This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence

Okay you Piper lovers, what do you think about this? Most of the time I agree with him, but this time I am a little weirded out.

I don’t know if you guys have read “This Momentary Marriage” but I just finished reading through it. I have to say it was a horrible marriage book with a “good” premise.

By horrible I mean it was inconsistent and even illogical. Piper is big on the whole Covenant theme throughout the book but describes the whole thing this way:

“The ultimate thing we can say about marriage is that it exists for God’s glory. That is, it exists to display God. Now we see how: Marriage is patterned after Christ’s covenant relationship to his redeemed people, the church. And therefore, the highest meaning and the most ultimate purpose of marriage is to put the covenant relationship of Christ and his church on display. That is why marriage exists. If you are married, that is why you are married. If you hope to be, that should be your dream.”

He continues:

“Staying married, therefore, is not mainly about staying in love. It is about keeping covenant.”

In another place he repeats:

“So I argue that staying married is not mainly about staying in love. It’s about covenant-keeping. If a spouse falls in love with another person, one profoundly legitimate response from the grieved spouse and from the church is, “So what! Your being `in love’ with someone else is not decisive. Keeping your covenant is decisive… In other words, rugged covenant-keeping commitment based on grace gives security and hope so the call for change can be heard without feeling like a threat. Only when a wife or husband feels that the other is totally committed–even if he or she doesn’t change–can the call for change feel like grace rather than an ultimatum.”

So if I am following his thought he is saying that marriage mirrors or displays the covenant relationship that Christ has with the church and this is a “commitment” to them and is not about “staying in love”? By this does he mean natural affection or emotional “love” or has he defined love to be more a choice only or a volitional act alone (a position that I will vehemently oppose this Sunday)? If true agape love is both a choice and an affection then one (commitment) can’t negate the other (affection), but rather they complement one another. God loves us and is committed to us. Either way you define love, with this position, it doesn’t fit the biblical picture of God’s covenant with us. God predestined us in love. So in the biblical picture love proceeds and motivates the choice. Take one away and you could nullify the other. Of course, understanding that with God, love is self-generated, but nevertheless has an object (himself or us). I think Piper may have meant simply “infatuation”, but that would have been a very important clarification. If a true display is to be evident in our marriage then we must “agape” our wives and make sure we know what that is.

Of course, I would agree that just because you “fall in love” with another that that is not decisive, but it is telling. Telling the one who did this to just “Get over it” and ditch the woman is really to not address the issue. Why is that person not in love with his wife? Who cares if they stay committed! If I told my wife I am not in love with her anymore, but I am really committed, she will not feel comfort at all. Why? Because everyone knows without affection or emotion commitments rarely stick. So to quote Piper again - “Only when a wife or husband feels that the other is totally committed–even if he or she doesn’t change–can the call for change feel like grace rather than an ultimatum”.

How does she “feel” commitment - LOVE! Ask her and see.

Why do I state this? One, it has to do with what I am preaching this week (and I would like feedback). Two, I think it leaves us with a picture of God being committed to us but not affectionate or feeling “love” for us. I just don’t see this in scripture (and strangely nowhere else in Piper). And while I would agree that we don’t always “feel” love on a constant basis for our wives, we should be deeply concerned if emotions are never there in a positive way affirming our commitment to them and sometimes propelling it. As Edwards states, “where no affection is present, no true religion exists”. I think that applies to any area as well as marriage. Also, I don’t think Piper completely negates affection toward our spouse but it seemed to be wildly under-esteemed.

In other words, I don’t think we get the full display of God’s covenant when we only show that we are just digging our heels in and making it work (although marriage consists of a lot of this), but also we are showing (as God does for us) that we are very affectionately connected to our spouse. Maybe the former is called “Will-worship” or in this case “Will-marriage”. While I affirm that, I don’t believe the other should be overlooked. I believe that God can and does supply the affections that we need in our marriage and also for himself. I think Piper affirms this in all of his other books pointing Godward (satisfaction) but in the marriage aspect, “Where did it go”? Here he seems to make the overwhelming focus “just sticking it out”. I don’t think that glorifies God or satisfies the needs of marriage.

True satisfaction in God or his ordinances consists in both emotional and volitional/mental states.

I think the question I am asking is how does God keep covenant with us? Is it just divine willpower? Or is it a fatherly disposition, i.e. paternal love? Is it both? Answering this I think helps us know how we can:

“Love our wives as Christ loved the Church”
Rating: 1 / 5
This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence

This is a fine peice of work, with an impecable Scriptural base, that looks at marriage from a unique angle. I’ve never read anything quite like it.
Rating: 5 / 5
This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence

178 pages of great writing is what is contained in this book. Piper hits a home run. Though we may find minor details about which to quibble, I am convinced that Piper has done us all a service by writing this book.

This Momentary Marriage (hence TMM) is the fruit of Piper’s forty years of marriage as well as many years of Bible study. He gives to us the voice of Scripture and experience.

Piper reminds us that marriage is not all about love. Marriage is not sustained by staying in love. Marriage is about covenant keeping.

Piper takes us to the Garden, to the Cross, to the altar, to the marriage bed, and to divorce court. In every place he tells us what the Word of God tells us, and in every place he calls us to strive for permanence in our marriages because it is God’s revealed will for us.

Piper reminds us that marriage is to show forth Christ and His church. Thus it is that the relationships within marriage serve to glorify God. It is also in this that we find many characteristics that should be found in the lives and hearts of husbands and wives.

Piper calls upon us to remember that we are to be fruitful and multiply, as God has commanded us. TMM gives us a nudge in the direction of child training by reminding us that the goal of Christian child bearing is to make children disciples of Jesus.

In the end, Piper discusses divorce. Granted, Piper’s views are a little more stringent than those of even most conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists today. At the same time, agree or disagree, Piper argues his point well by calling us to remember that Jesus is faithful to His bride. He then calls for us to have the same covenant faithfulness in our own marriages.

It is my wish that this become a classic book on the subject of marriage.

It’s that good!
Rating: 5 / 5
This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence