My only suggestion for this author is that she check the facts herself before she begins maligning those who are doing a lot of good work for the Kingdom. First, Driscoll does not advocate women "worship" their husbands, but honour them as leaders in their home. Women who enable their husbands are strongly discouraged, as are men who lord themselves over their wives as little "gods". "Men and Marriage", a sermon from his 1/2 Peter series, is a good place to see this. Second, I actually own and have read Real Marriage, and it amazes me how people bypass nearly the entire book full of solid counsel that has helped both my wife and I, as well as numerous other couples, greatly, and focus solely on the "Can We..." section. All Driscoll says is that AS LONG AS BOTH (heterosexual) PARTNERS WILLINGLY CONSENT AND NEITHER FEEL LIKE IT VIOLATES THEIR CONSCIENCE such things as sodomy and sex toys are not a sin! This is poor journalism and a sad example of over-hype with a current fad.

Jeff Pittman said: "Many of you posting here refer to the value of girls developing into strong, independent women. Where exactly did you get this perspective? Not from the Bible but from your surrounding post modern culture which has fed the reversal of gender roles and the overall weakening of our society." (Hello, Slippery Slope!) My response: Proverbs 31 - "She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong (17) . . . Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come (25) . . . Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates (31)." Has anyone else noticed in this passage that the husband's place of influence (the city gates) appears to be derived from the prosperity of his family, which is partly due to his wife's business dealings, and that her firm management of the family and family business frees him up to exercise leadership elsewhere? As for independent, I believe it is the clear teaching of Scripture in many places. that we are to be dependent on God, not on man.

I'll preface this by confessing I have never read anything by Driscoll. So I don't have any personal reason to enter that part of the fray, which this comments section has become, much like any other comments section on the Internet. There are some excellently written responses here: logical, candid, and compelling examples of well-formulated opinions. (Eric, Amanda, Terry, Kim are a few of the names I remember after reading the comments above me, but they are not the only ones.) It is disheartening, however, to see the same combative communication on a Christian site, though it is unsurprising. Culturally, we view Internet forums not as places of discussion, but as gladiatorial arenas. Here we have the same hasty generalizations of others into teams (feminism v. fundamentalism, neither of which ought to be four-letter words), ad hominem name-calling (feminazi? Seriously? If you used that portmanteau in a secular forum, you would reap all kinds of anger from people of both genders who take issue with the comparison of Susan B. Anthony and Beth Felker Jones, and Hitler and Goebbels...), and red herrings (this article has nothing to do with gay marriage yet someone threw that into an anti-feminist remark) that mark the atrophy of common courtesy and critical thinking in our society. Twilight is abominably written. Many of its problems stem from Meyer's astounding inability to create realistic, compelling characters with the flaws, struggles, and strengths that make storytelling exciting. It's schlock, but it sells, and sells big. Plenty of girls have adopted bizarre and damaging standards for future mates because of Edward, who is abusive, possessive, obsessive, and whiny, but also spectacularly out of their leagues: hot, rich, handsome, immortal, gorgeous, chaste, glacially beautiful, strong, fast, telepathic, and oh, did I mention that every woman around him finds him irresistibly sexy? (There's a taste of the first book for you, if you've never read it.) I was a teen when these books came out and I made Twilight my pet comedy bit. Bashing it was my thing for a long time, and I became pretty tiresome. To this day, I feel a wannabe standup routine surge in me when Twilight comes up in conversation (it doesn't much among my friends anymore, for which I may be partially responsible). I growl and grump at Barnes and Noble, as I watch the Teen Paranormal Romance section expand from one shelf to two. "This? This is what people want?" I sneer, looking ever so slightly Grinch-y. But isn't that what "people"--what we--have always wanted, to some extent? Fantasy? Something other than this reality? Our longings for another world--or at least, for things that this world cannot offer--are indicative of the desire for heaven, as C. S. Lewis asserts in his argument for the existence of God and heaven. The issue with Twilight (and any other type of fantasy), then, is whether or not it encourages us to long for heaven, or to expect heaven to appear here on Earth. I feel Twilight does the former, and yet I have a wonderful, devout Christian friend who sees an allegory for good and pure love in Twilight. She is certainly not an idiot. She is probably not a heretic. We disagree. I've been kind of a snot about my opinion on Twilight, and she has been kind enough not to punch me when I've been pedantic. My friendship with her has not altered my opinion, which is for the most part aligned with that of Beth Felker Jones. My opinion (thankfully) has not altered our friendship of nearly 12 years. This is because we respect each other more than she loves and I hate Twilight. Should I ever reproduce, my children will probably not want to read Twilight, if only to avoid sending me into annoying-parent-who-thinks-they're-hilarious mode. If they do, I don't know what I'll do about it. Not yet. I hope I'll want to discuss it with my spouse. I hope I'll want to ask trusted fellow Christian parents about it. I imagine I'll stick to my guns and ...

Mr. Driscoll has not gotten everything right in his interpretation of scripture and and preaching, so as with every person who is in the position of teaching and preaching, we should verify that what they are saying (writing) is Biblical. So many people take the words of whatever preacher/teacher they like, and they do not know the Bible well enough to determine whether what they're hearing is true and Biblical. The Bereans in the Bible went and looked up what was being taught to them to verify that it was in line with the scripture. This should be done in regards to every teacher, including Driscoll. Also, the devision in the Body due to denominations and how they emphasize certain parts of scripture is not good. The Bible is the Bible - that should be our guide, not the doctrine of a denomination or church. Teach the young people today to go to the Bible first and along with Mark Driscoll or anyone else who preaches/teaches. How else will they know how to determine if someone is a false teacher unless they compare with the Bible? Also, not just a person's written or verbal words, but also their life.

Amen! Great word Professor Jones.

The evangelical church of the past 30 years has so blurred the lines between genders that when someone speaks Biblical truth like Driscoll, younger Christians think, "Where is this guy getting this stuff from?" Sorry, but if the Bible is our basis for right living in all areas, once again, Driscoll has defied culture (even modern Christian culture) and spoken truth.

Thank you, Kim (December 5, 2012 1:41 PM) and Karen (December 5, 2012 3:21 PM). It is possible to read the Twilight series with a view to exploring what is good about a story of feminine desire. Yes, Bella's obsession is troubling -- that's part of the point of the story. But it seems to me that the remedy is not to to villify/stifle/micromanage feminine desire, but rather to integrate desire into whole personhood, for women and men. We could discuss the extent to which Stephenie Meyer succeeds in doing this for her characters (the films should be treated separately). But to have such a conversation would require an openness to the story, letting it speak for itself. I do not see the books as glorifying female dependence on a male, at all. The fascination/consumption of prey for/by predator is presented as something *dangerous* to be *transcended* by Bella and Edward as they *grow* toward something more healthy. I find that far more interesting than madonna/whore dichotomies or tales of power feminists who already have it all together.

Terry: You write above that it is Bella submitting to a male and leadership and feminism Jones has an issue with, which you do not. I disagree with you. For one, Bella and Edward are not married, so she does not have to submit to him as a wife to her husband. Second, Bella isn't just interested in submitting, but willing to give up her very soul for Edward. She/he discuss what will come one day for those who are undead, like Edward, and later Bella. My understanding of this dialogue is they are discussing hell and God's wrath. Third, God does not call women to submit to sin or to put any man before Him, which is what the character of Bella is doing. I also would like to ask you where you believe the feminist movement began, and what is feminism exactly. Feminism began within the church - god-fearing women who rallied so wives/mothers whose husbands drank away their pay and left them hungry and abused had a way. Check into our history and you will find that feminism has been a response to the abusive/thoughtless/cruel/bullying behavior of men who are charged with loving their wives and caring/providing for their families. You may have a wonderful father and now husband, but not all women have or do, and they have had to fight to live (in some cases). Just because a woman works and considers herself equal to a man (which she is), does not make her a feminazi. We are not cut-out dolls who must live the same life as every other woman - God has plans for each one of us and our lives are different.

Jones makes clear her concern about the “Twilight” stories is the way Bella is willing to give up everything for Edward’s sake, her willingness to submit to a male. Her concern is at the heart of the feminist movement which believes men in general and patriarchy in particular are evil. I don’t share that belief, but I do believe the “Twilight” series is insidious and should be read/viewed with caution if at all. Something has changed recently in our society. Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” was evil, and he was portrayed that way. Vampires now are portrayed as virtuous and good thanks in large part to the “Twilight” series. And that’s dangerous. When Bella wants to have sex with Edward it’s he who refuses saying they should wait until they’re married. Under normal circumstances Edward’s commitment to maintaining a pure relationship with Bella would be admirable. It would be applauded. But Edward and Bella’s relationship is far from normal given Edward is a vampire. Do you see what’s happening here? That which is evil – vampires – is being portrayed as good and that which is good – humans – is being portrayed as evil. I find it interesting that the name “Isabella” means: Devoted to God, Consecrated to God, Pledged to God, and the name “Bella” means “Beautiful”. She clearly represents Christians. Yet, it’s the vampire in this story that appears to be good and virtuous while the “Christian” appears to be sinful and immoral. It’s not hard to see the connection between vampires and Satan. Vampires live in darkness, avoiding the sunlight. Satan lives in the darkness, avoiding the “Son”light. Vampires drink the blood of their victims not only to satisfy their hunger, but to give “birth” to more vampires. Satan “drinks” the blood of his victims in the sense that it’s man’s soul he craves. Think about this. When Adam and Eve sank their teeth into the Forbidden Fruit, Satan, in a very real sense, sank his teeth into their souls. He drank deeply of their “blood” and in the process infected them with his diabolical nature, just like a vampire. Satan had given “birth” after his kind and with contaminated “blood” now flowing through the souls of Adam and Eve they too would give birth after Satan’s kind. Man now found himself living in darkness and shunning the Light. It was upon the Cross that Jesus poured out His untainted, sinless blood, thus providing for the redemption of mankind. Mankind, by receiving Jesus’ blood (notice Jesus gives blood i.e. life and vampires take blood i.e. life) and applying it to his heart experiences a spiritual “blood transfusion”. The sin tainted “blood” that courses through man’s soul at conception because of Satan’s “bite” in the Garden of Eden is replaced with the holy blood of Jesus, freeing him from the domain of darkness to live in the Light. Thus, the Cross was the means of execution the Father used to bring death to Satan’s reign with in the heart of man. No wonder vampires turn from it in horror. I find it very revealing that Meyer, when questioned about the cover on her first book in the “Twilight” series which pictures a pair of female hands holding out an apple, said, “The apple on the cover of Twilight represents ‘forbidden fruit’. I used the scripture from Genesis (located just after the table of contents) because I loved the phrase ‘the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.’” Satan loves it, too. So, is it a sin to read and/or watch these stories that feature virtuous vampires? Is it porn? Perhaps not directly, but it leads to it just as surely as marijuana leads to more toxic drug use. A Breakpoint blog by Kim Moreland spoke about not being surprised by the popularity of the “Fifty Shades” books/movies – which are absolutely pornographic – among Christian women. But she then made the observation that according to forums she had read Christian women were looking forward to seeing the pornographic, male-stripper movie “Magic Mike”. Surprised? I’m not. The feminist movement has ...

Ladies, if your husband suggests porn, sex toys, or sodomy as a way to "spice up" your sex life, run the other way! Reminds me of something I saw on Doctor Phil when I was waiting in the doctor's office a few years ago - a woman called the show and said her husband was pressuring her to do weird stuff in the bedroom because he was "bored" with their sex life, and his latest thing was he wanted her to have sex with him and another man at the same time! She didn't want to (she didn't want to do any of the other weird stuff either) but she didn't want her husband to leave her... I never forgot his response - "You could NOT be any dumber if you cut your head off! You need to kick that man to the curb, because that is where TRASH belongs! He does NOT love you, he does NOT respect you, and you cannot respect yourself if you remain in this relationship." Perhaps a little rude but STILL BETTER ADVICE THAN GIVEN IN THIS BOOK!