# Happily Ever After: 30 Devotions for Couples



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

Piper, John. Chan, Francis., et al. Happily Ever After: Finding Grace in the Messes of Marriage. Desiring God: Minneapolis, MN. 2017.

This was better than I expected it to be. Some of the authors listed made me nervous. Even better, I didn’t see any manipulating of the Trinity to justify certain views on marriage. Not a bad start. The chapters by Piper, Segal, and the Reoaches were generally good. I skipped the ones by Doug Wilson, as no one has any business reading anything by him (unless you are refuting his theology). The chapters by Francis Chan were uniformly terrible. Let’s start there.

Chan begins well by saying “The goal of marriage is not marriage” (Chan 1). That’s true. It’s a mystery revealing Christ and His Bride. That is not what Chan is getting at. He doesn’t mention Ephesians 5 at all. Rather, he berates couples for being self-centered rather than being radical on the mission field. Seriously. Such couples who are improving their marriage “become virtually worthless for kingdom purposes.” Side note: there really isn’t much difference between Roman Catholic monasticism and Francis Chan’s anabaptist worldview on this point, save that Rome is more theologically robust.

Nancy Demoss Woglemuth has some good meditations on how the serpent makes us selfish towards our spouse (Woglemuth 10).

Piper’s chapters on sex are good for the most part, if prone to overstatement (which might be a summary of Piper’s whole ministry). He says “Sex belongs to Christians” (Piper 17). Well, only if the pleasures of sex were meant in the garden for covenant believers and that’s true by extension today. Otherwise, Piper is very close to saying the only legitimate marriages are Christian marriages.

Josh Squires chapter on intimacy being more than just sex is good, but reads like a manual: First, I engage in spiritual intimacy, then recreational intimacy, eventually to sexual intimacy. I understand the different love languages thing, but it comes off as wooden.

The chapters on submission (Tate 35 passim) were good if only in that they didn’t involve the Trinity.

Chan’s other chapter is as bad as his first one, if not worse. He tells believers not to get entangled in civilian pursuits (Chan 59). He butchers that verse since it is talking about the pastorate, not the laity. He mocks the “happy family lounging inside” while a “full-scale war” unfolds a few blocks away. He fails to understand that we can “work quietly with our hands and live a quiet life” while praying for those under attack. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. This is the danger to which Anabaptist Evangelicalism leads. It’s legalism. 

This is a decent book for married couples. Ignore the chapters by Chan and Wilson and this book moves from 3 stars to 4 stars.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 19, 2021)

Agree with you on Chan, but can I ask if the chapter by Wilson is theologically incorrect or you are just not a fan of his? I have not read Wilson on marriage at all, so I am coming in without an opinion at this point, but I have heard his marriage materials are good. Trying to gauge some opinions from the other side as well.


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 19, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Agree with you on Chan, but can I ask if the chapter by Wilson is theologically incorrect or you are just not a fan of his? I have not read Wilson on marriage at all, so I am coming in without an opinion at this point, but I have heard his marriage materials are good. Trying to gauge some opinions from the other side as well.


He will tell you both. Wilson is pretty nuts; his patriarchal tendancies have wreaked havoc within and without.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 19, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> He will tell you both. Wilson is pretty nuts; his patriarchal tendancies have wreaked havoc within and without.


It sounds like I may need to explore that a bit more, because the Bible is patriarchal. Now, I know there is a point at which it becomes tyrannical and domineering, so perhaps that is what you are talking about?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Agree with you on Chan, but can I ask if the chapter by Wilson is theologically incorrect or you are just not a fan of his? I have not read Wilson on marriage at all, so I am coming in without an opinion at this point, but I have heard his marriage materials are good. Trying to gauge some opinions from the other side as well.



Given what could come from Wilson's pen, these chapters aren't that bad. He overgeneralizes and makes inferences Scripture never makes, but none of the abuse-dangers normally associated with his church are present in that chapter.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It sounds like I may need to explore that a bit more, because the Bible is patriarchal. Now, I know there is a point at which it becomes tyrannical and domineering, so perhaps that is what you are talking about?



He manipulates the Trinity to justify his views on marriage (ESS; see his blog post "Triune Botherations"). That makes him a semi-Arian. More to the point, he draws inferences where Scripture never does.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He manipulates the Trinity to justify his views on marriage (ESS; see his blog post "Triune Botherations"). That makes him a semi-Arian. More to the point, he draws inferences where Scripture never does.


Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the blog post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 19, 2021)

I found Wilson's _Reforming Marriage_ to be helpful and insightful. I think it's a little strong to say that "no one has any business reading anything by him." It's possible to benefit from some of his writings while also being wary of some of his others.

Regarding Chan, it must be exhausting to live at his presented level of constant intensity. As if every facet of the Christian life needs to be some explosive missionary endeavor.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I found Wilson's _Reforming Marriage_ to be helpful and insightful. I think it's a little strong to say that "no one has any business reading anything by him." It's possible to benefit from some of his writings while also being wary of some of his others.



I was speaking partly tongue in cheek. That said, though, his views on pretty much everything have ruined lives. That doesn't make him logically wrong, to be sure, but it does speak for itself.


----------



## Jo_Was (Apr 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I was speaking partly tongue in cheek. That said, though, his views on pretty much everything have ruined lives. That doesn't make him logically wrong, to be sure, but it does speak for itself.


Yes, I agree. I think it's concerning to read marriage advice from someone who has led his flock into badly counselled, unwise, and dangerous marriage relationships inside his own community and has not appeared to show genuine repentance and remorse for such decisions. The fruits of his marriage counsel to the flock should be enough to raise red flags about the fidelity of his counsel on the subject at large. Inconsistent at best. Unwise in media. Dangerous at most.

Reactions: Like 5


----------

