“So you’re rid of the bathwater.  Where’s the baby?”

Probably not an entirely helpful comment.

Since when is going to a church building and hanging around with people you’ve got little in common with, listening to some wannabe author tell you what he thinks an ancient book means about a God who’s actually there to be experienced by every person without any human mediator a useful experience?

NOT choosing that experience isn’t the same thing as throwing out God.

Yuk. I’ll pray for this sexually compromised pastor.

I appreciate your heart Mirele and can only sympathize with your sentiments. There was a time when I considered leaving the Church because I felt God was portrayed as simple, arbitrary and unloving.  What I really wrestled with was whether or not “it” was simply a human-made concept. 

Regarding your point, I would only like to point out that there are many wonderful people in the Church as well (as there are both wonderful and terrible and everything in between out of the Church).  
So may your search lead you to discover the God that is loving and may you find a church community that you can connect with.  I hope that doesn’t sound condescending; it’s my best way of saying, “I wish you the best in life.”  Hope that makes sense.  Lastly, I also hope you and your family experience the nearness of God this year.  Grace and peace to you.

I think he means “every preacher” and “There are scoundrels (as well as good men) in small churches, and good men (as well as scoundrels) in big ones. *That’s* not that weird a statement.

 Interesting how both the “Evangelicals” and the newer, younger anti-Evanagelicals all descend into the same vices with the same air of authority. Has it ever been more clear that we all are but human?I know almost nothing about Driscoll, but in reading the posted “review” sans thoughtful commentary, it seemed like David Moore was responding to some larger pattern not easily reducible to a single example. I’m going to get myself in trouble here, but … Much of the anger over these quotations seems to be over what was *implied* and *not* said. In other words, I don’t really think these are very concrete examples. If they existed, why didn’t Moore use those? That might make me sound like a bad person to those who find Driscoll’s depravity to be obvious to any rational person, but just look at how easily Driscoll supporters wiggle and dance around criticisms. I don’t think it’s irrational to delay conclusions rather than adjust them later.Driscoll might sound arrogant, but I’m not sure that’s “offensive” per se – it just means I don’t like him. I suspect that his description of other Christian books is a caricature, but taken at face value, wouldn’t Driscoll be right to be bothered by the use of sex as some kind of currency in marraige? Something that can be used to punish and manipulate as much as to reward? As he described it, I think most of us would have a problem with that. And was his description indeed a caricature? Maybe he really did read some Christian books that promoted the use of sex as currency in marraige. Who knows? And maybe his critics have it all wrong: Many have concluded that what Driscoll thought was “unfair” was the idea of trying to understand his wife, but maybe it was the idea of sexual currency that Driscoll thought was unfair. And maybe some married people really do overcomplicate things (just maybe). All Driscoll said was that he asked his wife for more frequent sex. He didn’t say he demanded it. He didn’t say he would stone her if she declined. He didn’t say it was the only important role of a spouse. He also didn’t say he shouldn’t try to understand his wife, and he didn’t say that being emotionally supportive doesn’t make it easier to be intimate. He just said it was simple to ask. Isn’t that a good truth? Just because sex is meaningful doesn’t mean it has to be complicated. I think that’s the only point Driscoll was clumsily attempting to make.That said … In his clumsiness, Driscoll does betray an insensitivity, a set of priorities. An accident? Perhaps. We all say things from time to time that make us sound like jerks, even if we didn’t mean it “that way”. But the more Driscoll’s clumsiness recurs, the less doubt there can be about the man’s true perspective on women. He walks a fine line, to say the least, but some people are very careful with their words. They word things in ways that allow them to both stand tall on their soapbox, and wiggle out of it later. So you’ll see many Driscoll fans defending *specific examples*, but I bet it’ll be rare to see them answer the question: Why is he so clumsy with his words so *regularly*? A person is not truly seen in moments, but in patterns.Based *solely* on the quotations provided in the “review” … Driscoll sounds a little self-important to me, talking about his gifts and revelations, and how he would have withheld the gift of marraige (which sounds synonymous, from a Driscoll point of view, with the gift of sex) from his now wife, had he known ahead of time that she wasn’t perfect.This is why it’s important both to communicate well, and to not pluck a few quotations from their context without any meaningful commentary.My point is not about Driscoll. What I see is repulsive, sure. But sometimes when things seem obvious to us, we forget the futility of our anger if no one can hear us. And they won’t hear you until they feel heard.

He’s not saying this, so “you can’t say this…” is a moot point.

I didn’t get the impression this post  claimed to be a comprehensive, scholarly review.

I read it more in the sense that it was “first thoughts” or “first impressions.” 

However, I only read it after being aware that it was part of a four-part series.

 I think this book has incredible potential for extremely damaging abuse.

Could you give some examples of the teaching in this book you think has potential for extremely damaging abuse?

Does Driscoll teach salvation by faith alone? Does he preach Christ crucified and risen?

Even in this book, he points to the redemptive power of Christ as the basis for healing brokenness in marriage, so on what grounds do you imply he’s apostate?Can you provide any examples of him adding to the gospel?

 in the eyes of Mark Driscoll, I must not be forgiven if I am not suitable to be partnered with another child of God

Er.. he said no such thing!

Firstly, he admits that they both had had sex before they got married. The issue wasn’t that he found out she wasn’t a virgin – it was the discovery that she had cheated on him while they were dating. I would guess that this would be a deal-breaker for most people. 
Secondly, the rest of the chapter is all about how they worked through this revelation, how they came to that place of forgiveness and redemption and healing at the cross (which is a large theme in the book).

To take a quote out of a narrative – from the beginning of a narrative where he shares their failings – and ignore the rest of the narrative – the bit that talks about overcoming those – is not fair, and worse when a conclusion is made that contradicts the parts being ignored.

Did you READ the excerpts above? He basically said that if his wife doesn’t want to have sex with him, by George, she’s gonna do it anyway, her feelings aside.

As his wife, I’d consider that abuse already. Mutual consent has to occur before sex, and it sounds from these passages that Grace is only barely consenting because she thinks it’s her religious duty.

Hi Jenny,

I read the whole book, and given the wider context, I don’t think he’s at all teaching any ‘feelings aside’ things as you appear to think (he makes a point of his previous failures to consider his wife’s feelings).
If it’s any consolation, I don’t think it’s a particularly good book, and I’m unlikely to recommend it to anyone I know.. 

Could someone please tell me how (from p 11-12) he is pastoring a start-up church when from the following quote he was “a new Christian” & “without a mentor or pastor”. Doesn’t this run contrary to 1 Timothy 3:6 – “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.”?
It would seem a new believer who is without mentor or pastor either 1) was abandoned by those who brought the Gospel to him or 2) has problems with authority & humbling himself to be instructed or 3) both. If the facts say the 2nd or 3rd, he was not fit to be a minister at the start of the ministry (which is not to say God could not use him, only that it is an indication of error from which he needs to repent). The problem is, a failure to repent indicates an issue of pride which is a much bigger problem than vulgarity from the pulpit or an errant attitude toward his wife.1 Timothy 5:24 – ” The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.” I do not want to see the resulting train wreck when this man falls.

It is so obvious from the Real Marriage videos ( see the Mars Hill website) that Mark loves Grace very much and does not think of her merely as a sex object. They did a whole chapter on the importance of friendship in marriage. Once again his critics are changing his words and emphasising points, taking things out of context just to make him look bad. He is sticking to the Bible in this corrupt society. Well done, Driscoll-ignore your critics-they can’t even be honest. 

 Have you ever heard Driscoll’s sermons on wolves?? If he is, he will have reached a whole new level of twisted hypocrisy.

Many will say, “Lord, Lord” …

Is he adding to the gospel? Yes, in my view he is. He’s adding an entire layer of cultural patriarchy that the gospel itself erases. 

Men/Women, Jew/Gentile, Black/White — Paul says they are all meaningless because of Christ. Driscoll disagrees.

I really wish I could find a link to what I am about to reference. I have literally spent hours trying to find this clip online, but I cannot.

When I was in seminary, I did an internship at a multi-site mega church in Ohio.

As part of my ongoing training, I participated in a virtual training session to which Mark Driscoll contributed. For the life of me, I can’t remember the name, but I think it was part of a larger Willow Creek virtual event.

In any case, as part of his message to young (male) leaders, Mark went on what I would call a rant against those who advocate for women in ministry (of course, by in ministry I mean having teaching authority over men, not just women). As part of this rant, he said this (and I can almost quote, though again, I can’t find the original source and am not certain it was recorded), 

“If you believe that women should be in a position of authority to teach men, you are preaching a different gospel and worshiping a different God than I am.”

Now, let it be known that as against complementarianism as I am, I can have constructive disagreement. My father is a pastor and complenetarian. We have a wonderful relationship.

But this goes beyond disagreement, and in my view is a perfect example of adding to the gospel.

Nowhere in Jesus’ teaching do I see him claiming that a condition for following him is to listen to men and men only as teachers of gospel.

 Seriously…he couldn’t wait maybe 10 days??  WTH.

Your title for this was correct.  Here’s further corroborating evidence from another review of Real Marriage by the woman who used to lead women’s ministry there. 
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2012/02/our-review-of-real-marriage-by-mark-and.html

Apparently, he said in a sermon that a pastor’s wife has the most important job in a church plant, “having sex with the church planter.”  Ugly stuff.  

That’s a sad post because that book will influence a lot of people. I was actually interested in reading it, but I think I will pass.

I’ve decided to tune out theologians like Mark Driscoll. It leads to far too much negative thinking  and resentment.  Thankfully, when I talk with the my non-Christian friends about some of these issues they remind me that I need to embody the message that “your God” wants you to be.   Thank you, friends.