Sheep, Sheepdogs and Shepherds
March 14th 2007 22:49
This was originally posted quite awhile back on my original blog. I hope you like it even if you ahve read it before. It's had a few changes.....
I read alot. Big surprise, I know. My feeble attempt at humour aside, what I have been reading is quite amazing. I finished "Name of The Rose" by Umberto Eco. Awesome read, I would recommend it to people who enjoy literature, or at the least a very good book. One of my favourite pieces of philosophy was when they spoke about the three different groups of people in the church. These would be Sheep, Sheepdogs and Shepherds. I found this philosophy fascinating and decided to expound on it a little.
Now I would ask that whoever reads this reads it to the end BEFORE I get any interesting e-mails or posts or before you get any ideas about things.
Before we can leap into any massive philosophical interestingness (thank God for poetic license), we need to define what each term means. At least, how I see it as Mr Eco suggested. Sheep, the flock, the basic congregation. To say that they are sheep in the sense that they are brainless is insulting as well as inaccurate. They are willing followers of the Word, and they believe it. They have lives outside of the church but this does not mean that they live outside of Christ. Far from it. They are quite often the people who raise good families, hold down decent jobs (by decent I mean honest) and support those both above them and below them. They are worthy of much admiration. Then we have the sheepdog. In the work of Mr Eco, the sheepdog is a warrior, who defends the flock. In the context provided by Mr Eco, this is a crusader. I like this picture, but I think it is lacking somewhat (also I know how well the crusades went and I suspect that Christ didn't want christianity spread or defended with a sword). He is also the assisstant to the shepherd, and the shepherd's most favoured work companion. But more on that later. The last we have is the shepherd himself (or herself). These men are the priests, pastors or leaders of the church. They care, they love, they lead. I think I have defined these three enough so that we may continue.
If we look further indepth for the role of sheep it is curious to see the kind of people that would be compatible with this desription. We must also see the influence that is carried by these people. The ideal sheep is very much like I have described. They embrace the church as well as the lifestyle ethics and morality that is given by Christ. To say that they do not ever question is inaccurate. Chances are, they do question. But they seek very much only the answers on basic things (granted, it is the basic things that are most important but there are indeed things outside of the basics). Which is not degrading, nor meant to be degrading, but it is accurate. They see the church and they love it. The way they relate to the shepherd is obvious, and has been much explained already. They follow him willingly, but not thoughtlessly. They are those who serve in the areas of church life that people may notice unless the area starts to become neglected. I know some people who are most certainly sheep, and good ones at that. What I need to point out is that there is nothing wrong with being a sheep. You are not simply there just to make up the numbers. If your purpose is to live a good christian life and bring up good christian kids then that is a life calling right there, a damn fine one at that.
Our next person is the Shepherd. They are loving but also caring. They are leaders, but more than simple leadership, they also provide support. There is much good that can be said about these men and women. They must look both inside and outside of the flock, seeking not only to keep the flock healthy, but also to grow the flock. This they should not do for their own glory, but for the glory of He who is Shepherd to all. This being said, I suppose it is noticeable that shepherds do most of their work standing, to a degree, outside the flock. This is a necessary position for them. You can only ever watch over something if your eyes are higher than what you are looking at. I would say that in my life (when I say this I mean on a personal level) those that have been the best leaders have been (in chronological order of when I met them) Richard Mason, Carston Woodhouse and Craig Rains. Men like these love you like you are but are not content to let you stay there.
And now, finally, we reach our middle ground. Where a shepherd leads, a sheep follows, and a sheepdog does a curious mix of both. Mr Eco classed the sheepdog as a warrior, a defender of the faith. In the original context of the remark (in the book "Name of the Rose") , this meant figures such as the crusaders, or the templar knights. I choose to look upon it in a more modern context. To support my context, It is easy to look at figures such as CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. Writers, thinkers and philosophers. They defend the flock by driving off the wolves (especially Chesterton; that man was a natural fight picker, too bad he wasn't irish). A sheepdog is in part a leader, and provides the pastor with alot of support (I would be prepared to say that while Lewis nor Chesterton ran or started churches, I am sure that their contributions meant that many that would have turned held fast) by using his or her gifts to watch over the flock as a part of it, whereas a shepherd watches over the flock while standing outside of it. A sheepdog has meaning because of the shepherd, whom he partners with, and the flock, who gives him a purpose. A sheepdog without a flock is just a dog, without the guidance of the shepherd he is a wolf. A predator, a theif. A sheepdog is summarised well in Isaiah6:1
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb". Or by Dusk with her comments on the Gamma woman.
One thing I have noticed since writing this the first time is something I should have noticed. We are not really purely either of these three. Each Of us is a mixture Of all three, but without doubt each of us is also more attuned to one over the other two. In my case very mainly sheepdog with a hint of shepherd and not enough sheep yet. Would love you guys to post on what you think (about yourselves).
I wrote this because I was thinking about it alot, but I think it important to stress something. It's not doctrinal, merely philosophical (I say this but I also know that harmless philosophy is an oxymoron). Each of these three needs the other two in order to be. You will also notice that I did not post on the negatives of each of these. That post would be quite long, and quite unnecessary.
I guess I should write something here to settle a few things as well. Alot of what I have been writing recently has been about the rights of the individual, of the fact that people really should encourage people to be who they are rather than what others would try to make them be. I am a time in my life where alot of my thinking is geared around this kind of thinking as well as the abuses of people's character that I have seen in my church. If I said it was frustrating I wouldn't be covering it. If I said that at times it has almost provoked violence, yelling and swearing (in a couple of languages) from me in public that would be pretty accurate. To be honest, I really don't know why, but it is bothering me. I asked a pastor a few days ago if he knew any good books to read about the responsibility of the church and he recommended a text book. Which is sensible. But if someone else here (David I am thinking you would be a key person to ask and I am looking forward to what you will say here) can make some recommendations that would be great.
I thank you all for coming.
JZ
I read alot. Big surprise, I know. My feeble attempt at humour aside, what I have been reading is quite amazing. I finished "Name of The Rose" by Umberto Eco. Awesome read, I would recommend it to people who enjoy literature, or at the least a very good book. One of my favourite pieces of philosophy was when they spoke about the three different groups of people in the church. These would be Sheep, Sheepdogs and Shepherds. I found this philosophy fascinating and decided to expound on it a little.
Now I would ask that whoever reads this reads it to the end BEFORE I get any interesting e-mails or posts or before you get any ideas about things.
Before we can leap into any massive philosophical interestingness (thank God for poetic license), we need to define what each term means. At least, how I see it as Mr Eco suggested. Sheep, the flock, the basic congregation. To say that they are sheep in the sense that they are brainless is insulting as well as inaccurate. They are willing followers of the Word, and they believe it. They have lives outside of the church but this does not mean that they live outside of Christ. Far from it. They are quite often the people who raise good families, hold down decent jobs (by decent I mean honest) and support those both above them and below them. They are worthy of much admiration. Then we have the sheepdog. In the work of Mr Eco, the sheepdog is a warrior, who defends the flock. In the context provided by Mr Eco, this is a crusader. I like this picture, but I think it is lacking somewhat (also I know how well the crusades went and I suspect that Christ didn't want christianity spread or defended with a sword). He is also the assisstant to the shepherd, and the shepherd's most favoured work companion. But more on that later. The last we have is the shepherd himself (or herself). These men are the priests, pastors or leaders of the church. They care, they love, they lead. I think I have defined these three enough so that we may continue.
If we look further indepth for the role of sheep it is curious to see the kind of people that would be compatible with this desription. We must also see the influence that is carried by these people. The ideal sheep is very much like I have described. They embrace the church as well as the lifestyle ethics and morality that is given by Christ. To say that they do not ever question is inaccurate. Chances are, they do question. But they seek very much only the answers on basic things (granted, it is the basic things that are most important but there are indeed things outside of the basics). Which is not degrading, nor meant to be degrading, but it is accurate. They see the church and they love it. The way they relate to the shepherd is obvious, and has been much explained already. They follow him willingly, but not thoughtlessly. They are those who serve in the areas of church life that people may notice unless the area starts to become neglected. I know some people who are most certainly sheep, and good ones at that. What I need to point out is that there is nothing wrong with being a sheep. You are not simply there just to make up the numbers. If your purpose is to live a good christian life and bring up good christian kids then that is a life calling right there, a damn fine one at that.
Our next person is the Shepherd. They are loving but also caring. They are leaders, but more than simple leadership, they also provide support. There is much good that can be said about these men and women. They must look both inside and outside of the flock, seeking not only to keep the flock healthy, but also to grow the flock. This they should not do for their own glory, but for the glory of He who is Shepherd to all. This being said, I suppose it is noticeable that shepherds do most of their work standing, to a degree, outside the flock. This is a necessary position for them. You can only ever watch over something if your eyes are higher than what you are looking at. I would say that in my life (when I say this I mean on a personal level) those that have been the best leaders have been (in chronological order of when I met them) Richard Mason, Carston Woodhouse and Craig Rains. Men like these love you like you are but are not content to let you stay there.
And now, finally, we reach our middle ground. Where a shepherd leads, a sheep follows, and a sheepdog does a curious mix of both. Mr Eco classed the sheepdog as a warrior, a defender of the faith. In the original context of the remark (in the book "Name of the Rose") , this meant figures such as the crusaders, or the templar knights. I choose to look upon it in a more modern context. To support my context, It is easy to look at figures such as CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. Writers, thinkers and philosophers. They defend the flock by driving off the wolves (especially Chesterton; that man was a natural fight picker, too bad he wasn't irish). A sheepdog is in part a leader, and provides the pastor with alot of support (I would be prepared to say that while Lewis nor Chesterton ran or started churches, I am sure that their contributions meant that many that would have turned held fast) by using his or her gifts to watch over the flock as a part of it, whereas a shepherd watches over the flock while standing outside of it. A sheepdog has meaning because of the shepherd, whom he partners with, and the flock, who gives him a purpose. A sheepdog without a flock is just a dog, without the guidance of the shepherd he is a wolf. A predator, a theif. A sheepdog is summarised well in Isaiah6:1
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb". Or by Dusk with her comments on the Gamma woman.
One thing I have noticed since writing this the first time is something I should have noticed. We are not really purely either of these three. Each Of us is a mixture Of all three, but without doubt each of us is also more attuned to one over the other two. In my case very mainly sheepdog with a hint of shepherd and not enough sheep yet. Would love you guys to post on what you think (about yourselves).
I wrote this because I was thinking about it alot, but I think it important to stress something. It's not doctrinal, merely philosophical (I say this but I also know that harmless philosophy is an oxymoron). Each of these three needs the other two in order to be. You will also notice that I did not post on the negatives of each of these. That post would be quite long, and quite unnecessary.
I guess I should write something here to settle a few things as well. Alot of what I have been writing recently has been about the rights of the individual, of the fact that people really should encourage people to be who they are rather than what others would try to make them be. I am a time in my life where alot of my thinking is geared around this kind of thinking as well as the abuses of people's character that I have seen in my church. If I said it was frustrating I wouldn't be covering it. If I said that at times it has almost provoked violence, yelling and swearing (in a couple of languages) from me in public that would be pretty accurate. To be honest, I really don't know why, but it is bothering me. I asked a pastor a few days ago if he knew any good books to read about the responsibility of the church and he recommended a text book. Which is sensible. But if someone else here (David I am thinking you would be a key person to ask and I am looking forward to what you will say here) can make some recommendations that would be great.
I thank you all for coming.
JZ
| 43 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
