(8843,67,'2013-04-20 09:47:00','2013-04-20 16:47:00','<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\nNormal\r\n0\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nfalse\r\nfalse\r\nfalse\r\n\r\nEN-US\r\nX-NONE\r\nX-NONE\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\ntable.MsoNormalTable\r\n{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\nmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\nmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\nmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\nmso-style-priority:99;\r\nmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\nmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\nmso-para-margin-top:0in;\r\nmso-para-margin-right:0in;\r\nmso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmso-para-margin-left:0in;\r\nline-height:115%;\r\nmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\nfont-size:11.0pt;\r\nfont-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;\r\nmso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;\r\nmso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;\r\nmso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}\r\n\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">When I heard that my friend and fellow writer, Mary DeMuth, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected. <span> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">One of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of <i>Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books</i>, and opened the convicting PDF file of <i>The Irresistible Table</i> by Mary DeMuth. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, <i>“Why did I not read this sooner?”</i> This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">From the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that <i>community</i> is the main thrust of this book. <i>“</i><i><span>The goal of ‘</span></i><i><span>The Irresistible Table’ </span></i><i><span>is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.”</span></i><span>  </span>While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">Mary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “<i><span>Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” </span></i><span><span> </span>These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Of course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Whether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?<span>    </span></span></p>','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-8','','','2013-04-20 09:47:00','2013-04-20 16:47:00','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(8842,67,'2013-04-20 09:46:13','2013-04-20 16:46:13','<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\nNormal\r\n0\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nfalse\r\nfalse\r\nfalse\r\n\r\nEN-US\r\nX-NONE\r\nX-NONE\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\ntable.MsoNormalTable\r\n{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\nmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\nmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\nmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\nmso-style-priority:99;\r\nmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\nmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\nmso-para-margin-top:0in;\r\nmso-para-margin-right:0in;\r\nmso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmso-para-margin-left:0in;\r\nline-height:115%;\r\nmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\nfont-size:11.0pt;\r\nfont-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;\r\nmso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;\r\nmso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;\r\nmso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}\r\n\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\"><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-150x150.jpg\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">When I heard that my friend and fellow writer, Mary DeMuth, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected. <span> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">One of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of <i>Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books</i>, and opened the convicting PDF file of <i>The Irresistible Table</i> by Mary DeMuth. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, <i>“Why did I not read this sooner?”</i> This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">From the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that <i>community</i> is the main thrust of this book. <i>“</i><i><span>The goal of ‘</span></i><i><span>The Irresistible Table’ </span></i><i><span>is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.”</span></i><span>  </span>While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">Mary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “<i><span>Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” </span></i><span><span> </span>These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Of course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Whether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?<span>    </span></span></p>','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-7','','','2013-04-20 09:46:13','2013-04-20 16:46:13','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(8841,67,'2013-04-20 09:45:15','2013-04-20 16:45:15','<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n \r\n  \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n \r\n  Normal\r\n  0\r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  false\r\n  false\r\n  false\r\n  \r\n  EN-US\r\n  X-NONE\r\n  X-NONE\r\n  \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n  \r\n  \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n   \r\n  \r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;-->\r\n \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n  \r\n \r\n<!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;-->\r\n\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n	{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n	mso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n	mso-style-priority:99;\r\n	mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n	mso-para-margin-top:0in;\r\n	mso-para-margin-right:0in;\r\n	mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\n	mso-para-margin-left:0in;\r\n	line-height:115%;\r\n	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n	font-size:11.0pt;\r\n	font-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";\r\n	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;\r\n	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;\r\n	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;\r\n	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}\r\n\r\n\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\"><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-150x150.jpg\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">When I heard that my friend and fellow writer, Mary DeMuth, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected. <span> </span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"line-height: normal\">One of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of <i>Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books</i>, and opened the convicting PDF file of <i>The Irresistible Table</i> by Mary DeMuth. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, <i>“Why did I not read this sooner?”</i> This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">From the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that <i>community</i> is the main thrust of this book. <i>“</i><i><span>The goal of ‘</span></i><i><span>The Irresistible Table’ </span></i><i><span>is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.”</span></i><span>  </span>While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.</p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\">Mary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “<i><span>Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” </span></i><span><span> </span>These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Of course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\r\n</span></p>\r\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin-bottom: .0001pt;line-height: normal\"><span>Whether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?<span>    </span></span></p>','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-6','','','2013-04-20 09:45:15','2013-04-20 16:45:15','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(8845,67,'2013-04-20 09:54:00','2013-04-20 16:54:00','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-300x300.jpg\" width=\"240\" height=\"240\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.\r\n\r\nWhen I heard that my friend and fellow writer, Mary DeMuth, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected.\r\n\r\nOne of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books, and opened the convicting PDF file of The Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, “Why did I not read this sooner?” This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.\r\n\r\nFrom the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that community is the main thrust of this book. “The goal of ‘The Irresistible Table’ is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.” While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.\r\n\r\nMary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\r\n\r\nOf course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\r\n\r\nWhether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-10','','','2013-04-20 09:54:00','2013-04-20 16:54:00','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(8846,67,'2013-04-20 10:09:35','2013-04-20 17:09:35','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-300x300.jpg\" width=\"192\" height=\"192\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.\n\nWhen I heard that my friend and fellow writer, <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected.\n\nOne of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books, and opened the convicting PDF file of <a title=\"The Irresistible Table\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/store/the-irresistible-table-cookbook/\">The Irresistible Table</a> by <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, “Why did I not read this sooner?” This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.\n\nFrom the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that community is the main thrust of this book. “The goal of ‘The Irresistible Table’ is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.” While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.\n\nMary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\n\nOf course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\n\nWhether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?\n\nGet to know Mary and her other publications at <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">www.marydemuth.com</a>.','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-11','','','2013-04-20 10:09:35','2013-04-20 17:09:35','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(8878,205,'2013-05-06 20:41:36','0000-00-00 00:00:00','Very rough - a few ideas so far. A few days ago I listened to a recent episode of This Week in Technology ( Number 403??). The host, Louie Laporte, compared the smartphone to John the Baptist in that both function as announcing what is to come. (Smartphone announces the Internet of the future; John announces the kingdom).\r\n\r\nWhat are we announcing in the church? Are we announcing anything or are we attempting to build higher walls (need a good metaphor)\r\n\r\nShooting messenger with wrong message? How is the kingdom furthered?','Don\'t have a good title yet','','draft','open','open','','','','','2013-05-06 20:41:36','2013-05-07 03:41:36','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=8878',0,'post','',0),(8879,205,'2013-05-06 20:36:14','2013-05-07 03:36:14','A few days ago I listened to a recent episode of This Week in Technology ( Number 403??). The host, Louie Laporte, compared the smartphone to John the Baptist in that both function as announcing what is to come. (Smartphone announces the Internet of the future; John announces the kingdom).\n\nWhat are we anouncing in the church? Are we announcing anything or are we attempting to build higher walls (need a good metaphor)\n\nShooting messenger with wrong mess','Don\'t have a good title yet','','inherit','open','open','','8878-revision','','','2013-05-06 20:36:14','2013-05-07 03:36:14','',8878,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/06/8878-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8849,1,'2013-04-20 10:10:06','2013-04-20 17:10:06','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-300x300.jpg\" width=\"192\" height=\"192\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.\r\n\r\nWhen I heard that my friend and fellow writer, <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected.\r\n\r\nOne of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books, and opened the convicting PDF file of <a title=\"The Irresistible Table\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/store/the-irresistible-table-cookbook/\">The Irresistible Table</a> by <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, “Why did I not read this sooner?” This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.\r\n\r\nFrom the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that community is the main thrust of this book. “The goal of ‘The Irresistible Table’ is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.” While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.\r\n\r\nMary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\r\n\r\nOf course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\r\n\r\nWhether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?\r\n\r\nGet to know Mary and her other publications at <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">www.marydemuth.com</a>.','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-revision-12','','','2013-04-20 10:10:06','2013-04-20 17:10:06','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/20/8834-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(8850,1,'2013-04-21 19:13:13','2013-04-22 02:13:13','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8835\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Irresistable-Table-by-Mary-DeMuth-300x300.jpg\" width=\"192\" height=\"192\" /></a>As an aspiring writer, there are not many opportunities that I would turn down to translate my thoughts to words. I’ve written for children’s ministry magazines, news publications, online devotionals, book compilations and currently working on my own book. I’ve written music reviews, commentary on current events, book reviews, conducted interviews and posted literally hundreds of blog entries. But as I envisioned my career as a writer and pondered the possibilities of literary endeavors, reviewing a cook book never came to mind.\n\nWhen I heard that my friend and fellow writer, <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>, was looking for folks to read and review her latest book, I was honored to have the opportunity. When I discovered that it was in fact a cook book, my excitement quickly turned to anxiety. I had no idea what to expect in reading a cook book from beginning to end and had even less of an idea of how I would develop a book review worthy of Mary’s status as a writer. So, as is my usual reaction to anxiety-inducing situations, I did what I commonly do: I ignored the task, hoping it would eventually go away. This works quite well with typical avoidances such as doctor appointments, laundry, grocery shopping and my wife’s favorite, having my car inspected.\n\nOne of the unfortunate side-effects of anxiety is its ability to produce guilt. As I sat in my favorite corner of Starbucks, I continued to see the PDF file of Mary’s book glaring at me from my desktop. I’ve read several of Mary’s publications and blogs and always loved what she had to say. Why would I not equally enjoy her culinary prose as well? Resolved to accomplish the task at hand, I put down my copy of Writers Who Procrastinate and Let Down Their Friends Who Write Cook Books, and opened the convicting PDF file of <a title=\"The Irresistible Table\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/store/the-irresistible-table-cookbook/\">The Irresistible Table</a> by <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">Mary DeMuth</a>. After reading the introduction, I gazed out of the rain covered window in front of me, thinking to myself, “Why did I not read this sooner?” This is not simply a cook book. This is not only a collection of recipes. This is a guide to community that happens to have recipes and step by step instructions of how to prepare for encounters with deeper community.\n\nFrom the very beginning of the introduction, one can easily see that community is the main thrust of this book. “The goal of ‘The Irresistible Table’ is to give the home cook an arsenal of easy, delicious recipes and encourage a lifestyle of community and hospitality for her immediate community: her family. And the community she longs to gather around that family.” While I would have to disagree with her gender direction, (I’m a stay at home dad and the cook of our home), the essential truth of this sentiment rings very true with me as a minister as well. Community is not an activity but a lifestyle. Community is an essential link to faith and a missing element in today’s culture. Community is necessary for holistic spiritual growth and a vital element to revealing the Kingdom of God.\n\nMary elaborates by reflecting on the essentials of community, revealing how the shared meal is paramount to building healthy gatherings. “Community is a celebration of others. Community can be spontaneous. Community is an attitude. Community involves more than entertaining. It celebrates engagement.” These principles are reflected throughout the book as Mary periodically illustrates how a particular encounter intertwines with the preparation of a certain recipe. Experiences with family, friends and gatherings are intimately a part of her obvious love of cooking and an obvious ingredient as to why she developed this writing project.\n\nOf course, in reviewing a cook book, one would assume that the individual recipes would be considered as well. While I was unfortunately not able to personally review every concoction myself, I chose to sample one recipe from each section. The Table of Contents is a process through community, beginning with satisfying breakfast and progressing through indulgent desserts. Appetizers, salads, breads, soups, various main courses and even drinks, are all are essential aspects of communal gatherings. These are included in an easy-to-reference manner and leave the average cook eager to expand their menu. Mary includes simple recipes that are not only easy to prepare, but are practical and fairly neutral in terms of appealing to most pallets. Each chapter begins with an engaging introduction that ties familiar recipes to her passion for some aspect of community.\n\nWhether stories of family or friends, the imagery that Mary creates helps encourage the reader to imagine similar stories of their own. On several occasions, I found myself drifting back with nostalgia to simpler times and memories of how my mom and grandmother built strong community through cooking. It caused me to reflect on the simple power of the shared meal and the possibility that we are missing something much larger in our fast-food culture. Meals take time to prepare. Meals take time to serve and create an inviting table. Meals take time to enjoy and of course, meals take time to clean up afterward. But is it possible that when we take the time to focus on the communal meal, we open the door to why we are given time on the earth to begin with?\n\nGet to know Mary and her other publications at <a title=\"Mary DeMuth\" href=\"http://www.marydemuth.com/\">www.marydemuth.com</a>.','Cooking Community: A Review of the Irresistible Table by Mary DeMuth','','inherit','open','open','','8834-autosave','','','2013-04-21 19:13:13','2013-04-22 02:13:13','',8834,'http://provoketive.com/2013/04/21/8834-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(8882,12,'2013-05-01 11:24:42','2013-05-01 18:24:42','I cannot stand reality television. Well, I take that back. There are a few shows I like. I can handle Storage Wars, Pawn Stars and Auction Hunters (before they added the pawn shop.) But my favorite show is <a href=\"http://www.spike.com/shows/bar-rescue\">Bar Rescue</a>.\r\n\r\nOn Spike Network’s Bar Rescue, <a href=\"http://www.jontaffer.com/\">Jon Taffer</a>, nationally known bar expert, scouts out failing bars for weeks in advance, then goes in and tries to save them. Typically, an episode has him doing a lot of yelling at the management, questioning their motives, not allowing them to make excuses, and bringing in experts to show the kitchen and bartenders how awful they are.\r\n\r\nAt the end, he rebuilds the bar, usually renames it and everything is better. Before the credits roll, they give an update telling how the bar is doing two months later. Typically, the bar follows the new changes and is saved. On a few occasions, the bar returns to its original theme and name and goes right back to doing terrible.\r\n\r\nI know, great stuff, right? Nice to know the bars of America are being saved.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/decline.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8862\" style=\"margin-left: 6px;margin-right: 6px\" alt=\"decline\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/decline.jpg\" width=\"250\" height=\"200\" /></a>As I was watching the other day, I started thinking about our <a href=\"http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/17-leadership/323-report-examines-the-state-of-mainline-protestant-churches\">declining American churches</a>. On top of that, I started thinking about the pastor friends I have across the country and their typical complaints: “<em>We really need to change the old music we have, but it’s never going to happen without a huge fight</em>,” “<em>The leadership just won’t listen to anything. Nothing is going to happen without a leadership change</em>,” “<em>What we need is a younger crowd, but the older generation doesn’t want younger people here</em>.” And so on, and so forth.\r\n\r\nSo let’s get resident good guy Jeff Foxworthy to host “<em>Church Rescue</em>.” He can grab a host of church experts to find churches that are about to close the doors. Put in some security cameras, have some people pose as visitors to the church and see how they are treated, check out their numbers for the past few years. Heck, even bring in a preaching expert or two.\r\n\r\nThen, all at once, just have the expert team just walk into a deacons/elders meeting and start jabbering about all the problems. Show them video footage of how things look to people on the outside and tell them that it’s not going to get better unless things change. Sound good?\r\n\r\nWell, maybe not. I bring up that ridiculous idea for a couple of reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, there are a lot of struggling churches in our country. We all know it. If you’re in a struggling church, you probably have a laundry list of reasons in your head why your church is struggling. Maybe it is the music. Maybe it’s the pastor. Maybe it’s the lack of outreach or young people.\r\n\r\nSecondly, there are a lot of <a href=\"http://fallenpastor.com/2012/06/22/pastors-and-destructive-high-expectations-where-do-they-come-from/\">struggling pastors</a>. Men who have dedicated their lives to ministry and week after week see no<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/churchld.jpg\"><img class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-8863\" alt=\"churchld\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/churchld-300x224.jpg\" width=\"300\" height=\"224\" /></a> return for their toil. Sometimes, they just get frustrated and quit. Sometimes, they are self-deceived and they are the problem. Sometimes, too much is expected of them. And other times, they have quit communicating with their church and leadership.\r\n\r\nBut the common thread is that most people in church want things to be better. They want the gospel to thrive. They want people to be saved and coming to worship.\r\n\r\nWhen I talk to pastors, a lot of times the task seems overwhelming. And it seems like it. And there’s no easy fix, that’s for sure.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, there’s no Jon Taffer church expert walking through the door who can make any nenbership better overnight. And even if there was, it would be for the wrong reasons. It would be based on entertainment, flashy lights and all the wrong things.\r\n\r\nWhere does it start? With people in church willing to change. To look within. To ask and answer a simple question, “<em>Why aren’t people coming here? Why isn’t this a place that sinners want to come and hear the gospel? Is it something about us? Is the message wrong? Is it our attitude? Is it the way we treat others?</em>”\r\n\r\nReally, that’s one thing Bar Rescue has right. Taffer challenges the leadership of the bar to question their motives. He wants them to ask themselves, “<em>Are we willing to do what it takes to keep this place open?</em>”\r\n\r\nOf course, churches shouldn’t be willing to step down to the lowest common denominator to get people in the door. However, we should be ready to ask ourselves, “<em>Is what we are doing in line with Scripture? Are we loving like Christ loved? Are we loving sinners like He did? Are we going after the people Christ went after? Are we willing to have people in our church that don’t look like us?</em>”\r\n\r\nIt would be a process that took God breaking the hearts of the people in the church. It would take a brave and humble move by the church leadership, but it would definitely be a church rescue, done by the ultimate church expert – Jesus Christ.','New Reality Show Pitch: Church Rescue','','inherit','open','open','','8860-revision-v1','','','2013-05-01 11:24:42','2013-05-01 18:24:42','',8860,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/01/8860-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(9227,0,'2013-07-30 16:49:09','2013-07-30 23:49:09','I have an article about being a gay Mormon, and i am also interested in doing advice articles and poetry.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: JoRdAnJoHn\nAUTHOR EMAIL: JoRdAnJoHnquestionaire@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 205.118.81.24\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; JoRdAnJoHn\n    [Email] =&gt; JoRdAnJoHnquestionaire@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; \n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; I have an article about being a gay Mormon, and i am also interested in doing advice articles and poetry.\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; JoRdAnJoHn321\n)\n','JoRdAnJoHn - 2013-07-30 16:49:09','','publish','open','open','','92c9982fef5d0c36ecc6f08d81865646','','','2013-07-30 16:49:09','2013-07-30 23:49:09','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9227',0,'feedback','',0),(9163,149,'2013-07-04 23:02:30','2013-07-05 06:02:30','I went to the beach today with my wife and daughters. I’m happy to report that Jessica Rey’s viral marketing video for her line of one-piece swimsuits hasn’t changed the way most women dress for the beach.\n\nIn the several hours we were on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier, we saw men and women of all shapes &amp; sizes, in speedos and swim trunks, one-piece swim suits and of course, bikinis.\n\nI’d say the most memorable beach attire we saw was a plus-sized woman wearing a leopard-print one piece, with a green, extra large tee-shirt <i>underneath</i> the swimsuit, the ensemble completed by a black pair of shorts or maybe it was a ‘skort,’ I’m not sure... Wow. Now that definitely distracted me. It even caused me to stumble as I let my gaze linger too long and I wasn’t watching where I was walking.\n\nNeedless to say, she was wearing what she wanted to wear, as we all were.\n\nThe majority of the people we saw today would likely be considered average or normal, which means they are at least slightly overweight and probably comfortable eating Cheezies on the beach. Only a small minority of the men could be considered fit or ‘built’, and an even smaller sampling of the women would be described as extraordinarily beautiful.\n\nEven the most stunning of the women we saw, whose ruched, red bikini bottoms kept slipping ‘dangerously’ downwards as she played in the water, didn’t <i>cause</i> me to want to handle her or mumble sentences like “I want...” or “I take...” or whatever that video claims my reaction would be.\n\nLaying on a towel in the sand next to my beautiful wife, her own ‘double d’s’ covered by a black and gold bikini, that, like most bikini’s left little to the imagination... if I was to <i>decide</i> to use my imagination to picture what was hidden by those triangles of fabric.\n\nIn her case, of course, I know the answer to what lies beneath the fabric. And I like it.\n\nIn the case of of the girl whose bottoms kept slipping down, I now know, without imagining, what the upper part of her bum looks like. Oh no. Scandal.\n\nIf I were to use the memory of her image in lust, that is to <i>want</i> her, to <i>desire</i> her...if I were to do that it would not be her fault, but mine. It would be <i>my</i> choice to use her for my own gratification and pleasure. It is my <i>responsibility</i> to respect her not my <i>right </i> to use her.\n\nAppreciating beauty is another thing altogether. There were several women I noticed as beautiful that caught my eye. Observing these pretty, God-created beings brought a smile to my face as I imagined my own daughters grown up, laughing and strutting down a beach such as this, blissfully enjoying the beauty they’ve been blessed with.\n\nAs Christians, in the evangelical tradition, we’ve handcuffed our men by telling them beauty is bad and that the temptation of the two-piece is too great to overcome.\n\nBy teaching men to avoid and avert, we’ve created a culture where curiosity is ‘carnal’ and thus it must be sinful. This culture objectifies women more than ‘the world’ ever could. It’s almost afraid of women, it’s definitely fearful of the female form.\n\nOpen your eyes! Look, but don’t leer. Respect women. God made us, men and women, in his image. Appreciate the artistry of us all.\n\nChoose to love and not lust. Appreciate beauty. It’s everywhere. It’s where you’ve been told not to look. Trust each other and treat each other with dignity and respect. Men, you are not animals. You were created to enjoy the beauty of woman. She is a powerful force. She is your equal, but carved in a more curvaceous way.\n\nMen and women were made to notice each other, don’t be afraid when you notice someone that causes you to take a second glance.\n\nModesty has been misunderstood..it has been misused as a means to control, probably to ‘prevent’ lust. Instead of strengthening men, instead of promoting respectful, mature relationships between men &amp; women - we’ve developed a culture of taboos.\n\nWe’ve gone from “look, but don’t touch” to “look once, never twice” to “don’t look” to “don’t look good.” That last one is directed at the ‘christian’ woman unfortunately, because we blame women for all the troubles men have with lust.\n\nObjectification is not initiated by women being beautiful or even sexy. Women are made into objects in the minds of men who choose to take these living, breathing humans, beautiful in the eyes of their Creator, and turn them into objects to be used in the self-gratification of lust.\n\nModesty is important. The misunderstanding is that we really not talking about modesty. This one is a matter of the heart. We’re talking modesty, but we should be talking about self-control and respect.','Modesty Misunderstood','','inherit','open','open','','9162-revision','','','2013-07-04 23:02:30','2013-07-05 06:02:30','',9162,'http://provoketive.com/2013/07/04/9162-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8898,206,'2013-05-09 09:57:18','2013-05-09 16:57:18','UAE - Dubai - Nov 11 - 2010: Imran Khan pose for aportrait at Celebration of Entrepreneurship conference at Madinat Jumeriah conference centre. ( Jaime Puebla - The National Newspaper )','imran-khan','','inherit','open','open','','imran-khan','','','2013-05-09 09:57:18','2013-05-09 16:57:18','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/imran-khan.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(8900,206,'2013-05-09 09:59:34','2013-05-09 16:59:34','','ik1','Imran Khan addressing on his rally','inherit','open','open','','ik1','','','2013-05-09 09:59:34','2013-05-09 16:59:34','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ik1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(8905,206,'2013-05-10 08:00:48','2013-05-10 15:00:48','Imran khan; a former sportsman, philanthropist, an active politician and 3rd most influential leader of 2012 according to the Global Post is the only hope left for the people of an economically diminishing state as such as Pakistan . By so far, Imran Khan is considered as the most popular leader in the country’s history. In 1996 Khan formed his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). It was founded initially as socio-political movement which envisioned to embody anti-corruption policies and to put an end to the endless corruption in the country. However, the road towards success is never easy. His party was not even able to secure one seat in General Elections of 1997. It was only then in 2002 National Elections, when Khan ran for office and became a Member of Parliament. However, he continued to profoundly criticize the entire political order of Pakistan, which he reckoned as dishonest and ineffective. This is where Khan began the grassroots of his campaign in order to create awareness among people about his political party or his ideology towards a New Pakistan, as his wholehearted supporters would like to call it.\r\n\r\nImran Khan enunciates and influences out the vision of a Modern Islamic Republic and advocates a model of Welfare State for Pakistan where state plays key role in protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. His party maintains that it represents Pakistanis, regardless of religious, ethnic and linguistic background, bringing all the people of Pakistan together. After years of consistent struggle, Imran Khan has gained a tremendous support from the people of Pakistan. It is his continuous struggle, devotion and perseverance that his political party is now considered the largest party in Pakistan by membership with over 10 million members in Pakistan and overseas. Consequently, PTI has done massive campaigning and rallying with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of people for the upcoming General Elections on 11th May 2013\r\n\r\nOver the years, Pakistan has diminished drastically in economic sense. It is because of the inability of the previous political elites to act against energy crisis, inflation and social tensions. It is the Imran Khan in which people of Pakistan has placed their hopes. Due to incomparable corruptions, blunders, and impropriety of the former governments Imran Khan is the seamless choice most of the people of Pakistan deem. However, a question still remains: Will Pakistan choose the right person for the state? Only the time can tell.','Imran Khan - An Ideology; A Hope','','publish','open','open','','imran-khan-an-ideology-a-hope-3','','','2013-05-10 09:38:58','2013-05-10 16:38:58','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=8905',0,'post','',2),(8906,206,'2013-05-09 10:07:44','2013-05-09 17:07:44','Imran khan; a former sportsman, philanthropist, an active politician and 3rd most influential leader of 2012 according to the Global Post is the only hope left for the people of an economically diminishing state as such as Pakistan . By so far, Imran Khan is considered as the most popular leader in the country’s history.  In 1996 Khan formed his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). It was founded initially as socio-political movement which envisioned to embody anti-corruption policies and to put an end to the endless corruption in the country. However, the road towards success is never easy. His party was not even able to secure one seat in General Elections of 1997. It was only then in 2002 National Elections, when Khan ran for office and became a Member of Parliament. However, he continued to profoundly criticize the entire political order of Pakistan, which he reckoned as dishonest and ineffective. This is where Khan began the grassroots of his campaign in order to create awareness among people about his political party or his ideology towards a New Pakistan, as his wholehearted supporters would like to call it.\nImran Khan enunciates and influences out the vision of a Modern Islamic Republic and advocates a model of Welfare State for Pakistan where state plays key role in protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. His party maintains that it represents Pakistanis, regardless of religious, ethnic and linguistic background, bringing all the people of Pakistan together. After years of consistent struggle, Imran Khan has gained a tremendous support from the people of Pakistan. It is his continuous struggle, devotion and perseverance that his political party is now considered the largest party in Pakistan by membership with over 10 million members in Pakistan and overseas.  Consequently, PTI has done massive campaigning and rallying with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of people for the upcoming General Elections on 11th May 2013\nOver the years, Pakistan has diminished drastically in economic sense. It is because of the inability of the previous political elites to act against energy crisis, inflation and social tensions. It is the Imran Khan in which people of Pakistan has placed their hopes into.   Due to incomparable corruptions, blunders, and impropriety of the former governments Imran Khan is the seamless choice most of the people of Pakistan deem. However, a question still remains:  Will Pakistan choose the right person for the state? Only the time can tell.\n','Imran Khan - An Ideology; A Hope','','inherit','open','open','','8905-revision','','','2013-05-09 10:07:44','2013-05-09 17:07:44','',8905,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/09/8905-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8907,206,'2013-05-09 10:09:47','2013-05-09 17:09:47','Imran khan; a former sportsman, philanthropist, an active politician and 3rd most influential leader of 2012 according to the Global Post is the only hope left for the people of an economically diminishing state as such as Pakistan . By so far, Imran Khan is considered as the most popular leader in the country’s history.  In 1996 Khan formed his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). It was founded initially as socio-political movement which envisioned to embody anti-corruption policies and to put an end to the endless corruption in the country. However, the road towards success is never easy. His party was not even able to secure one seat in General Elections of 1997. It was only then in 2002 National Elections, when Khan ran for office and became a Member of Parliament. However, he continued to profoundly criticize the entire political order of Pakistan, which he reckoned as dishonest and ineffective. This is where Khan began the grassroots of his campaign in order to create awareness among people about his political party or his ideology towards a New Pakistan, as his wholehearted supporters would like to call it.\r\nImran Khan enunciates and influences out the vision of a Modern Islamic Republic and advocates a model of Welfare State for Pakistan where state plays key role in protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. His party maintains that it represents Pakistanis, regardless of religious, ethnic and linguistic background, bringing all the people of Pakistan together. After years of consistent struggle, Imran Khan has gained a tremendous support from the people of Pakistan. It is his continuous struggle, devotion and perseverance that his political party is now considered the largest party in Pakistan by membership with over 10 million members in Pakistan and overseas.  Consequently, PTI has done massive campaigning and rallying with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of people for the upcoming General Elections on 11th May 2013\r\nOver the years, Pakistan has diminished drastically in economic sense. It is because of the inability of the previous political elites to act against energy crisis, inflation and social tensions. It is the Imran Khan in which people of Pakistan has placed their hopes into.   Due to incomparable corruptions, blunders, and impropriety of the former governments Imran Khan is the seamless choice most of the people of Pakistan deem. However, a question still remains:  Will Pakistan choose the right person for the state? Only the time can tell.\r\n','Imran Khan - An Ideology; A Hope','','inherit','open','open','','8905-revision-2','','','2013-05-09 10:09:47','2013-05-09 17:09:47','',8905,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/09/8905-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(8911,1,'2013-05-09 10:10:48','2013-05-09 17:10:48','Imran khan; a former sportsman, philanthropist, an active politician and 3rd most influential leader of 2012 according to the Global Post is the only hope left for the people of an economically diminishing state as such as Pakistan . By so far, Imran Khan is considered as the most popular leader in the country’s history.  In 1996 Khan formed his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). It was founded initially as socio-political movement which envisioned to embody anti-corruption policies and to put an end to the endless corruption in the country. However, the road towards success is never easy. His party was not even able to secure one seat in General Elections of 1997. It was only then in 2002 National Elections, when Khan ran for office and became a Member of Parliament. However, he continued to profoundly criticize the entire political order of Pakistan, which he reckoned as dishonest and ineffective. This is where Khan began the grassroots of his campaign in order to create awareness among people about his political party or his ideology towards a New Pakistan, as his wholehearted supporters would like to call it.\r\nImran Khan enunciates and influences out the vision of a Modern Islamic Republic and advocates a model of Welfare State for Pakistan where state plays key role in protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. His party maintains that it represents Pakistanis, regardless of religious, ethnic and linguistic background, bringing all the people of Pakistan together. After years of consistent struggle, Imran Khan has gained a tremendous support from the people of Pakistan. It is his continuous struggle, devotion and perseverance that his political party is now considered the largest party in Pakistan by membership with over 10 million members in Pakistan and overseas.  Consequently, PTI has done massive campaigning and rallying with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of people for the upcoming General Elections on 11th May 2013\r\nOver the years, Pakistan has diminished drastically in economic sense. It is because of the inability of the previous political elites to act against energy crisis, inflation and social tensions. It is the Imran Khan in which people of Pakistan has placed their hopes into.   Due to incomparable corruptions, blunders, and impropriety of the former governments Imran Khan is the seamless choice most of the people of Pakistan deem. However, a question still remains:  Will Pakistan choose the right person for the state? Only the time can tell.\r\n','Imran Khan - An Ideology; A Hope','','inherit','open','open','','8905-revision-3','','','2013-05-09 10:10:48','2013-05-09 17:10:48','',8905,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/09/8905-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(8912,206,'2013-05-09 21:00:33','2013-05-10 04:00:33','','ik1','Imran Khan addressing to his rally.','inherit','open','open','','ik1-2','','','2013-05-09 21:00:33','2013-05-10 04:00:33','',8905,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ik11.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(8913,206,'2013-05-09 21:06:21','2013-05-10 04:06:21','','ik1','Imran Khan addressing to his rally.','inherit','open','open','','ik1-3','','','2013-05-09 21:06:21','2013-05-10 04:06:21','',8905,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ik12.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(8918,67,'2013-05-11 08:53:41','2013-05-11 15:53:41','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, Bowie is apparently attracting some controversial attention once again; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as John 15:19 and Romans 12:2<em>  </em>','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision','','','2013-05-11 08:53:41','2013-05-11 15:53:41','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/11/8917-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8919,67,'2013-05-11 09:09:56','2013-05-11 16:09:56','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, Bowie is apparently attracting some controversial attention once again; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church. But the question worth asking  lies in the validity of the controversy itself.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that \"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\n<div style=\"overflow: hidden;color: #000000;background-color: #ffffff;text-align: left;text-decoration: none\">\n\n</div>','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-2','','','2013-05-11 09:09:56','2013-05-11 16:09:56','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/11/8917-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(8920,67,'2013-05-11 09:21:17','2013-05-11 16:21:17','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, Bowie is apparently attracting some controversial attention once again; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church. But the question worth asking  lies in the validity of the controversy itself.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\n\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-3','','','2013-05-11 09:21:17','2013-05-11 16:21:17','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/11/8917-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(8921,67,'2013-05-11 10:29:06','2013-05-11 17:29:06','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, Bowie is apparently attracting some controversial attention once again; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church. But the question worth asking  lies in the validity of the controversy itself.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punches and knocks out the homeless man as he escorts\n\n&nbsp;','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-4','','','2013-05-11 10:29:06','2013-05-11 17:29:06','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/11/8917-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(8926,67,'2013-05-12 06:29:32','2013-05-12 13:29:32','','david-bowie-the-next-day-video-650-430','','inherit','open','open','','david-bowie-the-next-day-video-650-430','','','2013-05-12 06:29:32','2013-05-12 13:29:32','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/david-bowie-the-next-day-video-650-430.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(8927,67,'2013-05-12 06:27:35','2013-05-12 13:27:35','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out the homeless man as he escorts what appears to be a nun into the club. They enter  into a picture of Christian hypocrisy. Alcohol is flowing freely as religious leaders frolic in','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-5','','','2013-05-12 06:27:35','2013-05-12 13:27:35','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/12/8917-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(8928,67,'2013-05-12 06:29:41','2013-05-12 13:29:41','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\r\n</em>\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\r\n\r\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out the homeless man as he escorts what appears to be a nun into the club. They enter  into a picture of Christian hypocrisy. Alcohol is flowing freely as religious leaders frolic in','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-6','','','2013-05-12 06:29:41','2013-05-12 13:29:41','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/12/8917-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(8929,67,'2013-05-12 06:35:55','2013-05-12 13:35:55','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\r\n</em>\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\r\n\r\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out the homeless man as he escorts what appears to be a nun into the club. They enter  into a picture of Christian hypocrisy. Alcohol is flowing freely as religious leaders frolic in\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-7','','','2013-05-12 06:35:55','2013-05-12 13:35:55','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/12/8917-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(8931,67,'2013-05-12 06:43:39','2013-05-12 13:43:39','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\r\n</em>\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\r\n\r\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out the homeless man as he escorts what appears to be a nun into the club. They enter  into a picture of Christian hypocrisy. Alcohol is flowing freely as religious leaders frolic in\r\n\r\n','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-9','','','2013-05-12 06:43:39','2013-05-12 13:43:39','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/12/8917-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(8930,67,'2013-05-12 06:43:07','2013-05-12 13:43:07','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\r\n</em>\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\r\n\r\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out the homeless man as he escorts what appears to be a nun into the club. They enter  into a picture of Christian hypocrisy. Alcohol is flowing freely as religious leaders frolic in\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-8','','','2013-05-12 06:43:07','2013-05-12 13:43:07','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/12/8917-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(8933,67,'2013-05-13 07:21:53','2013-05-13 14:21:53','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is escorted by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. Alcohol flows freely as','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-10','','','2013-05-13 07:21:53','2013-05-13 14:21:53','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(8934,67,'2013-05-13 07:26:53','2013-05-13 14:26:53','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is escorted by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. Alcohol flows freely as\n\n','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-11','','','2013-05-13 07:26:53','2013-05-13 14:26:53','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(8935,67,'2013-05-13 07:52:19','2013-05-13 14:52:19','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> - Matthew 18:9. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman to join him on the danc\n\n&nbsp;','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-12','','','2013-05-13 07:52:19','2013-05-13 14:52:19','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(8936,67,'2013-05-13 08:45:31','2013-05-13 15:45:31','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> (<em>Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being<em> \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). </em>Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she eventually develops <em>stigmata. </em>Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Olman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em> As Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s; attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground.\n\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or antagonistic of the Church in general. Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video and represented as a negative and destructive of our world. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent, but so lies the reality of our world.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-13','','','2013-05-13 08:45:31','2013-05-13 15:45:31','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(8937,67,'2013-05-13 08:47:25','2013-05-13 15:47:25','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> (<em>Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being<em> \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). </em>Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she eventually develops <em>stigmata. </em>Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Olman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em> As Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s; attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground.\n\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or antagonistic of the Church in general. Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video and represented as a negative and destructive of our world. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent, but so lies the reality of our world; hopeless sinners in need of redemption.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-14','','','2013-05-13 08:47:25','2013-05-13 15:47:25','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(8938,67,'2013-05-13 08:52:24','2013-05-13 15:52:24','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\r\n</em>\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\r\n\r\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> (<em>Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being<em> \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). </em>Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she eventually develops <em>stigmata. </em>Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Olman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em> As Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s; attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground.\r\n\r\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\r\n\r\nThe question remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or antagonistic of the Church in general. Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video and represented as a negative and destructive of our world. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent, but so lies the reality of our world; hopeless sinners in need of redemption.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-15','','','2013-05-13 08:52:24','2013-05-13 15:52:24','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(8939,67,'2013-05-13 11:36:07','2013-05-13 18:36:07','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> (<em>Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being<em> \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). </em>Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she eventually develops <em>stigmata. </em>Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Olman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em> As Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s; attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground.\n\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or antagonistic of the Church in general. Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, although I don\'t think St. Francis would have an issue  Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video and represented as a negative and destructive of our world. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent, but so lies the reality of our world; hopeless sinners in need of redemption.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-16','','','2013-05-13 11:36:07','2013-05-13 18:36:07','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(8941,67,'2013-05-13 15:38:48','2013-05-13 22:38:48','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that \"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan\nwhile they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the\nartist—it is a mess.\" Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"confused about religion.\"\n\n\nI\nmust admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the\nvideo. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system,\nespecially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas\nthat I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering\nthat even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the\nlimits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many\nwould consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\n\n\n\nThe\nvideo not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion\nCotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells\noutside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The\nplot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a\nhomeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw\na connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing\nthe lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun\nas they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy\nand debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes\ngouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to\nwitness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9).\nWas this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation,\nknowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of\nthe Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a\nChrist-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise\nthe clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a\nscantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room\nbegins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing,\nreminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). Cotillard\'s\ncharacter\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming\ndisturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that\nfills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she\neventually develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, \"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked\nby the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground\n\n\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images\nof Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as\nshe rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands\nstill scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant\nlight. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious\nleaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie\naddresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been\naccomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\n\nThe\nquestion remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or\nantagonistic of the Church in general. Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be\nmade by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it\npossible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has\ndeveloped not because of the underlying message, but the shocking\nimagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual\ncondition, although I don\'t think St. Francis would have had an issue\nwith the offensive? of others. But, could there be a positive message\nfound beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate\nreality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that\npermeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made\nclear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of\nChristian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and\nredemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as\nwell. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the\nreality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-18','','','2013-05-13 15:38:48','2013-05-13 22:38:48','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-18/',0,'revision','',0),(8940,67,'2013-05-13 11:37:50','2013-05-13 18:37:50','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions that are usually attributed to an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instances that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\",</em> attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2,</em> has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>. <em>\n</em>\n\nWhether considered controversial of not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\" </em>\n\nThe League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\" </em>Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being \"<em>confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Olman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings.  <em>\"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\"</em> (<em>Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as  Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being<em> \"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27). </em>Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she eventually develops <em>stigmata. </em>Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Olman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em> As Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s; attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground.\n\nThe video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lies in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion or antagonistic of the Church in general. Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, although I don\'t think St. Francis would have had an issue with the offensive of others. But, could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction. We live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video and represented as a negative and destructive of our world. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent, but so lies the reality of our world; hopeless sinners in need of redemption.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-17','','','2013-05-13 11:37:50','2013-05-13 18:37:50','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(8942,67,'2013-05-13 15:55:20','2013-05-13 22:55:20','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by th','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-19','','','2013-05-13 15:55:20','2013-05-13 22:55:20','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-19/',0,'revision','',0),(8943,67,'2013-05-13 15:56:20','2013-05-13 22:56:20','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-20','','','2013-05-13 15:56:20','2013-05-13 22:56:20','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(8944,67,'2013-05-13 15:57:35','2013-05-13 22:57:35','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-21','','','2013-05-13 15:57:35','2013-05-13 22:57:35','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(8945,67,'2013-05-13 15:58:35','2013-05-13 22:58:35','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-22','','','2013-05-13 15:58:35','2013-05-13 22:58:35','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-22/',0,'revision','',0),(8946,67,'2013-05-13 15:59:17','2013-05-13 22:59:17','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\r\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\r\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\r\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\r\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\r\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\r\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\r\n\r\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\r\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\r\n\r\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\r\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\r\n\r\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\r\n\r\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-23','','','2013-05-13 15:59:17','2013-05-13 22:59:17','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-23/',0,'revision','',0),(8947,67,'2013-05-13 15:59:30','2013-05-13 22:59:30','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\r\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\r\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\r\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\r\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\r\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\r\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\r\n\r\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\r\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\r\n\r\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\r\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\r\n\r\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\r\n\r\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-24','','','2013-05-13 15:59:30','2013-05-13 22:59:30','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-24/',0,'revision','',0),(8948,67,'2013-05-13 16:09:01','2013-05-13 23:09:01','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when the rock and roll needed it the most. One of, if not the first patron of Glam Rock, Bowie has taken music to another level that satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular\r\nbox of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for\r\nthe title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em>\r\n<em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David\r\nBowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\r\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\r\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\r\n\r\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\r\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\r\n\r\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\r\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\r\n\r\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the chiding words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\r\n\r\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-25','','','2013-05-13 16:09:01','2013-05-13 23:09:01','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-25/',0,'revision','',0),(8949,67,'2013-05-13 20:16:04','2013-05-14 03:16:04','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\"\nfor being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor.\nAgain, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and\nbeaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about\nourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-26','','','2013-05-13 20:16:04','2013-05-14 03:16:04','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-26/',0,'revision','',0),(8950,67,'2013-05-13 20:19:05','2013-05-14 03:19:05','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album Reality, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, The Prestige, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie is apparently still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that come challenging messages of faith and though provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with The Next Day.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for The Next Day is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in The Next Day was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s and he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons, pummeled and beaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Quite a different response than many contemporary and transparent worship bands. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is The Next Day UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world; we are all hopeless sinners in need of redemption. And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','David Bowie: The Next Day Video Review','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-27','','','2013-05-13 20:19:05','2013-05-14 03:19:05','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-27/',0,'revision','',0),(8951,67,'2013-05-13 20:32:57','2013-05-14 03:32:57','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie proves that he is still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that arise challenging messages of faith and thought provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas that I don\'t have much tolerance for. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not be suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s as he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons; pummeled and beaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light, as if receiving some sort of divine revelation. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is <em>The Next Day</em> UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that the negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world. Are we not all hopeless sinners in need of redemption? And when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','David Bowie: The Next Day Video Review','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-28','','','2013-05-13 20:32:57','2013-05-14 03:32:57','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-28/',0,'revision','',0),(8952,67,'2013-05-13 20:41:40','2013-05-14 03:41:40','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie proves that he is still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that arise challenging messages of faith and thought provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas in which I don\'t have much tolerance. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s as he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons; pummeled and beaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light, as if receiving some sort of divine revelation. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is <em>The Next Day</em> UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that the negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world. Are we not all hopeless sinners in need of redemption? And let\'s face it; when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','David Bowie: The Next Day Video Review','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-29','','','2013-05-13 20:41:40','2013-05-14 03:41:40','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/13/8917-revision-29/',0,'revision','',0),(8955,1,'2013-05-14 06:45:25','2013-05-14 13:45:25','David Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\n\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie proves that he is still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\n\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that arise challenging messages of faith and thought provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>.\n\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\n\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas in which I don\'t have much tolerance. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\n\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\n\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\n\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s as he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons; pummeled and beaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light, as if receiving some sort of divine revelation. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\n\nThe question remains: Is <em>The Next Day</em> UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that the negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\n\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world. Are we not all hopeless sinners in need of redemption? And let\'s face it; when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\n\n[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]','David Bowie: The Next Day Video Review','','inherit','open','open','','8917-revision-30','','','2013-05-14 06:45:25','2013-05-14 13:45:25','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/14/8917-revision-30/',0,'revision','',0),(8956,1,'2013-05-14 21:44:42','2013-05-15 04:44:42','[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/65723010[/vimeo]\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie is not an artist without controversy. Since the release of his first album in 1967, the sometimes androgynous performer has always possessed the ability to stir the pot, especially when rock and roll needed it the most. One of the first patrons of Glam Rock, if not the first, Bowie has taken music to another level that has satisfied the ears as well as the other senses. Unlike many of the transparent musician-songwriters of today, Bowie cannot be contained to a particular box of genre. In fact, just when you think you have him figured out, you find that he is just as much a mystery as he ever has been.\r\n\r\nWhen you ponder his lengthy career, the only time that you might find Bowie without controversy is when he is absent from the music scene. Since the  release of his 2003 album <em>Reality</em>, a few live endeavors and the appearance in the 2006 British film, <em>The Prestige</em>, not much has been heard from Bowie save a few occasional mentions guaranteed an artist of his status. But with the release of his new album, <em>The Next Day</em>, and the accompanying video for the title track, the 66 year old Bowie proves that he is still capable of attracting controversy; this time from the Anglican and Catholic Church.\r\n\r\nIn the occasional instance that Christianity and pop culture cross paths, my interest and attention is always heightened. Although Evangelical Christianity has done is best to meld itself within the realms of post-modern culture, the success has been short-lived and in some cases destructive. The Christian concept of being <em>\"in the world, but not of the world\"</em>, attributed from such verses as <em>John 15:19</em> and <em>Romans 12:2</em>, has become somewhat of an anomaly; not particularly appearing in either camp with much clarity. Post-Modern Evangelicalism has become somewhat of a caricature of itself, developing it\'s own image of culture, but not really obtaining a sustainable manner of functioning within it. Ironically, it is usually from the secular that arise challenging messages of faith and thought provoking images of Christianity and the Church. So it is with <em>The Next Day</em>.\r\n\r\nWhether considered controversial or not, the video for <em>The Next Day</em> is not without shocking and suggestive imagery. Upon it\'s release, The Catholic League attacked Bowie as being a <em>\"switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London\" that \"is strewn with characteristic excess.\"</em>  The League\'s President, Bill Donohoe, stated that <em>\"the video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women…The lyrics refer to  the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan </em><em>while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.\"</em> Donohoe goes on to accuse Bowie of not understanding true Christianity and being <em>\"confused about religion.\"</em>\r\n\r\nI must admit that as a minister, I was a bit apprehensive in viewing the video based on what I had previously heard. The pointless and ignorant ridiculing of any faith system, especially within the obscene and offensive, is one of the only arenas in which I don\'t have much tolerance. I have always been a fan of David Bowie and his music, but after reading other commentary and discovering that even Youtube had given the video an adult only \"Content Warning\" for being \"Explicit\", I began to wonder if Bowie had possibly pushed the limits and that no redeeming aspects would be found in this endeavor. Again, I cannot stress the fact that the video is shocking and what many would consider offensive, but what I discovered in <em>The Next Day</em> was just the opposite of what I had expected, and what many views might expect as well.\r\n\r\nThe video not only features Bowie, but also actors <em>Gary Oldman</em> and <em>Marion Cotillard</em>. It opens to Gothic imagery with the sound of church bells outside of what appears to be a church converted into a nightclub. The plot begins with a priest, played by Oldman, punching and knocking out a homeless man begging for money. One would be tempted to immediately draw a connection to the Pharisees of Jesus time, but there is no concealing the lack of compassion. He is accompanied by what appears to be a nun as they enter into the club and a scene of complete Christian hypocrisy and debauchery. The priest\'s nun companion apparently has had her eyes gouged out, perhaps from the excessive sin that she has been forced to witness, or perhaps to protect her form the truth of her surroundings. <em> \"...if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.\" (Matthew 18:9)</em>. Was this her own doing or the priest; done to protect her salvation, knowing that the removal of one eye would not suffice? The head of the Baptist? Righteousness on a platter?\r\n\r\nDavid Bowie portrays a Christ-like lead singer of the house band, appearing to vocally chastise the clubs patrons, particularly Oldman\'s character, who chooses a scantily clad woman (Cotillard) to join him on the dance floor. The room begins to spin out of control as Bowie continues his accusing, reminiscent of Christ\'s charge to the Pharisees as being <em>\"whitewashed tombs\" (Matthew 23:27</em>). Cotillard\'s character\'s eyes begin darting around the room, apparently becoming disturbed, and possibly spiritually convicted, by the blatant sin that fills the room. Her emotional state eventually becomes physical as she develops stigmata. Blood gushes from her wrists and onto the clubs patrons as Oldman directs his anger toward Bowie, <em>\"This is your doing! You call yourself a prophet?!\"</em>\r\n\r\nAs Christ\'s message of repentance was rejected, so is Bowie\'s as he is attacked by the crowd of priests, Cardinals, nuns and patrons; pummeled and beaten to the ground. The video\'s climax and most glaring images of Christology lie in the obvious redemption of Colliard\'s character as she rises to her feet, the stigmatic blood flow ceased. With hands still scared and stained with blood, her eyes become fixed on a distant light, as if receiving some sort of divine revelation. Bowie takes notice of this and joins her with the other religious leaders, all realizing that something miraculous has occurred. Bowie addresses the room, thanking them as if his mission has been accomplished, and then vanishes to the stunned surprise of all.\r\n\r\nThe question remains: Is <em>The Next Day</em> UN-Christian, anti-religion, sacrilegious or antagonistic of the Church in general? Can we learn anything about ourselves, faith or theology? Ultimately, that determination needs to be made by each person that views the video on their own. However, is it possible that the negativity directed toward Bowie and this video has developed not because of the underlying message, but the shocking imagery itself. Let us not forget: Stigma is a bloody spiritual condition, one that not even St. Francis would have had an issue with in terms of the offensive nature. Could there be a positive message found beneath the shocking storyline; a story that just might emulate reality more than fiction?\r\n\r\nWe live in a culture of hypocrisy that permeates all compartments of life, including the Church. This is made clear by Bowie\'s video which represents the negative and destructive worldview held by believers and non-believers alike. Bowie\'s Christ-like character calls out the hypocrisy of Christian leadership, resulting in the apparent repentance and redemption of Colliard\'s character and possibly the collective group as well. None the less, shocking, vulgar and violent though it may be, so lies the reality of our world. Are we not all hopeless sinners in need of redemption? And let\'s face it; when was the last time you witnessed repentance and stigmata provoked by the convicting words of a worship leader? I prefer Bowie\'s attire as well.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;','David Bowie: The Next Day Video Review','','inherit','open','open','','8917-autosave','','','2013-05-14 21:44:42','2013-05-15 04:44:42','',8917,'http://provoketive.com/2013/05/14/8917-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(8993,204,'2013-06-05 08:00:12','2013-06-05 15:00:12','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of The Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion called <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>  Along with Mathew Clark, the panelists included Stephanie Sandberg, who directed the Actors Theatre production <em>“Seven Passages: The Stories of Gay Christians”</em>; Ruth Bell Olsson, president of the Grand Rapids Red Project for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment; and Jim Lucas, longtime chaplain of the Gays in Faith Together support group. A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If you are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n*photo courtesy of Dr. Matthew Clark\r\n\r\n&nbsp;','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','publish','open','open','','gay-and-christian-believers-speak','','','2013-06-04 21:20:02','2013-06-05 04:20:02','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=8993',0,'post','',4),(9162,149,'2013-07-04 23:04:50','0000-00-00 00:00:00','I went to the beach today with my wife and daughters. I’m happy to report that Jessica Rey’s viral marketing video for her line of one-piece swimsuits hasn’t changed the way most women dress for the beach.\r\n\r\nIn the several hours we were on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier, we saw men and women of all shapes &amp; sizes, in speedos and swim trunks, one-piece swim suits and of course, bikinis.\r\n\r\nI’d say the most memorable beach attire we saw was a plus-sized woman wearing a leopard-print one piece, with a green, extra large tee-shirt <i>underneath</i> the swimsuit, the ensemble completed by a black pair of shorts or maybe it was a ‘skort,’ I’m not sure... Wow. Now that definitely distracted me. It even caused me to stumble as I let my gaze linger too long and I wasn’t watching where I was walking.\r\n\r\nNeedless to say, she was wearing what she wanted to wear, as we all were.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the people we saw today would likely be considered average or normal, which means they are at least slightly overweight and probably comfortable eating Cheezies on the beach. Only a small minority of the men could be considered fit or ‘built’, and an even smaller sampling of the women would be described as extraordinarily beautiful.\r\n\r\nEven the most stunning of the women we saw, whose ruched, red bikini bottoms kept slipping ‘dangerously’ downwards as she played in the water, didn’t <i>cause</i> me to want to handle her or mumble sentences like “I want...” or “I take...” or whatever that video claims my reaction would be.\r\n\r\nLaying on a towel in the sand next to my beautiful wife, her own ‘double d’s’ covered by a black and gold bikini, that, like most bikini’s left little to the imagination... if I was to <i>decide</i> to use my imagination to picture what was hidden by those triangles of fabric.\r\n\r\nIn her case, of course, I know the answer to what lies beneath the fabric. And I like it.\r\n\r\nIn the case of of the girl whose bottoms kept slipping down, I now know, without imagining, what the upper part of her bum looks like. Oh no. Scandal.\r\n\r\nIf I were to use the memory of her image in lust, that is to <i>want</i> her, to <i>desire</i> her...if I were to do that it would not be her fault, but mine. It would be <i>my</i> choice to use her for my own gratification and pleasure. It is my <i>responsibility</i> to respect her not my <i>right </i> to use her.\r\n\r\nAppreciating beauty is another thing altogether. There were several women I noticed as beautiful that caught my eye. Observing these pretty, God-created beings brought a smile to my face as I imagined my own daughters grown up, laughing and strutting down a beach such as this, blissfully enjoying the beauty they’ve been blessed with.\r\n\r\nAs Christians, in the evangelical tradition, we’ve handcuffed our men by telling them beauty is bad and that the temptation of the two-piece is too great to overcome.\r\n\r\nBy teaching men to avoid and avert, we’ve created a culture where curiosity is ‘carnal’ and thus it must be sinful. This culture objectifies women more than ‘the world’ ever could. It’s almost afraid of women, it’s definitely fearful of the female form.\r\n\r\nOpen your eyes! Look, but don’t leer. Respect women. God made us, men and women, in his image. Appreciate the artistry of us all.\r\n\r\nChoose to love and not lust. Appreciate beauty. It’s everywhere. It’s where you’ve been told not to look. Trust each other and treat each other with dignity and respect. Men, you are not animals. You were created to enjoy the beauty of woman. She is a powerful force. She is your equal, but carved in a more curvaceous way.\r\n\r\nMen and women were made to notice each other, don’t be afraid when you notice someone that causes you to take a second glance.\r\n\r\nModesty has been misunderstood..it has been misused as a means to control, probably to ‘prevent’ lust. Instead of strengthening men, instead of promoting respectful, mature relationships between men &amp; women - we’ve developed a culture of taboos.\r\n\r\nWe’ve gone from “look, but don’t touch” to “look once, never twice” to “don’t look” to “don’t look good.” That last one is directed at the ‘christian’ woman unfortunately, because we blame women for all the troubles men have with lust.\r\n\r\nObjectification is not initiated by women being beautiful or even sexy. Women are made into objects in the minds of men who choose to take these living, breathing humans, beautiful in the eyes of their Creator, and turn them into objects to be used in the self-gratification of lust.\r\n\r\nModesty is important. The misunderstanding is that we really not talking about modesty. This one is a matter of the heart. We’re talking modesty, but we should be talking about self-control and respect.','Modesty Misunderstood','','pending','open','open','','','','','2013-07-04 23:04:50','2013-07-05 06:04:50','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=9162',0,'post','',0),(9293,0,'2013-10-17 15:25:45','2013-10-17 22:25:45','This writer is excellent. She is  an international advocate, raising cases and issues related to the persecution of Christians at all levels. She is  also a researcher and has the privilege of frequently visiting the field where she meets with the victims of persecution and with the people standing alongside them in solidarity. The work that she does is often extremely sensitive, lives can be put at risk, and to protect primarily the people on whose behalf she works, she uses the pseudonym Biblis Vox – in honour of a 2nd century Gallic martyr.\r\nI am not permitted to give her real email so please if you are interested I will let her know in person.\r\nThank you. \r\nA supporter of Christian Solidarity Worldwide\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Lee Ann Stangl\nAUTHOR EMAIL: lander1950@yahoo.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://biblisvox.wordpress.com/\nSUBJECT: Nominating A Writer For Provoketive\nIP: 71.9.142.96\nArray\n(\n    [Your Name] =&gt; Lee Ann Stangl\n    [Your Email] =&gt; lander1950@yahoo.com\n    [The Writer\'s Name] =&gt; Anony Mous\n    [The Writer\'s Website or Post] =&gt; http://biblisvox.wordpress.com/\n    [The Writer\'s Email] =&gt; leeannstangl@gmail.com\n    [Why You Think They Should Write For Provoketive?] =&gt; This writer is excellent. She is  an international advocate, raising cases and issues related to the persecution of Christians at all levels. She is  also a researcher and has the privilege of frequently visiting the field where she meets with the victims of persecution and with the people standing alongside them in solidarity. The work that she does is often extremely sensitive, lives can be put at risk, and to protect primarily the people on whose behalf she works, she uses the pseudonym Biblis Vox – in honour of a 2nd century Gallic martyr.\r\nI am not permitted to give her real email so please if you are interested I will let her know in person.\r\nThank you. \r\nA supporter of Christian Solidarity Worldwide\n)\n','Lee Ann Stangl - 2013-10-17 15:25:45','','publish','open','open','','ee6a36513324bcbc4c0c87c9293ad0e6','','','2013-10-17 15:25:45','2013-10-17 22:25:45','',1537,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9293',0,'feedback','',0),(9399,0,'2014-03-16 21:26:18','2014-03-17 04:26:18','Hello, I am interested to know whether Provoketive is still publishing. I am a writer and have a concept I would like to submit if the magazine is still active.\r\nThank you,\r\nGreg\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Gregory Klug\nAUTHOR EMAIL: gkklug@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 98.167.229.126\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Gregory Klug\n    [Email] =&gt; gkklug@gmail.com\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hello, I am interested to know whether Provoketive is still publishing. I am a writer and have a concept I would like to submit if the magazine is still active.\r\nThank you,\r\nGreg\n)\n','Gregory Klug - 2014-03-16 21:26:18','','publish','open','open','','8d36e37b8000009cebbee6badf695077','','','2014-03-16 21:26:18','2014-03-17 04:26:18','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9399',0,'feedback','',0),(9300,0,'2013-11-06 11:34:47','2013-11-06 19:34:47','I\'m write mostly about marriage, writing, working as a freelancer, finance basics, poetry, and spirituality. It\'s an odd mix, but it all comes together somehow.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Meghan Bliss\nAUTHOR EMAIL: meghan.e.bliss@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://missmeghanbliss.wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 75.110.157.19\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Meghan Bliss\n    [Email] =&gt; meghan.e.bliss@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://missmeghanbliss.wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; I\'m write mostly about marriage, writing, working as a freelancer, finance basics, poetry, and spirituality. It\'s an odd mix, but it all comes together somehow.\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; missmeghanbliss\n)\n','Meghan Bliss - 2013-11-06 11:34:47','','publish','open','open','','0c24c340c2fcf8c4a2ae9b4b84f73a06','','','2013-11-06 11:34:47','2013-11-06 19:34:47','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9300',0,'feedback','',0),(9123,0,'2013-06-16 16:02:52','2013-06-16 23:02:52','Faith and Culture\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Patrick Christopher Kangrga\nAUTHOR EMAIL: eastkangrga@yahoo.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://musefabove.wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 98.233.138.223\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Patrick Christopher Kangrga\n    [Email] =&gt; eastkangrga@yahoo.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://musefabove.wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; Faith and Culture\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; eastkangrga@yahoo.com\n)\n','Patrick Christopher Kangrga - 2013-06-16 16:02:52','','publish','open','open','','0e3ba443b7170aea5ad3dea89a6f0927','','','2013-06-16 16:02:52','2013-06-16 23:02:52','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9123',0,'feedback','',0),(9167,149,'2013-07-05 09:23:40','2013-07-05 16:23:40','I went to the beach today with my wife and daughters. I’m happy to report that Jessica Rey’s viral marketing video for her line of one-piece swimsuits hasn’t changed the way most women dress for the beach.\n\nIn the several hours we were on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier, we saw men and women of all shapes &amp; sizes, in speedos and swim trunks, one-piece swim suits and of course, bikinis.\n\nI’d say the most memorable beach attire we saw was a plus-sized woman wearing a leopard-print one piece, with a green, extra large tee-shirt underneath the swimsuit, the ensemble completed by a black pair of shorts or maybe it was a ‘skort,’ I’m not sure... Wow. Now that definitely distracted me. It even caused me to stumble as I let my gaze linger too long and I wasn’t watching where I was walking.\n\nNeedless to say, she was wearing what she wanted to wear, as we all were.\n\nThe majority of the people we saw today would likely be considered average or normal, which means they are at least slightly overweight and probably comfortable eating Cheezies on the beach. Only a small minority of the men could be considered fit or ‘built’, and an even smaller sampling of the women would be described as extraordinarily beautiful.\n\nEven the most stunning of the women we saw, whose ruched, red bikini bottoms kept slipping ‘dangerously’ downwards as she played in the water, didn’t cause me to want to handle her or mumble sentences like “I want...” or “I take...” or whatever that video claims my reaction would be.\n\nLaying on a towel in the sand next to my beautiful wife, her own ‘double d’s’ covered by a black and gold bikini, that, like most bikini’s left little to the imagination... if I was to decide to use my imagination to picture what was hidden by those triangles of fabric.\n\nIn her case, of course, I know the answer to what lies beneath the fabric. And I like it.\n\nIn the case of of the girl whose bottoms kept slipping down, I now know, without imagining, what the upper part of her bum looks like. Oh no. Scandal.\n\nIf I were to use the memory of her image in lust, that is to want her, to desire her...if I were to do that it would not be her fault, but mine. It would be my choice to use her for my own gratification and pleasure. It is my responsibility to respect her not my right to use her.\n\nAppreciating beauty is another thing altogether. There were several women I noticed as beautiful that caught my eye. Observing these pretty, God-created beings brought a smile to my face as I imagined my own daughters grown up, laughing and strutting down a beach such as this, blissfully enjoying the beauty they’ve been blessed with.\n\nAs Christians, in the evangelical tradition, we’ve handcuffed our men by telling them beauty is bad and that the temptation of the two-piece is too great to overcome.\n\nBy teaching men to avoid and avert, we’ve created a culture where curiosity is ‘carnal’ and thus it must be sinful. This culture objectifies women more than ‘the world’ ever could. It’s almost afraid of women, it’s definitely fearful of the female form.\n\nOpen your eyes! Look, but don’t leer. Respect women. God made us, men and women, in his image. Appreciate the artistry of us all.\n\nChoose to love and not lust. Appreciate beauty. It’s everywhere. It’s where you’ve been told not to look. Trust each other and treat each other with dignity and respect. Men, you are not animals. You were created to enjoy the beauty of woman. She is a powerful force. She is your equal, but carved in a more curvaceous way.\n\nMen and women were made to notice each other, don’t be afraid when you notice someone that causes you to take a second glance.\n\nModesty has been misunderstood..it has been misused as a means to control, probably to ‘prevent’ lust. Instead of strengthening men, instead of promoting respectful, mature relationships between men &amp; women - we’ve developed a culture of taboos.\n\nWe’ve gone from “look, but don’t touch” to “look once, never twice” to “don’t look” to “don’t look good.” That last one is directed at the ‘christian’ woman unfortunately, because we blame women for all the troubles men have with lust.\n\nObjectification is not initiated by women being beautiful or even sexy. Women are made into objects in the minds of men who choose to take these living, breathing humans, beautiful in the eyes of their Creator, and turn them into objects to be used in the self-gratification of lust.\n\nModesty is important. The misunderstanding is that we really not talking about modesty. This one is a matter of the heart. We’re talking modesty, but we should be talking about self-control and respect.','Modesty Misunderstood','','inherit','open','open','','9164-autosave','','','2013-07-05 09:23:40','2013-07-05 16:23:40','',9164,'http://provoketive.com/2013/07/05/9164-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(9292,0,'2013-10-16 11:26:15','2013-10-16 18:26:15','Hi,\r\n\r\nI’m a researcher for a site that provides education and industry insights to current and prospective MBA students. Included in our collection of resources, is a series of insightful, business-focused videos that have been featured by respected news outlets like The Huffington Post, Forbes, and Businessweek. \r\n\r\nI found your site, provoketive.com/2012/08/13/why-i-am-leaving-christianity/, while researching our most recent video which illustrates why the government shouldn’t be run like a business. Given the topic, I thought you might be interested in checking it out.\r\n\r\nPlease let me know if you’re interested in watching, “3 Reasons Why Government Shouldn’t be Run Like a Business,” and I’ll send it your way. I think this is something your readers would appreciate, and I’d love to see it featured on your site.\r\n\r\nThanks,\r\n\r\nMichelle Cox\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Michelle Cox\nAUTHOR EMAIL: coxmichelle666@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 209.20.90.231\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Michelle Cox\n    [Email] =&gt; coxmichelle666@gmail.com\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hi,\r\n\r\nI’m a researcher for a site that provides education and industry insights to current and prospective MBA students. Included in our collection of resources, is a series of insightful, business-focused videos that have been featured by respected news outlets like The Huffington Post, Forbes, and Businessweek. \r\n\r\nI found your site, provoketive.com/2012/08/13/why-i-am-leaving-christianity/, while researching our most recent video which illustrates why the government shouldn’t be run like a business. Given the topic, I thought you might be interested in checking it out.\r\n\r\nPlease let me know if you’re interested in watching, “3 Reasons Why Government Shouldn’t be Run Like a Business,” and I’ll send it your way. I think this is something your readers would appreciate, and I’d love to see it featured on your site.\r\n\r\nThanks,\r\n\r\nMichelle Cox\n)\n','Michelle Cox - 2013-10-16 11:26:15','','publish','open','open','','ed70822b8b0fe8920801078cc4d7df94','','','2013-10-16 11:26:15','2013-10-16 18:26:15','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9292',0,'feedback','',0),(9328,0,'2013-12-09 09:11:41','2013-12-09 17:11:41','marriage, relationships, health, body image, finance, poetry\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Meghan Bliss\nAUTHOR EMAIL: meghan.e.bliss@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://missmeghanbliss.wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 75.110.157.19\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Meghan Bliss\n    [Email] =&gt; meghan.e.bliss@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://missmeghanbliss.wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; marriage, relationships, health, body image, finance, poetry\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; missmeghanbliss\n)\n','Meghan Bliss - 2013-12-09 09:11:41','','publish','open','open','','6dad465d2aabd8722995c4d8a2bdfb23','','','2013-12-09 09:11:41','2013-12-09 17:11:41','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9328',0,'feedback','',0),(8979,0,'2013-05-28 08:53:58','2013-05-28 15:53:58','Hi there,\r\n\r\nI am interested in submitting editorial content to Provoketive. I am working with a team of professional writers to develop exclusive, high quality editorial content. I think we have some great articles that would align perfectly with your readership. I would love to have one (or more) of them published on your site. I think it would be a great addition to your existing content.\r\n\r\nI look forward to hearing from you soon.\r\n\r\nThanks so much,\r\nJaime Fairweather\r\n\r\nPR Coordinator\r\nBlueFirePR\r\njaime@bluefirepr.com\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Jaime\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jaime@bluefirepr.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 98.191.100.148\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Jaime\n    [Email] =&gt; jaime@bluefirepr.com\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hi there,\r\n\r\nI am interested in submitting editorial content to Provoketive. I am working with a team of professional writers to develop exclusive, high quality editorial content. I think we have some great articles that would align perfectly with your readership. I would love to have one (or more) of them published on your site. I think it would be a great addition to your existing content.\r\n\r\nI look forward to hearing from you soon.\r\n\r\nThanks so much,\r\nJaime Fairweather\r\n\r\nPR Coordinator\r\nBlueFirePR\r\njaime@bluefirepr.com\r\n \n)\n','Jaime - 2013-05-28 08:53:58','','publish','open','open','','357ddcdcfcebdf6005a757e548a42c4c','','','2013-05-28 08:53:58','2013-05-28 15:53:58','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=8979',0,'feedback','',0),(9377,0,'2014-02-21 08:42:31','2014-02-21 16:42:31','Hey!\r\nBig fan of the Magazine, but I have a piece I just recently finished writing and thought you all might be interested in it. \r\n\r\nIt\'s meant to inspire, give a new outlook and perspective and just be an overall positive message. Here it is though!\r\n\r\n\r\nTraveling in the World of Emotion.\r\n\r\nTraveling is a journey through and through. When a trip is conceived it sparks a dream. A dream that leads to adventure, full of hope, fear, adventure, doubt, and many other emotions. A  trip that slowly starts to fill your existence. You pursue ideas, and get bogged down in research to some far away land your heading to. Trying to get a preemptive taste of what it may be like, looking at pictures of local scenery and already falling in love. \r\n\r\n_______________________________________________________\r\n\r\nAdventure is that gal who grabs you and throws you over her shoulder and takes you somewhere you never expected to go. And you better believe she won’t let you down until she’s ready to.\r\n\r\nOnce she does though you immediately miss her warm embrace. What it felt like to be held by such grizzled experienced gentle arms. You never feel as high or alive as when she’d lift you above the clouds, into the interior of her lovers world, Dream.\r\n\r\nDream, a fickle fellow. Although he sticks with you more than adventure does he still remains elusive at times, and hard to summon up when you will ‘em. He’ll fill you with hopes and promises, an opiate of a powerful persuasion, until all your lines begin to blur and grow fuzzy with Excitement, his devious brother. Then before you know it you’re out of the clouds and Dream has passed you by. Only a distant memory that fades with each setting of the sun. And with that darkness comes Fear.\r\n\r\nFear, a misunderstood lord. For his peasants, Insecurity, Doubt, and Anxiety, often get confused for their king. Yet Fear rules with a guiding fist. He reveals your walls so you can press up against, and topple them down. Granted he may not be as forgiving as Dream, but it’s just because of his calloused reputation. Yet Fear still lusts after his lost lover Hope.\r\n\r\nHope, the gentle caretaker. With one look she banishes Fears peasants, a single touch capable of re-imbuing the soul with her radiant light, and with a single breath she breaths life into those who are lost. She’ll make you impervious to life’s vices and poisons. A shield against the daggers of the dark. A faithful companion as long as you have Belief.\r\n\r\nBelief, a lonesome trickster. Capable of leading even the most sincere astray with false Hopes of success. Yet if Belief can be worked with, rather than leaned on for support, then true progress can be gained. For Belief needs a partner, and hates being relied upon elusively. Belief’s trick being he’s powerless alone, but with action even Dream is not out of his reach. Yet he’s hardly capable of the guidance that is offered by Love.\r\n\r\nLove, the builder of the mosaic. Always working in the background and alongside her fellow emotions. Capable of crumbling empires or trumping the most stout Fear, Doubt or Insecurity. Love is capable of all. She’ll brush you off when you fall, and then show you how to deal with any situation with grace and finesse. She’ll show you the best side of all her emotions, and yourself, giving you the strength needed to carry on toward whatever ends you have in sight. Be it traveling to a foreign far away land, or finishing out the day.\r\n\r\nWhen you travel your closest companion is yourself. Your journey starts the second you dream up the idea that will one day manifest into a reality. All the emotional bumps and turns from conception to completion are just as much apart of your journey as the monuments you’ll see, and the people you’ll meet along the way. Be sure going into whatever journey that you may embark on that you’re ready to travel with your emotions. For they can elevate your trip into something that you never expected, or kill it in the dirt before you take your first step to get there.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Jeremy Parris\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jeremystormsky@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 199.184.205.102\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Jeremy Parris\n    [Email] =&gt; jeremystormsky@gmail.com\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hey!\r\nBig fan of the Magazine, but I have a piece I just recently finished writing and thought you all might be interested in it. \r\n\r\nIt\'s meant to inspire, give a new outlook and perspective and just be an overall positive message. Here it is though!\r\n\r\n\r\nTraveling in the World of Emotion.\r\n\r\nTraveling is a journey through and through. When a trip is conceived it sparks a dream. A dream that leads to adventure, full of hope, fear, adventure, doubt, and many other emotions. A  trip that slowly starts to fill your existence. You pursue ideas, and get bogged down in research to some far away land your heading to. Trying to get a preemptive taste of what it may be like, looking at pictures of local scenery and already falling in love. \r\n\r\n_______________________________________________________\r\n\r\nAdventure is that gal who grabs you and throws you over her shoulder and takes you somewhere you never expected to go. And you better believe she won’t let you down until she’s ready to.\r\n\r\nOnce she does though you immediately miss her warm embrace. What it felt like to be held by such grizzled experienced gentle arms. You never feel as high or alive as when she’d lift you above the clouds, into the interior of her lovers world, Dream.\r\n\r\nDream, a fickle fellow. Although he sticks with you more than adventure does he still remains elusive at times, and hard to summon up when you will ‘em. He’ll fill you with hopes and promises, an opiate of a powerful persuasion, until all your lines begin to blur and grow fuzzy with Excitement, his devious brother. Then before you know it you’re out of the clouds and Dream has passed you by. Only a distant memory that fades with each setting of the sun. And with that darkness comes Fear.\r\n\r\nFear, a misunderstood lord. For his peasants, Insecurity, Doubt, and Anxiety, often get confused for their king. Yet Fear rules with a guiding fist. He reveals your walls so you can press up against, and topple them down. Granted he may not be as forgiving as Dream, but it’s just because of his calloused reputation. Yet Fear still lusts after his lost lover Hope.\r\n\r\nHope, the gentle caretaker. With one look she banishes Fears peasants, a single touch capable of re-imbuing the soul with her radiant light, and with a single breath she breaths life into those who are lost. She’ll make you impervious to life’s vices and poisons. A shield against the daggers of the dark. A faithful companion as long as you have Belief.\r\n\r\nBelief, a lonesome trickster. Capable of leading even the most sincere astray with false Hopes of success. Yet if Belief can be worked with, rather than leaned on for support, then true progress can be gained. For Belief needs a partner, and hates being relied upon elusively. Belief’s trick being he’s powerless alone, but with action even Dream is not out of his reach. Yet he’s hardly capable of the guidance that is offered by Love.\r\n\r\nLove, the builder of the mosaic. Always working in the background and alongside her fellow emotions. Capable of crumbling empires or trumping the most stout Fear, Doubt or Insecurity. Love is capable of all. She’ll brush you off when you fall, and then show you how to deal with any situation with grace and finesse. She’ll show you the best side of all her emotions, and yourself, giving you the strength needed to carry on toward whatever ends you have in sight. Be it traveling to a foreign far away land, or finishing out the day.\r\n\r\nWhen you travel your closest companion is yourself. Your journey starts the second you dream up the idea that will one day manifest into a reality. All the emotional bumps and turns from conception to completion are just as much apart of your journey as the monuments you’ll see, and the people you’ll meet along the way. Be sure going into whatever journey that you may embark on that you’re ready to travel with your emotions. For they can elevate your trip into something that you never expected, or kill it in the dirt before you take your first step to get there.\n)\n','Jeremy Parris - 2014-02-21 08:42:31','','publish','open','open','','0574cfdca1ac06044507093e03f27524','','','2014-02-21 08:42:31','2014-02-21 16:42:31','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9377',0,'feedback','',0),(9188,12,'2013-07-16 03:31:43','2013-07-16 10:31:43','','tv','','inherit','open','open','','tv','','','2013-07-16 03:31:43','2013-07-16 10:31:43','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/tv.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(9189,12,'2013-07-16 03:33:39','2013-07-16 10:33:39','','king','','inherit','open','open','','king-2','','','2013-07-16 03:33:39','2013-07-16 10:33:39','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/king.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(9190,12,'2013-07-16 03:35:26','2013-07-16 10:35:26','','gz','','inherit','open','open','','gz','','','2013-07-16 03:35:26','2013-07-16 10:35:26','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/gz.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(9280,0,'2013-10-06 03:37:30','2013-10-06 10:37:30','Theology and faith, social justice, cross cultural engagement (missions and humanitarian work).\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Cindy Wang Brandt\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jasoncindy@me.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://cindybrandt@wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 210.242.215.235\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Cindy Wang Brandt\n    [Email] =&gt; jasoncindy@me.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; cindybrandt@wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; Theology and faith, social justice, cross cultural engagement (missions and humanitarian work).\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; cindybrandt\n)\n','Cindy Wang Brandt - 2013-10-06 03:37:30','','publish','open','open','','759b1f5058f6dca3623d10282dc8a95b','','','2013-10-06 03:37:30','2013-10-06 10:37:30','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9280',0,'feedback','',0),(9319,0,'2013-12-04 02:32:06','2013-12-04 10:32:06','Hello, \r\n\r\nI am Joseph Atkins, webmaster and editor of the Gay Dating Blog. Our blog focuses on offering relationship and dating tips to the LGBT community. Recently, we updated a list of our favorite 25 free gay dating apps. I thought you and your site\'s audience might be interested in checking it out: http://www.gaydatingsites.net/25-best-free-gay-dating-apps/ . \r\n\r\nIf you do find this list to be a good resource, might you be able to link to it from your blog? Let me know if you have any questions or comments. \r\n\r\nThanks,\r\nJoseph\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Joseph Atkins\nAUTHOR EMAIL: josepha@gaydatingsites.net\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 117.197.249.31\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Joseph Atkins\n    [Email] =&gt; josepha@gaydatingsites.net\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hello, \r\n\r\nI am Joseph Atkins, webmaster and editor of the Gay Dating Blog. Our blog focuses on offering relationship and dating tips to the LGBT community. Recently, we updated a list of our favorite 25 free gay dating apps. I thought you and your site\'s audience might be interested in checking it out: http://www.gaydatingsites.net/25-best-free-gay-dating-apps/ . \r\n\r\nIf you do find this list to be a good resource, might you be able to link to it from your blog? Let me know if you have any questions or comments. \r\n\r\nThanks,\r\nJoseph\n)\n','Joseph Atkins - 2013-12-04 02:32:06','','publish','open','open','','66809e8905730910a7b36e60ae81a533','','','2013-12-04 02:32:06','2013-12-04 10:32:06','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9319',0,'feedback','',0),(9271,0,'2013-09-24 02:58:57','2013-09-24 09:58:57','Hello,\r\n\r\nI am Joseph Atkins, webmaster and editor of the Gay Dating. Our blog focuses on providing dating tips and advice to the LGBT community. We just recently updated our list of the top 100 LGBT marriage, dating, and relationship blogs. I thought you and your site\'s audience might be interested in checking it out: http://www.gaydatingsites.net/top-100-lgbt-marriage-dating-and-relationship-blogs . \r\n\r\nIf you do find this list to be a good resource, might you be able to link to it from your blog? Let me know if you have any questions or comments. \r\n\r\nThanks, \r\n\r\nJoseph\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Joseph Atkins\nAUTHOR EMAIL: josepha@gaydatingsites.net\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 117.197.249.195\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Joseph Atkins\n    [Email] =&gt; josepha@gaydatingsites.net\n    [Comment] =&gt; Hello,\r\n\r\nI am Joseph Atkins, webmaster and editor of the Gay Dating. Our blog focuses on providing dating tips and advice to the LGBT community. We just recently updated our list of the top 100 LGBT marriage, dating, and relationship blogs. I thought you and your site\'s audience might be interested in checking it out: http://www.gaydatingsites.net/top-100-lgbt-marriage-dating-and-relationship-blogs . \r\n\r\nIf you do find this list to be a good resource, might you be able to link to it from your blog? Let me know if you have any questions or comments. \r\n\r\nThanks, \r\n\r\nJoseph\n)\n','Joseph Atkins - 2013-09-24 02:58:57','','publish','open','open','','afbf76ec87a1f1a78a78f66f3e9cb290','','','2013-09-24 02:58:57','2013-09-24 09:58:57','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9271',0,'feedback','',0),(9164,149,'2013-07-04 23:12:33','0000-00-00 00:00:00','I went to the beach today with my wife and daughters. I’m happy to report that Jessica Rey’s viral marketing video for her line of one-piece swimsuits hasn’t changed the way most women dress for the beach.\r\n\r\nIn the several hours we were on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier, we saw men and women of all shapes &amp; sizes, in speedos and swim trunks, one-piece swim suits and of course, bikinis.\r\n\r\nI’d say the most memorable beach attire we saw was a plus-sized woman wearing a leopard-print one piece, with a green, extra large tee-shirt underneath the swimsuit, the ensemble completed by a black pair of shorts or maybe it was a ‘skort,’ I’m not sure... Wow. Now that definitely distracted me. It even caused me to stumble as I let my gaze linger too long and I wasn’t watching where I was walking.\r\n\r\nNeedless to say, she was wearing what she wanted to wear, as we all were.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the people we saw today would likely be considered average or normal, which means they are at least slightly overweight and probably comfortable eating Cheezies on the beach. Only a small minority of the men could be considered fit or ‘built’, and an even smaller sampling of the women would be described as extraordinarily beautiful. \r\n\r\nEven the most stunning of the women we saw, whose ruched, red bikini bottoms kept slipping ‘dangerously’ downwards as she played in the water, didn’t cause me to want to handle her or mumble sentences like “I want...” or “I take...” or whatever that video claims my reaction would be.\r\n\r\nLaying on a towel in the sand next to my beautiful wife, her own ‘double d’s’ covered by a black and gold bikini, that, like most bikini’s left little to the imagination... if I was to decide to use my imagination to picture what was hidden by those triangles of fabric.\r\n\r\nIn her case, of course, I know the answer to what lies beneath the fabric. And I like it. \r\n\r\nIn the case of of the girl whose bottoms kept slipping down, I now know, without imagining, what the upper part of her bum looks like. Oh no. Scandal. \r\n\r\nIf I were to use the memory of her image in lust, that is to want her, to desire her...if I were to do that it would not be her fault, but mine. It would be my choice to use her for my own gratification and pleasure. It is my responsibility to respect her not my right  to use her. \r\n\r\nAppreciating beauty is another thing altogether. There were several women I noticed as beautiful that caught my eye. Observing these pretty, God-created beings brought a smile to my face as I imagined my own daughters grown up, laughing and strutting down a beach such as this, blissfully enjoying the beauty they’ve been blessed with.\r\n\r\nAs Christians, in the evangelical tradition, we’ve handcuffed our men by telling them beauty is bad and that the temptation of the two-piece is too great to overcome.\r\n\r\nBy teaching men to avoid and avert, we’ve created a culture where curiosity is ‘carnal’ and thus it must be sinful. This culture objectifies women more than ‘the world’ ever could. It’s almost afraid of women, it’s definitely fearful of the female form.\r\n\r\nOpen your eyes! Look, but don’t leer. Respect women. God made us, men and women, in his image. Appreciate the artistry of us all.\r\n\r\nChoose to love and not lust. Appreciate beauty. It’s everywhere. It’s where you’ve been told not to look. Trust each other and treat each other with dignity and respect. Men, you are not animals. You were created to enjoy the beauty of woman. She is a powerful force. She is your equal, but carved in a more curvaceous way.\r\n\r\nMen and women were made to notice each other, don’t be afraid when you notice someone that causes you to take a second glance.\r\n\r\nModesty has been misunderstood..it has been misused as a means to control, probably to ‘prevent’ lust. Instead of strengthening men, instead of promoting respectful, mature relationships between men &amp; women - we’ve developed a culture of taboos. \r\n\r\nWe’ve gone from “look, but don’t touch” to “look once, never twice” to “don’t look” to “don’t look good.” That last one is directed at the ‘christian’ woman unfortunately, because we blame women for all the troubles men have with lust. \r\n\r\nObjectification is not initiated by women being beautiful or even sexy. Women are made into objects in the minds of men who choose to take these living, breathing humans, beautiful in the eyes of their Creator, and turn them into objects to be used in the self-gratification of lust.\r\n\r\nModesty is important. The misunderstanding is that we really not talking about modesty. This one is a matter of the heart. We’re talking modesty, but we should be talking about self-control and respect.','Modesty Misunderstood','','pending','open','open','','','','','2013-07-04 23:12:33','2013-07-05 06:12:33','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=9164',0,'post','',0),(9165,149,'2013-07-04 23:10:13','2013-07-05 06:10:13','I went to the beach today with my wife and daughters. I’m happy to report that Jessica Rey’s viral marketing video for her line of one-piece swimsuits hasn’t changed the way most women dress for the beach.\r\n\r\nIn the several hours we were on the beach next to the Santa Monica pier, we saw men and women of all shapes &amp; sizes, in speedos and swim trunks, one-piece swim suits and of course, bikinis.\r\n\r\nI’d say the most memorable beach attire we saw was a plus-sized woman wearing a leopard-print one piece, with a green, extra large tee-shirt <i>underneath</i> the swimsuit, the ensemble completed by a black pair of shorts or maybe it was a ‘skort,’ I’m not sure... Wow. Now that definitely distracted me. It even caused me to stumble as I let my gaze linger too long and I wasn’t watching where I was walking.\r\n\r\nNeedless to say, she was wearing what she wanted to wear, as we all were.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the people we saw today would likely be considered average or normal, which means they are at least slightly overweight and probably comfortable eating Cheezies on the beach. Only a small minority of the men could be considered fit or ‘built’, and an even smaller sampling of the women would be described as extraordinarily beautiful.\r\n\r\nEven the most stunning of the women we saw, whose ruched, red bikini bottoms kept slipping ‘dangerously’ downwards as she played in the water, didn’t <i>cause</i> me to want to handle her or mumble sentences like “I want...” or “I take...” or whatever that video claims my reaction would be.\r\n\r\nLaying on a towel in the sand next to my beautiful wife, her own ‘double d’s’ covered by a black and gold bikini, that, like most bikini’s left little to the imagination... if I was to <i>decide</i> to use my imagination to picture what was hidden by those triangles of fabric.\r\n\r\nIn her case, of course, I know the answer to what lies beneath the fabric. And I like it.\r\n\r\nIn the case of of the girl whose bottoms kept slipping down, I now know, without imagining, what the upper part of her bum looks like. Oh no. Scandal.\r\n\r\nIf I were to use the memory of her image in lust, that is to <i>want</i> her, to <i>desire</i> her...if I were to do that it would not be her fault, but mine. It would be <i>my</i> choice to use her for my own gratification and pleasure. It is my <i>responsibility</i> to respect her not my <i>right </i> to use her.\r\n\r\nAppreciating beauty is another thing altogether. There were several women I noticed as beautiful that caught my eye. Observing these pretty, God-created beings brought a smile to my face as I imagined my own daughters grown up, laughing and strutting down a beach such as this, blissfully enjoying the beauty they’ve been blessed with.\r\n\r\nAs Christians, in the evangelical tradition, we’ve handcuffed our men by telling them beauty is bad and that the temptation of the two-piece is too great to overcome.\r\n\r\nBy teaching men to avoid and avert, we’ve created a culture where curiosity is ‘carnal’ and thus it must be sinful. This culture objectifies women more than ‘the world’ ever could. It’s almost afraid of women, it’s definitely fearful of the female form.\r\n\r\nOpen your eyes! Look, but don’t leer. Respect women. God made us, men and women, in his image. Appreciate the artistry of us all.\r\n\r\nChoose to love and not lust. Appreciate beauty. It’s everywhere. It’s where you’ve been told not to look. Trust each other and treat each other with dignity and respect. Men, you are not animals. You were created to enjoy the beauty of woman. She is a powerful force. She is your equal, but carved in a more curvaceous way.\r\n\r\nMen and women were made to notice each other, don’t be afraid when you notice someone that causes you to take a second glance.\r\n\r\nModesty has been misunderstood..it has been misused as a means to control, probably to ‘prevent’ lust. Instead of strengthening men, instead of promoting respectful, mature relationships between men &amp; women - we’ve developed a culture of taboos.\r\n\r\nWe’ve gone from “look, but don’t touch” to “look once, never twice” to “don’t look” to “don’t look good.” That last one is directed at the ‘christian’ woman unfortunately, because we blame women for all the troubles men have with lust.\r\n\r\nObjectification is not initiated by women being beautiful or even sexy. Women are made into objects in the minds of men who choose to take these living, breathing humans, beautiful in the eyes of their Creator, and turn them into objects to be used in the self-gratification of lust.\r\n\r\nModesty is important. The misunderstanding is that we really not talking about modesty. This one is a matter of the heart. We’re talking modesty, but we should be talking about self-control and respect.','Modesty Misunderstood','','inherit','open','open','','9162-autosave','','','2013-07-04 23:10:13','2013-07-05 06:10:13','',9162,'http://provoketive.com/2013/07/04/9162-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(8994,204,'2013-06-04 06:37:32','2013-06-04 13:37:32','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\nWe (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\nReading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\nMarriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\nWe can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','G','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision','','','2013-06-04 06:37:32','2013-06-04 13:37:32','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8995,204,'2013-06-04 06:37:48','2013-06-04 13:37:48','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\nWe (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\nReading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\nMarriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\nWe can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-2','','','2013-06-04 06:37:48','2013-06-04 13:37:48','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(8996,204,'2013-06-04 06:38:31','2013-06-04 13:38:31','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-3','','','2013-06-04 06:38:31','2013-06-04 13:38:31','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(8998,204,'2013-06-04 06:38:40','2013-06-04 13:38:40','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-4','','','2013-06-04 06:38:40','2013-06-04 13:38:40','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(8999,204,'2013-06-04 06:43:11','2013-06-04 13:43:11','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-5','','','2013-06-04 06:43:11','2013-06-04 13:43:11','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(9001,204,'2013-06-04 06:43:17','2013-06-04 13:43:17','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-6','','','2013-06-04 06:43:17','2013-06-04 13:43:17','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(9003,204,'2013-06-04 06:46:14','2013-06-04 13:46:14','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-7','','','2013-06-04 06:46:14','2013-06-04 13:46:14','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(9011,204,'2013-06-04 06:48:33','2013-06-04 13:48:33','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-8','','','2013-06-04 06:48:33','2013-06-04 13:48:33','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(9078,204,'2013-06-04 16:27:56','2013-06-04 23:27:56','','Marquis','','inherit','open','open','','marquis','','','2013-06-04 16:27:56','2013-06-04 23:27:56','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Marquis.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(9018,204,'2013-06-04 06:59:20','2013-06-04 13:59:20','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-9','','','2013-06-04 06:59:20','2013-06-04 13:59:20','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(9019,204,'2013-06-04 07:10:51','2013-06-04 14:10:51','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7v1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-10','','','2013-06-04 07:10:51','2013-06-04 14:10:51','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(9020,204,'2013-06-04 07:18:20','2013-06-04 14:18:20','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-11','','','2013-06-04 07:18:20','2013-06-04 14:18:20','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(9021,204,'2013-06-04 07:41:14','2013-06-04 14:41:14','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, \"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-12','','','2013-06-04 07:41:14','2013-06-04 14:41:14','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(9022,204,'2013-06-04 07:41:25','2013-06-04 14:41:25','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"//tinyurl.com/mybe3b2\">\"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. </a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-13','','','2013-06-04 07:41:25','2013-06-04 14:41:25','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(9023,204,'2013-06-04 07:41:35','2013-06-04 14:41:35','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"//tinyurl.com/mybe3b2\">\"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate. </a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-14','','','2013-06-04 07:41:35','2013-06-04 14:41:35','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(9024,204,'2013-06-04 07:43:27','2013-06-04 14:43:27','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">\"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate.</a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-15','','','2013-06-04 07:43:27','2013-06-04 14:43:27','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(9025,204,'2013-06-04 07:43:33','2013-06-04 14:43:33','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">\"Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate.</a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-16','','','2013-06-04 07:43:33','2013-06-04 14:43:33','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(9028,204,'2013-06-04 07:44:49','2013-06-04 14:44:49','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-19','','','2013-06-04 07:44:49','2013-06-04 14:44:49','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-19/',0,'revision','',0),(9026,204,'2013-06-04 07:44:08','2013-06-04 14:44:08','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">\"</a>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate<a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-17','','','2013-06-04 07:44:08','2013-06-04 14:44:08','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(9027,204,'2013-06-04 07:44:13','2013-06-04 14:44:13','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">\"</a>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate<a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-18','','','2013-06-04 07:44:13','2013-06-04 14:44:13','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-18/',0,'revision','',0),(9029,204,'2013-06-04 07:44:55','2013-06-04 14:44:55','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-20','','','2013-06-04 07:44:55','2013-06-04 14:44:55','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(9030,204,'2013-06-04 07:47:31','2013-06-04 14:47:31','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-21','','','2013-06-04 07:47:31','2013-06-04 14:47:31','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(9031,204,'2013-06-04 07:47:35','2013-06-04 14:47:35','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-22','','','2013-06-04 07:47:35','2013-06-04 14:47:35','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-22/',0,'revision','',0),(9032,204,'2013-06-04 07:47:42','2013-06-04 14:47:42','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-23','','','2013-06-04 07:47:42','2013-06-04 14:47:42','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-23/',0,'revision','',0),(9033,204,'2013-06-04 07:49:13','2013-06-04 14:49:13','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-24','','','2013-06-04 07:49:13','2013-06-04 14:49:13','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-24/',0,'revision','',0),(9034,204,'2013-06-04 07:50:52','2013-06-04 14:50:52','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> The key-note speaker was Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-25','','','2013-06-04 07:50:52','2013-06-04 14:50:52','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-25/',0,'revision','',0),(9035,0,'2013-06-04 08:07:02','2013-06-04 15:07:02','I am sorry we have been unable to connect. I would love the opportunity to work with you on provided editorial content for your site in the future. Please reach out to me at any point. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.\r\n\r\nBest,\r\n\r\nJaime Fairweather\r\nPR Coordinator\r\nBlueFirePR\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Jaime\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jaime@bluefirepr.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: [Provoketive Magazine] Contact Us\nIP: 98.191.100.147\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Jaime\n    [Email] =&gt; jaime@bluefirepr.com\n    [Comment] =&gt; I am sorry we have been unable to connect. I would love the opportunity to work with you on provided editorial content for your site in the future. Please reach out to me at any point. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.\r\n\r\nBest,\r\n\r\nJaime Fairweather\r\nPR Coordinator\r\nBlueFirePR\n)\n','Jaime - 2013-06-04 08:07:02','','publish','open','open','','c2d1bb70adb3b7692f3fe5970463cb90','','','2013-06-04 08:07:02','2013-06-04 15:07:02','',16,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=9035',0,'feedback','',0),(9036,204,'2013-06-04 08:21:40','2013-06-04 15:21:40','Last week at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-26','','','2013-06-04 08:21:40','2013-06-04 15:21:40','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-26/',0,'revision','',0),(9037,204,'2013-06-04 08:24:55','2013-06-04 15:24:55','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\n\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\n\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\n\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\n\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\n\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\n\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\n\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\n\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\n\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\n\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\n\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-27','','','2013-06-04 08:24:55','2013-06-04 15:24:55','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-27/',0,'revision','',0),(9038,204,'2013-06-04 08:27:38','2013-06-04 15:27:38','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a> A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of my church, Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-28','','','2013-06-04 08:27:38','2013-06-04 15:27:38','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-28/',0,'revision','',0),(9041,204,'2013-06-04 08:39:48','2013-06-04 15:39:48','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion called <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>  The panelists included Stephanie Sandberg, who directed the Actors Theatre production “Seven Passages: The Stories of Gay Christians”; Ruth Bell Olsson, president of the Grand Rapids Red Project for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment; and Jim Lucas, longtime chaplain of the Gays in Faith Together support group. A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan.\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-31','','','2013-06-04 08:39:48','2013-06-04 15:39:48','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-31/',0,'revision','',0),(9039,204,'2013-06-04 08:35:40','2013-06-04 15:35:40','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>  The panelists included Stephanie Sandberg, who directed the Actors Theatre production “Seven Passages: The Stories of Gay Christians”; Ruth Bell Olsson, president of the Grand Rapids Red Project for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment; and Jim Lucas, longtime chaplain of the Gays in Faith Together support group. A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-29','','','2013-06-04 08:35:40','2013-06-04 15:35:40','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-29/',0,'revision','',0),(9040,204,'2013-06-04 08:35:49','2013-06-04 15:35:49','Recently at the Wealthy Theatre in Grand Rapids, Mathew Clark of the Gay Christian Therapy Center hosted a panel discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. Actually, it was called, <a href=\"http://mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\"><em>Homosexuality and Christianity: A new approach in a polarizing debate</em></a><a href=\"http://http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/daniel_dobson_son_of_prominent.html\">.</a>  The panelists included Stephanie Sandberg, who directed the Actors Theatre production “Seven Passages: The Stories of Gay Christians”; Ruth Bell Olsson, president of the Grand Rapids Red Project for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment; and Jim Lucas, longtime chaplain of the Gays in Faith Together support group. A highlight of the evening was the official public coming out of Dan Dobson, son of the legendary and venerable Ed Dobson who is the retired pastor of Calvary Church here in West Michigan. His brother, Kent Dobson, is the new teaching pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThis was my first meeting of this kind, and I actually didn\'t know what to expect—perhaps some protests or signs, maybe even some threats of violence—but none of that occurred. To be honest, the meeting was mesmerizing and deeply interesting. Why? Well, I\'m a heterosexual male married to the same woman for the past thirty-three years. We practice monogamy and fidelity and frankly, those seemed to be the main themes of the night—except it was monogamy and fidelity between same-sex partners. Anyway, after thinking and talking about this issue, there are a few take-aways from this meeting that I\'d like to share with you.\r\n\r\n<strong>We (Christians and society in general, but mostly Christians) really make life hard for the LGBT community.</strong>\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of ways we do this—heterosexism, homophobia, etc., those are the easy ones, but as a Christian, I can speak for my team and frankly, my team is very good at making life difficult for the LGBT community. We do this by not having conversations about homosexuality. There is pressure on us, however, to shift from the \"abomination\" stage of the conversation to the \"neutral\" stage of the conversation. By this, I mean we spoke out angrily against homosexuality (and some churches still consider this an intramural sport), but now we are content not to talk about it at all. The code word here is \"neutrality.\" There are several reasons for this, the main one is that we do not want to create another church split that isn\'t about the color of the carpet we need to replace in the Sunday school rooms. Certainly, like any major change in thinking, steps need to be taken wisely and with great care. But even this plays into the \"neutrality\" state. Another way is to create two issues out of one: Should we affirm gay marriage? And, then should we go further and affirm homosexuality also (I think they mean gay sex)? Aren\'t they both the same thing? Finally, I think we make it hard for the LGBT community when we invoke spiritual warfare when it comes to dealing with this issue. This comes about when those of us who have gay friends are guilty by association—that is when the \"putting on the whole armor of God,\" and the \"we must constantly be on guard against Devil\" arguments are invoked. I think the Devil gets really happy when we focus so much attention on him.\r\n\r\n<strong>Reading the Bible literally is actually, really dangerous.</strong>\r\n\r\nWooden literalism gives us silly things like the rapture, snake handlers and prosperity gospel preachers. Sure, there are some things in the Bible that you should take literally like, \"Jesus wept,\" and \"Love one another.\" But ultimately, reading the Bible literally gives us dualisms that create an \"us versus them\" mentality. A good example of this is \"love the sinner but hate the sin.\" Nice, except that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:1-5 that we should love the sinner and hate our own sin. And if being gay is a sin, then it also is covered by the cross. And speaking of the Cross, Jesus\' death on the Cross was not to appease an angry God so He would change his mind about us. It was about US changing our minds about God. It\'s about a God who identifies with all of us through his death, burial and resurrection.\r\n\r\n<strong>Marriage equality and homosexuality are not good reasons to leave your church.</strong>\r\n\r\nOf course, this assumes that your church is having a dialogue about marriage equality and homosexuality in the first place. If they are, you should hang in there because you may be creating a sacred space for your son or daughter who have not yet come out. IF you do want to break up with your church, I suggest you consider unnecessary capital campaigns and ornate building programs as the proper reasons. Clean water, mentoring, adoption, refugees, world hunger, and the HIV Aids pandemic are also good reasons to break up with your church IF they ignore these important issues.\r\n\r\n<strong>We can affirm gay marriage and still affirm fidelity and monogamy.</strong>\r\n\r\nI realize a lot of people were at this meeting, and they may have different take-aways than mine. And to be honest, I do not have a handle on all the implications of marriage equality and homosexuality. I do think it\'s a problem when a gay person might marry a person of the opposite sex, hoping it \"works\" or \"cures\" them and then later leaves the other spouse and children behind in order to come out. But to be fair, this problem is not endemic to gay marriage. Too often it occurs in heterosexual marriages for different reasons. Which brings me to the conclusion that we all must be on the side of fidelity and monogamy in any kind of marriage.\r\n\r\nThis issue requires humility and a huge capacity to love in all of us. I\'m convinced that the only viable response to the hostility about this issue is love, empathy, compassion and understanding—not more hostility.\r\n\r\nI welcome your thoughts and opinions.','Gay And Christian:  Believers Speak','','inherit','open','open','','8993-revision-30','','','2013-06-04 08:35:49','2013-06-04 15:35:49','',8993,'http://provoketive.com/2013/06/04/8993-revision-30/',0,'revision','',0);
