I really hope and pray that the Art of Reconciliation report will shock both C.J. and the SGM board into repentance. I pray for these men that I have known and have in the past respected that they will be broken and humbled before God. However if this is an indication of where things are going I fear that I will not be able to endorse SGM and it pains me to say that. To the friends I know who are pastors and leaders in SGM churches all I have to say at this point is that I’m pretty sure the SBC, PCA, RPC, or heck Acts 13 would welcome you with open arms.

The Unboxing:

I have to say the packaging is impressive. It kind of screams, “PLEEAAASSSEE Apple put us in your store?” Believe it or not that’s a good thing. Any company that has the confidence in it’s product to do some real, professional graphic design knows it has a product to sell. The packaging also speaks to the permanence and financial backing of the company. This doesn’t look like a company that won’t be here a month from now because they folded.

First impressions:
The case itself is thin and lightweight. It seems to belie the “shockproof” capability it purports. The plastic is neither smooth, hard, nor shiny, nor soft and rubbery but an interesting blend. (smooth and pliable but grip-able) The clear plastic screen protector feels a little on the thick side but definitely isn’t flimsy. The thing you notice when pulling the two front and back pieces apart is that it isn’t easy. This is a case that you are supposed to leave on.

Inside you’ll note on the left the prominent seal going around the case. On the right note the films covering the speakers and camera ports. (The mesh is supposed to be Gore-Tex) I read a LifeProof Q and A about the lack of some kind of felt or soft material for the backing. Supposedly they rejected this idea as it muffles sound and really doesn’t supply any protection. The response indicated that a securely sealed backing won’t scratch the surface and that their material won’t harm the back surface of the iPhone anyway. (We’ll see but it makes sense. If the back of the case doesn’t move in relation to the front then there shouldn’t be scratches)

I can attest that after installation the bottom opening for the charge/synch cable works with Apple’s cables. Beyond that you might want to buy an extender. (which LifeProof also sells) Another note is that the hinge is a metallic one similar to a watch spring/hinge adding to the durability of the mechanism. (ie it’s not just plastic) I can also attest that the volume and mute buttons on the side work perfectly. (And I own a Verizon iPhone) The latter (mute) being a surprise and actually a bonus for quick muting.

The big surprise was the inclusion of this:

What you see there my friends is an audio adaptor for the case that is also “LifeProof”. Supposedly this renders the headphone port also impervious to the elements. (Though LifeProof doesn’t recommend swimming with it, they’ve got another adaptor for that.) I was surprised because no mention was made of this little device in my ordering. Such as, “Case includes…” On one hand I’m impressed that something that this company sells on it’s website is included in the case.(It would be easier and sneakier to make people buy it.) On the other hand I have to admit that if I had unknowingly bought this accessory for twenty bucks and then learned that it was included I would have been a bit miffed. Oh and another positive, you see that drum looking thing in the middle of the wire? That’s a device to hold the plug for the audio port along with a spare plug. Which given the fact that the plug is tiny, and conceivably easily lost, is well… thoughtful. All that said, after checking the adapter is almost absolutely necessary with this case. Perhaps with the factory Apple headphones (which I don’t use) the audio opening will still work. Otherwise you absolutely HAVE to use the adaptor. The opening for the audio is just too deep and narrow. Yet still on the plus side for LifeProof the adaptor is gold plated and seems to be quality made.

Comparison:

Here are a few shots of the case side by side with the OtterBox just for comparison. You’ll note that the LifeProof case is longer but noticeably thinner.

Conclusion:

Perhaps this is the most resounding endorsement I could give this case- I dropped it (and my iPhone) in the toilet. No seriously. I just walked in, took a deep breath, and let go. …And nothing happened. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happened. I fished it out, dried it off, and… nothing happened. Now will I go scuba diving with this case? NO. But the fact that my phone survived what any phone would be absolutely fried doing is worth the money this case costs. While I would love some sort of belt clip as I’m not a “pocket” wearer of the iPhone I’ll make do. (There are many “generic” belt case options) Even more I look forward to LifeProof’s swim/armband. (As a member of the military I look forward to being able to strap my iPhone on my forearm and make like Sam Fisher) Time will tell if this case over time will continue to live up to the lofty claims LifeProof has made but for now I’m not taking it off.

First off I want to take you back ten years or so ago. In my mind and I’m pretty sure for many this felt like a “golden time” in Sovereign Grace Ministries. The “movement” was still new, the churches small, and I know for myself it felt as if something unique and different was occurring. I remember one special thing in particular, we called them Celebrations. Each year regional churches would gather for fellowship and instruction.(and late night shenanigans but let’s not go there) Here’s the thing that Celebrations highlight about the leadership of SGM during that time- it worked. Both C.J.’s leadership and the model of church governance that SGM adopted worked well with few smaller churches that could be personally cared for by “apostles” and even C.J. himself. The inclusion of Celebrations also provided a sense of care and community within the larger Ministry. However over time the ministry grew to the point that continuing Celebrations was quite frankly impractical.
What developed throughout the “Celebration” era was a method of governance that at it’s core was relational. On the surface this actually seems both workable and preferable, that leaders with strong relational ties would be able to speak into each others lives and keep each other accountable. That a “relational” “apostle” could govern and disciple pastors under his care and himself be cared for through both the pastors under him and “apostles” beside him. Yet as the organization and churches therein grew the “relational” ideal actually developed into a hierarchical almost “catholic” system of church governance.
It is in fact ironic that an organization that describes itself as being “essentially reformed” would adopt a view of pastoral authority and church polity that mirrors the church that the reformers ultimately rebelled against and rejected. (Also telling that absolutely NO other American church that labels itself as being both “evangelical” and “reformed” subscribes to Sovereign Graces views on church polity) One only has to look at history to see the many opportunities for abuse and inefficiency in dealing with disciplinary oversight endemic in the “apostleship” model. These examples are evident and require only a quick perusing of past church abuses. However, there is another perhaps initially unseen side effect of a “relational” authority structure, namely that all issues of discipleship, discipline, theology, and even church and personnel management become “personal”. All issues are moved into one on one relationships and become needlessly “confidential”. Lets say “apostle” A is called in to counsel and mediate an issue between “Pastor” B and “Member” C. Because “A” and “B” are “personally” communicating they can feel the freedom to speak about and even make decisions about “Member” C without feeling the need to involve that individual because “A” and “B” are “relating” primarily with each other (this conversation is of course “private” and “confidential”). Then having made decisions they (“A” and “B”) then turn to “relate” to “C” providing “personal” care. This can (and does) cause an environment where practically everything becomes “confidential” (because it’s “personal”) and raises the probability of offense by making every issue a personal one and every interaction personal as well. This is glaringly evidenced by the fact that SGM has absolutely NO mechanism for impartial and impersonal internal review and is forced to look outside the ministry for these things. It simply isn’t in the organizations “DNA”.
This “relational” model also makes accountability and discipline difficult because there is no way to evaluate a leaders leadership outside of their personal character. It is a common Christian organizational fault to promote and equate those with excellent character as if they are also are gifted and able to lead. Let me be clear, those who are called to lead SHOULD have excellent character, but just because someone is a “good guy” doesn’t mean he can lead. Even more, a person who can lead in smaller areas (such as a family or small group) does not AUTOMATICALLY posses the ability to lead in larger ones. The “relational” ideal falters in evaluation and oversight as those who are raised to leadership often are “promoted” because of a sympathy of personality or character with a particular leader rather than evidenced leadership skills or potential.(This isn’t a problem with just the church. EVERY leader in ANY circumstance prefers to “clone” himself) This is compounded when that “gifting” is then affirmed by a greater centralized authority. (ie. the Pastors College) Now both the ones who initially promoted the candidate AND those who supposedly have “tested” that candidate’s “gifting” now have a vested PERSONAL interest in that candidate’s success. To disqualify a prospective pastor is to acknowledge that BOTH local pastor and pastoral teams AND the pastor’s college where in error in evaluating this individual’s gifting. Both the local and Ministerial levels have a vested interest in the success of the candidate. This can lead to evaluations that gloss over leadership decisions and instead focus on the “intent” or “heart” of the candidate. Thus to challenge the leadership of a pastoral candidate is to not only challenge HIS personal character, but the “intent” and “heart” of the pastor, pastoral team, and organization that affirmed him to office. Moreover because the new pastor owes his livelihood to both an individual (most often a local senior pastor) AND the “system” there can be a reluctance to challenge either within a new tenable position.
I could go on but my hope is that those with discernment and wisdom will “read between the lines” and see what I’m getting at. At the core of the present SGM “crises” is a failure of doctrine. SGM in my opinion simply has a flawed ideal of scriptural authority. (To read my perspective and scriptural backing read Reformers Duty pt.1 and 2) However I personally want to end this on a note of hope and challenge to my friends:
1: This is an evidence of God’s grace and mercy to both the leaders and Sovereign Grace ministries as a whole.
Rom 1 clearly teaches that a clear sign of being under the wrath of God is that He leaves you alone. I personally have been involved in a ministry that at one time could fill colosseums. Now that ministry struggles to find a church to promote it’s “conferences”. God is more than willing to let false movements “die on the vine” only to later be pruned and thrown into the fire. The one’s He cares for He prunes.
2: The “pruning” seems to only have begun: To my fellow brothers and sisters in SGM I can only say this- I believe it will get worse. Sin will be revealed and I would challenge each and every one of you to hold those who are in leadership accountable to fully expose and confess sin. For some of you it will be too much. However, you must look and grieve and forgive.(“blanket” forgiveness is vague and does not lead to reconciliation) For others it won’t be enough.You’re temptation will be to want to know every detail and be dissatisfied with any outcome. For you faith in the sovereign providence of God and His hand in both the past, present and future needs to guide you.
3. Rejoice that over the last ten years the Gospel has gone forth and is in evidenced in “clay pots” Ministry wide: Everyone is fallible. Everyone is a quick drop away from being broken. “Hero’s” are just as flawed and sinful and cracked and fragile as anyone else. What is amazing, what is glorious, is that God even uses these vessels to cause His Holy Spirit to ignite a flame in others. Mourn the fragility, praise the majesty.
4: Pray for a “teachable” spirit movement wide: I would add in pray for discernment for whatever ministry is called in to speak into this current situation. (I’m personally nominating the PCA, but the RPC or even the Southern Baptist Convention would offer great perspective, governance and instruction in this current situation) But whatever the case I believe change and reorientation is coming within SGM. Some will naturally resist believing that nothing has been wrong and nothing should be changed. Still others will look back to that “golden time” and want to somehow turn the clock back. Others will demand too much too soon and not see a process of both instruction, repentance and reconciliation. But I believe ALL will be challenged to grow in unique ways. More so as implications and theologies begin to shift and be sharpened by those who are hopefully wise and experienced outside brothers in the greater body of Christ. Humility is needed both with leaders and laity as SGM moves into a new era.
I for one look forward to seeing what God has in store for so many I hold dear and one day look forward to rejoining.

It’s unfortunate that this movie is overshadowed by the two previous Pegg, Frost, and (sadly missing) Edgar Write movies Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Both Shawn and Fuzz were sublime examples of both comedy and writing. Hot Fuzz really peaked in both regards as literally every line in the movie was either a setup to a future joke, a reference to another movie, or a hilarious payoff. It’s the lack of that kind of singularly British subtlety and restraint that makes Paul feel jarring. Too many jokes are simply crude, and crude in a way that are out of place with what could be an intelligent and heart filled movie.

Perhaps the two biggest examples come in the form of the movies antagonists. One of the great things about Fuzz and even Shawn was that every character seemed to be loved. Probably the best example is Dalton’s character in Fuzz. Here was a character that you knew from the moment you saw him was evil but his “evilness” was loved and played up to the max. (In no small part Dalton’s hamming, scene-chewing performance helped make “Sissy” a villain you loved to hate) But in Paul the “villains” get no love whatsoever. The “red necks” and “FBI guys” are so stupid and so pathetic as to suggest that the writers have never actually encountered either in real life and are operating on a very skewed idea. Even worse is Kristin Wig’s character’s Bible thumping father. This sadly is where a real sense of vitriol gets inserted into the movie where there needn’t be. The “Bible thumper” is quite frankly never presented as a concerned or loving father, and even worse creationism and even Christianity is viewed as ignorant and needlessly limiting. It’s a testament to Wig’s performance that her character isn’t as initially pathetic as she’s written. One would almost think to say to these guys, “You know that you’re trying to open a movie in a country where A LOT of people really believe this?” (The only nod to this fact was a particularly funny line from Paul the alien, “You just kidnapped a CHRISTIAN in AMERICA that’s like the worst thing you can do here.”)

What’s sad is when the movie plays on subtlety it’s actually quite funny. Maybe it’s just that I’m a geek but the scenes where Paul is talking with Spielberg in a massive warehouse, or the fact that the country band in the bar is playing Mos Eisley’s cantina song were the funniest to me. (And yes I did note that I was the only one in the theatre laughing at the latter) Even the more obvious movie references (“Boring conversation”, “Aliens”) were in their own way smart.

Another knock on the subtlety part of this movie was the forced use of Seth Rogan as the voice of Paul. I saw an interview with Pegg and Frost where they admitted they had wanted an “old man’s voice” for Paul and the studio wanted Rogan. (In the words of Zoolander “He’s so hot right now”) It isn’t a stretch to imagine that the duo originally envisioned Bill Nighy’s voice as Paul (Since he had roles in both Shawn and Fuzz) , and I could see him pulling off a better Paul. Much of Paul’s crassness would have been blunted if the audience were led to believe that Paul was an old soul (supposedly he’s been on earth sixty plus years) that had lost inhibitions due to age rather than being, well, Seth Rogan.

Even more disappointing is the fact that there is a heart-felt and all too real story underneath Paul. One of the major points of the story is Frost’s character’s resentment of Pegg’s character’s enjoyment in their circumstances and possibly moving past their mutual best-friend relationship. This has touches of truth in the fact that Pegg has had considerably more success than Frost (Say Star Trek?) and appears to be “going places”. Pegg’s confession that “This was the most fun I’ve ever had…” and the ending “I’m proud of you” hug could have been much more poignant and meaningful if not lost under the morass of inappropriate language use.

On the whole Paul shows more of what Simon Pegg and Nick Frost think of Americans than what they think of sci-fi. We’re at times ignorant, crude, inappropriate, and awkward. In a word we’re not British. It’s sad that they can at once be in love with and knowledgeable about the science fiction that our culture produces and at the same time be so ignorant and unloving.

One of the things that Pilgrim reminded me, and made me appreciate about Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, is that Wright really has a talent for honestly presenting flawed characters. In all three movies none of the characters presented are perfect and their faults are obviously displayed for all to see. Even Hot Fuzz’s loving send up of buddy cop action movies is done with a wink knowing full well those movies weak points. With Scott Pilgrim however, Wright turns his gaze directly at the white hipster/loser geek subculture. Here again there is both a certain love/appreciation and at times a brutal honesty that upon reflection is actually surprising. It’s also that honesty that I think most watching Scott Pilgrim will misunderstand.

The thing that I found surprising about this movie and was subsequently surprised that I was surprised was the fact that for all of the twenty-something angst no one is a victim. Period. In fact Wright goes out of his way in one scene to show Scott’s “rich” upbringing. There isn’t one mention of parental abandonment or a “deprived” upbringing. Rather in contrast everyone is in the situation they find themselves in through their own choices. This is what makes Pilgrim a bit uncomfortable in our modern therapeutic mindset and it’s surprising because it shows that Wright refused to take the easy way out.

It would have been much easier for both the story and the actors if Ramona had simply been naïve and innocent, the victim of evil exes. It would have been easier to make Scott the hapless and put upon good guy who doesn’t deserve all this trouble. But in fact it’s just the opposite. Ramona is a selfish heartbreaker and self admitted bit of a bitch. Scott is also selfish, and pathetic, and uses his “patheticness” as cover for his selfishness. It’s this honesty that is easy to misread as you would think this is a love story. Rather, this is a story of self realization “love” has little to do with it. In fact the difficulty in this movie is that the characters almost run the risk of being too unlikable for you to care about any of them. But there is love behind Wright’s brutal honesty.

Part of what perhaps makes Scott Pilgrim special is that it was both written and directed by someone who obviously has walked in the hipster/loser scene and appreciates the funny/good while acknowledging the negative. There is no romanticism aka Kevin Smith, but on the other hand there isn’t a biting cynicism either. It’s more like someone is saying to the characters, “There’s more to you than this, you can be better than this, just be honest for crying out loud!” Admit you’re selfish, admit you’re selling out, admit you eat chicken parmigiana and aren’t better than anyone else, admit that what every single person who cares about you tells you about you is true. It’s interesting that there is little condemnation for being “yourself” as long as it’s acknowledged and dealt with. What is condemned is a “posing” that thinks a change of scenery, or the “right” person will change who you are.

But of course all this is packed into layer upon layer of cultural reference, sight gag, thumping bass. Like Wright’s previous two movies I’m sure I’ll get more upon subsequent viewings. More laughter and more thought. Which is why He’s three for three.