What a loaded title! It's sort of funny that this book is nearly the complete opposite of Marc Driscoll's 'Religion Saves' since it presents a really moderate viewpoint to Marc's fundamentalist view. There are some good basics in here, but definitely some things I don't agree with (which end up making the whole book suspect).
The biggest example is the chapter of wives' submission to their husbands and his strong putting-down of this viewpoint. While I fully agree that way to many people abuse/pervert these instructions, to the point that 'submission' has become a bad word, when originally it had no bad meaning at all (at least, according to the Truth Project I've gone through a couple of times, an admittedly fundamentalist-based view). But the reasoning Martin gives is just bogus. He says because the verse "Wives submit to your husbands" is immediately followed by "Slaves obey your masters," that it is completely inapplicable because of course God doesn't condone slavery, so both of these verses are no longer applicable. But even in my limited understanding, I can see the flaw in that argument. Sure, God doesn't condone slavery or treating people as property, but the Godly example of a slave/owner or servant/master or employee/employer is for the former to obey the latter. And Paul doesn't recommend marriage, in fact, he recommends against it. But in the Biblical view of marriage, the role of the husband is leader of the family, and wives should submit to their husbands. Most people who teach justly on this, also make sure to pair it with "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." If a husband is not leading in Christian love, making spirit-led decisions for the family, the wife is under no obligation to submit to his leadership. That seems simple and not negative at all.
Perhaps my objection to this is another chapter that basically says not all of the Bible is applicable any more. While I (and anybody speaking honestly) certainly struggle with this (seriously, all those old-testament regulations?), it's a slippery slope to say certain things in the Bible (especially new testament) simply are not applicable to us because it's now 2000+ years later. Then again, most of us don't believe it's a shame for a man to have long hair... or a woman to have short hair.
I think a lot of this book boils down to the fact that there are many "non-essentials" in the Christian faith, and I fully agree with that. Rapture/no rapture, irrevocable salvation, creation/evolution, submission/women pastors - there are many things that Christians can disagree on and still not deny that Christianity is primarily about grace and mercy - the free gift that Jesus died to take the punishment we deserved, so we could have a relationship with God. Though, while Martin usually presents both sides of these disagreements, it's clear what his viewpoints are and why he things the other side is wrong.