Sheep Week: Defy Abusive Authority

"Defy Abusive Authority" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Defy Abusive Authority” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

Don’t be afraid of defying abusive authority. You should not be abused. They are wrong to do that to you.

I was constantly warned to not touch God’s anointed. Then I realized they were using that verse as a license to what they want to me.

Once I realized that I became the sheep in this cartoon and defied them.

Now I’m a sheep without a shepherd and I love it. How about you?

Seriously, come meet other people without shepherds… people who have defied abusive authority and are healing their lives. Join The Lasting Supper.

SHOP

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Ducatihero says:

    Lol I like the one – fingered salute of the sheep.

    You are a sheep without a shepherd. I am a sheep that can take or leave human shepherds. At the moment I have found a good one. I am the black sheep of the family. The problem wasn’t the colour of my wool, it was that I needed a different flock.

    I think God thinks about abusive pastors and congregations that support them in the same way. But then I could just have an abusive attitude toward them.

  2. Sabio Lantz says:

    David, you said, “I was constantly warned to not touch God’s anointed. ”

    Could you elaborate. Who said that, and why were they saying it? [specific names not needed, of course — just setting] And is this phrase “do not touch God’s anointed” a Biblical one?

  3. Finger salute. I like that.

    Sabio: It comes from the Old Testament story of David being gleefully informed by a soldier that Saul was dead. Even though he had turned bad, he was anointed by God. David warned him that you shouldn’t touch God’s anointed (Saul)… that is, kill, harm, or speak negatively of, and David had that soldier executed. Many modern-day leaders use that story to support their notion that ordained leadership should not be challenged.

  4. Tim WB says:

    I read it as “deifying abusive authority”. And then I realised my mistake…

  5. oh wow. freudian much? lol

  6. Sabio Lantz says:

    Thanx David — I guess I was a bad Christian, to not know this story. Can you give me a reference. I found the phrase here:
    1 Chronicles 16:22
    Psalm 105:15

    To me, this story shows us how Horrible is the Sacred. We should speak out against the sacred (the anointed, the holy) wherever it declares itself.

  7. Ducatihero says:

    Of course any notion that ordained leadership should never be challenged is easily refuted by reference to the prophet Nathan and his rebuke of King David about his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.

    Although that is an important point too about how David was with Saul, which then brings up questions of what to do when an authority has gone off track. Sometimes the answer as with David – RUN!

  8. Bernardo says:

    Let us go back to first century Palestine and review briefly the stories of one of God’s anointed ones i.e. Jesus (Matt 26: 6-13, Mark 14: 3-9, Luke 7: 36-50 and John 12: 1-8. ). Did this anointing of Jesus by various women actually occur?. Some contemporary scholars like JD Crossan conclude they did but others like G. Ludemann say they did not:

    Some added commentary:

    The Acts of Jesus sums up the views of the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar as follows:

    “This story has been recorded by all four narrative gospels. There are significant variations in the four versions, yet there is also remarkable agreement on the basic ingredients of the tale. The setting of all versions is a meal, or symposium, at which the owner of the house is present. A woman anoints Jesus during the meal (not before or after it) with a jar of perfume. Members of the party object to the woman’s action and Jesus defends her. The similarities in the setting and plot suggest that one incident or story lies behind all four versions. Yet because of the variations in other details, the Fellows of the Seminar decided that the original version of the incident is irretrievable.”

    “Interestingly, Luedemann [Jesus, 94] comments on the Mark passage (Mark’s gospel is believed to be the most historical of the four gospels): “The historical yield of the tradition is nil. But it does reflect the closeness of Jesus to a probably notorious woman of Galilee (cf. on Luke 7:36-50).”

    In his comments on the Lucan version, Luedemann suggests that Luke knew the Mark story yet deviated from his usual practice of following Mark closely in the passion account in order to bring this story (in an amended form) to an earlier location in his Gospel. He notes the addition of explicit mention of the sinner status of the woman in vss 37 and 39 (and the forgiveness of her many sins in vss 47, 48, 49). He then concludes:

    “If the story of the woman who was a sinner must be regarded as a mere development of Mark 14:3-9 it is unhistorical. But as the encounter of Jesus with a prostitute comes from the Lucan special tradition, this may be historical. For the contact of Jesus with shady people is a fact. The historicity of the encounter of Jesus with a prostitute is supported by the criterion of offensiveness.” (p. 308)”

    http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb192.html

  9. Bernardo says:

    Maybe it is time to remove the word “anoint” from the dictionary?

  10. Sabio Lantz says:

    @ Bernardo,
    Yes, “anointed” and “sacred” and “holy” are words I would love to see atrophy in use — well, except perhaps as used by comedians. I think the world would be a better place without these notions. I am sure many folks in David’s Lasting Supper group would not have as many horrible religion stories, had they not be sucker to their hypnotic manipulative draw.

  11. Bernardo says:

    Then there is the legend of David, the “anointed” king of Israel. Probably not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review.

  12. Ducatihero says:

    There’s nothing wrong with the words “anniont” “sacred” or “holy”. It is the use of these words that sometimes is the issue, not the words themselves. If these words are removed then all that happens is that the method by which abuses happen change it doesn’t prevent abuses.

    Political correctness with a policing of some words is not going to being about change needed. All it does is dress up a turd in gold leaf – it doesn’t flush the turd away.

    The only real change happens with abuse being confronted in churches is when egos are surrendered and human hearts are turned to God in perfect love. No human institution, movement or individual can ever offer the security that can be found in perfect love.

Daily Cartoon & Reflection!

PLUS: Sign up & get my FREE eBook "Two Sizes Too Small"!