Bad Boy

Sharing Options

“And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” (Ex. 10:7).

Pharaoh lived so close to the Nile that he was actually in it.

The wreckage that had once been that generation’s superpower was all around him, and was plain to see, and yet he failed to see it. The destruction was easy to see in principle, but Pharaoh did not see it while his advisors did.

It is harder to see the effects of an internal destruction, but the processes that go into the denial of “not seeing” are similar. A similar kind of denial afflicts those who cannot see the raw fact of cultural rot, a rot that has attacked a fine-looking house—at least as seen from the street—but which is pervasive in every beam, every floor joist, every roof truss, and every supporting pillar. Of course a storm could bring it down (Matt. 7:24-27). But all it will actually take for this house to collapse is for the woman of the home to drop a jar of pickles in the kitchen.

Allow me to stop these introductory comments in order to explain to you the difference between a hypocrite, a despot, and a bad boy. A hypocrite lives in a society with fixed and defined standards, pretends to meet or exceed those standards, but privately, out of the public eye, violates those standards and does so deliberately. A man heading up a “restore your marriage” ministry is, if he is simultaneously cheating on his wife, a hypocrite. A man who professes allegiance to a defined standard that he routinely violates is a hypocrite.

A despot is someone who believes himself to have absolute power over a situation, and so he requires and/or exhibits radical inconsistency out in the open, doing so on purpose, not in order to reveal himself as a hypocrite, but rather to reveal the absolute helplessness of those he is taunting. The issue in this scenario is power. He wants the world to see that he has such power. He can require of his serfs absolutely anything. He has so much power that he can require the plebes to confess that he is the dear leader, that he has never contradicted himself, and that this year’s harvest was record-breaking. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Say it. Say it.

In our day, we have been privileged to see these clownish despots attempt to shoot the moon. A boy is a girl. Say it. Two dudes are now married. Say it. That girl in the womb is just a bit of tissue. Just say it.

Getting a whole nation, made up of millions of people, to confess that boys are actually girls (and, for the time being, only if they want to be) is almost as good as changing water into wine. Only our jitney messiahs don’t actually change any water into wine. They have the steward flogged for saying—two times he said it—that he thought it was “still water.” Some of the other servants disappeared mysteriously. And then a shout went up. “The water has become wine! Hail, science!”

Now to the third term. A bad boy is someone who points out any of the preceding realities. A bad boy is one who explains that such things don’t ever make any sense. They don’t make sense because sin never makes sense. Sin at the end of its sorry little dead end never makes any sense whatever. If it made sense, it wouldn’t be sin.

And a bad boy is what I aspire always to be. I covet your prayers in this endeavor.

What we are dealing with in our phase of cultural deterioration—let us call it the chimpanzee-poo-fling-phase—is a concerted effort on the part of our cultural leaders to exert absolute control over reality, over the dictionary, but most of all, over the people—what we are allowed to think, say, or do.

During this time, many if our Christian leaders persist in thinking that these unbelieving leaders are merely inconsistent, that they are merely being hypocrites. No, their inconsistencies are glaring, and they are glaring on purpose. The whole point is to be manifestly incoherent and to make us say that it is the opposite.

For our Christian leaders to make this mistake accounts for how much we lose. They think we are playing checkers when the “rules” actually fluctuate wildly between those of backgammon, chess, checkers, and rugby.

One last thing. In my post yesterday, I posited a hypothetical newsroom for all those who know exactly what kind of discourse would go on in the non-hypothetical ones. That was before some actual footage arrived, and which you can google up neatly if you wish. Just use CNN, the network in question, Kathy Griffin, she of the decapitated president fame, her New Year’s Eve hosting for the aforementioned network, her raunchy behavior during those appearances, Brooke Baldwin’s manifest lack of indignation over Griffin’s behavior as a female host, as indicated by things like her encouragement, and so on.

What does all of this mean? It means we are being worked. We are being played. We are being yanked around. What is the way out? Well, we should stop cooperating. Unfortunately, at least for those who went into ministry because they were such a good boy, this means becoming a bad boy.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
37 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan Jones
Dan Jones
5 years ago

Pastor Doug, while I get where you are going with the whole “bad boy” thing, (and I’m not actually intending to contradict you, sir) I’m much more inclined to believe the correct and more appropriate term is dissident.
Or, shall I say “fellow dissident.”

Andy Kaiyala
Andy Kaiyala
5 years ago

How can I be bad if I am not in ministry, avoid social media as if it were contagious, don’t blog, don’t see any realistic publishing opportunities in my near future, and generally hope I can raise my kids, love my wife, care for the widow and orphan, and participate in making disciples – in peace. How can I be bad?

ron
ron
5 years ago
Reply to  Andy Kaiyala

You just said: raise your kids, love your wife, care for females, make disciples. You’re in da club! You Bad! (Cue Inner Circle and M Jackson ) The question is, by what standard? By the world’s standard, you’re a bad man! (You’re the Hulkster: http://tinyurl.com/ybs6koz4 ) We need to stop the docile, timid, quiet Christian Ghetto sing-a-long meetings and step into the world (as contrasted to universities that CHANGE LIVES “FOR THE WORLD”, like the 2nd Example who works for Soros’ Open Society Institute http://tinyurl.com/y8aj6oko) fighting for the truth. Stand against the world, and you’re a bad boy. The contrast… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
5 years ago
Reply to  Andy Kaiyala

What you just described adequately fits the good Reverend’s mold of bad boy, in our secular context. You just talk a lot less than him.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago

God bless the badness of your boying. God make you the apostle of his laughter.

kyriosity
kyriosity
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Bad to the (funny) bone.

MeMe
MeMe
5 years ago

Amen! Let’s fill the whole world with bad boys……of the right sort. That’s actually biblical. Luke 18:19 says, “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.” And again in Mark 10:18. Our Lord and Savior didn’t even call himself good. I suspect a part of that is because who we are isn’t nearly as important as Whose we are. And if we know Who we belong to, than we know we serve Someone very big and bad indeed.

adad0
adad0
5 years ago
Reply to  MeMe

Mark 9:49-50 49 Everyone will be salted with fire. 50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.” Matthew Henry Mark 9 commentary: “It was appointed by the law of Moses, that every sacrifice should be salted with salt, not to preserve it (for it was to be immediately consumed), but because it was the food of God’s table, and no flesh is eaten without salt; it was therefore particularly required in the meat-offerings, Lev. 2:13 . [2.] The nature of… Read more »

MeMe
MeMe
5 years ago
Reply to  adad0

Isn’t it interesting we have such a negative reaction to the word “bad?” It simply means “failing to conform to standards.” Well,the question really should be Whose standards? Because we are not called to conform to the world’s standards. When the world has gone mad, to conform to standards and attain the label “good”….is bad. The disciples were most likely bad boys, on account of the fact that they did not conform, they did not comply with the standards. People can call themselves salty or dissidents, or whatever makes sense to them, but I think there are some real blessings,… Read more »

adad0
adad0
5 years ago
Reply to  MeMe

So says the person who is uncomfortable with the connotations of the word hate!????
Anyway Memi, it’s not so much what we call ourselves, but more what the world calls us, especially when we live and speak God’s truth. In that regard, you and I have more cred. Than at least I ever expected!????????????

JohnM
JohnM
5 years ago

Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

Let me suggest, count yourself blessed and rejoice. Yes, I will pray for pastors, or anyone else who wants in their heart to be able to do that. Pray for one another.

drewnchick
drewnchick
5 years ago

First Groucho Marx and now Spanky McFarland? I’m am impressed…so very impressed!

adad0
adad0
5 years ago
Reply to  drewnchick

Not too mention that those little rascals knew what to do when their pants caught on fire!

Run around, find a bucket with water in it, and sit in the bucket until the cloud of steam subsides! ; – )

bethyada
bethyada
5 years ago

I think much of the conversation on hypocrisy in the comments yesterday was talking past each other. I take your point about hypocrisy and I partially agree. The problem is that this could also be true of the honest sinner. He states that something is a sin while admitting he struggles with this sin. For example, “Laziness is wrong but I struggle with laziness therefore I am loath to condemn it in others.” Suggesting that part of the issue with hypocrisy is its accusation. What I think better defines hypocrisy is some of what you have ascribed to being a… Read more »

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Hypocrisy is one of those terms of which it’s helpful to remember the derivation, which is from the Greek for ‘acting’. A man who struggles with anger while he is trying to teach his children not to give in to sinful anger should not be put in the hypocrite box. He is not pretending by concealing his anger, but suppressing it for their benefit while he wrestles to bring his thoughts into conformity with God’s will. I think the distinction should be made according to the heart. If anyone conceals his thoughts because he knows that they are sinful and… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

I largely agree, although we cannot judge the heart but we can see actions. This is where dust and logs come into play. Thus my focus on accusation as being part of the hypocrisy. If you denounce something it needs to be something that you are not justifying in yourself. And you need to deal with your own sin before you point out that specific sin out in another.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

I think there is misunderstanding around this. In eating disorder therapy, we are taught to act normal in the hope that one day it will no longer be an act. I am required (at least while they are watching me) to eat the way a normal person does (i.e. not cutting it into three hundred pieces and feeding it to the therapy dog under the table). Is this hypocrisy or is this practicing good eating behavior? I think your point about acting is very good. Catholics are taught that when we cannot manage to feel the right emotions about something,… Read more »

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“Duty first, feelings follow,” as a minister I know is wont to say. I think there’s wisdom in that, as long as we are aware that duty is the bare minimum and we should always be striving beyond it. I struggled for a socially acceptable reaction when some close friends named their baby girl Ursula (I hope they didn’t notice) but I eventually managed to train myself to like the name by repeating it to myself and thinking, given her parentage, what a clever, kind and beautiful person she will grow to be. Now if anyone were to ask what… Read more »

Arwenb
Arwenb
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

You don’t think “Little Bear” is a nice name for a girl? ^_^

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Arwenb

Lovely. (See?)

bethyada
bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

What’s wrong with Ursula?

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Objectively, nothing at all. I just disliked it until I had reason to want to like it.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

Antipathy to names is so inexplicable, isn’t it? I have a strong preference for conventional, classical names, but, like you, I managed to cope when a relative named his child the Hopi phrase for “enlightened leader of the bird people.”

bethyada
bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

What you describe is not hypocrisy. Behaving in the way you know you should despite feelings otherwise is good and obedient behaviour.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Hypocrisy would be, “Ursula! I love that name! It was number one on our list but then at the last minute my husband insisted on Undine!”

bethyada
bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Creative love meant building up by quantities of small actions a habit of service that might become at last a habit of mind and feeling as well as of body.  I tried, and I found it did work out like that. Feeling can be compelled by action not quite as easily as action by feeling, but far more lastingly.

Elizabeth Goudge

MeMe
MeMe
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

The kind of hypocrisy that concerns me the most is, “the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs.” Contrivance, concealing, and deception. There is no hypocrisy in an “honest sinner.”

Brooke Baldwin mentioned in the other post was engaging in contrivance,concealing, and deception when she began to feign outrage and indignation over the boob word.

I’m unsure why people are confusing hypocrisy with thing like consideration, discretion, or tact?

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  MeMe

MeMe, how can you know that? Maybe Brooke, like me, finds it a totally vulgar, unclassy and crass word, and it makes her cringe. If it were said to me by a man, I would not feel outrage but I would feel that I was talking to a boorish and vulgar person and I wouldn’t like it.

You don”t have to have saintly sexual morals in order to still find some off color remarks offensive.

Arwenb
Arwenb
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

She had, or so it is said, no trouble with other similar references to feminine anatomy uttered by other guests.

That’s how you can tell.

MeMe
MeMe
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Not sure if you notice Jilly, but you always put a “me” in there, an “I,” which leads you to personalize everything. You see yourself cringing, you see yourself being criticized like Brooke is, and that’s so unfair, so unjust. You fear Brooke is being judged unfairly and falsely. You fear being judged unfairly.

The thing is, you are not Brooke, you are not casually tossing off the boob word all the time, while tweeting off color about breast milk ice cream and tampons. You are not the one acting, literally acting on TV, in a contrived manner.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  MeMe

MeMe, I did some reading on this, and I still think that Travis’s use of the word “boobs” was inappropriate in the context of their discussion–which was apparently about Jemele Hill’s first amendment rights. Regardless of the language people use in other contexts, when one is invited to appear on TV to discuss the first amendment, it is needlessly crass and provocative to attempt to turn the discussion to women’s breasts. Not using that kind of language in public myself, I have no fear of being judged unfairly or even of being judged at all. But I disagree that it… Read more »

Stacey Jo Hunter
Stacey Jo Hunter
5 years ago

“During this time, many if our Christian leaders persist in thinking that…”

*of, not if

soylentg
soylentg
5 years ago

“But all it will actually take for this house to collapse is for the woman of the home to drop a jar of pickles in the kitchen.” When I read that I could not help but recall the fence we had put around our back yard many years ago. It was cedar, fairly expensive, and came with a 30 year warranty against rot from the installer (company name available upon request). Less than ten years in, wind took down two of the fence posts. A cursory examination revealed that the 6” X 6” posts were rotted off to about a… Read more »

reformed roy
reformed roy
5 years ago
Reply to  soylentg

“…cheer the rot on” may be my new catchphrase.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
5 years ago

And as if right on cue to illustrate the point made about the kind of discourse that goes on behind the scenes in the newsrooms….

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/09/20/msnbc-star-lawrence-odonnell-snaps-at-staffers-in-leaked-footage.html

Eric
Eric
5 years ago

I think the world will be quite content to give free reign to and to mostly ignore unlimited numbers of “bad boys” like Wilson describes, which is to say “bad boys” whose “badness” forfeits complete control to the world for how we make money (i.e. the labors to which our time is mainly devoted), the terms under which we can make money, and how we spend money and meet our material needs (being completely complacent, non-discerning consumers — which Wilson has described as being “catholic” in our consumer choices.) Of course, Wilson can structure his church and school in ways… Read more »