I finally got to do something that I have always wanted to do: be summoned for Jury Duty. Now I know, most of you are thinking, that's crazy (especially Bryan Taylor who gets summoned shockingly often). I know, I am weird. But I have always grown up with a great appreciate for our justice system, and a great appreciate for being an American, so for me it is an honor to be apart of Jury Duty.

I will say that what I didn't appreciate about my jury summons yesterday was the fact it took 12 hours! I was there from 8:15 am to 8:45 pm and they only gave us one meal break! Nuts, I know. But I digress.

I found out at 2pm that the trial I was being considered for was a murder trial. Apparently on October 31, 2004, the alleged (and I do mean alleged) murderer shot and killed one woman and shot another man. If I wasn't excited before, I sure was now.

But my enthusiasm was not shared. In fact, out of the 58 potential jurors, I would say at least half made vocal objection to having to be there, and I would imagine there were many more. But after working in a courthouse for four years, and being apart of quite an extensive "legal family" (I can count 7 attorney's in my immediate family, cousins, and grandparents), I have to say I was a little disappointed in the experience.

Now you could say it is because I didn't get picked and my feelings are hurt, but those who know me, know I have no feelings so that isn't the case. What disappointed me was seeing who these lawyers did pick. It was clear about half of the jurors pretty much fit the defense, and half of them fit the prosecution. Even odder, one of the women selected was one of the most vocal objectors in having to be there (she was pissed to be selected). And this is where I just don't get it. Instead of picking a well-rounded, fair-minded jury, they picked people who hated being there (which I am sure clouds judgment), and a polarized pool. It’s like our Jury selection has succumb to the Hannity/Combs effect where we just divide up sides, get in an argument, and the ratings sky rocket. This man deserves a fair trial, and the State deserves a fair process of the evidence against this man, but with a polarized jury, I don't think either one of them is capable (especially since the burden of proof lies on the State).

I don't really have any great insight about this. The selection process is probably the "best it can be." I just wanted to share observations from jury duty.

About three months ago, Sister Hazel magically re-appeared as a dominant force on my music playlist. It's good to have them back. What I have always loved about Sister Hazel is what I typically hate about most bands: they sing about the same thing in all their songs. It seem that, with Sister Hazel, either someone in the band has gone through an incredibly hard break-up in life, which they have never recovered from, or their song writer has. I own 16 songs of theirs; out of the 16 at least 7 of them I interpret to be about this break up (in case you are wondering they are Best I’ll Ever Be, Champaign High, Life Got in the Way, Your Mistake, Killing Me Too, Your Winter, and Hopeless.)

Oddly enough, an 8th song of theirs I own is called Thank You, and it appears to be about a break-up, but the guy is actually glad the relationship has ended. Maybe this is a different girl. However, my theory is that this song was written in the all too common anger stage of the break-up where instead of admitting you want someone back, you get nasty mean. Anyways, I digress.

In college, my roommate had a name for this particular ex-girlfriend in my life. He called her “The One Who Got Away,” and I think the name is accurate. I find this is a common story amongst those who are single and in their 20s. I imagine it gets all the more common in our 30s. This is not to say that we sit around, longing for the day that person will return (although we may not mind that if it works out). No, it has a profoundly different stigma in our life. One I think Sister Hazel and Chuck Klosterman can relate to.

In his book “Killing Yourself to Live” Chuck writes:

“The first girl I loved was someone I knew in sixth grade. Her name was Missy; we talked about horses. The last girl I love will be someone I haven’t even met yet, probably. They all count. But there are certain people you love who do something else; they define how you classify what love is suppose to feel like. These are the most important people in your life, and you’ll meet maybe four or five of these people over the span of 80 years. But there’s still one more tier to all this; there is always one person you love who becomes that definition. It usually happens retrospectively, but it always happens eventually. This is the person who unknowingly sets the template for what you will always love about other people… But that person still wins. They win, and you lose. Because for the rest of your life, they will control how you feel about everyone else.”
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 232)

I love how Chuck says this “usually happens retrospectively.” I find this ironic in my own life. As the one girl in life that I have told that I loved, I certainly did not love. Since then, I haven’t told anyone I loved them, including the one girl I most certainly did.

But as Sister’s Hazel says, life gets in the way. We can’t control that. We move along with our lives. Pursue different things. Live in different areas. And ultimately, that template of love is all we have left. But it is still worth it. Every second of the relationship was worth it, and every second with out the relationship has since been worth it. We all need that template. Because when life gets in the way, we at least know what we are longing for and the way life should be. And that gives me hope that one day I will find this love again, and this time, she won’t get away.

Paris Hilton, if you're out there, I warn you, you aren't going to like this post. Why? Because I have decided that I think a simple life is the key to a fulfilling life. And how did I come to this brilliant revelation? By watching Jadyn Mills this week.

I should comment at this point that I am not claiming The Simple Life is the key to a fulfilling life, but rather a simple life. The difference is this. The Simple Life (now featured on E!) are socialites who come down to the likes of the rest of us for a momentary amount of time in order to be "slumming it." Rather a simple life is a state of being in which we constantly are choosing to live a simpler life than we can, to which the byproduct is more fulfillment due to less possessions to be controlled by. But I digress.

I was sitting with Jadyn this week on the floor and she was playing with these two color toy rings. As I am sitting there I think to myself, "man, it must be nice to be entertained by such a simple thing." And then it hits me, I am thoroughly entertained by just sitting there and watching her - which is arguably simpler than what she is doing. Not only am I thoroughly entertained, I can honestly say there is nothing that I would rather be doing.

I currently live in an apartment that costs $545 a month (which is on average about $150 below other 1-bedroom apartments in my area). I drive a car that has 179,000 miles on it. Over the past five years I have averaged only $145 per year spent on a cloths. Why? Because all of this meets my needs - nothing more, nothing less. And I think I have to say that in the event that I came into a lot of money, I don't think much would change (with the exception of the fact I would buy a condo instead of rent an apartment and I would probably start picking up the bill when going out to eat with friends more). It is often said that people have a tendency to live up to (or beyond) their means. Meaning when we get a raise, we change our lifestyle to reflect what we are paid. But why? Why don't we just figure out what we need and save/donate the rest? Why do we let our possessions and wealth control us? Why is it always about more or bigger or faster?

Most Americans don't understand this. It is why our debt rate is climbing radically, and our savings is decreasing, all to keep up with the Jones'. Sure there are those struggling to get by and this post doesn't really apply to them. But for the rest of us, our lives would be far better if we moved simplicity back into the 9-letter category instead of a 4-letter.

I feel that most of my job is taking that which I see in society and "translating" that into Christian principles. Take this blog for example. Most of what I post on here has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Yet, it is my goal, that at least 80% of what I write eventually gets back to Jesus in the end. But today's post is an easy one. Why? Because Microsoft gets ministry better than most churches.

Now I should state for the record that I hate Microsoft. I am an Mac-man when it comes to operating systems; I am a Google-man when it comes to web-based applications; I am a Firefox-man when it comes to web browsers. Understand that what I am about to say almost kills me to say it. So while I don't think Microsoft knows what they are doing when it comes to computers, I do think they know what they are doing when it comes to ministry; which is probably why even though they don't know what they are doing with computers they are still incredibly successful. But I digress.

This is a quote from a recent CNN article:

In technology, 'evangelism'...is the process of reaching out to independent developers and persuading them to use that company's products as a platform upon which to write software programs..."Evangelism is a significant part of Microsoft's success..." says Greg DeMichillie, a senior analyst at research firm Directions on Microsoft.

Bingo! Microsoft knows that if they are to survive and fulfill their mission statement, evangelism has to be at the center of what they do. It is not enough to simply just keep the status quo and make their existing customers happy. They have to pursue those who aren't already apart of their organization and convert them to be full-fledged followers.

The church sucks at this. Most churches I come in contact with are more concerned about appeasing those that have already been in their "club" for years, than they are about pursuing those who would never step foot inside a church. Ultimately it is why the North American church is failing at its mission to go out into the world and make disciples, while Microsoft continues to succeed at its mission to bring in billions of dollars a year by providing horrendous computer applications.

America is better at making Microsoft followers than they are at Jesus-followers. In the end, this means that Microsoft is getting what the church should be deeply concerned about: people.

This past Sunday was the the worship service I hate the most in the entire year: "Patriotic Sunday." It seems over the short 225 years of our nation’s history, we have increasingly associated Christianity with the USA. I don't think this is a positive relationship for Christianity or the States.

Let me first say that I am not "anti-American." I love living in America. I love our freedom. I support the troops (which is such a pointless statement now days), and I even support the Iraq war (as I have posted on before). I believe whole heartedly in democracy as well as the unalienable rights all humans share because they are children of God. I just want to state that for the record, but I digress.

The largest enemy in my mind to Christianity in the 21st century, western world is moral relativism. We might not all understand moral relativism, but to put it simply it is the whole idea that "what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me, so don’t tell me how to live my life." However, the foundation of Democracy is moral relativism. And hear me out on this.

Democracy is built on the principle that every vote counts (and given the 2000 election, we mean that). But in order for every vote to count, society must concede that all are “right” when they go to the polls which allows for them to voice their opinion. Take rape for example. Rape is not immoral in the US simply because the actions are heinous. No, rape is immoral because at least 51% of Americans who think they are right (or at least those they elect) have said it is immoral. That's it. That's the only reason it is is illegal. And this rings true for all of our laws.

This is not to say that I think Democracy is de facto evil. Not at all. And given the state of a "fallen" (i.e. sinful) world, it is probably the best government we can attain. But just as I wouldn't say Jesus would have you drive a Honda because it is the best car, or Jesus loves the Cubs (which he does), I have a hard time saying Jesus loves Democracy. This means that Christians should think long and hard about the logical implications to what they are associating the Gospel with; or before we know it, that which we have toted a "God-send" for years may turn back to bite the hand that fed it if 51% of the people decide we are wrong.

Last week (ok I wrote this two weeks ago, so I should really say three weeks ago) "science" released the fact that the earth is hotter now than it has been for 400 years (and maybe 2000 years). It's conclusion: humans are to blame, and if not rectified, humans will perish.

The irony in this, is that the "science" that releases this information, is the same "science" that tells us we are constantly evolving. So even if global warming is true (which I am not saying it is), doesn't the theory of evolution basically say that we will adapt to the warmer climate? I am not anti-evolution or anti-science (check out my post on evolution for reference), but what I am not a fan of is inconsistency - from both the faith community and the science community. But I digress.

Here's my problem with this study. How the heck do we know this is the hottest the earth has ever been? According to the CNN Article, we know this because:

"For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps."

Honestly. Proxy-evidence? That just isn't good enough. You're telling me that the best conclusion science has to offer is based on some artistic rendition of the Alps. Please! We can't even come to a conclusion on whether or not the Mona Lisa is actually a woman, or just a man in women's clothing. But yet all of the sudden DaVinci and his buddies are detailed enough to determine the snow masses on the alps?

The thermometer was originally developed back in the 16th century, and the modern thermometer was developed in the 18th century by Gabriel Farenheit. Who knows when people started collecting accurate records for comparison (that wasn't shared in the article). My point is this, we have too short of an accurate observation period to actually know if the world is getting hotter due to our activity or if it is just the natural cycle of the earths atmosphere over 100s of years.

And this ultimately is my problem with Global Warming. I'll be the first to admit I might be wrong. This world could be getting warmer due to humans irresponsibility. But I don't think science has proven that to me, nor do I think science really can prove it. So like always, science has to take a huge leap of faith in order to confidently stand on its findings. The last time I accused science of this, I exclaimed hell had frozen over. Now I must ask, since hell has frozen over, it it hot in here?

It’s the last day of Chuck Klosterman week, and I think we have all had a lot of fun. But if you didn’t, in about 200 words you will see why I don’t care. It has got to be hard to write books about your life experiences and still keep your friends. It is this dilemma that Chuck decides to bring “Killing Yourself to Live” to a close.

“Lucy: Chuck, please don’t write a book about women you used to be in love with…I just want to go on record as saying that the idea of writing such a book is dubious.
Chuck: But if I don’t write the book, there will be no record of this entire conversation. Your disdain can only be voiced if I do the opposite of what you suggest.
Lucy: Well fine, just don’t complain to me when all those idiot bloggers write things like, ‘Ultimately, the author should have listened to his friend Lucy Chance.’ Because you know that will happen.”
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 234)

Let me just say Lucy (on the record), that this blogger is glad Chuck wrote this book. And this brings me to my final point during Chuck Klosterman week: you can’t always listen to your friends. This is not to say that you shouldn’t ever listen to your friends, as often they are our best sources of accountability and reason in our lives. However, sometimes, you just got to do what you know you need to do.

There is a lot in Jesus’ life that didn’t make sense. I always laugh at the people who e-mail us at the show and use comments like, “God gave us a brain to think with and to reason with and not to use it would be wrong.” I always think this argument is a mute point. Why? Because this question is in the same category as the “when did you stop beating your wife” question. You can’t really disagree with it, less you are a moron. But if you agree with it, you are basically conceding to anything anyone wants to say that originated from his or her brain.

Yet God himself says that His ways are not always our ways. And while He did give us the ability to reason, and He does expect us to use it well (like all gifts), sometimes reason has to take a backseat to faith. It doesn’t make sense “to turn the other cheek.” It certainly doesn’t make sense to give money to the poor. And forgiveness is about the most retarded thing I could think up. Yet God wants all three of these elements (and others) to be an active part of each of our lives. And while our brain (and Lucy) might sometimes tell us otherwise, we have got to do what we know is the right thing to do, and pray that God uses it to touch the lives of others.

Chuck, while I would encourage you to find the transforming power of God in your life, I can say with the utmost confidence your book definitely touched my life.

It’s day five of Chuck Klosterman week, and today’s passage I have to say is personally the most entertaining of the entire book. The context of “Killing Yourself to Live” is a road trip Chuck takes to different locations of famous music industry deaths. One finds out quickly that this book really isn’t about a road trip, but about his past (and present) love life. Now this I can relate to. Chuck has an imaginary conversation with all of his girlfriends as if they were all riding in the car.

Quincy (Girl #1) says, “The year you spent ‘killing yourself’ to make me love you … I thought that was us being best friends. But you see that kind of behavior as the work you’re forced to do in order to sleep with people you want to sleep with.”
Chuck responds, “That’s not true, I would do anything to go back to that year when we weren’t having sex.”
Quincy responds: “You say that now, but you’d do the same thing if we went back to 1996.”
Lenore (Girl #2) pipes in: “I kind of have to agree with Quincy on this point. Chuck you do tend to repeat the same behavior over and over again, and all you really change is the person involved.”
[Skip ahead]
Dianne (Girl #3) joins the conversation: “Chuck, it really bothers me that you seem fixated on beautiful women in problematic situations, particularly women who are already in serious relationships.”
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 117-121)

This conversation reminds me of high school. And let me put a little context. My high school dating life had something called the “Big Switch.” Sophomore year I dated someone name Emily, and Adam dated someone named Laura (although there is some dispute on whether or not they “officially” dated, but they did). Then junior year I dated Laura and Adam dated Emily: switch #1 (this is all while someone named Keenan dated someone named Teresa). Now senior year, I dated Teresa, and Keenan dated Laura, switch #2.

Now you say, wow, pretty incestuous, and you assume that we just dated around the circle of friends. But that is the amazing thing about all of this, that wasn’t the case. In fact, none of us were mutual friends (you could argue Emily and Laura were friends because they were both cheerleaders, but there is some dispute about if they were really friends before the “big switch” or because of the “big switch”).

But this was my angst during high school, especially senior year, because my life felt like the imaginary conversation Chuck had with his ex-girlfriends on the road trip.

Now you say, whippedy-do, what does this have to do with me. This all gets back to relationships. Why? Because of this. Jesus said that to understand Him you had to approach him like a child. Now this does not mean that he wants us all to be children for the rest of our lives. No, God designed us to grow and mature. However, as I have gotten older I have realized how true Jesus' words about faith are. The more childlike that faith can be, the “trueer” an expression of faith that really is. And sometimes I think love is like that too. Love never used to be complicated. It never used to play games. It was just love. And while we all need to mature out of high school, sometimes I think we need to de-mature in love.

Thus, parents (and youth ministers) shouldn’t keep high schoolers from dating, but rather use this time to cultivate healthy dating patterns that include trust and accountability. Realize that there is a lot to learn from these relationships about oneself, members of the opposite sex, and life in general. And if all my girls got together, they’d probably agree (or maybe that’s just the imaginary conversation in my head).

P.S. The photo above actually has all three of these girls in the photo. Can you spot them, besides the obvious?

You know what seems to suck about being a Christian (and I think if we were all more authentic we would admit this)? What sucks is that nothing ever seems to be enough. It seems like we “sell” Christianity on the simplicity of the gospel. Then when someone becomes a Christian, we complicate it by adding things to do. Then when those things are done, we tell people that God expects them to in turn be responsible for all the people who have yet to come to this realization as well. While not a Christian, Chuck Klosterman experiences this in an Arkansas hotel room – admittedly while high – while watching a show on “Christian TV” that goes something like this:

“The protagonist [Steven] is a teen…who is torn apart by temptation. But what’s interesting are the things Steven is tempted to do; he is not tempted to try drugs…nor is he tempted to have sex…Our hero is never involved in any of that sh#*. Steven’s gut-wrenching crisis…is the temptation to not save his adolescent peers from doing all of those terrible things. In other words, he is not frayed by a desire to go down on his girlfriend or the desire to get drunk and feel cool…His problem is that he wants to merely ignore all the kids in school who are going to hell."
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 99)

What fascinates me about this is that I was Steven in high school (although admittedly, unlike Steven, I was also tempted to go down on my girlfriend). But what people like Chuck will never understand until they too are “tempted like Steven,” is that it is precisely the charge to “make disciples” in an unfriendly world that makes faith in Jesus for an intriguing life.

Five years out of high school (and 3 years out of my teens) I find myself working at a church (which as I have stated before, I don’t usually like telling people I meet). What I miss the most now that I work in a church is how few people I run into that aren’t Christian. It drives me nuts. But I find that all people are pretty much like this – Christian or not. If you work in NYC and are 30, you are somewhat of pretentious individual surrounded by other pretentious individuals. If you are white, wealthy and in your 50s, most of the people you play golf with are also white, wealthy and in their 50s. But a faith in Jesus is about bringing all of humanity into community centered around the Cross (which is totally different than a plain, vanilla, “we-are-all-the-same” community).

Jesus wants all of his followers to spread the “good news” to people we come in contact with. However, unlike most “evangelism” movies, this doesn’t usually take place with the random guy on the plane, or by preaching on the street corner. After all, Jesus doesn’t just want followers, he wants relationships. These relationships are between Him and his followers, as well as His followers and other followers, as well as His followers and those yet to be His followers. While nothing may ever seem to be enough in the Christian life, I think we should all admit that it is this drive to surround ourselves with people different than us that makes life intriguing enough to be worth living.

Woody and I sat up at a Big Bear, California cabin on a Worship Band retreat in August of 2004. Woody had an incredibly hard job, in which I truly felt bad for him. He was replacing the eternally popular Chris as APU’s campus pastor. As we sat and I shared what little wisdom I had about our campus, the point I kept reiterating is that this campus wants someone who is authentic. We don’t care what you struggle with. We don’t care what you’ve done. But what we expect is that you will be real with us. This is why our generation (you know, the one who doesn’t have a name but is after Generation-X and sometimes gets lumped in with them) is unique. I think Chuck Klosterman might agree.

“Somehow, it was acceptable to…make a joke about a massive earthquake as long as it happens in some distant place like Iran or China. I honestly believe that people of my generation despise authenticity, mostly because they’re all so envious of it.”
-Killing Yourself to Live (Page 42-43)

I am sort of surprised that someone from Generation-X would talk about a generation as a whole, as that concept seems to be pre-modern (you know, what happened before post-modernism came to enlighten us). It isn’t very post-modern to limit an entire generation to one specific distaste. But then again, those of us in the generation behind Chuck’s have a tendency to question both the pre-modern and post-modern. Why? Because we have authenticity, and this confuses those in generations behind us even though they are actually the cause of this desire.

I like to call our generation “Generation-D” for two reasons. One, we are the Digital Generation, meaning we grew with the advent of the computer (nothing like Oregon Trail in 2nd grade). We are also Generation-D because we are the Divorced Generation. Sure, we are not the ones getting a divorce. No, those are the great, self-centered, soon-to-bankrupt-social-security, baby boomers. Or more effectionally called, our parents.

In a world that seems to be built on lies and broken promises, we long for that which is true and authentic. It is why we are more into spiritually than past generations, but not necessarily into spiritual institutions. It is why we are more into political causes, but not politics itself. And it is this evolution of politics that I am intrigued to see develop. As the baby-boomers die off (those who aren’t authentic), and Generation-X gets older (those who hate authenticity), politics is in for a surprise when Generation-D demands authenticity. The days of partisism, wedge issues, and a Washington that becomes more and more of joke with every release of the Washington Post will hopefully, soon be over. That is, unless Generation-X decides to make a joke of us – just like Iran.