sheep among wolves

Wolves rule the world. But we are to be sheep. And we have been sent out among the wolves. Even on Wall St., the parallel is unmistakable. The wolves will prey on the sheep. They will use their superior strength, cleverness and prowess to feed themselves and decimate the flock.

These sheep have had enough. And the wolves don’t like it.

For those of you who missed last night’s post, the website Two Friars and a Fool reviewed nakedpastor. Go to their site now by CLICKING HERE. Meet, watch and hear Aric Clark, Doug Hagler, and Nick Larson put forth their opinions about nakedpastor. (There’s even a little strip-tease!)

(Download my ebook “nakedpastor 101” for .99¢.) To download the ebook, –> click here! <–

Check out my originals and prints of my art, cartoons and Sophia drawings.

Or get the paperback from Amazon:

"Nice vid David - hilarious! We'll miss you and wish you all the best! (and ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos
"Good idea! I look forward to exciting developments at your own site. I like Patheos, ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Are you suggesting the sheep will inherit the earth, David? Swords beaten into plowshares and lions will lie down with lambs? Peace in our time? Sheeps having had enough? Wolves not liking it? Happy days will be here again?

  • Yet another reason He had to come ‘down’ here to die on a cross.

  • The hard part is often knowing who are the sheep and who are the wolves.

  • DrRobert: maybe not so hard: me wolf, mostly in sheeps clothing. That’s for sure.

  • These certainly are interesting times.

    An old curse: May you live in interesting times.

  • Being a sheep does not require being sheepish.

  • I keep trying to imagine what it takes to make the sheep risk so much to take such a stand in the first place. It must be for the promise and hope of so much more.

  • Sam : Honesty is a good thing even in wolves.

    Chris: I think yu are right. It is for the hope the TRUE SHEPHERD promises. Some of the “undershepherds” can get people to drink their “grape juice” because they like the taste. I remind us that medicine often doesn’t taste near as good.

  • Now, if we could just keep the sheep from raping and stealing from each other…

  • Eddy Hooper

    I always crack up when the churches send those poor, scared teens to a developing country thinking that the mission field is out “there”. It probably is for some, but not for all.


  • fishon

    November 2, 2011 | 10:29 am

    Now, if we could just keep the sheep from raping and stealing from each other…
    I hear the sheep are trying to incorpate too.
    I find it interesting that a miniscule portion of sheep [.0001%] are causing quite a bit of pain and disruption to portions of the 98.999% other sheep. And now the poor, miserable, down and out sheep want to incorporate. Ah man, that is the first step towards being one of the 1%. And here is the hard truth–everyone of the 99% would become part of the 1% in a heartbeat. And most of them would be just as greedy. Oh man, so much more to say.

  • Fishon,

    I find them to be a blessing in disguise. They illustrate in living color that the real problem is not “us” versus “them”. We are part of the problem as well. I hope others wake up and take a look at the evil so we can all move in the direction of good.

  • And just who are the wolves and who are the sheep David?

  • fishon

    The Godless Monster
    November 2, 2011 | 3:16 pm

    And just who are the wolves and who are the sheep David?

  • fishon

    November 2, 2011 | 12:32 pm

    We are part of the problem as well.
    ——–Well, speak for your self. You may think or be part of the problem, but I am NOT.

  • @fishon,

  • What is the ultimate goal of these… wolves? I understand what they’re SAYING and what they’re DOING, but what do they hope to accomplish? What do they want the end result to be?

  • fishon,

    I think you’re applying my comment too narrowly if your thinking of the American political system. I was commenting on the problem of evil that the whole world has. It’s on the inside. We enjoy evil when it’s useful to bring about our ends, but when it manifests itself in time square and all the other cities, people begin to realize that the evil they were flirting with is actually wrong. First you take the sin, then the sin takes you, then you want to get free.

  • amazonfeet

    Godless Monster: Amen…I often avoid commenting because I’m tired of the abuse…

  • really amazonfeet? and TGM? i sometimes get tired of it too. sometimes i wonder if i’m a bad moderator.

  • @nakedpastor,
    “really amazonfeet? and TGM?
    Yes, sir. Really.

  • ya. i hear ya.

  • fishon

    November 2, 2011 | 8:30 pm

    Godless Monster: Amen…I often avoid commenting because I’m tired of the abuse…

    November 2, 2011 | 8:31 pm

    really amazonfeet? and TGM? i sometimes get tired of it too. sometimes i wonder if i’m a bad moderator.
    ——-“tired of it [abuse] too.” Ok–Over and out.

  • “That government governs best which governs least,” says Thoreau–and then goes on to say “which governs not at all.” The “abuse” is not of the sticks & stones nature. Ideological? belief and bias, prejudice and conviction tweak and twitter, provoke and probe. In the same challenging spirit as Naked Pastor zombie satire and critique. Challenging. If the abuse hurts to much, why open the blog & thread? Really?

  • The Godless Monster

    @sam scoville,
    “The “abuse” is not of the sticks & stones nature. Ideological?”
    Whatever, “sam”.
    “-Duh!” is not ideological. Calling someone names and making direct ad hominem attacks (and YES…the TROLL started ALL of that FIRST) is not an ideological argument. Crap like this is what I and others refer to as abuse.

  • If the abuse hurts you, Godless, stay away from the kitchen. Or wonder why-it-is you feel abused and threatened (you’ll disabuse that word, I’m sure) by other people’s sticks and stones and vitriol and whatnot. Comes with the territory unless you insist on polite, policy which prevent pejoratives. In which case, call for moderation and referees. An enemy is as good as a Buddha, some say–suggesting that a consideration of where we are “attacked” and react and are vulnerable is exactly where it;s worth our investigating and considering–and not just defense. Does the word “duh” bother you that much? I notice you tossed out “troll” a few steps back. About on the same level.

  • @sam scoville,
    This didn’t start in this thread and you know that, yet you choose to single me out for attack. Why? Simply because I don’t agree with you? Apparently so.
    If you support ad hominems and name calling in order to bolster an indefensible argument, then you place yourself firmly in the camp of the abusive.
    I’ll add you to the list of those who shall be ignored except for the response of “troll”.

  • @sam scoville,
    P.S. I do NOT deny ad hominems or name calling. I DO deny using them first in the case of your buddy fishon. The thread in the other posting shows me to be telling the truth.
    I’m a firm believer in “one good turn deserves another”.
    If someone wants to start talking shit, then they better be prepared for a dose of shit right back at them.

  • Of course it didn’t start in this particular thread. In These Threads there have been a numb er of participants, back and forth, provoking, pissing off, challening–every once in a while an apology. What’s the problem? If you feel abuse, retire or reflect and wonder why or/and stay in the game I don’t consider myself as attacking you. That’s your take. We’re not in a debating club here. Is “duh” an ad hominem. Play and Be Played. School and Be Schooled. Attack and Be Attacked. It’s just mind on a screen, Godless. No blood. Got to love it, loving the enemy.

  • “Be Prepared.” (That’s the boy scout marching song.)

  • Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    – Maj. Gen. James Mattis

  • So to speak.
    Be polite then.
    Be professional.
    Don’t be bother or thrown off you feed
    by some of us non-professional less then
    politically correct and polite.
    Kill when you can. Kill and Be Killed
    and stay play, Godless. We need you and
    your football.

  • “and stay play, Godless. We need you and
    your football.”

    “…Godless, stay away from the kitchen.”
    Perhaps conflicting messages?
    “I notice you tossed out “troll” a few steps back.”
    Yes, and from here on out,I’ll continue to respond in that fashion to those who are bullies and abusers. If the shoe fits…
    Those who call others “clown” or state that others comments are “idiotic” deserve nothing less. I’m not going to ignore or capitulate to bullying or harassment and I’m certainly not going to make additional efforts to dialogue with those who are not interested in dialogue. I won’t shut up to appease a vocal and rude minority, neither will I engage them except to describe them as they are…trolls.

  • You are right to get out of the kitchen then.
    Though I’d still encourage you to stay and play. Not a mixed message. Dialectic as opposed to dialogue, which aims to get something done) depends on opposition and conflict: thesis/antithesis–with the hope (if both thesis and antithesis are kept in play, neither allowed to win or lose) of synthesis: a larger understanding that embraces the opposition as complementary. Sciences and Religion, for example: opposed, for sure. Complementary: yes from a dialectical perspective.

  • OF course and many don’t appreciate your version of shock & awe–your whole cartoon series culminating in the zombie toons. I don’t blame them. I don’t blame you. The distinction you drew some months ago between DESCRIBE mode and PRESCRIBE mode is a good one. We all have our own agenda, whether or not we tie it to some higher unselfish principle or calling (which most of us do)–and so we are always accuse-able by others. Who would you rather buy a used car from, a salesman who claims only to want to please you and the little lady–or the one who tells you: “David, I want to get the least car to you for the most amount of money” ? I use shock and awe in the classroom and try to do a little jiggle dance at the same time, provoke and pat pat. Spanks and hugs. It’s Mission Impossible, really. I’m damned: damaged and damaging: no question about it. It’s the denial and cover-up that raises my bozone level.

  • @sam scoville,
    I’m painfully aware of where you are coming from. To me the exchanges on this blog (and others of its kind) are not (or should not be)about endless philosophical sparring. Neither do I see the subject matter as game pieces. To me this isn’t a game, and it’s certainly not a game with no winners and no losers. For many believers in this group, it is about finding a righteous (and humane)path to oneness with their god and for non-believers (like myself)it is about the defense of certain freedoms and a right to live our lives unhampered by the beliefs of others while still maintaining those common values that are important to the progress and betterment of mankind. For each side, these are important life and death issues that most of us do not want treated in a cavalier fashion, and you come off that way consistently, intentional or not.

  • @sam scoville,
    A more succinct way to put what I just wrote is this:
    If you used your gifts (and you ARE gifted) to help us in our search, rather than just agitate, it would be greatly appreciated. There is no doubt that agitation can lead to (uncomfortable) self-discovery and answers, but surely it cannot be the only tool in your toolbox.

  • Betterment of mankind: I could claim that is why I’ve been in the education business all my life. Or I could say: I didn’t really know how to do anything, and so I decided to teach. I like what I do. In some cases it might better others. It’s a process of argument and putting in opposition in play rather than war.Getting good at and enjoying the game (ludic). That’s how I frame it. Dialectic as a practice DOES attempt to eliminate the good guy-bad-guy sanctifying and demonizing habit of mind. Doesn’t mean we don’t take the issues seriously. I’m probably much too serious about putting IT in play. But that’s my sense of betterment-of-man. (I think there was a note from Naked Pastor about my presumable “shock therapy” which generated my previous-to-this response. But it’s disappeared.) Dialectic depends on opposition and can’t even begin until someone is “hurt”–not in the sticks-&-stones way, but in terms of borders and affective homeland security issues, bias and belief challenges. Otherwise it’s all hymn sing and choir. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  • IFIT is seen as reciprocal and mutual–the back and forth (even with our opposition) then we’re both interested in edification: building up a common “shine.” Framed that way, the opposition is the dynamic that builds us–collaboratively, co-operatively. Best game in town, as far as I’m concerned, but I recognize folks hesitation to call it that. Seriousness bothers me. My immaturity, my childishness. I always want to frame It as play (ludic)–thinking it is sustainable that way, can be kept in play.

  • @sam scoville,
    I think I understand your intentions, based on your background and life experience. For me, once people start becoming hurt or start dying, then it no longer is a game.
    As former military and private military, I’ve seen and done things I don’t discuss in decent company. Many of the things I’ve witnessed were perpetrated by those who were inspired solely by religion or inflexible political dogma. It wasn’t an academic exercise for me when I was nearly snatched by al-Qaeda wannabes about 2 clicks from my compound back in 2003. There was no philosophical “back and forth” prior to the bombing of the Vinnell-Arabia compound in May of that same year.
    When a gay person is denied basic human rights because of how they were born, it is real to me. When Christians are persecuted, terrorized and executed in communist or Muslim countries this is a matter for serious discussion and action, not witty repartee to prove who is the smartest kid on the block. These people are real and their pain, suffering, fear and deaths are REAL.
    To me, all discussion of religion or political dogma is deadly serious.
    I get only one chance to do this right, and I’ve made more than enough mistakes in my life that I can never make up for them and it pains me daily. I can only do my best now to make a positive difference.
    Now perhaps we understand where each other is coming from.

  • Good points. I appreciate your experience and perspective. It’s useful for me (as an academic of the Ivory Tower type) to distinguish between
    School Mode, Church Mode and State mode. When all 3 are collapsed, it’s all political and action and as you point out: life & death seriousness. I feel the values of all 3 are “hostile” and also complementary and relate-able–if kept at least conceptually separate. The give & take back and forth is impractical if not ridiculous in a “military” context. The forced leadership and unquestioning response is ridiculous in a “church” context. When distinctions and contexts are ignored confusion and anger and frustration is generated.
    Thanks for your good reply.

  • @sam scoville,
    And thank YOU. I learned something new today, which means the day has been a success.

  • sam: your sentence “The forced leadership and unquestioning response is ridiculous in a “church” context.”… surely you are aware that this phenomenon is not a phenomenon. It is rampant right across the board. I know people in politics, universities, public schools, nurses, doctors, policemen… all kinds… who experience this. I know you find this hard to believe. But your admission that you are in an ivory tower probably makes you oblivious to this. You think I rant and complain and am wounded because of some isolated incidents. Not. It is prevalent.

  • I am in an Ivory Tower, but we’re all (I claim)
    in something that constrains for good and for ill. Culture, custom, convention. And we’re all linked by a media overload. And I’m not aware that forced leadership and unquestioning response is “rampant across the board.” Wait: I take that back. We’re all of us faced with coming to terms with our individuality in the light and pressure of social surroundings: marriage, family, work, society in general. That’s Sophie’s Quest, yes? It’s hard being Green, as Kermit the frog says. For your nonconformity, the world whips you with it displeasure, says Emerson. I think we’ve gone over this before. Life’s tough and then you die. Given this existential condition: school and church and also state address this tension. It looks like, from your experience, that “church” has been monumentally part of the problem rather than the solution. But some if not many of your respondents take issue with your experience and with the way your “satire” ( I call it whine and agony because that’s how it seems to me, not you) addresses it. For some: you are a prophet: showing the victims and the victimizers.

  • sam: you said, “I call it whine and agony because that’s how it seems to me”. within this conversation and within this kind of “fellowship” we have here at nakedpastor, it doesn’t seem to matter to you, no matter how many times i tell you, that i am not bitter, i’m not in anguish or in agony. you are the one stuck on your perpetual whine and complaint. you won’t believe me. i tire of it. and even if i was whining and in agony, you berate me for it and insist i move on almost every day. and besides all that, if you are so tired of it, don’t visit or read or comment. simple as that. i don’t understand your obsession with something you obviously don’t understand and obviously dislike.

  • David, I agree, what you say. I ‘m sure you don’t see what you do in terms of whine and agony and I believe you when you say you don’t. We both share an ongoing sense of dismay and disgust at something cherished, or at some point fully appreciated. You berate with your cartoons. I berate your cartoons, which I find unrepresentative to the “whole” as your “vision” of the parts. I’m not tired of my berating. I find the converse action that your work generates engaging and somewhat encouraging. I do dislike your vision only because it takes the whole “ship” down (baby and bathwater), as it were–and I think it juvenile and immature. Zombie’s for crying out loud. But isn’t this the name of the game? Satire, you call it. Criticism. Exposing. Unveiling: apologic and apocalyptic. Graffiti on the walls all around. It’s what you do. It’s what I do. We’re on the same page in that sense. The Jester, as one of your testimonials characterized it. Play and Be Played. School and Be Schooled. (Who else has read and commented on your Z Theory? I’m as dedicated (obsessed) as you are.As any body)

  • i suppose your take is the same on political cartoonists, banksy, michael moore, etc…

  • You may be the one who “doesn’t get it” here, David. I’m not interested in politics in the same sense. We both have “the church” in common, in our “obsession” and concern. Not Wall Street or Canadian and U.S. policies, the Near East, Greece etc. I don’t cherish any of that or feel engaged by it. “The soul’s crossing timne: a primary concern for both, I think. (I was a philosophy major, and a huge pure white Samoyed adopted us years ago we called Sophie. When I told my old man how much I loved Thoreau, he said–yes, but he’s a philosopher–speaks with tongues of angels, maybe but not in the same league with a true believer. And I agree. Not the same. Complementary,perhaps.)
    May we keep our dispute ongoing and edifying, and not just argumentative in the worst sense? (I’ll maybe pull back on the whine and agony accusations–but you test me with your zombies.)

  • no you are wrong sam. i don’t test you. you test yourself by obsessively coming here to a place you don’t like. and i rarely find your contributions to the discussion edifying. you constantly complain about my work as juvenile and immature. your whiney complaints are the first thing i see every goddam morning. for my own peace of mind it would be best just to stop reading your rants, as it would be for you to stop reading mine. over and out. i’m going to work.

  • sam scoville

    In other words: your rant against “the church” (your experience) is legitimate. My rant against your rant is illegitimate? We both are “tested” or “tempted” or aggravated, provoked, angered by what we see as _________ Fill in your own adjective.
    The horror! The horror! What you “satirize” resonates with those who feel your pain (some call you prophet!) But it goes against my experience as your “church” and “bad pastor-ing” goes against yours. Obsession. Sure. Compulsion, yes. Both of us. Or call it devotion, then. Dedication. Aren’t you getting enough validation from those who agree with you to enable you to consider and engage with those who do not?