the dirty necessity of deconstruction

Sophia "Deconstruction" by nakedpastor David Hayward

Sophia “Deconstruction” by nakedpastor David Hayward

This is Sophia. She’s getting ready to deconstruct. To take down the walls that have held her.

You can get prints of all 59 of my Sophia drawings in my shop. Would you like 30% OFF? Just use code ‘socool’ at checkout!

You can also get the book that tells her story along with all the drawings shown called The Liberation of Sophia.

Deconstruction is dirty. It was for me anyway.

I compare it to growing a garden. You can’t pull on the vegetable to make it grow faster. But you can fertilize the plant and remove weeds in order to give it the nutrition and space the vegetable needs to grow on its own.

It’s the same with deconstruction… the changing of our beliefs and the progression of our spirituality. It often means taking away beliefs. Like renovating a house, there must be deconstruction before reconstruction begins.

This is the primary purpose of The Lasting Supper: to provide a place for you to do this, with friends.


You may also like...

62 Responses

  1. Ducatihero says:

    I hear what you say bout deconstruction being dirty for you David.

    I can relate to the idea of a wall not unlike the cartoon with Sophia or with Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” – the semi autobiography of Roger Walters. It seems he was not unfamiliar with the need for deconstruction in the lyric of his song “The Tide is Turning”.

    “Who is the strongest
    Who is the best
    Who holds the aces
    The East
    Or the West
    This is the crap our children are learning
    But oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning”

    In my experience, I didn’t have sickness or addiction as society perceives them to be but I was infected with the virus of perfectionism and addicted to achievement. So it was about social programming with symptoms of a sick and addicted society that I had unwittingly become part of.

    The wall was my protection. any deconstruction process left me very vulnerable and without protection until I had learned of and established healthy boundaries by way of reconstruction. This could only have been done in supportive and safe environments.

    Now I don’t need major foundational work but the process of deconstruction and reconstruction is still ongoing and will be as long as there are things I can learn. I don’t expect to know everything any time soon!

  2. Danica says:

    David, I’m curious if you’re planning on addressing RL Stollar’s article about TLS? Also if you’re going to address your deleting of comments here on your blog?

    I know you always advocate for transparency and communication, especially when there are differences in opinion, so I’m hoping you will provide an opportunity for these to be discussed?

    Thank you.

  3. hamsahandgirl says:

    Welcome back David. Hope you enjoyed time with you family.

    Deconstruction can be messy, but it is worth it. I wouldn’t be where I am spiritually without TLS.

  4. catlover says:

    I know I have grown so much since joining TLS. Deconstruction can be messy but it’s so worth it. I’m also grateful for the friends I have met along the way, in the group. Thanks David.

  5. purvez says:

    David, I would like to add my voice to Danica’s (I have no idea whether she is supportive or against the TLS). Although I’m not a prolific poster here, I AM a staunch fan of your work, particularly about allowing people a voice.

    Your decision on the matter is final and I’ll respect it. However I have the following comment:

    Allow the ‘nay sayers’ their voice and also allow your audience to decide for themselves. We ALL have the ability to ‘small BS’.

  6. purvez says:

    Ugh!! SMELL not small!!

  7. Caryn LeMur says:

    Hi all. Would someone post the link to RL Stollar’s article? I am ‘read-in’ on that post…. lol.

    Yes, deconstruction is difficult. Reconstruction is hard, as well.

    Blessings! Caryn

  8. Caryn LeMur says:

    lol…. I meant to say “I am NOT read-in”…. sigh…. In short, I am clueless. Please post the link.

  9. Caryn LeMur says:

    OK. I have the link now through FaceBook. Thank you all!

    Cheers! Caryn

  10. purvez says:

    Caryn, if you Google Stollar and TLS, I’m sure you’ll find it.

  11. Catie says:

    I’m surprised that David hasn’t posted the link himself either on Facebook or here, on his blog. Are you planning to make any sort of statement about this, David? For the sake of transparency, I guess I’m not sure why you wouldn’t! 🙂 I was really hoping to hear you address all of this sometime soon and have been incredibly surprised (and underwhelmed, I should say) by your silence on the issue.

  12. purvez says:

    I found an alternative link that posted to the same one that Catie posted. I’ve read that through a NUMBER of times and although there are ‘allegations’ on that post there is NOT a single link or post or evidence to corroborate what RL Stollar is saying.

    Please I would URGE all who are concerned with ‘Fairness’ to read through that blog and point out ANYTHING that they find which the author can provide as evidence. Lots of ‘hearsay’ does not provide evidence.

    My reason for posting the above is to give David the confidence to believe that his audience is capable of ‘SMELLING’ (got it right this time) BS.

    Please David, allow the ‘nay sayers’ their voice. I don’t even think you need to necessarily address each one. Let them provide the ‘Proof’.

    For the sake of clarity. I only read David’s Naked Pastor blog and am not involved with TLS. Neither am I a Christian nor some one in need of DECONSTRUCTION.

    The reason I have been attracted to the Naked Pastor blog is because of it’s irreverence to Religion.

  13. Hamsahandgirl says:

    David, keep things underwhelming. I would have encouraged you to say something early on, but after the lies and attacks on you and some TLS members, they don’t deserve a response.

  14. Catie says:

    Purvez – I’m surprised to hear you say there was no evidence. I felt there was absolutely evidence in the form of screenshots. I wish more evidence were readily available, but every time anyone posts anything, it’s decried as violating privacy. Can you see the Catch 22 there? That’s a hard one to get around.

    So, I guess I’m not sure what you expect? Are people supposed to provide proof or protect privacy?

    Interesting quandry…

  15. purvez says:

    Catie the screen shots were of David’s own posts. How does that BEGIN to become evidence?

    Let’s see some other posts that have identifiable entities say something contrary.

    If you’ve got ‘evidence’ from Stollar’s posts then I’m ALL EYES.

  16. Danica says:

    Hi Pervez. I have screen shots proving everything I testified to. But I cannot post them due to the confidentiality of TLS and the TOS I agreed to when joining. So either you can trust what I am saying or not.

    I really wish David would weigh in on this. He has spoken so much about victims rights, and how those in power should advocate for victims. In this situation he absolutely has all the power. I wish he would at least acknowledge what we’ve said, and if we’re lying, to refute it. Instead, his ignoring what I and others are saying is honestly making me feel more marginalized and more hurt. I thought he cared.

  17. purvez says:

    OK, people, I can only comment on the basis of what is in ‘front of me’. I’m just as keen to get to the facts as everyone else but if you are prevented by confidentiality agreements then I suggest you post the ‘confidentiality agreement’ paragraphs that prevent you from posting the evidence.

    I’m not part of the TLS community and therefore do not have access to the ‘confidentiality agreement’. However I’m sure that you are within your rights to post parts of the ‘agreement’ that prevent you from providing ‘other evidence’.

    I’ll wait to hear.

    However I will add that David’s silence on the topic is ‘concerning’.

  18. Danica says:

    Purvez you got me there 🙂 one thing I did not think to take a screen shot of was the tos when I signed up for the group. But if you go to the tls website and also the “about” section of the tls fb page, you’ll see confidentiality mentioned in the descriptions.

    Like I said, there’s a point where people are either going to have to say, “I believe the ones who are telling” or “I believe the one in power”. You’ll either believe me or not. I’m either lying or I’m not. But until David starts engaging in conversation, the story will be decidedly lopsided.

  19. purvez says:

    Danica (your avatar’s changed from the one that I originally responded to…Hope you are the SAME person) I do take your point about David’s silence.

    I have not seen any of your ‘evidence’. When did you post it? Perhaps I can review it in the archives.

  20. Catie says:

    Purvez – You’re right. In reading back through, I realized that, having been a part of TLS at the time all of this went down, I filled in evidence for myself where RL Stollar wasn’t able to provide it. I have been able to see things other people haven’t and that has definitely colored my vision of things.

    That said, I return to the statement I made previously: Are people supposed to provide proof or protect privacy?

    As it stands, with the confidentiality agreement in place, privacy is being valued over proof. To me, that speaks very highly of the ones speaking out against David. They have proof and at any point they could use it, breaking the confidentiality agreement. However, they’ve continually chosen to protect privacy. To me, that speaks of integrity and a high standard on their part. If they were just liars and haters, why would they value the privacy of others? Specifically, others who are continually calling them liars and haters.

    I realize this argument may not hold much water, because the proof being discussed is still hearsay as far as you’re concerned, but I was there. I was part of it. And, during that time, I was part of the group in TLS that did NOT stand up for Danica, Wende, or Jason. I didn’t even fully understand their arguments until somewhat recently.

    I’m sorry this is difficult for you to understand and I can understand how, without proof, it’s hard to make a decision one way or the other. It took me a while to come around, too. But how many of us coming forward and saying, “This really happened,” will it take? How many people will have to be hurt in some way for this story to be considered valid?

    I think the hope here is that this won’t have to happen again for these stories to be taken seriously.

    And, for whatever it’s worth, I was there. I have seen the proof with my own two eyes. Believe it or don’t. This actually happened.

  21. purvez says:

    Catie at a MINIMUM you have to say WHAT HAPPENED without involving personalities. Call them Mr or Mrs X Y or Z but give us something to understand.

  22. anothersurvivor says:

    purvez, As I see it, that is the purpose of Stollar’s article-to say what happened. Are you asking Catie to repeat the entire thing from her POV?

  23. Danica says:

    Same person. Not sure why my avatars changed, maybe I mis entered my email?

  24. Bernardo says:

    Again, deconstruction is easy:

    To get you started (skip if you have seen these easy steps before):

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinke-rbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

  25. Bernardo: I see religion as an addiction for many people. Myself included. It takes more than a few seconds to recover from such strong addictions that have not only been bred into our DNA but reinforced over many years of belief and practice. It’s not easy. Your portrayal betrays a severe lack of an understanding of the human condition.

  26. AnnieBanannie says:

    Hey Purvez-
    I thought you said you read that post and the whole comment thread. Plenty of people telling their story without mentioning specific names beyond David’s. Also the issue of “proof vs privacy” has been covered there as well.

    Makes me think you didn’t actually read it and are just trying to derail the convo into technicalities.

    If you’re sincere, then might I suggest going back and reading it again? You’ll see that the burden you’ve placed on people who are expressing their concerns/frustrations has been met in that forum.

    (I’m being sincere, hope it doesn’t sound like I’m mocking you with my obviously superior intellect)

  27. purvez says:

    Hey AnnieBanannie

    No I didn’t read ANY of the comment thread. Don’t recall saying I did either.

    OK, perhaps I’ll revisit that thread but it’s 22:00 in the UK so it’ll have to wait.

    BTW none of us have ‘superior’ anything to anyone else. Just ‘different’. But …. if it makes you feel better then that’s ok too.

    Although just that last remark makes me want to NOT read that thread anymore. I’ll think about it.


  28. purvez says:

    anothersurvivor : NOTHING in Stollar’s post say’s anything to prove the ‘other’ persons point of view. Loads of allegations which ANYONE can conjure. I’m asking Catie to give ‘SPECIFICS’ of what happened without naming names. Stollar’s article doesn’t even venture close.

  29. Patrice says:

    David, I posted this over at Stollar too. Artists shouldn’t run groups, ever. They take stuff from life for their work, they are observers, that’s how it goes. If there comes a time when they have to choose between their art-making and the people to whom they are responsible, they will often choose their art.

    You should know this, you know. You cannot be both an accurate observer and an adequate caretaker of groups of people, particularly those dealing in various stages of deconstruction.

    Artists also should know that when they take material from life for their work, they’d better transform it thoroughly, particularly when it’s from vulnerable people. And let them know about it. AND be willing to let the material go if it remains too difficult for the vulnerable person. After all, the world is full of material.

    Lots of artists don’t do this, of course, and suffer in relationships throughout life because of it. But if one walks a path of love, it is required.

    Which is different than the popular Lamott quote, where she says how to properly treat material from those who ride roughshod over others: “…If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should have behaved better.”

    You are a good cartooner, David, and have yourself written that you have problems with leadership. Maybe you are meant to focus on drawing, even if the pay is sh*t.

    –from one artist to another

  30. purvez says:

    People just to put this to rest. This is what I said in my first post and I’m still waiting for an adequate response:

    “Please I would URGE all who are concerned with ‘Fairness’ to read through that blog and point out ANYTHING that they find which the author can provide as evidence. Lots of ‘hearsay’ does not provide evidence.”

    NO ONE has provided anything that points as EVIDENCE from the author. As I keep repeating I can only work with what is in front of me.

    I have no axe to grind FOR or AGAINST David. But the laws of our lands say ‘innocent till proven guilty’. I’m paraphrasing because no law has ever been written that ‘cleanly’. Lol.

  31. Catie says:

    Well, since you asked so nicely…. No, Purvez. I’m not going to rehash the entire event for you here on David’s blog when there is a perfectly adequate explanation at RL Stollar’s. That’s assinine. Read it or not, your choice.

  32. anothersurvivor says:

    purvez, People are not a court of law. We should not approach survivors as is we are a court. It is not our place to try someone. Saying someone is innocent until proven guilty is a silencing tactic. It means the survivor is lying until they prove otherwise.

    As to to your repeated requests for proof. How would anyone here saying their POV be any different to you than Stollar’s article? You did not believe the words of the survivors there or their screenshots. You did not believe the words of the survivors in the comments. Why should here be any different.

    And as others have stated, if people give you any screenshots from within the group it would be a violation of privacy. It is the ultimate Catch-22.

  33. purvez says:

    Ok Catie, I presume you are talking about the comments section at Stollar’s. I’ll read it and then review my thoughts.

    I will reiterate, I am just trying to get to the ‘truth’. Right now I’m getting a load of ‘bamboozling’ (is that the right word? – I’m not american) but I AM KEEN to get to the truth so yes I will read the comments section.

    I have no wish to put anyone through having to repeat events that they believe are painful.

  34. purvez says:

    Sorry anothersurvivor, but the onus of proof HAS to lie with the person making the allegation. Otherwise society as we know it falls apart.

  35. Katie Ann says:

    Yawn…same gang. Same tactics…lather, rinse, repeat. This is getting terribly boring.

  36. Hamsahandgirl says:

    A few people want TLS to be a paternalistic environment where every post is screened so as not to upset or offend, even though they could say whatever they wanted without being policed. TLS has never operated that way, and we are diverse in every way possible. Things didn’t go their way, so it’s obviously abuse, right?

    And as far as David stealing stories, that’s ridiculous. Before I joined TLS, I could see my thoughts and some of my experiences in his art, so he must have been telepathically stealing my personal stories. Abuse!

  37. Actually purvez, when a victim voices a complaint of abuse, our posture towards them should be “I do not believe you are lying.” The same should apply to the alleged abuser. Once this is established, then we can move on from there. This helps ensure the victim’s voice is heard with genuine concern and not doubt and even animosity as it largely is today.

    Concerning responding to the accusations against me, nakedpastor, and TLS, I’m considering whether or not to respond again (this time publicly instead of privately), and if I do, how. I want to respect my own boundaries, the advocacy of nakedpastor, and the protection of TLS and its members.

  38. purvez says:

    David, I do NOT believe that they are lying. However they have to describe at least a set of circumstances for me to make a judgment. Right now ALL I have to go on is Stollar’s blog post which implies a bunch of allegations and uses your posts as ‘some sort of proof’.

    I admit I have not read the comments section of that post and perhaps that will help me make a more informed opinion.

    G’night all I’m tired (but not in the way that Katie Ann seems to be).

    With all good wishes to all.

  39. Shazza tha dazzla says:

    Hi David. Welcome back from your holiday. It sounds like it isn’t just deconstruction that’s messy and dirty!

    I wish you well with all this my friend! You’ve been such a help to me by expressing the things you do through your cartoons. I hope you never lose your edge.

  40. anothersurvivor says:

    David, what you propose is a paradox. One cannot assume both victim and accused are telling the truth. In the case of injustice, neutrality is not an option. To quote Desmond Tutu-“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

  41. Ducatihero says:

    I am not sure if I am understanding you as you intend David.

    Can you expand on what you say about a complaint and that our response should be that we believe both the complainant and the alleged abuser?

    In other words how ought we to engage so that we address the alleged abuse appropriately and not inadvertently become participants in the cycle of abuse?

  42. Jason Benner says:

    Like you I think the freedom of exploring new ideas is essential, however it doesn’t mean that all ideas are equally liberating. Some ideas are actually harmful and to not allow the merits of an idea to be challenged can be catastrophic. It is wrong to not allow critique of dangerous ideas that strip away boundaries and consent.

    You seem to be reacting to us as a threat to the “safety” of ideas. Ideas do not need to be protected, people do. Instead you shame and shun people who challenge potentially harmful ideas, I ask you where’s the freedom in that?

  43. purvez says:

    I read through the comments section and I am now better able to understand Danica, Catie and all others’, who felt betrayed by TLS, point of view.

    Of all the comments I related most to Bonnie Anderson’s. Jill Hileman’s post helped me immensely in understanding the very ‘technical meaning’ of ‘safe’ in case of abuse survivors trying to heal.

    I am of the opinion that whilst David has meant well with setting up TLS and it clearly has been helpful to many, he also has been naive in believing that in dealing with his own deconstruction somehow gives him the ability to help a wider group. He needs to gain a more professional knowledge of therapy. At the least he needs to spend some time thinking through various processes for dealing with confrontation within the group as well as a clearer idea of what he wants it to be.

    In that respect I found Caryn’s comment most encouraging.

    I am now going to drop out of this conversation as I realise that I do not have the professional expertise of therapy nor the emotional background of abuse to make further comment.

  44. Gary says:

    I have attempted to post 3 separate comments on the blog post by R.L. Stollar…NONE of them has been posted. I guess I understand. I am one of the people whose words have been severely misrepresented by him to make his post. So much so in fact that it amounts to absolute lies and I told him so. For him to allow me to speak on his blog would reveal the level of deception he is willing to employ to attack David.

  45. Gary says:


    I don’t think David “needs” to do anything. He HAS in fact helped a great many and continues to do so. The fact that a few engaged in extreme bullying within the group (I was repeatedly bullied by one of the ring leaders over at Stollar’s blog) who then upon not getting their way turned to lies in order to attack David, should not compel him to change anything about his group. The vast majority find it helpful just the way it is.

    Was David naive? If so, perhaps only in not expecting this level of viciousness in the attacks of a small number of bullies who were not allowed to use his group for their bullying. That’s right…some of those who scream the loudest were the worst bullies there. Now those bullies are lying about my participation in the group and denying me the right to even respond. There is no honor in such behavior and I personally do not think David needs to respond.

    I learned a long time ago to never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
    `George Bernard Shaw

  46. purvez says:

    Gary, I love that quote from GBS. Thanks for the chuckle.

  47. Jason Benner says:

    Gary, your comments not getting accepted by R.L. Stollar is only telling in regards to your character, not his. It is obvious from the amount of negative comments about us that Ryan is not against dissenting opinions. I’m sure he has legitimate reasons for not allowing your posts.

  48. AnnieBanannie says:

    Hi purvez- thanks for reading the comment thread. I guess I misunderstood you. Obviously I don’t actually believe I have a superior intellect. I was makin a terrible joke related to that comment thread.

  49. Bernardo says:

    For those former Christians who need more assistance in deconstructing:

    Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus’ sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

    The 30% of the NT that is “authentic Jesus” like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus’ case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

    For added “pizzazz”, Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the “pew people” to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the “filicider”.

    Current RCC problems:

    Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

    Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of “pretty wingie thingie” visits and “prophecies” for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

    Current problems:
    Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, “propheteering/ profiteering” evangelicals and atonement theology,

  50. purvez says:

    Hey AnnieBanannie, I guess we both made a mistake by ‘presuming’ about each other. I understand now the ‘superior intellect’ comment. Lol.

  51. Gary says:

    No Jason Benner…to attack me as you just did, without any knowledge of the situation whatsoever,reveals YOUR lack of character, not mine. He will not allow me voice because I told him he is lying about my comments. I would only be all too happy to provide him detail but truth is not what he is after. As you say…dissenters do not scare him or he would block them all. But let someone come along who can provide the context of one of his lies and of course he cannot have that.

  52. Camille Offenbach says:

    One thing that is really bothering me here is that Sophia should only have one set of boobs, on her front. Shoulder blades should not look like round orbs of flesh. They are triangular bones, with two prominent spines making a T shape, held on the back by a matrix of muscle. Also, while vertebrae are often in the shadow of the muscles that support them, the sacrum is a broad, triangular and flat bone above the cleavage of the buttocks and will catch the light, dividing the spine-shadow from the butt crack.

  53. Danica says:

    Gary it is probably because WordPress (the platform Stollar uses) requires that the first comment by a user be approved by the pages admin. Give it a little while and you’l (I’m assuming) see your comments come through.

  54. Gary says:

    I made my comments last Friday. Although I was directly blunt with him concerning the perversions of my words and told him his statement was a lie, I refrained from using any profanity so there should be no reason for him to not allow my comment. (Though I did notice he likes a well placed bit of profanity once in a while like I do) There have been many comments since Friday and mine, as of earlier this morning, had yet to appear. It is clear he intends to block them.

  55. Hamsahandgirl says:

    That’s abuse, Gary! 😛

  56. Katie Ann says:

    Interesting that Annie mocks someone on the Stollar blog. When she gets called on it, she makes jokes about her superior intellect over on this blog. Why is mocking someone okay?

  57. Ducatihero says:


    I would like to ask a question please in the light of recent comments and in the interest of you not experiencing pain.

    You have written: “I was painfully aware that there are people who feel they have been betrayed by me. This causes a great deal of pain in my heart, and I wish there were ways I could repair those relationships.”

    You have also confessed: Nakedpastor David Hayward June 6, 2015 at 9:52 am “I’ve had a change of heart over the last month. I don’t want to contribute to the cycle of abuse I was inadvertently becoming a part of. I want to help break that cycle rather than perpetuate it.”

    Repeatedly when I have shared of practicing forgiveness it has been wrongly perceived as silencing victims and supporting abuse. This has saddened me and pissed me off. More recently I have welcomed your comments about a thick skin needed online and to not let people derail me. However this has not addressed the feelings I have expressed. Feelings felt by women and not being addressed by men is a common theme in your cartoons. It is right therefore to be equally attentive to feelings whatever the gender of someone who is expressing them.

    Given your change of heart and pain my question is about the following previous conversation we have had.

    March 15, 2015 at 11:17 am
    In my experience, I have had to practice forgiveness and kindness to prevent becoming resentful and bitter… I remember being surprised by the compassion I felt… for prison guards in concentration camps… I wonder if that is what Jesus meant by loving your enemies…
    March 15, 2015 at 5:22 pm
    I am saddened by my experiences here. I think there is wrong that is not being addressed that is no better than the abuses described that others have experienced…

    Nakedpastor David Hayward
    March 15, 2015 at 5:33 pm
    Ducatihero… [your commenting] puts you in the camp of those who support abuse and the silencing of victims.

    March 15, 2015 at 6:01 pm
    You have me down as someone who supports power and abuse of power clearly front your last couple of comments. I think that is inappropriate.

    Do you have the same perceptions at then or have they changed. With all due respect, my perception remains that at that time you were being inappropriate.

    I have learned that forgiveness and love along with setting things right in the form of direct action results in an abuser feeling discomfort, even pain, as long as abuses continue. Alternatively I have found this approach to be conducive to their peace, freedom and reconciliation with an offended party if they come to a point of confession and change. I have found this to work for victims and survivors as well with the enabling of healing and freeing from fear, to have a voice which is then conducive to the establishment of healthy boundaries and therefore prevention of similar experiences of abuse. In my experiences many victims love their abuser and just want the abuse to stop so they can enjoy the relationship with their loved one without experiencing fear.

    I don’t know why it is that the idea of forgiveness is felt to be so abhorrent sometimes. Folks often mistake that for letting abusers of the hook, silencing victims and the like. So I accept that is the reality. In spite of this, I know to continue to practice forgiveness if I want to take part in healing and being at peace with folks whenever possible.

    Again, it has engendering towards respect for you for you to be willing to admit to contributing toward abuse. Given your confession about this,I have another question. Where this is concern, does there need to be silence or can anyone comment appropriately without fear of being accused of lying, trying to trash or abuse you David?

    In other words how can we help you achieve your desire to break out of the cycle of abuse you talk of inadvertently becoming part of?

  58. Jason Benner says:

    Gary, if you are so concerned about exposing this supposed lie then why not just get it over with and tell us here?

  59. Jason Benner says:

    Excellent question Ducatihero.
    David, we are only trying to help you break free from your cycle of abuse. We are not attacking you but your continued attempts to attract abused and marginalized individuals into TLS is our biggest reason for bringing public attention to your harmful behaviors. In many ways TLS was a good experience and there are some very good people there. We are not trying to destroy you or TLS, only to bring awareness to people that the current culture has harmful and toxic elements which is not always conducive to a safe and supportive experience.

  60. AnnieBanannie says:

    Hi Katie Ann! I didn’t actually mock anyone over at Stollar’s blog. Someone perceived my personal talking/writing style as intentionally mocking via my “obviously superior intellect” (their words, not mine). FWIW- I don’t have a superior intellect, and I wasn’t mocking anyone over there.

    I was, however, engaging in some
    Related Gentle Ribbing on the topic here.

    Hope that clears things up! ?

  61. AnnieBanannie says:

    Hi Gary- I think you might be relieved to know that your comments have passed out of moderation over at Stollar’s site.