked you from commenting on my Substack further.
For anyone else following along, this is the first time I have blocked someone from engaging on here., I have absolutely no problem engaging with those who disagree with or critique me. But I won't allow any of my time or attention to be taken up by rudeness or obstinacy. And I don't like it on my publication. Be gracious in your interactions, or be blocked.
Dani, I appreciate your viewpoint here, but a question I've been wrestling with.
Speaking broadly, Christians would not hesitate to affirm the intrinsic goodness of marriage. For Christians, it pictures the relationship between Christ and the church. And within true (e.g. monogamous, male-female, for life) marriages even among non-believers, Christians would also affirm the goodness of marriage, perhaps using natural law, family, etc. Additionally, as Piper writes: "[portraying the covenant love between Christ and the church] is done obscurely even in a lifelong, promise-keeping, adultery-avoiding, unbelieving marriage. So marriages accomplish some of God’s purposes imperfectly, even when the spouses are unbelieving."
I agree that Christ redeems the single life (like Danylak argues in his book) and that eschatologically, singleness points to how believers will relate to one another in the new heavens and new earth. But would you say that singleness is intrinsically good even for the non-Christian (similar to my example of marriage)? Or is its goodness contingent on the single being redeemed by Christ?
Hi Fred - thanks for your question. I think there is a correspondence between the institution of marriage itself being a foreshadowing of one aspect of the new creation reality to come and the single situation itself being another. Of course, it is God's people who grasp the significance of those foreshadowings, and so being a Christian who is either married or single means we have a depth of understanding, appreciation, even lived experience that those who are not do not (even as we long for them to). But just as a non-Christian marriage can (imperfectly) testify to the eschatological goodness of marriage itself, so too can non-Christian singleness (imperfectly) testify to the eschatological goodness of the reality that none of us will be married to each other in eternity.
I personally resent how you rope in widows and divorcees. Singleness is not the same, not even close. Never having is not the same as “having and losing.”
And it feels like you don’t intend to be serious — just marketable. It still feels like you’re playing the church game where truly single people and their challenges are never taken seriously in their own right.
Annie, I hear where you are coming from. As someone recently divorced myself, being "roped in" with never-married people sometimes makes me uncomfortable and indignant. It is absolutely true that some of the struggles of "having loved and lost" are unique to widows and divorcees.
However, without seeking to minimise the aforementioned hardships, I believe there is significant overlap in the challenges faced by different "kinds" of single people in the church, and they all stand to benefit from shared discussion in churches and Christian communities in order to work on the resolving these problems. Having met and spoken to Dani in person, I think her aim with this book (as with the previous one) is to spark such discussion in the hope of bringing about positive change.
That said, yes - Dani is ultimately promoting her book in this post. Our world is so interconnected and overconnected that such "marketing" is necessary if we want our words (particularly in print) to be seen and read. Can you clarify why her words are making light of the challenges faced by singles in the church? I would find it valuable to understand your perspective better as I continue to form my own.
I think there are some difficulties which single people will experience whether they are never-married or have lost their partner and others which are different. My personal view is that, while we shouldn't lose sight of the difficulties which are unique to the different 'types' of singleness, at the same time, anything which raises awareness of the issues is surely a good thing. And learning more about the difficulties that other people face can surely only be beneficial to us all in the long term.
Couldn't agree more Pippa. Thanks for sharing!
Annie, I had intended to reply to your first comment (indeed, I drafted a reply, but a technical glitch meant I lost it, and I planned to rewrite it as time permitted). However, now that I have seen how rudely you have responded to Wein Lau's genuine attempt to interact with you, not only do I no longer plan to reply to you, but I have blocked you from commenting on my Substack further.
For anyone else following along, this is the first time I have blocked someone from engaging on here., I have absolutely no problem engaging with those who disagree with or critique me. But I won't allow any of my time or attention to be taken up by rudeness or obstinacy. And I don't like it on my publication. Be gracious in your interactions, or be blocked.