A crossroads for my company

Since 2001 my brother Ricke and I have together been Stauffer Web Design at http://www.stwd.org/. We’ve had the same web site since then, and every few years I think it’s time for an update–for our identity and for our web site.

Recently the nature of our business has changed. Where we once were a designer/programmer team, both working out of Ann Arbor and both with similar amounts of free time, our situations have now changed a lot. Ricke is one of the lead programmers at a very important international consulting firm, and I’m now working 10-15 hours a week doing web design to supplement Tereva’s and my incomes from working with InterVarsity (and to engage a different side of my passions and talents.) Our business is now a lopsided designer-hackprogrammer(me)/awesome-programmer(Ricke) team, where I get clients in Gainesville, I try to make the web site, and Ricke fixes anything I break.

Basically, all of this leads to needing help from you, faithful reader. I have 2 directions I can go from here.

Little old me
First, I can move toward a more casual, open relationship with my potential client. I’m not Stauffer Design–I’m just Matt Stauffer. Part of this transition would be to make the web site more personal and comfortable (since, in reality, the clients are just dealing with me anyway); part of this would be because stwd is a frustratingly incommunicative domain name, and staufferdesign.com is already owned by someone else.

If I move to “Matt Stauffer Design,” I will be focusing on my individual strengths. I’ll be able to work more with boutique firms and be hired as a consultant more often for larger clients, but it will reduce my appeal for small businesses that want a whole corps of designers, not just one guy.

Going corporate
Or,  I can focus–both in message and in how I run the business–on providing a more corporate appeal. I already have a name I very much like for this business* (not putting it here for fear of domain snatchers–I’ll be buying the domain name today just in case); I have Ricke as an advisor and several subcontractors who do work for me regularly enough. I have the groundwork laid for a more corporate culture.

The benefits are plenty: peace of mind for my clients, more approachability for local businesses who are scared of hiring just one 25-year-old. The drawbacks, however, are also plenty: a level of separation between me and the client, the need for new tax situations and a DBA and other such legal tomfoolery, the eventual need to pay for larger group task-management software like Basecamp.

Of course, the majority of you have nothing to do with web design. But for those of you either in web design or in a position where you might hire a web designer, could you give me a brief thought? I’ll make the decision myself, and of course a blog post is far from the most efficient means of collecting professional advice… but I like my people, and that’s who many of you are. So. Lemme know.

*Update–I mistyped the name of my potential company when checking if the domain for it is free. It’s not. So, unfortunately, if I do go corporate, I’m back to square one in deciding what the name will be.

Posted in Music, Poetry, and Design, Technology, Yours Truly | 3 Comments

I’m not as confident in science as you probably are

I took a class my sophomore year of college called “Biological Perspectives on Contemporary Issues.” It turned out to be, “Why Christians are wrong in all of areas of current debate, and scientific proof for why they’re wrong.”

In many cases, I agreed with, or at least could see some serious validity in, the professor’s points; I’m certainly not sold on anti-evolutionist creationism, let alone full-blown Young-Earth creationism. I’m not confident there isn’t a “gay gene.” I’m not some Bible-thumping homophobic backwaters idiot.

However, purely because of the way this professor thought–and thus led the class to think–I felt it my duty to disagree with him often and vocally.

This man had so much faith in the power of science to observe, describe, encompass, and power everything that ever happens that he–and in my mind, much of the scientific community–couldn’t see past the limitations of science.

As soon as I write this (and said it in class), it seemed like I’m some crazed anti-science “reason is wrong, faith is right” nut. I’m not. But science presupposes dozens of things, and as soon as you make presuppositions–assumptions–you are limiting yourself to only describe the narrowed view of the world that’s presented based on your assumptions.

One tiny, and probably very flawed, example I gave: science presupposes the non-existence of God. Right? So if something happens, and a scientist submits a hypothesis, and the entirety of it is this: “God sneezed, and then the stars came out,” this scientist would be mocked. It’s not a legitimate scientific area of study. Sure, you can think that, but can we measure it? No? Well then, science has no interest in it. Instantly, all things not measurable by mankind are outside of the range of science.

I’m not saying we can’t appreciate science, use science, study science, or anything. What I’m saying, and this is inspired much by my excitement in reading this article by C. John Sommerville, is that science is just a tool. It’s not full enough to form the basis for your entire worldview. It’s not capable of describing or measuring all things worth thinking about.

I wish this were longer. I just wanted to get out that one point before I force myself to sleep.

Posted in Christ, Deep, Yours Truly | 2 Comments

On York Moore’s “Line Of the Gospel”

UPDATE: In response to some things I’ve learned from York’s Facebook post, I’ve updated and struck through some of these points. Additions in italics. Also, you should read York’s post. He gives five problems — causality, culpability, consequence, categorization, and conceivability — as reasons for why the truth about sin must be a part of our evangelism.

My new friend but long time admiree York Moore (InterVarsity’s National Evangelist) writes on “counting conversions,” a great collection of teaching about what distinguishes a “conversion” from a “decision,” which Jesus would be concerned about, which the Bible records, and what Jesus’ and the Apostles’ evangelistic messages looked like.

One thing that I really appreciated was the listing of the 10 things that York says were a part of every evangelistic message, in a diagram he calls “The Line of the Gospel.” He says that in every Gospel presentation in Scripture, 9 elements were present (and in most, 10 were present). The one that was left out of some was the moral law–but not, as we might assume, because they don’t want to offend people who don’t share their same conviction. Instead, the moral law would be left it if the person was already convicted of their sin.

So, starting with the somewhat-optional Moral Law:

  • The Moral Law
  • Sin
  • Death
  • Eschaton (this is my first time even hearing this word)
  • Righteousness
  • Death/Cross
  • Resurrection
  • Lordship
  • Repentance
  • Decision

I’ll let you follow as I walk through trying to process this. I’m hoping to find that somewhere else York has written a document further explaining this, but for now–and since I have no Internet to check or even to look these words up–you’ll see how my brain tries to process it.  NOTE: My understanding of all of this is very limited. That’s why I’m trying to read up on it. So please, correct me, teach me, expand my knowledge. I’ll even buy you lunch for it if you want.

The Moral Law

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. There’s a moral law written on all of our hearts, and none of us have or will meet up with it.

Sin

Sin is separation from God. I wish I had a better understanding here, because I’d normally say “sin is when you break the Moral Law”; yet I’m not really sure if that’s theologically correct. But I do know that it means separation from God, the giver of the Moral Law.

Sin is multi-faceted, and there are many words that we translate as sin. But there are some things for sure, as York writes: “We have been born into sin (hamartia) and have actively sinned against God and our world (hamartema) and are in the process of embracing a love for sin (hamartano) which will lead to our eventual absolute depravity and worthlessness (adokimus).” And each/every/all? of these elements of sin break our relationship with God, drawing us away from him and his desires.

Death

I also know the consequences (“wages”, to use Bible-speak) of Sin is death. If you sin, the consequence is death. And everyone sins.

Eschaton

OK. I know that eschatology has to do with studying and being aware of things to come (the end of the world.) So I’ll say this next step is sharing the reality of the return of the King and His judgment.

There will come a day when the King of the world will return to the earth and will judge the living and the dead. To those who are a part of him, he will say “welcome home.” For those who are not, he will say, “depart from me, for I never knew you.” The not folks are headed to a lake of eternal fire, along with Satan and his minions.

Righteousness

Here’s where I get confused. I would’ve assumed that righteousness and Lordship go hand-in-hand; making Jesus the Lord of your life ties nicely in with working out your salvation with fear and trembling, working towards righteousness. But that’s not it. Is this God’s righteousness? Is it Jesus’ righteousness while he was on earth? Is that, “An unrighteous man will sure not enter the Kingdom of God?” Not sure.

York is talking about Jesus’ righteousness here. I definitely don’t know everything there is to say here, but I do know that a good understanding of how our righteousness is obtained (imputed? infused? whatever?), we must start with the understanding of Jesus’ righteousness. Beyond that, I still have a lot to learn.

Death/Cross

OK, so Jesus died on a cross. But whereas our deaths pay for our sin, Jesus has a lot more power, and was able to take the consequence–the debt owed–for the sin of all people onto his back. Because of this, his death didn’t just pay for his sin–it paid for everyone’s sin. Ever.

Also, Jesus’ death was not just a normal death. Quoting York, “he was mercilessly beaten, scourged, spit upon and ultimately died at the hands of sinful men. Isaiah 53:10 tells us that it was the Lord’s will to “crush him,” thus signifying that Christ’s death was a result of God’s direct wrath and judgment, poured out on Him on our behalf.”

Resurrection

Foggy here again. I know the resurrection is vital in many, many ways–that it is a solid historical fact that gives proof to Jesus’ status as God, that it foretells our coming new life. But I want a better understanding of its significance in the role of this story and this evangelism, because I think I’m missing something.

Lordship

OK. I know that Jesus wants to be Lord of our lives. I don’t know if he ever says those words, but it’s clear that he wants that. “If you love me, you will obey my commands” is one. Another is the fact that the Kingdom of God is a place where God is King–so the thing that Jesus preached all that time was a place where he was the King, and people obeyed his command.

York referenced in his post “The Lordship of Christ,” and while that phrase seems like it would practically refer to what I wrote above, it looks like a broader concept–not just that Jesus wants to be our Lord, but that there’s no hope unless he is. “The Lordship of Christ is necessitated because any other captain at the helm will only lead us further into the deep seas of death and judgment.”

Repentance

Again, I’m a little fuzzy about the order here. Doesn’t Lordship come after repentance? Either way, I know that when he took the consequence of our sin on his shoulders, Jesus didn’t automatically apply that salvation (freedom from the penalties of our behavior) to everyone. Rather, he bundled up all that salvation and freedom as a present, and held it out to each of us. We need to accept the gift in order to reap its benefits, and when Scripture talks about accepting that gift, there are a few steps to it.

I’m not a Biblical scholar in this aspect, but I know that repentance, baptism, and public proclamation of your new status are all a part of it. I don’t know which is required when. But I do know that a part of both receiving the gift and of making God your King and Lord is repentance–turning 180º from where you were before. Walking toward sin? Turn 180º and walk toward God.

Once again, I know it’s more complex. But that’s what I have so far.

Decision

See! Once again, I’m confused with the order. Because the thing above describes decision–you have to decide to receive the gift. It’s not forced on you.

 

OK. Thanks for walking through that with me. I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on York’s model and on my experiences with it. Please teach me better theology! Show me where I’m dearly missing huge chunks of essential Scripture or practice.

Posted in Christ, Deep, InterVarsity, Others | 2 Comments

Some updates on the earthquake in Haiti yesterday


From Flickr

There is no way to even begin to share the things we’ve heard and seen since 5pm yesterday … yes the four story Caribbean Market building is completely demolished. Yes it was open. Yes the National Palace collapsed. Yes Gov’t buildings nearby the Palace collapsed. Yes St Josephs Boys home is completely collapsed. …

Thousands of people are currently trapped. … Precious lives hang in the balance. When pulled from the rubble there is no place to take them for care.  Haiti has an almost non existent medical care system for her people.

There are friends and co-workers that are missing. … The horror has only just begun and I beg you to get on your knees – I truly mean ON YOUR KNEES and pray for the people of this country. The news might forget in a few days – but people will still be trapped alive and suffering. Pray. Pray. Pray. After that – PLEASE PRAY.

From LivesayHaiti

Photos

News

Aid/Organizations

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment