(Buy the original cartoon for $200. Or Paypal me $10 and I will email you a hi-resolution file for you to use or print. Just email me.)
This is not everyone’s experience. But it is for many. I’ve experienced. People get spiritually butchered all the time. It’s quite a dilemma: go to church and get butchered or stay home and break the commandment. I don’t think that one verse in Hebrews is enough to rule.
Spiritual independence is important because for many it is the only way to experience their spiritual health.
I published a book of cartoons just like this one. For just $9, order “Nakedpastor101: Cartoons by David Hayward“, from amazon.com, amazon.ca, amazon.de. Great for laughs and serious discussion!
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
Very powerful, David.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Seems to me that the ‘assembling’ is towards a particular and worthwhile purpose. Being ‘butchered’ is not a part of, even contrary, to that purpose. Staying home and avoiding the butchers is surely not breaking the command.
You always make me think. I don’t think one can be spiritualy butchered as spirit is divine. However, one can be pulled away from the spirit/truth or led in the wrong direction which is sort of a severing (butchering). Then I ran across this: “We are whole, ego is just an irrelevant label for a crucial part of that whole, invented by Freud and expanded by fraud!” ~ My fb friend Tony Praill posted that. Anyway, that is what your cartoon brought up in me today.
This cartoon cuts right to the religious bone. The doctrine of blood sacrifice gives ‘permission’ for such an assembly – the way of the Master and all that!
Thank you for this. I felt like this all the time when I was a Christian, but I couldn’t explain it to my parents.
thanks anon
We used to call it “beating the sheep”, but butchering might be more close to the truth.
David:
This cartoon, and others you have drawn of late cause me to wonder why you ever consider going back to church, or starting up another one! You clearly see all the dangers pertaining to such a state. You’re out! Best to stay out, in my humble opinion. Write books, be vocal, take a stand against all the hypocrisy that you know is rampant in the institutional churches, keep this blog going for all those who have suffered and will suffer from control and abuse.
If you have to earn most of your living in a secular setting (most Christians do anyway) then take heart in that you are doing exactly what Jesus said to do.
By the way, I’m still not getting my followup e-mail comments. I’m getting your cartoon every day. Promise I won’t mention it anymore. Perhaps it can’t be fixed.
Thanks David, and good luck.
Oh this is so great!
I’m sure the Lord is really happy that you take every opportunity to crap on His church.
I have heard you say before that you “love the church”. I’d hate to hear you talk if you hated the church.
Could you imagine a guy who said he loves his wife, but all he ever did was criticize her?
I have lots of suggestions for making the church better, too. But constant bad mouthing of the Bride of Christ is probably not a good idea.
Steve – Do you really see the human-made structure of Christian demoninations normally refered to as “the institutional church” as the “Church” that is the proverbial Bride of Christ?
NP:
With respect, could you explain why Heb 10:24 is NOT a regulating principle, a ‘rule’ as you put it?
What makes it non-binding? Presumably you believe SOME things in scripture are regulative; what defines them as such?
More to the point, the context speaks about confession of faith and love of one another – are these regulative statements or just as conveniently non-binding on you, someone who clearly does not take much joy in the fact that the bible *instituted* ecclesial offices?
Christine – denominations aren’t the bride of Christ. But the bride of christ is institutional. There are offices, structures, posts and complementary positions; there are regulated functions and practices.
Read the church government texts of the Pauline corpus, for example, or the concerns of apostolicity in acts. The bible clearly paints a picture of church that is not established, but definitely structured.
In short – God does not place such a firm functional divide between ‘divine’ and ‘human’ when it comes to His bride.
The church is where two ot three (or more) are gathered in His name.
That be be small and informal or large and institutional.
What matters is that the gospel is preached, and that what Christ commanded us to do, is done. Baptize, teach (and preach) and partake of the Supper.
Thanks Johnfom for setting out the verse… I think this time I’m placing a ditto to what you said, but with a caveat:
So, don’t forsake assembling together, just go somewhere you won’t be butchered. There are any number of ways for people to assemble to encourage each other, it isn’t as if it has to be church on sunday morning.
Also, why not try out other denominations? Why are people so stuck on staying with one denomination and trying to find an example of it that works for them. Quakers don’t speak much during their services, United Universalists are pretty easy going, even RC and Anglican can be a relief, because you can let the structure keep you focused without it getting all ‘interpretational’ and you can just have worship together despite differences. Start going to evening hymn sings.
I’m all for calling out the hypocrisy and dysfunction, but I’m not sure quoting a verse that actually is the opposite of that is really working with the idea of ‘spiritual butchery’.
I think there is a lot of struggle going on because people want spiritual authenticity, and they want to keep the labels as well. There are really about four main streams of Christianity.
One can go with ‘follower of Christ’ and basically go with what Jesus actually said, and work something out for themselves.
One can recognize that even in Jesus time, there was a ‘following’ that after his death led uninterupted to the organized Church. That organized church continues today as Eastern Orthodox.
One can recognize that there was a schism, and decide that though there was to be no one ruler of the church, that due to a number of circumstances, the Bishop of Rome, that was supposed to be ‘first amongst equals’ as an honour, and was recognized as a mediator between churches, then became self-delclared as the leader of the church. In this case, one would see the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the leader of the one true church, of which Eastern Orthodox was brethern but not in communion.
One can say that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic had their chance, got pretty far away from what Jesus said, and go the route that they can’t be fixed from within, and therefor follow any of the thousands of protestant denominations.
If you want to quibble about Ethiopain Coptics or Druze or any others that don’t fit in as neatly, you know enough religious history that you can figure out for yourself how you want to view it.
If you are just someone that thinks that ‘god’ exists, there are any number of other religions besides Christianity.
If you think ‘god’ exists, but you don’t think an organized religion is necessary, then more power to you for figuring out how you want that to work in your life.
I just don’t understand some of the struggle I see from people, here in this blog, from David or posters, and from lots of other people… that are trying to sort of change the game, but keep the rules, but change the rules, and just get twisted about.
I don’t call myself ‘Christian’ anymore, because I definitely don’t believe most of the basic tenets of the church that have been put forth for two thousand years from the time of the early church fathers, through the development of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, and that have been kept by both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.
I can take a lot of things I’ve been taught, that have meaning for me, and call myself ‘Christian’ and then add on dozens and dozens of footnotes…. But, it wasn’t my term to begin with, and I don’t think I should delute its meaning by trying to mangle it tof fit me.
I could much more easily go with ‘Christian’ as ‘follower of Christ’ but… the term is so loaded, and everyone thinks you mean one of the other three versions of what ‘Christian’ is, and besides, while there is a lot about Jesus that works for me, there is some that doesn’t and I believe it is likely stuff inserted in after the fact to make things fit, but… *shrugs*… then that is speculation as well.
I know what I believe, I just don’t feel like I have to explain most of it to anyone, since really, love is what it all boils down to, and not the romantic or mushy love… love the verb, love the committment, love the question and the answer, love the embodiment. Love.
I’m wasn’t planning on posting this, but the ideas have floated about for a bit, and this cartoon and the comments seemed a fitting time to put some of it out there.
I’m not saying I have all the answers, but as a starting place, it seems like maybe people need to look at what they have, what they are giving up, what they want/need, what they gave away and maybe want back (souls do come to mind, btw Dave), and basically see if they are holding on to things that don’t fit anymore.
All families are functional and dysfunctional to varying degrees… everyone has family, in some form or other, by nature and by choice. To me, “Family” is like “Love”… when you figure it out for yourself, no one else’s definition (legal, biblical, historical, etc) matters. You know who your family is.
You don’t have to stick to what others say family is, the same way you don’t have to stick with what others say ‘god’ is, or ‘love’ is… so I don’t quite get the holding on to some terms/verses/theologies in opposition to what you actually want/believe.
The ‘you’ being all of us, but especially those that seem to be struggling to hold onto with one hand, what they are trying to let of of with the other.
er… no ‘let of of’ but ‘let go of’
…and, it’s no one person or post or thing, and its not that I have all the answers, or that I live my beliefs the way that I aspire to… I just see lots of really great-hearted people tying themselves in knots, feeling shame and guilt and depression and anger… and at times it seems it is because they are trying to differentiate between seas and lakes and rivers and oceans… instead of just going for a swim.
(I apologize to those that dislike metaphors, but I almost can’t communicate if I don’t get to use them, and as insufficient as they at times are, they are very close to the language of what I believe, because you can’t really explain or define someone into believing… you can only live out your beliefs in a way that you share with others, and when given the opportunity shine a light, or point a direction, or walk along with someone for a bit).
steve: i spend my time critiquing that which i don’t think is right. agreed.
I’ve been following your blog for over a year and this is by far my favorite cartoon you’ve ever drawn. Well done.
“steve: i spend my time critiquing that which i don’t think is right. agreed.”
You can explain to Christ how you had a better idea.
steve: it’s that kind of condemning fear-mongering that i critique. why would you say that? as a threat? i talk with people every day living in absolute fear of meeting Jesus because someone said this to them to correct their behavior.
Steve…
I was really suprised by your post. I agree with some of what you say, and I like that you often bring your disagreements back to some fundamental points (‘where two or more are gathered in my name’), etc. I like that you don’t have the same view point as David, and many of the others here, but stay and post your thoughts. I think diversity is important, and I like being challenged to rethink things, or look at them from another perspective.
It is my respect for other Christians that I don’t use the same term to describe myself, though I wouldn’t call myself Agnostic or Atheist by the same standard. Theist comes a bit close, and Agnostic not in the ‘I don’t know what to believe’ but closer to a ‘I don’t proclaim to know more than what is revealed to me’. So… I have to echo Dave’s question, “Why would you say that”? David has never said he has the answer, or in fact answers in general. He poses a lot of good questions, he invites dialogue. If you believe what the bible says, then surely you must know that Jesus critiqued much about the religious institutions and leaders of his day. I’m not saying that to equate David with Jesus, but rather that Jesus didn’t ‘respect’ the institutions of the day when they were not following the SPIRIT of the law, in fact, much of his critique was when the LETTER of the law got in the way of the SPIRIT of the law. Maybe review Mary and Martha… what is ‘expected’, what is ‘the ettiquette of the day’, is not necessarily what Jesus expects of us. The spirit of true communion of others, the ‘where two or more or gathered in (the spirit and love and compassion and forgiveness) of my name’ is church.
Pastors blaming and shaming their congregation (btw, calling for accountability and guilt at one’s wrong actions, that isn’t ‘shame’), and congregations blaming and shaming their pastors (btw, calling into question immoral, illegal, or dysfunctional conduct), is not the church, but it is often seen and experienced in churches. Surely you must read some people’s experiences and realize that the ‘human run church’ (often run as a ‘business’) is not the same as what a gathering in the spirit of Christ is about?
I just expect more from you, you present the Orthodox position quite well at times, and rightly challenge and question some people’s views when they start cherry-picking their theology. (in fact, I was sort of attempting a challenge along those lines as well… I have a theology, it just isn’t one that is a ‘christian’ one, though I would argue it is one of love and transformation, and is very much grounded in Jesus’ teachings)…I think a lot of people want to keep the term ‘Christian’ and want a Christian theology, but sort of mangle a lot of things in the process, not by intent or insincereity or bad will, but because they haven’t thought through their relationship with the Bible and what they believe into something that is a bit more cohesive.
I see a lot of fear from mainstream/ fundamental/ evangelical directions, when it comes to questioning, and a real fear of ‘doubt’ but Jesus himself struggled with doubt and temptation and worked through them over a period of time. My thought is someone’s faith so wavering and small that it can’t abide questioning and doubt? Sometimes what orthodox and conservative christians have said has had me doubt my theology, sometimes to the point of having to go back and revise some things and work through what I really believe. I don’t feel threatened by someone speaking out in the name of Christ and with positive regard/respect, even if they don’t belive the same things I do. I am challenged by the questions other religions ask, as well.
I was brought up United Baptist, and I still retain a strong respect for the tenets of that denomination, one of them is ‘Soul Liberty’
“Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call “Individual Soul Liberty.”
Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.
The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith”.
As I said to a sibling, if my view is wrong in the eyes of god, then at least god knows every step of the path that led me to what I believe, and it comes down to being answerable only to god, if the Christian orthodox have it ‘right’.
Maybe you meant your comment that way, but it did come across as not a respectful challenge, but as an attack with the subtle undercurrent that one shouldn’t question/doubt.
I wont presume to speak for David here, but I would like to present my own perspective in this discussion.
It seems that there is a confusion as to the validity of David’s declaration of love for the church in the face of some pretty heavy criticism of that same church. I get similar expressions of confusion, and similar admonitions. I also love the church, but don’t want to be too closely identified with it.
Steve used the image/metaphor of the bride of Christ for the church and asked ‘Could you imagine a guy who said he loves his wife, but all he ever did was criticize her?’ You are mixing your metaphors here Steve. The one/s criticizing are not the husband. Christ is. In this metaphor we could be seen as children of the church, that is, brought up in the family of ‘mother church’.
It is right for a child to criticize a mother who is abusing her children (Luther’s 95 theses). It is right to criticize a mother when she blatantly contradicts her husband while purporting to be in agreement with him (Barman Declaration?). It is right for the children of that mother, once they have ‘escaped’ to seek to help their brothers and sisters out of that dysfunctional family, or to teach their siblings how to cope with their mother’s abuses. Perhaps the children of such a family will discuss how to avoid the mistakes their mother has made themselves. In many cases the children will still love their mother, perhaps more so once they are out of her clutches. If only ‘Mum’ would realize how much she hurts the ones who love her through her behaviour and maybe change it.
I think this is a suitable metaphor for how I see my own relationship with the church at the moment. Through his art David often gives voice to this, letting many who have felt the abuses of the church know they are not the only ones.
David,
No doubt some people have had a number done on them with regards to the Christian faith.
I believe that you are one of them. I don’t completely know your entire history with the church, aside fom Vineyard. But whatever it was, I’m thankful not have gone that route.
David, and Nancy T.,
If I sounded judgemental, I didn’t mean to. I do not know anyone’s eternal destiny.
But It does get a little old with the constant harping on the church. The church is God’s idea of a good time, not ours. The church is how the Lord has decided to keep people in faith, and to support each other in this troubled world.
As I have said before, it’s not about institutional, or not. It’s about being faithful…to Him.
If someone’s in a “church” that is all about the ‘self’, and hardly has anything to do with Christ, I would advise that person to leave. But there ARE good and faithful churches and pastors and congregations out there.
I regularly post audio sermons and classes on my blog that have discussions where those in the congregation have disagreements with the pastor. We don’t check our brains at the door. But the focus is never on ‘us’, but always on the One who has died for us, the ungodly.
nathanL: it sounds to me like a strong piece of advice, not a command.
NP:
Thanks for responding.
Could you please explain how you determine a text to be a “piece of advice”, as opposed to a commandment?
Conversely, what, in your mind, determines a text to be a rule, and not simply a “piece of advice”?
What I hear in David’s postings and cartoons is a call to something better – I hear, come on, church, we have to be better than this (whichever ‘this’ is on his mind for the day. I think he’s right. I have ‘preached’ a difference between ‘Christianity Inc.’ and the Body of Christ. I briefly pastored an extremely dysfunctional church and I loved those people fiercely, but wanted them to shake loose of non-Biblical, unChristian spiritual habits that were robbing them of the joy and soundness that is part of a good and Godly fellowship of believers. I hear that same passion for the church in David’s messages – not condemnation! David’s motivations are his own and he is free to offer them and we can read them and receive them or not. I’m glad he’s bold to challenge the status quo where it needs to be challenged!