If you have yet to hear of Mark Driscoll’s latest book Real Marriage you are a little late to the party. There are countless reviews already (see here, and for some of the earlier ones see here). Honestly if I was not contractually obligated (ala g
ot the book for free in exchange for a review) and if I did not feel a pastoral obligation to read and review it, I would probably keep my mouth shut.
Summary
The book is divided into three sections (really two). One section on marriage that covers the first five chapters. This section chronicles some of the Driscoll’s story and also has a chapter each devoted to men and to women. Chapter 5 is given to the necessity of forgiveness. The second section, and probably the most controversial, deal with sex. First the Driscoll’s attempt to establish a theology of sex, then for a few chapters they tackle tough issues like abuse, pornography, and selfishness. Chapter 10 is perhaps the most controversial as it is the “Can We ____?” chapter. The last section/chapter is a helpful tip for reverse-engineering your marriage. There are also 5 appendices in some versions of the book.
My Thought
A good friend asked me if I liked the book. My response was simple. I like the book about as much as a thirsty man that just drank out of a toilet only to realize that there was a refreshingly (not to mention clean) glass of water right next to him.
Let me explain.
Just like a thirsty man would have his thirst satiated by drinking toilet water, there are things in Real Marriage that may actually benefit your marriage. (see Aaron Armstrong’s review for some of the good things in the book). The only problem with drinking out of the toilet—wait, one of the problems with drinking out of the toilet—is that there is a pretty good chance you are going to get some sort of unhelpful bacteria that will make you sick. You may even get away with it—but at the end of the day there is a reason that we usually relieve ourselves in a different location than we do our dishes or give our kids drinks of water.
The Toilet
My response to my friend is only good if Driscoll’s book can actually be compared to drinking from a toilet. There are a few places in the book that I would liken more to dropping an awesome donut on the floor, picking it back up and eating it. Yeah, it’s probably not the best but it’s not a huge deal. Love can cover over a multitude of sins. But there are at least four spots that I would compare to drinking from a toilet.
First, feel free to call me a prude or someone that is stuck in Victorian England. I can take it. But there were places in the book that I would not feel comfortable reading to members in our congregation. There are even places I would not feel comfortable reading to my wife. There are words and phrases in this book that are so blunt and juvenile that I hadn’t heard them since junior high. Maybe I need to get out more and rub shoulders with more lost people, but I don’t really expect to feel dirty reading a book written by a pastor. The fact that I’m not quoting any of these is evidence to my point.
Secondly, I will reference what I will call “the haircut comment”. On page 109 Driscoll helpfully says this, “one of our culture’s powerful lies—fueled by pornography, sinful lust, and marketing—is that having a standard of beauty is in any way holy or helpful”. This seems to contradict Driscoll’s earlier remarks concerning his own wife:
In this season we shifted into ministry-and-family mode, neglecting our intimacy and failing to work through our issues. This became apparent to me when my pregnant wife came home from a hair appointment with her previously long hair (that I loved) chopped off and replaced with a short, mommish haircut. She asked what I thought, and could tell from the look on my face. She had put a mom’s need for convenience before being a wife. She wept. (11)
This is one example of several that highlights what seems to be a lack of tenderness towards Driscoll’s wife. I could just be wrongly sensitive to things that others are not. But it seems to me that Mark’s bluntness with men is sometimes even present in his relationship with his wife. I could be wrong about this and will welcome any correction.
I mention the “haircut comment” only to say that if I (or other men) began treating their wives with what seems to be a lack of tenderness then I don’t think marriages will be benefited.
Thirdly, the book is extremely practical. In fact it is often too practical or perhaps pragmatic may be the better word. What ends up happening is that rather than applying principles and general concepts that can apply to all marriages this book ends up almost doling out a new law.
Take chapter 10 as an example. On page 101 the Driscoll’s decide not to share specific examples of redemptive stories. Instead they say, “We are hoping that rather than admiring another couple’s redemptive story you will make your own by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power.” My thought with this was simple; why didn’t you do this in chapter 10?
In Chapter 10 they provide what some may consider a helpful way of thinking through “Can we ____” type of questions. Personally, I even question the wisdom of the grid they apply—but that is another topic altogether. So, let’s just say for the sake of argument that their grid is immensely helpful. What we do not need then is to take a bunch of practices through this grid to see it in play. Because what it ends up happening is that the readers are no longer applying an “is it beneficial” grid to their own marriage but instead they are being influenced by the Driscoll’s opinion. It’s like laying down a new law with Driscoll being Moses and saying—these things are okay. It seems to undercut what they were attempting to do.
The marriage books that I have found most helpful are the ones that deal with big picture, gospel meta-narrative, idol-exposing, universal type principles that all of humanity deals with. I have the Holy Spirit. I can make personal application on my own. I do not need a detailed description of ________ to determine whether that would be beneficial to my marriage.
That’s not to say that marriage books shouldn’t be practical and only pie-in-the sky. But that does mean that it is counterproductive to answer these “Can we ____” questions with specifics.
Fourthly, this book is mostly unnecessary. The main reason why I am not suggesting this book is because the positives—and as I mentioned earlier there are some helpful things—are not unique to this book. You can find the positives elsewhere without having to endure the graphic and juvenile nature of this book. It’s not blunt it’s vulgar and unnecessarily so.
Conclusion
Go elsewhere. I appreciate much that Mark Driscoll has done in the kingdom of Christ. I appreciate that he preaches the gospel. I appreciate a good amount of his theology. But I do not appreciate this book. I think it causes an unnecessary distraction. I do not see this book as really applying the gospel (marriage as a picture of the gospel seems to take the back seat to pleasurable sex). I’m saddened that those that dislike Driscoll will have lots of fodder for their down with Pastor Mark cannons.
But mostly I’m saddened that I cannot suggest this book. I love Driscoll’s openness (to a degree) and their honesty. I love that they share their brokenness. I love their points of confession. I actually thought chapter 3 was very helpful. There are some things that I genuinely like about this book. And I know that Driscoll understands the gospel and knows how to apply it in very helpful ways. I just wish that a marriage book was one of those.
Steer clear. I’d suggest Tim Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage. Paul Tripp’s What Did You Expect. Dave Harvey’s When Sinners Say I Do. Tim Challies Sexual Detox. Redemption by Mike Wilkerson or Rid of My Disgrace by the Holcomb’s. Read only one of these and you find far more benefit.
Read more: http://www.mikeleake.net/#ixzz1jHIUeGmv
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Okay, let’s talk turkey. Mark Driscoll is one of those flashpoints for bloggers. Mike has written an interesting, even provocative, view of his recent book.
Talk about it.
But this is not a place to bring back every long-held negative opinion about Driscoll or to bash him. It is not a place for discussion of your feelings about his continuationism, his “visions” or Calvinism or any of that.
Discuss the topic. Discuss the book. Like it. Hate it. Like it and hate it.
But let’s keep the discussion focused, okay?
OK, this is one of my pet peeves, so I’m going to rant a little bit here.
The bible is not a grocery store of “how to live” topics that we browse and shop from when we feel the need. I really suspect that most of these “how to live” books are not much more than money making schemes. Marriage, sex, child rearing, money management, employment, etc, etc, etc. These are not what the bible is about.
Don’t get me wrong. When the bible speaks about marriage, it is to be heeded. But let’s face it, what the bible says about marriage would fit on one side of an index card! Love your spouse sacrificially, have sex (with each other), be faithful, put God first, have kids, raise them right. Is there really a lot more than that?
There are reams of books on “biblical” child rearing. Is it really that hard (to grasp)? Love your kids, teach them, model Christ for them, discipline them. Is there really much more than that?
Books on “biblical” sex? Really? I’ll save you the money: Get married, have sex with your spouse. Don’t deny each other except by mutual consent. You can send your donations to my Amazon wish list.
I love books, but honestly a Christian bookstore is one of the most oppressive places I’ve ever been in. The sheer about of unnecessary stuff written is just mind boggling, when a halfway decent knowledge of scripture would suffice.
The bible is about Christ. Beginning to end. I’m not discounting the “how to live” portions of the bible, but they are a minor part of the story. Just the icing, and really, why eat just icing when the cake is right there.
Great comment!
Bill Mac,
Ten Ring at one thousand yards? You nailed it dead center.
I agree in principle, Bill. But I would also say that there is a lot of material in the Bible about sex. And some of it would be hard to deal with on Sunday AM.
Proverbs 5 is pretty graphic. The Song (depending on your interp). Many sections of the law.
I think 1) A book on “What the Bible says about sex” is perfectly acceptable. 2) Deaing with difficult topics forthrightly is perfectly acceptable biblically. 3) Christians who deal with such topics need to demonstrate tact and care as well to make sure that the intent to toward sanctification not salaciousness.
I’ve not read the book but what has impressed me is that there are several folks who would normally come from widely different viewpoints on Driscoll have come together to say this book goes beyond what is tactful. Even those who have recommended the book have done so with caveats that it goes to far in places.
I also think that things like Ed Young, Jr has done – which in my humble opinion amount to using sex to sell church – are totally unworthy for the church.
We may address sexual topics, but we must never use sex to sell the church. Wouldn’t that be a form of ecclesiological prostitution?
Ed, Jr and his wife are going to teach about sex from a bed on top of the roof of their church is the latest nonsense. He’s calling it a “Sexperiment.” Thankfully, they will NOT be having sex on the roof.
while I agree that we should deal with sex from the pulpit, and teach what the Bible says about it; I believe Driscoll and Ed Young, JR. go waaaaay over the line of common sense and decency. And, Driscoll actually teaches that its okay to commit sodomy on your wife.
Sad. But, I guess its all about drawing a crowd for some.
David
“ecclesiological prostitution”
Wow! It seems to me that Dave Miller and his cohort David Rogers can pack more into the doctrine of ecclesiology than any other two people I have ever met. 🙂
Dave, you worked on that one all day didn’t you? 🙂
Yet, and seriously now; I think, and sadly do I think so, you are right. The roof deal is as you say, “ecclesiological prostitution.” And that is just a sad, sad thing.
Dave: There are several places that the bible touches on sex, true. But the sum total of new insight is very small. Yes, Proverbs 5 is a bit racy, but what’s the message there? Don’t go to prostitutes and don’t commit adultery.
Sex: Only with your spouse. Enjoy it.
That’s pretty much the whole message of the bible about sex. Hardly a book’s worth.
It is amazing to see words like “a lot of material in the Bible” about sex.”
Even if I granted this is an accurate statement, which I don’t, most of the material involves preventing the most horrendous and abominable sexual behavior.
Unless you wrench the Song of Solomon out of the Biblical context, there is not one extended “teaching” passage on what to do to enhance your sex life.
Not one historical writer I’m aware of outside of the modern era ever wrote a book length treatise on “How to Have Biblical Sex.” Were they all prudes, misguided, unenlightened, out of touch men and women of God? The current Driscoll-Young crowds would seem to suggest this.
Disgusting, heart-breaking, hurtful: these are words that seem to come to mind with the Big “D” and his psycho-babble parading as “genuine gospel.”
Drinking out of the toilet is perhaps the best metaphor one could come up with (though I could come up with one about peanuts and manure) but I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.
Sex is not the problem today with society. It is a symptom. But, treating the symptom by presenting the true gospel doesn’t sell as many books or build as big a crowd.
Oh, may God deliver us from our religious celebrities!
I have not read the book.
The sentences quoted on this and other blogs seem to me to have great potential to stir up discontent and/or lust.
Dave, he has a “vision” in the book. Chapter 1 about his wife before marriage. Did we need to know that?
I chose not to include that in my review because I did not want it to become an argument about “visions” and what not. Other reviewers have dealt with that difficulty.
what was the “vison?” was it like the ones where he sees people committing adultery, like watching it on TV?
DAvid
I’ll answer this question but I’d like to keep the discussion away from this aspect of the book.
There were two spots that sounded like “visions”. I’m not sure which Lydia is referring. The first was that God clearly told him to do 4 things…one of which was marry Grace. The second occasion was when he had a very graphic picture of Grace cheating on him when they were dating.
Those are the biggest two. But let’s try to keep it off the “I see things” thread.
.
Not allowed to say. (wink) Read the link I provided which is chp 1
thanks for the link, Lydia (read the salient part at the bottom of page 11 and top of page 12 . . . WAY too much personal info about Grace . . .
I can’t believe that Grace or any wife would want themselves exposed like that . . . I wonder if she is a mother ?
If she is, then her child/children may also be vulnerable to embarrassment because of this book.
I feel sorry for Grace.
I think Mark has ‘issues’ to work out concerning the proper boundaries of keeping his marriage relationship a private matter, out of respect for the dignity of his wife.
A Christian husband would look after his wife’s dignity.
was thinking about the Anglican wedding service, where the groom promises . . .
‘with this ring, I thee wed,
with my body, I thee honor . . . ‘
and I thought, my goodness, the evangelical wedding service must include something similar . . .
about honoring your spouse in the marital relationship
“Some people will use this story against Mark and me, but we want to share it to help those of you who also are hurting and want to work through deep areas of sin in your marriage (or future marriage).”
Looks like she was right. The evangelical church is turning into a terrible place to find grace.
My question for people who think that Driscoll’s book is inappropriate for the church setting is how do you then deal with Scripture like Gen 19 or Judges 19? Do you skip over those verses, ignore what the text is actually saying, and gloss over the gross realities of those verses? Let’s face it, if the bible were made into a movie, due to verses like those, it would be easily rated NC-17. Yet my guess is that SBC (and others) pastors DONT teach from those verses, at least not verse by verse and explaining the details of those verses. Thus the problem with Driscoll is not with what he wrote, but rather that the church as a whole refuses to deal with and discuss those issues.
I am of the firm belief that the rise of sexual immorality in this country/world is largely due to the puritanical and taboo approach to sexual issues that the majority of “conservative” churches have taken over the past few hundred years. There will always be immorality, but treating the subject as taboo due to not wanting to offend the sensibilities of “little old ladies” is stupid. You dont teach children about firearms by saying “BAD! EVIL! NEVER TOUCh!” You explain to them how firearms work, you talk about the proper use and handling of them, you explain the dangers of misusing them, ect. Sheltering the children by punishing htem if they ever look at a gun, or if they pretend to have guns by pointing their fingers and going “bang” only leads to curiosity taking hold and doing great dammage.
The same is with sex, and sexual issues. You may disagree with Driscoll’s positions, but ignoring the issue and claiming it should not be talked about in Christian circles (ie Churches) is just stupid.
“I am of the firm belief that the rise of sexual immorality in this country/world is largely due to the puritanical and taboo approach to sexual issues that the majority of “conservative” churches have taken over the past few hundred years.”
Smuschany,
Do you really believe the above statement or did you just state that for shock effect?
if you do believe it; How do you account for the “great rise in sexual immorality” before the Genesis flood?
I don’t think anyone disagrees with Driscoll talking about sex at all. It’s the tone, level of detail, and hermeneutic used. Most of the “graphic” portions of Scripture are not given as a how-to, the most graphic probably being the allegory of Ezekiel 23. Even the Song of Solomon uses poetry and veiled references, not explicit guides and technique.
According to Paul in Ephesians 5, there are some things that are not even to be talked about. That has to mean something is off-limits, right?
First off, your use of the phrase “puritanical” is wrong. The Puritans were actually more prone to teach on sex (and actually view it as for the purpose of pleasure) than their contemporaries. So, that’s not a good use of the term.
Secondly, it is very possible to teach on sex in the manner that you describe without being graphic, vulgar, or unnecessarily sexual. I’m guessing that the Lord has hard-wired us to know what to do in the bedroom….we don’t need pastors teaching us sexual positions.
Mike,
Amen. You rang the bell, Bro.
David
In all my years of preaching I have never preached a message or even in a message on gun control.
><>”
This is the worst review of driscolls book I have read. I expected more. This review is like the thirsty man drinking from the toilet – look elsewhere.
In a way, Driscoll is brilliant concerning this topic. There are things in the book so depraved, we dare not speak of them on a blog lest we are banned. So we try to discuss his book actually making it sound nicer than it is.
Mark says that if a certain kind of sex (cannot use his words) is not forbidden in the bible then it must be ok if both want to even though it is not natural and could be harmful. Is this logical? Is this our standard for interpretation?
If folks want to read the intro and chapter one here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75155553?access_key=key-1ie4tvtibidzn1u5kpw4
CB, This time he says stupid things like we all do except in a book with an editor and also spending a lot of time choosing each word as a writer. In other words, the stupid stuff here is premeditated and chosen carefully for effect.
There is more about Grace than any of us need to know in just chp 1. In fact, I fear such “transparency” only invites the opposite of what was intended.
Reproductive sex is NOT the same as some of the things discussed in the book . . .
but then ‘the natural law’ is not taught as a doctrine in evangelical Churches, I suppose.
Lydia,
Two articles that read about his book gives me a strong clue that this book is out of bounds. I read Wade Burleson’s article relating to the book. I read Peter Lumpkins’ articles about the book. it seems that Peter and Wade are in agreement about the inherent problems with this book.
Lydia, you know that if Peter and Wade agree, something is wrong with the book. 🙂
“Lydia, you know that if Peter and Wade agree, something is wrong with the book. ”
Hmmm. Driscoll is accidently bringing unity to the Body? :o)
“You dont teach children about firearms by saying “BAD! EVIL! NEVER TOUCh!” You explain to them how firearms work, you talk about the proper use and handling of them, you explain the dangers of misusing them, ect. Sheltering the children by punishing htem if they ever look at a gun, or if they pretend to have guns by pointing their fingers and going “bang” only leads to curiosity taking hold and doing great damage.”
Smuschany,
I do greatly agree with the above statement. Yet, we must agree that the way one teaches a child about firearms is very important and worthy of much thought and selective procedures.
For instance, we would not allow a child to begin carrying a loaded Model 19 Glock on his belt at six years old would we?
We would also not take our child and our child’s pet white rabbit out into a field, tie the rabbit to a stake, and shoot him with number four shot from a Model 12 just to show our child the bloody devastation a firearm perpetrates upon living flesh do we?
Just as teaching a child the truth about firearms is is good and, in my opinion, the proper thing to do, so is teaching them about sexuality the good and proper thing to do. Yet, to do some things or write some things in book would be, shall we say, “overkill.”
I have not read this book. I have read some reviews of the book. All of those reviews have one common factor and that is that this book must be approached with extreme caution. So maybe this book is overkill. Maybe this is a “white rabbit” book.
You obviously aren’t from Texas. 😉
Bill Mac,
I have heard that Texans don’t use Glocks ’cause they are made in Austria.
Sources have told me that Texans only carry their granddaddy’s old Single Action Colts and they begin at three. 🙂
Youse guys.
Does that make me a dispensationalist because I taught my kids how to dissassemble, clean, re-assemble and use an Uzi at 5 years old?
Jake Barker,
That makes you a “rapid” fire dispensationalist.
Sissies. Here in the wilds of NY we send our kids out with just a loincloth and a knife.
I’m extremely disappointed in the Thomas Nelson publishing firm for taking this project on. A respected publisher of Christian literature, this book falls short of what one would expect from them as literature worthy to put on Christian book shelves. I particularly disagree with their promotional blurb that the Driscolls write with “wisdom, humility, and realism” … but agree, instead, with Mike’s “Fourthly” assessment that they have produced a work which is “graphic … juvenile … vulgar.”
Thomas Nelson is owned by a secular publishing company. They see dollar signs for “sensational” material. Plenty of $$ to be made with this book (from believers and non-believers).
There are a couple comments in this book (like the Haircut one) – that I’ve seen others mention in reviews – that really make Mark Driscoll come off as a jerk, if not outright abusive.
I may have totally misinterpreted that section of the book, since the reviewers I have read bash him on this, but I took, from the context, that he was describing the sad state of their marriage. He explained some of Grace’s sins, and some of his own sins. The place at which he tells this story suggests to me that he saw this action as sin and unloving.
He goes on in that chapter to explain how both he and his wife and their marriage were changed by God’s grace.
Chris,
I think he was describing the sad state of their marriage. And that is what threw up a red flag for me. The fact that “he saw this action as sin and unloving” seems to contradict his later statement about standards of beauty.
I just realized my statements were not clear. I interpreted it as Mark seeing his remarks/action as sinful and unloving, not Grace’s haircut. If this is so, I think we should give him a break, because he recognized HIS own actions as sin and repented from it.
I read through it again and I’m having a hard time seeing it as Mark saying that his remarks/action was sinful. If I’m wrong and he is saying that his remarks/action was sinful then certainly he deserves a break on that one. But it seems to me like he is interpreting Grace’s haircut as a symbolic trading in of “intimacy” for function.
I read the same passage over and over again and got the same impression Mike. He didn’t say anywhere that it was wrong, he said that she traded mommy comfort for that of being a wife.
I think that is a plausible interpretation as well. I noticed that he didn’t call his action sin, but, with the nature of that entire section of the chapter (him describing the sad nature of the marriage), I did not think that he had to explicitly call it sin. I think it was implied. I may be wrong. I wonder if someone who knows him could find out, because, in another blog that I have read, people have blasted him as a myogynist over this section.
Chris,
Just to be clear I am in no way meaning to imply that Driscoll is a misogynist. I am sad though that he has given fuel for that fire.
We hear a lot of “but he preaches the Gospel”, but I wonder if it is really the Gospel when it is also littered with so much other stuff. I’ve never met the man in person, but his writings strongly suggest he is a bully and a misogynist. He ridicules anyone who doesn’t live up to his definition of manliness (he stated that true Christian men will be fans of ultimate fighting).
Just another thought. We should appreciate anyone who preaches the Gospel, but the way it is consistently said of Driscoll, one would get the impression that he’s one of about 5 guys who do. I’m sure all the true Gospel ministers in the Washington state area just love hearing about how Driscoll is reChristianizing that corner of the country nearly single handedly.
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2012/01/mark-driscoll-and-his-fanboys.html
Here is another review from a former member who has always been very fair to Mark and agrees with much of his doctrinal stances. But who listened to a lot of sex sermons over those years, too. This review brings some questions concerning hypocrisy. My question: Was Mark really preaching to Grace all those years? Was he preaching to others what he was not getting in his own marriage?
Here is another review by Paul Martin which I think gets to the heart of the matter:
http://preacherthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/01/learning-from-old-men-first-driscoll.html
Quote:
“This has been one of my fears for Pastor Driscoll through the years. I think he has tended to write “too close to the lesson.” Even this latest book, if I read the chronology right, seems to say that all the good things he is directing us to do are things he has really only applied in his marriage in the last 3-4 years. I am glad where Biblical truth is changing any marriage, but I think it is not wise to speak of seeing huge long-term results so close to their application. “
I agree Bill. He also speaks a lot of going to a church where there was no legalism, yet it seems in this book as well as other sermons, legalism in being a man or a woman is the running theme.
I guess I also have a problem with his “vision” concerning his wife. He made her feel less than a person when he confronted her about something that happened in High School when they were first dating, and the lack of forgiveness and his reaction are troubling to me. Maybe it’s because my husband was and is a very forgiving person. He loves me so much that there was never anything he didn’t immediately forgive me for early in our 27 almost 28 year marriage.
Grace was pregnant with their child and he was busy grieving and punishing her(at least it seemed that way to me in reading the link Lydia gave). She had issues and he abandoned her in my opinion.
Debbie,
I would be with Chris on this particular section. I don’t agree with his interpretation of the haircut comment…but I think that Driscoll realizes that the way he treated his wife during that time was wrong and sinful. You are right in your assessment but this particular instance is one where he has repented of.
Yes he did. And I should have included that in my statement. I guess where I have the problem is that even in this, sex seems to be the cure all. And what I would consider unhealthy sex. Almost porn sex if not porn sex. Yet, there is nothing in the book related to if a wife feels like Grace did, went through the problems that grace did, how a husband is to handle that. For example the High School incident.
Also I see nothing in the chapter how to deal with disease, pregnancy, or if either party can’t have sex, ever. Neither Young nor Driscoll has dealt with this. I guess that was my point which I shortened much to much.
Chapter 7 kind of does what you are describing as does Chapter 9. I am with you…it does seem to be an unhealthy view of sex. In a few places he does deal with some of those issues but only briefly and in passing.
All of what I know about this book, especially Chapter 10, has come from reviews by those for whom I have great respect.
As someone who discovered their dad’s Playboy magazines when they were a young boy, was as addicted to pornography in college as a crackhead is to crack, and by the grace of God was delivered from my addiction prior to meeting my wife, I’m skeptical as to how beneficial Chapter 10 will be.
Again, I have not read the book, but I hope those asking “Can we _____?” are also searching in their hearts to determine why they even want to…
I’m not sure of the exact quote, but CB Scott says something about a 10 ring at 1000 yards when he thinks a quote is dead-on.
This was a GREAT comment, Mike.
This is probably not the right place for this cooment however…
Ed Young Jr was interviewed by sports radio 1310 the ticket in Dallas this morning. Ed and his wife are camping on the roof of their church promoting husbands and wives having sex for 6 days in a row. Great interview, you can probably download the podcast on iTunes. Look for the Dunham and Miller show on the Ticket
They treated Ed well, with respect and humor. These guys probably have one of if not the best sports talk programs in the country
A post addressing this is going up in a short time here.
There are some good things about this book. But yeah–I can’t see myself recommending it to anyone. I appreciated his discussion about pornography. He did a good job of highlighting the dangers, the exploitation, and the links to prostitution. I wish, however, that he had made the connection that many of the questions he explores in chapter 10 are likely inspired by the pornography. And as he points out, pornography does not depict normal healthy sexual relationships. Plus there’s just a lot of places where I was like: really? A man whose wife works outside the home is worse than an unbeliever: really? The whole haircut scene: really? His treatment of his wife over something that happened when they were both in high school: really? Finding specific intimate acts in the Song of Solomon: really? It’s poetry, people. This is the first book I’ve read by Driscoll. Can’t say I care to read anything else.
This is a story about church discipline (regarding sexual sins) at Mars Hill.
http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/mark-driscolls-church-discipline-contract-looking-for-true-repentance-at-mars-hill-church-sign-on-the-dotted-line/
http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/mark-driscolls-gospel-shame-the-truth-about-discipline-excommunication-and-cult-like-control-at-mars-hill/
Now it may be that the story is simply untrue, but if it isn’t, this in my opinion is pretty near to being a cult like situation.
Moderation: I thought it was more than two links, not more than one. Apologies.