As one who comes from the Church, I have to defend Rob Bell a lot - from others within the Church. Rarely because of anything they have read or seen him say directly. But, rather, someone they respect has cried "heretic" at Bell and his teachings at some point in time.

To be clear, Bell absolutely could be a heretic. If being heretical means being wrong about something. Here's what I know. He is a fabulous communicator who has brought the 21st century church into the 20th century with his Nooma video series. And his honest exploration and questioning of the relationship between the Creator and creation, both at the individual and collective church level has been a wonderful resource for my spiritual growth.

(Note: these same people who cry "Heretic!" at Bell would most assuredly do the same thing to me if I had a larger platform - remind me to show you some feedback I got from my latest Christian indie-rock album.)

Bell has a new book coming out called, Love Wins. I have embedded a clip above, where he teases the book with the thought-provoking question, "Do we really know who's going to heaven and who's going to hell?", pointing out that the Christian church has simply evolved into this group of people who believe their primary role is simply to classify those in each category.

And, in one united voice, as soon as this video teaser was released, the Christian community shouted together, "Rob Bell is a Universalist and is going to hell."

The irony was completely lost on them.

It's not about ignoring foolishness. Or accepting lies. It's simply discouraging that the church has stopped even trying to be thoughtful - stopped even listening anymore. Because if you were, you'd realize that Rob Bell's making you look like a moron.

My friends in college who were Communication majors never went to school to become that. They were all drop-outs of their originally intended program. It was a fall-back plan.

Looking back, I'm not sure why I found it so funny. I think it's because I didn't understand what you did with it. "What, are you going to 'communicate' for a living? ha ha."

And there's some truth to it. It's a little too broad to be super marketable, straight out of college. But now that I'm in the real world, I see that communication is THE single skill that's most lacking.

If you're brilliant, but can't communicate effectively, it's entirely a waste.

I went to a conference the other day - full of strangers. I didn't know who the speakers were or what they looked like. And when I arrived, the conference speakers were sitting in seats along with all of the rest of us, chatting with the attendees. This was a problem.

I didn't know who I was supposed to be intimidated by.

You instantly treat people differently based on their title. We automatically give people the authority that we know others have given them. But that only works if we're aware of it.

I wasn't. And I was happily talking to a woman I thought was an attendee. It turned out that she was the big shot in the group. And if I had known, I definitely would have made a worse impression, through awkwardness. But I'm not sure what the next steps are from this real-life lesson in ignoring 'celebrity'. Any advice?

Why do poor criminals always run? These guys have committed the least serious crimes in the entire legal system. And yet, they always end up running.

My first thought is that perhaps it's because they grew up watching the television show, "Cops." That show has created the expectation that robbers run.

Yet, if this is true, then Cops would also create the expectation that robbers who run, get caught - every time. In fact, I have yet to see an episode of Cops where they end the episode looking around saying, "Crap, we lost him."

I'm not saying this doesn't happen. But these episodes never air. So, there is no encouragement for the robbers to run. Unless you have 2 strikes against you, adding "reckless endangerment" to the charges simply isn't worth it.

Why don't these high school dropouts understand reason?

It's interesting what you miss when you listen to music written in a different time/context than yours.

I always thought that the Beatles song and lyric, "Can't Buy Me Love", was simply an example of bad grammar. Not knowing that calling a girl, "Love", for example, "C'mere, love." is common parlance in Britain.

In this song, McCartney is actually proclaiming that he, himself, can not be bought.

And this is not true. If you read the rest of the lyrics, this becomes clear. But at first brush, it makes sense right? It's a reasonable observation if you ignore all other evidence.

Today's Weird But Hugely Important Lesson:
You will always believe the first reasonable argument you hear. It is your job to seek out alternatives to compare it against.

How many times have you received an e-mail like this in the last 10 years? The idea that, to avoid some sort of federal investigation, Bill Gates has to give away a certain amount of money to Microsoft users. And to be automatically put on the recipient list, you just have to forward this e-mail to everyone you know...

Now, as you're slipping away into disbelief, they quickly add, "I didn't believe it either. But then my friend showed me the check he got from Bill Gates for $13,493.43!" That line was usually enough to make people temporarily forget they were smart.

Recently, a girl at work forwarded me this e-mail along with a quick line of hope, "Who knows if it's real?! But I could sure use 13 grand!!" I responded as I've done every time for the past 10 years.

"This totally works! Just last week, I got a check in the mail!"

Her response, "No you didn't!"

Mine? "Then, why did you send me the e-mail?"

"You must not presume a position of authority. You must be placed there."

This has been my favorite "quote" for years now. Not only out of arrogance, since it comes from me, but because of how badly I need to be reminded of it. In fact, I've had four posts about this over the last 5 years. 1. 2. 3. and 4.

Today's number 5. And it's a confession. Because I ignored my own advice.

I entered my most recent place of employment fully intending on following this advice. And I quickly got bored. It's hard starting over at a new place. You are all well aware of how completely arrogant I am. So, let me continue with it for a moment. Some people are quick to recognize talent. Some seem oblivious to it.

For the latter group, on day 1, I am an infant. My past does not precede me. I can not be trusted.

And yet, I am desperate to be trusted. I am desperate to be given the ball and run with it. And when not given the ball - when not given authority - I turned to condescension in order to try and self-establish myself as a position in authority in the workplace.

It didn't work. I knew it wouldn't. And yet, my lack of patience got in the way.

But, now I am in a better mental place. Still confident in my abilities. But more focused on being the best bat boy I can be until they call me up.

Kirsten Jackson is a single mother with diabetes, struggling to make ends meet, living in Des Moines, Iowa.

Ianis Holcomb is a single mother with diabetes, struggling to make ends meet, living in Wroclaw, Poland.

3 Questions. Who do you empathize with the most? Do you feel a moral responsibility to help either situation? And does your answer depend solely on your geographic proximity to the person?

Ok, now let's flip the shoe (or heel) and talk about women today. I saw a great tweet, paraphrased, "If you want to see what Jennifer Aniston will look like when she gets old...go see that new movie she's in."

Pretty funny, right? It's also pretty true. Aniston is now 41 years old. And 40-60 doesn't play in Hollywood. Well, at least in the leading lady sense. Don't believe me? Consider Aniston's latest role in this Adam Sandler film. She plays the faux ex-wife meant to make Sandler's legitimate (and much younger) love interest, jealous.

Wait, what about Sandra Bullock? Yes, the beautiful Sandra Bullock is 45. And in her latest acclaimed role, "The Blind Side", she played... a mom.

(quick transition) My wife and I grew up disliking the incomparable Meryl Streep. I know. We were crazy. Why? Because while 60 now, while we were growing up, she was the lone 40-60 year old leading lady in Hollywood. And she typically played mean, ugly or both. What else would she be good for? And now that she's settled into her roles as an older woman, she is blowing my wife and I away, and now we're re-watching her entire catalog, mesmerized by her magnificent acting.

She was simply all alone for 20 years, and it was weird. Yes, there's a few like Diane Keaton (now 64) who have pulled off "leading lady" throughout their entire careers, but in the last 20 years, it's been through either untraditional Hollywood fare or Mom roles where there are multiple love interests in the story.

There is no place for a 41-year old Aniston in Hollywood as it exists. And I believe that you will see her in far less movies for the next 20 years before her resurgence in the early Fall of her life.

What makes a man? More specifically, when you think of a "man", who do you think of? Some may jump to the most famous of men, movie actors, with Brad Pitt and George Clooney instantly coming to mind.

And others may quickly scoff at the notion that those metrosexuals even constitute a man, as they look back at the Clint Eastwood cowboy generation as perfect depictions of the ultimate "man's man". But we're no longer in the old west. And those cowboys aren't really around anymore.

So, who has replaced them? What are our options? Well, let's spin the question around. When you think of the opposite of a woman, what comes to mind? The opposite of femininity must be big, fat, stupid, sloppy and hairy, right?

Is that a man? Or can we accept the next evolution of cowboy's metrosexual downside simply to escape the possibility that our new "men" might have a cave- prefix.