What is also consistently striking is the portrayal of marriage as being intrinsically sanctifying. As if people don’t get married for selfish reasons or use their spouse/children to validate themselves OR dominate their partner for self indulgent reasons (the latter being way more probable in Piper’s authoritarian image of marriage)
Oh my. John Piper has apparently never met any of the legion of unmarried women “of a certain age” who are tacitly assigned parental care responsibilities because, unlike their married sibs, “they have no responsibilities.” I think of Deb (fake name), whose professional career involved supporting our troops on multiple continents, including in war zones. Some of those young men still consider her their “mom.” She is now FT live-in caregiver to her mother, who has dementia, and guardian to her disabled brother. She’s not the only capable member of her generation, but all the heavy lifting is up to her because she’s unmarried. (And yes, she was active in church before caregiving chained her to her mother’s apartment, and no, her “young families”-focused church is not supporting with respite, meals, or even regular pastoral visits.)
I've read a lot (if not most) of John Piper's speaking and writing on singleness, and my gut instinct here is that while he has long spoken of the goodness of singleness in certain contexts, he always still retains at least a hint some of those classic "restriction clauses" in his position (sometimes not so overtly, as seen above), such as the idea that faithful singleness requires a special gifting or that singleness must be carefully used for service of the church so as to not be selfish or worldly.
There's also the fact that he is one of the major architects of a type of complementarianism that, while not dismissing the possibility of singleness in theory, describes ideal godly relationships between men and women in such a way that a reader is likely to feel they *need* marriage in order to fully act out their gender role. This is one reason that, while I respect that he values the Scriptures enough to not skip or dismiss what they say about being unmarried, I am lukewarm about his support of singles.
It also feels like such a weird, concerning vision of marriage. Surely we should be encouraging people to not enter marriages they know up front are likely to work poorly and should they find themselves in a difficult one to work on fixing the problems in their marriages that can fix and to healthily acknowledge and grieve the things that can’t be fixed, not engage in weird gasslighty the thing that’s obviously a problem is actually freedom rhetoric. It’s truly problematic how much Christian marriage and singleness advice primes people to accept dysfunctional, even abusive marriages
"To realise that the conclusion is predetermined by the first sentence." Ha! I see what you did here and I love it! Great article but it's hard for me to take anything JP says with any kind of authority because I disagree with his starting thesis.
I came across your Substack reflections and they caught my interest, so I followed the link to the podcast.
Thank you for pointing out the tone set through the sentence from the first paragraph. I would go further and suggest that the real problem emerges in the podcast introduction by someone unnamed (or perhaps called Tony — John Piper seems to respond to someone called Tony toward the end) before we even get to the first paragraph of the main part:
“On the one side comes the argument that prolonged adult singleness today is only selfish, only there to self-protect personal freedoms, to guard career advancement, and to create a life of ease. Anything short of marriage is brokenness. This debate isn’t going away because, at least here in the United States, the number of unmarried women now is about equal to the number of married women, and the share of women who have never married is surging.”
One would expect this to be contrasted by “on the other side,” which never appears. Instead, we learn that the reason the debate about “the bondage of singleness” is not going to go away is because of the number of women who are single and/or have never married. I would expect to next see the number of men who are single and/or have never married. Instead, the direction of the argument — while not logical or coherent — is clear: it jumps from selfishness to women. The text then acknowledges that the reasons for these growing numbers are complex and identifies only one of those reasons, namely independence. Thus the hot topic is introduced: the triad of selfish — women — independence. The transcript then adds the question of a female reader (whose frustration with her church is understandable), creating another focus on women at the center of the challenge. One could now argue that it is only the introduction that presents these imbalances. I, however, point out that in the context of the podcast “Ask Pastor John” this introduction does not appear to be critically evaluated during the editing process. Furthermore, there is another imbalance embedded in the audio file, with a male voice introducing the problematic triad in preparation for the male main speaker. Having looked at all of this, it is no surprise that the only female voice within the podcast — Amy’s letter — is absorbed into a male reading.
Frankly, I am surprised that any woman is prepared to continue reading or listening to the first paragraph, given the episode’s framing…
Awesome take! I also felt similar feelings as I listened to that episode. I was also stuck on that line and what it meant, and sought to give grace to what he was saying. I think Piper's conclusion at the end is what sums up his thoughts on it. Meaning whether in marriage or in singleness, the goal is not in the pursuance of the "pros" and "cons" of a particular marital status over another but rather a life submitted to Christ regardless of circumstances one is in. In there lies the true freedom. Also, I think it would be fair to mention that he also spoke about the challenges that exist in marriage as Paul states which I remember you speaking about in your book "Single Ever After" which was so helpful for me and such a blessing by the way. I think, based on the context of what he said entirely, that he is trying to look at this from both angles. Namely, that there exists the automatic assumption that singleness equals freedom while marriage equals bondage. So going back to the original statement you explored, I think he might be saying that people think singleness is easier because of what Paul said, however both marriage and singleness both have their unique challenges, and so the point is the freedom we find in our submission to Christ in these circumstances. I remember you also touched on this same thing in the book I previously mentioned where you spoke about the issue/temptation of being completely closed off to marriage and presented that instead we should consider being open and submissive to where the Lord calls us. I really enjoyed this read and was glad to hear you respond to it!
I haven’t had a read of Piper’s article here yet Dani (I will). But I always thought he positioned himself alongside you on this subject? Here’s a talk he gave which Rosaria Butterfield references in her books as very important for her journey. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/single-in-christ
I read the article… definitely confusing. I think he’s trying to say what 1 Cor 7 is bigger than being a conversation on marriage versus singleness, but is about how one views their singleness (or marriage) and whether it’s used for Christ (Paul’s view) or not (the culture’s view). But still was a little hard to follow.
What is also consistently striking is the portrayal of marriage as being intrinsically sanctifying. As if people don’t get married for selfish reasons or use their spouse/children to validate themselves OR dominate their partner for self indulgent reasons (the latter being way more probable in Piper’s authoritarian image of marriage)
Oh my. John Piper has apparently never met any of the legion of unmarried women “of a certain age” who are tacitly assigned parental care responsibilities because, unlike their married sibs, “they have no responsibilities.” I think of Deb (fake name), whose professional career involved supporting our troops on multiple continents, including in war zones. Some of those young men still consider her their “mom.” She is now FT live-in caregiver to her mother, who has dementia, and guardian to her disabled brother. She’s not the only capable member of her generation, but all the heavy lifting is up to her because she’s unmarried. (And yes, she was active in church before caregiving chained her to her mother’s apartment, and no, her “young families”-focused church is not supporting with respite, meals, or even regular pastoral visits.)
I've read a lot (if not most) of John Piper's speaking and writing on singleness, and my gut instinct here is that while he has long spoken of the goodness of singleness in certain contexts, he always still retains at least a hint some of those classic "restriction clauses" in his position (sometimes not so overtly, as seen above), such as the idea that faithful singleness requires a special gifting or that singleness must be carefully used for service of the church so as to not be selfish or worldly.
There's also the fact that he is one of the major architects of a type of complementarianism that, while not dismissing the possibility of singleness in theory, describes ideal godly relationships between men and women in such a way that a reader is likely to feel they *need* marriage in order to fully act out their gender role. This is one reason that, while I respect that he values the Scriptures enough to not skip or dismiss what they say about being unmarried, I am lukewarm about his support of singles.
It also feels like such a weird, concerning vision of marriage. Surely we should be encouraging people to not enter marriages they know up front are likely to work poorly and should they find themselves in a difficult one to work on fixing the problems in their marriages that can fix and to healthily acknowledge and grieve the things that can’t be fixed, not engage in weird gasslighty the thing that’s obviously a problem is actually freedom rhetoric. It’s truly problematic how much Christian marriage and singleness advice primes people to accept dysfunctional, even abusive marriages
Nailed it.
"To realise that the conclusion is predetermined by the first sentence." Ha! I see what you did here and I love it! Great article but it's hard for me to take anything JP says with any kind of authority because I disagree with his starting thesis.
I came across your Substack reflections and they caught my interest, so I followed the link to the podcast.
Thank you for pointing out the tone set through the sentence from the first paragraph. I would go further and suggest that the real problem emerges in the podcast introduction by someone unnamed (or perhaps called Tony — John Piper seems to respond to someone called Tony toward the end) before we even get to the first paragraph of the main part:
“On the one side comes the argument that prolonged adult singleness today is only selfish, only there to self-protect personal freedoms, to guard career advancement, and to create a life of ease. Anything short of marriage is brokenness. This debate isn’t going away because, at least here in the United States, the number of unmarried women now is about equal to the number of married women, and the share of women who have never married is surging.”
One would expect this to be contrasted by “on the other side,” which never appears. Instead, we learn that the reason the debate about “the bondage of singleness” is not going to go away is because of the number of women who are single and/or have never married. I would expect to next see the number of men who are single and/or have never married. Instead, the direction of the argument — while not logical or coherent — is clear: it jumps from selfishness to women. The text then acknowledges that the reasons for these growing numbers are complex and identifies only one of those reasons, namely independence. Thus the hot topic is introduced: the triad of selfish — women — independence. The transcript then adds the question of a female reader (whose frustration with her church is understandable), creating another focus on women at the center of the challenge. One could now argue that it is only the introduction that presents these imbalances. I, however, point out that in the context of the podcast “Ask Pastor John” this introduction does not appear to be critically evaluated during the editing process. Furthermore, there is another imbalance embedded in the audio file, with a male voice introducing the problematic triad in preparation for the male main speaker. Having looked at all of this, it is no surprise that the only female voice within the podcast — Amy’s letter — is absorbed into a male reading.
Frankly, I am surprised that any woman is prepared to continue reading or listening to the first paragraph, given the episode’s framing…
Awesome take! I also felt similar feelings as I listened to that episode. I was also stuck on that line and what it meant, and sought to give grace to what he was saying. I think Piper's conclusion at the end is what sums up his thoughts on it. Meaning whether in marriage or in singleness, the goal is not in the pursuance of the "pros" and "cons" of a particular marital status over another but rather a life submitted to Christ regardless of circumstances one is in. In there lies the true freedom. Also, I think it would be fair to mention that he also spoke about the challenges that exist in marriage as Paul states which I remember you speaking about in your book "Single Ever After" which was so helpful for me and such a blessing by the way. I think, based on the context of what he said entirely, that he is trying to look at this from both angles. Namely, that there exists the automatic assumption that singleness equals freedom while marriage equals bondage. So going back to the original statement you explored, I think he might be saying that people think singleness is easier because of what Paul said, however both marriage and singleness both have their unique challenges, and so the point is the freedom we find in our submission to Christ in these circumstances. I remember you also touched on this same thing in the book I previously mentioned where you spoke about the issue/temptation of being completely closed off to marriage and presented that instead we should consider being open and submissive to where the Lord calls us. I really enjoyed this read and was glad to hear you respond to it!
I haven’t had a read of Piper’s article here yet Dani (I will). But I always thought he positioned himself alongside you on this subject? Here’s a talk he gave which Rosaria Butterfield references in her books as very important for her journey. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/single-in-christ
I read the article… definitely confusing. I think he’s trying to say what 1 Cor 7 is bigger than being a conversation on marriage versus singleness, but is about how one views their singleness (or marriage) and whether it’s used for Christ (Paul’s view) or not (the culture’s view). But still was a little hard to follow.