(3519,1,'2012-01-01 18:57:54','2012-01-02 02:57:54','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-3514\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_-216x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"216\" height=\"300\" /></a>\r\n\r\nIt’s a little odd I guess for a white guy to be writing about <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa\" target=\"_blank\">Kwanzaa</a>, a week-long celebration honoring universal African-American heritage and culture, observed from December 26 to January 1 each year. I’ve vaguely known about Kwanzaa for many years but this is the first time I have truly explored and participated in the holiday. One of the great benefits of being married to Kyra is how my life has been further and more deeply enriched by African-American culture, including being part of Kwanzaa. Kyra, Jessica, and I were sitting around the other day and the subject of Kwanzaa came up, which sparked my curiosity. I didn’t anticipate that this curiosity would become so significant for my life and heading into a new year.\r\n\r\nThough Kwanzaa is considered mostly an African-American holiday, the seven principles, one for each day, are foundational to all of humankind and for building a world that works for everyone.The principles are:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li><em>Umoja</em> (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Kujichagulia</em> (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves stand up.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Ujima</em> (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers\' and sisters\' problems our problems, and to solve them together.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Ujamaa</em> (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Nia</em> (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Kuumba</em> (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Imani</em> (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nFor me personally, each principle has been an invitation to embrace more fully who I am for myself, others, and the world. Though Kwanzaa ended January 1st, I would encourage anyone to take the time and explore the principles in light of your own life and the new year ahead.\r\n\r\nI was inspired to write a blog series about my exploration of Kwanzaa and it\'s z principles. <a href=\"http://www.divinenobodies.com/blog/2012/01/farewell-kwanzaa-and-living-into-a-new-way-of-being/\" target=\"_blank\">Today’s post</a> includes links to the rest of the blog series if you’re interested in reading what is essentially a white guy’s guide to Kwanzaa.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-3515\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_-225x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"225\" height=\"300\" /></a>','A White Guy\'s Guide to Kwanzaa (7 principles for building a world that works for everyone. ','','inherit','open','open','','3513-revision-2','','','2012-01-01 18:57:54','2012-01-02 02:57:54','',3513,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/01/3513-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3520,1,'2012-01-02 01:03:48','2012-01-02 09:03:48','','kwanzaa_candles','','inherit','open','open','','kwanzaa_candles','','','2012-01-02 01:03:48','2012-01-02 09:03:48','',3513,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kwanzaa_candles.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3521,1,'2012-01-02 00:59:26','2012-01-02 08:59:26','<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-3514\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_-216x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"216\" height=\"300\" /></a>\n\nIt’s a little odd I guess for a white guy to be writing about <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa\" target=\"_blank\">Kwanzaa</a>, a week-long celebration honoring universal African-American heritage and culture, observed from December 26 to January 1 each year. I’ve vaguely known about Kwanzaa for many years but this is the first time I have truly explored and participated in the holiday. One of the great benefits of being married to Kyra is how my life has been further and more deeply enriched by African-American culture, including being part of Kwanzaa. Kyra, Jessica, and I were sitting around the other day and the subject of Kwanzaa came up, which sparked my curiosity. I didn’t anticipate that this curiosity would become so significant for my life and heading into a new year.\n\nThough Kwanzaa is considered mostly an African-American holiday, the seven principles, one for each day, are foundational to all of humankind and for building a world that works for everyone.The principles are:\n<ul>\n	<li><em>Umoja</em> (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.</li>\n	<li><em>Kujichagulia</em> (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves stand up.</li>\n	<li><em>Ujima</em> (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers\' and sisters\' problems our problems, and to solve them together.</li>\n	<li><em>Ujamaa</em> (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.</li>\n	<li><em>Nia</em> (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.</li>\n	<li><em>Kuumba</em> (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.</li>\n	<li><em>Imani</em> (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.</li>\n</ul>\nFor me personally, each principle has been an invitation to embrace more fully who I am for myself, others, and the world. Though Kwanzaa ended January 1st, I would encourage anyone to take the time and explore the principles in light of your own life and the new year ahead.\n\nI was inspired to write a blog series about my exploration of Kwanzaa and it\'s z principles. <a href=\"http://www.divinenobodies.com/blog/2012/01/farewell-kwanzaa-and-living-into-a-new-way-of-being/\" target=\"_blank\">Today’s post</a> includes links to the rest of the blog series if you’re interested in reading what is essentially a white guy’s guide to Kwanzaa.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-3515\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_-225x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"225\" height=\"300\" /></a>','A White Guy\'s Guide to Kwanzaa (7 principles for building a world that works for everyone. ','','inherit','open','open','','3513-revision-3','','','2012-01-02 00:59:26','2012-01-02 08:59:26','',3513,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/3513-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3522,1,'2011-12-31 13:22:47','2011-12-31 21:22:47','A few years ago, Jose Saramago, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for literature, said this:\r\n<blockquote>The Bible is a manual of bad morals [which] has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different and probably better people.</blockquote>\r\nHe want on to describe the Bible as \"a catalog of cruelty and of what\'s worst in human nature.\" Though I am a life-long follower of Jesus, there are many days when I think Jose may be right.\r\n<h2>If We Didn\'t Have the Bible</h2>\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, I wouldn’t have to try to reconcile the nightly news about rape, child molestation, earthquakes killing thousands, and war devastating entire countries with the Scriptural promise that God cares for us more than the birds of the air and flowers of the field.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, I wouldn’t have to try to question, along with the Psalmist, why wicked people get rich and stay healthy, while God’s servants lose their homes, their children, their jobs, and their lives.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, there might be fewer arguments about homosexuality, hell, and how to get to heaven. Sure, some of us still would argue, because we all want to be right. But if we didn’t have Bible verses to throw at each other, most of us would probably spend less time arguing and more time loving.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, maybe there would be fewer sermons and Bible studies and more service of others and caring for one another.\r\n\r\nPeople say we need the Bible to get our questions answered, solve our problems in life, and provide direction on how to live. I just don\'t see that the Bible does this very well. It seems to create more questions and problems than it solves. It generates arguments, provides justification for war, and helps us condemn and hate others who do not believe or behave like us.\r\n\r\nYes, sometimes I think that life would be better without the Bible.\r\n<h2>I\'m Glad We Have the Bible</h2>\r\nBut then, if I didn’t have the Bible, I might know about Jesus. It is he that keeps me returning to Scripture. It is he who provides the lens through which I view life. It is he who shows me what love for others really looks like, and how service can be done in a way that both dignifies and provides help to others.\r\n\r\nAnd despite my discomfort with a lot of what is said in Scripture, and especially with the ways Scripture is sometimes used, Scripture seems to have been a source of comfort and guidance for Jesus. This tells me that there must be a way to accept Scripture, but still  live and love like Jesus, rather than like many who claim to be his followers.\r\n\r\nSo although I sometimes think life would be better without the Bible, what I probably mean is that life would be better without the way some people use the Bible. Maybe if I can learn to read the Bible like Jesus, as an inspiration for love, mercy, and forgiveness, rather than as a way to justify hate and war, I can once again be thankful for the Bible.','Better without the Bible','','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-6','','','2011-12-31 13:22:47','2011-12-31 21:22:47','',440,'http://provoketive.com/2011/12/31/440-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3523,1,'2012-01-02 01:05:07','2012-01-02 09:05:07','<strong>7 principles for building a world that works for everyone.</strong>\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art.black_-216x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"216\" height=\"300\" /></a>It’s a little odd I guess for a white guy to be writing about <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa\" target=\"_blank\">Kwanzaa</a>, a week-long celebration honoring universal African-American heritage and culture, observed from December 26 to January 1 each year. I’ve vaguely known about Kwanzaa for many years but this is the first time I have truly explored and participated in the holiday. One of the great benefits of being married to Kyra is how my life has been further and more deeply enriched by African-American culture, including being part of Kwanzaa. Kyra, Jessica, and I were sitting around the other day and the subject of Kwanzaa came up, which sparked my curiosity. I didn’t anticipate that this curiosity would become so significant for my life and heading into a new year.\r\n\r\nThough Kwanzaa is considered mostly an African-American holiday, the seven principles, one for each day, are foundational to all of humankind and for building a world that works for everyone.The principles are:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li><em>Umoja</em> (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Kujichagulia</em> (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves stand up.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Ujima</em> (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers\' and sisters\' problems our problems, and to solve them together.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Ujamaa</em> (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Nia</em> (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Kuumba</em> (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.</li>\r\n	<li><em>Imani</em> (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nFor me personally, each principle has been an invitation to embrace more fully who I am for myself, others, and the world. Though Kwanzaa ended January 1st, I would encourage anyone to take the time and explore the principles in light of your own life and the new year ahead.\r\n\r\nI was inspired to write a blog series about my exploration of Kwanzaa and it\'s z principles. <a href=\"http://www.divinenobodies.com/blog/2012/01/farewell-kwanzaa-and-living-into-a-new-way-of-being/\" target=\"_blank\">Today’s post</a> includes links to the rest of the blog series if you’re interested in reading what is essentially a white guy’s guide to Kwanzaa.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_.jpg\"><img class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-3515\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kyra.and_.jim_-225x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"225\" height=\"300\" /></a>\r\n\r\n<em>Photo Credit: African American Music of Iowa</em>','A White Guy\'s Guide to Kwanzaa','','inherit','open','open','','3513-revision-4','','','2012-01-02 01:05:07','2012-01-02 09:05:07','',3513,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/3513-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3524,1,'2012-01-02 01:06:29','2012-01-02 09:06:29','A few years ago, Jose Saramago, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for literature, said this:\r\n<blockquote>The Bible is a manual of bad morals [which] has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different and probably better people.</blockquote>\r\nHe want on to describe the Bible as \"a catalog of cruelty and of what\'s worst in human nature.\" Though I am a life-long follower of Jesus, there are many days when I think Jose may be right.\r\n<h2>If We Didn\'t Have the Bible</h2>\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, I wouldn’t have to try to reconcile the nightly news about rape, child molestation, earthquakes killing thousands, and war devastating entire countries with the Scriptural promise that God cares for us more than the birds of the air and flowers of the field.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, I wouldn’t have to try to question, along with the Psalmist, why wicked people get rich and stay healthy, while God’s servants lose their homes, their children, their jobs, and their lives.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, there might be fewer arguments about homosexuality, hell, and how to get to heaven. Sure, some of us still would argue, because we all want to be right. But if we didn’t have Bible verses to throw at each other, most of us would probably spend less time arguing and more time loving.\r\n\r\nIf we didn’t have the Bible, maybe there would be fewer sermons and Bible studies and more service of others and caring for one another.\r\n\r\nPeople say we need the Bible to get our questions answered, solve our problems in life, and provide direction on how to live. I just don\'t see that the Bible does this very well. It seems to create more questions and problems than it solves. It generates arguments, provides justification for war, and helps us condemn and hate others who do not believe or behave like us.\r\n\r\nYes, sometimes I think that life would be better without the Bible.\r\n<h2>I\'m Glad We Have the Bible</h2>\r\nBut then, if I didn’t have the Bible, I might know about Jesus. It is he that keeps me returning to Scripture. It is he who provides the lens through which I view life. It is he who shows me what love for others really looks like, and how service can be done in a way that both dignifies and provides help to others.\r\n\r\nAnd despite my discomfort with a lot of what is said in Scripture, and especially with the ways Scripture is sometimes used, Scripture seems to have been a source of comfort and guidance for Jesus. This tells me that there must be a way to accept Scripture, but still  live and love like Jesus, rather than like many who claim to be his followers.\r\n\r\nSo although I sometimes think life would be better without the Bible, what I probably mean is that life would be better without the way some people use the Bible. Maybe if I can learn to read the Bible like Jesus, as an inspiration for love, mercy, and forgiveness, rather than as a way to justify hate and war, I can once again be thankful for the Bible.','Better without the Bible','','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-7','','','2012-01-02 01:06:29','2012-01-02 09:06:29','',440,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/440-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(3526,1,'2012-01-02 09:36:47','2012-01-02 17:36:47','','verge_2012','','inherit','open','open','','verge_2012','','','2012-01-02 09:36:47','2012-01-02 17:36:47','',3525,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/verge_2012.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3527,1,'2012-01-02 09:38:01','2012-01-02 17:38:01','<iframe src=\"http://player.vimeo.com/video/30187712?color=ffffff\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\"></iframe>\n\n<strong>The <a href=\"http://verge2012.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Verge 2012 Missional Community Conference</a> </strong>is a four-day experience for church leaders, students, entrepreneurs, artists, urban innovators, business leaders, community development specialists, non-profit leaders, church planters and everyday leaders - anyone pursuing the mission of God, in community, whatever the context, for the sake of the Gospel.\n\nVerge will resource you to make disciples who make disciples in every sphere and domain of society, advocate for the poor and oppressed, mobilize urban and global mission leaders, and champion movements of gospel-centered missional communities\n\nMade up of pre-conferences, post-conferences, two-days of challenging main sessions, music, workshops, networking opportunities and more, Verge 2012 is here to encourage, build up and renew all kinds of leaders engaged in the mission of God to redeem and renew.<em></em>\n\n<em>Verge 2012 is For The Gospel \\ For The City \\ For The Nations</em>\n\nTuesday, February 28, 2012 - Friday, March 02, 2012 - Austin, TX.\n\nCost is just $129 - <a href=\"http://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=987424\" target=\"_blank\">Register here</a>.\n\n&nbsp;','The Verge 2012 Missional Community Conference','','inherit','open','open','','3525-revision','','','2012-01-02 09:38:01','2012-01-02 17:38:01','',3525,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/3525-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3529,57,'2012-01-07 09:10:08','2012-01-07 17:10:08','2011 will always be remembered as the year of the \"hell debate” because of the explosion of Christian writing that rattled the popular evangelical conception of hell. What has become clear is that it’s not a debate between those \"for\" and \"against\" hell, but rather a debate between different possible hells. The following six questions are my attempt to explore the theological presumptions that explain how we come up with such different hells.\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Is God\'s being <em>independent </em>of the universe or is God the <em>source </em>of the universe\'s being?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe modern imagination pictures God as another person like we are people. He\'s invisible, omnipotent, and omnipresent but His being is seen as completely independent from ours. This is very different from the ancient Christian view that God was the source of all being, expressed most  succinctly in Colossians 1:17: \"In Him all things hold together.”\r\n\r\nIf all things depend on God for existence and hell is eternal separation from God, then hell is the non-existence that results from rejecting the source of our being. The punitive nature of hell becomes literal rather than metaphorical <em>only in modernity</em> when it becomes possible to imagine existence independent of the presence of God.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Is God\'s primary agenda to <em>love </em>creation or defend His <em>glory</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nIf God\'s love is the underlying motive for everything He does, then hell must have a loving purpose such as solidarity or protection for the victims of sin. If God never stops loving the people who suffer in hell, then hell must be the product of their choice to reject God\'s love rather than God\'s rejection of them.\r\n\r\nBut if everything God does is out of defense of His glory rather than love, and His glory is not defined in terms of His love, then hell has nothing to do with love. In this conception of hell, God punishes people in hell not because they hurt people He loves but simply because His honor has been offended. If God is invested in His honor rather than in seeking communion, He would be indifferent to whether He is glorified through salvation or damnation.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Is God\'s justice primarily <em>retributive </em>or <em>restorative</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nOur modern capitalist world depends upon the assumption that every debt will be paid in full. Without this assurance, our entire economic order would collapse. I think this is why in modernity we equate justice with retribution. Modern justice concerns itself exclusively with ensuring that criminals \"pay\" fully for their crime, as opposed to restoring the well-being of crime victims or repairing the damage crime does to a community. Restorative justice concerns itself instead with healing, repentance, and reconciliation.\r\n\r\nIf hell serves the purpose of retributive justice, it exists simply to make sinners pay for their sins. Under this view of hell, some people might question whether eternal torment is an appropriate retribution for a mildly sinful life. The response is usually to say that God is such a perfectionist that sins we consider to be mild are infinitely offensive to God.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, if hell serves the purpose of restorative justice, then it isn\'t a punishment measured out in proportion to the offensiveness of sin, but the denial of eternal communion to sinners who have refused the means by which God offers to heal and reconcile them with the people hurt by their sin.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) Is God\'s holiness an <em>intolerance for imperfection</em> or an <em>intolerable perfection</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nIt\'s a common formulation in pop evangelical speech to say that God\'s holiness means that He “can have no fellowship with sin” and that God has to send people to hell because He can\'t tolerate their imperfection. On the other hand, Jesus did choose to fellowship with sinners without compromising His holiness. His holiness could tolerate sinners, but the sinners could not tolerate His holiness, so they crucified Him.\r\n\r\nIf holiness is God\'s intolerance for imperfection, then hell serves the purpose of protecting God from exposure to our sin. If on the other hand, holiness is God\'s intolerable perfection, then hell is the torture experienced by sinners who face God\'s holiness without atonement.\r\n\r\n<strong>5) When we escape hell, is it because <em>God changed His mind about us</em> or because <em>we changed our minds about God</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nJesus’ death on the cross is often presented as the reason Jesus’ wrathful Father changes <em>His</em> mind about damning all humanity to hell. The objection to this is to point out that it breaks the Son and Father into two separate gods, rather than one single triune God. If God is truly both Son and Father, then He does not need to be persuaded by His own actions, which would seem to indicate that the cross is supposed to change <em>our</em> minds about God instead.\r\n\r\nIf God is the one whose mind needs to be changed, then we experience heaven or hell according to where God chooses to send us. If we are the ones whose minds need to be changed, then God’s attitude toward us is constant, but we experience heaven or hell depending upon whether we receive God’s fiery embrace as love or wrath.\r\n\r\n<strong>6) Are we saved <em>by proving something</em> to God or does God save us <em>from having something to prove</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nEvangelical Christianity describes salvation as justification by faith rather than works. This means that we are saved by <em>believing </em>something but not by <em>doing</em> something. But if salvation describes God’s evaluative response to something we have proven about ourselves, then it would seem that whatever proof we have given God is our “works-righteousness,” whether it’s a decision or sinner’s prayer or adherence to the right doctrine. Alternatively, salvation could mean being liberated from the need to prove our worth to God because we trust instead in Jesus’ sacrifice.\r\n\r\nIf salvation describes God’s approval of our demonstrated “faith,” then hell is God’s reaction to those whom He disapproves. If on the other hand, salvation describes how God liberates us from thinking that we need to earn His approval, then hell could be our delusional imprisonment to the need to prove our worth to God, which would mean that many evangelicals who think they’re saved are actually suffering through hell.','Six Questions from the Hell Debate','','publish','open','open','','six-questions-from-the-hell-debate','','','2012-01-07 09:10:08','2012-01-07 17:10:08','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3529',0,'post','',10),(3530,57,'2012-01-02 11:11:36','2012-01-02 19:11:36','2011 will always be remembered as the year of the \"hell debate.\" Last year saw a torrent of writing that rattled the popular evangelical conception of heaven and hell, such as Rob Bell\'s <em>Love Wins</em>, Jonathan Brink\'s <em>Discovering the God Imagination</em>, and Jimmy Spencer Jr\'s <em>Love Without Agenda, </em>among many others. The one positive result upon which Christians on all sides of the debate can hopefully agree is that last year was a year of vigorous theological reflection through which we have hopefully started to separate some of the eternal wheat of God\'s truth fr\n\n&nbsp;\n\n1) Is God\'s primary agenda to <em>love humanity</em> or <em>glorify Himself</em>?\n\n2) Is God\'s justice primarily <em>retributive</em> or <em>restorative</em>?\n\n3) Is God\'s holiness an <em>intolerance for imperfection</em> or an <em>intolerable perfection</em>?\n\n4) Is the cross supposed to change <em>God\'s mind about us</em> or change <em>our minds about God?</em>\n\n5) Are we saved <em>by</em> proving something to God or does God save us <em>from</em> having something to prove?\n\n&nbsp;','','','inherit','open','open','','3529-revision','','','2012-01-02 11:11:36','2012-01-02 19:11:36','',3529,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/3529-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3531,57,'2012-01-02 11:13:01','2012-01-02 19:13:01','2011 will always be remembered as the year of the \"hell debate.\" Last year saw a torrent of writing that rattled the popular evangelical conception of heaven and hell, such as Rob Bell\'s <em>Love Wins</em>, Jonathan Brink\'s <em>Discovering the God Imagination</em>, and Jimmy Spencer Jr\'s <em>Love Without Agenda, </em>among many others. The one positive result upon which Christians on all sides of the debate can hopefully agree is that last year was a year of vigorous theological reflection through which we have hopefully started to separate some of the eternal wheat of God\'s truth from the chaff of our Western European presumptions.\n\nThe following five questions\n\n1) Is God\'s primary agenda to <em>love humanity</em> or <em>glorify Himself</em>?\n\n2) Is God\'s justice primarily <em>retributive</em> or <em>restorative</em>?\n\n3) Is God\'s holiness an <em>intolerance for imperfection</em> or an <em>intolerable perfection</em>?\n\n4) Is the cross supposed to change <em>God\'s mind about us</em> or change <em>our minds about God?</em>\n\n5) Are we saved <em>by</em> proving something to God or does God save us <em>from</em> having something to prove?\n\n&nbsp;','','','inherit','open','open','','3529-revision-2','','','2012-01-02 11:13:01','2012-01-02 19:13:01','',3529,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/02/3529-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3534,35,'2012-01-03 05:03:52','2012-01-03 13:03:52','','DSC_0712 - Copy','','inherit','open','open','','dsc_0712-copy','','','2012-01-03 05:03:52','2012-01-03 13:03:52','',3533,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSC_0712-Copy.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3535,35,'2012-01-03 04:57:32','2012-01-03 12:57:32','Today is my fifty-seventh birthday.  My hair is polished silver.  Though I am no longer sleek, I’m sexy and adore my Victoria’s Secret lingerie. I’m not an intellectual, but intelligent and love conversations that engage my brain.  My greatest lessons have been learned from experience, and I’ve earned my wisdom the hard way.  Last year, my first book was published, and I am living my life’s dream at last as a passionate, full-time author.  And my culture considers me insignificant because I’m no longer twenty or thirty-something, nor on the brink of disaster as forty-something.  What the hell do they know, and why don’t they know it?  Not just because young adults say so, but many middle-aged and senior women believe it.\n\nSeven years ago, I wrote this poem for my fiftieth birthday:\n<blockquote>Five-Oh\n\nMy experience is hanging\n\nout of drawers,\n\ngrowing under the bed\n\nin effusive excess,\n\ntwirling from ceiling fans,\n\ndripping from my tears.\n\nI’ve stored it up for years\n\nuntil my birthday\n\ndevalued all I know,\n\nany truth and wisdom\n\ngained only through error\n\nand trial-sized experiments\n\nrendered innocuous\n\nby cultural consensus\n\nthat counts me up to forty-nine\n\nthen subtracts.</blockquote>\nI began coloring my hair in my early twenties, not because I didn’t like what I had, but for fun.  After thirty years of this, I gave myself an early present six months before my fiftieth birthday:  I decided to grow my hair color out, because I hadn’t a clue what was hidden underneath.  I figured that if my natural color sucked, I would disguise it again.  What I discovered was delightful.  Granted, this lovely silver shade came gradually, and the transition might have been dreadful.  But the bottom line was I love how my hair looks today, and will never change it again.\n\nCompliments abounded.  You know who hated it?  <em>Only women</em>.  This one fortyish woman with rabies chewed me out, degrading me for “letting myself go” and being unnecessarily unattractive.  I was appalled, not because I was embarrassed or hurt, but because of how effectively the anti-aging lie had stolen part of her self-esteem.  That slam wasn’t about me; it was her self-evaluation.\n\nAny product labeled “anti-aging” or “age-defying” aren’t for men.  A men’s skin-care product that claimed to make them “look ten years younger” would have a very limited market.  Guys don’t wear make-up.  Why do women?  Do I really have to tell you the answer?\n\nWho buys that stuff?  Who tends to lie about their age?  Who keeps plastic surgeons in business?  If you’re a fifty-plus woman, think about it.  Getting older isn’t a disease; it’s a natural aspect of life.  Have you unconsciously decided birthdays determine your worth?  The current life-expectancy for women in the United States is eighty-one years.  That’s a long time to live as a second-class citizen, increasingly without value or a voice in our society. It’s our choice.\n\nYes, everyone has better-looking bodies when we’re young.  But if my beauty is based on not having wrinkles, I’m screwed.  If I have to look like a Victoria’s Secret model to buy their lingerie, the company better tell the sales clerks, because I tend to buy what I try on and they always take my money.  So why don’t some of their models look like me?  Those girls are going to have to change careers in a few years unless the company changes.  Who has to power to change that?  Us.  All at once?  No.  “Us” means one person at a time.  You have to decide what <em>you</em> want, how <em>you</em> want to live.  Are you really living authentically?\n\nI’m a child of the 60’s, a genuine hippie (still am).  I didn’t wear make-up until I graduated from college and got a job for which I had to wear a suit, pantyhose, and make-up.  Been there/did that for a lot of years, got burned out, and found a job at a ridiculously low wage so I could dump the make-up, etc. and look like myself again.\n\nNow I work at home as a full-time author and can wear a swimsuit and fuzzy bunny slippers to work if I want.  Yet I wore a tiny bit of make-up for my professional photos to look….well, professional, but still 95% like the authentic me.  When I’m asked to speak at a traditional church or conference, I wear slacks instead of jeans, or a dress (albeit bohemian).\n\nBut do you know why I wear no make-up, have silver hair, and dress like I do?  Because that’s the inner me expressed on the outside.  Do you know why I wear slinky lingerie?  Not for Bud, even though he likes it, but because I like how it makes me feel.  I buy really good skin care products, but NEVER anything that degrades who I am, because I’m already beautiful, for that’s how God made me.  My age doesn’t determine my significance.  My abilities don’t define my worth.  And any marketing company, person, or institution who tells me differently, to hell with them.  But not to hell with me.','Anti Anti-Aging','','inherit','open','open','','3533-revision','','','2012-01-03 04:57:32','2012-01-03 12:57:32','',3533,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/03/3533-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3536,35,'2012-01-03 05:04:28','2012-01-03 13:04:28','Today is my fifty-seventh birthday.  My hair is polished silver.  Though I am no longer sleek, I’m sexy and adore my Victoria’s Secret lingerie. I’m not an intellectual, but intelligent and love conversations that engage my brain.  My greatest lessons have been learned from experience, and I’ve earned my wisdom the hard way.  Last year, my first book was published, and I am living my life’s dream at last as a passionate, full-time author.  And my culture considers me insignificant because I’m no longer twenty or thirty-something, nor on the brink of disaster as forty-something.  What the hell do they know, and why don’t they know it?  Not just because young adults say so, but many middle-aged and senior women believe it.\r\n\r\nSeven years ago, I wrote this poem for my fiftieth birthday:\r\n<blockquote>Five-Oh\r\n\r\nMy experience is hanging\r\n\r\nout of drawers,\r\n\r\ngrowing under the bed\r\n\r\nin effusive excess,\r\n\r\ntwirling from ceiling fans,\r\n\r\ndripping from my tears.\r\n\r\nI’ve stored it up for years\r\n\r\nuntil my birthday\r\n\r\ndevalued all I know,\r\n\r\nany truth and wisdom\r\n\r\ngained only through error\r\n\r\nand trial-sized experiments\r\n\r\nrendered innocuous\r\n\r\nby cultural consensus\r\n\r\nthat counts me up to forty-nine\r\n\r\nthen subtracts.</blockquote>\r\nI began coloring my hair in my early twenties, not because I didn’t like what I had, but for fun.  After thirty years of this, I gave myself an early present six months before my fiftieth birthday:  I decided to grow my hair color out, because I hadn’t a clue what was hidden underneath.  I figured that if my natural color sucked, I would disguise it again.  What I discovered was delightful.  Granted, this lovely silver shade came gradually, and the transition might have been dreadful.  But the bottom line was I love how my hair looks today, and will never change it again.\r\n\r\nCompliments abounded.  You know who hated it?  <em>Only women</em>.  This one fortyish woman with rabies chewed me out, degrading me for “letting myself go” and being unnecessarily unattractive.  I was appalled, not because I was embarrassed or hurt, but because of how effectively the anti-aging lie had stolen part of her self-esteem.  That slam wasn’t about me; it was her self-evaluation.\r\n\r\nAny product labeled “anti-aging” or “age-defying” aren’t for men.  A men’s skin-care product that claimed to make them “look ten years younger” would have a very limited market.  Guys don’t wear make-up.  Why do women?  Do I really have to tell you the answer?\r\n\r\nWho buys that stuff?  Who tends to lie about their age?  Who keeps plastic surgeons in business?  If you’re a fifty-plus woman, think about it.  Getting older isn’t a disease; it’s a natural aspect of life.  Have you unconsciously decided birthdays determine your worth?  The current life-expectancy for women in the United States is eighty-one years.  That’s a long time to live as a second-class citizen, increasingly without value or a voice in our society. It’s our choice.\r\n\r\nYes, everyone has better-looking bodies when we’re young.  But if my beauty is based on not having wrinkles, I’m screwed.  If I have to look like a Victoria’s Secret model to buy their lingerie, the company better tell the sales clerks, because I tend to buy what I try on and they always take my money.  So why don’t some of their models look like me?  Those girls are going to have to change careers in a few years unless the company changes.  Who has to power to change that?  Us.  All at once?  No.  “Us” means one person at a time.  You have to decide what <em>you</em> want, how <em>you</em> want to live.  Are you really living authentically?\r\n\r\nI’m a child of the 60’s, a genuine hippie (still am).  I didn’t wear make-up until I graduated from college and got a job for which I had to wear a suit, pantyhose, and make-up.  Been there/did that for a lot of years, got burned out, and found a job at a ridiculously low wage so I could dump the make-up, etc. and look like myself again.\r\n\r\nNow I work at home as a full-time author and can wear a swimsuit and fuzzy bunny slippers to work if I want.  Yet I wore a tiny bit of make-up for my professional photos to look….well, professional, but still 95% like the authentic me.  When I’m asked to speak at a traditional church or conference, I wear slacks instead of jeans, or a dress (albeit bohemian).\r\n\r\nBut do you know why I wear no make-up, have silver hair, and dress like I do?  Because that’s the inner me expressed on the outside.  Do you know why I wear slinky lingerie?  Not for Bud, even though he likes it, but because I like how it makes me feel.  I buy really good skin care products, but NEVER anything that degrades who I am, because I’m already beautiful, for that’s how God made me.  My age doesn’t determine my significance.  My abilities don’t define my worth.  And any marketing company, person, or institution who tells me differently, to hell with them.  But not to hell with me.','Anti Anti-Aging','','inherit','open','open','','3533-revision-2','','','2012-01-03 05:04:28','2012-01-03 13:04:28','',3533,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/03/3533-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3537,0,'2012-01-03 06:21:20','2012-01-03 14:21:20','Why does Jesus have such a high view of the church when our first-experience is so trite, disappointing and banal? I\'d like to submit a 1,000 word piece exploring the tension. Not a screed: it will be provocative and redemptive. It\'s ready to go.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Ray Hollenbach\nAUTHOR EMAIL: ray.hollenbach@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://StudentsofJesus.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 71.28.227.226\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Ray Hollenbach\n    [Email] =&gt; ray.hollenbach@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://StudentsofJesus.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; Why does Jesus have such a high view of the church when our first-experience is so trite, disappointing and banal? I\'d like to submit a 1,000 word piece exploring the tension. Not a screed: it will be provocative and redemptive. It\'s ready to go.\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; None. Perhaps RayHollenbach or my email address?\n)\n','Ray Hollenbach - 2012-01-03 06:21:20','','publish','open','open','','27fc3fa98d65daef773a80defed74672','','','2012-01-03 06:21:20','2012-01-03 14:21:20','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=3537',0,'feedback','',0),(5042,125,'2012-02-11 13:36:31','2012-02-11 21:36:31','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','5041-revision','','','2012-02-11 13:36:31','2012-02-11 21:36:31','',5041,'http://provoketive.com/2012/02/11/5041-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(5122,1,'2012-02-13 21:26:49','2012-02-14 05:26:49','Sometimes, my writing can lean towards territory that is a bit too serious, or perhaps in the other direction towards a bit too silly. But sometimes when I write, I tread the purposeful path between those two extremes and talk on a topic that may seem silly, but in actuality is pretty serious. I hope to do that with this little mini-series.\r\n\r\nMy reason for writing this is a personal one. For years, I have struggled with a question rarely discussed in even the deepest of theology texts. It is the question of whether God has a sense of humor.\r\n\r\nThink about it, for a moment. In your years of going to church, have you ever once heard a sermon on God\'s humor? But my biggest struggle with this is that we were made with the unique capability to find things funny. There is only one creature on Earth that finds it hilarious when monkeys throw their poop, and it\'s not the monkey (not even the one doing the throwing). There is only one creature on Earth that can\'t stop giggling when someone sits on a whoopie cushion.\r\n\r\nI know that both of those jokes were in the same general area of humor...but hey, I write from what I know.\r\n\r\nThe main point is this: our ability to laugh and find things funny is not something that came because of the Fall...it came before it. And, rare as they are, there are parts of the Bible that are flat-out hilarious. Take this little gem about storks from Job for example...\r\n\r\n\"The ostrich flaps her wings grandly, but they are no match for the feathers of the stork.She lays her eggs on top of the earth, letting them be warmed in the dust.She doesn’t worry that a foot might crush them or a wild animal might destroy them.She is harsh toward her young, as if they were not her own. She doesn’t care if they die.For God has deprived her of wisdom. He has given her no understanding.But whenever she jumps up to run, she passes the swiftest horse with its rider.\" - Job 39:13-18\r\n\r\nIt\'s kind of funny stuff.\r\n\r\nSo in the first part of this, I want to explore the parts of Scriptures that convey God\'s sense of humor, infrequent as they seem to be. But, on your own, look into God\'s joy. Because humor, in its purest form, is a direct expression of the joy we feel inside.\r\n\r\n\"A happy heart makes the face cheerful...\" - Proverbs 15:13a\r\n\r\nOne thing to note first is that, when looking at God\'s sense of humor, we see an untainted and pure laughter that does not deride or mock. It is not sarcastic or cynical. Just as sin has caused our idea of what love actually is to be warped, I think sin has caused our sense of humor to include things that do not glorify God. There are times, we will see, where satire is useful to provoke thoughtful consideration and investigation of ourselves and our systems, but God never laughs at others\' expense.\r\n\r\nPart of where we see God\'s sense of humor in Scripture is in His pointing out of people\'s sin. Just as He bluntly tells us in Hebrews how we should not be slothful:\r\n\r\n\"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.\" - Hebrews 6:12\r\n\r\nGod also uses some pretty funny imagery in Proverbs to convey the point too:\r\n\r\n\"The sluggard says, \"There is a lion outside! I shall be killed in the streets!\" - Proverbs 22:13\r\n\r\nA lazy person will do just about anything to get out of work. Another example found in Proverbs could quite possibly be the funniest command God has given, and one that people who are not morning-lovers can fully appreciate:\r\n\r\n\"Whoever blesses his neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as cursing.\" - Proverbs 27:14\r\n\r\nThere are plenty of other examples; and some of the ones specifically related to Jesus we will explore further. But I think that there is a reason why the Bible is not chock full of jokes and God\'s humor exclusively. God understands that people need a leader they can trust. And part of trusting is knowing that you can take someone seriously. People didn\'t fall in behind Winston Churchill because he told great jokes. They fell in behind him because, when the tides were high and the chips were down, he could lead people. We don\'t become believers because of God\'s humor. We become believers because of His love...because of His sacrifice. Our joy is made complete in His redemption of our bodies.\r\n\r\nBut how much better can our sense of humor be if we revel in the joy that only comes from God?\r\n\r\nIn the next writing, I will tackle some of the obstacles Christianity has faced in its journey of humor throughout the ages (I\'m looking at you, 1990s Christian comedians). But for now...the next time you talk to God, be sure and thank him for giving you the ability to laugh.','Does God Laugh?','','inherit','open','open','','5041-revision-3','','','2012-02-13 21:26:49','2012-02-14 05:26:49','',5041,'http://provoketive.com/2012/02/13/5041-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3888,1,'2012-01-10 10:08:28','2012-01-10 18:08:28','','group_of_people','','inherit','open','open','','group_of_people','','','2012-01-10 10:08:28','2012-01-10 18:08:28','',3798,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/group_of_people.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3541,1,'2012-01-03 10:41:50','2012-01-03 18:41:50','','pogo_stick_jump','','inherit','open','open','','pogo_stick_jump','','','2012-01-03 10:41:50','2012-01-03 18:41:50','',3419,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pogo_stick_jump.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3542,1,'2011-12-31 13:22:39','2011-12-31 21:22:39','It had been a really long day. And it was only 2:00. I was on my way to cover a basketball game for my sports medicine job in a neighboring county.\r\n\r\nI had holiday depression. I was way behind on several assignments. I had the upcoming release of <a href=\"http://store.civitaspress.com/books/284\">my book</a> weighing heavy on my mind with a lot of people I really needed to contact. It was the day after Christmas. I wanted time off. Everyone else had time off, why shouldn\'t I? I was mad a several people, for no really good reason. I just really wanted to crawl in a hole and hide for about three weeks.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/windy.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3422\" style=\"margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px;\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/windy-300x187.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"187\" /></a>It was a cold, dreary day. As soon as you stepped outside, the wind smacked you in the face. It didn\'t just smack you in the face, it went straight up your nostrils and gave you brain freeze. Every mile I drove further from home seemed like a thousand. I just wanted to go home. I was miserable.\r\n\r\n<em>\"Bing, bing, bing.\"</em> Stupid gas light. Stupid $3.20 cents a gallon. Stupid empty tank. Stupid payday another week and a half away.\r\n\r\nI pulled into a gas station where other frozen customers were doling out their precious paychecks to fill their tanks. I felt so sorry for myself. My subconscious told me, \"Would you like a pity party Ray? We can invite the whole neighborhood. You know there are people starving and dying right now, don\'t you?\"\r\n\r\n\"Shut up, subconscious,\" I said as I hammered it down with a short burst of jadedness.\r\n\r\nI went into the gas station to prepay for my gas. Apparently, no one was scheduled to work that day. Apparently, the gas station owners did not realize that the entire world revolves around me and my busy schedule. Then I heard one of them. They were in the back. They were somewhere between the Red Bull cans and the wafting smells of fried gizzards laid out for the hungry customers waiting for a heart attack. They didn\'t know I could hear them.\r\n\r\n\"Can you believe Bill scheduled me for *&amp;^%$ New Year\'s Eve? And there\'s only two of us on the schedule!\" employee number one said.\r\n\r\n\"What\'s wrong with that Lucy?\" the other one said.\r\n\r\n\"Because after midnight you can\'t buy beer anywhere except the &amp;*&amp;^% gas stations!\" She peered around the corner. \"Oh, hi. I\'m just complaining. What do you need?\"\r\n\r\nI told her what pump I was on and said, \"Life stinks sometimes, doesn\'t it? Especially with a boss who doesn\'t understand.\"\r\n\r\n\"Yeah,\" she said. Completely understanding my irritation for all things human. I wanted her to hate life like I hated it for the stupid reasons I hated it.\r\n\r\nI walked out the door and to my car and started pumping gas. My religious sub-conscious started kicking in, but I was hardly listening, \"Ray, God is here. He is present.\" Whatever. Stupid voices. Need to go see my doctor again.\r\n\r\nOut of the corner of my eye, in the blistering cold, I saw the most remarkable thing. I had to do a double take. I assure <a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pogg.jpg\"><img class=\"alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-3425\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pogg-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" /></a>you, I am not making this up. I wish I were. Because it would have been easier to remain in my misery.\r\n\r\nThere was a white minivan pulled up on  an opposite set of pumps. It was rusted and worn and the back was open. But the van isn\'t important. The thing that caught my eye was a girl of about nine. She was jumping up and down on a pogo-stick.\r\n\r\nI stared.\r\n\r\nShe had her brunette pigtails tied up and they were flopping up and down as she hopped next to the little discolored minivan. The thing that got me was the look on her face. It was the goofiest look of happiness. She had the biggest smile and her eyes were wide open. Bounce, bounce, bounce.\r\n\r\nMy Lord. She was happy.\r\n\r\nMy stupid brain kicked in, \"How ridiculous. It\'s freezing cold! She could get hit by a car! Who jumps on a pogo-stick in the middle of a gas station parking lot? Who even jumps on a pogo-stick in 2011?\"\r\n\r\nI said, \"Shut up, brain. This is a beautiful moment.\"\r\n\r\nShe was happy. She had joy. I wanted that. I knew that kind of joy. It was within me. Problem was, I had allowed a thousand other things hinder my joy that day. In one small prayer, I let them all go.\r\n\r\nThe gas pump shut off and I snapped my attention downward. God had given me a moment to see the joy that I had within me. I looked up and she was pogoing on the other side of the van.\r\n\r\nI got back into my car and smiled. Joy unhindered. That\'s how I want to choose to live. And with a goofy smile on my face.','Joy Unhindered: The Lesson of the Unlikely Pogo Stick','','inherit','open','open','','3419-revision-11','','','2011-12-31 13:22:39','2011-12-31 21:22:39','',3419,'http://provoketive.com/2011/12/31/3419-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(4277,18,'2012-01-18 08:00:25','2012-01-18 16:00:25','<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Even before I became a Christian I had crazy idea embedded inside of me that life was supposed to be pretty clear and easy if you did certain things.  Maybe it was growing up with a single mom who struggled and scraped and believing that <em>\"if I got a college education, it wouldn\'t be like that\"</em> or \"<em>If you don\'t rock the boat, you can keep everyone happy.\"</em> The message of \"Do this that and you can get this or that\" was engrained in me from early on, and this was long before I became a Christ-follower.  I sort of think it\'s human nature.</p>\r\nOnce I made the leap toward Jesus in my early adult years, the message was actually more strongly reinforced, only with a little twist of adding \"God\" to it:   <em>\"If you do these things, believe these things, memorize these things, God will _________.\"</em>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Really, this kind of thinking makes an assumption that life is supposed to look like this:</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-the-past1.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-4279\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-the-past1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"258\" height=\"194\" /></a></p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">It\'s ladder-like living where we keep moving forward and don\'t look back.  One rung after another after another, somehow expected to forget what\'s behind us and keep pressing forward to what\'s ahead. With enough faith, forgiveness, prayer, and fortitude, we\'ll keep rising higher and higher and getting better and better.   It\'s formulaic and if you just do the right things, the right things will come together.</p>\r\nYeah, it didn\'t work so well for me<strong>.</strong>  As much as I secretly long for \"linear\" my life was anything but.  In fact, my life has always felt a lot more like this:\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-roller-coaster.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-4280 aligncenter\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-roller-coaster.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"258\" height=\"194\" /></a></p>\r\nLook familiar?\r\n\r\nAbout 16 years ago I heard a very wise woman named Jan Frank speak at a women\'s retreat.  I have no idea what she\'s doing these days, but I will always remember this imagery.  She shared that even though we long for life to be linear, and to be healed quickly from things in the past or negative messages about ourselves, it just doesn\'t work that way.  Rather, <strong>over the course of our lives we will continually hit our \"stuff\" over and over again, but each time at a new place. </strong>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The model she shared looked like this:</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-spiral.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-4281\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/linear-spiral.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"258\" height=\"194\" /></a></p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><strong>The spiral is bringing me hope right now.</strong>  Sometimes longing and hoping and wishing and begging for life to be linear can be so frustrating.   I don\'t want to still be saddled with the same messages I have struggled with for years. The ones that all-roads-lead-to for me are \"I\'m not enough\" and \"I\'m really on my own.\"  As much healing work as God has done with them, as much as I know they are not true, as much as I can put them in their proper place, they still show up in my heart and my head and relationships.  Meanwhile, I keep consciously and unconsciously expecting them to be done, in the past, and happily moving up the next rung of the ladder.</p>\r\nBut I am reminded, yet again, as this new year begins that life is so not linear.  <strong>It never was and it never will be. </strong> I am going to hit my woundedness again, and again, and again over the course of my life, <strong>but each time at a little different place. </strong> Instead of expecting the messes to be gone and being angry at myself and God for not taking care of it as quickly as I\'d like, I am learning to lean into God\'s ongoing transformation in my life.   I will continually bump into these core messages, especially during times of trial and challenge, and each time God will work to heal and restore yet another layer that needs tending to.\r\n\r\nLinear expectations of ourselves, of God, of other people tend to lead to shame, self-hatred, and anger.   I think a lot of our church experiences have subtly and directly taught us that linear living was possible.  In this model, we always fall short and end up feeling bad about ourselves.  It eventually leads to hopelessness.\r\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Thinking that life is just a chaotic, crazy roller coaster ride with no rhyme or reason to it isn\'t very hopeful, either.</p>\r\n<strong>Accepting the spiral-ness of life leads to freedom, hope, and peace.</strong>  It <a href=\"http://kathyescobar.com/2011/05/10/letting-god-off-the-hook/\">lets God off the hook</a> and helps us notice <em>\"Yep, there it is again, rearing its ugly little head, trying to teach me something</em>\" instead of being royally ticked that we\'re still struggling.   This infuses me with hope.\r\n\r\nHope that I\'m not a total screw-up.\r\nHope that there\'s a bigger story unfolding.\r\nHope that God is always at work, transforming, rebuilding, renewing, restoring.\r\nNo matter how many times I hit the same stuff.\r\n\r\n<strong>Hope is remembering that every time I bump up against my weaknesses and painful parts of my story, it is at a new place, there to teach me something really good about what it means to be human in need of God\'s help and hope in a messy, broken world.</strong>\r\n\r\n<em>Yeah, life is not linear.  Never was and never will be.</em>\r\n\r\n[This post is part of the <a href=\"http://provoketive.com/2012/01/18/synchroblog-on-hope/\">Synchroblog on Hope</a>.  For a full list of participants and posts, <a href=\"http://provoketive.com/2012/01/18/synchroblog-on-hope/\">go here</a>.]','Linear:  Never Was, Never Will Be ','','publish','open','open','','linear-never-was-never-will-be','','','2012-01-18 09:05:56','2012-01-18 17:05:56','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=4277',0,'post','',7),(3567,1,'2012-01-04 08:21:23','2012-01-04 16:21:23','','road_tree','','inherit','open','open','','road_tree','','','2012-01-04 08:21:23','2012-01-04 16:21:23','',3533,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/road_tree.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3572,127,'2012-01-04 08:14:14','2012-01-04 16:14:14','','Auto Draft','','inherit','open','open','','3564-revision','','','2012-01-04 08:14:14','2012-01-04 16:14:14','',3564,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3564-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3568,43,'2012-01-04 08:22:12','2012-01-04 16:22:12','','Men Can Stop Rape','','inherit','open','open','','men-can-stop-rape','','','2012-01-04 08:22:12','2012-01-04 16:22:12','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3569,1,'2012-01-03 05:07:46','2012-01-03 13:07:46','Today is my fifty-seventh birthday.  My hair is polished silver.  Though I am no longer sleek, I’m sexy and adore my Victoria’s Secret lingerie. I’m not an intellectual, but intelligent and love conversations that engage my brain.  My greatest lessons have been learned from experience, and I’ve earned my wisdom the hard way.  Last year, my first book was published, and I am living my life’s dream at last as a passionate, full-time author.  And my culture considers me insignificant because I’m no longer twenty or thirty-something, nor on the brink of disaster as forty-something.  What the hell do they know, and why don’t they know it?  Not just because young adults say so, but many middle-aged and senior women believe it.\r\n\r\nSeven years ago, I wrote this poem for my fiftieth birthday:\r\n<blockquote>Five-Oh\r\n\r\nMy experience is hanging\r\n\r\nout of drawers,\r\n\r\ngrowing under the bed\r\n\r\nin effusive excess,\r\n\r\ntwirling from ceiling fans,\r\n\r\ndripping from my tears.\r\n\r\nI’ve stored it up for years\r\n\r\nuntil my birthday\r\n\r\ndevalued all I know,\r\n\r\nany truth and wisdom\r\n\r\ngained only through error\r\n\r\nand trial-sized experiments\r\n\r\nrendered innocuous\r\n\r\nby cultural consensus\r\n\r\nthat counts me up to forty-nine\r\n\r\nthen subtracts.</blockquote>\r\nI began coloring my hair in my early twenties, not because I didn’t like what I had, but for fun.  After thirty years of this, I gave myself an early present six months before my fiftieth birthday:  I decided to grow my hair color out, because I hadn’t a clue what was hidden underneath.  I figured that if my natural color sucked, I would disguise it again.  What I discovered was delightful.  Granted, this lovely silver shade came gradually, and the transition might have been dreadful.  But the bottom line was I love how my hair looks today, and will never change it again.\r\n\r\nCompliments abounded.  You know who hated it?  <em>Only women</em>.  This one fortyish woman with rabies chewed me out, degrading me for “letting myself go” and being unnecessarily unattractive.  I was appalled, not because I was embarrassed or hurt, but because of how effectively the anti-aging lie had stolen part of her self-esteem.  That slam wasn’t about me; it was her self-evaluation.\r\n\r\nAny product labeled “anti-aging” or “age-defying” aren’t for men.  A men’s skin-care product that claimed to make them “look ten years younger” would have a very limited market.  Guys don’t wear make-up.  Why do women?  Do I really have to tell you the answer?\r\n\r\nWho buys that stuff?  Who tends to lie about their age?  Who keeps plastic surgeons in business?  If you’re a fifty-plus woman, think about it.  Getting older isn’t a disease; it’s a natural aspect of life.  Have you unconsciously decided birthdays determine your worth?  The current life-expectancy for women in the United States is eighty-one years.  That’s a long time to live as a second-class citizen, increasingly without value or a voice in our society. It’s our choice.\r\n\r\nYes, everyone has better-looking bodies when we’re young.  But if my beauty is based on not having wrinkles, I’m screwed.  If I have to look like a Victoria’s Secret model to buy their lingerie, the company better tell the sales clerks, because I tend to buy what I try on and they always take my money.  So why don’t some of their models look like me?  Those girls are going to have to change careers in a few years unless the company changes.  Who has to power to change that?  Us.  All at once?  No.  “Us” means one person at a time.  You have to decide what <em>you</em> want, how <em>you</em> want to live.  Are you really living authentically?\r\n\r\nI’m a child of the 60’s, a genuine hippie (still am).  I didn’t wear make-up until I graduated from college and got a job for which I had to wear a suit, pantyhose, and make-up.  Been there/did that for a lot of years, got burned out, and found a job at a ridiculously low wage so I could dump the make-up, etc. and look like myself again.\r\n\r\nNow I work at home as a full-time author and can wear a swimsuit and fuzzy bunny slippers to work if I want.  Yet I wore a tiny bit of make-up for my professional photos to look….well, professional, but still 95% like the authentic me.  When I’m asked to speak at a traditional church or conference, I wear slacks instead of jeans, or a dress (albeit bohemian).\r\n\r\nBut do you know why I wear no make-up, have silver hair, and dress like I do?  Because that’s the inner me expressed on the outside.  Do you know why I wear slinky lingerie?  Not for Bud, even though he likes it, but because I like how it makes me feel.  I buy really good skin care products, but NEVER anything that degrades who I am, because I’m already beautiful, for that’s how God made me.  My age doesn’t determine my significance.  My abilities don’t define my worth.  And any marketing company, person, or institution who tells me differently, to hell with them.  But not to hell with me.','Anti Anti-Aging','','inherit','open','open','','3533-revision-3','','','2012-01-03 05:07:46','2012-01-03 13:07:46','',3533,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/03/3533-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3570,43,'2012-01-04 08:21:05','2012-01-04 16:21:05','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film.  I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\n\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their power to sexually dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision','','','2012-01-04 08:21:05','2012-01-04 16:21:05','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3571,43,'2012-01-04 08:22:45','2012-01-04 16:22:45','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film.  I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their power to sexually dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-2','','','2012-01-04 08:22:45','2012-01-04 16:22:45','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3578,1,'2012-01-04 09:16:33','2012-01-04 17:16:33','The church: it’s a helluva way to run a railroad, but it’s his operation, not mine. It’s difficult to be in favor of the church when the church has let so many people down. The trail of disappointment leads right to our door, because each of us has experienced the failings of the church. Nearly everyone has stories of small-minded, mean-spirited people who use the church as an opportunity to act as if they are God’s gift to Christendom. So forget it. I give up. Jesus and I can hang out together at my house. I can meet him at Starbucks. Or the pub.\r\n\r\nAnd yet . . .\r\n\r\nJesus looked into the centuries and saw a bride. That very image seems to mock the church as we know it today. The scripture makes outrageous statements about the church--so outrageous I’m tempted not to believe them, because I’ve never experienced them. Like parenting, I marvel that Jesus would leave something so important in the hands of people so screwed up. Church Ladies of both sexes love to use Bible verse to beat us over the head:\r\n\r\nThat mouse-click sound you hear is people jumping off the train to some other topic way more fun and way less old-fashioned.\r\n\r\nBut wait . . .\r\n\r\nCan this blunt instrument of condemnation be redeemed? Is there more to this passage than a club for the small-minded to thump the rest of us? I believe so, because verse 25 does not stand alone, it lives among  a string of “Let Us” statements reaching back to Hebrews 10: 22:\r\n<blockquote>Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10: 22-25, there: that’s better!)</blockquote>\r\nInstead of allowing others to beat us over the head with just one verse, let’s consider the larger message of Hebrews 10. Five observations:\r\n\r\nLet us draw near to God (v 22): Jesus has done his part. Now it’s up to us to respond. “Draw near” is the first of the “let us” statements, and “meeting together” comes second to last. Do we see the connection? A word of caution: we should draw near with with a clean heart and a free conscience. Sometimes the criticisms we have of others are compounded by our own darkness and guilt. And not only our hearts: what about the darkness and guilt in others? We are commanded to draw near; we are not commanded to give in to guilt, manipulation or hype of the those who would use church life for their own purposes.\r\n\r\nLet us hold unswervingly to hope (23): Students of Jesus carry hope. We are called to speak words of hope. Imagine coming together with others filled with hope, each on eager to “profess” their hopes out loud. Hope is the real fuel of the church, but too often we are met with hype. It has to start somewhere: are we brave enough to carry hope into the church? The world knows the difference between hope and hype: one attracts, the other repels.\r\n\r\nLet us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds (v24): What a crazy image comes with the word, “spur.” Imagine a horseback rider giving her heels to the horse. Another translation suggests “provoke one another.” Here’s a crazy-evil Christian meditation: before I head for church I should ask, \"have I plotted some way to provoke others to love and good deeds?\" Conversely, who will be there to spur me on toward my calling to represent the grace of God? Remember, though--I’ve got a clean conscience and I’m not buying guilt, so the only way to provoke me is to demonstrate the real thing.\r\n\r\nLet us not give up meeting together (v25): Apparently there were reasons even back then to give up on the church, which means in our day we haven’t stumbled into some new revelation about jumping off the train. The additional challenge is the word, “meeting.” Church meetings back then may not resemble the form we have, but whatever it looked like it was regular and organized. When people say, “I don’t like organized religion,” what’s the alternative, disorganized religion? Do we think the Holy Spirit is incapable of organizing more than two or three people?\r\n\r\nLet us encourage one another (25): This final suggestion cuts to the heart of the matter--is your church a place of encouragement, or guilt? Does your church move in the vision of God’s awesome future or do they trade in hype that can’t last until Thursday? And of course, there’s the little matter of the word, “us.” Who carries the encouragement? Who has the vision? Do we go to church like we go to WalMart--to pick up inexpensive cheer--or do we go to church as the very vessels of hope and encouragement, ready to spill ourselves all over the place?\r\n\r\nI’d like to suggest that these five points are a call to move beyond blind obedience to a mere Bible verse. They are a call to vision, to move beyond following the rules of the Bible to capturing the heart of Jesus--and extending it to others--and yes, even others in the church. He sees something in the church we do not. Which one of us needs the eye exam?','Forget it, I\'m Going to the Pub','','inherit','open','open','','3564-revision-3','','','2012-01-04 09:16:33','2012-01-04 17:16:33','',3564,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3564-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3575,127,'2012-01-08 16:32:59','2012-01-09 00:32:59','The church: it’s a helluva way to run a railroad, but it’s his operation, not mine. It’s difficult to be in favor of the church when the church has let so many people down. The trail of disappointment leads right to our door, because each of us has experienced the failings of the church. Nearly everyone has stories of small-minded, mean-spirited people who use the church as an opportunity to act as if they are God’s gift to Christendom. So forget it. I give up. Jesus and I can hang out together at my house. I can meet him at Starbucks. Or the pub.\n\nAnd yet . . .\n\nJesus looked into the centuries and saw a bride. That very image seems to mock the church as we know it today. The scripture makes outrageous statements about the church--so outrageous I’m tempted not to believe them, because I’ve never experienced them. Like parenting, I marvel that Jesus would leave something so important in the hands of people so screwed up. Church Ladies of both sexes love to use Bible verse to beat us over the head:\n\n\". . . not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing. . . \" (That mouse-click sound you hear is people jumping off the train to some other topic way more fun and way less old-fashioned.)\n\nBut wait . . .\n\nCan this blunt instrument of condemnation be redeemed? Is there more to this passage than a club for the small-minded to thump the rest of us? I believe so, because verse 25 does not stand alone, it lives among  a string of “Let Us” statements reaching back to Hebrews 10: 22:\n<blockquote>Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10: 22-25, there: that’s better!)</blockquote>\nInstead of allowing others to beat us over the head with just one verse, let’s consider the larger message of Hebrews 10. Five observations:\n\nLet us draw near to God (v 22): Jesus has done his part. Now it’s up to us to respond. “Draw near” is the first of the “let us” statements, and “meeting together” comes second to last. Do we see the connection? A word of caution: we should draw near with with a clean heart and a free conscience. Sometimes the criticisms we have of others are compounded by our own darkness and guilt. And not only our hearts: what about the darkness and guilt in others? We are commanded to draw near; we are not commanded to give in to guilt, manipulation or hype of the those who would use church life for their own purposes.\n\nLet us hold unswervingly to hope (23): Students of Jesus carry hope. We are called to speak words of hope. Imagine coming together with others filled with hope, each on eager to “profess” their hopes out loud. Hope is the real fuel of the church, but too often we are met with hype. It has to start somewhere: are we brave enough to carry hope into the church? The world knows the difference between hope and hype: one attracts, the other repels.\n\nLet us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds (v24): What a crazy image comes with the word, “spur.” Imagine a horseback rider giving her heels to the horse. Another translation suggests “provoke one another.” Here’s a crazy-evil Christian meditation: before I head for church I should ask, \"have I plotted some way to provoke others to love and good deeds?\" Conversely, who will be there to spur me on toward my calling to represent the grace of God? Remember, though--I’ve got a clean conscience and I’m not buying guilt, so the only way to provoke me is to demonstrate the real thing.\n\nLet us not give up meeting together (v25): Apparently there were reasons even back then to give up on the church, which means in our day we haven’t stumbled into some new revelation about jumping off the train. The additional challenge is the word, “meeting.” Church meetings back then may not resemble the form we have, but whatever it looked like it was regular and organized. When people say, “I don’t like organized religion,” what’s the alternative, disorganized religion? Do we think the Holy Spirit is incapable of organizing more than two or three people?\n\nLet us encourage one another (25): This final suggestion cuts to the heart of the matter--is your church a place of encouragement, or guilt? Does your church move in the vision of God’s awesome future or do they trade in hype that can’t last until Thursday? And of course, there’s the little matter of the word, “us.” Who carries the encouragement? Who has the vision? Do we go to church like we go to WalMart--to pick up inexpensive cheer--or do we go to church as the very vessels of hope and encouragement, ready to spill ourselves all over the place?\n\nI’d like to suggest that these five points are a call to move beyond blind obedience to a mere Bible verse. They are a call to vision, to move beyond following the rules of the Bible to capturing the heart of Jesus--and extending it to others--and yes, even others in the church. He sees something in the church we do not. Which one of us needs the eye exam?','Forget it, I\'m Going to the Pub','','inherit','open','open','','3564-autosave','','','2012-01-08 16:32:59','2012-01-09 00:32:59','',3564,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3564-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3577,1,'2012-01-04 08:24:32','2012-01-04 16:24:32','The church: it’s a helluva way to run a railroad, but it’s his operation, not mine. It’s difficult to be in favor of the church when the church has let so many people down. The trail of disappointment leads right to our door, because each of us has experienced the failings of the church. Nearly everyone has stories of small-minded, mean-spirited people who use the church as an opportunity to act as if they are God’s gift to Christendom. So forget it. I give up. Jesus and I can hang out together at my house. I can meet him at Starbucks. Or the pub.\r\n\r\nAnd yet . . .\r\n\r\nJesus looked into the centuries and saw a bride. That very image seems to mock the church as we know it today. The scripture makes outrageous statements about the church--so outrageous I’m tempted not to believe them, because I’ve never experienced them. Like parenting, I marvel that Jesus would leave something so important in the hands of people so screwed up. Church Ladies of both sexes love to use Bible verse to beat us over the head:\r\nLet us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10: 25)\r\nThat mouse-click sound you hear is people jumping off the train to some other topic way more fun and way less old-fashioned.\r\n\r\nBut wait . . .\r\n\r\nCan this blunt instrument of condemnation be redeemed? Is there more to this passage than a club for the small-minded to thump the rest of us? I believe so, because verse 25 does not stand alone, it lives among  a string of “Let Us” statements reaching back to Hebrews 10: 22:\r\nLet us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10: 22-25, there: that’s better!)\r\nInstead of allowing others to beat us over the head with just one verse, let’s consider the larger message of Hebrews 10. Five observations:\r\n\r\nLet us draw near to God (v 22): Jesus has done his part. Now it’s up to us to respond. “Draw near” is the first of the “let us” statements, and “meeting together” comes second to last. Do we see the connection? A word of caution: we should draw near with with a clean heart and a free conscience. Sometimes the criticisms we have of others are compounded by our own darkness and guilt. And not only our hearts: what about the darkness and guilt in others? We are commanded to draw near; we are not commanded to give in to guilt, manipulation or hype of the those who would use church life for their own purposes.\r\n\r\nLet us hold unswervingly to hope (23): Students of Jesus carry hope. We are called to speak words of hope. Imagine coming together with others filled with hope, each on eager to “profess” their hopes out loud.    Hope is the real fuel of the church, but too often we are met with hype. It has to start somewhere: are we brave enough to carry hope into the church? The world knows the difference between hope and hype: one attracts, the other repels.\r\n\r\nLet us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds (v24): What a crazy image comes with the word, “spur.” Imagine a horseback rider giving her heels to the horse. Another translation suggests “provoke one another.” Here’s a crazy-evil Christian meditation: before I head for church I should ask, \"have I plotted some way to provoke others to love and good deeds?\" Conversely, who will be there to spur me on toward my calling to represent the grace of God? Remember, though--I’ve got a clean conscience and I’m not buying guilt, so the only way to provoke me is to demonstrate the real thing.\r\n\r\nLet us not give up meeting together (v25): Apparently there were reasons even back then to give up on the church, which means in our day we haven’t stumbled into some new revelation about jumping off the train. The additional challenge is the word, “meeting.” Church meetings back then may not resemble the form we have, but whatever it looked like it was regular and organized. When people say, “I don’t like organized religion,” what’s the alternative, disorganized religion? Do we think the Holy Spirit is incapable of organizing more than two or three people?\r\n\r\nLet us encourage one another (25): This final suggestion cuts to the heart of the matter--is your church a place of encouragement, or guilt? Does your church move in the vision of God’s awesome future or do they trade in hype that can’t last until Thursday? And of course, there’s the little matter of the word, “us.” Who carries the encouragement? Who has the vision? Do we go to church like we go to WalMart--to pick up inexpensive cheer--or do we go to church as the very vessels of hope and encouragement, ready to spill ourselves all over the place?\r\n\r\nI’d like to suggest that these five points are a call to move beyond blind obedience to a mere Bible verse. They are a call to vision, to move beyond following the rules of the Bible to capturing the heart of Jesus--and extending it to others--and yes, even others in the church. He sees something in the church we do not. Which one of us needs the eye exam?','Forget it, I\'m Going to the Pub','','inherit','open','open','','3564-revision-2','','','2012-01-04 08:24:32','2012-01-04 16:24:32','',3564,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3564-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3576,1,'2012-01-04 09:13:48','2012-01-04 17:13:48','','temple_bar','','inherit','open','open','','temple_bar','','','2012-01-04 09:13:48','2012-01-04 17:13:48','',3564,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/temple_bar.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3579,1,'2012-01-08 08:13:40','2012-01-08 16:13:40','My friend <a href=\"http://www.margaretfeinberg.com/\">Margaret Feinberg</a> wrote a book a few years ago called <a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Echo-Margaret-Feinberg/dp/0310274176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1325731085&amp;sr=8-1\">The Sacred Echo</a> about those moments in life when God\'s trying to tell you something. But He doesn\'t just say once; He repeats the same message over and over again. I guess that\'s the only way He can get our attention sometimes.\n\nI\'m trying to develop a daily Bible reading plan using the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer. For my non-liturgical readers, the Daily Office has assigned scripture readings for each day: one from the Old Testament, one from an Epistle, and a Gospel reading. A few days ago, the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8:\n<blockquote><em>\"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, \'May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them.\'</em>\n\n<em>Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\'I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.\'</span> Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.\" (1-5a, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nSo here we have Elijah, on the lam from the princess Jezebel after killing off all of the pagan prophets. After a day\'s journey, he finds himself out in the wilderness, alone, tired, and fearing for his life. There\'s nowhere for him to go. Elijah has no other choice but to ask God to kill him.\n\nAnd if I can be totally honest with you, I\'ve been where Elijah is.\n\nOkay, so maybe not the part about slaughtering pagan prophets (call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I still cringe at mass killings in the Bible). But during this past year I\'ve asked God several times to kill me. Sometimes when I look ahead of me, all I see is more trouble and more struggles. Nothing ever gets resolved. It\'s all a never-ending cycle of shit. That\'s when I give God hell. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Is this the \"abundant life\" you promised me? Bullshit! I\'m sick of this. I want out. Why won\'t you let me drink myself into oblivion? That\'s all I want.</span>\n\nBut God answers Elijah\'s prayer in an usual manner:\n<blockquote><em>\"All at once an angel touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\'Get up and eat.\'</span> He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.</em>\n\n<em>The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\'Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.\'</span> So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.\" (5b-8, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nGod gives Elijah food and water instead of death. Elijah doesn\'t get his wish; instead, God gives him nourishment for the long journey ahead. And when I read that, I wondered if maybe God\'s doing the same with me. Maybe God has better plans for me than instant death. And--here\'s the amazing part--maybe God is actually with me helping me out when the journey gets tough.\n\nI guess I have to stick around a bit to find out.','Praying for Death','','inherit','open','open','','3558-autosave','','','2012-01-08 08:13:40','2012-01-08 16:13:40','',3558,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3558-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3580,1,'2012-01-04 06:29:12','2012-01-04 14:29:12','I\'m trying to develop a daily Bible reading plan using the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer. For my non-liturgical readers, the Daily Office has assigned scripture readings for each day: one from the Old Testament, one from an Epistle, and a Gospel reading.\r\n\r\nYesterday, the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8. Ever come across a scripture passage that\'s eerily similar to a situation you\'re current going through? This was definitely the case.\r\n<blockquote><em>\"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, \'May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them.\'</em>\r\n\r\n<em>Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.\'</span> Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.\" (1-5a, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\r\nSo here we have Elijah, on the lam from the princess Jezebel after killing off all of the pagan prophets. After a day\'s journey, he finds himself out in the wilderness, alone, tired, and fearing for his life. There\'s nowhere for him to go. Elijah has no other choice but to ask God to kill him.\r\n<strong>\r\nAnd if I can be totally honest with you, I\'ve been where Elijah is.</strong>\r\n\r\nOkay, so maybe not the part about slaughtering pagan prophets (call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I still cringe at mass killings in the Bible). But during this past year I\'ve asked God several times to kill me. Sometimes when I look ahead of me, all I see is more trouble and more struggles. Nothing ever gets resolved. It\'s all a never-ending cycle of shit. That\'s when I give God hell. <span style=\"font-style: italic\">Is this the \"abundant life\" you promised me? Bullshit! I\'m sick of this. I want out. Why won\'t you let me drink myself into oblivion? That\'s all I want.</span>\r\n\r\nBut notice how God answers Elijah\'s prayer:\r\n<blockquote><em>\"All at once an angel touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat.\'</span> He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.</em>\r\n\r\n<em>The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.\'</span> So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.\" (5b-8, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\r\nGod gives Elijah food and water instead of death. Elijah doesn\'t get his wish; instead, God gives him nourishment for the long journey ahead. And maybe God\'s doing the same with me. Maybe God has better plans for me than instant death. And, here\'s the amazing part, maybe God is actually with me helping me out when the journey gets tough.\r\n\r\nWell, guess I gotta stick around to find out.','Praying for Death','','inherit','open','open','','3558-revision-3','','','2012-01-04 06:29:12','2012-01-04 14:29:12','',3558,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3558-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3944,0,'2012-01-11 11:23:46','2012-01-11 19:23:46','faith, especially theology, spiritual practices, questions, and philosophy\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Robyn Barnes\nAUTHOR EMAIL: theologybird@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://theologybird.wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 71.32.57.34\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Robyn Barnes\n    [Email] =&gt; theologybird@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; theologybird.wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; faith, especially theology, spiritual practices, questions, and philosophy\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; reverendrobyn\n)\n','Robyn Barnes - 2012-01-11 11:23:46','','publish','open','open','','881391a23282fa22b9e730d1b10555b5','','','2012-01-11 11:23:46','2012-01-11 19:23:46','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=3944',0,'feedback','',0),(3587,123,'2012-01-18 08:00:43','2012-01-18 16:00:43','I had a strained relationship with hope before my wife was diagnosed with cancer. To me, hope was a high waiting for a low, a fix with a nasty flipside. Far from the precious entity exalted by legions of poets and philosophers, hope was just another coordinate on the pain/pleasure cycle existing in infinite balance with its opposite. In the same way that happiness alternates with sadness, or desire with loss, hope alternates with fear. One requires that the other exist. Hope was for suckers, and I was no sucker.\r\n\r\nOr so I reasoned. The times I didn’t need hope, that is. But when life would clobber me over the head with misfortune, there I was, clinging to hope like a dear, misunderstood friend.\r\n\r\nSince my wife’s diagnosis, however, my relationship with hope is no longer strained. It’s been severed completely. I’ve abandoned hope, and in the process have met a new friend: peace.\r\n\r\nTo abandon hope is to trample the plotline of feel-good movies, to renounce the rhetoric of sweating preachers, and to earn puzzled looks from hopers everywhere. Hope soothes and inspires. It builds churches and sells books. Hope is widely thought to be the last coin in our pocket, the one thing we can never afford to lose.\r\n\r\nBut what is hope, exactly? What does it look like away from the flickering glow of votive candles?\r\n\r\nIsn’t hope just wishful thinking? Isn’t it just slapping a happy ending on an unhappy beginning?\r\n\r\nWe want to be happy all the time, and why not? It beats sad, lonely, and a host of other unpleasant but inevitable human conditions. When we’re not happy, we hope. We paint a bright future with our thoughts and wait for it to materialize. However rickety, this logic makes just enough sense to ease a frightened mind.\r\n\r\nImplicit in hopeful thinking is the mistaken notion that we are separate entities existing outside the flow of an exquisitely connected universe, that we are as in control of our destinies as we are our individual retirement accounts. Hope is our silent prayer that misfortune is meant for one of the other six and a half billion people in the world, but not us.\r\n\r\nIn small doses, hope is not toxic. It only nips or stings. When our home team loses, when no one asks us to dance, when we tear up lottery tickets, our hopes are dashed and we’re left to survey the space between our expectations and reality. That space grows into an abyss for those attempting to stall reality with hopeful thoughts during times of peril. Thoughts eventually dissolve, while reality stands pat. We blink, and it’s still there. Rays of hope meant to banish our darkest fears in the end only illuminate them, and we crumple into a state of surrender. Anyway, I did.\r\n\r\nSurrender was where I stumbled into peace. I didn’t give up on life, I just stopped trying to outwit it. Surrender meant discarding the idea that life is always supposed to be wonderful; it’s just supposed to be life.\r\n\r\nTime spent hoping for happier days is time spent turning away from life in its infinite poses of glory: the elegant curve of my wife’s newly hairless head, the game smile poking through her fatigued expression, the mountain of get well cards rising above a sea of orange pill bottles. Beauty borne from tragedy acquires a sacred dimension that can only be witnessed by a surrendered mind, a mind that isn’t chasing after the next happy face moment.\r\n\r\nTo picture my wife with hair again, to imagine her digging in the garden or strutting back off to work, is to add time where none is needed, to ignore the beauty right under my nose, and to allow futile hope to intrude on an otherwise peaceful day.\r\n\r\n[This post is part of the <a href=\"http://provoketive.com/2012/01/18/synchroblog-on-hope/\">Synchroblog on Hope</a>.  For a full list of participants and posts, <a href=\"http://provoketive.com/2012/01/18/synchroblog-on-hope/\">go here</a>.]','The Trouble with Hope','','publish','open','open','','the-trouble-with-hope','','','2012-01-18 08:55:20','2012-01-18 16:55:20','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3587',0,'post','',7),(3616,43,'2012-01-04 18:29:51','2012-01-05 02:29:51','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men echo the sentiment of the quote.  They are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\n\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their sexuality to dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\n\nI\'m also tired of the way that too many churches teach this as faith-based sexuality.  Girls are shamed for dressing \"inappropriately,\" and warned about the visually-driven male libido.  But boys are given a pass if the girl seemed like she was asking for it.  The pressure is constantly on girls and women to make sure we don\'t send the wrong signals or put ourselves in dangerous situations.  There is very little pressure on guys to make sure they\'re treating us respectfully, regardless of our state of dress or level of intoxication.  Given that, it should come as no surprise that I was refreshed to see this photo posted on my friend\'s Facebook page:\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\nYes, men and boys, you <em>do </em>have the power to treat women and girls right, no matter the circumstances.  I want to see much more of this kind of thing taught to our sons.  I want to see much less of our daughters being blamed for mistreatment by males.','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-6','','','2012-01-04 18:29:51','2012-01-05 02:29:51','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3589,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:15','2012-01-05 00:53:15','','add_media','','inherit','open','open','','add_media','','','2012-01-04 16:53:15','2012-01-05 00:53:15','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/add_media.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3590,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:18','2012-01-05 00:53:18','','categories','','inherit','open','open','','categories','','','2012-01-04 16:53:18','2012-01-05 00:53:18','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/categories.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3591,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:20','2012-01-05 00:53:20','','Copy','','inherit','open','open','','copy','','','2012-01-04 16:53:20','2012-01-05 00:53:20','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Copy.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3592,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:23','2012-01-05 00:53:23','','crop','','inherit','open','open','','crop','','','2012-01-04 16:53:23','2012-01-05 00:53:23','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/crop.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3593,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:26','2012-01-05 00:53:26','','dashboard','','inherit','open','open','','dashboard','','','2012-01-04 16:53:26','2012-01-05 00:53:26','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dashboard.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3594,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:30','2012-01-05 00:53:30','','editor','','inherit','open','open','','editor','','','2012-01-04 16:53:30','2012-01-05 00:53:30','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/editor.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3595,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:32','2012-01-05 00:53:32','','Enter_title','','inherit','open','open','','enter_title','','','2012-01-04 16:53:32','2012-01-05 00:53:32','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Enter_title.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3596,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:34','2012-01-05 00:53:34','','Featured_image','','inherit','open','open','','featured_image-2','','','2012-01-04 16:53:34','2012-01-05 00:53:34','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Featured_image.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3597,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:37','2012-01-05 00:53:37','','Grammar','','inherit','open','open','','grammar','','','2012-01-04 16:53:37','2012-01-05 00:53:37','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Grammar.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3598,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:40','2012-01-05 00:53:40','','images','','inherit','open','open','','images','','','2012-01-04 16:53:40','2012-01-05 00:53:40','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/images.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3599,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:46','2012-01-05 00:53:46','','new_post','','inherit','open','open','','new_post','','','2012-01-04 16:53:46','2012-01-05 00:53:46','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/new_post.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3600,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:48','2012-01-05 00:53:48','','publish','','inherit','open','open','','publish','','','2012-01-04 16:53:48','2012-01-05 00:53:48','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/publish.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3601,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:51','2012-01-05 00:53:51','','standard_image','','inherit','open','open','','standard_image','','','2012-01-04 16:53:51','2012-01-05 00:53:51','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/standard_image.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3602,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:54','2012-01-05 00:53:54','','tags','','inherit','open','open','','tags','','','2012-01-04 16:53:54','2012-01-05 00:53:54','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tags.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3603,1,'2012-01-04 16:53:57','2012-01-05 00:53:57','','Title','','inherit','open','open','','title','','','2012-01-04 16:53:57','2012-01-05 00:53:57','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Title.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3604,1,'2012-01-04 16:54:00','2012-01-05 00:54:00','','upload','','inherit','open','open','','upload','','','2012-01-04 16:54:00','2012-01-05 00:54:00','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/upload.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3605,1,'2012-01-04 16:54:05','2012-01-05 00:54:05','','visual_editor','','inherit','open','open','','visual_editor','','','2012-01-04 16:54:05','2012-01-05 00:54:05','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/visual_editor.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3606,1,'2012-01-04 16:54:10','2012-01-05 00:54:10','','wordpress','','inherit','open','open','','wordpress','','','2012-01-04 16:54:10','2012-01-05 00:54:10','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wordpress.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3607,1,'2012-01-04 16:54:26','2012-01-05 00:54:26','','Jonathan_Brink','','inherit','open','open','','jonathan_brink','','','2012-01-04 16:54:26','2012-01-05 00:54:26','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Jonathan_Brink.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(3608,1,'2012-01-04 17:16:33','2012-01-05 01:16:33','','Upload_New Media','','inherit','open','open','','upload_new-media','','','2012-01-04 17:16:33','2012-01-05 01:16:33','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Upload_New-Media.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3609,1,'2012-01-04 17:22:12','2012-01-05 01:22:12','','standard_image','','inherit','open','open','','standard_image-2','','','2012-01-04 17:22:12','2012-01-05 01:22:12','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/standard_image1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3610,1,'2012-01-04 17:24:34','2012-01-05 01:24:34','','upload','','inherit','open','open','','upload-2','','','2012-01-04 17:24:34','2012-01-05 01:24:34','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/upload1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3611,1,'2012-01-04 17:28:55','2012-01-05 01:28:55','','Featured_image','','inherit','open','open','','featured_image-3','','','2012-01-04 17:28:55','2012-01-05 01:28:55','',0,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Featured_image1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3612,43,'2012-01-04 18:16:34','2012-01-05 02:16:34','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men echo the sentiment of the quote.  They are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\n\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their power to sexually dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\n\nI\'m also tired of the way that too many churches teach this as faith-based sexuality.  Girls are shamed for dressing \"inappropriately,\" but boys are given a pass if the girl seemed like she was asking for it.  Given that, it should come as no surprise that I was refreshed to see this photo posted on my friend\'s Facebook page:\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\nYes, men and boys, you <em>do </em>have the power to treat women and girls respectfully, regardless of the circumstances.  I want to see much more of this kind of thing taught to our sons.  I want to see much less of our daughters being blamed for mistreatment by males.','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-3','','','2012-01-04 18:16:34','2012-01-05 02:16:34','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3613,43,'2012-01-04 18:23:52','2012-01-05 02:23:52','','pidjoe','','inherit','open','open','','pidjoe','','','2012-01-04 18:23:52','2012-01-05 02:23:52','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Sexual-Harassment-Touching1-resized.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3614,43,'2012-01-04 18:16:51','2012-01-05 02:16:51','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men echo the sentiment of the quote.  They are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their power to sexually dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m also tired of the way that too many churches teach this as faith-based sexuality.  Girls are shamed for dressing \"inappropriately,\" but boys are given a pass if the girl seemed like she was asking for it.  Given that, it should come as no surprise that I was refreshed to see this photo posted on my friend\'s Facebook page:\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nYes, men and boys, you <em>do </em>have the power to treat women and girls respectfully, regardless of the circumstances.  I want to see much more of this kind of thing taught to our sons.  I want to see much less of our daughters being blamed for mistreatment by males.','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-4','','','2012-01-04 18:16:51','2012-01-05 02:16:51','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3615,43,'2012-01-04 18:24:21','2012-01-05 02:24:21','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men echo the sentiment of the quote.  They are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their power to sexually dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m also tired of the way that too many churches teach this as faith-based sexuality.  Girls are shamed for dressing \"inappropriately,\" but boys are given a pass if the girl seemed like she was asking for it.  Given that, it should come as no surprise that I was refreshed to see this photo posted on my friend\'s Facebook page:\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nYes, men and boys, you <em>do </em>have the power to treat women and girls respectfully, regardless of the circumstances.  I want to see much more of this kind of thing taught to our sons.  I want to see much less of our daughters being blamed for mistreatment by males.','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-5','','','2012-01-04 18:24:21','2012-01-05 02:24:21','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3617,43,'2012-01-11 17:31:58','2012-01-12 01:31:58','The way we (Christians in particular) talk about relationships with our young people may be sending them mixed messages with unintended consequences.  It isn\'t wrong to encourage morality and purity in our relationships.  On the contrary, that\'s desirable.  I don\'t doubt that this is the goal.  But it may be getting lost in translation.\n\nSadly, though it may be phrased more politely than the title of this article, far too many women echo the sentiment about our own gender.  We are prepared to blame ourselves for our men folk\'s lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"  This was something he had heard not from his father or a male leader at church, but from a woman.\n\nWhat boys and girls are hearing is vastly different from what we think we\'re saying.  They\'re hearing that for girls, their purity is the most precious and important thing about themselves.  They\'re hearing that they are responsible for male behavior.  They are also learning that boys are jerks and not to be trusted.  At the same time, boys are hearing that they should keep their hands to themselves, but that we understand if they are tempted because girls are secretly kind of trashy.\n\nIs this really the message we want to send?  A friend posted this picture on his Facebook page:\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\nI loved it.  I loved the way it made it clear that men and boys are responsible for their own behavior.  It made me wonder what a Christian equivalent might look like.\n\nWould it be teaching our children to own their actions?  Would it be teaching both boys and girls that modesty is more about how they treat others than what they wear?  Would it be about helping them to understand that their actions should honor God and their fellow humans?\n\n&nbsp;\n\n<address>*Note: The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture (which, in case there was any question, is not dead—even this many years later).  I stumbled upon this in my search to understand why some conservative churches continue to push the message that women are responsible for the sexual harassment and violence committed against them.</address>','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-autosave','','','2012-01-11 17:31:58','2012-01-12 01:31:58','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3618,12,'2012-01-09 10:00:32','2012-01-09 18:00:32','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\r\n\r\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\r\n\r\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\r\n\r\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3623\" style=\"margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px;\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5-300x254.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"254\" /></a>She had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\r\n\r\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\r\n\r\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the <em>unchurched in the church</em>?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act always like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\r\n\r\nDoes the mainstream church really want people who aren\'t like them? Do they really want the unwashed, poopy-diapered kids in the world? Do they really want the below-average, low-income, low-ACT scored people of the world? Or do does the mainstream church want people like them? Do they want people to conform to their ways? People to act like them?\r\n\r\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\r\n\r\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\r\n\r\nJesus went out and found the completely strange people of the world. He found the lepers and brought them in. He got the tax collectors, the adulterers. He sought the outright sinners in society. He even went after a Pharisee. What are we seeking after? When we are doing evangelism, are we looking for people like us, or are we seeking after people who are like what Christ sought after?\r\n\r\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\r\n\r\nPlease, comment. Respond.','The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','publish','open','open','','the-church-and-the-kid-with-the-poopy-pants','','','2012-01-07 10:01:59','2012-01-07 18:01:59','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3618',0,'post','',7),(3619,46,'2012-01-04 18:49:09','2012-01-05 02:49:09','My friend <a href=\"http://www.margaretfeinberg.com/\">Margaret Feinberg</a> wrote a book a few years ago called <a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Echo-Margaret-Feinberg/dp/0310274176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1325731085&amp;sr=8-1\">The Sacred Echo</a> about those moments in life when God\'s trying to tell you something.  But He doesn\'t just say once; He repeats the same message over and over again.  I guess that\'s the only way He can get our attention sometimes.\n\nI\'m trying to develop a daily Bible reading plan using the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer. For my non-liturgical readers, the Daily Office has assigned scripture readings for each day: one from the Old Testament, one from an Epistle, and a Gospel reading.  A few days ago, the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8.\n\n<blockquote><em>\"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, \'May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them.\'</em>\n\n<em>Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.\'</span> Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.\" (1-5a, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nSo here we have Elijah, on the lam from the princess Jezebel after killing off all of the pagan prophets. After a day\'s journey, he finds himself out in the wilderness, alone, tired, and fearing for his life. There\'s nowhere for him to go. Elijah has no other choice but to ask God to kill him.\n\nAnd if I can be totally honest with you, I\'ve been where Elijah is.\n\nOkay, so maybe not the part about slaughtering pagan prophets (call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I still cringe at mass killings in the Bible). But during this past year I\'ve asked God several times to kill me. Sometimes when I look ahead of me, all I see is more trouble and more struggles. Nothing ever gets resolved. It\'s all a never-ending cycle of shit. That\'s when I give God hell. <span style=\"font-style: italic\">Is this the \"abundant life\" you promised me? Bullshit! I\'m sick of this. I want out. Why won\'t you let me drink myself into oblivion? That\'s all I want.</span>\n\nBut notice how God answers Elijah\'s prayer:\n<blockquote><em>\"All at once an angel touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat.\'</span> He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.</em>\n\n<em>The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.\'</span> So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.\" (5b-8, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nGod gives Elijah food and water instead of death. Elijah doesn\'t get his wish; instead, God gives him nourishment for the long journey ahead. And maybe God\'s doing the same with me. Maybe God has better plans for me than instant death. And, here\'s the amazing part, maybe God is actually with me helping me out when the journey gets tough.\n\nWell, guess I gotta stick around to find out.','Praying for Death','','inherit','open','open','','3558-revision-5','','','2012-01-04 18:49:09','2012-01-05 02:49:09','',3558,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3558-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3673,46,'2012-01-06 12:35:55','2012-01-06 20:35:55','My friend <a href=\"http://www.margaretfeinberg.com/\">Margaret Feinberg</a> wrote a book a few years ago called <a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Echo-Margaret-Feinberg/dp/0310274176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1325731085&amp;sr=8-1\">The Sacred Echo</a> about those moments in life when God\'s trying to tell you something.  But He doesn\'t just say once; He repeats the same message over and over again.  I guess that\'s the only way He can get our attention sometimes.\n\nI\'m trying to develop a daily Bible reading plan using the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer. For my non-liturgical readers, the Daily Office has assigned scripture readings for each day: one from the Old Testament, one from an Epistle, and a Gospel reading.  A few days ago, the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 19:1-8:\n\n<blockquote><em>\"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, \'May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them.\'</em>\n\n<em>Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.\'</span> Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.\" (1-5a, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nSo here we have Elijah, on the lam from the princess Jezebel after killing off all of the pagan prophets. After a day\'s journey, he finds himself out in the wilderness, alone, tired, and fearing for his life. There\'s nowhere for him to go. Elijah has no other choice but to ask God to kill him.\n\nAnd if I can be totally honest with you, I\'ve been where Elijah is.\n\nOkay, so maybe not the part about slaughtering pagan prophets (call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I still cringe at mass killings in the Bible). But during this past year I\'ve asked God several times to kill me. Sometimes when I look ahead of me, all I see is more trouble and more struggles. Nothing ever gets resolved. It\'s all a never-ending cycle of shit. That\'s when I give God hell. <span style=\"font-style: italic\">Is this the \"abundant life\" you promised me? Bullshit! I\'m sick of this. I want out. Why won\'t you let me drink myself into oblivion? That\'s all I want.</span>\n\nBut God answers Elijah\'s prayer in an usual manner:\n<blockquote><em>\"All at once an angel touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat.\'</span> He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.</em>\n\n<em>The angel of the LORD came back a second time and touched him and said, <span style=\"font-weight: bold\">\'Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.\'</span> So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God.\" (5b-8, emphasis mine)</em></blockquote>\nGod gives Elijah food and water instead of death. Elijah doesn\'t get his wish; instead, God gives him nourishment for the long journey ahead. And when I read that, I wondered if maybe God\'s doing the same with me. Maybe God has better plans for me than instant death. And--here\'s the amazing part--maybe God is actually with me helping me out when the journey gets tough.\n\n','Praying for Death','','inherit','open','open','','3558-revision-6','','','2012-01-06 12:35:55','2012-01-06 20:35:55','',3558,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/06/3558-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3620,12,'2012-01-04 19:05:30','2012-01-05 03:05:30','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\n\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thou','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-revision','','','2012-01-04 19:05:30','2012-01-05 03:05:30','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3618-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3622,12,'2012-01-04 20:24:31','2012-01-05 04:24:31','','diapers','','inherit','open','open','','diapers','','','2012-01-04 20:24:31','2012-01-05 04:24:31','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/diapers.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3623,12,'2012-01-04 20:26:51','2012-01-05 04:26:51','','kids5','','inherit','open','open','','kids5','','','2012-01-04 20:26:51','2012-01-05 04:26:51','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3624,12,'2012-01-04 20:22:53','2012-01-05 04:22:53','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\n\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\n\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\n\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\n\nShe had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\n\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\n\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the unchurched in the church?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\n\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\n\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\n\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\n\nPlease, comment. Respond.','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-revision-2','','','2012-01-04 20:22:53','2012-01-05 04:22:53','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3618-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3625,122,'2012-01-10 08:00:19','2012-01-10 16:00:19','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 1','','publish','open','open','','is-marriage-really-an-illustration-of-christ-and-the-church','','','2012-01-07 09:39:09','2012-01-07 17:39:09','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3625',0,'post','',1),(3626,12,'2012-01-05 15:26:13','2012-01-05 23:26:13','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\n\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\n\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\n\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3623\" style=\"margin-left: 6px;margin-right: 6px\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5-300x254.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"254\" /></a>She had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\n\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\n\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the <em>unchurched in the church</em>?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act always like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\n\nDoes the mainstream church really want people who aren\'t like them? Do they really want the unwashed, poopy-diapered kids in the world? Do they really want the below-average, low-income, low-ACT scored people of the world? Or do does the mainstream church want people like them? Do they want people to conform to their ways? People to act like them?\n\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\n\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\n\nJesus went out and found the completely strange people of the world. He found the lepers and brought them in. He got the tax collectors, the adulterers. He sought the outright sinners in society. He even went after a Pharisee. What are we seeking after? When we are doing evangelism, are we looking for people like us, or are we seeking after people who are like what Christ sought after?\n\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\n\nPlease, comment. Respond.','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-autosave','','','2012-01-05 15:26:13','2012-01-05 23:26:13','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3618-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3627,12,'2012-01-04 20:27:32','2012-01-05 04:27:32','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\r\n\r\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\r\n\r\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\r\n\r\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3623\" style=\"margin-left: 6px;margin-right: 6px\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5-300x254.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"254\" /></a>She had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\r\n\r\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\r\n\r\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the unchurched in the church?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\r\n\r\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\r\n\r\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\r\n\r\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\r\n\r\nPlease, comment. Respond.','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-revision-3','','','2012-01-04 20:27:32','2012-01-05 04:27:32','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3618-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3628,122,'2012-01-04 20:44:36','2012-01-05 04:44:36','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage. <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm</a>  About.com - Christianity specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\n\n\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\" Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\n\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\n\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a title=\"elsewhere\" href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/</a>  elsewhere, as have many others.\n\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\n\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\n\n\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” KJV\n\n“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” NIV (1984)\n\n“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” NASB\n\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\n\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\n\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\n\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision','','','2012-01-04 20:44:36','2012-01-05 04:44:36','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3629,122,'2012-01-04 20:44:43','2012-01-05 04:44:43','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage. <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm</a>  About.com - Christianity specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\" Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a title=\"elsewhere\" href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/</a>  elsewhere, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” KJV\r\n\r\n“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-2','','','2012-01-04 20:44:43','2012-01-05 04:44:43','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3630,122,'2012-01-04 20:48:28','2012-01-05 04:48:28','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a title=\"About.com - Christianity\" href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\n\n\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\" Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\n\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\n\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a title=\"elsewhere\" href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/</a>  elsewhere, as have many others.\n\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\n\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\n\n\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” KJV\n\n“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” NIV (1984)\n\n“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” NASB\n\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\n\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\n\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\n\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-3','','','2012-01-04 20:48:28','2012-01-05 04:48:28','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3637,122,'2012-01-04 21:08:23','2012-01-05 05:08:23','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\n\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\n\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\n\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\n\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\n\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\n\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\n\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\n\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-10','','','2012-01-04 21:08:23','2012-01-05 05:08:23','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(3631,122,'2012-01-04 20:50:21','2012-01-05 04:50:21','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a title=\"About.com - Christianity\" href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\n\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\n\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a title=\"elsewhere\" href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/</a> , as have many others.\n\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\n\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\n\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\n\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\n\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\n\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-4','','','2012-01-04 20:50:21','2012-01-05 04:50:21','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3632,122,'2012-01-04 20:51:21','2012-01-05 04:51:21','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a title=\"About.com - Christianity\" href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\n\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\n\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a title=\"elsewhere\" href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/</a> , as have many others.\n\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\n\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\n\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\n\n<span style=\"color: #800000\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\n\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\n\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\n\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\n\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-5','','','2012-01-04 20:51:21','2012-01-05 04:51:21','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3635,122,'2012-01-04 21:01:30','2012-01-05 05:01:30','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-8','','','2012-01-04 21:01:30','2012-01-05 05:01:30','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(3633,122,'2012-01-04 20:53:29','2012-01-05 04:53:29','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm&gt;About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/&gt;elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-6','','','2012-01-04 20:53:29','2012-01-05 04:53:29','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3634,122,'2012-01-04 20:53:48','2012-01-05 04:53:48','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm&gt;About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things  <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/&gt;elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-7','','','2012-01-04 20:53:48','2012-01-05 04:53:48','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(3636,122,'2012-01-04 21:01:54','2012-01-05 05:01:54','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-9','','','2012-01-04 21:01:54','2012-01-05 05:01:54','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(3638,122,'2012-01-04 21:09:38','2012-01-05 05:09:38','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-11','','','2012-01-04 21:09:38','2012-01-05 05:09:38','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(3639,1,'2012-01-07 09:32:47','2012-01-07 17:32:47','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-autosave','','','2012-01-07 09:32:47','2012-01-07 17:32:47','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3641,24,'2012-01-14 10:00:05','2012-01-14 18:00:05','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nThe images prevalent in a society or culture seem to reflect an idea of what the people in said society identify with as being valuable. If I show you an image deemed valuable long enough, get you to hear about it enough, you are likely to buy into it. The images this beautiful girl is exposed to is this video reflect the ideas of what the media wants us to buy into. This is beneficial to them to get society to want to reflect or be this image, hence to purchase there products.\r\n\r\nGrocery store check outs, commercials, music videos and reality TV shows are full of people and products glamorizing the body, sex and anything related to pleasure. It appears to not be much different then a national geographic show on the mating rituals of most species of animals. Those with the best perceived genes and body get the most ladies, more sex, more food and dominance. That world works great for people who believe that is what they are.\r\n\r\nIf you have any spiritual value within you it is likely these images do not settle well within you. By asking some simple questions we can expose areas we have energized and identified with. Not as a means to judge, but to simple observe a paradigm.\r\n\r\nAre the images in the video real?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nLook in the mirror at the face and body, do you love what you see?\r\nIs attraction to others/things and the desire to \'get\' the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\n<strong>Fear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?</strong>\r\n\r\n[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U[/youtube]','Is Your Body The Key To Getting What You want?','','publish','open','open','','is-your-body-the-key-to-getting-what-you-want','','','2012-01-14 11:06:08','2012-01-14 19:06:08','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3641',0,'post','',0),(3642,24,'2012-01-05 10:10:17','2012-01-05 18:10:17','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nIs she that?  Is your body the key to getting what you want?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty -\n\n&nbsp;\n\nChildren reveal the amazing ease by which innocence is programmed. This video is a overemphasized display of how what one see\'s and hears long enough, one is likely to become.','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision','','','2012-01-05 10:10:17','2012-01-05 18:10:17','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3641-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3643,24,'2012-01-05 10:23:57','2012-01-05 18:23:57','','Relate 101','','inherit','open','open','','relate-101','','','2012-01-05 10:23:57','2012-01-05 18:23:57','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3644,24,'2012-01-05 10:47:43','2012-01-05 18:47:43','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nIs that the future of our girls?\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get  the main motivator\'s of our lives?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty - That which you are.\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\n\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\n\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\n\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\n\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\n\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\n\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\n\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breath in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more then my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\n\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows and when experienced one knows completion.\n\n&nbsp;','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-2','','','2012-01-05 10:47:43','2012-01-05 18:47:43','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3641-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3645,24,'2012-01-05 10:51:36','2012-01-05 18:51:36','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nIs that the future of our girls?\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get the main motivator\'s of our lives?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty - That which you are.\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\n\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\n\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\n\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\n\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\n\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\n\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\n\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\n\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?\n\n&nbsp;','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-3','','','2012-01-05 10:51:36','2012-01-05 18:51:36','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3641-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3646,1,'2012-01-09 09:16:27','2012-01-09 17:16:27','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nThe images prevalent in a society or culture seem to reflect an idea of what the people in said society identify with as being valuable. If I show you an image deemed valuable long enough, get you to hear about it enough, you are likely to but into it. The images this beautiful girl is exposed to is this video reflect the ideas of what the media wants us to buy into. This is beneficial to them to get society to want to reflect or be this image, hence to purchase there products.\n\nGrocery store check outs, commercials, music videos and reality TV shows are full of people and products glamorizing the body, sex and anything related to pleasure. It appears to not be much different then a national geographic show on the mating rituals of most species of animals. Those with the best perceived genes and body get the most ladies, more sex, more food and dominance. That world works great for people who believe that is what they are.\n\nIf you have any spiritual value within you it is likely these images do not settle well within you. By asking some simple questions we can expose areas we have energized and identified with. Not as a means to judge, but to simple observe a paradigm.\n\nAre the images in the video real?\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\nLook in the mirror at the face and body, do you love what you see?\nIs attraction to others/things and the desire to \'get\' the main motivator\'s of our lives?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty - That which you are.\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\n\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\n\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\n\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\n\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\n\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\n\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\n\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\n\n<strong>Fear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?</strong>\n\n[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U[/youtube]','Is Your Body The Key To Getting What You want?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-autosave','','','2012-01-09 09:16:27','2012-01-09 17:16:27','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3641-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(5953,48,'2012-04-12 13:29:17','2012-04-12 20:29:17','Hardships. Trials. Unless you subscribe to the particular brand of Christianity that purports true faith reveals itself in God-bestowed private jets, manshions, and a life with no disease (assuming you have enough faith), these are words you likely understand all too well.  As Christ said to the disciples, in the world we have tribulation (John 16:33b). It isn\'t a question of if, but of when. Whether it\'s true persecution or just the same difficulties everyone must deal with in a fallen world (rain falls on the just and unjust alike, does it not?), life will bring us trouble and pain.\n\nLately, I keep hearing the same adage coming out of the mouths of fellow Christians, regarding hardships: that we grow the most in our faith and as Christians during times of hardships and trial. Maybe I\'m just primed to notice this phrase, or maybe I\'m hanging out with a lot of down-and-out people- I\'m not really sure. However, it has caused me to pause and consider: is that really true? Do we really grow the most under pressure, pain, and difficulty?\n\nNo, I don\'t think we thrive as Christians in poor conditions. Trials and hardships can be tests of faith, to be sure:  Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote c\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-30269c\">c</a>]</sup>trials, <sup>3</sup> knowing that the testing of your faith produces <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote d\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-30270d\">d</a>]</sup>endurance.  (James 1:2-3). They may help us to withstand more hardships in the future, but they don\'t cause growth. Tests function to reveal our current state. They show us just how much we can handle, if we lean on God.\n\nThe Bible uses a lot of imagery of plants and trees when referring to the people of God and the faithful. Any gardener can tell you that plants and trees thrive and have the greatest growth under ideal conditions: just the right amount of sunlight, the right amount of water, and soil with just the right pH level. Sure, they can still grow, flower or bear fruit under less than ideal conditions, but the greatest growth? It is when there is no hardship.\n\nI have heard many a sermon on trials and difficulty invoking analogies of the tap root, a specific kind of root found in certain plants and trees (but not all), that goes straight down, deep into the soil, enabling the plant to withstand wind, drought, and other hard conditions. In some cases, taproots may grow deeper in cases of drought to seek a water source, thus making the plant hardier and more able to withstand future hardships. But, hardiness is not growth. To be sure, it is an excellent trait, perhaps a necessary one in the life of a Christian, but it is a completely different thing than growth.\n\nI think that there has been an idea perpetuated throughout Christian communities that times of ease are wonderful to enjoy, but somehow detrimental to our faith lives. If things are too easy and we don\'t have to go through pain, then there is this prevalent notion that we will become complacent\n\n&nbsp;\n\nHe will be like a tree <em>firmly</em> planted by <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote b\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-13943b\">b</a>]</sup>streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote c\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-13943c\">c</a>]</sup>leaf does not wither; And <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote d\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-13943d\">d</a>]</sup>in whatever he does, he prospers. Psalm 1:3 NASB\n\n&nbsp;','Growth and the Christian: Hardship is Overrated ','','inherit','open','open','','5945-revision-4','','','2012-04-12 13:29:17','2012-04-12 20:29:17','',5945,'http://provoketive.com/2012/04/12/5945-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(5951,0,'2012-04-12 13:15:59','2012-04-12 20:15:59','Life and faith and possibly culture\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Michelle A Farley\nAUTHOR EMAIL: michelle@lostonthehorizonphotography.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://lostonthehorizon.wordpress.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 129.120.95.5\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Michelle A Farley\n    [Email] =&gt; michelle@lostonthehorizonphotography.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://lostonthehorizon.wordpress.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; Life and faith and possibly culture\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; lostonthehorizon\n)\n','Michelle A Farley - 2012-04-12 13:15:59','','publish','open','open','','5bd1dcebed657d02ddf9ed85037897b7','','','2012-04-12 13:15:59','2012-04-12 20:15:59','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=5951',0,'feedback','',0),(5952,0,'2012-04-12 13:18:50','2012-04-12 20:18:50','Because she writes about real life in the church and in the spotlight as a preacher\'s wife.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Michelle A Farley\nAUTHOR EMAIL: michelle@lostonthehorizonphotography.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://theworstpreacherswifeever.com/\nSUBJECT: Nominating A Writer For Provoketive\nIP: 129.120.95.5\nArray\n(\n    [Your Name] =&gt; Michelle A Farley\n    [Your Email] =&gt; michelle@lostonthehorizonphotography.com\n    [The Writer\'s Name] =&gt; Christie Weatherby\n    [The Writer\'s Website or Post] =&gt; http://theworstpreacherswifeever.com/\n    [The Writer\'s Email] =&gt; mizweatherby@yahoo.com \n    [Why You Think They Should Write For Provoketive?] =&gt; Because she writes about real life in the church and in the spotlight as a preacher\'s wife. \n)\n','Michelle A Farley - 2012-04-12 13:18:50','','publish','open','open','','fc0e519914b2740029fa264375484c7d','','','2012-04-12 13:18:50','2012-04-12 20:18:50','',1537,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=5952',0,'feedback','',0),(3651,1,'2012-01-05 14:46:29','2012-01-05 22:46:29','test\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Jonathan Brink\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jb@thriven.org\nAUTHOR URL: http://jonathanbrink.com\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 75.5.248.78\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Jonathan Brink\n    [Email] =&gt; jb@thriven.org\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://jonathanbrink.com\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; test\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; ;alkjd;fkjasd\n)\n','Jonathan Brink - 2012-01-05 14:46:29','','publish','open','open','','752be3bb7e6b6d381fd37376fc871c0c','','','2012-01-08 16:35:23','2012-01-09 00:35:23','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&#038;p=3651',0,'feedback','',0),(5945,48,'2012-04-20 08:00:35','2012-04-20 15:00:35','Hardships. Trials. Pain. Unless you subscribe to the particular brand of Christianity that purports true faith reveals itself in God-bestowed private jets, mansions, and perfect health until the day God takes you up like Enoch, these are words you likely understand all too well.  As Christ said so matter-of-factly to the disciples, in the world we have tribulation (John 16:33b). It isn\'t a question of if, but of when. Whether it\'s persecution or just the universal struggles that afflict every person in a fallen world (rain falls on the just and unjust alike, does it not?), life will bring us difficulties and pain.\r\n\r\nLately, I keep hearing the same adage coming out of the mouths of fellow Christians regarding trials, that our faith grows the most during times of suffering and adversity. Maybe I\'m just primed to notice this expression or maybe I\'m hanging out with a lot of down-and-out people; I\'m not really sure. However, it has caused me to pause and consider: is that really true? Do we really grow the most in hard times?\r\n\r\nThe Bible is rife with imagery comparing the faithful and righteous to flourishing plants and trees. Any gardener can tell you that plants and trees thrive and show the greatest growth under ideal conditions. For the largest plants, lushest leaves,  and juiciest fruit, plants need just the right amount of sunlight and water, as well as fertile soil with just the right pH level, free from weeds, etc.  Sure, plants can still grow, flower and bear fruit in less than ideal conditions, even in poor conditions, but the greatest growth occurs in the most favorable environments.\r\n\r\nMany a sermon has invoked the taproot to illustrate how trials and difficulty can cause growth in the faith life of a Christian. Taproots are a specific type of root found in certain plants and trees (but not all), which go straight down, deep into the soil, enabling the plant to withstand wind, drought, and other harsh conditions. In some cases, taproots may grow deeper during times of drought, searching for a water source. This can result in the plant becoming more resilient and thus likelier to survive future droughts. To be sure, hardiness is an excellent trait, perhaps a necessary one in the life of a Christian, but it is a completely different phenomenon than growth.\r\n\r\nTrials and hardships are a testing of our faith.  As it says in James 1: 2-3: “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” Like with the taproot, these trials can make us sturdier Christians, better able to withstand further difficulties in the future. But tests don\'t produce growth; tests function to reveal our current state and show us just how much we can, or cannot, handle.\r\n\r\nI think an idea has been perpetuated throughout Christian communities that times of ease are detrimental to our faith, causing us to become complacent or even lukewarm. Yes, sometimes people do drift away from God when they are comfortable. But, for all those who become lukewarm when things are easy, there are just as many people turning their backs on God in anger when tragedy and suffering strikes. What doesn\'t kill you doesn\'t always make you stronger; sometimes it weakens you until the next wave finishes you off. Hardship only results in resiliency if you go through it with the right attitude, looking to God to sustain you.\r\n\r\nThe “Good Times” have gotten a bad rap, and it is time for us to stop. It may make it easier to deal with difficult periods in our lives if we promote them as the best times for Christian growth, but this is not their place and furthermore, it is far from accurate. When things are going well and it seems like everything is fitting into place, when you feel comfortable, when spiritually, your cup is overflowing---- this is when you grow. Embrace these times of refreshing and flourish in them. Afflictions will come, as they are an unfortunate byproduct of living in a sinful world. While God can and does use them for our good, this is not where we thrive, it is where we endure, and where we prove what we gained in the previous season of growth.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Photo credit: Lydur Skulason</em>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;','In Defense of \"Good Times\"','','publish','open','open','','in-defense-of-good-times','','','2012-04-18 22:26:48','2012-04-19 05:26:48','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=5945',0,'post','',1),(5946,48,'2012-04-12 08:51:17','2012-04-12 15:51:17','','Growth and the Christian: Hardship is Overrated ','','inherit','open','open','','5945-revision','','','2012-04-12 08:51:17','2012-04-12 15:51:17','',5945,'http://provoketive.com/2012/04/12/5945-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(5947,48,'2012-04-12 08:51:26','2012-04-12 15:51:26','','Growth and the Christian: Hardship is Overrated ','','inherit','open','open','','5945-revision-2','','','2012-04-12 08:51:26','2012-04-12 15:51:26','',5945,'http://provoketive.com/2012/04/12/5945-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(5950,48,'2012-04-12 12:57:04','2012-04-12 19:57:04','Hardships. Trials. Unless you subscribe to the particular brand of Christianity that purports true faith reveals itself in God-bestowed private jets, manshions, and a life with no disease, these are words you likely understand all too well.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nIn the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.: John 33b NASB\n\n&nbsp;\n\nConsider it all joy, my brethren, when you encountervarious <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote c\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-30269c\">c</a>]</sup>trials, <sup>3</sup> knowing that the testing of your faith produces <sup>[<a title=\"See footnote d\" href=\"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;version=NASB#fen-NASB-30270d\">d</a>]</sup>endurance. James 1:2-3\n\nIn the world you hav','Growth and the Christian: Hardship is Overrated ','','inherit','open','open','','5945-revision-3','','','2012-04-12 12:57:04','2012-04-12 19:57:04','',5945,'http://provoketive.com/2012/04/12/5945-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(7367,136,'2012-08-09 08:00:49','2012-08-09 15:00:49','In practical and academic theological circles it\'s popular to ponder, write, consider, and act upon the meaning of following Jesus, especially following Jesus to the cross. You read scripture and start to realize going to the cross of Calvary means resisting death-dealing secular and religious bureaucratic and \"other\" assorted authorities, rejecting anything but love and justice as the measuring line, disallowing all that\'s other than righteousness as the plumbline; after a few years of living out our baptism, we start discovering Resurrection Sunday morning is every bit as demanding as Good Friday afternoon. It\'s easy to take pride in demonstrating visibly for ecclesiastically popular causes, maybe getting onto the evening news, feeling good about ourselves for sometimes getting too involved with concerns not popular with our local judicatories. Soundbite on the late night news, anyone? Spending a season with Mother Teresa\'s peeps or serving Thanksgiving dinner at Father Joe\'s place. Those bigger, more obvious, more stars-in-our-crowns activities. And for the most part, they\'re all good. Often very good and life-transformative.\r\n\r\nBut in the ambient heat and humidity of mid-summer 2012, I like to remember Jesus partying with friends and with strangers. A spontaneous feast because they\'d hauled in a big catch, had freshly baked bread, and the grapes were ripe and juicy. Or a quick roundup of \"whatever\" resources because so many hungry people had surrounded them. I love stories of Jesus making sure everyone got enough to eat, commanding and demanding his disciples feed others, too. I love how we keep celebrating holy communion, the sacrament of the welcome table, the holy eucharist, with each other. More than simply \"liking\" the way potluck dinners, annual picnics, and strawberry ice cream socials have becoming close to definitive for the church. Ever attended a new to you church that didn\'t have an after worship (or between services) social hour? It\'s all about gathering, talking, relating, feeding, eating, and being fed. And we\'re not likely to keep on performing an action unless it has meaning, unless it says something to us and about us, unless it meets a basic need.\r\n\r\nA religious ritual? There are plenty of those. If we are to remember Jesus, do we need bread and wine? Do we need potlucks and picnics? Throughout the records of Jesus\' life we find accounts of Jesus feeding other people and feasting with his friends; Jesus repeatedly talks about those who will banquet in the Kingdom... and about giving his body for the life of the world. But is that gift of a body broken unto death for the life of the world the whole, entire thing?\r\n\r\nIn feeding friends and strangers, in celebrating bounty of the sea, gifts from the ground, and fruit of the vine, Jesus reveals a worldview that\'s at a 180-degree angle to most common ideas of religion and religiousness. We find loving justice, mercy, and embrace graciously at work wherever Jesus goes, and wherever we follow him into the world so hunger, greed, need, judgment, and exclusion are wiped out.\r\n\r\nLike Jesus, will we actively search for the lonely, the different, the outcast, and the stranger, welcoming them not only to our more formally scheduled eucharistic liturgies (well, turning them out of the narthex, back into the street <em>would</em> be awkward), but also afterwards at social hour (no snarkiness allowed), week night potlucks or annual picnics (I brought enough for everyone and would love to try your special dish), ice cream socials (we\'ve never done it that way, but we\'d love to try your way)? Will we be making our worlds, our neighborhoods and our churches into sanctuaries, holy places, into a foretaste of the reign of God on earth? Will we follow Jesus by including everyone, excluding no one? Will the world recognize us as the body of Christ when we pour out our everyday lives with compassion just as we pour out the eucharistic wine?','Following Jesus Everywhere','','publish','open','open','','following-jesus-everywhere','','','2012-08-01 17:41:45','2012-08-02 00:41:45','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=7367',0,'post','',1),(3655,12,'2012-01-04 20:41:14','2012-01-05 04:41:14','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\r\n\r\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\r\n\r\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\r\n\r\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3623\" style=\"margin-left: 6px;margin-right: 6px\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5-300x254.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"254\" /></a>She had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\r\n\r\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\r\n\r\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the unchurched in the church?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\r\n\r\nDoes the mainstream church really want people who aren\'t like them? Do they really want the unwashed, poopy-diapered kids in the world? Do they really want the below-average, low-income, low-ACT scored people of the world? Or do does the mainstream church want people like them? Do they want people to conform to their ways? People to act like them?\r\n\r\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\r\n\r\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\r\n\r\nJesus went out and found the completely strange people of the world. He found the lepers and brought them in. He got the tax collectors, the adulterers. He sought the outright sinners in society. He even went after a Pharisee. What are we seeking after? When we are doing evangelism, are we looking for people like us, or are we seeking after people who are like what Christ sought after?\r\n\r\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\r\n\r\nPlease, comment. Respond.','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-revision-4','','','2012-01-04 20:41:14','2012-01-05 04:41:14','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3618-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3658,122,'2012-01-05 20:34:45','2012-01-06 04:34:45','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. &lt;a href=\"<a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm%22%3EKenneth\">http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\"&gt;Kenneth</a> Bailey&lt;/a&gt;, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, it\'s own unique color:\n\nAnd be subject to one another in the fear of Christ [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]\n\nA Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord\n\nB For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church\nC He Himself the Savior of the body\nD But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything\nE Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her\nF That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word\nG That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory\nF Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless\nE So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself\nD For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church\nC Because we are members of His body.\nB1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.\n\nB2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church&lt;/span&gt;\n\nB1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself\n\nA And let the wife see that she respect her husband.\n\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the pater familias as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, &lt;em&gt;Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes,&lt;/em&gt; IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision','','','2012-01-05 20:34:45','2012-01-06 04:34:45','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3657,0,'2012-01-05 20:28:03','2012-01-06 04:28:03','I can journey in several genres. Life, Faith, Culture &amp; Justice all have elements that interact with at various levels.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Jon Holmes\nAUTHOR EMAIL: jh@NovitasDei.com\nAUTHOR URL: \nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 71.137.110.232\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Jon Holmes\n    [Email] =&gt; jh@NovitasDei.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; \n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; I can journey in several genres. Life, Faith, Culture &amp; Justice all have elements that interact with at various levels.\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; jonmholmes\n)\n','Jon Holmes - 2012-01-05 20:28:03','','publish','open','open','','0f61208c4f846dc5bc90b05a5d6c914c','','','2012-01-05 20:28:03','2012-01-06 04:28:03','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=3657',0,'feedback','',0),(3659,122,'2012-01-05 20:38:19','2012-01-06 04:38:19','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, it\'s own unique color:\n\nAnd be subject to one another in the fear of Christ [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]\n<ul>\n	<li>A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</li>\n	<li>B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church\nC He Himself the Savior of the body\nD But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything\nE Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her\nF That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word\nG That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory\nF Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless\nE So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself\nD For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church\nC Because we are members of His body.\nB1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</li>\n	<li>B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church&lt;/span&gt;</li>\n	<li>B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</li>\n	<li>A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</li>\n</ul>\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the pater familias as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision-2','','','2012-01-05 20:38:19','2012-01-06 04:38:19','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3660,122,'2012-01-05 20:45:12','2012-01-06 04:45:12','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, it\'s own unique color:\n<ul>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ</span> [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]</li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C He Himself the Savior of the body</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">G That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">E So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C Because we are members of His body.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church&lt;/span&gt;</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</span></li>\n</ul>\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the pater familias as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision-3','','','2012-01-05 20:45:12','2012-01-06 04:45:12','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3661,122,'2012-01-05 20:48:15','2012-01-06 04:48:15','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, its own unique color:\n<ul>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ</span> [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]</li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C He Himself the Savior of the body</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">G That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C Because we are members of His body.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</span></li>\n</ul>\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the <em>pater familias</em> as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision-4','','','2012-01-05 20:48:15','2012-01-06 04:48:15','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3662,122,'2012-01-05 20:55:00','2012-01-06 04:55:00','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, its own unique color:\n<ul>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ</span> [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]</li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C He Himself the Savior of the body</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">G That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C Because we are members of His body.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</span></li>\n</ul>\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the <em>pater familias</em> as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision-5','','','2012-01-05 20:55:00','2012-01-06 04:55:00','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3663,122,'2012-01-05 20:56:54','2012-01-06 04:56:54','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\n\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\n\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\n\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\n\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\n\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, its own unique color:\n<ul>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ</span> [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]</li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C He Himself the Savior of the body</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">G That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C Because we are members of His body.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</span></li>\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</span></li>\n</ul>\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the <em>pater familias</em> as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\n\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\n\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\n\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\n\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\n\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\n\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\n\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\n\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\n\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\n\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\n\n-------\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-autosave','','','2012-01-05 20:56:54','2012-01-06 04:56:54','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(4716,12,'2012-02-06 08:00:30','2012-02-06 16:00:30','If you\'ve been in church for any length of time, you\'ve heard a sermon on Luke 18:9-14. A Pharisee and a tax collector (a terrible sinner, of course, are pictured in Jesus\' parable.\r\n\r\nThe publican prays, <em>\"God, <strong>I</strong> thank you that <strong>I</strong> am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. <strong>I</strong> fast twice a week; <strong>I</strong> give tithes of all that <strong>I</strong> get.\"</em> (ESV)\r\n\r\nJesus, at the end of his parable says of the tax collector, <em>\"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”</em>\r\n\r\nThe sermon you heard was likely on the Pharisee\'s emphasis on his prayer and his use of the personal pronoun \"I\". He was praying not to God, but himself. There is truth in that. I had an interesting conversation recently that opened my eyes to how many of us view ourselves. Our personal pronouns say much about us. They betray us. They betray us in church, in life and in social media.\r\n\r\n<strong><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/babel.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-4718\" style=\"margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px;\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/babel-300x232.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"232\" /></a>First Person Plural: We/Us</strong>\r\n\r\n<em> Then they said, “Come, let <strong>us</strong> build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let <strong>us</strong> make a name for ourselves, lest <strong>we</strong> be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”(Genesis 11:4 ESV)</em>\r\n\r\nNot a good call. When the people of the land decided to fight against God, He looked upon their efforts as futile. They were speaking in the first person plural. Let \"us\". We can do this without \"Him.\"\r\n\r\nNew Testament example. After Peter spoke boldly before the people, the rulers had to figure out what to do. Here\'s what they said:  <em>“\'What shall <strong>we</strong> do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is  evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.\'\"</em> (Acts 4:16 ESV)\r\n\r\nNothing. You can\'t do anything with them. It\'s you against God.\r\n\r\nBut let\'s not pretend it\'s not happening in our hearts today. How many pastors have I talked to who have fielded phone calls from members who have said, \"Preacher, it\'s not just me who doesn\'t like the changes, but <em>we\'re</em> just concerned with the path you\'re going down.\" Change is a disruptive thing. But it\'s not always the wrong thing. Our personal pronouns can say a lot about our hearts.\r\n\r\n<strong>Second personal singular and plural: You</strong>\r\n\r\nAnd the people spoke against God and against Moses, <em>“Why have <strong>you</strong> brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.”</em> (Numbers 21:5 ESV)\r\n\r\nYou is often used as a blaming word. We use it a lot to blame people. If you hear this in an argument, feel free to shut down. Don\'t say another word. The Israelites in this passage, after God has brought them out of the slavery of Egypt, are looking to blame someone for their lack of comfort. In the following verses, things get ugly.\r\n\r\nNew Testament second personal singular usage (there\'s a lot, but I\'m only using one): <em>At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, <strong>your</strong> disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:1-2 ESV)</em>\r\n\r\nThe Pharisees stuck around a lot to find a fault in Jesus. Same in this passage. Their personal pronoun use exposes them. Verses later, he exposes them for their hypocrisy.\r\n\r\nToday, we do the same. We see sin in people (the same sins we commit) and say, \"Well, look at you. You aren\'t the person I thought you were. You\'re no better than anyone else. I thought you were better than that.\" We say it to church people. We say it under our breath. We say it to our children. We say it on Facebook. We say it on blogs, anonymously.\r\n\r\n<strong>Third Person Singular: He/She</strong>\r\n\r\nAnd when Saul saw that he had great success, he stood in fearful awe of him. (1 Samuel 18:15 ESV)<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/saulnd.jpg\"><img class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-4719\" style=\"margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px;\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/saulnd-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" /></a>\r\n\r\nSaul was jealous of David. There are a ton of other Old Testament examples. Saul wanted David dead.\r\n\r\nNew Testament?   <em>\"And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, \'Why does <strong>he</strong> eat with tax collectors and sinners?\' And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, \'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.\'\"</em> (Mark 2:16-17 ESV)\r\n\r\nToday, we often use the third person singular in a derogatory way. \"Look at her. She embezzled. She\'s a whore. He\'s an adulterer. He cheated on his wife. He\'s a rat.\" But those are the people Christ sat with. Ate with. Spent his ministry on. Went to the cross to save.\r\n\r\nThankfully, there\'s one more personal pronoun group in Scripture. It can be misused, but it should be used for the glory of God.\r\n\r\n<strong>First Person Singular: Me</strong>\r\n\r\n<em>And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send <strong>me</strong>.”</em> (Isaiah 6:8 ESV)\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/isa.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-4722\" style=\"margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px;\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/isa-300x208.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"208\" /></a>Isaiah places the emphasis on himself. Realizing that the task is placed before him. Not on the \"I\" but on the \"me\". If you\'re a discerning reader, you\'ll understand the difference.\r\n\r\nThe book of Luke records the tax collector doing thusly:  <em>\"standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to <strong>me</strong>, a sinner!’\"</em>\r\n\r\nWhere does change start in our day? When we say, \"I may have been hurt, wronged and sinned against. But change starts with me. It is my filthy heart that needs cleansing first. I don\'t go to church so that I am pleased. I go to church so that God makes a change in <em><strong>me</strong></em>.\"\r\n\r\nIt\'s when we realize that if any change is going to be made in this world, it\'s going to be made because we (first person plural) step up. The people of God, armed with His (third personal singular) righteousness, because we (FPP again) believe in His (TPS again) cause. But it has to begin with me (FPS). I have to say, \"I want a change to begin in my life, to recognize the work that Christ has done in my life. In my heart.\"\r\n\r\nIt is the heart that sings out with the poet from Psalm 139:\r\n\r\n<em>Search <strong>me</strong>, O God, and know <strong>my</strong> heart!</em>\r\n<em>        Try <strong>me</strong> and know <strong>my</strong> thoughts!</em>\r\n<em>    And see if there be any grievous way in <strong>me</strong>,</em>\r\n<em>        and lead <strong>me</strong> in the way everlasting!</em>\r\n\r\n(Psalm 139:23-24 ESV)','How Our Personal Pronouns Expose Our Beliefs','','publish','open','open','','how-our-personal-pronouns-expose-our-beliefs','','','2012-01-28 10:26:09','2012-01-28 18:26:09','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=4716',0,'post','',0),(3665,122,'2012-01-12 08:00:46','2012-01-12 16:00:46','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority.\r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\n\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 3','','publish','open','open','','is-marriage-really-an-illustration-of-christ-and-the-church-part-3','','','2012-01-07 09:43:10','2012-01-07 17:43:10','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3665',0,'post','',0),(3667,122,'2012-01-05 21:11:25','2012-01-06 05:11:25','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\n\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\n\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\n\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\n\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\n\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \n\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\n\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\n\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\n\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\n\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\n\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\n\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-2','','','2012-01-05 21:11:25','2012-01-06 05:11:25','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3666,122,'2012-01-05 21:07:09','2012-01-06 05:07:09','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\n\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\n\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\n\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\n\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\n\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into &lt;em&gt;that &lt;/em&gt;role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) &lt;em&gt;loving.&lt;/em&gt; Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a &lt;em&gt;position&lt;/em&gt; of authority-- but &lt;em&gt;exercising&lt;/em&gt; that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of &lt;em&gt;laying down&lt;/em&gt; authority and &lt;em&gt;raising up&lt;/em&gt; the one under authority. \n\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\nTo sum up, then:\n\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\n\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\n\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\n\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\n\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about &lt;em&gt;changing &lt;/em&gt;that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\n\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision','','','2012-01-05 21:07:09','2012-01-06 05:07:09','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3668,122,'2012-01-05 21:12:51','2012-01-06 05:12:51','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-3','','','2012-01-05 21:12:51','2012-01-06 05:12:51','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3669,122,'2012-01-05 21:20:24','2012-01-06 05:20:24','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-4','','','2012-01-05 21:20:24','2012-01-06 05:20:24','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3670,122,'2012-01-05 21:21:12','2012-01-06 05:21:12','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-5','','','2012-01-05 21:21:12','2012-01-06 05:21:12','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3671,122,'2012-01-05 21:22:22','2012-01-06 05:22:22','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\n\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-6','','','2012-01-05 21:22:22','2012-01-06 05:22:22','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3672,0,'2012-01-06 09:01:21','2012-01-06 17:01:21','spirituality, spiritual practices, social justice, gender equality,health, work &amp; the world\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Christine Sine\nAUTHOR EMAIL: seasickdoctor@gmail.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://godspace.wordpress.comq\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 67.168.134.141\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Christine Sine\n    [Email] =&gt; seasickdoctor@gmail.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://godspace.wordpress.comq\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; spirituality, spiritual practices, social justice, gender equality,health, work &amp; the world\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; seasickdoctor\n)\n','Christine Sine - 2012-01-06 09:01:21','','publish','open','open','','68165ea4fd03f9e5e96f3e1d07ef701b','','','2012-01-06 09:01:21','2012-01-06 17:01:21','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=3672',0,'feedback','',0),(3677,124,'2012-01-17 08:00:32','2012-01-17 16:00:32','Most Christian churches are registered as 501(c)3 non-profit organizations and receive a tax exempt status by the government. <a href=\"http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">According to the IRS</a>, to maintain this status churches must abstain from devoting a substantial part of their activity to influencing legislation and intervening in or contributing to political campaigns. In addition to this, church leaders may only make partisan comments if they do so as a reflection of their personal opinions and cannot make such comments through church publications or at official church functions.\r\n\r\nFrom time to time Christian churches endanger their tax exempt status by speaking strongly for or against some particular issue that has a partisan bent. Usually only when Christian churches speak out <em>against</em> the prevailing political or cultural winds do they find themselves under investigation by the IRS. The State appears far less concerned about separation of Church and State when the Church agrees with the State. In all honesty, if these requirements were fairly and consistently enforced, I believe these investigations would be far more routine as I have seen Christian churches blatantly violations these requirements many times.\r\n\r\nWhile these issues probably deserve more discussion, these are ultimately moot points to me because I believe all Christian churches should lose their tax exempt status. I believe this because it is categorically impossible for Christian churches to take the teachings of Jesus seriously and obey the requirements laid out by the IRS at the same time. Given the choice to follow Jesus or obey the IRS, I would hope Christian churches would follow Jesus even though this would mean losing their tax exempt status. There are two primary reasons I believe Christian churches cannot obey Jesus and the IRS at the same time.\r\n\r\nFirst, numerous statements made by Jesus and other New Testament authors proclaim that Jesus is Lord over <em>everything</em>.  Jesus did not just claim authority over the personal, private, moral or spiritual dimensions of His follower\'s lives.  Jesus claimed to be Lord over <em>everything</em>, which certainly would include all aspects of His follower\'s lives.  This would include their finances, their politics, their public lives, how they treat the poor, how they treat their enemies, etc. If the claims about Jesus\' lordship and authority are to be taken seriously, no Christian church can suggest their members <em>only</em> owe Jesus their spiritual affections or their intellectual assent to specific doctrines while Jesus can be safely ignored on all other matters. Either Jesus is seen as the absolute Lord over the entire world and Lord over all aspects of the of the lives of His followers or the followers of Jesus must admit that they are ignoring some of Jesus’ own words and claims made about Him in the Bible.\r\n\r\nSecond, the claims of Jesus and His teachings had and have social and political implications. Jesus did not just encourage His followers to pursue personal piety but to pursue justice. Jesus did not just teach on morality but also on ethics. Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies, that we are to take care of the poor and the marginalized, and that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. All of these teachings involve many issues that are today governed by politics and legislation. How then could a Christian church today obey Jesus and remain unconcerned with politics and legislation? While it is true that many of these teachings can obeyed or pursued at a personal level, with no involvement in politics whatsoever, there are some issues that are primarily or exclusively handled in our contemporary society through politics and legislation. For example, any stance on war will naturally involve politics. In addition to this, certain issues may require political or legislative reform to address in a more comprehensive manner.  For example, volunteering to feed the homeless at a soup kitchen is certainly taking care of the poor, but if you want work towards ending poverty you will need to get involved in local, national and global politics.\r\n\r\nIn this situation, how could a Christian church ever hope to abide by the requirements laid out by the IRS?  Because of Jesus\' claims to absolute and complete authority, Christians cannot offer their personal and private lives to Jesus while keeping who they vote for, what legislation they pursue, and how they treat others as a matter of personal preference. If Christians believe Jesus is Lord, they cannot, \"I pray and believe according to the teachings of Jesus, but I do not let my faith impact how I vote. That is a private and personal matter.\"  How could a Church take Jesus\' teachings regarding the poor and the marginalized seriously and not pursue specific legislation regarding  homelessness, economic exploitation in capitalism, environmental injustice, Welfare, Medicaid, universal health care and immigration reform?  How could one expect Christian leaders , whose job in part entails espousing the teaching and ideals of Jesus, to not speak about partisan issues in an official capacity or at an official function? How could a Christian leader take Jesus\' insistence that we love our enemies seriously and not speak out against wars in an official capacity?\r\n\r\nAt the end of the day, Jesus\'s claims and teachings had and have political implications and this will always guarantee that at some level following Jesus will be a political endeavor. Following Jesus has always meant being willing to break from the prevailing cultural and political winds and in the contemporary context this will mean involvement in legislation and the democratic process which is highly partisan.  In light of all of this, it is impossible for Christian churches to obey Jesus and the IRS at the same time without seriously compromising the teachings of the former to receive the tax-exempt status of the latter. I would hope that Christians would follow the teachings of Jesus and live a political life and pursue a political agenda that reflects the person they believe to be God, even though doing so will mean losing benefits they may have grown accustomed to.','Why Christian Churches Should Lose Tax Exempt Status.','','publish','open','open','','why-christian-churches-should-lose-tax-exempt-status','','','2012-01-14 09:17:19','2012-01-14 17:17:19','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3677',0,'post','',6),(3843,124,'2012-01-09 11:22:51','2012-01-09 19:22:51','Most Christian churches are registered as 501(c)3 non-profit organizations and receive a tax exempt status by the government. They do not pay taxes but must abstain from devoting a substantial part of their activity to influencing legislation and intervening in or contributing to political campaigns. In addition to this, church leaders may only make partisan comments if they do so as a reflection of their personal opinions and cannot make such comments through church publications or at official church functions.\n\nFrom time to time Christian churches endanger their tax exempt status by speaking strongly for or against some particular issue that has a partisan bent. Occasionally these allegations are actually investigated though though this usually only happen when Christian churches speak out <em>against</em> the prevailing political or cultural winds. Quite honestly, investigations should probably happen a lot more than they do as I have seen many Christian churches blatantly violate these requirements with no repercussions.\n\nWhile these issues probably deserve more discussion, these are ultimately moot points to me because I believe all Christian churches should lose their tax exempt status. It is not that believe the IRS should revoke the status 501(c)3 status of Christian churches, it is that I believe it is categorically impossible to take the teachings of Jesus seriously and obey the requirements laid out by the IRS at the same time. While much could be said around this issue there are two primary reasons I believe this.\n\nFirst, Jesus Christ made absolute claims to Lordship. Numerous statements made by Jesus and other New Testament authors proclaim that Jesus is Lord over <em>everything</em>.  Jesus did not claim some selective or private authority, whereby He was only concerned with or Lord over the personal, spiritual or moral dimensions of His follower\'s lives.  Jesus claimed to be Lord over everything. If Jesus is taken in any way seriously, no Church can suggest their members <em>only</em> owe Jesus their spiritual affections and their intellectual assent to specific doctrines and that Jesus and His teachings can be safely ignored on all other matters. Either Jesus is seen as the absolute Lord over the entire world and Lord over all aspects of the of the lives of His followers or the followers of Jesus must admit that they are ignoring some of Jesus’ own words and claims made about Him in the Bible.\n\nSecond, the claims of Jesus and His teachings had and have social and political implications. Jesus did not just encourage His followers to pursue personal piety but to pursue justice. Jesus did not just teach on morality but also on ethics. Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies, that we are to take care of the poor and the marginalized, and that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.  While it is true that many of these teachings can be taken seriously at a personal level, with no involvement in politics whatsoever, there are some issues that are primarily or exclusively handled in our contemporary society through politics and legislation.  How could a Church take Jesus\' teachings seriously and and not have a strong opinion on things such as  homelessness, economic exploitation in capitalism, environmental injustice, Welfare, Medicaid, universal health care and immigration reform?  In addition to this, some of these issues may require political or legislative reform to address.  For example, volunteering to feed the homeless at a soup kitchen is certainly taking care of the poor, but if you want to end poverty you will need to get involved in local, national and global politics.\n\nIn this situation, how could a Christian church ever hope to abide by the requirements laid out by the IRS? How could one expect Christian churches to follow Jesus and not devote time pursuing legislation?  How could one expect Christian leaders , whose job in part entails espousing the teaching and ideals of Jesus, to not speak about partisan issues in an official capacity or at an official function? I am not advocating for the Christian church aligning At the end of the day I do not think a Christian church could obey Jesus and the IRS at the same time without seriously compromising and ignoring much of what Jesus taught and claimed.  I am of the opinion that if a Christian church claims Jesus to be God and the Bible to be authoritative, it should Jesus claims absolute Lordship over everything, not just over the private or spiritual aspects of His follower’s lives.  Jesus claims and teachings have political implications and therefore following Jesus will always be an inherently political endeavor.\n\n&nbsp;','Why Christian churches should lose their tax exempt status.','','inherit','open','open','','3677-revision','','','2012-01-09 11:22:51','2012-01-09 19:22:51','',3677,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/09/3677-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3833,35,'2012-01-09 11:06:12','2012-01-09 19:06:12','<em>This is the second of a four part series on How To Know We’re Hearing From God.</em>\r\n\r\nGod wants us to know that we know that we know when He or She is speaking to us.  We’re the ones that think we can’t hear – that is, until it happens to us.  God’s messages to us are always very personal, and <strong>God will confirm it making us aware of things that we didn’t and <em>couldn’t</em> already know.</strong>\r\n<blockquote>Call to Me, and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.  Jeremiah 33:3 (NASB)\r\n\r\nFrom now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.  Isaiah 48:6 (NIV)</blockquote>\r\nI have written poetry all my life as a kind of therapy, never meant for anyone else to read.  Many poems are prayers, some talking to God and others are conversations. I dreamed of being a full-time author with my books for sale at Barnes &amp; Noble, but knew that could never happen.  First of all, I wouldn’t let anyone read my work – it was too personal.  Also, I couldn’t imagine a publisher accepting a book of poetry from an unknown author.  Yet, God knew my heart’s desire, because He had placed it there.\r\n\r\nMy husband, Bud, and I have a good friend named Connie.  Shortly after Thanksgiving, 2010, Bud encouraged me to share some of my writing with her.  I felt nervous and shy, but agreed to do it.  We went to see her, and I took three or four poems. I wanted to see her reaction.\r\n\r\nShe was sitting across from me, and when I finished reading a particularly raw, painful poem, Connie fell out of her chair on her knees, laid her head in my lap, and sobbed.  Bud and I were shocked.  Finally she looked up and said, “I’m in charge of the logistics for a conference two weeks from now.  The attendees are non-traditional Christians, many of whom have been marginalized by the Church.  I want you to read several of your poems, starting with this one.”  I froze in terror, screaming “NO!” without words.  But another voice in me whispered, “Do it.  This is a group of Christian misfits.  If anyone will accept my work, it might be this bunch.”\r\n\r\nWhen the time came, Bud said he was sure I was going to back out, but I went to the podium, holding my radical writing in trembling hands.  “Let’s get this over with,” I thought.  I knew they would be horrified, politely applaud, then crucify me later.  Instead, I received a standing ovation.  Many in the crowd had tears streaming down their faces, and hugged me afterwards.\r\n\r\nThat was shock number one.\r\n\r\nThen something happened that changed my life forever.  A stranger walked up to me and asked, “Are you published?”  No.  “How many of these do you have?” About 500.  “Where are they?”  In a drawer.  Without hesitation, he said, “I’m a publisher, and I’m going to publish your work.  It’s redemptive, and people need to know it’s OK to be that honest with God.”  Seven months later, my book was for sale at Barnes &amp; Noble.com and Amazon.com –   Uncensored Prayer: The Spiritual Practice of Wrestling With God.\r\n\r\nThe impossible happened, and God arranged it all, beginning with giving me the courage to read some of my poetry to Connie.\r\n\r\nAs I began working on the manuscript with my editor, my dream of being a full-time author resurfaced.  I’ve had a variety of jobs over the last forty years, but never a career.  Nothing fit. Our daughter is a surgery nurse, one son is an electrician, while our youngest son is a Marine.  And I’ve been…an author doing other jobs for a living.\r\n\r\nLast spring I contracted a debilitating form of colitis.  After three months on short-term disability, I was still too sick to come back to work.  The prognosis was my disease might prevent me from working anywhere for an indeterminate period of time, perhaps years.  Only one option was left:  quit my job and work at home as a you-know-what.  God fulfilled my heart’s desire.\r\n\r\nNow, why did it take forty years?  God hasn’t told me that.  I figure it was finally time.  Was it because I became willing to listen?  Yes, in a seemingly small way that resulted in monumental consequences.  My husband nudged me to read my poems to one person who nudged me to share my writing with a group.  God did the nudging through other people, but I had to act on the advice, step out of my comfort zone, and follow God, even though I had no clue what would happen.\r\n\r\nGod confirmed what I didn’t and <em>couldn’t</em> know until it happened, and I got the message loud and clear.  My heart spoke, then God answered, and we are walking together in this adventure of a lifetime.\r\n\r\nHow will <em>you</em> hear from God?  I don’t know, but I promise you will when it’s time.  Look for it.\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"> </span>','How To Know We\'re Hearing From God: Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3830-revision-2','','','2012-01-09 11:06:12','2012-01-09 19:06:12','',3830,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/09/3830-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(4489,119,'2012-01-27 08:00:51','2012-01-27 16:00:51','<em><a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Frequency.jpg\"><img class=\" wp-image-4504 alignleft\" title=\"Frequency\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Frequency.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"115\" height=\"173\" /></a>Frequency</em> by Eric Parks and Casey Bankord is a new book coming out in February which is bound to be popular in some Christian circles.\r\n\r\nIt has a foreword by John Ortberg.  That\'s because this book is part of the Monvee offering, a programme for the spiritual growth of individuals and churches which has been championed by various U.S. pastors and writers, including Ortberg.\r\n\r\nYou may have an immediate response to that piece of information.  Monvee has created a bit of a stir, for all the usual reasons - it seeks to be a comprehensive and programmatic method for making disciples; it claims to celebrate the individuality of believers before classifying them(!) into nine types; and it celebrates the contemplative approaches to spirituality popularised in recent times by Richard Foster and Dallas Willard.  These things, in themselves, are enough to arouse strong opposition in some quarters of the church.\r\n\r\nBut I think it is still possible to engage with this book as a standalone resource and that is what I have tried to do.  I felt that the first half of the book was potentially quite useful for me to share with others in my church.  It talks about the uniqueness of believers: how each of us may connect with God using slightly different devotional practices; how we have different personalities and gifts, different ways of serving God and his people; how some of us are more prone to certain sins than others, again because of personality and personal history.\r\n\r\nThis first half also offers examples of such differences, using tools such as a learning styles indicator, the \'spiritual pathways\' material popularised by Bill Hybels and Gary Thomas, and the Enneagram (although without admitting that these are the Enneagram descriptors - again, a bone of contention for some, I would imagine).  I am torn in my response to this choice of examples.  On the one hand, it is good and useful and I have benefitted from similar material in the past.  And yet, on the other hand, it is surely something of a contradiction to spend pages celebrating the uniqueness of each person\'s frequency when it comes to God and then to categorise people by seven \'spiritual pathways\', five learning styles and nine Enneagram descriptors!\r\n\r\nThe second half of the book was probably not intended to be read as a whole.  It comprises descriptions of the different \'personality styles\', as the authors have chosen to characterise what I think are still the Enneagram categories (despite their spiritualisation by the attachment to each category of the name of a Bible character - almost exclusively Old Testament characters, by the way.  I wonder why?!).\r\n\r\nThese sections are all right; I think they are made more readable by the inclusion of a \'famous\' Christian\'s story about what it is like to be one of these types.  But I do note that most of these testimonies seem to be from believers who have adopted the Monvee programme wholesale in their churches!  I would also question what would be so wrong with inviting Joe Bloggs to give testimony in each of these sections instead of \'celebrity Christians\'.  After all, if anyone other than a church leader is going to read this book, then testimony which relates to living as a believer on the frontline in the marketplace would probably be much more use than yet another description of how to do church or parachurch ministry as someone of this personality type!\r\n\r\nSo, in overview, my response to this book is mixed.  There are some good sections but I\'m not sure that they are enough to warrant the cover price of the book for me, at least.  (I received a free galley copy of this e-book from www.netgalley.com.)\r\n\r\nPhoto Credit: <a href=\"http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=3248\">Kittisak / FreeDigitalPhotos.net</a>','On the right frequency?','','publish','open','open','','on-the-right-frequency','','','2012-01-22 11:07:09','2012-01-22 19:07:09','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=4489',0,'post','',0),(3679,47,'2012-01-10 09:00:43','2012-01-10 17:00:43','Choose your own adventure.\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Growing up, I loved those books, and read them religiously.  I investigated every possible option, studied every twist and turn, until I was sure I exhausted every possible path available.  Sometimes the path ended in failure, other times with success.  As I was reading Margot Starbuck\'s book <em><a href=\"http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3817\">Small Things With Great Love - Adventures In Loving Your Neighbor</a></em>, I couldn\'t help but be reminded of those books from my childhood.  To be fair, it was partially because that\'s the format Margot uses, but more because that\'s the theme she employs.</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In most church communities, there is this committee, that committee, and even certain scripted mission opportunities for the congregants to be involved in.  For some, these may be the perfect fit, the opportunities that \'have our name\' on them.  But what about those of us who don\'t fit?  What about those of us who may be introverted or have young children or who, quite honestly, just aren\'t interested in what our church has to offer?</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Margot has a suggestion.</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Choose your own adventure.</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It doesn\'t have to be as grandiose as moving halfway across the world to teach or farm.  But it can be.  It can be something as simple as getting to know child\'s friends\' family or the people who clean your office or as simple as buying an extra bottle of water or cup of coffee for someone.  All it takes, as Margot emphasizes, is keeping your eyes open.  In the book there are over 300 examples of people across genders, ages, incomes, and living environments who kept their eyes open and found opportunities to small things.  The best part about these examples is that not a single one has to do with \"bringing people to Christ\".  Instead, each and every example is simply a story about someone who found a way to walk in the way of Jesus and serve their fellow man.</p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the end of the book, Margot sets out six suggestions for \"implementing some holy tweaking\".</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n	<li>Do it <em>simply.</em></li>\r\n	<li>Do it <em>creatively.</em></li>\r\n	<li>Do it <em>courageously.</em></li>\r\n	<li>Do it in <em>community.</em></li>\r\n	<li>Do it with <em>integrity.</em></li>\r\n	<li>Do it with <em>anticipation.</em></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\">Overall, this is a great book for learning to see where opportunities that \"have your name on them\" may exist.  Margot\'s writing style and sense of humor make this an enjoyable and easy read.  I would definitely recommend this book for just about anyone with a desire to serve those who live outside the margins, but just aren\'t sure how they can.</div>\r\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\"></div>\r\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: Intervarsity Press provided a complimentary copy of this book to me.  I was not required to write a positive review and all opinions expressed are my own.   I am disclosing this in accordance with the <a title=\"Federal Trade Commission\" href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission\" rel=\"wikipedia\">Federal Trade Commission</a>’s 16 CFR, Part 255:“<a href=\"http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html\">Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.</a>”</div>','Book Review: Small Things With Great Love','','publish','open','open','','book-review-small-things-with-great-love','','','2012-01-08 08:39:07','2012-01-08 16:39:07','',0,'http://provoketive.com/?p=3679',0,'post','',0),(3680,47,'2012-01-06 18:19:27','2012-01-07 02:19:27','','Small Things with Great Love','','inherit','open','open','','small-things-with-great-love','','','2012-01-06 18:19:27','2012-01-07 02:19:27','',3679,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Small-Things-with-Great-Love.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3681,47,'2012-01-06 18:12:57','2012-01-07 02:12:57','Choose your own adventure.\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Growing up, I loved those books, and read them religiously.  I investigated every possible option, studied every twist and turn, until I was sure I exhausted every possible path available.  Sometimes the path ended in failure, other times with success.  As I was reading Margot Starbuck\'s book <em><a href=\"http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3817\">Small Things With Great Love - Adventures In Loving Your Neighbor</a></em>, I couldn\'t help but be reminded of those books from my childhood.  To be fair, it was partially because that\'s the format Margot uses, but more because that\'s the theme she employs.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">In most church communities, there is this committee, that committee, and even certain scripted mission opportunities for the congregants to be involved in.  For some, these may be the perfect fit, the opportunities that \'have our name\' on them.  But what about those of us who don\'t fit?  What about those of us who may be introverted or have young children or who, quite honestly, just aren\'t interested in what our church has to offer?</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Margot has a suggestion.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Choose your own adventure.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">It doesn\'t have to be as grandiose as moving halfway across the world to teach or farm.  But it can be.  It can be something as simple as getting to know child\'s friends\' family or the people who clean your office or as simple as buying an extra bottle of water or cup of coffee for someone.  All it takes, as Margot emphasizes, is keeping your eyes open.  In the book there are over 300 examples of people across genders, ages, incomes, and living environments who kept their eyes open and found opportunities to small things.  The best part about these examples is that not a single one has to do with \"bringing people to Christ\".  Instead, each and every example is simply a story about someone who found a way to walk in the way of Jesus and serve their fellow man.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">At the end of the book, Margot sets out six suggestions for \"implementing some holy tweaking\".</p>\n\n<ol>\n	<li>Do it <em>simply.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it <em>creatively.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it <em>courageously.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it in <em>community.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it with <em>integrity.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it with <em>anticipation.</em></li>\n</ol>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify\">Overall, this is a great book for learning to see where opportunities that \"have your name on them\" may exist.  Margot\'s writing style and sense of humor make this an enjoyable and easy read.  I would definitely recommend this book for just about anyone with a desire to serve those who live outside the margins, but just aren\'t sure how they can.</div>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify\"></div>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify\"><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: Intervarsity Press provided a complimentary copy of this book to me.  I was not required to write a positive review and all opinions expressed are my own.   I am disclosing this in accordance with the <a title=\"Federal Trade Commission\" href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission\" rel=\"wikipedia\">Federal Trade Commission</a>’s 16 CFR, Part 255:“<a href=\"http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html\">Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.</a>”</div>','Book Review: Small Things With Great Love','','inherit','open','open','','3679-revision','','','2012-01-06 18:12:57','2012-01-07 02:12:57','',3679,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/06/3679-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3682,1,'2012-01-08 08:34:49','2012-01-08 16:34:49','Choose your own adventure.\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Growing up, I loved those books, and read them religiously.  I investigated every possible option, studied every twist and turn, until I was sure I exhausted every possible path available.  Sometimes the path ended in failure, other times with success.  As I was reading Margot Starbuck\'s book <em><a href=\"http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3817\">Small Things With Great Love - Adventures In Loving Your Neighbor</a></em>, I couldn\'t help but be reminded of those books from my childhood.  To be fair, it was partially because that\'s the format Margot uses, but more because that\'s the theme she employs.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In most church communities, there is this committee, that committee, and even certain scripted mission opportunities for the congregants to be involved in.  For some, these may be the perfect fit, the opportunities that \'have our name\' on them.  But what about those of us who don\'t fit?  What about those of us who may be introverted or have young children or who, quite honestly, just aren\'t interested in what our church has to offer?</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Margot has a suggestion.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Choose your own adventure.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It doesn\'t have to be as grandiose as moving halfway across the world to teach or farm.  But it can be.  It can be something as simple as getting to know child\'s friends\' family or the people who clean your office or as simple as buying an extra bottle of water or cup of coffee for someone.  All it takes, as Margot emphasizes, is keeping your eyes open.  In the book there are over 300 examples of people across genders, ages, incomes, and living environments who kept their eyes open and found opportunities to small things.  The best part about these examples is that not a single one has to do with \"bringing people to Christ\".  Instead, each and every example is simply a story about someone who found a way to walk in the way of Jesus and serve their fellow man.</p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the end of the book, Margot sets out six suggestions for \"implementing some holy tweaking\".</p>\n\n<ol>\n	<li>Do it <em>simply.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it <em>creatively.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it <em>courageously.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it in <em>community.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it with <em>integrity.</em></li>\n	<li>Do it with <em>anticipation.</em></li>\n</ol>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\">Overall, this is a great book for learning to see where opportunities that \"have your name on them\" may exist.  Margot\'s writing style and sense of humor make this an enjoyable and easy read.  I would definitely recommend this book for just about anyone with a desire to serve those who live outside the margins, but just aren\'t sure how they can.</div>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\"></div>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: Intervarsity Press provided a complimentary copy of this book to me.  I was not required to write a positive review and all opinions expressed are my own.   I am disclosing this in accordance with the <a title=\"Federal Trade Commission\" href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission\" rel=\"wikipedia\">Federal Trade Commission</a>’s 16 CFR, Part 255:“<a href=\"http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html\">Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.</a>”</div>','Book Review: Small Things With Great Love','','inherit','open','open','','3679-autosave','','','2012-01-08 08:34:49','2012-01-08 16:34:49','',3679,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/06/3679-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3684,1,'2012-01-07 09:07:02','2012-01-07 17:07:02','2011 will always be remembered as the year of the \"hell debate” because of the explosion of Christian writing that rattled the popular evangelical conception of hell. What has become clear is that it’s not a debate between those \"for\" and \"against\" hell, but rather a debate between different possible hells. The following six questions are my attempt to explore the theological presumptions that explain how we come up with such different hells.\n\n<strong>1) Is God\'s being <em>independent </em>of the universe or is God the <em>source </em>of the universe\'s being?</strong>\n\nThe modern imagination pictures God as another person like we are people. He\'s invisible, omnipotent, and omnipresent but His being is seen as completely independent from ours. This is very different from the ancient Christian view that God was the source of all being, expressed most  succinctly in Colossians 1:17: \"In Him all things hold together.”\n\nIf all things depend on God for existence and hell is eternal separation from God, then hell is the non-existence that results from rejecting the source of our being. The punitive nature of hell becomes literal rather than metaphorical <em>only in modernity</em> when it becomes possible to imagine existence independent of the presence of God.\n\n<strong>2) Is God\'s primary agenda to <em>love </em>creation or defend His <em>glory</em>?</strong>\n\nIf God\'s love is the underlying motive for everything He does, then hell must have a loving purpose such as solidarity or protection for the victims of sin. If God never stops loving the people who suffer in hell, then hell must be the product of their choice to reject God\'s love rather than God\'s rejection of them.\n\nBut if everything God does is out of defense of His glory rather than love, and His glory is not defined in terms of His love, then hell has nothing to do with love. In this conception of hell, God punishes people in hell not because they hurt people He loves but simply because His honor has been offended. If God is invested in His honor rather than in seeking communion, He would be indifferent to whether He is glorified through salvation or damnation.\n\n<strong>3) Is God\'s justice primarily <em>retributive </em>or <em>restorative</em>?</strong>\n\nOur modern capitalist world depends upon the assumption that every debt will be paid in full. Without this assurance, our entire economic order would collapse. I think this is why in modernity we equate justice with retribution. Modern justice concerns itself exclusively with ensuring that criminals \"pay\" fully for their crime, as opposed to restoring the well-being of crime victims or repairing the damage crime does to a community. Restorative justice concerns itself instead with healing, repentance, and reconciliation.\n\nIf hell serves the purpose of retributive justice, it exists simply to make sinners pay for their sins. Under this view of hell, some people might question whether eternal torment is an appropriate retribution for a mildly sinful life. The response is usually to say that God is such a perfectionist that sins we consider to be mild are infinitely offensive to God.\n\nOn the other hand, if hell serves the purpose of restorative justice, then it isn\'t a punishment measured out in proportion to the offensiveness of sin, but the denial of eternal communion to sinners who have refused the means by which God offers to heal and reconcile them with the people hurt by their sin.\n\n<strong>4) Is God\'s holiness an <em>intolerance for imperfection</em> or an <em>intolerable perfection</em>?</strong>\n\nIt\'s a common formulation in pop evangelical speech to say that God\'s holiness means that He “can have no fellowship with sin” and that God has to send people to hell because He can\'t tolerate their imperfection. On the other hand, Jesus did choose to fellowship with sinners without compromising His holiness. His holiness could tolerate sinners, but the sinners could not tolerate His holiness, so they crucified Him.\n\nIf holiness is God\'s intolerance for imperfection, then hell serves the purpose of protecting God from exposure to our sin. If on the other hand, holiness is God\'s intolerable perfection, then hell is the torture experienced by sinners who face God\'s holiness without atonement.\n\n<strong>5) When we escape hell, is it because <em>God changed His mind about us</em> or because <em>we changed our minds about God</em>?</strong>\n\nJesus’ death on the cross is often presented as the reason Jesus’ wrathful Father changes <em>His</em> mind about damning all humanity to hell. The objection to this is to point out that it breaks the Son and Father into two separate gods, rather than one single triune God. If God is truly both Son and Father, then He does not need to be persuaded by His own actions, which would seem to indicate that the cross is supposed to change <em>our</em> minds about God instead.\n\nIf God is the one whose mind needs to be changed, then we experience heaven or hell according to where God chooses to send us. If we are the ones whose minds need to be changed, then God’s attitude toward us is constant, but we experience heaven or hell depending upon whether we receive God’s fiery embrace as love or wrath.\n\n<strong>6) Are we saved <em>by proving something</em> to God or does God save us <em>from having something to prove</em>?</strong>\n\nEvangelical Christianity describes salvation as justification by faith rather than works. This means that we are saved by <em>believing </em>something but not by <em>doing</em> something. But if salvation describes God’s evaluative response to something we have proven about ourselves, then it would seem that whatever proof we have given God is our “works-righteousness,” whether it’s a decision or sinner’s prayer or adherence to the right doctrine. Alternatively, salvation could mean being liberated from the need to prove our worth to God because we trust instead in Jesus’ sacrifice.\n\nIf salvation describes God’s approval of our demonstrated “faith,” then hell is God’s reaction to those whom He disapproves. If on the other hand, salvation describes how God liberates us from thinking that we need to earn His approval, then hell could be our delusional imprisonment to the need to prove our worth to God, which would mean that many evangelicals who think they’re saved are actually suffering through hell.','Six Questions from the Hell Debate','','inherit','open','open','','3529-autosave','','','2012-01-07 09:07:02','2012-01-07 17:07:02','',3529,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3529-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3685,1,'2012-01-07 09:09:00','2012-01-07 17:09:00','','fires_of_hell','','inherit','open','open','','fires_of_hell','','','2012-01-07 09:09:00','2012-01-07 17:09:00','',3529,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fires_of_hell.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3686,1,'2012-01-03 20:05:40','2012-01-04 04:05:40','2011 will always be remembered as the year of the \"hell debate” because of the explosion of Christian writing that rattled the popular evangelical conception of hell. What has become clear is that it’s not a debate between those \"for\" and \"against\" hell, but rather a debate between different possible hells. The following six questions are my attempt to explore the theological presumptions that explain how we come up with such different hells.\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Is God\'s being <em>independent </em>of the universe or is God the <em>source </em>of the universe\'s being?</strong>\r\n\r\nThe modern imagination pictures God as another person like we are people. He\'s invisible, omnipotent, and omnipresent but His being is seen as completely independent from ours. This is very different from the ancient Christian view that God was the source of all being, expressed most  succinctly in Colossians 1:17: \"In Him all things hold together.”\r\n\r\nIf all things depend on God for existence and hell is eternal separation from God, then hell is the non-existence that results from rejecting the source of our being. The punitive nature of hell becomes literal rather than metaphorical <em>only in modernity</em> when it becomes possible to imagine existence independent of the presence of God.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Is God\'s primary agenda to <em>love </em>creation or defend His <em>glory</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nIf God\'s love is the underlying motive for everything He does, then hell must have a loving purpose such as solidarity or protection for the victims of sin. If God never stops loving the people who suffer in hell, then hell must be the product of their choice to reject God\'s love rather than God\'s rejection of them.\r\n\r\nBut if everything God does is out of defense of His glory rather than love, and His glory is not defined in terms of His love, then hell has nothing to do with love. In this conception of hell, God punishes people in hell not because they hurt people He loves but simply because His honor has been offended. If God is invested in His honor rather than in seeking communion, He would be indifferent to whether He is glorified through salvation or damnation.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Is God\'s justice primarily <em>retributive </em>or <em>restorative</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nOur modern capitalist world depends upon the assumption that every debt will be paid in full. Without this assurance, our entire economic order would collapse. I think this is why in modernity we equate justice with retribution. Modern justice concerns itself exclusively with ensuring that criminals \"pay\" fully for their crime, as opposed to restoring the well-being of crime victims or repairing the damage crime does to a community. Restorative justice concerns itself instead with healing, repentance, and reconciliation.\r\n\r\nIf hell serves the purpose of retributive justice, it exists simply to make sinners pay for their sins. Under this view of hell, some people might question whether eternal torment is an appropriate retribution for a mildly sinful life. The response is usually to say that God is such a perfectionist that sins we consider to be mild are infinitely offensive to God.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, if hell serves the purpose of restorative justice, then it isn\'t a punishment measured out in proportion to the offensiveness of sin, but the denial of eternal communion to sinners who have refused the means by which God offers to heal and reconcile them with the people hurt by their sin.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) Is God\'s holiness an <em>intolerance for imperfection</em> or an <em>intolerable perfection</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nIt\'s a common formulation in pop evangelical speech to say that God\'s holiness means that He “can have no fellowship with sin” and that God has to send people to hell because He can\'t tolerate their imperfection. On the other hand, Jesus did choose to fellowship with sinners without compromising His holiness. His holiness could tolerate sinners, but the sinners could not tolerate His holiness, so they crucified Him.\r\n\r\nIf holiness is God\'s intolerance for imperfection, then hell serves the purpose of protecting God from exposure to our sin. If on the other hand, holiness is God\'s intolerable perfection, then hell is the torture experienced by sinners who face God\'s holiness without atonement.\r\n\r\n<strong>5) When we escape hell, is it because <em>God changed His mind about us</em> or because <em>we changed our minds about God</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nJesus’ death on the cross is often presented as the reason Jesus’ wrathful Father changes <em>His</em> mind about damning all humanity to hell. The objection to this is to point out that it breaks the Son and Father into two separate gods, rather than one single triune God. If God is truly both Son and Father, then He does not need to be persuaded by His own actions, which would seem to indicate that the cross is supposed to change <em>our</em> minds about God instead.\r\n\r\nIf God is the one whose mind needs to be changed, then we experience heaven or hell according to where God chooses to send us. If we are the ones whose minds need to be changed, then God’s attitude toward us is constant, but we experience heaven or hell depending upon whether we receive God’s fiery embrace as love or wrath.\r\n\r\n<strong>6) Are we saved <em>by proving something</em> to God or does God save us <em>from having something to prove</em>?</strong>\r\n\r\nEvangelical Christianity describes salvation as justification by faith rather than works. This means that we are saved by <em>believing </em>something but not by <em>doing</em> something. But if salvation describes God’s evaluative response to something we have proven about ourselves, then it would seem that whatever proof we have given God is our “works-righteousness,” whether it’s a decision or sinner’s prayer or adherence to the right doctrine. Alternatively, salvation could mean being liberated from the need to prove our worth to God because we trust instead in Jesus’ sacrifice.\r\n\r\nIf salvation describes God’s approval of our demonstrated “faith,” then hell is God’s reaction to those whom He disapproves. If on the other hand, salvation describes how God liberates us from thinking that we need to earn His approval, then hell could be our delusional imprisonment to the need to prove our worth to God, which would mean that many evangelicals who think they’re saved are actually suffering through hell.','Six Questions from the Hell Debate','','inherit','open','open','','3529-revision-4','','','2012-01-03 20:05:40','2012-01-04 04:05:40','',3529,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/03/3529-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(3687,1,'2012-01-03 23:31:25','2012-01-04 07:31:25','we want . . .\r\n\r\nto be a church that weighs deeply the suffering of the world; that mourns it, contemplates it, and takes responsibility for it by contributing in some way and somehow to systemic change – politically, economically, and culturally – both locally and globally.\r\n\r\nto be a church that extends healing and forgiveness by first recognizing our own need for healing and forgiveness.\r\n\r\nto be a church that confesses individual sins and constantly calls for repentance; but in recognition of the costliness of social and structural sin, does not overemphasis or reduce sin to the personal-“private” level.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is constantly journeying on the path of discipleship and transformation while inviting others into the same journey.\r\n\r\nto be a church that honors both the revelation <em>and</em> mystery of God, guarding against the idolatrous distractions of human-centeredness and otherworldliness respectively.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not hesitate to profess that Jesus is Lord, but that, in faith, humbly prepares a place at the table for the non-Christian and religious other and consistently articulates eschatological hope for everyone.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not fear – fear the consequences of prophetic action, speaking truth to power, or the risks that come from making real material sacrifices for the cause of God’s justice.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not take itself too seriously and spends time resting, laughing and enjoying the simple pleasure and gifts of life.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not worry about money – not because it doesn\'t matter or isn\'t needed, but because we do not organize and establish ourselves in such a way that requires utter dependence on it.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is structured to actually direct a sacrificial portion of its resources <em>not</em> toward its own institutional preservation and vertical growth but toward the needs of others.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is led by the work of the people, where leadership is both democratized and earned and where the reproduction and training of new leaders is not outsourced to higher education professionals.\r\n\r\nto be a church that proclaims the gospel but does not try to control it, where theological authority is shared and open, marked by generous and deep orthodoxy, as well as a vigorous ortho<em>praxy</em>\r\n\r\nto be a church that is intentional, patient, and unbusy; that does not over-plan or compete with other churches to attract new members, but that at the same time strives to live contagiously and make disciples.\r\n\r\nto be a church that reaches out relationally and focus on true friendship; that builds trust with neighbors and works together with community partners to better society.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not mistake the meaning of counter-culturalism with culture warfare, and that instead seeks to subvert the status quo by implementing revolutionary social practices.\r\n\r\nto be a church that loves God and worships out of an authentic place of awe and appreciation for who God is – a God who has given us good news; who is righteous, just, gracious, sovereign, and desires redemption for all.\r\n\r\nIn sum, we want to be a church that loves, and that in doing so, participates passionately and faithfully in the Holy Spirit’s already-enacted mission and ministry of reconciliation for the coming of the Kingdom of God.\r\n\r\nIn a sense, this is just my list, but I didn\'t write it alone, and I want it to be <em>ours</em>.  Maybe you can relate, have concerns, or others hopes and prayers.','my hopes and prayers for the church in 2012 and beyond','','inherit','open','open','','3551-revision-5','','','2012-01-03 23:31:25','2012-01-04 07:31:25','',3551,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/03/3551-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3689,1,'2012-01-07 09:12:09','2012-01-07 17:12:09','we want . . .\r\n\r\nto be a church that weighs deeply the suffering of the world; that mourns it, contemplates it, and takes responsibility for it by contributing in some way and somehow to systemic change – politically, economically, and culturally – both locally and globally.\r\n\r\nto be a church that extends healing and forgiveness by first recognizing our own need for healing and forgiveness.\r\n\r\nto be a church that confesses individual sins and constantly calls for repentance; but in recognition of the costliness of social and structural sin, does not overemphasis or reduce sin to the personal-“private” level.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is constantly journeying on the path of discipleship and transformation while inviting others into the same journey.\r\n\r\nto be a church that honors both the revelation <em>and</em> mystery of God, guarding against the idolatrous distractions of human-centeredness and otherworldliness respectively.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not hesitate to profess that Jesus is Lord, but that, in faith, humbly prepares a place at the table for the non-Christian and religious other and consistently articulates eschatological hope for everyone.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not fear – fear the consequences of prophetic action, speaking truth to power, or the risks that come from making real material sacrifices for the cause of God’s justice.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not take itself too seriously and spends time resting, laughing and enjoying the simple pleasure and gifts of life.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not worry about money – not because it doesn\'t matter or isn\'t needed, but because we do not organize and establish ourselves in such a way that requires utter dependence on it.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is structured to actually direct a sacrificial portion of its resources <em>not</em> toward its own institutional preservation and vertical growth but toward the needs of others.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is led by the work of the people, where leadership is both democratized and earned and where the reproduction and training of new leaders is not outsourced to higher education professionals.\r\n\r\nto be a church that proclaims the gospel but does not try to control it, where theological authority is shared and open, marked by generous and deep orthodoxy, as well as a vigorous ortho<em>praxy</em>\r\n\r\nto be a church that is intentional, patient, and unbusy; that does not over-plan or compete with other churches to attract new members, but that at the same time strives to live contagiously and make disciples.\r\n\r\nto be a church that reaches out relationally and focus on true friendship; that builds trust with neighbors and works together with community partners to better society.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not mistake the meaning of counter-culturalism with culture warfare, and that instead seeks to subvert the status quo by implementing revolutionary social practices.\r\n\r\nto be a church that loves God and worships out of an authentic place of awe and appreciation for who God is – a God who has given us good news; who is righteous, just, gracious, sovereign, and desires redemption for all.\r\n\r\nIn sum, we want to be a church that loves, and that in doing so, participates passionately and faithfully in the Holy Spirit’s already-enacted mission and ministry of reconciliation for the coming of the Kingdom of God.\r\n\r\nIn a sense, this is just my list, but I didn\'t write it alone, and I want it to be <em>ours</em>.  Maybe you can relate, have concerns, or others hopes and prayers.','The Church In 2012 And Beyond','','inherit','open','open','','3551-revision-6','','','2012-01-07 09:12:09','2012-01-07 17:12:09','',3551,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3551-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3722,20,'2012-01-07 13:25:16','2012-01-07 21:25:16','We want . . .\r\n\r\nto be a church that weighs deeply the suffering of the world; that mourns it, contemplates it, and takes responsibility for it by contributing in some way and somehow to systemic change – politically, economically, and culturally – both locally and globally.\r\n\r\nto be a church that extends healing and forgiveness by first recognizing our own need for healing and forgiveness.\r\n\r\nto be a church that confesses individual sins and constantly calls for repentance; but in recognition of the costliness of social and structural sin, does not overemphasis or reduce sin to the personal-“private” level.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is constantly journeying on the path of discipleship and transformation while inviting others into the same journey.\r\n\r\nto be a church that honors both the revelation <em>and</em> mystery of God, guarding against the idolatrous distractions of human-centeredness and otherworldliness respectively.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not hesitate to profess that Jesus is Lord, but that, in faith, humbly prepares a place at the table for the non-Christian and religious other and consistently articulates eschatological hope for everyone.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not fear – fear the consequences of prophetic action, speaking truth to power, or the risks that come from making real material sacrifices for the cause of God’s justice.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not take itself too seriously and spends time resting, laughing and enjoying the simple pleasures and gifts of life.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not worry about money – not because it doesn\'t matter or isn\'t needed, but because we do not organize and establish ourselves in such a way that requires utter dependence on it.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is structured to actually direct a sacrificial portion of its resources <em>not</em> toward its own institutional preservation and vertical growth but toward the needs of others.\r\n\r\nto be a church that is led by the work of the people, where leadership is both democratized and earned and where the reproduction and training of new leaders is not outsourced to higher education professionals.\r\n\r\nto be a church that proclaims the gospel but does not try to control it, where theological authority is shared and open, marked by generous and deep orthodoxy.<em></em>\r\n\r\nto be a church that is intentional, patient, and unbusy; that does not over-plan or compete with other churches to attract new members, but that at the same time strives to live contagiously and make disciples.\r\n\r\nto be a church that reaches out relationally and focus on true friendship; that builds trust with neighbors and works together with community partners to better society.\r\n\r\nto be a church that does not mistake the meaning of counter-culturalism with culture warfare, and that instead seeks to subvert the status quo by implementing revolutionary social practices.\r\n\r\nto be a church that loves God and worships out of an authentic place of awe and appreciation for who God is – a God who has given us good news; who is righteous, just, gracious, sovereign, and desires redemption for all.\r\n\r\nIn sum, we want to be a church that loves, and that in doing so, participates passionately and faithfully in the Holy Spirit’s already-enacted mission and ministry of reconciliation for the coming of the Kingdom of God.\r\n\r\nIn a sense, this is just my list.  But I didn\'t write it alone, and I want it to be <em>ours</em>.  Maybe you can relate, have concerns, or other hopes and prayers.','The Church in 2012 and Beyond','','inherit','open','open','','3551-revision-8','','','2012-01-07 13:25:16','2012-01-07 21:25:16','',3551,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3551-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(3690,1,'2012-01-04 18:30:50','2012-01-05 02:30:50','The title of this article is a quote from the film <a href=\"http://www.tuckermax.com/movie\"><em>I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell</em></a>, a crude movie about the escapades of Tucker Max.  I should note here that I haven\'t seen the film; I found the quote on a blog about rape culture.  Sadly, though it may be phrased more politely, far too many men echo the sentiment of the quote.  They are eager to blame women for their lack of sexual self-control.  One young man recently told me, \"What girls don\'t get is that if they dress a certain way, guys are going to <em>treat</em> them a certain way.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m crying baloney on that one.  Men have been using their sexuality to dominate women for thousands of years.  It has nothing to do with what women put on their bodies.  If it did, then rape wouldn\'t exist in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe.  And if it were about modesty, then we shouldn\'t have had rape in America before the turn of the century (excluding prostitutes, of course).  I don\'t know about anyone else, but I am sick to death of hearing about how a woman was to blame for the way a man treated her, based on whatever he deems \"leading.\"\r\n\r\nI\'m also tired of the way that too many churches teach this as faith-based sexuality.  Girls are shamed for dressing \"inappropriately,\" and warned about the visually-driven male libido.  But boys are given a pass if the girl seemed like she was asking for it.  The pressure is constantly on girls and women to make sure we don\'t send the wrong signals or put ourselves in situations where we might \"get ourselves raped.\"  There is very little pressure on guys to make sure they\'re treating us respectfully, regardless of our state of dress or level of intoxication.  Given that, it should come as no surprise that I was refreshed to see this photo posted on my friend\'s Facebook page:\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3568\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-206x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"206\" height=\"300\" /></a>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nYes, men and boys, you <em>do </em>have the power to treat women and girls right, no matter the circumstances.  I want to see much more of this kind of thing taught to our sons.  I want to see much less of our daughters being blamed for mistreatment by males.','“Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”','','inherit','open','open','','3562-revision-7','','','2012-01-04 18:30:50','2012-01-05 02:30:50','',3562,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3562-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(3691,1,'2012-01-07 09:37:51','2012-01-07 17:37:51','','marriage_church','','inherit','open','open','','marriage_church','','','2012-01-07 09:37:51','2012-01-07 17:37:51','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/marriage_church.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(3692,1,'2012-01-04 21:10:04','2012-01-05 05:10:04','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-12','','','2012-01-04 21:10:04','2012-01-05 05:10:04','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/04/3625-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(3693,1,'2012-01-07 09:38:34','2012-01-07 17:38:34','This idea is pervasive in evangelical Christianity today. The idea comes from Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul speaks of Christian marriage.  <a href=\"http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage_2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">About.com - Christianity</a> specifically states that God intended marriage to be an illustration of Christ and the church, and the New Living Translation even says so explicitly:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"As the Scriptures say, \'A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.\' This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.\"</span> Eph 5:31-32, NLT.\r\n\r\nThe About.com-Christianity web page goes on to explain that the way this works out is that husbands “illustrate” Christ’s leadership authority, as well as His self-sacrifice, while wives “illustrate” the church’s submission to Christ’s leadership authority. Is this what the Bible actually teaches?\r\n\r\nI am not going to write today about the meaning of words like “head” in the text of Ephesians 5:21-33. I am not going to write about mutual submission as the controlling verse of this text. I have written about these things <a href=\"http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10/13/nlq-faq-the-bible-and-male-headship-part-2/\" target=\"_blank\">elsewhere</a>, as have many others.\r\n\r\nBut this idea of marriage as a picture or illustration of Christ and the church is troubling, and needs to be carefully examined. If Paul is saying that marriages illustrate Christ’s authority over the church and the church’s obedience, this has serious implications. I have heard preachers say that when non-believers look at the leadership of husbands and the submission of wives, they will see the beauty of Christ’s relationship with the church and be drawn to Christianity. I have heard teachings that a marriage will only properly illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church when the husband steps fully into his leadership role and the wife responds to that in complete submission. Ideas of husbands and wives as best friends, companions and lovers tend to get lost in all this. Are Christian wives supposed to show the world a picture of human obedience, while their husbands are a picture of their Lord and God? Non-Christians are hardly drawn to Christianity by this picture-- they are often frankly disgusted. But this is certainly what this marriage-as-illustration teaching implies.\r\n\r\nHowever, the original text of Ephesians 5:32 never uses the word “illustration” or any similar word. The more word-for-word translations translate that verse like this:\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">\"This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”</span> KJV\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.”</span> NIV (1984)\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\">“This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”</span> NASB\r\n\r\nWhat is being said here? Is marriage an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church? Or is something different, and much more profound, going on in these verses?\r\n\r\nFirst of all, look at the direction in which the comparisons move. Christ and the church are not said to be “as” husbands and wives. It’s the other way around. Husbands and wives are “as” Christ and the church. If one relationship is being set up here as a picture or illustration to help us see the other relationship more clearly, it is Christ and the church who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow-- not the other way around. Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church. But-- and this is important-- the passage doesn’t just say, “You husband and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.” The illustration being given here is not general, but specific. Husbands and wives are to imitate <em>this particular</em> picture of Christ and the church.\r\n\r\nSo what is the picture? What is being illustrated?\r\n\r\nThat is the question that Part 2 will discuss.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church?','','inherit','open','open','','3625-revision-13','','','2012-01-07 09:38:34','2012-01-07 17:38:34','',3625,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3625-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(3694,1,'2012-01-05 20:55:45','2012-01-06 04:55:45','In part 1 I showed that Ephesians 5:21-33 does not say marriage is an illustration of Christ and the church. It’s the other way around. This passage shows couples a specific picture of Christ and the church, to take as an illustration for marriage. What is that specific picture?\r\n\r\nPlease note that I am reading this passage in light of this basic principle of Bible interpretation: We can’t understand what this passage means to <em>us</em>, until we understand what it is most likely to have meant to the <em>original audience</em>, as Paul intended them to understand it.\r\n\r\nIn order to see more clearly what the picture was that Paul was painting as an illustration, I’d like to look at this passage in light of its literary structure. <a href=\"http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Kenneth Bailey</a>, research professor of the New Testament and scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, uses the term “chiasm” to describe the repetitive kind of structure used in this passage. A chiastic literary structure can be viewed as a sort of sandwich, with repetitive parallel elements at the beginning and end as the pieces of bread, similar repetitive elements within those representing the condiments, and the meat-- the main point of the passage-- in the middle. This is a common Middle-Eastern literary style and is frequently used by New Testament writers, including Paul.*\r\n\r\nThe parallel ideas and phrases in this text are largely self-evident, when you\'re looking for them. What we tend to miss is what the original Middle-Eastern audience would have understood those parallelisms to be doing.\r\n\r\nSince we in the West tend to put the main point of what we are trying to say at the beginning, or at end (or both) when we are writing, we can easily read a passage of Scripture without understanding what the main point was. We can read a passage like Ephesians 5:21-33 and see the main point as “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (if we start where most translations divide the text, in verse 22). But let’s look at the passage the way a first-century Middle Eastern would have read it-- with the parallelisms Paul appears to have intended (I’ll use the New American Standard Bible because it’s a close word-for-word translation which brings out the original structure, and I\'ll omit the words the NASB indicates aren‘t in the original text).\r\n\r\nThe color-codes here indicate a kind of outline, with each set of parallels the same color, and the central point, in the middle, its own unique color:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ</span> [introductory phrase that governs the whole passage from 5:22 through 6:9]</li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C He Himself the Savior of the body</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D But as the church is subject to Christ, also the wives to their husbands in everything</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">G That He might present to Himself the church in all her glory</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #3366ff\">F Having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff00ff\">E So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #993300\">D For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the church</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #ff6600\">C Because we are members of His body.</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B2 This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #800080\">B1 Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself</span></li>\r\n	<li><span style=\"color: #008000\">A And let the wife see that she respect her husband.</span></li>\r\n</ul>\r\nIt’s important, of course, to keep in mind the world in which Paul and his audience lived. The structure of that world centered around the <em>pater familias</em> as the ruler and authority over an economic/familial unit-- the household, which consisted of the ruling patriarch, his wife, children and slaves. Paul doesn’t try to fight against the cultural structure, but counsels the Ephesian church on how Christian marriage can work within it.\r\n\r\nThe first and last lines (“A”) are the outer part of the sandwich-- the two pieces of bread, as it were. They are parallels about wives submitting to/respecting their husbands. Just inside each of these, top and bottom, are two parallel sections about husbands\' head-body relationship to their wives, being compared to Christ’s head-body relationship to the church (“B”). I have set the bottom “B” section off a little to show that it is set up as a mini-chiasm within itself, elaborating on the theme of that one-flesh, head-body relationship, which harks back to the central point of the passage (shown in the center at “G”).\r\n\r\nThe two parallel “C” statements are the next layer in, and they are about Christ and the church’s head-body relationship. Note that Paul doesn’t speak of Christ as “Lord” here, but as “Savior.” It is what Christ does as <em>Savior</em> that makes this a head-body relationship. The head-body relationship is not defined in terms of Lordship and obedience. Christ <em>is</em> Lord of the church, of course-- but Paul is not talking about that here: he’s talking about Christ as Savior. This is not about what the head commands the body to do, but about what the head does for the body.\r\n\r\nThe two statements at “D” function as reasons why. These appear at first glance to be a departure from the clear parallelism of the rest of the pairs-- but what Paul seems to be doing here is matching two statements of fact, one relating to wives and one to husbands, which support what he is advising each to do.. At level “A,” wives are told to submit, or voluntarily yield-- but this statement at “D” is not a mere repetition, or even an expansion, of that idea. Instead, it is a reason why. The word “Submit” at level “A” was in the middle voice, denoting something someone does themselves, on their own initiative. But here at level “D,” the same word is in the passive voice, denoting a state of being. This is why the NASB renders it as “the wife is subject to” rather than “wives, submit to.“ Paul states that wives are subject to their husbands-- in first-century Ephesus, this was simply a fact, here stated as such. In the parallel \"D,\" the fact being stated is that no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, and that Christ also treats the church as His own flesh. These paralleled facts set forth the reasons why wives are advised to yield and husbands are advised to love.\r\n\r\nAt level “E,” then, we see the instructions to husbands, tied into the example of Christ’s actions towards the church. The husbands were the ones with control in that society. Wives were not in a position to be able to make any substantive changes to turn marriage as it was understood, into marriage as God would have it in the church. It was husbands who had that power. So husbands are instructed to imitate Christ’s love for the church. But the picture/illustration given them is not one of authority/leadership, but of giving and sacrifice. Christ “gave Himself” for the church; that is, He was crucified for her, emptying Himself of His power and glory. Husbands’ imitation of this would not involve holding onto their society-given rights and powers, but emptying themselves of them.\r\n\r\n“F” and “G,” then, are the meat of the sandwich, with the juiciest part right in the middle. The illustration is given of Christ cleansing the church and making her holy and blameless. Why? So that “G” could happen-- the glorification of the church. What Christ does for the church, in this illustration that marriages are to emulate, is raise the church up to be glorious! How could husbands in that culture, understanding the chiastic structure and thus grasping Paul‘s true message, have understood anything other than that they were to raise their wives out of their lowly position into a glorious one?\r\n\r\nThe mini-chiasm at “B2,” then, must be understood as harking back to what Paul has just shown, and pointing forward into the future. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, which comments on God’s bringing together of Adam and Eve, and then says he is actually talking about Christ and the church in a “great mystery.” What is a “mystery”? According to Ephesians 3:4-5, “mystery” refers to a divine secret which God reveals, or will reveal, through the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it is not something we can discover or figure out on our own, apart from God’s revelation.\r\n\r\nBut here’s the rub. The “mystery” here is the final, complete glorification of the church so that she becomes “one flesh” with the divine Son. This is something that has not yet taken place, but is going to take place when He returns, even as 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He is.”\r\n\r\nIn this light, the idea that human marriage is meant to show or illustrate Christ and the church, falls apart. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb is still in the future. Christ and the church are not yet married! Is it possible to illustrate something that has not yet occurred or been revealed-- something that we cannot figure out by ourselves what it’s going to look like?\r\n\r\nHuman marriage cannot illustrate the divine-- but it can follow the divine picture as far as it has been revealed. What has been revealed in Ephesians 5:21-32 is that Christ has come down from His high position, given Himself for the church, and that He is now preparing her for glory-- the glory of being “one flesh” with Himself. And what following that illustration would look like to Paul’s original audience would be husbands coming down from their high position, to raise their wives up from their lowly position to a place of glorious unity.\r\n\r\nYou might now be thinking, “Ok, maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but surely marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nPart 3 will discuss typology as it is used in the New Testament, and how, if it is in fact being used in Ephesians 5:21-33, I believe we should understand it.\r\n\r\n-------\r\n*For a detailed explanation of the chiastic literary style, see Kenneth Bailey, <em>Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes</em>, IVP Academic, pp. 13-16.','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 2','','inherit','open','open','','3656-revision-6','','','2012-01-05 20:55:45','2012-01-06 04:55:45','',3656,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3656-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3695,1,'2012-01-07 09:44:17','2012-01-07 17:44:17','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\n\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\n\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\n\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\n\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\n\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\n\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority.\n\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\n\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\n\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\n\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\n\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\n\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\n\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\n\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Part 3','','inherit','open','open','','3665-autosave','','','2012-01-07 09:44:17','2012-01-07 17:44:17','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3665-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(3696,1,'2012-01-05 21:22:45','2012-01-06 05:22:45','Part 1 of this three-part article refuted the idea that marriage is an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Part 2 showed that Christ’s glorification of the church to become “one flesh” with Him is the main point of Ephesians 21-33, and this was the illustration Paul had in mind to transform marriage as the world understood it then, into New Covenant marriage in Christ.\r\n\r\nThis last part attempts to ask the question that might arise: “Maybe marriage isn’t an ‘illustration’ of Christ and the church, but isn’t marriage a \"type\" of Christ’s relationship with the church?”\r\n\r\nTypology is a concept mentioned several times in the New Testament. According to the online <a href=\"http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6334\" target=\"_blank\">Holman\'s Bible Dictionary</a>, \"Typology involves a correspondence, usually in <em>one</em> particular matter between a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament with a person, event, or thing, in the New Testament. All elements except this <em>one</em> may be quite different, but the <em>one</em> element selected for comparison has a genuine similarity in the two different historical contexts. . . Typology, a comparison stressing one point of similarity, helps us see the New Testament person, event, or institution as the fulfillment of that which was only hinted at in the Old Testament.” [Emphasis in original]\r\n\r\nAs Holman states, when the word “type\" is used in the New Testament, it refers to one element of something in the Old Testament being a pattern for something in the New. Adam is a “type” of Christ-- but only in the sense that Adam was the one man through whom the curse of sin came, and Christ is the one Man through whom the gift of salvation came. But Adam is not like Christ in other respects-- in fact, it is the <em>“not like”</em> comparisons that are emphasized in Romans 5:14-16.\r\n\r\nThe New Testament does not actually call any of its own introduced concepts (such as Paul’s concept of New Covenant Christian marriage) “types” of anything else. However, if, in spite of this, perhaps there is some justification in seeing typology in Christian marriage-- for in verse 32 Paul does seem to use it as a pattern that hints at something else which will be the fulfillment. However, if marriage is a type, the hint will <em>not</em> be like the fulfillment in <em>every</em> respect, but in one, limited respect only. And the text itself will show us what is.\r\n\r\nThe marriage relationship is not like Christ’s relationship with the church in <em>every</em> sense. And the sense given by the text is not authority and subordination, but oneness. Marriage is like Christ and the church because both relationships become “one flesh” relationships. In other respects, marriage is <em>not</em> like Christ’s relationship with the church. Marriage is not like Christ redeeming from sin and the church being redeemed, or like the church worshiping and Christ receiving worship. I have heard husbands say they believed it was their job to cleanse their wives and present them before God as Christ does the church! But that is not the point of similarity given in the possible typology here.\r\n\r\nJust because Christ is shown doing or being something for the church in the Ephesians 5:21-33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be the same thing for their wives. The text says that Christ is the church’s “Savior,“ but (thankfully) I have never heard a husband claim he could step into <em>that</em> role! But neither does the text say marriage is like Christ leading and the church following. Though the text does say wives are to submit (voluntarily yield), it says nothing about husbands (or Christ) leading. Instead, it talks about husbands (and Christ) <em>loving.</em> Husbands, like Christ, are understood to be in a <em>position</em> of authority-- but <em>exercising</em> that authority is simply not in view in this text. Just the opposite, in fact. Husbands are told to give themselves as Christ gave Himself-- and Christ gave Himself to crucifixion, laying down His power and authority.  In light of this, it doesn\'t make sense to say that the husband-authority exercised in worldly marriages of Paul\'s day was somehow intended by God to continue for all time.  Christian marriage in the New Covenant was not intended to be viewed in terms of authority, but in terms of layin<em>g down</em> authority and <em>raising up</em> the one under authority. \r\n\r\nSo if there is any typology in Ephesians 5:21-33, it is the typology of “one flesh.” To map husbands to Christ in any way not given by the typology, is to go beyond the text and to risk husband-idolatry, placing husbands in the place of Christ in their wives’ lives.  And to give the worldly authority of husbands in Paul’s day, to all husbands for all time, is to wrongly map the human to the divine.\r\n\r\nTo sum up this three-part article, then:\r\n\r\nHuman marriage is not, and cannot be, an illustration of Christ’s relationship with the church. Instead, Christ’s relationship with the church, as shown in the text, is the illustration for New-Covenant human marriage.\r\n\r\nOur Western understanding of literary structure leads us to want to see the main point of Ephesians 5:21-33 as wives’ submission to husbands (because it is the first and last thing mentioned), followed by husbands loving wives-- and the rest as more or less mere commentary on those two points. But this is not how Paul intended it to be read. What he wanted was that the Christians in the church at Ephesus (and in the other churches to whom this letter would be circulated) should see their marriages as needing to imitate Christ’s descent from glory in order to raise up the church to glory. He wanted them to see that one-flesh unity between a husband who raised up his wife, and the wife who was raised up, was the goal of Christian marriage.\r\n\r\nIf in this sense marriage is a type, pointing to a fulfillment when Christ comes again, in His one-flesh unity with the church, then this, and nothing else, is the point of similarity of the typology.\r\n\r\nThere is no justification for stretching the text to make marriage either a type or an illustration of Christ’s authority over the church.\r\n\r\nThis passage is simply not about the marriage relationship being intended by God as an authority-subordinate relationship. That is the understanding of marriage that Paul had to work with in his audience’s minds-- but that’s not where he left it. Ephesians 5:21-33’s teaching on marriage is about <em>changing</em> that view of marriage to one of unity and love-- the kind of love that could transform the authority-subordinate nature of first-century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in His New Covenant kingdom: oneness, companionship and mutuality. So when Christians insist on husband-authority in marriage, they are actually going in the opposite direction from where Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was trying to take the church.\r\n\r\nThis is not about either rejecting or accommodating modern culture. Christians tend to focus entirely too much on that. But the question is not, “what is the world doing now, so we can do the opposite, right or wrong?” The real question is, should we turn back to a first-century worldly understanding, or move forward into the New Creation kingdom of God?','Is Marriage Really an Illustration of Christ and the Church? Conclusion','','inherit','open','open','','3665-revision-7','','','2012-01-05 21:22:45','2012-01-06 05:22:45','',3665,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3665-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(3697,1,'2011-11-17 08:33:03','2011-11-17 16:33:03','<strong>About Provoketive Magazine</strong>: In a world saturated with people shouting at each other, it\'s rare to find a place where people can engage in conversation with each other.  Provoketive Magazine hopes to change that.  We\'re creating a space of rich conversation about life, faith, justice and culture without judgment.  Our desire is to provoke the reader\'s imagination through conversation and open up spaces of dialogue, learning, and hope.\r\n\r\n<strong>Current Categories</strong>:\r\n<ul>\r\n	<li>Life: Business, Family, Growth, Humorous, Health, Relationships, Sports, Technology, Work and World</li>\r\n	<li>Faith: Spirituality, Theology, Interfaith Dialogue, Spiritual Practices, and Questions</li>\r\n	<li>Justice: Social Justice, Gender Equality, Politics and Economics</li>\r\n	<li>Culture: Movies, Books, Music, Art, Poetry and Interviews</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nIf you are a writer [<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/nominate-a-writer/\">or you would like to nominate a writer</a>] and want to participate with us in creating this rich space of conversation, we invite you to sign up today.  Use the form below to provide the following information.  We will respond to you in 1-3 days with instructions for participation.\r\n\r\n[contact-form subject=\"Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\" to=\"jb@civitaspress.com\"] [contact-field label=\"Name\" type=\"name\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Email\" type=\"email\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Existing Blog or Website\" type=\"url\" /] [contact-field label=\"List the topic you are interested writing about\" type=\"textarea\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Current or New Wordpress Login Name (We\\\'ll send you a password.)\" type=\"text\" required=\"true\" /] [/contact-form]','Writing For Provoketive','','inherit','open','open','','358-revision-28','','','2011-11-17 08:33:03','2011-11-17 16:33:03','',358,'http://provoketive.com/2011/11/17/358-revision-28/',0,'revision','',0),(3698,1,'2012-01-07 09:54:02','2012-01-07 17:54:02','<strong>January 2012 Publishing Focus</strong>: In January we are focusing on \"Hope\".  If you have a story or article that\n\n&nbsp;\n\n<strong>About Provoketive Magazine</strong>: In a world saturated with people shouting at each other, it\'s rare to find a place where people can engage in conversation with each other.  Provoketive Magazine hopes to change that.  We\'re creating a space of rich conversation about life, faith, justice and culture without judgment.  Our desire is to provoke the reader\'s imagination through conversation and open up spaces of dialogue, learning, and hope.\n\n<strong>Current Categories</strong>:\n<ul>\n	<li>Life: Business, Family, Growth, Humorous, Health, Relationships, Sports, Technology, Work and World</li>\n	<li>Faith: Spirituality, Theology, Interfaith Dialogue, Spiritual Practices, and Questions</li>\n	<li>Justice: Social Justice, Gender Equality, Politics and Economics</li>\n	<li>Culture: Movies, Books, Music, Art, Poetry and Interviews</li>\n</ul>\nIf you are a writer [<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/nominate-a-writer/\">or you would like to nominate a writer</a>] and want to participate with us in creating this rich space of conversation, we invite you to sign up today.  Use the form below to provide the following information.  We will respond to you in 1-3 days with instructions for participation.\n\n[contact-form subject=\"Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\" to=\"jb@civitaspress.com\"] [contact-field label=\"Name\" type=\"name\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Email\" type=\"email\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Existing Blog or Website\" type=\"url\" /] [contact-field label=\"List the topic you are interested writing about\" type=\"textarea\" required=\"true\" /] [contact-field label=\"Current or New Wordpress Login Name (We\\\'ll send you a password.)\" type=\"text\" required=\"true\" /] [/contact-form]','Writing For Provoketive','','inherit','open','open','','358-revision-29','','','2012-01-07 09:54:02','2012-01-07 17:54:02','',358,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/358-revision-29/',0,'revision','',0),(3700,1,'2012-01-07 09:56:35','2012-01-07 17:56:35','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nIs that the future of our girls?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-5','','','2012-01-07 09:56:35','2012-01-07 17:56:35','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3701,1,'2012-01-07 09:59:09','2012-01-07 17:59:09','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nIs that the future of our girls?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-6','','','2012-01-07 09:59:09','2012-01-07 17:59:09','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(3702,1,'2012-01-07 09:59:38','2012-01-07 17:59:38','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nIs that the future of our girls?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-7','','','2012-01-07 09:59:38','2012-01-07 17:59:38','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(3703,1,'2012-01-05 15:26:25','2012-01-05 23:26:25','My lovely wife, Allison was listening to some syndicated radio show the other day. The hosts were discussing a topic. There was a male and female host and it went something like this:\r\n\r\nFemale host: \"I was in church for Christmas and a family with a two year old sat next to me. The two year old was very disruptive. He was throwing Legos on my Bible. He was very disruptive. After a while, he pooped his diaper and it was very smelly. I thought about getting up and moving, but then I thought, \'I wouldn\'t want her to think I was moving because of her. That might offend her.\'\"\r\n\r\nMale host: \"Yeah, she was rather bothersome. You did have reasons to move, but to get up and move would have been offensive.\"\r\n\r\nOkay. So, my wife and I discussed this for about twenty minutes.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3623\" style=\"margin-left: 6px;margin-right: 6px\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kids5-300x254.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"254\" /></a>She had one point. Her point was that people who visit church should be able to control their children and take them out if they are disruptive. If they have a poopy diaper, they should take them out and change them.\r\n\r\nMy point was this - \"What if this was the only time this family came to church in three years? What if they are \'unchurched\'? They don\'t know how to act in church, they don\'t know what to do and they are just there because they just think it\'s the right thing to do?\"\r\n\r\nI started thinking. \"Does the church at large really want the <em>unchurched in the church</em>?\" Statistics usually show that 80% of the population isn\'t in church. Do we really want them? They don\'t act always like those in church, they don\'t talk like those in church and when they do show up, they bring their kids with poopy diapers.\r\n\r\nDoes the mainstream church really want people who aren\'t like them? Do they really want the unwashed, poopy-diapered kids in the world? Do they really want the below-average, low-income, low-ACT scored people of the world? Or do does the mainstream church want people like them? Do they want people to conform to their ways? People to act like them?\r\n\r\nI remember when I was pastoring I had a guy who I will call Jim. He showed up every Sunday in flip-flops and shorts. He just loved the preaching. He loved being part of a church. I loved having him there. Several members didn\'t care that he didn\'t act or conform to Sunday standards. He made some very uncomfortable. It begs the question - do the church people really want the unchurched in church?\r\n\r\nWhen the young couple shows up to church and they have a kid who is disruptive, do we really want them there? What is our reaction? Do they fit the mold of our normative church?\r\n\r\nJesus went out and found the completely strange people of the world. He found the lepers and brought them in. He got the tax collectors, the adulterers. He sought the outright sinners in society. He even went after a Pharisee. What are we seeking after? When we are doing evangelism, are we looking for people like us, or are we seeking after people who are like what Christ sought after?\r\n\r\nHow would Jesus have reacted?\r\n\r\nPlease, comment. Respond.','Open Discussion: The Church and the Kid With the Poopy Pants','','inherit','open','open','','3618-revision-5','','','2012-01-05 15:26:25','2012-01-05 23:26:25','',3618,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/05/3618-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(3705,48,'2012-01-07 10:25:58','2012-01-07 18:25:58','There\'s a word getting thrown around a lot in regarding churches, ministries, an other faiths. It\'s a word I\'ve seen used flippantly, jokingly, and sometimes with what I see as an appropriate level of gravity. Often it\'s a word spoken, and probably rightly so, by broken and hurting people. It\'s a word used by a commenter recent previous post in Provoketive Magazine, Slap on a Little Lipstick, You\'ll be','The \'C\' Word','','inherit','open','open','','3704-revision','','','2012-01-07 10:25:58','2012-01-07 18:25:58','',3704,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3704-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(3706,24,'2012-01-07 09:59:59','2012-01-07 17:59:59','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nIs that the future of our girls?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nIs attraction to others and the desire to get the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\nFear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-8','','','2012-01-07 09:59:59','2012-01-07 17:59:59','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(3707,24,'2012-01-07 10:39:14','2012-01-07 18:39:14','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nThe images prevalent in a society or culture seem to reflect an idea of what the people in said society identify with as being valuable. If I show you an image of something long enough, get you to hear it enough, you are likely to but into it. The images this beautiful girl is exposed to is this video reflect the ideas of what the media wants us to buy into. This is beneficial to them to get society to want to reflect or be this image, hence to purchase there products.\n\nGrocery store check outs, commercials, music videos and reality TV shows are full of people and products glamorizing the body, sex and anything related to pleasure. It appears to not be much different then a national geographic show on the mating rituals of most species of animals. Those with the best perceived genes and body get the most ladies, more sex, more food and dominance. That world works great for people who believe that is what they are.\n\nIf you have any spiritual value within you it is likely these images do not settle well within you. By asking some simple questions we can expose areas we have energized and identified with. Not as a means to judge, but to simple observe a paradigm.\n\nAre the images in the video real?\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\nLook in the mirror at the face and body, do you love what you see?\nIs attraction to others/things and the desire to \'get\' the main motivator\'s of our lives?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty - That which you are.\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\n\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\n\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\n\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\n\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\n\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\n\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\n\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\n\n<strong>Fear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?</strong>\n\n&nbsp;','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-9','','','2012-01-07 10:39:14','2012-01-07 18:39:14','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(3708,48,'2012-01-07 10:38:41','2012-01-07 18:38:41','There\'s a word getting thrown around a lot in regarding churches, ministries, an other faiths. It\'s a word I\'ve seen used flippantly, jokingly, and sometimes with what I see as an appropriate level of gravity. Often it\'s a word spoken, and probably rightly so, by broken and hurting people. It\'s a word used by a commenter recent previous post in Provoketive Magazine, Slap on a Little Lipstick, You\'ll Be Fine. If I am being completely honest, it\'s a word I\'ve used, sometimes quickly in anger and pain, and also after great prayer and thought.\n\nThat\'s right, I am talking about the \'C\' word. Cult.\n\nIt\'s used by many Christians to describe Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and many other fringe religious groups and doomsday groups. It\'s also used against many other Christian churches and ministries that have an authoritarian structure, rigid rules, and apparent spiritual abuse. The commenter from my last article used it in reference to what he thought was a minister requiring me to wear lipstick (as a note, I never stated whether that incident occured at a secular or religious organization).\n\nBut what is a cult, really?\n\n&nbsp;','The \'C\' Word','','inherit','open','open','','3704-revision-2','','','2012-01-07 10:38:41','2012-01-07 18:38:41','',3704,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3704-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(3709,24,'2012-01-07 10:40:48','2012-01-07 18:40:48','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\n\nThe images prevalent in a society or culture seem to reflect an idea of what the people in said society identify with as being valuable. If I show you an image demed  long enough, get you to hear it enough, you are likely to but into it. The images this beautiful girl is exposed to is this video reflect the ideas of what the media wants us to buy into. This is beneficial to them to get society to want to reflect or be this image, hence to purchase there products.\n\nGrocery store check outs, commercials, music videos and reality TV shows are full of people and products glamorizing the body, sex and anything related to pleasure. It appears to not be much different then a national geographic show on the mating rituals of most species of animals. Those with the best perceived genes and body get the most ladies, more sex, more food and dominance. That world works great for people who believe that is what they are.\n\nIf you have any spiritual value within you it is likely these images do not settle well within you. By asking some simple questions we can expose areas we have energized and identified with. Not as a means to judge, but to simple observe a paradigm.\n\nAre the images in the video real?\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\nLook in the mirror at the face and body, do you love what you see?\nIs attraction to others/things and the desire to \'get\' the main motivator\'s of our lives?\n\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\nBeauty - That which you are.\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\n\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\n\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\n\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\n\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\n\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\n\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\n\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\n\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\n\n<strong>Fear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?</strong>\n\n[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U[/youtube]','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-10','','','2012-01-07 10:40:48','2012-01-07 18:40:48','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(3710,24,'2012-01-07 10:41:39','2012-01-07 18:41:39','[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I[/youtube]\r\n\r\nThe images prevalent in a society or culture seem to reflect an idea of what the people in said society identify with as being valuable. If I show you an image deemed valuable long enough, get you to hear about it enough, you are likely to but into it. The images this beautiful girl is exposed to is this video reflect the ideas of what the media wants us to buy into. This is beneficial to them to get society to want to reflect or be this image, hence to purchase there products.\r\n\r\nGrocery store check outs, commercials, music videos and reality TV shows are full of people and products glamorizing the body, sex and anything related to pleasure. It appears to not be much different then a national geographic show on the mating rituals of most species of animals. Those with the best perceived genes and body get the most ladies, more sex, more food and dominance. That world works great for people who believe that is what they are.\r\n\r\nIf you have any spiritual value within you it is likely these images do not settle well within you. By asking some simple questions we can expose areas we have energized and identified with. Not as a means to judge, but to simple observe a paradigm.\r\n\r\nAre the images in the video real?\r\nIs your body the key to getting what you want?\r\nLook in the mirror at the face and body, do you love what you see?\r\nIs attraction to others/things and the desire to \'get\' the main motivator\'s of our lives?\r\n\r\nLet\'s bring some clarity to these questions by defining the difference between beauty and glamour.\r\nBeauty - That which you are.\r\nGlamour - That which you are trying to be something else in order to get a desired thing or outcome.\r\n\r\n<strong>Glamour uses seduction as a mean of attracting to itself a desired object that\'s value is projected onto it as a source of happiness</strong>.\r\n\r\nThe true source of happiness stems from within, the desire cannot be satisfied because it constantly projects value onto external things.  One\'s desires get fulfilled, the focus then moves on to another object of desire with endless procession.\r\n\r\n<a href=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101.jpg\"><img class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-3643\" src=\"http://provoketive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Relate-101-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" /></a>This body image value system doesn\'t or will not change because we get upset and boycott these images. It changes by one\'s ability to ask the tough questions, to search for answers that are not found \'out there.\'\r\n\r\n<strong>I cannot be seduced by an image if I know what I am.</strong>\r\n\r\nLook in the mirror, do you love what you see?\r\nDo you smile at that image knowing it is what you have not what you are?\r\n\r\nA few years ago my wife and I were going through a trying time. I was completely honest and open with her about my life and they things that were running it. I told her that I did not need her to be my mom, or seductress anymore. I was detaching from her a pushing her away. I was projecting my fear of being controlled onto her so I could have an excuse for being afraid. Every morning I ascended a beautiful mountain at sunrise as a way of contemplating what really mattered to me. One morning on the way up I was holding my wife in mind asking for help with our situation. I cannot explain very well what happened next, but I will do my best.\r\n\r\nI suddenly found myself in an overwhelming presence of Love and Beauty. I then within saw my wife as she Is. Without a past or future, without my feelings about her, she simply was Beauty manifested, Lovely, Perfect and One. I saw that she had put on a mask to relate to me, she had chosen to serve my false image giving it the Grace and safety it needed to dissolve.\r\n\r\nI ran down the mountain into our home and straight to my wife. I grabbed her hands and I began to tell her about what I had realized. I asked her to forgive me for making her the enemy. I thanked her for staying true and walking me through my shit.  As I was saying these things I began to notice a very strong fragrance in the room. I asked her if she had lit a candle. She told me no, we both began to breathe in this beautiful fragrance. It then dawned on me, this is her, this smell is Beauty being seen as it is. We both wept and laughed realizing the drama I had created was nothing more than my attempts to control what can never be controlled.\r\n\r\n<strong>Fear is the only thing that seeks acceptance, Love knows by being what it is. So what are you?</strong>\r\n\r\n[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U[/youtube]','Am I That?','','inherit','open','open','','3641-revision-11','','','2012-01-07 10:41:39','2012-01-07 18:41:39','',3641,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3641-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(3711,48,'2012-01-07 11:01:37','2012-01-07 19:01:37','There\'s a word getting thrown around a lot in regarding churches, ministries, an other faiths. It\'s a word I\'ve seen used flippantly, jokingly, and sometimes with what I see as an appropriate level of gravity. Often it\'s a word spoken, and probably rightly so, by broken and hurting people. It\'s a word used by a commenter recent previous post in Provoketive Magazine, Slap on a Little Lipstick, You\'ll Be Fine. If I am being completely honest, it\'s a word I\'ve used, sometimes quickly in anger and pain, and also after great prayer and thought.\n\nThat\'s right, I am talking about the \'C\' word. Cult.\n\nIt\'s used by many Christians to describe Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and many other fringe religious groups and doomsday groups. It\'s also used against many other Christian churches and ministries that have an authoritarian structure, rigid rules, and apparent spiritual abuse. The commenter from my last article used it in reference to what he thought was a minister requiring me to wear lipstick (as a note, I never stated whether that incident occured at a secular or religious organization).\n\nBut what is a cult, really?\n\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following defininition:\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: formal religious veneration : <a href=\"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship\">worship</a></span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">2</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents</span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">3</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents</span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">4</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <span class=\"vi\">&lt;health cults&gt;</span></span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">5</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">a</span> : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad</span><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">b</span> : the object of such devotion</span><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">c</span> : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion</span></div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"></div>\n</div>\nGoing by this definition, which is pretty much what you will find in any general dictionary, any religious group or faith is a cult. That\'s right, by this definition, any Christian church or group, mainstream or otherwise, is a cult. And it doesn\'t stop at religion: any fad or craze with a following could be called a cult, like the cult of Mac.  And, with the exception of the third definition above that describes cult as a religion \"regarded as unorhtodox or spurious\", the term \'cult\' doesn\'t necessarily have a negative connotation.\n\nHowever, when cult is used to describe other faiths or Christian groups, churches, or denominiations, it is clearly meant in the negative meaning, that of an \"unorthodox\" group, or one that','The \'C\' Word','','inherit','open','open','','3704-revision-3','','','2012-01-07 11:01:37','2012-01-07 19:01:37','',3704,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3704-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(3712,0,'2012-01-07 11:51:53','2012-01-07 19:51:53','I just started blogging with wordpress, but I had been blogging at http://illuminationdilemma.blogspot.com/. I am most interested in Faith and Culture (esp. books), but have written posts in all four categories.\r\n\r\nI am a campus minister in Boston, MA and spend a lot of time talking to, engaging with, and writing about the intersection of Faith, Education, Culture, and Thought.\n<!--more-->\nAUTHOR: Stephen Boutry\nAUTHOR EMAIL: steve@sojourncollegiate.com\nAUTHOR URL: http://theilluminationdilemma.com/\nSUBJECT: Provoketive Magazine Writing For Provoketive\nIP: 71.232.55.229\nArray\n(\n    [Name] =&gt; Stephen Boutry\n    [Email] =&gt; steve@sojourncollegiate.com\n    [Existing Blog or Website] =&gt; http://theilluminationdilemma.com/\n    [List the topic you are interested writing about] =&gt; I just started blogging with wordpress, but I had been blogging at http://illuminationdilemma.blogspot.com/. I am most interested in Faith and Culture (esp. books), but have written posts in all four categories.\r\n\r\nI am a campus minister in Boston, MA and spend a lot of time talking to, engaging with, and writing about the intersection of Faith, Education, Culture, and Thought.\n    [Current or New WordPress Login Name (We\'ll send you a password.)] =&gt; stephenboutry\n)\n','Stephen Boutry - 2012-01-07 11:51:53','','publish','open','open','','c7d37e375382c6c2f15854e5e311be38','','','2012-01-07 11:51:53','2012-01-07 19:51:53','',358,'http://provoketive.com/?post_type=feedback&p=3712',0,'feedback','',0),(3714,48,'2012-01-07 12:29:25','2012-01-07 20:29:25','There\'s a word getting thrown around a lot in regarding churches, ministries, an other faiths. It\'s a word I\'ve seen used flippantly, jokingly, and sometimes with what I see as an appropriate level of gravity. Often it\'s a word spoken, and probably rightly so, by broken and hurting people. It\'s a word used by a commenter recent previous post in Provoketive Magazine, Slap on a Little Lipstick, You\'ll Be Fine. If I am being completely honest, it\'s a word I\'ve used, sometimes quickly in anger and pain, and also after great prayer and thought.\n\nThat\'s right, I am talking about the \'C\' word. Cult.\n\nIt\'s used by many Christians to describe Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and many other fringe religious groups and doomsday groups. It\'s also used against many other Christian churches and ministries that have an authoritarian structure, rigid rules, and apparent spiritual abuse. The commenter from my last article used it in reference to what he thought was a minister requiring me to wear lipstick (as a note, I never stated whether that incident occured at a secular or religious organization).\n\nBut what is a cult, really?\n\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following defininition:\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: formal religious veneration : <a href=\"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship\">worship</a></span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">2</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents</span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">3</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents</span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">4</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\">: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <span class=\"vi\">&lt;health cults&gt;</span></span></div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"sblk\">\n<div class=\"snum\" style=\"float: left\">5</div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">a</span> : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad</span><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">b</span> : the object of such devotion</span><span class=\"ssens\"><span class=\"sn\">c</span> : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion</span></div>\n<div class=\"scnt\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 20px\"></div>\n</div>\nGoing by this definition, which is pretty much what you will find in any general dictionary, any religious group or faith is a cult. That\'s right, by this definition, any Christian church or group, mainstream or otherwise, is a cult. And it doesn\'t stop at religion: any fad or craze with a following could be called a cult, like the cult of Mac.  And, with the exception of the third definition above that describes cult as a religion \"regarded as unorhtodox or spurious\", the term \'cult\' doesn\'t necessarily have a negative connotation.\n\nEven sociologist and psychologists tend to disagree over the use of the word \"cult\", given that what is generally a neutral term has become to bring to mind only pictures of poisoned Kool-Aid of Jonestown infamy or the Charles Mansen cult murders. However, most agree that there is really a continuum between what constitutes \"cult\" and \"non-cult\", which is why many have given to adding further descriptors, such as \"dangerous\" or \"benign\" to cults. Because of this, for the purposes of this article, I have gotten the majority of my information on cults from the International Cultic Studies Association.  They focus on the damaging aspects and practices that often occur in damaging cults, but they are careful not to specifically list possible cultts on their webpage, as there are many gray areas where groups may contain some aspeccts of cults, but not really be a full blown cult, or a dangerous cult.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nFurthermore, it can be difficult to be fully objective when determining what is \"unorthodox\" regarding religious beliefs and doctrine. And, who gets to decide? If you asked a Lutheran, Catholic, Pentacostal, Charistmatic, Bretheren, Mennononite, and Episcopalian about what constituted orthodox veruses unorthodox beliefs in other denominationsI thin it is likely each denomination would find themselves stuck with that label by another one.\n\nThat being said, here is a list of characteristics found with damaging cults, according to the ICSAv\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\n&nbsp;\n\nEven with this list, I think it is important to be careful before immediately labeling a group a \"cult\", given the current negative connotation that it immediately brings  to peoples\' minds. This is not a checklist to determine if a group is a cult for certain or not, but is merely a guideline of  characteristcs that cults often display. It is possible for a dangerous cult to not display all of these, and I think it is also possible for a group that is not a cult by today\'s current usage of the word to display some or even many of these traits.\n\n&nbsp;\n\nFor example:','The \'C\' Word','','inherit','open','open','','3704-revision-5','','','2012-01-07 12:29:25','2012-01-07 20:29:25','',3704,'http://provoketive.com/2012/01/07/3704-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),