I packed up my laptop, headed to the business office at my apartment complex, and made a plan to get some stuff done on my day off.

But my plans were interrupted when I met Alberto (not his real name.)

He speaks no English, so I thanked Jesus for the dozen-or-so years of Spanish class (now a dozen-or-so years ago) and asked him where he was from.

Venezuela. He is in the states seeking political asylum.

Translation: he had to leave his home, and go to a place where he doesn’t even speak the language, to prevent Hugo Chavez from killing him.

I watched as he Skyped his family through tears, asking them about the violence, and if they were OK.

He ended the call, thanked me for letting him be so loud, and said grinning (pointing at the laptop) “Isn’t this marvelous?”

Yes sir. It is indeed pretty marvelous.

Please pray for my new 60-year-old friend, that he would be granted asylum, and that he and his family would be safe from a ruthless dictator.

It makes all my “productivity” seem pretty frivolous.

How does one go from a 5-times a week blogger for over three years to being the guy with the blog not updated in weeks? Simple:

Turn his world upside down.

Not that kind of upside down. That actually looks pretty pleasant. Creative Commons image courtesy of notsogoodphotography.

Now my job is to “connect people to their world” by selling mobile phones, internet, and TV solutions. I am thoroughly a fish in water surrounded by smart phones and the latest technology. And I am finding out that I REALLY enjoy customer service and sales. It’s fun to see every customer as a puzzle. They need to experience something memorable at the AT&T store for me to feel like I’ve done my job.

Sure, they primarily need a cell phone, or UVerse set up at their house, or a way to get internet access at work. But I want them to receive not only that but to enjoy it. If you aren’t smiling when you walk in, I want you to be smiling when you walk out. My favorite transactions are ones where I clearly make money and provide for my family, but I also meet a need for the customer. It’s a win-win.

So I love my new job. But it’s not really conducive to producing experiences from which I can generate memorable content for my blog centered around missions and life. Here’s the three main reasons:

1. I can’t blog about outreach in progress. “Hey pray for my coworker Billy, I’m pretty sure he wants to accept Christ.” It’s insensitive to Billy and counterproductive.
2. I can’t vent about frustrations with my job or the structure of the company. It is neither wise nor helpful to digitally bite the hand that feeds you. Besides, I am overall very satisfied with my job. And so I can’t blog about pay structure or the intricacies of working in a hybrid corporate/retail environment (I signed away that ability when I accepted the job)
3. I’m learning discretion and patience. This new season of life has been educational in so many ways. I’m very thankful for it. It’s just meant I either become the guy who just blogs about his kids (and nobody likes that guy) or I spend some time away, storing up good content for later.

We announced yesterday that we are leaving staff.  The website will start looking a bit different over the next few days, as I make it more current-chapter-of-life friendly.

We are so excited for the clarity God has given us for this transition, and I want to take a minute to clarify something for anyone out there who might be reading this and thinking some variant of the following, which I recieved in an email from somebody I’d been trying to meet with for support:

I’m going to go ahead and assume that my poor communication and slowness in getting back to you this week was not the cause of you leaving staff. That would be sad for me.

My answer to this person was that they were a part of God’s answer to our prayers for clarity.  He sovereignly had folks not be able to meet with us, come off of our team, and decrease their giving in such a way as to make it abundantly clear that we should leave staff.  We are so thankful that folks like her didn’t get back to us.

So if you are reading this message and are sad that we are no longer on staff (effective Sept 2, but please continue donating through Nov 30), and you hold yourself partially responsible, stop it. God is the one who called us off staff.  Rejoice with us that He used you to do it.

If you want to be part of Him calling us to our next job, pass this link on to all of your friends: Resumé.  Or don’t.  Because either way, God’s gonna use you.

I just got done reading Job 4 and 5, and was struck by the parallels between Pat Robertson’s comments yesterday and Eliphaz the Temanite’s comments to Job.

The major lesson? In the face of tragedy, responding with theological truisms (or conjecture) is not only insensitive, it’s the exact opposite of the Christian message, even if those truisms and conjecture are correct.

What strikes me is how many people, like myself, heard about both the tragedy and Robertson’s response and reacted by being mad about the response, not by actually doing something to help the tragedy.  I’m no different than Pat Robertson.

Here’s a way that you can respond in a more biblical way. I’ll go first-we’ll be donating to what CCC is doing in Haiti.

Lately a trend on the facebook is folks taking a quiz that grades their parents on originality in naming them.  The only metric (as far as I can tell) to factor into the grade is how many other folks were named what you are named during your birthyear.  Making it easy to simultaneously grade highly and win an award for a terrible parenting decision.

Here’s a few of the names Jacqueline and I came up with that we think would grade highly:

(and, by way of disclaimer, if this is your name or the name of a loved one, I mean no disrespect.  All in good fun.)

Festus.  I doubt there were many other Festuses during your child’s birth year.  That’s a guaranteed A.  It’s also a guarantee of the nickname “Fetus” at some point during your child’s seventh grade year, or whenever sex-ed first takes place.

Basil.  This name means “Kingly” according to some baby naming websites.  It also means “condiment,” according to my spice rack, though.  So while you get an A+ for originality, you also get a certainty that your child will hate you by age 20.

Xanthus. This name gets an A, because it has to have a middle name that serves as a pronunciation key.  It means “Golden haired” which means you either have to wait until puberty to name your child, or risk the significant chance that your kid will grow up to be named something that they aren’t.  This also applies to naming your child “Christian,” or “Buddhist,” or “Cable Repair Guy.”

Manville. This name means, as you might surmise, “Men’s village” and thus gives you an A for originality and and a low F for a name that sounds like (and means) “testosterone filled neighborhood.”  Naming your child after a group of people=not cool.

Vanity. In my brief online “research” for this post, I came across this little girl’s name that means “stuck up brat.” You’d get an A for originality, and a strong chance you’d spend way to much on this little jewel when it comes time for prom, sweet 16, and nuptials.  That’s assuming you could find a guy named “Codependent” to marry sweet Vanity off to.

Butthole. (pronounced Buh-Thole) OK, so this one wasn’t an actual name from a baby-naming site, but it is one that Jacqueline wants me to make sure I give her the credit for coming up with. (unless you’re offended, then it was all me.) This name would get you the highest possible A, given that (unless there are other cultures where “Butthole” comes across more like “Stanley”) nobody in the world has named their child this, ever.  You’d have some fun times at, say, the nursery when you drop them off and sign them in, as well as more than one chance at an awkward role-call experience on the first day of class, for the rest of his (or her!) life.  “Hello my Name is” name tags would also be a hit.

Thanks to the power of Twitter, and my ever-running search for “campus crusade” I saw this tweet yesterday:

A terrifying description of the Campus Crusade for Christ Club: “We are here to help turn lost students into Christ-centered laborers.” —@gogocosmonaut

To which I responded:

you and I must have a different view of Christ. It’s terrifying that anyone would not want to be a Christ-centered laborer.

To which he responded:

If your life is centered on labor for someone you’ve never met and that has a chance of not being real… That’s terrifying.

At which point, I felt the 140 character-at-a-time limit on our perspectives needed lifting.  Hence, this post. (to which I welcome a response either in the comments or on some other platform—even email)

I don’t know anything more about Nick Wood (@gogocosmonaut) than is revealed online, but from what I can tell about him through a brief perusal of his tweets, He and I share a lot of the same interests.  This isn’t a blog post where I slam the guy.  From his perspective, I’ve never met Jesus, and Jesus has a “chance of not being real.”

I could write a long defense of why I believe in God, but he’s heard it before, and probably has convincing arguments against even my best philosophical positions.  Ontological proofs are not what he wants or needs.  What he needs is to meet a Christian who actually finds their ultimate purpose, identity, and joy in Christ.

Because Nick is absolutely right.  If I’ve never met someone, and don’t know anything about that person, and then proceed to devote my life to them, and call that devotion “labor,” I’ve either lost my mind, or worse.  But, if I were to devote my life to someone like President Obama, or Billy Graham, or my pastor, or even my wife or child, and call that devotion “labor” it would lead to disastrous results as well.

Why? Because, at the end of the day, and at their most basic level, those men and women are flawed, as well. Ever met a parent who hinges all their hopes in life on the success/fame/competence of their child?  More often than not those are crushing expectations for flawed people to live up to.

That’s what’s different about Jesus.  The Jesus I meet in the Bible is perfect. Not swayed by human opinion, not selfish, not greedy, full of integrity, perfect. The type of guy that finds 100 bucks on the subway and gives it to lost and found.  Whether or not the Bible is true (different topic for a different day), the picture you get from the Bible is of a Jesus who never stopped giving himself away.  Devoting my life to a completely (and perfectly) selfless person would lead to me becoming the type of person who increasingly gives myself away.

There are countless examples in the history of Christianity of this principle coming true, from Mother Teresa to Jim Elliot to Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Martin Luther (King and otherwise).  People who saw it as a small thing to stand up against the Nazis, the bigotry of early 20th century America or 15th century Europe, and the horrors of poverty and disease.

If we have this view of Christ—selfless, sacrificial giver—there is nothing terrifying about an army of people walking behind Him and modeling their lives after him.  This world could stand to have a few more Martin Luther Kings who stand up against tyranny, even when there’s nothing but death in it for them.  Even if Jesus weren’t real, as Nick posits, to have a big group of people live like that imaginary man would actually benefit the world.

My fear is that many Christians in general and Campus Crusade staff and students in particular are not living in light of this Jesus, giving guys like Nick every reason to dismiss Christ without a second look.

I would beg folks like Nick to consider Christ.  You’ll always find more than enough Christians to ridicule, and find fault with.  After all, being a Christian means surrendering in the fight to be perfect, and admitting we can’t save ourselves.  But look at Christ long enough, and you’ll find an amazing truth worth devoting your life to.  In light of Christ’s perfect, selfless love, grace, and ultimate control over all the earth, it would be far more terrifying to center your life on fleeting counterfeits like self-actualization, money, sex, fame, power, or control.

The Reason for God by Tim Keller is a must-read for anyone looking for a pastoral, thoughtful, and compelling defense of the Christian faith.

I call it pastoral because, unlike some theological works (even those by such great minds as CS Lewis), this book doesn’t at any point talk down to it’s reader.  It is a defense, to be sure, of the Christian faith.  But it feels like Pastor Tim is talking to you over a cup of coffee, not a podium and his reading glasses.  He is respectful of, and even encouraging to, those who enter into the discussion with doubts.

The real strength of this book, (and what I’d like to see skeptics like Dawkins respond to) is when (in the chapter called “Intermission”) Keller points out the differences between “strong rationalism” and “critical rationalism.”  His basic point is that not even atheistic naturalists have to give proofs that will satisfy people from every conceivable perspective, yet that is precisely what those same atheists require of Christians.  This is the only point at which I think those atheists and skeptics could find reason to be offended by this book.

All things considered, I’d highly recommend this book to anyone searching, or any Christian looking for a model of how to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation with skeptics.  My word of caution to those Christians would be to replicate the tone of the book (caring more for the person than the philosophical debate), and avoid weaponizing the very compelling truths contained in the book.

Have you seen the movie Earth?  It’s narrated by James Earl Jones, so that alone should convince you.  That man could read the labels on a tube of lipstick to me and I would pay attention.

But the narrator is not why I’d suggest you go see Earth.  The movie is a fascinatingly well-done documentary that literally was shot from the North Pole to the South Pole.  We watched it at a family gathering this week, and the combination of Linda and Ron’s ginormous TV and the breathtaking images in the film made for a great time.

There are several scenes in the film where predator meet prey, with predictable result.  Ron, an especially animal-loving family member, said of the film “It was too violent for me, I like coexistent animals.”  The toughest scene to watch was the baby gazelle being targeted by the world’s most perfectly designed predator, the cheetah.  The camera they used to capture the scene shot at something like 1000 frames per second, and the image it produced was mesmerizing, and sickening.  A full-grown cheetah chasing down a baby gazelle.  There is something that is just not right about it.

And that’s why I’m a Christian.

Only the Christian worldview agrees with Ron, that it is not OK for the baby gazelle to get it.  The predominant western worldview, postmodern secular humanism, is based on the baby gazelle getting it.  Survival of the fittest.

Eastern worldviews would say that the baby gazelle was a money-hungry investment banker (or other such evil-doer) in a past life, and therefore deserves getting it.

Pantheistic and Panentheistic worldviews would say that the cheetah and gazelle are both a part of the divine, and therefore whatever happens must be ok.

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, says that someday Jesus is coming back to make things right.  In fact, in Isaiah 11:6 we get a great word-picture of what results the second coming will bring.  The wolf and lamb will dwell together.  The leopard and the young goat will peacefully coexist.

And, if we’re lucky, James Earl Jones will tell us stories around a campfire.  But I couldn’t find a verse to indicate that.

For the next few weeks I’ll be manning the helm of not only this blog, but two (count ‘em) blogs for our winter conference.  I won’t be the only contributor, but I will have a significant amount of input and veto power over everything that appears on them.

The first is a live blog of the conference.  In a way, our winter conference has already started, as students begin to dialogue online about what’s going on and how they can be impacted by God during their time at the Sheraton.  This blog will be the frequently-updated and often-referenced hub of online activity during the conference.  It’s already got two posts!

The second blog I’ll wager has never happened at any conference.  Here’s my one-paragraph vision for it.  I know from personal experience that each student at the conference will be trying to explain what is going on to others.  They will sit across the table from Aunt Gertrude and try to explain what Encounter is, and if they are anything like me, they can go to 11 straight conferences (complete with photos and letters about them) and still have family, friends and supporters who have no real idea about what goes on at this thing.

This parents blog will be a way for parents, ministry partners (our more-correct way of referring to financial and prayerful supporters), and other interested “outsiders” to get a taste of the conference that is contextualized for those not up on all the lingo.  It’ll showcase different aspects of the conference, have stories from the conference, and keep folks updated who want to know what’s going on like right now at the conference.

I’ll still be updating here, but be prepared for lots of links to there.

I followed a link today to www.IBelieve.com sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and was shocked to find this thinly guised signup for the BGEA and Christianity.com mailing lists:

It’s sad, Franklin Graham, that you would be a part of this.

The verse on the “declaration” is that our LIGHT would shine, not our WORDS.  Indignantly declaring that we are Christian (with strong undertones of how we feel that makes us better than the ones “afraid to take a stand.”) will in no way cause the watching world to “glorify (our) Father in heaven.”

Yeah, I’m a Christian.  No, I’m not going to prove it to you by signing up for your mailing list.  And it’s precisely that type of underhandedness that makes “letting my light shine” more difficult.