Staying Married Has Nothing to do With Love

Staying Married Has Nothing to do With Love April 17, 2018
Found on Facebook. Creator unknown.


Lori Alexander was harping on her continual theme of staying married no matter how abusive the marriage is and the evils of feminism this morning on her blog The Transformed Wife. She was quoting some rather toxic words by pastor John Piper of Desiring God, Piper being another extra Biblical legalism Quiverfull pastor. Here’s what he had to say on how he thinks staying married has nothing to do with love.

While Piper never comes out and says anywhere on his ideas of marriage that you must stay married to an abusive man, like Lori Alexander does, the idea that you cannot leave is a toxic one. Yes, there will be days when you don’t feel madly in love, and that comes and goes and isn’t a solid reason to leave. But when Piper, Alexander, Pearl and others teach this no leaving for any reason it cuts off any possible escape for abuse victims. This theology creates a body count and that’s never good.

Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy! Commenting here means you agree to abide by our policies.

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Check out today’s NLQ News at NLQ Newspaper

Contact NLQ at

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SAO

    You just deserve so much more than Lori and her ilk think.

  • Tawreos

    I don’t think I can get enough coffee in me to untoss this guys word salad. Jesus was married? I thought that that was supposed to be a blasphemous story. Sadly, it all boils down to praying that your spouse stops the abuse, which has never been proven to work.

  • Nea

    To be fair, people like Piper and Anderson have to say stuff like this because they’re 1) in hate with the person they’re married to and 2) not willing to put forth the slightest effort to make the other person want to stay with them. And both parts of that equation are painfully obvious the more they talk about how much they benefit from marriage.

  • Mel

    Well, Jesus might never leave his spouse – but his spouse (the church) left him according to the theological traditions of Piper, Lori et al. when the Catholic Church or any other denomination went awry.

    Doesn’t that undermine their theory about why divorce is an abomination?

  • Aloha

    Oh! No worries. I have a solution to this problem.

    Instead of promising to stay together “until death do us part,” couples can just live together “as long as love lasts.” Will that fix it?

  • Aloha

    22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31-32)

    Does that answer your question? (Hehehe) That’s the Biblical origin of the theology that the church is the bride of Christ. It’s not actually mentioned elsewhere.

  • Tawreos

    But the church is headed by men so christ is married to men which would apparently make him hate himself to death if many christians are to be believed.

  • AFo

    They do realize that before “Til death do us part,” the bride and groom vow to love, honor, and cherish each other? If there is no more love in the marriage, the vows have already been broken.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Oh goodie, my favourite topic, and another excuse to promote my little article I am so proud of (sorry everyone).
    For some unaccountable reason, when fundies quote Ephesians 5, they always miss out vv 25-30, and quote v 24 as if it was attached to v23, rather than in fact, since it starts with “However”, not ” now”:
    21 Place yourselves at each others’ service in the fear of God.
    22 Wives do so for your husbands equally as you do for the Lord,
    23 Because a husband is the head of a wife in the same way that Christ is head of the church: in that he is the one that preserves and sustains in matters of the body.
    24 However, in the manner that the church places itself under Christ, so also in the same manner in every respect are wives under their husbands:
    25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it,
    26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by washing with water by the word
    27 that he might present the church to himself in glory, without spot or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that holy and unblemished;
    28 so ought the husbands to love their own wives as their own bodies: he who is loving his own wife loves himself,
    29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as the Lord does the church,
    30 because we are part of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
    The point is that (a) 1st Century Roman wives shouldn’t abandon their husbands and families for Christ, because their husbands were the ones that kept a roof over their heads and wives therefore had obligations in return, and (b) the 1st Century Roman notion that wives were property of their husbands and existed for their husbands’ convenience was quite wrong: husbands were (NB past tense quite deliberate, this is 1st Century Rome we are talking about, not the 21st Century West) set over their wives for the same purpose as Christ was set over the church: to provide for them, look after them and serve them.
    Anyway, plug for article dealing with this and other “Biblical gender roles” BS:

  • bekabot

    Okay, so take these verses and accept John Piper’s little rant as a commentary on them. What message do you get? If you’re paying attention, the message you get isn’t that God is there to forgive humanity, but that humanity is there to forgive God, since in Piper’s theology, men stand for God whereas women stand for (both sexes of) mankind, and since the intent of Piper’s excursus (I’m as certain as can be) is more to persuade wives not to leave their husbands than the other way around.

    If one keeps one’s ears perked up, one finds that many of these preachermen are expounding a counter-doctrine, possibly one with something esoteric about it, as I have said before and will say again.

  • Nightshade

    Pretty much. People who actually want to stay together don’t usually spend inordinate amounts of time talking about the idea that they MUST stay together.

  • Annerdr

    Thank you so much for this. It explains away my confusion. If you are unhappy and the person you are married to are unhappy, and neither of you care to try to make the situation better, then really, get divorced. Take some sort of active steps to improve your life.

  • Annerdr

    And this gets twisted so much that women must watch their every thought and emotion all the time and work nonstop, joyfully, at tedious housework, and men might someday have to sacrifice themselves for their family but not today, not yesterday, and probably not ever.

  • Mary Hannah bates

    I think any reason is a solid reason to leave. If you do not want to be there, get out. The concept of needing a reason to leave is toxic. It makes us build somebody up to marry them and then tear them down to divorce them. Its okay to divorce perfectly good, nice, normal people. You do not need an excuse to marry or divorce. Its a lot more humane that way.

  • texassa

    I agree that feminism is a threat to marriage. Without rights, women need a husband. They need him to own property, earn an income, and support them. Ideally, these women would be happy in their marriages, but even if they weren’t the would have no options to leave. Rights to work, have bank accounts, own property, and even to divorce, allow women choice. And this is why the evil “feminism” is such a threat to some people – they do not want women to have any choices. Too bad!

  • Almost a chimp

    Back in the time of the Jesus stories, the ettiquette at Jewish weddings required the groom to provide the wine for the feasting. At the famous wedding, Mary was said to have castigated Jesus when there was no more wine to serve the guests, a situation sure to bring shame and embarrassment to the groom, which led to the ‘water into wine’ scene.
    Why would Mary have been so concerned about the situation and see Jesus as responsible for fulfilling the hospitality duties of the groom if the groom was not her own son?

  • Mary Hannah bates

    and how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

  • Almost a chimp

    Depends how hot your tongue is.

  • lady_black

    Feminism is not a threat to marriage. It’s a threat to male supremacy.

  • lady_black

    Spot on. Except, I would have said has been proven to work never. That applies to praying in general. Literally the least you can do.

  • lady_black

    I’m not sure about that. When she tells him they’re out of wine, he answers with “What has that to do with me?”
    Maybe the groom was a family member who she didn’t want to experience what was a serious social faux pas. So she asks Jesus to provide. He informs her that his hour hasn’t yet arrived, but she tells the servant “Do as he tells you.”
    As I see it, a clear case of “Jewish Mother Guilt-tripping.”

  • texassa

    It’s not a threat to voluntary marriage. It’s a threat to marriage that is held together by dependency, which unfortunately does constitute a portion of marriages.