Archives For Media

Mark D UK Interview

You know, I probably would’ve been better off going to church this morning, rather than listening to the UK interview that Justin Brierley conducted with Mark Driscoll late last year. An interview that created an interweb brouhaha this past week and prompted my previous post.

So at 9:30 this morning, with the 1st cup of coffee brewed in my Aerobie Aeropress, I sat down with the interview. Three cups of coffee and two hours later, I began fixing the notes below. (NB. The first 5 minutes of the podcast linked to are Justin talking about said brouhaha.)

The reason I went through this interview is not because I have any particular bone to pick with Mark Driscoll. I don’t know Mark personally, but I do recognize the impact he is having on a particular population of the church and some of that impact is cause for concern. (I should note that I am the father of a 25 year old son, a 23 year old son and a daughter who turns 21 on Tuesday— all three of whom are practicing Christians.)

As well, Mark plays fast and loose with the truth in his blog response to the brouhaha created by excerpts from his interview. Those excerpts first reported by Christian Today (and their contextual veracity supported by Christianity magazine who originally requested the interview) which, after listening to the interview, were reported accurately and without prejudice.

Mark writes,

The interview in question had nearly nothing to do with the book or its subject matter, which in my understanding was supposed to be the point of the interview. My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully. The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I have ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic. It felt like a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me. 

Justin’s interview with Mark and Grace Driscoll begins with him explaining what Christianity magazine wants to do with the interview. This includes not just talking about the book Real Marriage, but also talking about Mars Hill, “using it for a profile interview for yourself, Mark€.” Driscoll responds, “Yeah that’s great,€” happy to do so.”€

And in terms of Grace, who Mark claims was disrespected, Justin says, “and Grace, just feel free to put your voice forward whenever you like in the course of the recording.” As Grace has the same communications degree as Mark, one would think Justin’s statement would be license for full participation on her part.

In the 1st part of the interview, Mark responds to a question about complementarianism with what might generally be called “a soft-complementarianism” response. But what I find interesting in this is that he doesn’t talk about the need for young men and young women to be properly discipled — they simply need to be preached at.

I recognize that this may be projection, based on my own experience with leaders like Mark, but he seems to suggest that if guys would just listen to his preaching and do what he tells them to do then things would be right with the church.

Mark responds to the question on sexual practices, when he is asked whether he’s in the position to make the statements he makes, by saying,

“€œI’m a Bible teacher, and if anyone wants to disagree with me, they can argue biblically and I’ll be glad to do so.”

At this point I would strongly state that if anyone’s being adversarial and disrespectful in this interview, it would be Mark. He accuses the interviewer of being adolescent and immature,

€œ”You’re not being fair, you’re being sort of scandalous and being immature about the issues. You’re going for one or 2 pages in the book where we answer very common questions that Christians have and you’re trying to put a little shock around for the radio. And, as a pastor, I’m trying to answer the questions people have.”

I hear Mark responding like a bully, in rather condescending tone. He insults the interviewer rather than accepting the legitimacy of the question. Who exactly is disrespectful here? (This happens at approximately the 17:20 min. mark of the podcast.)

Mark suggests later in the interview that most Christians don’t think biblically — they think emotionally or culturally. <Snark on> But, of course, Mark, with the correct exegesis of the Scriptures, does think biblically. So really you shouldn’t question what he has to say if you claim to be Christian. It’s not that Mark believes the Scriptures are inerrant, he believes his interpretation is inerrant. In my not humble opinion, of course. <Snark off>

As the interview continues, I note that Mark tends to go on at length, rarely allowing the interviewer to get a word in edgewise.

In response to a question about Ted Haggard and this story, Mark claims in what can only be heard as rather bald-faced prevarication, that he never said anything about the Haggard situation,

“€œI didn’t say anything about the Haggards, and I regret what happened in their marriage and I grieve for that woman.” (At the 20:30 mark of the podcast).

By this point in the podcast, Mark has completely dominated the conversation. Justin finally directly asks Grace to respond at the 23 min. point. If anyone has disrespected Grace in this, it was Mark. He could have easily at any point in the first 18 min. of the interview said quite simply, ‘€œlet me get Grace to respond to that.’ (Note again that the actual raw interview begins at the 5 min. point of this podcast.)

It’s at the 25 min. point of the podcast where Justin asks the question that triggers Marks response of ‘guys in dresses preaching to grannies’, etc.

A particular bizarre point from Mark in this section is the suggestion that most men either don’t have or haven’t had “a father. Really?!

This after Mark has pointed out that UFC is something that attracts men — not guys in dresses preaching to grannies. When Justin suggests that ‘isn’t this simply appealing to culture’, Mark says that he takes on the role of “father or “drill sergeant“. And this is done from the platform as he says, “I speak for an hour+”.

This, to me, is more of the rather bizarre and simply destructive idea that discipleship takes place from the pulpit. Let me be blunt. It doesn’t. Discipleship is one-on-one or at the very least one with a few. Not one standing before 16,000 live and via satellite.

Let me take a moment to confront this as Mark is not the 1st person from whom I’ve heard this kind of nonsense. At a Canadian church where I was once a senior staff person, the person who was in charge of an exploding youth ministry told me how he was informed by the senior pastor that discipleship programs were unnecessary for new believers. To grow they only needed to come hear him speak on Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings. The fallacy of pulpit as discipler. (I deal with this issue at length in a blog post called Sermons Don’t Make Disciples)

Further along in the podcast, Mark admits that perhaps he goes too far, but in his words most leaders are “timid and fearful”. Mark sets himself up as the antidote to what ails the church. I find this simply sad.

Mark states categorically that “what you are doing is not working” after saying that “you don’t need to do what I’m doing.” And Mark’s prescription for ‘what’s not working’ is the need to have a young, celebrity-preacher preaching in the UK. Someone like Mark himself, no doubt.

There’s little doubt in the interview that Justin is asking questions that deal with Mark’s history. He’s doing it lightly and with a smile and it almost comes across as playful bantering. This is nothing like what Mark claims was adversarial and it is typical for a journalist, Christian or otherwise. (I also have a degree in Radio and Television Arts from “one of the top” schools in the world or is that, universe.)

And in light of Mark’s whinging blog post about this interview, might I rudely suggest that if anyone needs to ‘man up’ its Driscoll.

Justin brings up Mark’s comments about not being willing to worship “a €limp-wristed Jesus“. Mark responds by saying that the whole reason he is on Justin’s show is because he says “€œthings that are interesting.” Is it too much for me to suggest that Mark reveals his heart here. He says ‘interesting things’ for their notoriety or more accurately his notoriety.

Is this the heart of the celebrity-driven pastor or more accurately again, a celebrity-driven church leader because where exactly is he acting as a shepherd? (This at the approximately 30 min. point.) As Justin so succinctly puts it, “€œis there not a danger of you becoming the sort of Shock Jock of the Pulpit.”

When Justin confronts Mark about the fact that Jesus did not put up a fight at the Cross and in fact he was beaten up, Mark deflects the question by talking about how Jesus will return in the 2nd Coming — looking to the apocalyptic visions of John in the Book of Revelations.

Does Mark struggle with Jesus, the Lamb of God? What does this say about Mark’s own understanding of what a man is? Incredibly Mark translates Jesus returning as “€œnot to take a beating, but to give a beating.” Must be from the UFC translation.

It’s at times like this that I almost agree with Martin Luther and question whether John’s apocalyptic vision should even be in the Scriptures, when it is abused in this manner.

In one of those peculiar, particular Markisms that leaves one scratching one’s head, Mark compares himself to Hudson Taylor, the great China missionary of the 19th and early 20th century. Although no doubt he’ll deny that’s what he meant. Perhaps English isn’t my 1st language.

At about the 39 min. of the podcast, after being confronted with quotes from John MacArthur, Mark says that he’s always willing to publicly repent, to be corrected, and it’s important to model humility. Oddly this doesn’t go far in explaining his blog response to this actual interview. Humility? Not so much.

Mark in his blog post says that, based on this interview, he and Grace now have new requirements for people who are interviewing them. He doesn’t want to go through this again. 

With the release of our book, Real Marriage, we have now done literally dozens of interviews with Christians and non-Christians. But the one that culminated in the forthcoming article was, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective. As a result, we”€™ve since changed how we receive, process, and moderate media interviews.

This seems to suggest Mark can’t handle the heat but he’s certainly willing to bring it — as long as he’s in control.

Justin does try a bit of a ‘gotcha moment’ when he asks Mark about a husband who has a wife who is a church leader. He asks Mark about ‘issues of authority’ in their relationship. Mark gives a typical Markian response about confused headship and church discipline problems — with Justin only then revealing that Justin’s wife is a church leader.

Mark’s immediate response is to ask about the size and the growth in Justin wife’s church and how many young man they have. Further asking what “kind” of young men they have — suggesting this kind of church would only have effeminate men with a female leader.

At the 51 min. Mark states, “You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious.” Mark claims that the church Justin’s wife leads is small because it’s led by a woman and Mars Hill is big because it’s led by a man. It’s amazing how important penises are for church growth. (And here I thought Calvinists believed that it was exclusively the Holy Spirit who awakened people to Christ – only a select few, of course.)

Hellish Portion of Interview

To say I’m stunned probably wouldn’t be accurate but €”at a certain point one becomes innurred to the bizarre way that Mark’s brain seems to work. As the interview begins to wind down around the 53 min. point, they are continuing their discussion of women in leadership, with Mark now interviewing Justin. Mark suddenly asks Justin where he stands on Eternal Conscious Torment and Justin’s understanding of Hell. Justin, taken aback by the comment, asks what this has to do with the discussion of women in leadership. He sees no connection. Mark strongly suggests ‘of course there’s a connection’. Because, ‘moms are nurturing and dads are strong and disciplining’. 

Thus, if you see God calling a woman to be a leader then you have a more feminine view of God’s nature and therefore you don’t believe in hell. Pretzel Logic, n’est-ce pas? Good grief.

Mark goes on to berate Justin on Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Even when Justin is willing to say he believes in it — but that there are other orthodox ways of viewing the Cross. Mark insists Justin must commit solely to P.S.A. Driscoll is simply obnoxious on this point. Mark brags on his book that he has written on this topic. One might simply wish that rather than expound on his understanding of this particular theological topic he might read a lot more N.T. Wright — or if he finds N.T. confusing he may want to read some Tom Wright, instead.

At the 54.5 min. point in the podcast, the interchange goes like this, Mark: “But do you believe it” — “it” being penal substitutionary atonement. €”Justin responds, “Yes I do”€. Mark says, “You sound like a coward when you say it.” Once again one wants to ask the question ‘Who’s being adversarial?’

And in the closing comments, Mark, who claims in his whinging blog post that it was an “adversarial and antagonistic” experience, says, “It was fun for me… I hope you recover.”

Justin laughs in response. Mark appears to be laughing as well, and then Justin apologizes to Grace by saying that he’s sorry they didn’t bring her in more. She says, “That’s all right.”

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE: But do read this post on Leadership Immunity from Lance Ford – which he published earlier in the New Year – it’s prescient. 

I shot this video almost three years ago @ Wycliffe College, when Dr. Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute of Science and Religion was in town. My primary reason for producing it at the time was that Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk was engaging in conversation about this topic. Michael shared the video then — I don’t believe I have ever put it up here. (Note that there are many good comments on Michael’s post.) It’s almost 48 minutes long, but well worth your time — in my never humble but always accurate opinion, of course. 🙂

In light of the present discussion on this topic and those who want to make YEC a first order issue, I thought it might be helpful to point to it again. (And when I find the original master on one of my many drives, I’ll update the file to HD.)

Looking for Sanctuary

kinnon —  July 30, 2011 — 6 Comments

Beginning earlier in the year, Imbi and I began to produce a video for Sanctuary in downtown Toronto and one for Parkdale Neighbourhood Church. (There are two versions of each – one about 5 minutes and one around 9.)

Imbi and I both fell in love with the people in both communities and I thought you might enjoy watching these videos. (And I realize that even a five minute video is long today. We have the attention span of gnats. At least I do.)

In both cases, staff, volunteers and other community members realize that they are all in this together. These aren’t the unbroken serving the broken – but a realization that we are all broken and in need of Jesus.

And if you need examples of missional, understanding Sanctuary & PNC might be helpful.



And if you’ve made it this far and want to see the longer versions, as well as more of Imbi’s and my work related to the church, please visit here. There’s also a Missional Videos widget in the sidebar.

Afraid of Reporting the News

kinnon —  October 6, 2010 — 3 Comments

I confess that I was troubled by the coverage given to the small town “pastor” who thought burning the religious book of another religion was the “Christian” thing to do. When the Vatican, Canterbury and the White House all weighed in on his intended actions, it simply became surreal.

And the story, created by the media and fanned into fiery frenzy by those who despise anything that appears to be “fundamentalist” Christianity actually did cause loss of life – even though, once he used way more than his allotted 15 minutes of fame, the “pastor” de-ignited his intentions.

Newsweek, hardly a trusted source of information for me, made this comment,

…the news media may have to examine their role in this episode. News organizations may well need to ask what public good was served by giving minute-by-minute updates of the antics of a little-known preacher. Jones’s decision to burn holy books near his sparsely attended church became global news because, well, it was disseminated globally. By making it big news, the media had a hand in prompting the subsequent violence.

It was a story that was only worthy of coverage on the back pages of that “pastor’s” local, small city newspaper.

But what about the Molly Norris story?

“The what?,” you ask.

The Molly Norris story.

Norris was (and “was” is the operative word) the Seattle cartoonist, who in a moment of First Amendment exhilaration (and prompted by the South Park censored episode), thought it would be appropriate to create an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”.

I was peripherally aware of the story but it came into focus with this Mollie Z. post @ Get Religion, posted in mid-September. She comments,

So Norris shows some solidarity with these victimized cartoonists. Outrage ensued — protests, riots, you name it. She quickly backtracked and explained she didn’t mean to offend. Too late, Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared, putting her on an execution hitlist.

I’ve watched as there has only been a light sprinkling of coverage of this story in the past three weeks.

When I think about the millions of pixels spilled on the Florida “pastor” story, I ask where the anger or simple concern is for Molly Norris. Proclaiming the fatwa, al-Awlaki says, “her proper abode is Hellfire.” He wants and expects her to be hunted down and executed.

Is this not a significant story?

She’s lost her livelihood and her identity – forced into hiding at her own expense – because she believed her First Amendment rights protected her as she dared challenge religious censorship – well, actually she backed down after suggesting the challenge. Yet, she will spend the rest of her days looking over her shoulder wondering whether she will see death stalking her.

But where is the media. Where are the bloggers and twitterers standing in solidarity with Molly – whether you agree or disagree with her once suggested day?

Where are the spiritual leaders and politicians stating that this response to Norris is outrageous?

They are all, predominantly, silent.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

UPDATE: (Before posting) This just popped up in Google Reader, Street Preaching is so Uncouth. Another Molly Z. post from Get Religion.

It is fascinating to me how much coverage the media devoted to the non-burn of the Koran in Florida compared to the actual “going ghost” of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris or the actual arrest of four street evangelists in Dearborn. I would just love for someone who was involved in the coverage of the Koran burn threat to explain why they wrote eleventy billion stories on the Florida pastor and none on these other situations.

Fascinating or simply sad?

Canadian Self-Identity

kinnon —  October 26, 2009 — 4 Comments

Here's a clip that deals profoundly with the self-identity of Canadians, We Are the Beaver. Please. Try not to laugh. It hurts our little beaver hearts.

If video does not show up in feed, click here.

A Little History As to Why I Posted This:
Sometime in what now seems our distant past, Imbi and I owned a post-production company in Toronto (editing, special effects and audio post-production for television). It had a very '80's name (appropriate as we started the company in 1984), Scene by Scene®. (Link is to our website on Jan 06, 2000 via the Wayback Machine – which runs very slowly.)

A couple of days ago, in a moment of pathetic vanity when I should have been writing, I googled myself and discovered I had a credit @ IMDB…as an editor. Of all the work I've done as a director and editor, it's rather amusing that it would be this project I'd be noted for this. Don't get me wrong, I was honoured to work on Three Worms and An Orchestra with my friends @ JST Productions. After working with so many snakes in the biz, it was nice to work on a project that focused on worms – arrogant or otherwise.

For those interested in tech, I think it was the last project I ever did where we had multiple playback VTRs (Betacam and D-Beta) recording to a Digital Betacam Master deck – switching the program with a "live" feel – actually the antithesis of film-editing, for which I'm credited @ IMDB.


Imbi and I met Jeff Johnson on a Kindlings Hearth retreat earlier this year. Jeff's a composer, keyboardist, writer, singer and worshipper. (He's also funny and extremely energetic – but I won't hold that against him. The cropped image to the right was captured by Imbi.)

Jeff was kind enough to send us a copy of his new CD with Phil Keaggy, FRIO suite – which we received yesterday. The recording was inspired by their "experience at Laity Lodge on the Frio River in Texas." The music was produced as a collaboration with visual artist, Kathy Hastings. (We met Kathy this summer at The Kindlings Fest on Orcas Island. She's just as much fun and artistically gifted as her good friend, Jeff.)

I'm amused that iTunes classifies this music as New Age – a category that it may fit stylistically, if not spiritually. These two committed Christians have produced an artistic work that is layered, intriguing, engaging and very pleasing. Keaggy's guitar playing, as to be expected, is as good as ever. Jeff builds gorgeous and delightful sonic environments that allow Keaggy's guitar to soar. I recommend the album highly. (I'm bound to drive my family nuts with how often it gets played. A good thing I'm up north and they are in the city – though I'm pretty sure the muso Kinnon kids will love it too.)

Available from iTunes and Jeff's label website, Ark Music. (Check out Jeff's other albums on iTunes and at Ark – he's a gifted guy.)

Back to the Internet’s Eden

kinnon —  August 16, 2009 — 2 Comments

The Net is Eden. Blogging is native there. Microblogging is native there. Non-substitutable walled corporate gardens are not. ” – Doc Searls (in the comments on Dave Winer’s Post)

How many of us noted that Friend Feed was purchased by Facebook recently? How many of us even care? Yet we, the users, are the ones who gave FF our musings and conversations – we are the ones who gave it, its ultimate value. (Those of us who used it, of course.)

I’ve written over two thousand posts here at this humble node on the pushed pixel universe. Some of them have lasting value – at least to me. Though sits on the TypePad platform, the posts are mine – as Doc Searls notes in his post on social media, Geology vs Weather,

…blogging is an independent category. You can move your blog from one platform to another, archives intact. Not easy, but it can be done. More importantly, your blog is yours.

I Tweet Therefore I Am

My rule of thumb for Twitter is that I only follow people who tweet things of interest. (Make yourself useful, and I may follow you.) I’m interested in ideas, arguments, things noteworthy. I don’t care what you had for lunch – but I might like to know about a great restaurant. You get the drift.


The trouble with Twitter is that it is ultimately fleeting – which may not be a bad thing but, if you Tweet things you hope to be able to find later, you may be out of luck. Doc uses the analogy of geology vs weather – in terms of blogging versus other social media like Twitter, Facebook, Tweetstalk and MySpace – the companies in the Venn Diagram that Doc refers to in the folowing quote,

…there is a difference between the social media in the Venn diagram and blogging, and that difference is akin to that between weather and geology. The former have an evanescent quality. I’m still haunted by hearing that users get a maximum number Twitter postings (tweets) before the old ones scroll off. If true, it means Twitter is a whiteboard, made to be erased after awhile.

Building a Mystery

The interwebs as we know them are barely 15 years old. They have become a vast library of the collective intelligence of us all, as any one of us adds content to them. (And yes, some folk who add content do reduce the collective IQ.) The problem occurs when content is added to corporate entities that can disappear in a heartbeat – along with your thoughts, art, ideas, etc. – the library is diminished – sometimes significantly. Dave Winer says,

…it’s time to use the web again to store our ideas, and instead of relying on Silicon Valley companies to link our stuff together, let’s just use the Internet. That’s what it was designed for.

Smoke Gathering

The mistake has been to refer to Twitter as micro-blogging when it is more like text messaging, with only a slightly longer half-life. And it’s important to realize that data on places like Facebook, Flickr, MySpace et al exist at the whims of these corporate entities. (You may want to read their Terms of Service again.) Whereas the thoughts, ideas, arguments, memories that exist as data on your blog are your own – to do with as you please.

Back to the Garden

So let me repeat web pioneer Dave Winer’s sentiments in his blog post, Scoble, your blog still loves you.

Our blogs are still there, as is the web and the Internet. They never went away just because we foolishly flirted with something fast and easy and seductive. Our blogs never went away, they’re still ready to share our ideas and connect us with others.  We’ll go back to basics now, take what we learned from this round of innovation, and build it for real this time.

And let me give the last word to another of the true Internet heroes, the good Doc Searls,

…blogging is geology. A blog’s posts may be current and timely, and constitute one person’s contribution to conversation around a subject or two, but each post is built to last. It has a “permalink”. Over time posts accumulate like soil deposits. You can dig down through layers of time and find them. What do tweets have? Temp-o-links?

Should I tweet this post?

UPDATE: You should read Jonathan Brink’s post on Social Media. (But do note he blogged it – and also note the corporate social media entities featured in the video.) This is a great line from Jonathan,

We’re so disconnected in our normal lives that social media is giving us a perspective and experience of something our traditional tools for connection have failed to deliver.

Tom Wright on Blogging

kinnon —  July 20, 2009 — 4 Comments

This is an outtake from Imbi’s interview with the Bishop of Durham, NT Wright that I shot in 2007. Portions of this interview appear in Imbi’s documentary, Mind the Gap, a look at church leadership in the 21st Century. The documentary will be available in the Fall.

I thought this clip was particularly appropriate in light of Michael Spencer’s recent post, Blogosphere Spirituality: An Assessment.

NT Wright on Blogging/Social Media from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Intellectual Property/Copyright: This video may be embedded on blog posts where this particular topic is being discussed. Permission is NOT given to re-edit this or use it in any other context other than as a standalone video with the MKPL bug, opening and closing.

There was a time I blogged a minimum of once a day. I miss that time.

I’ve got lots on my mind that I’d like to blog about. Things like Katherine Schori (TEC’s Presiding Litigator) and her new definition of the word heresy. (Apparently evangelicals are heretics, in case you were wondering. At least as far as THE Episcopal Church is concerned.) Katherine might want to spend a moment or two in the New Testament. She’d be shocked at what she might learn. Her theological degree is from where, again? UPDATE: Fuller’s Rich Mouw responds to Schori… in a more gracious manner, of course.

And can someone help me understand all these posts from Brian McLaren where he declares certain people ‘getting it right.‘ (Of late, I would think Brian would want people to get things “left” – but perhaps that’s just me.) He’s got the Pope, Tony Blair, the G8 (not the one from Pontiac, unfortunately) Frances Collins, Derek Webb, Jim Wallis and Jon Stewart all ‘getting it right.’

Did I miss the memo where Brian became the arbiter of who does and doesn’t get things right? Do these people get an award when Brian says they “get it right”? Like the Templeton Prize or something. Is there money involved? I’m just wondering. Maybe I could get something right for a change. (Or something left as everything changes.) Brian’s going to be speaking at TEC’s General Convention where Schori declared evangelicals heretics. I wonder what he’ll say. Especially as Tom Wright says TEC is “leaving the family” of the Anglican Communion. [NTW quote via iMonk & Scot McKnight]

I’m almost finished reading Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s newest book, Why We Love the Church – which was sent to me by their publisher after I agreed to review it. I’ll have a fair amount to say about it in my review. And I’ll be quoting Umair Haque, John Medina and Clay Shirky in my comments. And referring to the People Formerly Known as meme from 2007. Stay tuned for that later this week. (I hope.)

I’ve been around a body of water known as Lake Simcoe most of the time since the end of June. I can’t remember a day when the wind hasn’t been blowing and the lake hasn’t had white caps. What’s up with that!? I understand why the MSM and certain Gore-following scientists changed their tune from Global Warming to Climate Change. It’s been years since a July in Ontario has been this cool. (Trust me, I’m not missing the humidity.)

There are so many other notes in my Blog This file, but I’ve got to run. I’ll be back later in the week.

Thanks to the Missional Tribe, Andrew’s production gear has begun the trek to reach him in points beyond. Thanks to all who contributed to making this happen. Soon we should see the Jones Family missional travelogue appearing on Vimeo and YouTube. Stay tuned.