No joke. She actually did just say that.

Although her question was meant to be rhetorical, I decided to answer it anyways. “Well because in those other books people will tell you that they went to heaven, but in Alcorn’s book you will find out what the Bible actually says on the subject”.

“Oh“, she snarled, “there’s that.” Conversation ended.

Ya, there’s that. You know. This little thing we Protestants like to call sola scriptura. My concern – and desire – is not to pick on this one customer, but to observe a growing trend among conservative evangelicals. When books like 90 Minutes in Heaven and Heaven is For Real rise to the top of Bestseller charts in North America, and sustain their presence there, while those very same buyers avoid books like Alcorn’s Heaven or Wright’s Surprised by Hope, there’s a problem. A serious problem.

But seldom – if ever – have I noticed a Rose Publication pamphlet enter the foray of intra-Christian controversial subjects. So I came to a speeding halt today when I noticed a pamphlet on the top rack titled “Free Will vs. Predestination” and a picture of Calvin on one side (with the designation “Calvinism” under it) with a picture of Arminius on the other (and the designation of “Arminianism” under that one).

Normally I have found that Rose Publication offers fairly reliable historical overviews, but not so here. In fact, I’d suggest that how Rose presents the history of “Predestination” and “Free Will” is down right deceptive.

The middle of the pamphlet opens up to two comparisons of the history of each, “Predestination in History” and “Free Will in History”. This history is laid out like this:

Around 400 A.D. Augustine concluded that human nature was corrupt by the effects of sin. Pelagius responded to Augustine at about that same time but – the publication is sure to emphasize – the church “declared Pelagius’s teaching heretical”.

This is the presupposition the chart works out of. Trace Augustine’s line until you get to the great reformers. Trace Pelagius’ line until you get to Arminius. The implications are clear. The heresies of Pelagius live on through Arminius and all other Free Will advocates.

This delusive approach is reminiscent of the person who will try to prove that the KJV goes right back to Paul but that the NIV is corrupted by Alexandrian heretics. In other words, these are ridiculous distortions of history.

See, if the pamphlet really wanted to present an unbiased history of predestination (by which it means particular predestination which is one way to understand the biblical teaching, but not the only way) then why does it begin in 400 A.D.? The controversy between a view of particular predestination and free will can be found in the Church Fathers – all of whom held to free will. Some of them vigorously debated some leading Gnostic heretics who held to the view of particular predestination. But that doesn’t seem to be a part of the story Rose Publication is interested in telling.

I don’t intend to suggest that particular predestination is heresy, Gnosticism was condemned for other reasons. I’m simply pointing out that this pamphlet goes beyond bias and is actually Calvinistic propaganda.

As one blogger, for instance, insisted that we try and model church governance, not according to the biblical prescription, but after “the world of Alcoholics Anonymous — which I think provides one of the best models for anyone trying to understand what the church could and should be”, he said.

Why? He explains, because with AA “nobody can kick you out”.

Other blogs – if not the bloggers, certainly their readers – expressed similar sentiment. I think this goes back to the growing trend of resisting the very idea of an “in” and “out” when discussing the family of God.

I agree very much that we should resist the soapbox of thinking and declaring that we can know for sure who are in and who are out (though Jesus did say that outsiders will know who his disciples are by their love for each other, John 13:35).

But that doesn’t mean that there is not an “in” and an “out” of God’s family. Paul’s whole discussion of justification by faith is rooted in the very idea of an “in” and “out”; i.e. those who have faith in Christ are justified by Christ’s faithfulness are “in”. That’s what Galatians and Romans teach.

When we talk about “church” (or “Church”) we tend to think in terms of infrastructures like Protestant denominations, the Catholic Magisterium or the like. When the New Testament uses the word “church” (ekklesia), it means something slightly, but significantly, different. It is either referring to the general organic Body of Christ (i.e. all believers everywhere at all times regardless of what communion they fellowship with) or a local gathering of believers.

When Paul writes about putting a person who is engaged in unrelenting sin outside of the “church” (1 Cor 5), he means specifically outside of their fellowship. And two reasons are given for this:

1) So that the person may (i.e. hopefully) be saved (vs. 5).

2) So that the rest of the community does not water down their holy lives as well (vs. 6-8).

One element the church, I think, is neglecting today is an emphasis on holiness. This is probably a reaction to the subculture of the 90’s that insisted on “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Col 2:21) type legalism. In our desire to be accepting, loving and tolerating, we forget that God did not become man merely to make this world better, he came to make this world new. And, of course, God’s new is better, but better is not necessarily God’s new. We can create a better world where death and resurrection are not necessary. But Paul, in this very text, points specifically to “Christ, our Passover Lamb”.

Christ died and rose again in order to be the first fruits of the new creation that we too might participate in that new creation, even now (1 John 4:17). It is all about transformation (2 Cor 3:18). Transformation of person, character, and glory. It’s about reflecting God and being the Body of Christ.

The family of God is not some wishy-washy free for all. Rather it is expensive and radically sacrificial.

Dealing with unrepentant sin, removing it even, is sometimes necessary for the sake of the individual and – perhaps more importantly – for the Body of Christ as a whole. The family of God is not a place where the perfect can join. It is, however, the place where we are called to become perfect (Matt 5:48, 1 Peter 1:16).

Jana Riess tells us her Top 5 Reasons Book Authors Should Blog.

Kurt Willems shows us a classic hymn and suggests that it could be titled “Love Wins”. He also points out that Clark Pinnock wrote a book on inclusivism by the same title. The hymn is called “There’s A Wideness In God’s Mercy“.

Jefferson Bethke posted a Youtube rap video titled “Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus“. Donald Miller endorses the video. Kevin DeYoung rebukes it verse by verse. Jeff repented of his video. Catholic rapping home boys joined the discussion with holy beat of their own. The whole riffraff is summarized by Eryn Sun here.

Trevin Wax officially moved into the Gospel Coalition neighbourhood.

Do you have to read a book cover to cover if you plan to review it?

Rob Bell Dot Com? Well, in case you didn’t know it, Derek Ouellette Dot Com too. (I don’t know how new Bell’s dot com is, it might very well not be new.)

Biology Professor Justin Topp begins to review Peter Enns book, The Evolution of Adam.

Brain LePort posts videos of Evans and Erhmans debate.

The Rev. Roger Wolsey writes Why Mark Driscoll Needs An Elephant:

As I understand it, in India where rural people live and work with elephants, they’ve come to learn things about elephant behavior. Like humans, elephant calves stay close to their mothers side longer than most other animals. When young male elephants are finally sent forth on their own, they sometimes form wild gangs that terrorize villagers with their rampages.

The villagers have learned that introducing a fully grown bull elephant into the gang of hoodlums mellows them out almost instantly. They thrive when there’s a large male around who they all know could kick their butts (that’s the paradigm that Driscoll operates out of). It’s not really about the potential to kick-ass. It’s that they respect a fully grown mature male and know that they can learn much about how to socialize from being around him. They learn patience, self-control, and they blossom into maturity.

I would submit that

we need to introduce the Christian equivalent of some bull elephants into Driscoll’s village where he is on a rampage.

I’m willing to be part of such a team…though I’m fully aware that I’m still maturing myself, aside from being in ministry for 17 years and having served a wide range of churches. While not particularly big in stature, I’m disproportionately strong for my size and age. I’m currently a fit 43 and weigh in at 155 lbs and can bench press 230lbs (if you give me a couple of months to work back up to it — I’ve been doing a lot of yoga recently).

Is this the future of the library (Below)?

I think egalitarians often stretch this text to its breaking point when we reach for it as a sort of “trump” card in the debate regarding women in the ministry, particularly because “this text is not primarily about the ministry. The context is about being the ‘children of God.’” (Ibid.) Egalitarians tend to reach for this verse – our magna charta – more than any other passage. And every time I read one of us do that I roll my eyes and huff, “if we can’t do better than this, we might as well pack up our biblical arguments now.”

1. Not About The Ministry: The text is primarily answering the question of who are the people of God and what does that mean for how they socially interact with one another (i.e. eating together). Paul’s point is that there is one family, not two. “Distinctions of race, ethnicity, social status, and gender must not divide the Church!” (Ibid.) As Jews tended to say, in that context, if you are a gentile you cannot be a part of God’s family. Paul is saying, one’s participation in God’s family does not depend on race, ethnicity, social standing or gender. Of course that women are Christians too is a de facto, Paul’s point is simply that if one has faith in Christ, one is a Christian no matter what. That’s the main point.

2. Is About Equal Footing: The Bible has much to say on the subject of women in the ministry. For that reason alone it is dangerous to appeal to Galatians 3:28 as a trump card because it exposes too quickly our eagerness to defend our position regardless, really, of what the Bible has to say objectively on the matter. Armstrong quotes N.T. Wright here in observing that “the ground is level at the cross”. That’s the point of Galatians 3:28 (which ties in very closely with our first point).

So far, whether we like it or not, the complementarian position has the higher ground. In interpreting it as we just did (which is contextually the correct way to interpret it), they are paying the context its due respect (we are not doing that when we try to make it about “women in leadership”). The passage is talking about “who’s in and who’s out”. It is not talking about role’s in the ministry. But having said that, Armstrong points out that this passage does in fact have something to say on the subject that both sides of this discussion often miss. The passage, in connection with Paul’s meta-narrative theology, is deeply eschatological.

3. Is Eschatological: Armstrong points out that in this debate both sides tend to point back to the garden, which is fine, but he reminds us that the major theme running through the Bible, and in fact, through Paul’s letters, is the subject of renewal. He says, “this is a good place to insist that the order of creation has been renewed and is being renewed in Jesus Christ.” (Ibid.) That of course doesn’t solve the debate, rather it shifts it back to the garden and asks, what was the original state and goal pre-sin? Then it uses whatever conclusions that come out of that and projects it into the Age to Come, asking, how will that renewal look on the New Earth? Finally it turns to the present and asks, since we’re in the “Already but Not Yet” stage, how does this eschatological order play out practically among the people of God today?

Every time I read some egalitarian say ‘well of course women can be head pastors, just look at Galatians 3:28” I feel like tossing the book across the room. I feel the same, now, when complementarians think that Galatians 3:28 has nothing to add to the subject. I think if we are to appeal to Galatians 3:28 in this discussion, both sides need to come at it with the questions just raised.

In memory of my father – Kenneth Scott Hedrick – who died three years ago today. I love you. I miss you. Our family has never been the same.

After several months of these meetings, Andrew surprisingly received a “disciplinary contract” outlining his sins and responsibilities. I could see how this could be very confusing. He had spent months submitting to the leadership of the church, cooperating and confessing repeatedly. Is a ‘disciplinary contract’ really necessary (or even biblical)? I suppose when a church becomes an institution everything becomes red tape.

I wonder how many counselling sessions the man living in sexual immorality in the Corinthian church had to endure before he was considered restored (1 Cor 5)? The difference here (and this is a big difference) is that the man in sexual sin in Corinth was not interested in repentance, so Paul instructs the church to put him out. But Andrew was the one to bring up his sin and seek repentance. Don’t underestimate the significance of that fact.

When the man in the Corinthian church finally repented, lets face it, he probably poured his heart out before God, had a long conversation with his leaders who then forgave him and allowed him back into fellowship. We can’t be sure, but at the least I doubt he had a million meetings to endure and a disciplinary contract to sign. The church is more organic than that. It’s Christ’s body. The man repented and sought forgiveness. Let it be done. If he needs counselling that is a separate matter from “church discipline”. If he’s being counselled it’s because he needs help, but if he’s being disciplined it’s because he’s in rebellion and sin. Which of the two – given Andrew’s actions up to the point of the “disciplinary contract” (based on the information we have) – should he have undergone, counseling for help, or discipline for sin and rebellion?

Paul tells the Corinthian church after the man repented and sought forgiveness, “you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” (2 Cor 2:7). Let’s get one thing straight: the leaders of Mars Hill should have done this MONTHS ago, right after Andrew confessed his sin, repented and sought help. THAT is when forgiveness and affirming love should have taken place. The meetings should have been approached not as discipline, but as discipleship(!) and a ‘disciplinary contract’ should have never seen the light of day (Consider the dire parallel: if we still require discipline after we repent and seek forgiveness, should God still punish us by sending us to purgatory? Or have we been forgiven? And should not the church then do the same, remembering that God will only forgive us according to the measure we forgive others! Matt 6:12?).

At this point Andrew realizes he’s in the wrong place. He was correct to sense intuitively that the leaders had entered – intentionally or not – into an abusive posture towards him. This was no longer a God-honoring direction. What should he have done? Who could he have gone to? Should he have just laid down and allowed these charades to continue? When would it have stopped? He knew that he had to go. It was the only option that would prevent him from becoming the victim. There are other godly churches and other godly leaders who could help him.

So Andrew sent a reply removing himself from the situation and from Mars Hill. A leader sent him a reply to his reply urging him to reconsider and, in fact, warning him that leaving will result in “escalation”. That “escalation” was a published letter to the congregation announcing all of Andrew’s sins and instructing them on how to respond should Andrew seek to talk and hang out with any of them.

The way the church leaders handled the situation at Mars Hill is precisely backwards to Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians. Paul tells them to send out the unrepentant sinner and when he repents, to embrace him and forgive him and reaffirm their love for him. But Mars Hill excommunicated the repentant brother and rather than affirming him, they publically humiliated him.

The leaders seek Matthew 18 as grounds for their actions. There’s a problems with that. In Matthew Jesus is talking about someone who is unwilling to concede his sin and seek repentance whereas Andrew was a repentant believer who was seeking restoration. There was no need for “two or three witnesses” to go to Andrew because it was Andrew who sought to confess to two witnesses. Therefore the escalation of Matthew 18 does not apply to this situation.

Now, the thing is, while not minimizing Andrew’s sin, I’d like to point out that the leadership of Mars Hill has effectively lead their entire congregation into sin. We have been talking about Andrew’s sin, but what about the sins committed by the leaders? The sin of abuse of power? The sin of manipulation? The sin of twisting the Bible to keep a brother down? Who’s going to hold the leaders of Mars Hill responsible?

I understand the desire many of us have to hope and see the best in our spiritual leaders, but my rose coloured glasses were knocked off my face in 1997 – and a few times since. Abuses in church leadership happen as leaders develop a sense of entitlement. I know. I can count a half a dozen different and unrelated instances that I have witness first hand. The temptation for authoritative abuse is substantial and addictive. It spreads like cancer throughout an entire leadership team. It becomes like a drug you don’t even know your addicted too. We should not minimize this sin. We often look at pastors who have scandalously fallen into “moral sin” which often means sins having to do with sex or money. But abuse of God’s people and a misuse of God’s word is also a moral sin (James 3:1).

This is one of the problems with how we run the church today. Corporate Christianity, it comes in all shapes and sizes. And who’s going to hold the boys at the top responsible? Until now there has not been much by way of widespread accountability (since leaders of the same chicken coop tend to cluck together). But the blogosphere is changing that. For the better or worse, the broader Christian community has for the first time the ability to stand up – the multitudes who have been victimized by authoritative abuse by church leaders – and hold them accountable. Just read the hundreds of comments left under Turner’s post. Each one tells a story of abuse. And of course, I have my own story to tell.

I should point out that I serve on the board of my church and have loads of respect for my pastor. I have no axe to grind toward church leadership in general. But at some point we have to admit, in terms of our Christian culture, that we have a real problem and misunderstanding of what “authority” means in the body of Christ today.

[Addendum: I realized that Matthew's post only tells one side of the story. Fair enough. But if that story is only 50% true - I'm inclined to think it's more than that, but for sake of argument - that still leaves us with a church leadership that has abused it's power. Nobody is minimizing what Andrew did (and certainly not Andrew who willing confessed and underwent months of counselling), but there were plenty of serious sins committed by all parties involved. At least Andrew has shown an attitude toward repentance. It'll be interesting to see if Mars Hill will make any public statements on the matter from the pressure of the blogospher. Though experience in these situations tells me it is unlikely.]

Leave a comment!

I used to think that holiness was a private matter between me and God. Holiness, as I understood, was a list of do’s and don’ts’. It was purely about private actions that filtered down into moral upstanding. Eventually the list of do’s and don’t's went beyond the Bible’s own admonitions, the fruit of the spirit et cetera, and grew to include what clothes to wear, what movies to see, what music to listen to and what words to use. Eventually I’ll be hold that my tattoo has all but secured my journey to hell.

Now, mission:

I used to think that Christian mission began and ended with a zealous call to get people saved. Everything I did with non-believers was to that end. I was trained in Bible College to establish relationships with people and to give someone food for the sole purpose of getting them to trust you enough that they will hear your gospel presentation and get saved. And what happens if they’re not interested in getting saved? The relationship was a disingenuous pretence that you quickly abandon.

Holiness and Mission: Hand in Glove

My views have changed quite radically. I still believe in a need for personal moral character and I believe that a part of our mission is to preach a gospel message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. But that pictures (which used to be the complete picture) is dangerously shallow. In reflecting on holiness lately I find myself continually drawn into mission. At first I reacted against this, “that can’t be right, I’m trying to think about holiness, not mission”. But the more I thought about holiness, the more I thought about mission too.

Here’s why.

The biblical narrative begins by telling us that God created humans as ikons made to reflect God’s glory into the world. But we messed up. Big time. Ever since. Yet in the Old Testament we are told “be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2). Be like me, God says. Reflect me, my character and actions. Of course the law is there to show us the way, but even in the law we don’t just have commands about moral uprightness, but also of loving our neighbour and feeding the poor. Still, humans have never been able to look at some stone tablets and say, that’s a great example, I’ll do it. We need living examples. The problem was, there were none. Ever.

So God incarnates himself, Jesus Christ, and says here I am, let me show you how. Jesus instructs his disciples to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Later on, Jesus tells one of his disciples, “anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

So God says be like me and let me show you how, then he incarnates himself and does incredible things. He’s not just morally upright, but also socially active as if to say, a part of what it means to be holy is to be socially active. Why? Because holiness is a consequences of divine love. That is why the fruit of the Spirit begins: “Love…” and the great ode to love chapter (1 Cor 13) is a chapter on how to treat your neighbour. That is why when Jesus says, “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, he makes that statement on the heels of this one: “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44).

When holiness is thought of – intentionally or implicitly – as being in a category of its own, the biblical picture becomes distorted and legalism ensues. But when it is thought of in the proper context of love and divine likeness – God’s own character and actions – holiness and mission cannot be separated. In fact, to do so, would be unholy.

Steve Jobs

First, the biographer:

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. Sigh. What a great read. Not to make this about another blogger’s review, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Tim Challies says, after reminding us of Jobs powerful reality distortion field and asking the question if Isaacson successfully resisted it, that:

“I am not convinced that he did [resist]. It seems that over the course of the book, Isaacson’s writing changes. By the end he is not just describing products, but offering gushing editorials about them. Meanwhile, the negative side of Jobs is downplayed in favor of his innovation. I suppose we cannot know for sure, but it seemed to me like Isaacson may have been yet another person who fell under the mysterious sway of Steve Jobs.”

While the review on the whole is not terrible, that paragraph is hogwash. Isaacson’s editorial comments increase, especially as the book reaches the final few years, because that is when Isaacson himself became a part of the narrative. Yet even still I find that like a steady guide Isaacson accounts Jobs berating temperament as much near the end as near the beginning. He also talks about Jobs passion for esthetics and innovation and, yes, even fierce battles as much near the end as near the beginning.

In June 2011 while Jobs was in intense pain and energy deprived he called an old friend, someone back in the eighties who was charged with keeping Jobs tantrums at bay. He asked her, “Tell me, what was I like when I was young?” She replied, “You were very impetuous and very difficult” and added, “But your vision was compelling” (p.537). Isaacson’s biography bears this out, and it bears it out right to the end.

Now the biography:

Reading through Steve Jobs biography certain personalities often came to mind. Jobs reminded me of Alexander the Great. Leader of a small group of people bent on taking on the mighty global Persians of IBM and Microsoft. Often the first over the wall, his passion and personal discipline created a reality distortion field in which his peers were engulfed so that suddenly the impossible would become possible.

Also of Herod the Great, determined not just to build an empire, but also to build monuments that would survive him by generations. He did this with his retail stores, but more monumental are the blueprints Jobs left behind of Apple’s future headquarters, a spaceship-esque looking campus that may architecturally rival any building in the world (See an artistic rendering here).

And of Darth Vader for whom failure was not an option. One top engineer said that a mouse that goes in circular directions (rather than just up-down side-to-side) could not be built; that the technology had not yet been invented. Jobs fired him the next day and promoted his lieutenant whose first words out of his mouth were, “I can build that mouse”.  Or the time when MobileMe flopped and Jobs lined up the entire team of MobileMe creators and engineers on a stage and berated them for “screwing up” so badly. He then publically fired the head of the department on the spot in front of them all and promoted the next guy and charged him with the responsibility to create “the Cloud”.

But also like Vader, Jobs had huge abandonment father-son issues. Even though he eventually discovered who his real father was, he refused see him. And he died having never met him. Jobs would often look to other men who entered his life as “being like a father to me”, and when they would inevitably make a businesswise decision that did not have Jobs best interest in mind, he would cry “so-and-so was like a father to me, and then he betrayed me”. The irony is that Jobs would abandon his first child for the first ten years of her life, and they never did manager to cultivate a strong relationship. Later on when he married and had three beautiful children he tended to favor his son, Reed.

Steve Jobs also had a serious messianic complex, and everyone knew it. When he showed up at a staff party in the early eighties dressed as Jesus, there were no shortages of eye rolling going on. And as he was showing Isaacson the blueprints for Apple’s future headquarters he pointed out how the future complex could surround St. Peter’s Square in Rome. Jobs mission from start to finish was to “change the world”. Unfortunately that mission Jobs deemed more important than individuals. And so Jobs was willing to do whatever it took to accomplish it. And he did.

Steve Jobs was one of the most passionate and disciplined person I have probably ever read about. Whatever you say about the man, those two facts alone are intensely admirable. In fact I think that’s what his reality distortion field was made of, passion and discipline. If something was impossible but Jobs believed it possible against all odds and data, somehow the impossible would become possible. To put this into perspective for my readers, I believe that if Jobs became a Christian and devoted his passion and discipline to the faith his legacy would rival Luther or Wesley. I’m convinced of that.

An early conviction of Jobs that remained to the end was an undying commitment to a closed, rather than an open, system. Jobs believed that everything that goes into a computer should be intimately connected. The hardware, software, advertising, sales, distribution, the whole package should be one. Some people buck against this. They want an open system because open systems offer more choices. You can choose the brand of computer you want (Compaq, IBM, Toshiba et cetera) and choose the software you want or use existing software to hack your own projects. The problem is that because these parts (the software and hardware) are not made just for each other and because the more hands that get in there the more fumbled they become, they, to use Jobs expression, “are shit”. They never worked fluidly. Jobs’ closed system, though a result of his incisively controlling nature but also out of his conviction that most people are too busy “doing whatever they do best, and they want us to do what we do best”, has produced better and more reliable products that allow users to develop their own creativity. When in the eighties and nineties this philosophy left Apply eating Microsoft’s dust, come the digital age this old philosophy set Apply up in a way the competition could not have predicted and were not prepared for: the ability to sync flawlessly and fluidly along with an incredible user interface. Of course in order for it to work you need to own all Apple products. But the result, for this blogger anyways, has been nothing short of liberating.

Jobs was an extreme character. He took some flack for certain moral stances (like refusing to allow developers to create porn apps for Apple products despite a great deal of pressure) and he was always faithful to his wife. He could be brutally honest most of the time, but often he would lie for no reason at all. He had a binary view of the world. Everybody fit into one of two categories. Either you were a “hero” or a “shithead”. There was no in between. Someone could travel from hero to shithead or shithead to hero, sometimes within a single day.

“The same was true of products, ideas, even food: Something was either ‘the best thing ever,’ or it was shitty, brain-dead, inedible.” (p.561)

Still, Jobs drive, his passion and deep convictions are compelling. He set out to change the world. Look around. Watch T.V. Surf the web. I think Jobs influence will be felt for a long, long time. Not just in products that he helped create before he died, but in the brain-children of the products on Apple’s horizon.

An Aside Word

As an aside, Reed will be an interesting character to watch. According to Isaacson, Reed had all of Jobs strengths – his ability to negotiate, his drive and passion, love to combine art with technology – with none of Jobs weaknesses. Reed has his mothers temperament. Calm, steady, compassionate.

I can relate with Jobs father-son issues. I understand the deep rooted desire to seek out potential father-like figures, to cling to them and look to them as such, and to feel the intense let-down when they don’t live up to the role I assign to them. I’ve been doing this my whole life, and I still do it.

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. What a great read.

I love technology. Especially the kind that works really well, allows me to be creative and doesn’t crash every five minutes. When I converted to Apple a few months back I found the perfect fit. I purchased my first Mac in October 2011, will be getting an iPhone as soon as my contract with my sucky Palm Pre is up and I search the internet daily for the latest “unconfirmed” rumour about the forthcoming iPad 3 (or 2s or whatever).

Here’s a few cool things from Apple that either just came out or will be coming out soon.

1. iBooks II: Apply is attempting to enter the text book industry (geared mostly to highschoolers at this point) by offering digital text books on the iPad. Will it fly? I have some thoughts on that which I’ll share in an upcoming post.

2. iPad 3: There are a million rumours right now about the next generation of the iPad, including when it will be released (on Steve Jobs birthday, Feb 24th, or sometime in March). It is expected to be faster, have better camera’s and a better screen (perhaps a retina screen). But the latest rumour is that it will have Siri.

3. iPad 2: Surprise, surprise. While typically Apple retires products as soon as the next generation hits the market, there are confirmed reports that Apple plans to leave the iPad 2 around for awhile and lower the price to compete with other less expensive tablets. Some estimates have the iPad 2 starting between $299 and $399. Cool.

4. iPhone 5: I haven’t been too interested in following the developments of the iPhone 5 but the big thing seems to be that it will have G4 LTE capabilities and will be coming out late in 2012.

5. Apple Flatscreen TV w/Siri: Imagine a flatscreen TV that is voice activated, has a built in computer, syncs with all of your household electronics (if you’re an Apple user of course) and does not require a remote control to operate it. Well we won’t have to imagine for long since reports have it that a prototype has already been built. Some reports say that it may hit the market as early as this time next year.