On September 12, 1933, 35-year-old Clive Staples Lewis wrote a letter to his dear friend Arthur Greeves. The letter is located in the Wade Center at Wheaton College–just down the street from where I am typing right now.

Greeves had written to Lewis asking about the degree to which we can speak, if at all, of God understanding evil in any kind of experiential way–as Greeves had put it, ‘sharing’ in our evil actions.

Lewis begins with an analogy (all emphases original)–

Supposing you are taking a dog on a lead past a post. You know what happens… He tries to go the wrong side and gets his head looped round the post. You see that he can’t do it, and therefore pull him back. You pull him back because you want to enable him to go forward. He wants exactly the same thing–namely to go forward: for that very reason he resists your pull back, or, if he is an obedient dog, yields to it reluctantly as a matter of duty which seems to him to be quite in opposition to his own will: tho’ in fact it is only by yielding to you that he will ever succeed in getting where he wants.

Now if the dog were a theologian he would regard his own will as a sin to which he was tempted, and therefore an evil: and he might go on to ask whether you understand and ‘contained’ his evil. If he did you could only reply ‘My dear dog, if by your will you mean what you really want to do, namely, to get forward along this road, I not only understand this desire but share it. Forward is exactly where I want you to go. If by your will, on the other hand, you mean your will to pull against the collar and try to force yourself in a direction which is no use–why I >understand it of course: but just because I understand it (and the whole situation, which you don’t understand) I cannot possibly share it. In fact the more I sympathise with your real wish–that is, the wish to get on–the less can I sympathise (in the sense of ‘share’ or ‘agree with’) your resistance to the collar: for I see that this is actually rendering the attainment of your real wish impossible.’

Lewis then goes back to the original question to bring his analogy home:

I don’t know if you will agree at once that this is a parallel to the situation between God and man: but I will work it out on the assumption that you do. Let us go back to the original question–whether and, if so in what sense God contains, say, my evil will–or ‘understands’ it. The answer is God not only understands but shares the desire which is at the root of all my evil–the desire for complete and ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it. But He knows, and I do not, how it can be really and permanently attained. He knows that most of my personal attempts to reach it are actually putting it further and further out of my reach. With these therefore He cannot sympathise or ‘agree.’

Lewis then relates his point to how we think about past sins, and then how we think about future sins (temptation).

I may always feel looking back on any past sin that in the very heart of my evil passion there was something that God approves and wants me to feel not less but more. Take a sin of Lust. The overwhelming thirst for rapture was good and even divine: it has not got to be unsaid (so to speak) and recanted. But it will never be quenched as I tried to quench it. If I refrain–if I submit to the collar and come round the right side of the lamp-post–God will be guiding me as quickly as He can to where I shall get what I really wanted all the time. It will not be very like what I now think I want: but it will be more like it than some suppose. In any case it will be the real thing, but a consolation prize or substitute. If I had it I should not need to fight against sensuality as something impure: rather I should spontaneously turn away from it as something cold, abstract, and artificial. This, I think, is how the doctrine applies to past sins.

On the other hand, when we are thinking of a sin in the future, i.e. when we are tempted, we must remember that just because God wants for us what we really want and knows the only way to get it, therefore He must, in a sense, be quite ruthless towards sin. He is not like a human authority who can be begged off or caught in an indulgent mood. The more He loves you the more determined He must be to pull you back from your way which leads nowhere into His way which leads where you want to go. Hence MacDonald’s words ‘The all-punishing, all-pardoning Father.’ You may go the wrong way again, and again He may forgive you: as the dog’s master may extricate the dog after he has tied the whole leash around the lamp-post. But there is no hope in the end of getting where you want to go except by going God’s way. . . .

And in a final, powerful, delightful reminder–

I think one may be quite rid of the old haunting suspicion–it raises its head in every temptation–that there is something else than God–some other country into which He forbids us to trespass–some kind of delight which He ‘doesn’t appreciate’ or just chooses to forbid, but which would be real delight if only we were allowed to get it. The thing just isn’t there. Whatever we desire is either what God is trying to give us as quickly as He can, or else a false picture of what He is trying to give us–a false picture which would not attract us for a moment if we saw the real thing.

–Walter Hooper, ed., The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 2: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 2004), 122-24

I started using FCP 4.5 back in 2006. I stepped through versions 5, 6, and 7 through the years, and view it almost as another arm when it comes to editing videos. The hot keys, menus, layout, and integration with the rest of the suite (Color, Motion, LiveType, Soundtrack Pro, Compressor, and DVD Studio Pro) has become second nature to me. I can snap together a video stinkin’ fast because of the muscle memory I’ve developed through five years of using this program at work. It’s an amazing program and I used to sing it’s praises any time I met someone even remotely interested in the field. So you all get it. It’s been a great program. Now to the bad news. Final Cut Pro X. (Yes, I know the current version is 7 and they’re skipping to 10. But that’s beside the point.)

The newest version of Final Cut is X, or 10. But people who used any previous version won’t recognize the new version. Since I don’t plan on wasting my money on this program, here’s a list compiled on premiumbeat.com:

• Chapter Markers: Apple seems to have done away with DVD Studio Pro, but you can now burn DVDs from directly within Final Cut Pro. In earlier versions of FCP you could add markers and include them as chapter markers upon export. This feature has inconveniently been left out of FCPX, making the ability to architect a commercial DVD fairly infeasible.
• Limited Export Settings: You are limited in the formats and sizes you can export from FCPX. Whereas before you could export a variety of codecs and formats out of FCP, you now must complete more specific encoding in Compressor.
• No Export for Hi-Res JPGs: If you want high resolution screenshots you must save them as TIFF or PNG files. JPG stills can be saved out of FCPX but they will be low resolution files.
• No Support for EDL
• No XML Import: Word on the street is this will be accomplished with a future third party plugin (for an additional fee, certainly).
• No OMF export: Again, this should be able to be completed with a third party plugin sometime in the future
• No Native Support for Red Raw files: With the wide range of codecs and file formats that FCPX natively supports, it may be a bit of a surprise that they don’t natively support this now popular video format.
• No Multicam: The initial release will not have support for multicam, but sources close to Apple say that it will be included in future updates. If you use Multicam often, the lack of this feature could be a deal-breaker.
• Inability to Open Projects Saved From Previous FCP Versions: The initial release will not allow you to open up projects saved from previous Final Cut Pro versions. There may be some ability to import legacy projects in future updates, but for this reason alone it makes sense to keep both FCPX and an older version of FCP on your machine.
• No Capture from Tape or Output to Tape: Tape is slowly being phased out in most forms of production, in favor of solid state and file based systems. It’s no surprise that this one wasn’t included, but it may be a deterrent for those that are still working in a tape based environment. UPDATE: You can capture from camera, but does not appear to have batch capture function.
• Limited Options for Arranging Your Workspace: Say goodbye to editing on 2 screens and sending the video signal out to a third monitor. The workspace is primarily “locked” and windows cannot be rearranged.
• No Native Support for Third Party Plugins: We can anticipate this being a feature in immediate updates to FCPX. For now however, you are relegated to Final Cut Pro X’s built in plugins and filters until the SDK for developers is released. Your FCP 7 and earlier compatible plug-ins WILL NOT work in FCPX. UPDATE: Noise Industries reports an update to it’s FX Factory bundle with over 140 effects, transitions and generators for FCPX.
• Support for External Monitoring?: Early reports state no support for external monitoring on a calibrated video display. UPDATE: There is external monitoring with an AJA card and new drivers.

The biggest ones that get me are Chapter Markers (long DVD creation is out, then), Multicam (back to the old days of FCP 5 where you chop manually – two major version ago!), inability of open old FCP files (Seriously!? I can’t open old projects!?), no tape interface (I think you can capture from, but no giving videos to old production houses – like most big production companies, TV stations, etc.), limited arranging of the workspace (the default never works for me), no third-party plugin support (Dropping support for the 1,000s of current ones. That’s nice…), and external monitoring (Hope they straighten this out). Hmm, my list is almost everything on the list I copied in. That’s neat. Also, there is no physical media with FCP X. You purchase it in the new Mac App Store and download it (all 1.33 GB of it). Hope you never have to reinstall on the road!

P.S. They also dropped DVD Studio Pro (and added in DVD burning into FCP X), Color (added into FCP X), and Soundtrack (as far as I can tell). Motion and Compressor are separate apps. FCP X is $299.99 and Motion and Compressor are $49.99 each (totaling cheaper than the previous $1,299-ish price tag).

And so we have the day the music (or video editing) died. Bye Final Cut Pro. Now we have iMovie Pro.

Questions matter. They can help you to grow deeper in your knowledge of the truth and your love for God—especially when you’re dealing with the harder doctrines of the Christian faith. But questions can also be used to obscure the truth. They can be used to lead away just as easily as they can be used to lead toward. Ask Eve.

Enter Rob Bell, a man who has spent much of the last seven years asking questions in his sometimes thought-provoking and often frustrating fashion. And when he’s done asking, no matter what answers he puts forward, it seems we’re only left with more questions. This trend continues in his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, where Bell poses what might be his most controversial question yet:

Does a loving God really send people to hell for all eternity?

The questions you probably want answers to as you read this review are these: Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn’t exist? Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell? You’ll just need to keep reading because, frankly, the answers aren’t that easy to come by.

How he asks the question is just as important as the question itself. “Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell? Is this acceptable to God? How is this ‘good news’?” They say that the person who frames the debate is going to win the debate. That is especially true when the debate is framed in this way, through these particular questions. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. No offense, and no pun intended.

The Toxic Subversion Of Jesus’ Message

Bell begins the book with surprising forthrightness: Jesus’ story has been hijacked by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. “The plot has been lost, and it’s time to reclaim it.” (Preface, vi)

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better…. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)

You may want to read that again.

It really says that. And it really means what you think it means. Though it takes time for that to become clear.

Heaven Is A Place On Earth—and We Are Making It

Bell frames much of the book around time and place, around what the Bible means when it speaks of the when and where of heaven and hell. He points to Revelation 21, citing that the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is coming down to the new earth. He also affirms that heaven is a real place where God’s will alone is done and that at present, heaven and earth are not yet one (pp. 42-43). These are points that few Christians could seriously question.

His argument progresses to this: Because heaven will eventually come to earth, if we’re to take heaven seriously, we must take the suffering that exists in the world seriously now. Therefore, we are called to participate “now in the life of the age to come. That’s what happens when the future is dragged into the present” (p. 45). In light of this, humanity’s role within creation is redefined so that we are not so much stewards as we are God’s partners, “participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world” (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied by Bell to causes of social justice.

But what about hell? Is hell a future reality or a present one? Is it an earthly reality or one that exists elsewhere?

Hell appears to be more about what we do to each other than what we’ve done to God. Bell reads Jesus’ warnings of divine punishment as addressing only the temporal, rather than both the temporal and the eternal. These warnings were for the religious leaders of the day, and had very little to do with some other reality or some other time, he argues (pp. 82-83). Instead, hell is “a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way” (p. 95). There’s no fire and no wrath, at least, none that is extrinsic to us.

Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that’s just a clever form of denial.

Exegetical Gymnastics

Understanding what Bell truly believes and what he is truly seeking to teach can be a battle. The reader will find himself following many rabbit trails and arriving at several dead ends. It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.

The reader will also find broad statements offered as fact. “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins.” Is that true? It is easy to say, but can it be proven? Again and again Bell turns to the original languages but he quotes no commentaries, points to no sources. He says things like “‘forever’ is not really a category the biblical writers used.” But he offers no proof. Again, it is easy to say, but can it be proven? Can it be proven from a legitimate source?

Throughout the book he engages in what can best be described as exegetical gymnastics, particularly in dealing with the Greek word aion, a small word that is crucial to his arguments.

While this word is commonly translated as “eternal” or “everlasting,” Bell argues that it can also mean “age” or “period of time,” or even “intensity of experience.” Using this approach, he briefly argues from the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that eternal punishment isn’t eternal, but rather an intense period of pruning.

Now here’s the thing: aion and aionos definitely can mean “age” or “period of time,” they also mean “eternal.” The word’s context helps us to determine its meaning. So if we assume that these words primarily mean “age” or “period of time,” what happens when we apply that definition to John 3:16 where aionos is used?

For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time.

Not as encouraging, is it? While Bell might argue here that “life abundant” might be a better fit (playing on the “intensity of experience” angle and tying it to John 10:10), at the end of the day, we’re left with an approach that gives more credence to living your best life now than it does to worshipping Jesus.

The Good News Is Better Than This

Throughout the book, there are a number of points where we would agree with Bell, particularly when he identifies some of the goofy things that people have concocted to make God’s absolute sovereignty palpable. But his answers are equally unsatisfying. Even his good critiques are simply a bridge to bad conclusions.

As he makes his case, Bell seems to delight in being obtuse, creating caricatures of opposing views that lack logic and compassion. He paints himself as the victim of the hateful, toxic, venomous denizens of certain corners of the Internet that believe “the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don’t articulate matters of faith as they do” (p. 185).

Thus, Rob Bell appoints himself a martyr for his cause, and anyone who disagrees with him is preemptively silenced. It’s a useful technique, that, but hardly a fair one. Meanwhile he acts as if those who hold to the belief that, in Bell’s words, “we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus,” a view passionately held to by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, are blowing smoke rather than dealing honestly with the Scriptures. He subtly redefines the questions and answers, and in doing so, also shifts the battle lines.

As he moves those lines, he moves closer and closer to outright blasphemy. Turning on 1 Timothy 2 (where Paul states that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth) Bell reflects on a traditional (orthodox) view of hell and asks:

How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
sort of great.
a little great.

A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is “devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable” (pp. 136-7).

God is at best sort of great, a little great—great for saving some, but evil for allowing others to perish. Dangerous words, those. It is a fearful thing to ascribe evil to God.

So what of the gospel? Where is the gospel and what is the gospel? Ultimately, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose. In his understanding of the Bible, people are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. Even then he seems to believe that most people, given enough time and opportunity, will turn to God.

In This Is Love

If Love Wins accurately represents Bell’s views on heaven and hell (at least if our understanding of the book accurately represents his views on heaven and hell), it reveals him as a proponent of a kind of Christian Universalism. He would deny the label as he tends to deny any label. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, you know how it goes.

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth.

Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.

What Jesus does is declare that he,
and he alone,
is saving everybody.

And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.

…

People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.

…

Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don’t.

…

Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name “Jesus” that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation—grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness—the last thing they are inclined to name it is “Jesus.”

…

What we see Jesus doing again and again—in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him—is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.

That is what we know as universalism. And it is cause for mourning.

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let’s be honest—many truths are very, very hard to swallow.

Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely on the idea that the primary object of God’s love is man; indeed, the whole story, he writes, can be summed up in these words: “For God so loved the world.” But this doesn’t hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God as actually shown in the Bible. The God who “shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), who acts on our behalf not so much because His love for us is great, but because He is great (Isaiah 48:9, Ezekiel 20:9,14,22,44, 36:22; John 17:1-5).

That’s the kind of love that wins. That’s the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. And our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.

This review was co-written with my friend Aaron Armstrong who writes at Blogging Theologically. All quotes are taken from an Advance Reading Copy of the manuscript that was provided specifically for review purposes; they will be verified against a final bound copy of Love Wins following the book’s release.

Missional

We focus our times together on building up believers and encouraging one another to take the Good News of salvation into the community, region, and world.

Family-Integrated

We place high value on the health of families, and our corporate meetings are multi- generational in that children remain together with families in the meetings to allow and encourage families to function and grow together.

Covenant Membership

Covenant membership involves all members’ commitment to be subject to one another for the sake of the integrity and spiritual growth of the Church. It is both a solemn and joyful matter—a deep agreement between regenerated believers that welcomes discipline for the sake of the greater good of sanctification.

Expositional Preaching

We, in our corporate presentation of Bible texts, will deal exegetically with each passage, taking as our main point for the sermon the main point of the text and attending to each issue presented in that text.

Reformed Southern Baptist

God, with absolute sovereignty, accomplishes the salvation of his people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and for the glory of God alone. He uses his people as His means of spreading the gospel of eternal salvation; we, therefore, being Southern Baptists, cooperate with other churches in supporting mission efforts worldwide.

Plurality of Elders

Elders are the scripturally mandated positions of leadership in the Church. Biblically qualified leaders are shepherds, guiding the body towards accomplishing congregationally selected goals and adhering to Scriptural values; thus, the church is led by the Holy Spirit and guided by multiple elders.

Gospel-Centered Counseling

We acknowledge the Bible as the chief authority on healthy, fulfilled living. As such, pastoral counseling is first and foremost the application of Biblical truth to guide us through our lives.

Those who know me or have read old posts in this blog know that many of those topics have been addressed in this blog, especially the last one.

Let me set a scene for you: You are sitting at a restaurant with your family enjoying a nice dinner and having a pleasant conversation. Before you can even order your food, the toddler in the booth behind you begins crying because dad took a toy away. You can barely carry a conversation now because the kid is going crazy! What’s even more annoying is when there is a group of adults that act as if they are the only ones in the restaurant. They make so much noise that you can’t help but to be distracted. Unintentional distractions are obnoxious and mostly rude.

In the Old Testament, people would express worship for the Lord with sacrifices, burnt offerings, and bowing. In fact, worship through singing didn’t appear until 2 Chronicles. Singing and playing instruments became a popular way of worshipping the Lord as shown in the Psalms. Worship didn’t change all that much in the New Testament. Worship remained to be an outward expression of love for God. Hebrews 12: 28-29 says, “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘God is a consuming fire.’ ” In John 4:23 Jesus instructs believers to worship in spirit and in truth. Culture obviously makes a huge difference in our style of worship these days compared to worship in bible times. However, congregational worship is to remain reverent and respectful of others. I am not opposed to the full band, “contemporary” style church. I’m a worship leader at a great one! We just can’t forget that there are other people around us that may be turned off to Christianity if it involves screaming and running around. Hyper-emotionalism gets in the way of evangelism, and possibly interrupts someone’s personal walk with God. Letting your emotions take control of your actions is an immature act in any circumstance. In Revelation, John witnessed the most intense worship service in the history of the world and what did he do? Run around the throne room? Scream at the top of his lungs? Dance around naked? No! He got on his face and worshipped. Even the 24 elders and 4 living creatures got down and worshipped. Maybe this means our worship should involve more bowing and less moving.

• I’m finishing up my Master of Divinity with Biblical Counseling from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and would love to work in a church or a parachurch ministry giving counsel to people from the Bible.
• I’ve been on staff and before that volunteering at Journey Church (and also working at my seminary) doing production stuff – video and audio editing, lighting programming, web, and all that sort of stuff. I love tech.
• For over a decade, I’ve built websites (sometimes for fun, sometimes as a job or part of a job) and I would consider myself an advanced dabbler. Along with a friend, I’ve maintained a web host for a few years now.
• Another area I love is making computers and tech stuff in general work. While in college, I actually was one of the first employees of the NGCSU Help Desk.

Diverse, huh? If anyone reading this knows of any jobs in the Atlanta (especially Northeast GA) area, please shoot me a note.

We’re totally going to miss all of our friends here in NC but are insanely excited about seeing all our old friends in GA!

The web has evolved in the last ten years, from simple text pages to rich, interactive applications including video and voice. Unfortunately, very old browsers cannot run many of these new features effectively. So to help ensure your business can use the latest, most advanced web apps, we encourage you to update your browsers as soon as possible. There are many choices:

Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0+

Mozilla Firefox 3.0+

Google Chrome 4.0+

Safari 3.0+

Many other companies have already stopped supporting older browsers like Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers. We’re also going to begin phasing out our support, starting with Google Docs and Google Sites. As a result you may find that from March 1 key functionality within these products — as well as new Docs and Sites features — won’t work properly in older browsers.

2010 is going to be a great year for Google Apps and we want to ensure that everyone can make the most of what we are developing. Please take the time to switch your organization to the most up-to-date browsers available.

Here’s an email they sent out to Google Apps admins:

In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology.  This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5.  As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.

We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010.  After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.

Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.

Starting this week, users on these older browsers will see a message in Google Docs and the Google Sites editor explaining this change and asking them to upgrade their browser.  We will also alert you again closer to March 1 to remind you of this change.

In 2009, the Google Apps team delivered more than 100 improvements to enhance your product experience.  We are aiming to beat that in 2010 and continue to deliver the best and most innovative collaboration products for businesses.

Thank you for your continued support!

Sincerely,

The Google Apps team

Now we have 6 Source IV Jrs up for front light – two on each of the three zones (left, center, and right). We also have 8 stationary white & amber LEDs (Elation Design LED 36WA), 6 moving head RGB LEDs (Elation Design LED 36MH) – 2 of which light the side scrims on the stage and 4 which are front lights, and 5 stationary RGB LEDs (Elation ELED Tri 64B) – 4 of which light the center scrim on the stage and 1 which is front light. We are also backlighting the pastor with 3 more Source IV Jrs. Finally, we have two scrim columns off stage that are light by 4 stationary RGB LEDs (American DJ Par 64) – 2 up and 2 down.

All of this runs from a DMX splitter/amplifier (Fleenor 125 – 5 outputs all in 5 wire DMX adapted to 3 – long story) that is wired to our LanBox that can be programmed or controlled via Mac or PC and also controlled via MIDI (we use a Kenton Control Freak Studio 16 slider controller).

All this sounds very complicated and it is to set up but allows our CG Operator to change light settings with literally the push of a button. This is great since he or she is also running ProPresenter simultaneously. We may go with a different method in the future but this definitely works simply and easily for our awesome volunteers to run on the weekends.

There are tons of philosophies on this out there. Everything from Freudian psychology to Christian pop culture (His Needs / Her Needs or more recently the unbiblical concept of a “love tank” in Gary Chapman’s Five Love Languages) purports there are these unmet needs that people have. Well, I’d like to challenge that. A need is something someone can’t live without. The most obvious physical needs are food, water, and /maybe/ shelter. Not sure on that one. Other than those, everything else is a want.

There is one other very important need that I believe outranks food and water. That is a personal relationship with the God of the universe through His Son Jesus. Without that, we’re all just dead men and women anyway.

Speaking of that, if you’d like to follow labor, delivery, and such, just follow babycheat on twitter. If you don’t want to sign up for twitter, just text “follow babycheat” to 40404 from your cell phone. Questions about that? Contact me.

• Virus – A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without the permission or knowledge of the owner. The term “virus” is also commonly but erroneously used to refer to other types of malware, adware, and spyware programs that do not have the reproductive ability. A true virus can only spread from one computer to another (in some form of executable code) when its host is taken to the target computer; for instance because a user sent it over a network or the Internet, or carried it on a removable medium such as a floppy disk, CD, DVD, or USB drive. Viruses can increase their chances of spreading to other computers by infecting files on a network file system or a file system that is accessed by another computer.
• Adware – Adware or advertising-supported software is any software package which automatically plays, displays, or downloads advertisements to a computer after the software is installed on it or while the application is being used. Some types of adware are also spyware and can be classified as privacy-invasive software.
• Spyware – Spyware is a type of malware that is installed on computers and that collects information about users without their knowledge. The presence of spyware is typically hidden from the user. Typically, spyware is secretly installed on the user’s personal computer. Sometimes, however, spywares such as keyloggers are installed by the owner of a shared, corporate, or public computer on purpose in order to secretly monitor other users.

So, a virus is a malicious computer program meant to harm your computer – there are so many of these and you’ve probably never heard of any of them. Adware is software that automatically advertises – common ones include WeatherBug, AOL Instant Messenger, Kazaa, Limewire, and Windows Live Messenger. These aren’t necessarily bad, but they’re really annoying. Spyware is software that grabs information from your computer – Kazaa, Morpheus, AOL Instant Messenger, and Weatherbug are some of the popular ones.
While many of these programs people use, they are intrusive and shouldn’t be used. Most people’s problems come with lesser known ones that install through the browser or email.

1. Don’t use a PC. – Often this can’t be helped. However, I’ve never had to work on Linux and rarely had to work on Mac OS X for viruses, spyware, or adware.
2. Don’t use Internet Explorer – Often this can’t be helped either. (Of course, that’s only if you use websites that don’t follow W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) standards published at http://www.w3.org/ – that’s a tangent, though). Instead, use Firefox, Opera, or Safari. If you must use Internet Explorer, please use the newest version (8) with all patches installed (Never, ever, ever use IE6!). Speaking of patches…
3. Don’t use Outlook Express – This program really is trash. It tends to execute code within emails and show all pictures. I don’t think Outlook does this, but Outlook Express does. For email, use Thunderbird or webmail – check with your email provider for this. Also, please just use Gmail for your personal email. It will block 99% of your spam for you.
4. Keep your computer up to date – If on Windows, use Windows Update (or Microsoft Update) and keep everything updated. If on Mac OS X, use Software Update and do the same. If on Linux, you probably already know what to do and you’re probably reading this to help those who don’t use Linux.
5. Use up-to-date anti-virus software – Often when I’m fixing someone’s 3 year old Dell (or Compaq, Toshiba, or whatever), they think that they can’t have viruses, because Norton is running. A simple double-click on the icon in the taskbar shows me the definitions haven’t been updated in 2.5 years and the subscription ran out 2 years ago. New viruses are created all the time. Therefore, you must update at least weekly. Also, don’t feel like you have to pay for anti-virus. AVG Free works just fine. Schedule a weekly definitions update and a weekly scan. If your computer’s off at the time, either run them manually or make sure it runs later.
6. Use up-to-date spyware scanning software – Install either Spybot Search & Destroy or Ad-aware Free. Keep them update and run them just like you do your anti-virus software. Period.

Hopefully this has been helpful. Any questions?

One of the pastors at the funeral said something that really struck me. He said Paul lived out his faith practically. That definitely is what I remember most about him. To illustrate this, I’ll give some examples.

Heather and I bought a house together right before we got married. She lived in it while I lived at my mom’s. We were determined to finish the master bedroom before we got married (we bought it unfinished). Paul spent many long days working (along with my family and friends) to make that a reality. After Heather and I married and I moved in, we wanted to redo the bathroom. We set our ambitions high and even wanted to move walls, redo wiring, add a jetted tub, remove the tile floor, and more. Well, about halfway through that project, I shattered the bottom third of my kneecap in a kayaking accident (sit on top kayaks and Class 3 rapids don’t always mix). Paul came up nearly daily for as long as it took to finish the project, often working by himself all day as I watched from the adjacent bedroom, highly doped up on Hydrocodone.

In case you’re thinking “Who wouldn’t do that for family?”, that was the norm for him. He would often help people with yard work (he went to his brother’s house every other week), fix plumbing leaks, even help building houses. That was who he was and how he lived his faith. Heck, he spent 26 years pulling people out of burning buildings and wrecked cars and driving firetrucks and ambulances as a Gwinnett County, GA Fireman. He was the first to propose fitness standards for that county’s firemen and after his retirement, he continued to teach children and adults in first aid, fire safety, CPR, and AED.

The reason I’m writing this post is not to build up a man. I’m writing to point out how a man lived out his faith. He didn’t talk about it much, but he didn’t need to. One could sum up his life with a quote often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi (though probably not his): “Preach the Gospel. Use words when necessary.”

Even more fitting (and definitely more biblical) is what James 2:14-26 (especially 2:18) says:

(14) What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, (16) and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (17) So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (18) But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (19) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (20) Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (22) You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; (23) and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (24) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (25) And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (26) For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

First, enable IMAP within Google Apps. For Journey, go to mail.takeajourney.org and sign in (don’t include @takeajourney.org but just the part that proceeds it). Then click on Settings in the top right. Then Forwarding and POP/IMAP. Finally, Enable IMAP and Save.

This enables IMAP for your Apps account.

The next step isn’t as simple – enabling IMAP in your mail client. Most staff at Journey use Outlook or Apple Mail. First, familiarize yourself with the Google Apps Help for Users. The link there for email just goes to the Gmail Help page, which will give you tons of info. Getting more specific, check out Troubleshooting IMAP. Finally, here are the links for the clients I’ve seen in common usage.

• Outlook 2003 for Windows
• Outlook 2007 for Windows
• Outlook Express for Windows
• Apple Mail 2.0 (Tiger)
• Apple Mail 3.0 (Leopard)
• iPhone or iPod Touch
• Blackberry
• Windows Mobile 5
• Windows Mobile 6
• Other Mail Clients

Pros/Cons of Exchange:

• Pro – Stored on site for security
• Con – Less people monitoring uptime
• Pro or Con – runs with Windows well (pro for those using it, major con for anyone wanting a better OS)
• Con – Major limited storage capacity
• Con – Only as fast as your internet connection

And now for a pet peeve/rant. Use IMAP! If you are using POP3, stop it. You won’t be able to organize your email from more than one device. Since most people want to be able to check from their home desktop, work desktop, laptop, phone, and via the web when somewhere else, steer clear of POP3. With this comes a change in the storage location of your email. It will now be on the server instead of your PC/device. I think I’ll write a blog post about this switch with more details soon. For now, /rant.

A Critical Review of John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart

Author: Daryl Wingerd

John Eldredge’s book Wild at Heart was recommended to me by several different Christians. To be honest, reading this book was not high on my list of priorities, but the people who recommended it to me are very dear and trusted friends. Partly out of respect for them, and partly out of my pastoral sense of obligation to “Test all things; hold fast what is good,” I made the time to review what Charles R. Swindoll endorsed as, “the best, most insightful book I have read in at least the last five years.”

From the outset, you will undoubtedly notice that my review of Wild at Heart is overwhelmingly unfavorable. There would be no point in tempting you to read this entire essay by leading you to believe otherwise. But still, I want to begin by saying that I do not disagree with everything John Eldredge has to say. I believe, as he does, that men in America have become passive, passionless, and even feminized in some regards. I commend his efforts to convince fathers to steer their boys in a more masculine direction.

Like Eldredge, I am drawn to adventure, excitement, and even danger. In my fourteen years as a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff (1986-2000), I found that I was most alive and at my best when duty called me into hostile situations, from which the ordinary wise civilian would flee. Cops, firefighters, and soldiers are a little strange that way. I love maps. I love to explore. I am an outdoorsman and a hunter who, in my late thirties, has found neither the time, the money, nor the energy to pursue these activities as much as I would like. One of my favorite stores is the giant Cabela’s outlet near Kansas City.

I have a six-year-old son, and three daughters. I want my son to be a real man. I want him to be different from his sisters. I expect that he will be more aggressive, more physical in his play, and dirtier when he comes in at the end of the day. I want him to be brave, noble, adventurous, and yes, just a little daring. These are qualities I try to encourage in him and model for him (often to the chagrin of my loving and patient wife).

So for those of you who have read Wild at Heart, you can see that I do find at least some common ground with John Eldredge. But once these few footholds of common ground are established, we part company almost completely. From the one page introduction all the way through chapter 12, aside from all the manly man stuff, I found little to commend.

As I write, I am aware of the fact that this book is wildly popular in many Christian circles. Some who will read this review are undoubtedly fans of John Eldredge and of his books. Speaking to those fans, I ask you this: Knowing already that my review will be critical, will you read what I have to say? I hope you will, because if you find that my critique of John Eldredge’s book is off the mark, you will have lost nothing but a few minutes of time. But if you find that the problems I point out are real and serious problems, then I believe you will agree that it was time well spent.

My purpose in the next few pages is not to examine Wild at Heart under a microscope. I am certain that many popular books could be painted in a negative light under such close scrutiny. My purpose here is to address three major problems—ones for which no microscope was needed. I want to focus on these three problems because they not only appear throughout the book, they characterize the book.

Simply stated, the problems are as follows: First, Eldredge mishandles Scripture badly. Second, the central theme of the book is not consistent with the teaching of the Bible. Third, Eldredge conveys a low, humanistic, and even heretical view of God. If I can demonstrate that these three problems do, in fact, characterize Wild at Heart, I will have done all I intended to do, and you will have something to think about.

Problem #1: Recklessly Dividing the Word of Truth

In his introduction, Eldredge says, “Most messages for men ultimately fail.” “The reason is simple,” he writes. “They ignore what is deep and true to a man’s heart, his real passions, and simply try to shape him up through various forms of pressure.”

Needless to say, I wondered what new message he was offering men. Within the first few pages it became abundantly clear. Chapter one opens with the following quotation from Proverbs 20 verse 5: “The heart of a man is like deep water . . .”

As I read the first chapter I discovered that what men need, in Eldredge’s estimation, is to find their hearts. On page 3 he writes, “I am searching for an even more elusive prey . . . something that can only be found through the help of wilderness. I am looking for my heart.” On page 6—”If a man is ever to find out who he is and what he is here for, he has got to take that journey for himself. He has got to get his heart back.” And then on page 8—”The church wags its head and wonders why it can’t get more men to sign up for its programs. The answer is simply this: We have not invited a man to know and live from his own deep heart.”

I now understood the relevance of Proverbs 20:5 (according to Eldredge). Since the heart of man is deep and elusive, men need help understanding their hearts better. They need to learn to live according to the true desires and motivations of that heart if they are to find true fulfillment—if they are to be all God intended them to be. It would be difficult to argue that this is not the central theme of the book.

And this is where I noticed the first major problem—Eldredge’s consistent mishandling of Scripture. I am not speaking here of his interpretations of Scripture. I take issue with the manner in which he handles certain biblical texts. To say the least, he takes Scripture out of context. But even worse, he actually edits Scripture to make it suit his purpose and affirm his teachings.

Proverbs 20:5 does not say what Eldredge claims it says. Now I know you’re expecting me to pull out some deeper understanding of the original Hebrew and call Eldredge’s scholarship into question, but I didn’t need to go to that much trouble. All I had to do was open my Bible—my NKJV Bible—the version from which Eldredge said he had quoted.

His quote reads like this: “The heart of a man is like deep water . . .” The meaning of the sentence, as quoted by Eldredge, is that the subject “heart” is described and explained by the adjective phrase, “like deep water.” The heart is like deep water, Eldredge claims. But the NKJ text actually reads like this: “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water.” In the biblical text, the subject of the sentence is not “heart,” but rather, “Counsel.” The simile, “like deep water,” refers to the subject, “Counsel,” not to the object of the prepositional phrase, “in the heart of man.” So the Bible teaches us that counsel is like deep water.

To conclude and teach, as John Eldredge does, that “The heart of a man is like deep water,” especially when his quotation of the verse capitalizes the first word as if it were actually the beginning of the sentence, is not to merely misinterpret the meaning of the text; it is to change and misrepresent the meaning of the text. This would not all be quite so serious if he had not built the entire theme of chapter one (and really, the whole book) on the meaning of his edited version of Proverbs 20:5.

Another passage of Scripture with which John Eldredge takes unjustified liberty is the beginning of Genesis. On pages 213-214, in describing Adam’s relationship with God, Eldredge includes this commentary on the creation account. “Before the moment of Adam’s greatest trial God provided no step-by-step plan, gave no formula for how he was to handle the whole mess. That was not abandonment; that was the way God honored Adam. You are a man; you don’t need Me to hold you by the hand through this. You have what it takes. ”

Such a statement not only reveals Eldredge’s highly imaginative interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, it also reeks of humanism (man-centered thinking) and is even suggestive of Pelagianism (a centuries-old, but still popular heresy which tells mankind basically what Eldredge portrays God saying here to Adam— “you have what it takes” to deal with the consequences of your sin).

I was also fascinated when I learned what Eldredge says went wrong in the first place—how man’s (deep) heart got lost, and why men feel the need to find it. I was disturbed to find that it didn’t seem to have anything to do with sin. His understanding of the problem could be summarized like this: Eve (woman) is perfectly happy being domesticated because she was created inside the Garden of Eden. Adam (man) on the other hand, has always felt restless. He has always had this inner need for adventure, exploration, danger, etc.

Why does man have this need? Eldredge explains on pages 3 and 4: “Man was born in the outback, from the untamed part of creation. Only afterward is he brought to Eden. And ever since then boys have never been at home indoors, and men have had an insatiable longing to explore . . . The core of a man’s heart is undomesticated and that is good. ”

Do you hear what he is saying? Adam was better off—more suited to his environment— before God brought him to (or confined him in) the Garden of Eden. If Eldredge is right, then in a way it seems that God cursed Adam before he sinned. He took him out of the environment in which he would have been fulfilled, and placed him in an environment that would repress his deepest inner longings. And when Adam sinned—when he was kicked out of the garden—he actually got what he wanted. What the Bible portrays as a curse was really a blessing to Adam.

One more example worth mentioning, though not directly related to the central theme of the book, is Eldredge’s treatment of Luke 8:26-33—Luke’s account of Jesus’ encounter with the demoniac of the Gerasenes tombs. In using this passage of Scripture to illustrate the need for vigorous resistance to spiritual oppression, Eldredge writes, ” . . . when [Jesus] encounters the guy who lives out in the Gerasenes tombs, tormented by a legion of spirits, the first rebuke by Jesus doesn’t work. He had to get more information, really take them on . . . ”

This explanation of the encounter, found on page 166, certainly affirms Eldredge’s point, but once you read the biblical text for yourself, you should understand just how ridiculous (if not blasphemous) it really is. Even a cursory reading of Luke 8:26-33 will convince you that these demons never resisted, or even questioned Jesus’ first (and only) rebuke. In fact, the whole dialogue between Jesus and the demons took place precisely because they knew exactly who He was, and they knew they had no choice but to obey His command.

For those who think the liberties Eldredge takes with these biblical texts is acceptable, I remind you of Peter’s words regarding the holy Scriptures “ which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction . . . ” (2 Peter 3:16). Peter was referring directly to the distortion of some of the difficult portions of Paul’s epistles, but he concludes that sentence by saying, “ . . . as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (including Genesis, Proverbs, and Luke).

Problem #2: Whitewashing the Human Heart

The second major problem is with Eldredge’s main point—the core of the message he hopes to get across to Christian men. While inviting them to “know and live from” their deep hearts (pg. 8), Eldredge seems to have forgotten (or else he doesn’t really believe) that the preeminent thing that comes out of the human heart is sin. Jesus said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed [all kinds of wickedness] . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23).

Eldredge’s central message also argues with Jeremiah who wrote, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). Jeremiah’s condemnation is immediately followed by his rhetorical question regarding the heart of man: “Who can know it?” The answer, assumed by the question and supplied in verse 10, is that only the Lord can search the heart of man and know it. Nevertheless, the message to men in Wild at Heart is that they should “know and live from” their deep hearts.

Later in the book Eldredge seems to think he has found a loophole in Jeremiah’s negative portrayal of the human heart when he denies the notion that the human heart remains corrupt after regeneration. On pages 133-134 he writes, “Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They’ve had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it’s not.” On pg. 144, he continues this idea when he writes, “The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than a ‘sinner saved by grace.’ You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God.”

When I first read this section, I was forced to carefully think through what Eldredge was saying. There is some truth in what he says. We are new creations in Christ. We have been given new hearts. We have been given new desires, new loves, and a new distaste for sin. The New Testament does call us saints. So what are my objections to his teaching here?

First, on pages 143-145, as a means of absolving the regenerate human heart of any sinfulness, Eldredge creates an unwarranted distinction between “the real you” (your heart) and “the false self” (the flesh). Basing his divided man on one verse of Scripture (Romans 7:20, NLT—”I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it”), Eldredge writes, “your flesh is a weasel, a poser, and a selfish pig . . .Your flesh is not the real you” (pg. 144). In the same section, he paints a far more flattering portrait of “the real you” (the heart): “You are not your sin . . . Your heart is good . . . In the core of your being you are a good man” (pg. 144). “The real you is on the side of God against the false self” (pg. 145).

I recognize that Christians are in an ongoing battle against the flesh. What I do not recognize, and what certainly cannot be drawn from the Scriptures, is such a clear dichotomy between the flesh and the heart. In fact, whenever Scripture mentions such a battle, or any kind of distinction in that battle, it is between the flesh and the Spirit (Romans 8:1, 4, 5, 9, 13; Galatians 5:17).

I understand, especially in light of Romans 7:17-23, that there is a certain degree of mystery regarding the exact nature and relationship of the terms flesh and heart. The problem, though, is not the presence of the mystery. The problem is that John Eldredge thinks he has solved it. He so boldly declares the regenerate heart to be good—God’s ally in the battle against the evil flesh—that the unwary reader might rush headlong to follow its dictates. After all, who would not want to follow such a noble leader as the Eldredge version of the regenerate heart?

But before anyone does that, please consider carefully the words of several wise Christian men from our past. Jonathan Edwards, possibly the greatest theologian America has ever known, wrote,

” . . . it is a mysterious thing which has puzzled and amazed many a good Christian, that there should be that which is so divine and precious, [namely] the saving grace of God and the new and divine nature, dwelling with so much corruption, hypocrisy, and iniquity, in the heart of the same saint.”¹

Charles Spurgeon, in commenting on Jeremiah 17:9, said, “There is within our nature that which would send the best saint to hell if sovereign grace did not prevent. There is a little hell within the heart of every child of God . . .”²

And George Muller—the beloved preacher of the 19^th century, in recounting one of the times when he, as a long-time Christian, fell into sinful behavior, said this about the human heart:

“If the believing reader does not know much of his own heart and of man’s weaknesses, he will scarcely think it possible that, after I had been borne with by the Lord so long, and had received so many mercies at His hands, and had been so fully and freely pardoned through the blood of Jesus, which I both knew from His word, and had also enjoyed; and after that I had been in such various ways engaged in the work of the Lord; I should have been once more guilty of great backsliding, and that at the very time when the hand of God was lying heavily upon me. Oh! how desperately wicked is the human heart.”³

In portraying the regenerate human heart the way he does—in teaching men that they should “know and live from” that heart, Eldredge certainly seeks to refute what these men have said.

He also completely ignores two other important facts: Scripture never glorifies the heart the way he does, and nowhere does the Bible advise or encourage Christians to trust, or “live from” even their regenerate hearts. On the contrary, the eternal wisdom of Proverbs 28:26 tells us that “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.”

Consistently in the New Testament, we are commanded to live, not from our hearts, but rather by the Spirit of God as He directs our lives through the Word of God. In telling the Christian man to “know and live from” his deep heart, Eldredge, even if unintentionally, minimizes the necessity of the Holy Spirit and denies the sufficiency of Scripture. And it is not just by implication that he directs men away from the Spirit and the Word. On page 200, I found this statement:

“God is intimately personal with us and he speaks in ways that are peculiar to our own quirky hearts—not just through the Bible, but through the whole creation. To Stasi he speaks through movies. To Craig he speaks through rock and roll…God’s word to me comes in many ways—through sunsets and friends and films and music and wilderness and books. But he’s got an especially humorous thing going with me and books. I’ll be browsing through a secondhand book shop when out of a thousand volumes one will say, ‘Pick me up’—just like Augustine in his Confessions. Tolle legge—take up and read.”

He goes on to explain how such a message from God came to him through a book (title not given) by an author named Gil Bailie. Bailie related a piece of advice given to him years earlier by a spiritual mentor. The message read like this: “Don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”

I would like to point out first of all that when Augustine heard children chanting the words, “Tolle legge,” (take up and read) the book that he was moved to read was the Bible—Romans 13:14 to be exact.

Secondly, the words given to Bailie, and then through his book, to Eldredge, are hardly biblical. They seem to encourage self-fulfillment—not the appropriate kind that seeks personal fulfillment in Christ, but rather the selfish kind that opposes the consistent message of self-denial and sacrifice contained in the New Testament.

Nevertheless, another statement, found on page 201, makes it clear that John Eldredge really believed that the words in Bailie’s book were a direct message from God:

“Reading the counsel given to Bailie I knew it was God speaking to me. It was an invitation to come out of Ur. I set the volume down without turning another page and walked out of that bookstore to find a life worth living.”

Apparently he saw no need for prayer or the guidance of the Scriptures in making this life-changing decision. A bit of questionable second-hand advice from a man named Gil Bailie was more than sufficient.

All of this is very bad, but the worst problem with Eldredge’s whitewashed understanding of the regenerate human heart is found on page 134. Immediately following his comment about the error of applying Jeremiah 17:9 to the Christian, Eldredge makes this statement: “What God sees when he sees you is the real you, the true you, the man he had in mind when he made you.”

Notice that Eldredge is speaking of “the real you” in the present tense. He is talking about right here, right now—not some point in the future. Now listen carefully to the very next sentence, where he poses this question: “How else could [God] give you the white stone with your true name on it?”

To what “white stone” is Eldredge referring? Though he does not give the reference, I’m certain that he was referring to Revelation 2:17 which says, “To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.” The white stone is given to saints—those who overcome—those whose faith is proven true, and who will spend eternity in heaven.

According to Eldredge, how can you or I get that white stone? What is the only possible way to enter heaven? God must see the purity of your own heart—a heart that is no longer “desperately wicked and deceitful above all things.” He must see “the real you, the true you, the man he had in mind when he made you,” if he is to grant you entrance into heaven. “How else could he give you the white stone with your true name on it?”

If you do not see the problem here, you may want to study carefully the biblical doctrine of justification. Read Romans chapter 4, where Paul writes of “the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works” (v. 6). “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin” (v. 8).

Imputation is to have something charged or credited to your account. As believers in Christ, our sin was charged to Christ’s account, while His righteousness is credited to our account. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

When God looks at you—when He justifies you as a Christian—when He accepts you as righteous—what He bases that declaration on is most certainly not “the real you,” as Eldredge asserts. God does not justify you on the merits of your regenerate heart. God justifies a person, by grace through faith, on the basis of Christ—on the basis of His death which paid the penalty for sin, and His righteousness by which we are covered or clothed. That is the only way God could give us the white stone.

Martin Luther once said that Christians are like “snow-covered dung.” It is only the purity of the covering—the righteousness of Christ—that God sees as the basis of our justification. Does God give you a new heart in regeneration? Yes! Does He then justify you on the basis of that heart as Eldredge claims? Most certainly not! As Paul wrote in Romans 4:5, God “justifies the ungodly.” Were it not for that beautiful truth, neither you, nor I would have any hope of heaven.

John Eldredge never does proclaim the gospel in this book. But for those who are familiar with the discussion, his apparent attempt to explain the core doctrine of justification sounds more like the Roman Catholic position—justification through an infused righteousness. Faith is necessary, along with righteousness, Rome insists. But the righteousness required is that of the believer, not the alien righteousness of Christ.

In Rome’s view, unless you are actually righteous—unless God sees “the real you” as a good person, you have no hope of heaven. However strongly Rome denies this, in their man-made religious system justification is not granted by God’s grace; it is given as a deserved reward. Theirs is not the Christian gospel, but it is the view Eldredge seems to be affirming.

Problem #3: Making God in the Image of Man

John Eldredge’s “insight” into the human heart is bad theology. But as early as chapter two, he goes from bad to worse, diving below the murky waters of theological error, and burying himself in the muck of outright heresy. This is what I was referring to on page 3 of this review when I spoke of his “low, humanistic, and even heretical view of God.” In order to show you this, let me first quote Eldredge where he writes, on page 32, ” . . . for those aware of the discussion, I am not advocating open theism.” Why does he insert this disclaimer? What is open theism?

Open theism is a theological heresy, the proponents of which hold that God does not know the future perfectly. God is not omniscient in their view. He is learning day by day, along with us. He is very wise, they say, so He can predict the future very accurately, but He does not know it infallibly, let alone control it.

Just so you understand, this is not a Christian belief. It is not one of those “minor” doctrines. God is a Trinity, He is sovereign, He is righteous, He is omnipotent, and He is omniscient.

To deny God’s omniscience is heretical, just as surely as to deny the deity of Christ. John Eldredge says he does not advocate this heretical view, but we must look at the facts.

On page 30, he tells of a wilderness adventure where he was in real danger from grizzly bears. As he thinks of the wildness of the situation, of the possibility and reality of death, he writes, “It then occurred to me that after God made all this, he pronounced it good . . .”

Just a quick note here: In saying this, Eldredge seems to have forgotten that when God pronounced creation “good” (actually He said, “very good” ) a little thing known as the fall of man had not yet occurred, and therefore, death had not entered the world. What God called “very good” did not include the danger of a man being mauled to death by a grizzly bear.

Eldredge continues musing about his predicament when he says, referring to the goodness of this wild and dangerous place, “It is [God's] way of letting us know he rather prefers adventure, danger, risk, the element of surprise.”

Now I don’t know about you, but when something surprises me, it is because I did not know it was going to happen. When I take a risk, I do not know the outcome. If I were omniscient, there could be no “element of surprise,” there could be no “risk.” And in case you wonder if I am just picking on one lone statement, consider the following examples where Eldredge promotes the same idea:

“God is a person who takes immense risks” (pg. 30). “He did not make Adam and Eve obey Him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly” (pg. 31). “God lives in a dynamic relationship with us and with our world” (pg. 31). “As with every relationship, there’s a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you’ll get hurt” (pg. 32). “God’s willingness to risk is just astounding—far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position” (pg. 32).

I couldn’t help but chuckle at that last one, because if you really think about Eldredge’s view, we are in God’s position. We have, at any moment, the ability to surprise God. We have the ability to hurt God. We have the ability to make God’s risks become bad ones. In fact, by knowing what we intend to do in the next moment—things that will surprise or hurt God—we know the future better than He does!

Some of the leading proponents of open theism are Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. These men have co-authored a book entitled, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, in which we find the following statements: “We believe that the Bible presents an open view of God as living and active, involved in history, relating to us and changing in relation to us.” In their view, God “is happy to accept the future as open, not closed.” ” . . . God cares about us and lets what we do impact Him.”⁴

Do you notice that these statements sound similar to those made by Eldredge? Keep in mind that within the last several years, two votes were taken by the members of ETS (Evangelical Theological Society): one vote declared open theism to be heresy, while the second was the decision to expel several of these men from the organization for their heretical views.⁵ And as you remember Eldredge’s statements about God being a risk-taker, know that John Sanders, who openly advocates open theism, has written a book entitled, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence.⁶

I realize that I cannot know what is in John Eldredge’s mind. He may, in fact, not believe what these men believe. But his book will have a prominent place on the bookshelves of many open theists because he promotes, even if out of ignorance or carelessness, their heretical view of God. Wild at Heart will make wonderful devotional reading for those who hold such beliefs.

And Eldredge is not finished with his creative but degrading portrait of God. Having re-created God in the image of man by making Him less than omniscient, Eldredge continues in his effort to humanize God by making Him needy. You could easily find yourself feeling sorry for God, if He is anything like Wild at Heart portrays Him. Consider this quote from page 36:

“As a counselor and a friend, and especially as a husband, I’ve been honored to be welcomed into the deep heart of Eve. Often when I am with a woman, I find myself quietly wondering, What is she telling me about God? I know he wants to say something to the world through Eve—what is it? And after years of hearing the heart-cry of women, I am convinced beyond a doubt of this: God wants to be loved. He wants to be a priority to someone. How could we have missed this? From cover to cover, from beginning to end, the cry of God’s heart is, ‘Why won’t you choose me?’ It’s amazing how humble, how vulnerable God is on this point.”

Please forgive me, but I could almost hear a whining tone as I listened to “the cry of God’s heart.” This understanding of God does not engender feelings of worship as much as pity.

And here again, Eldredge removes Scripture from its context in portraying this needy God. He continues the above statement by writing, ” ‘You will . . . find me, says the Lord, ‘when you seek me with all your heart.’ (Jer. 29:13). In other words, ‘Look for me, pursue me—I want you to pursue me.’ Amazing.”

The only amazing thing I found was that Eldredge discovered all of this information about God, not from Scripture, but from the time he has spent with women.

And what about Jeremiah 29:13? That verse is in the middle of a promise from God to His people—a promise that He will redeem them after seventy years of captivity—a promise that they will seek Him and they will find Him—a promise from the God who knows, declares, and controls the future, even the free choices and actions of people. Jeremiah 29:13 is not, as presented by this book, a pitiful plea from a desperate and lonely God who needs people to seek Him, find Him, and love Him.

Eldredge goes on to tell the reader (pg. 36) that the reason God often delays in answering prayer is because “he wants to talk to us, and sometimes that’s the only way to get us to stay and talk to him.” If God is as needy as this book presents Him, how did He manage to survive throughout all of eternity past without us? And I can’t help but wonder how He feels about Eldredge’s statement on page 32: “God needs to get a message out to the human race, without which they will perish . . . forever.”

“God needs . . . “?!! Those two words, if they are ever next to each other in a sentence, must be in the reverse order if they are to be true. Mankind needs God “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). But to say that God needs anything is to contradict what Scripture says— “as if He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.” (Acts 17:25).

I am going to end here. I read the whole book, but 222 pages of humanism, radical Arminianism, open theism, and the bending, stretching, and editing of Scripture was more than enough. There is much more that could and should be exposed regarding John Eldredge’s book, but time, and the reasonable length of a book review convince me to stop.

I have learned one important thing from this book. The wild popularity of a book, among the Christian culture of America, even among a large number of pastors, is more often an indicator of superficiality and error than of truth and sound doctrine. Americans want treatment for their itching ears, and this book gives a good scratch.

I am convinced that not so many years ago, when the senses of Christians were “exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14), Wild at Heart would not have been published by any Christian publisher, much less read by hundreds of thousands of believers.

But our senses have become dull, and for one reason: We have not heeded the warning of Colossians 2:8 in that we are allowing ourselves to be cheated “through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

I know that many will argue that there is much good to be found in Wild at Heart—good that outweighs the bad. But for those who feel this way, I have a few questions: If you knew that a glass of pure spring water had one drop of arsenic in it, would you still drink it for the water? Would you give it to a thirsty friend? Shepherds—would you give such water to your sheep?

On the night before He was crucified, Jesus prayed to the Father on behalf of all who would become His followers. His request, found in John 17:17 was this: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” With this in mind, a fair and necessary question to ask yourself is this: Does the counsel given by John Eldredge in Wild at Heart represent the truth of God?

Spurgeon once said that truth may be distinguished from error by three standards: “by God, by Christ, and by man; that is, the truth which honors God, the truth which glorifies Christ, and the truth which humbles man.” ⁷

Wild at Heart does none of the above. On the contrary, John Eldredge’s book exalts man and puts him in control while at the same time portraying God as humble, vulnerable, needy, and limited in knowledge. Based on the above quotation, it seems certain that Spurgeon would not have affirmed this book as truth.

Not only can I not recommend this book, I feel compelled to warn Christians to keep it away from others, especially from the lost and from the immature believer. Books like Wild at Heart—books that humanize God and glorify man—books that teach a generation of Christian men, already weakened by humanistic philosophy and biblical ignorance, to look anywhere other than the pages of the Bible for guidance—have a seductive appeal to the flesh—a poisoning effect in the already deceitful and desperately wicked heart of man.

If I could say one thing to John Eldredge, it would be this: Contrary to the clear message of your book, the human heart, regenerate or not, does not contain the solution; it contains the problem.

And if I could leave just one reminder with you, the reader, it would be these ancient and sobering words of wisdom: “Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself.” (Irenaeus of Lyons—2nd Century A.D.)

Eldredge, John. Wild at Heart. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001 (Spirituality/Christian living; 222 pages; hardcover; suggested retail price, $19.99) .

Copyright © 2003 Daryl Wingerd Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form including author’s name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink. Other uses require written permission.
www.CCWtoday.org

• “Nine Reasons I Don’t Like Multi-site Churches, from a Guy Who Should” By Thomas White – A young, tech-savvy seminary professor explains why he’s not getting on board the multi-site revolution.
• “Exegetical Critique of Multi-Site: Disassembling the Church?” By Grant Gaines – A pastor-scholar weighs the exegetical arguments in favor of the multi-site church and finds them wanting.
• “Theological Critique of Multi-Site: Leadership Is the Church” By Jonathan Leeman – The local church on earth is constituted by a gathering of Christians, which means the multi-site and multi-service “church” is not a church, but an association of churches.
• “Historical Critique of Multi-Site: Not Over My Dead Body” By Bobby Jamieson – Regardless of the fact that multi-site churches haven’t existed for most of the past four hundred years, historic Congregationalists and Baptists have a lot to say against them.
• “The Alternative to Multi-Site: Why Don’t We Plant?” By Jonathan Leeman – The multi-site church phenomenon looks like a capitulation to consumeristic culture. We should plant instead.

Now, I’m not going to address everything brought up in them, but the first article is really short and digestable, so I’m going to tackle the nine points addressed in it. Here goes:

1. A Contradiction In Terms

Here Thomas White argues that the Greek word ecclesia (the word we translate “church”) means “gathering.” He then says “The oft heard mantra “one church many locations” is a contradiction in terms.” Since that’s what Journey is, I want to speak to that. The church is the assembled people – the gathered people. When Journey gathers at NE, it’s a gathering of Journey. Same at NW. It’s not all of the gathering, as not all members of Journey gather every week. Other churches generally have four times more people on “membership” roles than those that actually attend. Journey is about the exact inverse of that, I believe. Maybe those other churches should be looking for where the rest of their church went before they start asking if what we’re doing is biblical. I’m just saying.

2. Spiritual Colonization

The argument here is “mini-dioceses” that rule the campuses from a central location. Well, at Journey we don’t have a “central location” besides that of Raleigh (currently). Our goal is to reach Raleigh for Christ and there’s not a specific area of Raleigh that we’re based out of. While we spend more time during the week at NE, that’s just because we can’t get into NW during the week – it meets in a theater. Campus locations will grow as we launch new ones and such, but our location is Raleigh. Not a “central location.”

3. Encouraging Consumerism

He argues that the more locations, the more variety you get and people can shop around. I think consumerism is way more likely in a church with one location. Case in point: mega-churches. When we launch a campus, we need a ton of people to get involved to volunteer there or fill the places at the current campus that were emptied by the launch team. At Journey, we have hundreds more volunteers than single-site churches.

4. Cannibalizing the Body of Christ

He points out a multi-site that “partnered” with a smaller church, then replaced it’s staff and sold it’s stuff. A agree with his point that this is a bad thing. However, I’ve never seen this happen and I suspect it’s not a common occurrence.

5. Shepherds Who Don’t Know the Sheep

This point addresses Hebrews 13:17 where ministers of the gospel will be held accountable for their sheep and how can a video minister do that with sheep he doesn’t even know? Well, first of all, a pastor that rightly divides the Word of God can be certain that the Word will not return void. Also, that’s what campus pastors are for. At Journey, either campus will find a number of pastors (Jimmy Carroll, Paul Crouthamel, Rob Wetzel, Smooth Via, and Paul Callaghan) weekly with whom they can speak and pray. Also, they can set up meetings with them throughout the week. It’s called “doing life together.”

6. Understanding Planting and Preacher Training

He may have a slight point here. We do need to focus on planting churches as well as campuses. That’s why Journey gives to multiple church planting agencies. Who knows, maybe we’ll even plant one ourselves. Partnerships are especially helpful at church planting – shared resources are great. Acts 29 is a great organization that does this well.

7. No Scriptural Support!!!

Ah, I most definitely disagree here. While the church that was formed out of Peter’s sermon might have fit within Solomon’s Portico at first, remember that “the Lord was adding to their number daily” and they “were going house to house.” Does White really think that they organized meetings indefinitely at Solomon’s Portico? Also, could thousands of people really hear? Did they have to all meet together weekly to be called a church? Bi-weekly? Monthly?

8. Unanswered Questions

Since he gives questions, I guess I’ll give answers.

1. What happens when this generation’s gifted communicators leave?
   • One of the other pastors at that church will take over. This is more biblical that “hiring out” a pastor like many churches do. If the people go there just to hear that communicator, they shouldn’t be there anyway.
2. When they retire or pass to heaven, will these franchised churches of today lead to the disenfranchised religious of tomorrow?
   • Some could, but the ones who grounded their people in the Word of God will stand firm because Christ is their cornerstone.
3. Will these locations stand vacant symbolizing a failed religious experiment?
   • The one’s who worshiped the communicator and not Christ probably will. And that will be a good thing.
4. What if one location wants to call its own live preacher? Will that be allowed or does the founding assembly own the property and make the decisions?
   • If a church starts fighting over ownership, then they need to repent and turn from that. The body is just that, a body. They should function as one. They should also submit to the one (or ones – plurality of elders, anyone?) called to be their leader(s). If that many people have an issue with the elder(s)’ decision, then maybe that part of the body should meet with them as fellow brothers in Christ.
5. Could a remote location choose to begin piping in a new rising star with no connection to the current branches?
   • That would be a decision for the church as a whole to make. A campus is not separate from the church – it is a part. This does make it easier to have someone fill the pulpit who can actually preach when the pastor is out of town. Or even better, our pastor was in Uganda recently and Smooth uploaded part of a message from him to the internet. I then downloaded and Jimmy preached for about 10 minutes from Uganda to both of our campuses. Then we played the rest of his pre-recorded message. He was able to preach while being halfway around the world! Most single-site churches would never even think of that, much less have the technology for it.
6. Why not just plant churches?
   • We plan on doing this as well. The multi-site model helps us be wiser with our resources.

Wow. That was fun. Next?

9. Priorities

This is an important thing to keep in mind. Let us not strive after numbers and instead strive after reaching Raleigh, and North Carolina, and the world for Christ. It’s always good to keep the Gospel as the main thing – we’re called to use our talents and God-given abilities spread the Gospel (Good News) of Christ. And remember, God doesn’t always call the equipped – He also equips the called (a.k.a. all believers)!

Am I a video guy or am I a Christian who does video? Am I a web guy or a Christian who does web? What defines me? What defines you? If you are defined by what you do and not who you are (better yet, Whose you are), you have the wrong focus. For the real bite, when people ask who you are, are you a (insert job or hobby here) guy (or girl) or are a Christian who does (insert job or hobby here).

This gets to the actual thing I wanted to blog about – what is the purpose of technology in worship? Is it a distraction or does it give direction? While I love technology and use it daily, hourly, and almost minutely (is that even a word?), it can often become a distraction. And I don’t just mean fancy videos. Technology can be almost anything. An organ is technology (from quite a while ago) and can be distracting by those who aren’t used to it or, even worse, have bad memories associated with it. An acoustic guitar is technology and can be distracting by those who aren’t used to it. The question is this: who is the church trying to reach, what technologies are distracting (or biblically, can cause them to stumble), and what technologies point in the direction of God and bring glory to Him. Whether it be organ, microphone, guitar, video, or lights, if it’s used to bring God glory and doesn’t cause the majority of your congregation to stumble, I say use it! In the words of Kip, “Yes, I love technology!” But, as I said earlier, it’s something I do, not who I am. I am first and foremost a follower of Christ.

Clarification #3: When I say that I’m done with the SBC, I mean that I’m done fighting for it and identifying with it. I don’t hate the convention. I don’t harbor any resentment towards the churches, church members, committee members, and Directors of Ph.D. studies, etc. who have intentionally marginalized me, belittled me, or treated me unfairly. Contrary to what Rev. Palmer may think, I can say with some certainty that you will never find me holding a position within the SBC. I don’t mean that I am against the SBC or think that they are evil as my good buddy John seems to think I mean. It may, however, be beyond saving. History will tell.

I think I wasn’t clear. I don’t think Smooth is against the SBC or thinks it’s evil. I meant he’s through with it (as he said) and many who say that they are through with it are counting it off as useless and others are evil. Smooth never has said that, but I’ve read it in quite a few blogs of people who have “jumped off the ledge” of leaving the SBC.

Journey still gives money to the Cooperative Program. As the senior leadership team here at Journey we decided to give to the Cooperative Program as a means of contributing to missions and supporting conservative theological training. We do not, however, identify ourselves as Southern Baptists, and you will not find any of us serving on this or that committee or going to this or that convention fighting for a voice. We just don’t care.

I am very glad Journey gives to the Cooperative Program. This finances my seminary education in two ways: first, a portion of CP funds goes to SBC seminaries, including Southeastern. Second, since I am a member of Journey – a church giving to the CP, I get a 50% tuition reduction. That’s stinkin’ awesome. While it saddens me that “We just don’t care” about having a voice in the convention, I know that’s not the case of all members of Journey, as I am a member of Journey who cares about turning the SBC around. I may be the only one, but that’s OK.

Why bother? Because of the missional impact the convention can have, you say? Again, I’m responsible for me. Maybe others are called to “save” the convention. But the reason that “young people are jumping ship by the thousands” and that Dr. Reid has to talk “good younger men off the ledge from leaving the SBC” is because saving the convention is not our calling.

I totally agree that we are responsible for ourselves. But one thing that I’ve learned at Journey is we are part of something bigger than ourselves. And while I also agree that the convention is not our calling, the convention, when course-corrected occasionally to line up better with God’s calling, could be used by God to help many people in many nations to know Him.

While Smooth and I may disagree regarding whether or not to have hope in the SBC, we are co-laborers in the Gospel at Journey and still somehow manage to get along. Heck, we’re even in the same small group!

And finally, lest you think this blog has become a blog about all things SBC and nothing else, I guarantee that my next post will mention absolutely nothing about that. It will probably be something theological or technical, since I love talking about that stuff. Politics? Not so much.

Smooth quotes Baptist21 (a group of young supporters/reformers of the SBC):

We at Baptist21, along with several “older-40” pastors and leaders in our denomination highly disagree with this inaccurate portrait of Mark Driscoll and ask that you stay in our denomination and let your voice be heard. We desire to affect change in our denomination and the world by remaining focused on what matters…

and responds with

People like myself who have gotten the shaft time and time again find ourselves wondering whether there are many more than just the guys at Baptist21 and “several other ‘older-40′ pastors and leaders.”

Well, you have one working for you, man. I still have some hope for the SBC and haven’t “jumped off the ledge” of leaving the SBC yet. I’m currently attending SEBTS and am extremely encouraged by what President Danny Akin has done there and throughout the convention to further the “Great Commission Resurgence.” You can read more about it on Between the Times, a blog maintained by he and a number of other Southeastern faculty.

I think of Erasmus of Rotterdam. He lived during the reformation and even offered his own scathing reviews of the Roman Catholic Church in works such as In Praise of Folly. But he was committed to reforming from within. Erasmus, of course, has his place in history, but he essentially failed at his efforts in reforming the church. Martin Luther, likewise had thoughts of reformation from within. He finally realized, however, that if reformation was going to happen it was going to happen from without rather than from within. Much of what we have as protestants today, we owe to Martin Luther. Where would we be if he never decided to step outside the Convention… um.. I mean Catholic Church?

Erasmus didn’t succeed in reforming the Catholic Church. That is true. Luther also tried and failed to reform it. However, the SBC has been reformed recently (as Smooth alluded to) from liberal theology. There is hope. It is possible to reform it.

As my wife pointed out, Jesus came as a Jew who came for mankind. He didn’t ditch the Jews to do it, either. He used Jewish disciples to spread news about him to the rest of the world. Even though the Pharisees and Sadducees were sectarians (people not in or of the world) and syncretists (people in and of the world), and that’s all the Jews knew of religion, Jesus used those people to bring his truth to the world.

Personally, I think Erasmus was scared. Sometimes I wonder if determination to save the convention is bred not out of conviction but fear. Staying within the SBC is safe and familiar.

He may very well have been scared. And I agree; that is a bad reason not to step out. The reason I stay with the SBC is because of why they were founded – to reach the lost. The sole purpose for the founding of the SBC is to form a sending agency for foreign missionaries to which multiple churches could give (now a part of the SBC called the International Mission Board – IMB). It eventually grew to home missions (now the North American Mission Board – NAMB), higher education (now six seminaries – SBTS, SEBTS, SWBTS, MWBTS, & GGBTS), and education of everyone (now Lifeway and Baptist Press). These are categories off the top of my head, but you get my point. All these entities together do a ton of good for the kingdom. Should we just abandon them and set out a different way? Or should we guard them with the truth of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit and let God use the insanely powerful infrastructure that He’s been using for over 150 years? (When we release control to Him, that is.)

Brothers and sisters, the SBC is not evil. It is not beyond saving. Young people are jumping ship by the thousands. Here’s exactly what the SBC stands for (summary from wikipedia of SBC’s position statements) :

• Priesthood of all believers—Laypersons have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ’s name
• Soul competency—the accountability of each person before God
• Creeds and confessions—Statements of belief are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word.
• Women in ministry—Women participate equally with men in the priesthood of all believers. Their role is crucial, their wisdom, grace and commitment exemplary. Women are an integral part of Southern Baptist boards, faculties, mission teams, writer pools, and professional staffs. The role of pastor, however, is specifically reserved for men.
• Church and state—a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other.
• Missions—We honor the indigenous principle in missions. We cannot, however, compromise doctrine or give up who we are to win the favor of those we try to reach or those with whom we desire to work.
• Autonomy of local church—We affirm the autonomy of the local church.
• Cooperation—The Cooperative Program of missions is integral to the Southern Baptist genius.
• Sexuality—We affirm God’s plan for marriage and sexual intimacy—one man and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a valid alternative lifestyle.
• Sanctity of life—At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God’s image.

I agree with these 100%. A convention that supports these things is a great thing. That’s why I’m looking forward to the day that the convention applies the same effort to contextualizing the gospel to America as it’s working on doing contextualizing the gospel to the ends of the earth. That will truly be a wonderful day!

But that’s not what I’m blogging about. Regarding all this, I read this article by a former prof at Southeastern is was amazing. Dr. Alvin Reid (whom everybody calls Doc) wrote that he has a problem, and I’m going to repost all of it here. Enjoy.

I Have a Problem

I have a problem with Martin Luther. Oh yes, I know he started the Reformation and we owe him much. Yes, he gave us great hymns, Sola Scriptura, and other important contributions. But he did not come far enough theologically for my tastes. And he liked beer too much.

I have a problem with John Wesley. Sure, he led a great awakening and helped to spare England from much the French experienced in the French Revolution. He led a missional movement that resulted in thousands and thousands of new believers and churches. But he quite frankly was a terrible example as a husband.

I have a problem with George Whitefield. Whitefield, that young, bold evangelist who came to the American colonies seven times during the Great Awakening, preaching to multiple thousands while only in his twenties, did much good for the gospel. He even started an orphanage in the colony of Georgia which is still in existence today. But he also had slaves at that orphanage. Though he treated them well and preached Christ to them, I have a real problem with that.

I have a problem with Jonathan Edwards. Sure, he helped lead a Great Awakening. Pretty impressive. He wrote some of the greatest writings on revival in history. He was a pastor, leader, missionary, and thinker. But he is just a little too Reformed for my tastes in his treatise Freedom of the Will.

I have a problem with Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon stands as one of the great Baptist preachers in history and is likely the most quoted. A pastor, leader, church planter, and soul winner, Spurgeon did much good. But he smoked a cigar, and I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with W.A. Criswell. The famous pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, did so much good for the gospel and the SBC during his time. Criswell was more innovative than many know in evangelism, and had a constant burden to see people saved. He played a vital role in the conservative resurgence. But Criswell allowed his numbers to be inflated, particularly in church membership, which has not been a good precedent.

I have a problem with Mark Driscoll. Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle and recent speaker on our campus, has seen possibly more hardcore unchurched young adults come to Christ in the last decade than any church in the US. He has led a church planting movement as well. But sometimes his language is a little edgy for my tastes, and I interpret the Bible differently than does he on the place of alcohol.

I have a problem with Alvin Reid. Yes, I have a problem with myself. I am pretty sure I really love Jesus and my main motive in life is to bring glory to God. I love my family, my students, and my convention. But sometimes I have added to the institutionalism and programmatic ministry that plagues us now. And I have a problem with that.

Finally, I have a problem with my convention. I am a Southern Baptist. I have blogged before on why I am a Southern Baptist. But I have a problem with my convention, when we seem more intent on witch hunts than on contextualizing the gospel in our time, when we love to pick at each other’s differences than unite for the sake of the gospel, when we are more concerned about our total receipts than we are the lostness of our nation, when we continually confuse personal preferences with unchanging truth, and when we castigate younger men who love Jesus and His truth for simply doing what we taught them to do: study and honor the Word (when they come to different conclusions than some of us on secondary issues, they scratch their heads at the response they get). I was a supporter of the conservative resurgence before it was cool. But the resurgence I supported did not include a Pharisaical legalism that expects conformity in nonessentials. I supported a resurgence to stand on the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, one that now has led me and many others to see the need for a Great Commission Resurgence to be built on the foundation laid by the conservative resurgence. I am tired of talking good younger men off the ledge from leaving the SBC.

So, I have a problem. I have many heroes. I did not name them all. But none of them are perfect. None of them are Jesus. I can live with that. I can honor people who may be more Landmark on the one hand or Reformed on the other than I am. I can learn from and respect people who love the Word and the Gospel yet who may do things a bit differently from me.

I wonder if I am the only one….

Panasonic B AV-HS400

Panasonic AV-HS400 A

Panasonic AV-HS400 A - Rear Panel

This is my favorite choice. If we go HD-SDI, it’s a must. Making it work on all analog component would be more pricey, though, since we’d need more expansion cards. We’d already have to get one for computer input (or get an card for our computer to output in the right format). It does some awesome stuff, though. Our cameras to HD-SDI output at 1080i, so that would work.

Edirol V-440HD

Edirol V-440HD

Edirol V-440HD - Rear Panel

This is our other option. It has a SD side on the left, which is then mixed down and up-converted to HD on the right. It takes component, composite, and VGA and can output component. Another workable option. Our cameras can also output component.

Religion (re – li – gion)    noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

ORIGIN Middle English (originally in the sense [life under monastic vows]): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence,’ perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind.’

To build on what my philosophy professor said tonight (Dr. Evans), if you’re a Christian and not bound, you better get bound! Further, I don’t think you can be a Christian if you are not bound to Christ. That’s kind of the definition.

Now, I do agree with distinguishing the dichotomy between religious ritual and, as Pastor Jimmy says, “a relationship with the God of the universe.” That is the difference between Christianity and all other belief systems in the world.

A shot from the booth during Worship Night

Wow. We have had some awesome times recently at Journey. From the worship night, to 1ThingINeedToChange.com, to our new series, Leaving Neverland, we’ve been stinkin’ busy. There’s new web stuff, including yet-to-be-released things (shhh), a new service (12:30 pm) at Northeast starting March 1st, and more stuff just around the corner. There’s so much that its hard to have time to blog. You can keep up with what’s going on better through my Twitter account. As a matter of fact, quite a few of the staff are tweeting. Check it out!

Why the Summit Church believes that the Multi-Campus Church Model is Biblically Sound, Practically Wise, and Pastorally Helpful

In 2005 our congregation moved to a multi-site strategy out of what we perceived to be a necessity. God graciously was bringing to our doors more than we could handle. We were doing as many morning services as we could in our rented-school facility, and were now having to turn people away. So, we opened another campus 3 miles down the road, where I preached inbetween our other services at the main campus.

Since that time, we have concluded that the multi-campus model for the church is both Biblically sound and practically helpful, and embraced multi-campus as a strategy for growing our church and reaching our city, not merely as a temporary way to deal with a space problem. We currently are a church of about 3000 attenders, meeting in 4 campuses throughout Raleigh-Durham, NC. We plan to add two new sites in the fall of 2009.

We believe that at the core of our mission as a church is the commission to seek and save the lost in our city. We are also a church, however, who believes that faithful ecclesiology must trump pragmatism. We believe that being multi-campus is the best way to do both.

Let me first acknowledge that many of the criticisms of various multi-site churches I find ready agreement with. Many multi-site environments encourage consumerism, foster anonymity, are built on a cult of personality, and have more foundation in the wisdom of men than of God. That said, here is why we enthusiastically embrace the multi-site strategy as biblically allowable, practically wise, and pastorally helpful.

Why the Summit Church believes the multi-campus model is biblically sound

A. The essence of a local church is a covenant, not a manner of assembly

I have heard the objection to our multi-site strategy, “A church is primarily an assembly, and to assemble means all the people come together in one place. Multi-campus fundamentally skews that.” The essence of a New Testament local church, however, is a covenant believers make with one another. Assembly is a much-needed function, but covenant is the essence. Where in the New Testament does it say that “all people must assemble at the same time?” To say that “assembly” means all people in one place at one time is suggestive at best. (To note: The objection that believers who meet separately for corporate worship cannot be one body in Christ would apply also to the multi-service church, not just the multi-campus church.)

In our judgment, the New Testament does not demand a church assemble all together in one place, at one time, each week. As John Piper notes, we have a clear biblical example of the opposite! The new congregation in Jerusalem is frequently referred to in the singular, one “church” (Acts 8:1; 11:22; 15:4). They obviously, however, had to meet in different times and locations. Historians tell us there was no space in Jerusalem available to the disciples large enough for 3000 plus people to meet on a weekly basis. Furthermore, it also appears that many of the house churches in the 1st century churches came together to celebrate the Lord’s supper as one citywide church (see 1 Cor 11:17–20; Romans 16:5).

Those who insist that a local church must assemble in one place at one time are taking one manner of function from some local churches in the New Testament and insisting it be normative for all congregations in all times. This is, at best, an argument from silence, and, as demonstrated, one to which even the first church did not appear to conform.

B. The New Testament gives guidelines, but not specific details, on how to best organize a congregation for pastoral care and effective ministry

John Piper notes, “Neither here (in Acts 2) nor elsewhere in the New Testament do we get detailed instructions on how to organize the church for pastoral care and worship and teaching and mobilization for ministry. There were elders in the churches (they show up very soon in the Jerusalem church) and there were deacons, and there were goals of teaching and caring and maturing and praying and evangelizing and missions. But as far as details of how to structure the church in a city or in an area or even one local church with several thousand saints – there are very few particulars.”

C. The Apostles used the technology available to them to preach in abstentia

It is clear in Acts 2–8 that all 8000 (some scholars estimate the actual size at the end of Acts 3 would have been about 10,000) were not gathering weekly in one place to hear one teaching pastor give a message. Perhaps the Apostles were a teaching team who each rotated between the houses. Maybe sometimes they got together in small assembly places (campuses). Yet they were one church.

We know that many of Paul’s letters were intended to be circulated for reading throughout the churches. If Paul could have cut a DVD from the Philippian jail and passed that around, I can’t see why he wouldn’t have done so. I know that some here might say, “Well, yeah, but Paul’s letters were the inspired Bible. He was an Apostle. That’s why his letters could be passed around.” We know, however, that there were several of Paul’s letters passed around that were not “inspired” (think the middle Corinthian letter).

If they had had the technology, don’t you think Peter might have burned a DVD of himself and sent that around? If they could have simulcast John’s recounting of his last meeting with Christ, don’t you think they would have done it? Is there anything that says that we must be able to see the actual flesh and blood of the preacher? Those who say that video removes the “flesh and blood, incarnational” nature of Gospel-preaching would also have to question the use of voice amplification. If it is argued that video removes the incarnational nature of preaching, a similar argument could be made that God did not intend churches to ever be bigger than could be comfortably heard by an unamplified voice, because in so doing it would remove the touchability of the pastor. Obviously, such questions go beyond a responsible interpretation of Scripture.

This is not to say that all technology is allowable or helpful, because there are times that the medium of the message can affect perception of the message itself. The use of technology that was unavailable in Biblical times is a difficult subject, and we must be both open-minded and cautious in appropriation.

Why the Summit Church believes the multi-campus strategy can be practically wise

A. A multi-campus model is an acceptable, if not better, alternative to addressing a church’s growth than building bigger buildings, multiplying services, or planting new churches.

When a church grows, it faces a few options. It might decide it is big enough and tell people they should find another church in the area to go to. For obvious reasons, this a terrible option. The Apostles did not turn away the 5000 new believers in Acts 2, even when they surely were overwhelmed with the problems these new believers posed. As John Piper said, “The question is no longer whether we’ll be a megachurch, but what kind of megachurch we will be.”

A growing church then as 3 options: building bigger buildings, multiplying services at one campus, or planting new churches.

The multi-campus strategy is a more financially responsible response to growth than is building a huge building.

Buildings are expensive. Large buildings are enormously expensive. Large auditoriums (that seat several thousand people) are difficult to use for other purposes.

The multi-campus model allows churches to save much of the money usually spent on a building. Venues in which smaller congregations to meet are much more plentiful and can be rented on a Sunday, and, if owned, they can be used throughout the week for other purposes.

Jim Toberlein, who has written a great deal on the multi-campus movement, notes that a multi-campus strategy is usually a zero-sum games. Most campuses will make up the money used in start up costs within the first year of existence.

In many cases, it will be more effective to add new venues than it will to multiply services at any one location.

The church might decide to multiply services, but you quickly reach a limit of how many any one location or pastor can handle. Also, as will be discussed below, evangelism and ministry are more effective when people are closer to their assembly place.

Church planting usually will not effectively solve the space issues of a congregation.

Some say that when a church reaches capacity it should just plant a new church. This is certainly a good option. However, most studies show that church planting will not alleviate space needs at any one campus. Many churches find that even if you can convince 200 of your people to go and start a new church, they end up making up that growth in the original congregation within a few months. In other words, even if you plant 10 churches out of your church in 10 years, chances are that you will still be dealing with space problems each year. Furthermore, finding the people willing to leave their church to plant a new one as well as the leader who can do it are both difficult! Church planting will not provide a solution for space issues. So, by all means, plant churches, but in order to steward the people God is bringing to the original campus, you’ll need a different solution! Multiplying campuses is not an alternative to church planting; it is an alternative to multiplying services, building a larger building, or turning people away.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in the next point, not only does multiplying campuses not replace church planting, we have found it facilitates it.

B. The multi-campus strategy facilitates church planting

The multi-campus strategy does not preclude church planting, it fosters it! Not every church planter is equipped to be a senior teaching pastor. Campus pastors need to be men who are gifted leaders and good communicators, but not necessarily called teachers. Many guys, who are great leaders and pastors do not enjoy doing what I do each week, spending 20+ hours preparing messages and deciphering vision. As campus pastors they exercise leadership within their gifts in a way that they could not as church planters, where they must devote an exceptional amount of time to study. Many of those not gifted or wired to be senior leader or primary teaching pastor would still make ideal campus pastors.

As you plant new campuses, you will notice some who begin to demonstrate the gift set to lead independent churches. This seems to be how the Jerusalem church operated. They noticed leaders emerging in the ministry who had the capacity to plant churches and they sent them out.

Finally, it has been our experience that multiple campuses provide a leadership pipeline for developing church planters. It provides a place to hone the skills necessary for teaching and leadership. The multi-campus strategy is integral to our church planting strategy.

Thus, we have not found that the multi-campus strategy does not in any way eclipse church planting. In fact, it provides an opportunity to determine who has the right gift set to plant and pastor. As it stands now, new churches face an over-50% failure rate. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have an inbetween stage where leadership abilities are able to be tested?

C. The closer a congregation meets to where the people it is trying to reach live, the more effective can be its evangelism and community outreach.

Being closer to where the people live helps you engage them, invite them to your services, and perceive the needs of the local community. Our desire is for everyone in our community (the Triangle) to be no more than 15 minutes from a thriving evangelical church or a Summit congregation.

D. The multi-campus church is better suited for the post-pastor succession.

It is rare, in every generation, for one pastor to be able to hold the attention of several thousand people each Sunday. Many churches with one of those pastors built an auditorium to hold the audience, but for whatever reason the successor did not have the same ability. While grateful that the church attempted to be a steward of those God was bringing to them, how depressing it is to walk into one of those huge, nearly empty sanctuaries on a Sunday now!

If our church is 10,000 people big, we believe that it would be better to have 10 campuses of 1000, who identify with 10 campus pastors, rather than 1 campus of 10,000 who identify only with the 1. If the lead pastor passes on, it is easier to find 10 pastors to lead 1000 than 1 who can continue to lead the 10,000. The many empty, depressing monuments now polluting the American landscape are evidence of that.

How the Summit Church believes a multi-campus strategy can be pastorally helpful

A. The multi-campus model allows us to enjoy the pastoral benefits afforded by both a large and small congregation.

It is undeniable that large churches face pastoral issues. (It should be noted, however, that a landmark study done by Rodney Stark in 2007 showed that megachurches had more intimacy and better pastoral care than smaller churches.) That said, it is easier for people to slip in and out of a large congregation unnoticed. Here is why we believe that the multi-campus model is the best way for us to address the pastoral needs of our congregation.

One of the primary criticisms of a multi-campus church is that you create disparate groups of people who will never know each other—perhaps never see each other! Realistically speaking, however, this happens also at any multi-service church. For that matter, it happens at any church above 200! The hardest ecclesiological shift for me was not in going to multiple campuses, but in growing larger than 400 members! At that point I realized that I couldn’t know every member in a meaningful way and they wouldn’t all know each other, either. Large churches of all types have members who do not know each other, and not every pastor knows every member.

Of large churches, perhaps the multi-campus large church most effectively addresses that problem, however. Because the venues are smaller, it is easier for campus pastors and elder representatives to keep up with those that come. Smaller venues reduce anonymity. It is easier for our members to be known by a pastor, be under the care and governance of our church elders, and served by campus deacons at a smaller campus rather than a large one.

At the same time, the multi-campus model allows its members the advantages of a larger congregation. Congregations often grow large because many people find the gifts of one pastor-teacher edifying, and the multi-campus model allows for the stewardship of that gift. Larger congregations are able to offer many ministries that smaller congregations cannot. Large congregations often can put more weight and momentum behind their ministries. John Piper writes: “Worship in larger gatherings with other believers whom we don’t know personally can be powerful (the way a whole battalion gathered before battle to hear the commander’s challenge is powerful even though the soldiers don’t all know each other).”

B. The multi-campus strategy is an excellent way for a large church to develop and maximize the use of leadership.

I’ve often heard this: “Why build the church so much around you? Do you really think there are no other good preachers in Raleigh-Durham? Why not develop other leaders and teachers?”

We have found that a multi-campus church is better at developing leaders than a single-location large church. My wife remarked to me the other day, “Have you ever noticed that some of your favorite staff members you no longer see each Sunday?” They are serving at one of 3 campuses I don’t usually get to on Sunday. These were guys I raised up, trained, and on which I had depended. Now, as campus pastors, they have the opportunity to lead in ways they didn’t when we were all at one place. And, in their wake, new leaders have emerged at the original campus.

We have more and better leaders as a multi-campus church than we did as a single-campus church.

C. The multi-campus strategy can help protect against a cult of personality.

I’ve often heard, “The multi-site movement fosters a cult of personality by tying everyone to one mega-teacher.” Leader-worship is certainly a danger in large churches, and unfortunately many large church leaders seem all too willing to foster it. However, the cult of personality can exist as much in a small, single-campus church—in fact, sometimes moreso! When I pastored a small church, my congregation seemed to think that my presence was necessary for everything of spiritual significance. I had to marry and bury everyone, and my people wanted me to resolve all problems and answer all questions. I tried to teach them otherwise, but their natural tendency was to be much more dependent on me than they are now that we are a multi-campus church! Summit Church members are now exposed, weekly, to many other Spirit-filled pastors in our church to whom they can look for leadership and ministry.

What the Summit Church is still wrestling with regarding the multi-campus strategy

Does the “one body” ever need to assemble all together in one place? If so, how often?

What is the best way to organize budgeting and staff structures so that each campus has freedom to organize its ministries effectively while at the same we ensure each campus retains the DNA of the whole church?

How do we best do membership and discipline in the multi-campus model?

How can congregations vote on issues when people live too far from one another to be able to congregate often?

How far is too far when planting a new campus? Can one ‘local church’ have campuses all across the world?

If people rotate which campuses they attend, will that make it difficult for elders and other leaders effectively to watch over them?

How will we know when a campus would function better as an independent church?

Conclusion

The multi-campus model is messy. As with all large churches, it is easier for things to fall through the cracks in multi-campus churches than it is in a single-campus, smaller church. Growth from evangelism always invites chaos and disorder into the church. But it is a wonderful and welcome problem. My wife and I sometimes rue the loss of the neatly-packaged, clean, simple life we had before kids. We lived without the worry, fear, chaos, frustration, and dirty diapers that dominate our lives now from dawn to dusk! But we wouldn’t trade it for the world! Our church will deal with the headaches of the multi-campus model if it means reaching more people for Jesus.

We must live with the holy tension of taking care of our body and constantly bringing new, immature sinners loaded with problems into our midst. The elders of the Summit Church believe that the best way for us to do both is to adopt an aggressive multi-campus strategy. The multi-campus approach, in our judgment, best allows us to be effective in evangelism, pastorally responsible over our members, and to develop leaders and church planters.

It is our prayer that in the next 40 years God will allow us to see 10 campuses and 20 church plants in Raleigh-Durham, as well as 1000 churches planted in cities around the world. For us, the argument comes down not on whether you do multi-campus but how it is done. Our responsibility is to do it in a way that is Biblical and God-honoring.

We had some relaxing time at my mom’s. My wife and I got to visit Kyle and his fiancée Amanda (in whose wedding I’ll be in April). We played them and Kyle’s dad and Brenda in Trivial Pursuit (the brand new version) and stomped them! Heh. We also went to the Nutcracker at the Fox Theatre with my mom, brother, and aunt for my mom’s birthday. Afterwards we went to the Varsity and hung out with Phil. Then Christmas Eve morning hit – I woke up with a stomach virus. The rest of that day and Christmas were a painful blur, but by Christmas evening I was feeling much better. My wife, my mom, and even my aunt (who’s a registered nurse) took care of me during my sickness. They rock! At this Christmas, I got to hang out with family and got some good presents as well: Dante’s Divine Comedy from my brother and a nice Ecuadorian wallet from my mom to name just two. We postponed our travel day until the day after Christmas because of me being sick, but headed down the morning of the 26th the Heather’s parents house in Lawrenceville.

Our second stop started a day late, so we missed hanging out with Heather’s extended family for Christmas dinner, but got to see her parents and brothers for a few days. They postponed opening gifts a day for us. I got some laptop upgrades from her parents and a surprise gift from my wife and her parents: an amazingly awesome mountain bike! My father-in-law and wife went with me to a local park to test it out and we did 4.5 miles of crazy mountain trails. Good times. I also built the computer I helped my mother-in-law order for my brother-in-law Adam. Its fun to build computers – especially when someone else pays for it! Sunday morning we went to church at Cross Pointe Church in Duluth to listen to Dr. James Merritt preach, but were pleasantly surprised when his son Jonathan was announced to be preaching that day. Jonathan had just graduated from the school I go to, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. After hanging at my In-law’s for a few days, we headed down to Cumming to spend some time with my dad.

We arrived at my dad’s house the evening of the 29th. The next day, we met up with Kyle and Amanda again – this time to get measured for my tux. That evening, we headed to a party at the apartment of Matt and Taryn Temples. The next day, we opened presents with my dad, Connie, and brothers. I got a 22″ monitor and laser pointer to annoy animals with. Yay! We’ll be heading back to NC this Friday after hanging out with just a few more people here in GA. Overall, I must say this has been a great Christmas trip.

Why do your graphic supers have funny jagged edges in Photoshop, but they look fine on (television) screen?  For that matter, how can anamorphic formats cram so much width into a regular NTSC-type signal?  The answer, simply put, is that pixels come in all shapes and sizes.

Recall that pixels are the individual points of color that make up a picture on your screen.  While computer screens and similar displays usually use pixels that are square, televisions, historically, have not.  In fact, the concept of a “pixel” didn’t figure into analog television signals at all — the NTSC specification called for 480 “lines,” but the signal within those lines did not specify discrete units of width.

When the notion of digital video became a reality, the standards bodies that be decided that — for both NTSC and PAL — there would be exactly 720 pixels per line.  Thus, the 480i resolutions we know and love: 720×480 NTSC, and 720×576 PAL.

Now, in order for video rendered in the new 720x___ proportions to look the same as it always had on analog screens, it didn’t make sense to think of the 720 dots on each row as square.  NTSC video, for example, was customarily rendered at a ratio of 4 units wide by 3 units tall.  That translates to 640 pixels wide for every 480 pixels tall — not 720.The solution, then, was to render pixels as non-square: about 0.9 units wide for every unit tall, in the case of NTSC video (and about 1.09:1 for PAL).  When encoding widescreen video as anamorphic DV, the ratio became skewed to “fat” pixels — 1.21:1. 

Fortunately for all of us, modern standards like HD have evolved in an age where digital editing and dissemination are the norm.  HD standards were drawn up with square pixels in mind, so pixel aspect ratios are unimportant when considering fully native HD workflows.  But unfortunately, HDV at 1080i — with a native resolution of 1440×1080 to represent HD’s 1920×1080 — assumes fat pixels just as its predecessor DV formats did, this time at a ratio of 1.33:1.

Of course, modern imaging tools like Photoshop and After Effects ship with a wide array of presets fully appropriate to each type of native footage.  As long as you realize that these presets involve more than just codecs and pixel resolution, you should avoid nasty surprises involving “squished” graphics.

Generosity from Smooth Via on Vimeo.

This past weekend my pastor preached on Abraham and Isaac. Yesterday I again heard a preacher speak on it – this time Paige Patterson at the Real Evangelism Conference at Southeastern. This has got me thinking about that story.

This passage in Genesis 22 is quite obviously a christophany. Isaac represents all of humanity / the elect (depending on your Calvinistic persuasion), Abraham represents the wrath of God, and the voice from heaven is Jesus (often refered to in the New Testament as the angel of the Lord), who offers a substitute for us.

Something interesting that Dr. Patterson pointed out was the ram. His horns were tangled in the ticket, just as Jesus later had a crown of thorns. I found that quite interesting. Comments? Questions? Bueller?

A more common question with multi-site is “Why call it the same church when its really two churches, one which is watching a video of a pastor preach instead of having a live pastor preach there?” (This is actually only one model of multi-site, but it’s the one my church is using, so I’m not addressing the others right now.) This is the question I really want to answer, as I struggled with it when I first discovered that was my church’s vision.

The church, as I said earlier, is the body of Christ. A local church is how this is practically lived out – believers within a common geographic context meeting together as a family. In my tradition (baptistic) there is the need to hear the teaching of God’s Word and the expression of the ordinances – baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Communion. Journey does all of those things as one body, making it one church with multiple services, one of which is in a different location that the other three.

To answer the complaint that each campus should have it’s own pastor – our’s do. The campus that watches the preaching on video still has a campus pastor there for all pastoral needs. He actually is better able to minister to his flock there, since he doesn’t need to spend time during the week prepping for a sermon. We also are able to share resources between campuses, since we are still one church. Anyone who’s ever planted a church knows how important it is to have resources. Well, we do.

I just barely touched the issues, so what are some other issues out there? Or things you’d like me to dive deeper into? Or disagreements you have with this? Feedback is a wonderful thing.

Today was the first day I visited my churches’ second campus. It’s our second work week in there – last week the sound was set up and this week I helped set up the video. We’re still working through some kinks in the video quality, since we’re shooting HDV (not HD) 1080i60 and I’ve never worked with that before. The image is enormous, though (about 35 feet wide). I reminisced to the days of meeting in the school – before we acquired our current warehouse. There’s a feeling of camaraderie and teamwork that setup and tear-down fosters that seems lacking when in a fixed location. I definitely felt that today. I look forward to many more weeks, months, and years of that. The current plan at Journey is to reach all of Raleigh, and that involves many campuses.

I’ll start with filming. We use a Canon XL-H1 to record our video of the Saturday evening service at Northeast Campus (Tech specs: we use HDV 1080i60 – 60 frames per second interlaced). (Side note: HDV is different from HD because, as far as I can tell, it records 1440×1080 pixels instead of 1920×1080. To make it a wide-screen size, however, it stretches the pixels – instead of square they are anamorphic.) The XL-H1 is equipped with a Focus Enhancements Firestore FS-C DTE Recorder (Tech specs: 60 GB Firewire 400 with an awesome battery!), which records our video straight to hard drive. We record in Sync mode, which allows us to record a backup to DV tape as well. (Tech specs: we set manual focus and white balance every week, our gain is 0, our shutter speed is 1/100, and our iris is whatever brings the light meter to the center). 

Next, post-production. We plug our Firestore drive into our Mac Pro (Tech specs: 2×2.8 Ghz Quad-core Intel Xeon with 8 GB running Leopard) and copy over the captured files. We then add them to Final Cut Studio 2, add in lower thirds, add a flicker filter for our backlit scrim, normalize our audio, add in videos we used that service (intro video, etc.), and export the raw video. We then copy that and the ProPresenter schedule for the weekend over to the iMac from the Northwest Campus and leave that for the Campus Pastor (Paul Crouthamel) to pick up the next morning. As a backup, we also export a DVD (through VisualHub) of the service and leave it with the iMac.

Finally, we post to the web a Quicktime export of the raw file (Tech specs: we export in H.264 1280×720, 3000 kbps multi-pass with 128 kbps audio) and upload to Vimeo. We link to that from our sermons page.

Hope this post makes you feel more knowledgeable. This whole setup has been a major learning curve for me and everyone else involved, but I think we’re starting to get the hang of it. If this sounds like something you’d like to do (and you go to Journey), drop me an email and let me know. Feel free to ask questions or offer suggestions here or through email. I’m always game for talking about this stuff!

• Institutionalized church–this is the church that has lost its way within the forms and programs of ministry. This church is just going through the motions and has forgotten the real purpose for which it exists.
• Voluntary association church–this church functions more like a democracy rather than based on New Testament principles. Competing factions help maintain the “status quo” because of a desire to keep everyone happy.
• Unintentional church–this is the church that often has good intentions but have difficulty acting on those intentions. This church has a hard time embracing an intentional process for making disciples.
• “Us four and nor more” church–this is the church that practically believes that growth will destroy their “sweet fellowship.” The desire is to maintain a “family feel” which can make it hard for new people to break into the group.
• “We can’t compete” church–this is most often the smaller church that has concluded that there is no way they can compete with the program-rich larger churches, and so, they stop trying to be the church.

Mark Driscoll is quickly becoming one of my favorite preachers. Recently he’s done something really interesting by creating http://askanything.marshillchurch.org/ and giving anyone in the world the ability to get a whole sermon from Mark Driscoll to answer the question. The trick is, your question then had to be voted for and be in the top nine. There were 893 questions asked, 5,524 comments made, 343,203 votes cast in the end. And now Driscoll’s preaching on this. Sort of reminiscent of Paul’s letters when he addresses concerns that were raised to him. In case you were wondering, here are the final nine questions.

1. Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not? ( 310 comments and 25,181 votes)
2. What can traditional/established churches learn from “emerging” churches? (168 comments and 24,642 votes)
3. How does a Christian date righteously; and what are the physical, emotional, and mentally connecting boundaries a Christian must set while developing an intimate relationship prior to marriage? (222 comments and 21,373 votes)
4. If salvation is by faith alone (Romans 3:28), then why are there so many verses that say or imply the opposite, namely that salvation is by works (James 2:24, Matthew 6:15 & Matthew 7:21, Galatians 5:19-21) (105 comments and 21,337 votes)
5. How should Christian men and women go about breaking free from the bondage of sexual sin? (100 comments and 21,311 votes)
6. Of all the things you teach, what parts of Christianity do you still wrestle with? What’s hardest for you to believe? (38 comments and 21,285 votes)
7. Why does an all loving, all knowing, and all sovereign God will into creation people He foreknows will suffer eternal condemnation? Why does Romans 9:20 feel like a cop-out answer? (98 comments and 21,218 votes)
8. Why do you make jokes about mormon missionaries, homosexuals, trenchcoats wearers, single men, vegans, emo kids and then expect these groups to come to know God in the same sermon? (346 comments and 21,101 votes)
9. There’s no doubt the Bible says children are a blessing, but the Bible doesn’t seem to address the specific topic of birth control. Is this a black and white topic, or does it fall under liberties? (120 comments and 21,008 votes)

To listen or watch these messages online (or download podcasts), check out on Mars Hill Church’s website for the sermon series.

Yesterday I began a short series on the inerrancy of Scripture, looking at whether there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. You can read the first article and the response to it here: Are There Errors in the Bible?. When I first began to develop and understanding of this doctrine, I found that the doctrines of Scripture cannot be neatly separated, one from the other, for they are intertwined and interrelated. So in the first article I wrote about inspiration, canon, transmission and authority. Today I will turn to inerrancy, first explaining what it is not (often a good place to begin, I find) and then providing a working definition.

Read the rest of the article.

I’m briefly going to write about the life of Rev. Bob Green, a pastor from my home town. I was going to call this post “A Tribute to Bob Green,” but that would not correctly speak to what his life was about.

I first moved to Dahlonega in 1987 as a five year old. Since my grandmother attended Dahlonega Baptist Church, as did my mom when she was a child, we began attending there. Reverend Green was the pastor. I listened to him week after week from 1987 until 1993, when he retired. The entire time he was my pastor, he lived out the fruit of the Spirit. His life was love, which led to joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. He was always digging into God’s Word and looking at the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek.

Very recently, he passed away from a serious medical problem. My wife and I decided to drive to Georgia to attend his funeral. We arrived there thirty minutes early to make sure we had parking, since we were bringing my grandmother. She’s in her eighties and has trouble walking. There were only one or two spots left in the entire parking lot of the biggest church in town – his former pastorate and current church. We barely got seats in the sanctuary. They also had overflow with video and audio all through the hallway and into the fellowship hall downstairs.

The fruits of his life include an amazing testimony in his children and grandchildren. His son Mark, currently a minister (of music, I believe), spoke of his amazing ministry to his family and how he never let his family fall by the wayside. He also read to us what was Bob’s last writing – a list of things he would like to do before he went to be with Jesus. At the end of this list, he said basically what Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane – “not my will, but yours be done.” Also, a hospice chaplain whom he had worked with spoke of his great humility. Finally, the pastor who came in after he retired, Bill Hutcheson, spoke of how Bob never got in the way when he released the pastorate. He also told of how, up to the end, he was asking how others were, what was going on in their lives, and how much he loved them all. Both Mark and Bill picked Galatians 5 – the fruit of the Spirit – as a focal passage. That was unplanned, but really showed how true it was in Bob Green’s life. One just automatically equated those aspects to his life.

Another aspect of the funeral that glorified God was his grandchildren. They all got up and read various Scripture. Of those grandchildren that I knew, each verse he or she read exemplified either where they were or were going in life. For example, one of those that is currently overseas working with a church plant, Andy, had the Great Commission read for him and his wife, by his little brother.

Obviously, his life touched many people. He officiated so many weddings and funerals and baptized and counseled so many people and touched so many lives – his life was a legacy. Now don’t get me wrong, this was not a legacy to him; it was a legacy to God.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” – Galatians 5:22-23

Since I was on Thanksgiving Break from school, I worked Monday and Tuesday at Journey – also so I could get ahead on stuff and visit family the second half of the week. So Tuesday after work, Heather and I went home, took a 3-4 hour nap, and drove 6 hours to Georgia, getting in around 4:30 am. We spent time with my dad, Heather’s parents, then finally my mom.

On Saturday, we left to head back to NC around 7:30 am, swinging by the Northeast Campus for a minute to finalize ProPresenter when we got here, then headed home. I quickly practiced bass for Sunday (since I was playing at Northwest), but not before watching the GA Tech Yellow Jackets beat UGA for the first time since 2000!!!

After bass practice, I ate some quick food and headed down to Northeast for some great preaching by Pastor Smooth. I didn’t edit video that night like normal, because Pastor Paul preached at Northwest the next day, where I played bass (call time of 7 am). After Sunday’s service, I went home and have been working on Hebrew off and on until I finished just a few minutes ago. Time for a break – finals start this week!

Ok. This is a question that’s been in the back of my mind for a while, but there have been recent additions to it. First, there is the concern of churches spending much money on themselves and their member’s comfort than on spreading the good news of salvation to the nations. Should a churches’ missions budget be just a measley 10% all the time? One might argue that stuff is more expensive here in America than in third world countries. Might there at least be a reason to think of our use of money on ourselves vs. reaching the lost?

My second query may be more related to conventional vs. emerging churches (terms borrowed from Doc Reid, my evangelism professor in seminary). Conventional churches build buildings and spend much money on stained glass windows, steeples, organs, pretty wooden pews, ornate decorations, and the like. Emerging churches often use warehouse space and spend money on sound systems, lights, video, hazers, and the like.

They also critique each other on their use money and lack of worshipful surroundings. The conventional church (the high church tradition) uses their surroundings of ornate decorations to create a certain atmosphere of worship. The emerging church (or seeker-sensitive model) does the exact same thing (in the goal of the atmosphere), but through louder and more relevant music, video screens, etc. They both spend money on things that create a more worshipful atmosphere for their demographic. Seems logical to me.

He asked many more questions, too. I find it these are very important questions we should ask when listening and especially when preaching a message from God’s Word.

One very interesting point I like is his “3 A.M. Test.” Can the preacher be awakened at 3am (however unhappily) and concisely state what his sermon will be for the coming week? This is one thing that I think is done exceptionally well at Journey. Jimmy’s (and the other pastor’s, when they preach) take-away points are exceptionally clear and concise.

You may think I’m crazy writing about how pastors should be counseling their people, since I’m majoring in counseling. Actually, I write this precisely for this reason. Counseling, when done in a biblical context, takes place in the local church and in a body of believers – it is not a separate entity. It employs accountability in the body and will utilize church discipline in the case of unrepentance.

Let me flesh this out a bit. Here’s how I see counseling operating within the context of the local body: 90% of the counseling is done as one-another ministry. If you have something with which you need help, you first go to your brother or sister (same sex) in Christ, and they will help you from the God’s Word. 90% of counseling would end there, as we have the Bible from which to counsel.

If there is a problem that seems too large for one-another ministry, the “another” should bring in an elder in the church. If the elder feels unqualified for a certain problem, they should bring in a counselor trained in that specific problem – from a biblical perspective. This progression is similar to church discipline. We are called to help one another and that is the method I proclaim. As 1 Thessalonians 5:14 says: “And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle (or disorderly, or undisciplined), encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.”

In an article with christianitytoday.com, Sinead O’Conner speak of her “Christianity” and how that has influenced her new “Christian album.” Still famous for ripping a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live, she speaks in the interview of what appears to be generic theism. When asked if Jesus is the one way, truth, and life, she responds, “I believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and that whole kind of thing is one particular energy. If you want a put a picture of a body on it, then fine. But I call it an energy. Some people paint a picture of Jesus. But to me, he’s an energy. That energy is the same no matter where you are in the world or whose side you’re on. If you call it Allah or you call it God or you call it Buddha, it’s all the same. I thing God saves everybody whether they want to be saved or not. So when we die, we’re all going home.”

Whenever a book written for men (notoriously known for their lack of interest in reading) sells 500,000 copies, you can be sure that it has made a clear connection. There is a lot that is right with John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart, and with his compelling style of writing it is no surprise that thousands of men all over the country have been drawn to it. Eldredge has called attention to some problems with which most men seem to intuitively resonate:

1. Our culture (and even our churches) has adopted a strategy that facilitates the feminization of men.
2. Masculinity, with its predilection to adventure, rowdiness, and risk has become a condition to be cured.
3. Consequently, boys are in big trouble. School systems and churches have not taken the unique features of masculinity into consideration when designing curriculum or programs.
4. Our culture, intent on emasculating its boys, has produced a huge sense of withdrawal and boredom from its men.
5. As disconcerting as it may be to mothers everywhere, masculinity can only be imparted by masculinity. In other words, a young boy is never really sure he has become a man until another man, or group of men, tells him so.
6. Sadly, many, if not most, men have abdicated this responsibility.
7. Every man needs a battle for which he can live and die.

Eldredge clearly knows how to write to men and by the testimonies of many, he has achieved one of his objectives, which is to give men permission to be men. With all of the good insights Eldredge offers in this book, it is actually a little painful to mention two of what should be considered very significant problems which undermine the entire book.

Problem One: An Unbiblical View of God
The first problem is that Eldredge appeals to a wrong view of God as his foundation for masculinity. Part of the thesis of Wild at Heart is that men have a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to fight for. The problem occurs when he tries to project these activities onto the life of God. In the words of the title for chapter two, God is “the wild one in whose image we are made.” Eldredge’s description of God and his “adventure” leave the reader with a confusing and unbiblical picture of God. For him, men are risk-takers and adventure-seekers at heart because God is a risk-taker and adventure-seeker. He claims,

In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-player God playing both sides of the board, making all his moves and all ours too. But clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. No doubt the biggest risk of all was when he gave angels and men free will, including the freedom to reject him–not just once but every single day . . . there is something much more risky here than we are often willing to admit. (30)

He goes on to say,

[God] did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly. (31)

It’s not the nature of God to limit his risks and cover his bases. (31)

God’s relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there’s a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you’ll get hurt . . . God’s willingness to risk is just astounding–far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position. (32)

While one can appreciate Eldredge’s desire to root his understanding of men in the character and nature of God, these statements do not portray God in the same way that the Bible portrays him which leaves Eldredge’s understanding of manhood fundamentally flawed. The Bible depicts God as knowing the beginning from the end. He is aware of our thoughts before we say them. He knew all about us before we were formed in secret in our mother’s womb. He removes kings and establishes kings. He holds the heart of the king in his hand. He is the potter and we are the clay.

In fact, the view of God that Eldredge proposes does not inspire my risk-taking, adventuresome inclinations, but quite frankly, it demotivates me. I am willing to take risks, not because God takes them too, but because I am confident that he knows no uncertainty. I engage in spite of my lack of knowledge, not because God shares my plight, but because he knows everything. I press on in spite of my powerlessness, not because God has limited himself, but because his power is unlimited. If God takes risks (which requires he is uncertain of the outcome) then I am left with a sense of hopelessness. If he doesn’t know then who does?

For those familiar with the current debate over what is sometimes called open theism, Eldredge explicitly states that he is not advocating this position. But this is even more problematic. If he is familiar with the debate, and he is not an open theist, then why would he use language that is so closely tied to that position?

Based on the language that Eldredge uses, there are several problems. First, the sovereignty of God is placed in subjection to man’s freedom. It is a man-centered model that develops a picture of God based on a particular understanding of human relationships. The best approach would be to begin with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Second, if God is taking risks, there are no assurances that God’s purposes will actually be accomplished. If God is uncertain abut how his creatures will respond, then how can we really be guaranteed that he will be ultimately victorious over evil in the end? Third, if Eldredge is correct, there is a diminishment of the power of God since there is no certainty regarding the outcome of his “risky” decision to create. God’s power would seem to be limited to his creation’s willingness to cooperate. The biblical view of God’s omnipotence, his ability to bring about his will, shows that God is not subject to or dependant upon his creatures (Isa 14:24-27; Matt 19:26; Eph 1:11; Luke 1:37).

A biblical view of manhood should be connected to the roles and responsibilities assigned in Scripture. Why not just argue that while God has made men and women in his image, he has also given them particular roles and functions that correspond to their gender? This can be easily seen in the warp and woof of Scripture where men are consistently called upon to lead and protect. They are called upon to fight and defend. In the contexts of homes and the community of faith, they are given the responsibility of headship and oversight. In cases where men like Moses or Abraham faltered in their courage or faith, they hear from the God of the universe that He will bring about his plan. He is in control. This is where they place their confidence. This is the point from which they draw their strength.

Problem Two: An Unbiblical View of the Believer
The second problem is that Eldredge, in his effort to encourage men to follow their heart in these matters of masculinity, has given a false view of the condition of the heart of the believer. His line of thinking can be seen in what follows:

Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They’ve had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it’s not. Read the rest of the book. In Jeremiah 31:33, God announces the cure for all that: ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ I will give you a new heart. That’s why Paul says in Romans 2:29, ‘No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit.’ Sin is not the deepest thing about you. You have a new heart. Did you hear me? Your heart is good. (133, Italics his)

Later in the book, he takes up this topic again. He says,

To put it bluntly, your flesh is a weasel, a poser, and a selfish pig. And your flesh is not you. (Italics his) Did you know that? Your flesh is not the real you. When Paul gives us his famous passage on what it’s like to struggle with sin (Rom 7), he tells a story we are all too familiar with . . . (144)

After quoting part of Romans 7 from The Message, he picks up the discussion once again:

Okay, we’ve all been there many times. But what Paul concludes is just astounding: ‘I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it’ (Rom 7:20 NLT). Did you notice the distinction he makes? Paul says, ‘Hey, I know I struggle with sin. But I also know that my sin is not me (italics his)–this is not my true heart.’ You are not your sin; sin is no longer the truest thing about the man who has come into union with Jesus. Your heart is good. ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you . . .’(Ezek. 36:26). The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than ‘a sinner saved by grace.” You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God. In the core of your being you are a good man. Yes, there is a war within us, but it is a civil war. The battle is not between us and God; no, there is a traitor within who wars against the true heart fighting alongside the Spirit of God in us. . . . (144)

These descriptions of the life and heart of the believer drastically misconstrue or overstate the principles behind the doctrines of justification and sanctification. First, to say that the heart of the believer is “good” is not even biblical language. Eldredge makes a jump from the Bible’s use of terms like “saint” and “child of God” to the conclusion that the heart must, in its converted state, be good. The Bible never uses language like this to describe the heart of the believer. Eldredge has confused the biblical concept of newness with complete goodness. Descriptions in the Bible such as the old passing away to make way for the new, being born again, being a new creature, and receiving a new heart are certainly helpful and instructive when trying to understand the life of the believer. There is definitely something new and the beginning of something good. But our confidence is not in the idea of goodness, but in God who started the good work. This is why Paul said to the Philippians, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 1:6) However, glaringly absent from Scripture is the kind of goodness to which Eldredge seems to allude. The Bible describes the act of justification as a declaration of righteousness upon a heart that is not righteous. In fact, this is at the heart of the Christian message. The righteousness of the believer is not his own, but is the righteousness of Christ. So contrary to Eldredge, here is the Big Truth in church today: We are merely sinners saved by grace!

Not only does Eldredge confuse the doctrine of justification, but he also misrepresents the doctrine of sanctification. Once we are justified by faith in Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit begins to conform us into the image of the One through whom we were justified. Eldredge’s explanation that “my sin is not me” only adds to the confusion he began. If it is not you, then who is it? In fact, the Bible, when describing the battle regarding the flesh, typically uses the word “flesh” to describe the unified actions of the physical body along with the emotions, mind, and will. The problem here is not one of passivity (it is not the real me) but one of activity (it really is me), emphasizing our own complicity in the sin that we committed. Only now, through the Holy Spirit, I am able to overcome these sinful inclinations of my flesh. This is not about whether or not my heart is good but about whether or not I will yield to the Holy Spirit (made possible by the new life in Christ) in these various battles with the flesh.

The distortion of these crucial categories has produced an unbiblical and confusing approach to the Christian life. Men do not need to sense confusion over their identity in Christ and how their sin impacts their decisions and inclinations. The overtones of this book to follow your new and good heart only help to create the “false self” that Eldredge is so intent on destroying. What men need is a clear picture of who God is and the truth about their own sinful tendencies as they attempt to follow him. What they need to know is that their regenerated heart still has an inclination to sin, but they can overcome their inclinations to sin by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells them. They do not need to place confidence in their “good” heart but in the God of the Bible who is not taking risks, wringing his hands, or waiting to see how all of this turns out.

Eldredge has some good things to say to men today, but coupling these good things with an unbiblical view of God and the believer in Christ, deals a blow to the entire book from which it cannot recover.

This is a review written on thresurgence.com by Randy Stinson.

Edit: We’re using Vimeo for our video solution. Works great, and even support HD!

Edit: I’ve been informed by Alex that “We actually have 6 RGB Moving-Head LED’s and 5 Stationary RGB LED’s in addition to the other lights you mentioned. They are hiding behind of the scrim and on the floor.” Just so you know.

Has anyone used this for a domain? I’d really like to implement it, as it relies on Google’s uptime and not that of anyone else. Anyways.

• Prepare weekend service screen media (videos, graphics, etc.)
• Direct, film, and edit videos for weekend worship, online video, DVDs, or otherwise
• Oversee the upkeep and production of the church website as well assist with pastoral blogs
• Build post-production team for transition to video-driven multi-campus setup
• Produce television and website commercials to invite people to church

That list shows how I overlap into the world of church IT. Like many new churches, my job calls for the “jack-of-all-trades” mentality. I’ve been listening to the CITRT podcasts and have learned that even in very large churches, this often is the call. I’m looking forward to catching up on those podcasts and maybe contributing some – even though I might be a little Mac biased. ;p