mark driscoll in hell
I read this story last night about Mark Driscoll’s interview by Justin Brierley who hosts the UK Christian podcast Unbelievable. This interview, totally in keeping with the name of the show, is certainly unbelievable.
I immediately thought of this cartoon. Double meaning: it acknowledges Mark’s arrogant, male supremacist, bullying, tough guy attitude that he flaunts and buttresses with his theology. But it also suggests that his ideas will not survive the testing fires of purgation.
If anyone in Mars Hill Church is having niggling doubts about your commitment to that church and its pastor now, trust your instincts and get out of there. Believe me: you are seeing the thin end of the wedge.
illustrating spiritual paths
There is a fan page call “Mark Driscoll is a ??????in Facebook. This fan page for Mark was just changed from Masogonist to a$$hole. He is making quite the name for himself.
Frankie, I wanted to say how sorry I am for you. I saw a bit of this at uni, when smart girls were joining the CU and being told women couldn’t lead or preach, and they were all buying it … obviously it is 1000 times harder for you with your daughters, I am so so sorry. You might be interested in Venus Hill, Seattle (yes, ironically named in contrast with MHC’s poison). You may meet people via their facebook page who are in a similar situation to you. I’m sorry I can’t do more, I live way over in the UK so I’m not really on top of the whole thing.
Phil: “Wow guys, whatever happened to speaking the truth in love? Is descending into snide mockery really the best way to express your grievances with Driscoll?”
Wow, because Mark Driscoll *never* uses snide mockery, or bullying.
See everyone, Phil is the “good cop” to Missionary James’ bad cop. One goes all ballistic – “How dare you impugn the name of MD!!!!”, while the other gets all hurt and wounded – “how could you possibly be mean to poor, downtrodden, meek MD
”
Frankie: I feel for you, but I don’t know of any specific support groups for people who have had their kids brainwashed by Mars Hill. I don’t have any personal experience with it.
(continuing)
Frankie: drop me a line via my website (contact info there) and we’ll see what we can drum up.
@JosieJo… I could dig a place like that too! I love jazz. Unfortunately I’m a long, long way from Texas. I’m sure I’d feel more blessed there, than at Mark D’s ‘elephant room’
@Frankie,
I’m local and escaped (ejected actually) from a group even more cult-like than Mars Hill. Email me at skeptic23@gmail.com if you’d like to communicate. I don’t know of local support groups, but I do know a thing or two (15 years’ worth) of Driscoll-like tactics, including patriarchy, xenophobia, crazy- and baby-making. I lost my marriage to them, but not my children. It’s been almost 20 years now, and lots of healing has taken place over that time. I have a couple of ears for you, anyhoo!
@Mar, I didn’t mean to imply Driscoll is localized, just that he started here and (to my knowledge) most of their churches are local (Puget Sound area.) I had no idea his blather has gotten so popular, though. I just see churches popping up around the area. After reading some of the comments here (especially Frankie’s) I’ll pay more attention.
Unfortunately, it’s a proven formula: play to the idealistic weaknesses of twenty-somethings, get them locked into a social situation through obligation, (children are the ultimate anchors in a “safe haven”), milk them for all they are worth, and then some. It doesn’t seem to matter: military, corporate, or religious, they all prey on the vitality of our young, use them up, then either spit them out wasted or turn them into twice the sons/daughters of hell as their makers were. If they made lots of kiddies in the meantime, then it’s just onto the new crop. The only way it will stop is if we who see it happening stand up, speak up, and offer our young people alternatives.
Contemporary Churchianity is not a viable alternative. I just spoke with a pastor who has high school kids come in for after school programs–intelligent, disenfranchised kids. Their choice? Work at McDonald’s or deal drugs. Um, gee, well… Them’s the choices.
Are there any churches in the area helping kids to figure out HOW TO LIVE IN THIS MESS? There are plenty enough that basically say, “Sorry, nothing for you on making a living. Just stay in school, don’t be evil, and don’t worry, be happy.”
That’s not cutting it anymore…
@Millard … Good insights …. Wish I had answers …
I’d be interested to see if you’d change your mind (even a little) if you listened to the whole podcast rather than just the article. I really did.
Spider: You are obviously a FAN of Mark Driscoll, if not Mark himself, trying to put a positive spin on a pile of shit. The tidbits of the podcast are little pieces of shit from the whole podcast which is a big pile of shit. You’ve just grown accustomed to the taste. How’s that for macho?
Have to present some rebuttals to the person who goes by the name of Missionary James .
First of all, let it be stated that there are valid critiques that can be levelled against the emergent phenomenon (the emergent church phenomenon does have some good aspects , such as outreach to people alienated by some institutional churches , social outreach ect) however , the typical ultra-fundamentalist weird propaganda (MISinterpretation of the scriptures) is *not* valid critique . A valid criticism would have been to criticize against the postmodernist element within the emergent church , which runs contrary to the good other elements it displays .
Now on to the broad interpretation of the verse found in the epistle 2 Peter 1:2 that fundamentalists are so often given to presenting .
The only time the word ‘heresies’ gets anything almost like a definition is when in the New Testament epistle called 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 which describes heresy as ‘denying the Lord that bought them’, and NOT in the broad sense that the word heresy is used today. Thus, according to 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 the term ‘heresies’ specifically refers to ‘denying the Lord’. It does *NOT*, in the verse have a broad application of applying to each and every exotic doctrine or radically different belief , the term ‘heresies’ in 2 Peter 1:2 is used to refer narrowly and specifically to the act of people ‘denying the Lord’ (aka denying the Lordship of Jesus / denying that he is the Messiah )
There is nothing in 2 Peter 1:2 to indicate that the term ‘heresies’ somehow applies to any belief that fundamentalists consider mistaken .
It is indeed quite wrongheaded that Fundamentalists who claim to follow the notion of sola scriptura , take such a *broad*, fast and loose interpretation to the scant references to ‘heresy’ and ‘heretics’ found in the New Testament .
St.Paul uses the term ‘heretic’ in the epistle to Titus, and refers to ‘heresy’ plural in Galatians but does NOT present a list of doctrines, nor a definition as to what sorts of teachings make a person a heretic or make up ‘heresy’. Thu,s it is presumptuous to claim support from st.Paul for the broad use of the term ‘heresy’ that many Fundamentalists (and some theologically conservative Roman Catholics) like to bandy about .
The only time the word ‘heresies’ gets anything almost like a definition is when in the New Testament epistle called 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 which describes heresy as ‘denying the Lord that bought them’ and NOT in the broad sense that the word heresy is used today. Thus according to 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 the term ‘heresies’ specifically refers to denying the Lord. It does NOT in that verse have a broad application of applying to each and every exotic doctrine or belief .
Nowhere does the New Testament references to heresy or heretics state , for example, that Chrsitian Universalism is heresy , that people who profess open theism are in any way heretics (in truth, as a side note, let it be known that a type of open theism with caveats that there are many futures as far as God is concerned, is more consistent with Judaism : the religion of the Old Testament prophets and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) , or that charismatics ect are in any way heretics ect .
It is interesting that the other verse that Missionary James quotes 2 Peter 2:17 states, as he noted ,
2 PETER 2:17
These Teachers are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just escaping from them that live in error; promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage.
Now notice the references to ‘lascviousness’ and ‘lusts of the flesh’ in the scripture shown above . The sort of false teachers that are being denounced in that verse above are NOT people who have some sort of unusual theology , or some exotic manner of worship, INSTEAD what is being denounced in the scripture are factions of the early church that promoted sexual promiscuity / libertine sexuality . That is the sort of false teaching that the epistle of 2 Peter is referring to and warning against . It is NOT denouncing unusual theology , or ecumenical fellowship with people from other religious backgrounds , it is NOT warning against people who accept the higher criticism of the Bible , nor theistic evolution or many of the other theologically different sorts of doctrines that ultra-fundamentalists like to whine about .
The focus instead is on warning against people who try to corrupt the church with vulgar , promiscuous, liberated wild sexuality , NOT on ususual theology or forms of worship .
The same observation as noted above I hope to elaborate on is also the focus of the warning against those who will no longer endure sound doctrine in the epistle to Timothy (meaning that the indictment there is *not* against types of theology or worship that fundamentalists find unusual, as a number of ultra-fundamentalists are quick to presume) but is instead also a warning against sexually libertine factions in the early church (the anti-nomians) (as well as also being a warning against those who use religion for lavish financial profit: similar to the “prosperity gospel” doctrine of the current era …hence, the reference in the letter to Timothy to those who seek ‘filthy lucre’ ) .
In the next post I hope also to elaborate on how many fundamentalists are quickly misconstrue what Paul was getting at about those who preach another gospel or another Jesus in 2 Corinthians .
Continuing the rebuttals to the person who goes by the name of Missionary James . There is yet another verse that should be reflected on in passing, before the verse in 2 Corinthians that Missionary James quoted is reflected on in more detail .
The verse that a number of fundamentalists try to claim is somehow referring to the people who have theological positions that differ radically from fundamentalism, is 2 Timothy 4 verses 3-4 .
That is the verse wherein Paul warns his student Timothy about the time when people ‘will not endure sound doctrine’ but having ‘itching ears ‘ will ‘be turned to fables’ ‘heap unto themselves teachers’ .
There are fundamentalists who like to allege that the warning in 2 Timothy 4: 3-4 somehow allegedly applies to people who have a radically different theological doctrines than fundamentalism/evangelicalism .
Yet there is nothing in the text to warrant that sort of interpretation, *without* projecting the presuppositions of fundamentalist theology on to what the text actually states .Nowhere , does the text of 2 Timothy 4:3-4 state that the false teachers are , say, people who advocate such theological positions as open theism, or Christian Universalism , or liberation theology, or annihiliationism (a doctrine which is a completely *separate* doctrine from universalism, despite the weird effots of some fundamentalists to conflate those two separate positions), nor people who embrace theistic evolution and so on .
Elsewhere ,in the 2 letter to Timothy , where Paul is giving advice regarding false teachers (including the chapter before the chapter 4, wherein he discusses those with the itching ears who will not endure sound doctrine ) Paul indicates that the people he has a problem with in terms of doctrine , are not people he objects to for having a different theology , but instead are people who profess the sort of doctrine that accepts unethical sexual conduct / promoting sexual promiscuity .
Hence 2 Timothy 3:6 describes people who ,
“creep into houses and lead captive silly women captive with sins , led away with divers lusts. ” .
Thus , it is far more plausible to interpret the warning in Timothy 4:2 as being a warning against factions in the early church who promote sexual debauchery and promiscuity under the guise of religion , and *NOT* being any sort of warning against theological positions that are radically different from fundamentalism/ evangelicalism , but which do not involve any ethical misconduct .
Contrary to the efforts of fundamentalists to take such verses in 2 Timothy and also 1 Timothy, which warn against false teachers , ‘doctrines of devils’ and turn them into a canard against types of theology that they don’t like, by taking a *loose interpretation* of the verses, a careful study of what is explictly mentioned in the texts reveals that the focus is on unethical misconduct , people who forbid marriage and also those who seek ‘filthy lucre’ (the love of money / greed) .
I Timothy also warns against those false teachers who forbid others to marry .(see 1 Timothy 4 :3)
In addition to the warnings of St.Paul to Timothy regarding those false teachers who promote sexual debauchery “leading silly women with lusts captive”, the focus of Paul against false teachers is also concerned with those who seek to use Christian leadership to get financial wealth for themselves.
In 1 Timothy 6: 5 (NKJV) St.Paul warns against , ‘useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.’
the verse of I Timothy 6: 9 continues the thought that the concern of Paul with false teachers is apparently *not* about theological differences , but instead about unethical misconduct , ‘But those who desire to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows ‘.
2 Corinthians 11:4 where Paul expresses disapproval of those who ‘preach another Jesus’ or ‘another gospel ‘ (there is a similar sort of disapproval expressed in Galatians 1:6 by Paul) is verse that fundamentalists often weirdly interpret to refer to those who have a very different theological doctrine about Jesus than the doctrines of fundamentalism . Some fundamentalists (though not all) try to claim that when Paul warns about those who preach a different Jesus or a different gospel in 2 Corinthians 11: 4 , that somehow that we are suppposedly to interpret that as meaning that people who support theological doctrines that ultra- fundamentalists don’t tend to like are somehow “preaching another Jesus” or “another doctrine” . Yet a closer look at what is explicit to the text of 2 Corinthians 11:4 (or 1 Galatians 6—which also warns about a different gospel) , does NOT warrant the hasty interpretation that assumes people who propose different theological doctrines about the work of Jesus (which differ from the doctrines of fundamentalists and evangelicals) are the ones that Paul is warning about when he warns about those who “preach another Jesus” or “another gospel” or “another spirit ” .
It is worth noting that in the time that Paul was writing that there were a number of Jewish men living in Israel , who had the first name of Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew). It is far more plausible to interpret the warning that Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 11: 4 about those who preach “another Jesus” (and also Galatians 1: 6 about those who preach “another gospel”) as being a warning against someone claiming that another person in Isreal with the first name of Jesus / Yeshua who was NOT the Jesus who came from Bethelhem and Nazareth , was instead the messiah , and that the reference against those who teach another gospel , referred would have likely referred even to those who were also claiming some messianic role for themselves : such as a follower of one of the pagan religions like Mithraism and so on .
To claim that the warning of Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:4 (or Galatians 1:6) about ‘another Jesus’ or ‘another gospel’ must somehow refer to those that advocate theological doctrines about Jesus of Nazareth that fundamentalists greatly disapprove of , is to play fast and loose with the *interpretations* of those verses and go beyond what the verses explictly state . To claim that the verses somehow “imply” that Paul is promoting fundamentalist theological doctrine in those verses , is a lousy and misleading tactic . Fundamentalists have often resorted to the “it’s implied” routine when they cannot get explicit backup for the doctrines they support .
It is also quite odd, that fundamentalists who claim that the warnings in verses such as 2 Corinthians 11:4, about those who ‘preach another Jesus’ and ‘teach another gospel’ somehow must be interpreted to refer to liberal theology , or other theological positions that differ radically from fundamentalist / evangelical theology, (with some exceptions ) are often so willing to allow permitted theological differences amongst various fundamentalist groups , without accusing other fundamentalist sectarians they consider allies to be preaching another Jesus or another gospel! Why is it for example , that a number of fundamentalists who are Arminian , for example, don’t accuse those other fundamentalist factions who are Calvinists , of “preaching another Jesus” or “another gospel” from them, or the Calvinist fundamentalists do vice versa with the Arminian fundamentalists who disagree on that point of doctrine ? Why is that a permitted variation , that does not become tantamount to preaching another Jesus or another gospel , but , say, a person who advocates the theistic evolution doctrine supported by Teilhard De Chardin, somehow to be thought of as “serving a different Jesus” or “different gospel” ?
Why is some dispensationalist who believes that there will be a return of Jesus during the middle of the tribulation period (which they interpret as still being future and largely literal) not thought of by many pre-tribulationists as “preaching a different Jesus” than the dispensationalists who propose a pre-tribulation rapture <—Why do dispensational fundamentalists from both different parties treat that as a permitted theological difference .
Why are fundamentalist who practices infant Baptism , not thought of as preachig a differnt Jesus , then those who insist that one should be only baptized as an adult and vice versa ? Just what fixed criteria do the fundamentalists use (if any ) to decide what are permitted theological variations amongst their various factions where one can differ on points of doctrine and still serve the same Jesus, and which variations are tantamount to "preaching another Jesus" ?
There are indeed problems with the emergent church phenomenon : notably a penchant of many emergent church people to embrace some degrees of postmodernism/relativism (a tendency which is quite disturbing and one that undermines the grander ideals they sometimes mention), as well , as a tendency by a number of elements within the emergent church movement to accept the sex positive / sexually liberated and open currents within contemporary pop culture . If Misssionary James wanted to limit the criticism of those disturbing sorts of elements within the emergent church movement , then he would have more of a valid cricitism .
However, it is important that the emergent church phenomenon be criticized with the right criteria , not with the typical fundamentalist canards of shallow conceptions of eternal torment , which are lacking in a more nuanced interpretation of the scriptural verses , and the typical tendency to use terms like "heresy" in a way that is far more broad than what the Biblical verses which mention 'heresy' explictly state .
OMG I’m glad has you gave him the measure in which he measures others but… Really? I like what David said “its a big pile of SHIT”.
wow, nakedpastor doing the same thing he criticizes on so many other posts. didnt expected this kind of thing here =/
“arrogant, male supremacist, bullying” seriously? ¬¬
hey spectre that’s an old trick and it doesn’t work. if i bully anyone i would hope someone would say so. i just met with a woman today who’s husband left bruises on her arm. i told her he is a bully who resorts to violence and she should leave him now before it gets worse. i have no qualms about calling bullying bullying when i see it. and that’s what Mark Driscoll is: a bully!
hmm, from where do you get these ideas? do you actually went to see what he preaches, exactly against that? Or just listening from these feminist extremist sites? its just blind criticism.
And, most importantly, without any biblical base.
i mean, your argument about this woman, for example. Driscoll tells exactly the same thing, it makes no sense for you to say that. This is doublethinking.
your an ass dude bye
Oh yah burnt the bra too. We really don’t need protectors but partners.
Thats exactly what pastor at Mars Hill, especially Mark, are preaching there Marcie.
The only criticism im seeing are people with eyes closed, hands tapping the ears, shouting “bully bully bully” or just doing superb and immature jokes. Seriously, no one really tries to “help” or really address the issues. Like if we were fanatical soccer teams fans, not brothers.
I guess it was your use of the word feminist that closed the door for me to hear anything you might have to say. Spent many years being “cared for” by godly men and treated like a second class citizen. I live in Seattle and have never heard of this man but read some and I know him. I’m sad for all that believe this crap.
@spectre: I hope you read all of this. You need it.
I have been to Mars Hill in Ballard, WA, heard Driscoll and others preach, read his book “Confessions of a Reformission Rev,” and spoken to a number of people who attend there, some friends and some relatives.
I used to go to the Calvary Chapel meetings in the huge tent they used to have in Costa Mesa, CA, in the early 1970s. Mars Hill is like a techno Calvary Chapel on steroids teleported into the next century. Same old wolf under updated sheepskin.
I recently watched a broadcast in which Driscoll spent 40 minutes pontificating on the evils of pornography, then another 30 minutes together with his wife interviewing a former porn star. My son (age 23) and I watched it together. Driscoll introduced her as a former porn start who had turned to Jesus, but neither my son nor I can remember him mentioning her name. During the interview, Driscoll asked her how many men she had slept with, how many abortions she’d had, and how many porn stars experienced sexual abuse in childhood, along with many other questions focused on denigrating aspects of her former life. He was very interested in seedy details. I don’t remember him asking her a single question about her new life in Christ. Maybe he did at the end of the interview. My son and I could only bear to watch about 20 minutes of Driscoll publicly humiliating her in the name of Christ. We turned him off.
I described the interview to a friend of mine that has a good friend who once worked in the porn industry, got out, turned her life around, and now has a family and a good life. He couldn’t help imagining his friend being the one that Driscoll interviewed. The thought of someone asking his friend to delve into her abusive past on a public stage made him cringe with anger. When someone escapes from a deeply abusive situation, everyone who cares about her understands that she needs healing, a safe environment with time to recover, and lots of love and support. Instead giving that to this woman, Driscoll publicly paraded her and her humiliating past. He even broadcast the event. She was probably told, as so many converts are told by their exploiters, that this was her calling.
Driscoll is a pompous, manipulative demagogue making an name for himself by stirring up controversy. His brand of controversy involves attacking and denigrating people the coward’s way: from a position of power, by association and analogy. He presumes the right to bring out a metaphorical filthy shoe and tell you, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” That’s an easy, time-tested way to beat honest people down. If we’re honest, we know that there are many filthy shoes that do or once did fit. I have questions that go deeper than that. First, why does Driscoll keep bringing out filthy shoes? Is he obsessed with them, or are they just an easy way to beat people down? Why does he keep trying to make them fit? Why doesn’t he talk more about HOW to clean them up? And who made him Chief Filthy Shoe Fitter? He’s worse than the scribes and the Pharisees. Either they were honest enough to recognize that they had no right to cast the first stone, or they were smart enough to recognize the arrogance of pretending to be without sin. On the other hand, Driscoll openly declares his sinlessness. Near the end of his opening rant against pornography and sexual sin, he declared that he “by God’s grace” had been clean of them since he was nineteen.
How is this not spiritual abuse by a spiritual bully?
That’s just Driscoll’s sideshow. His real agenda is church planting. From the start, he’s been all about starting new churches. It’s a religious Ponzi scheme that misuses the gospel in order to create a market to fleece, like so often is the case with churches. Just ask people like David who HAVE BEEN THERE where church business is conducted and plans are made, behind the fake veil of piety that ecclesiasts so love to project. What exactly is the end game of every church? Bigger and more. In other words, imperialism. There is no end until they have everything, just like greedy businessmen and tyrants.
Spectre, if you have a problem with honest people calling out bullies and exploiters for what they are, lamely implying that it isn’t loving or righteous, then you condone bullying. And how do you reconcile Jesus’ treatment of the hypocrites of his time with your ideas of love and righteousness? Read Matthew 23. Serpents, devourers, blind guides, fools, brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness, full of robbery and self-indulgence, full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Sons of hell. Did I miss anything? Probably.
That was Jesus. We are supposed to be like him: see things the same way he did and treat people the same way that he did. Are the hypocrites of our time somehow tamer or less evil, worthy of more sympathy? Or do modern hypocrites just get a pass? Maybe we simply lack the moral courage to call them out for what they are, and then criticize anyone who has the courage.
A passage from Proverbs 30 suits spiritual bullies to a tee:
11 There is a kind of man who curses his father
And does not bless his mother.
12 There is a kind who is pure in his own eyes,
Yet is not washed from his filthiness.
13 There is a kind—oh how lofty are his eyes!
And his eyelids are raised in arrogance.
14 There is a kind of man whose teeth are like swords
And his jaw teeth like knives,
To devour the afflicted from the earth
And the needy from among men.
15 The leech has two daughters,
“Give,” “Give.”
There are three things that will not be satisfied,
Four that will not say, “Enough”:
16 Sheol, and the barren womb,
Earth that is never satisfied with water,
And fire that never says, “Enough.”
17 The eye that mocks a father
And scorns a mother,
The ravens of the valley will pick it out,
And the young eagles will eat it.
Do such people no longer exist, or was the writer of Proverbs smoking dope and they never did? Or are we reluctant to admit that they are here and identify them, because we aren’t sure that we’ll avoid being judged as one ourselves?
I’ve seen a lot, and my eyes are still wide open. I’ve known people that were just like this passage describes. Does it fit Driscoll? I think the odds are high. I could be dead wrong. Only time will tell.
God bless you, Millard, for articulating this so clearly and lovingly … God bless you … God bless you.
I keep thinking about Grace Driscoll, sitting beside her husband on mass media as her sexual abuse and sexual past and their sexual relationship is broadcast to all. Can’t be a healthy thing for her, for her children, for them. I expect to see her needing recovery from this public shaming, all done in the name of “helping people.” Even if she is “in agreement” with her personal details being put in a book, that agreement takes place in a context of believing she must do what her husband feels led to do, both sexually and in disclosing it. There is something unnatural about his incessant need to discuss this topic over and over and to disclose their very personal details. Something is very, very amiss.
I have the same sentiment about the TX pastor who is disclosing how frequently he and his wife are intimate, and who now puts their marriage bed on display. It’s sacred, holy, private. There is a such a violation here. These women are being emotionally abused by their husbands … the fact that they are “pastor’s wives” doesn’t give their husband a pass to discuss their marriage bed and their intimate issues with the general public.
I’m outraged for them.
http://www.tmdailypost.com/article/religion/bum-steer-grapevine-pastor-ed-young-plans-24-hour-bed-roof-church
Seems to me he’s getting pleasure from people seeing him in bed with his wife in public … all for the sales of a book. God help her.
@Mar: Thanks for your encouraging words! I rarely take aim at an individual that way, but Driscoll more than has it coming.
Were you referring to another broadcast in which he grilled his own wife in a similar way as he did the porn star last week? And could you give me the title of the book you mentioned? Thanks.
@millard ..the book I meant is the one currently in release and receiving all the current media attention …Real Marriage
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Marriage-Truth-Friendship-Together/dp/140020383X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327570306&sr=8-1
And, no, I didn’t mean that he had grilled his own wife, but that she is beside/with him for media interviews in which they discuss the book, which reveals her and their sexual past and present to millions …
Thanks Mar!