Are We Called To Be Shepherds, Or Sheepdogs?
The metaphor of Jesus as “The Good Shepherd” is so well-known that it almost does not require biblical references to affirm it. It also scarcely seems necessary to point out that the “sheep” are his followers, and by extension, that Jesus is calling those involved in church leadership to emulate him in “good shepherding.” What might we learn from this imagery?
Sidebar: Our words “pastor” and “pastoring” come from Latin—the noun for “shepherd” (pastor) and the verb “to lead to pasture” (pascere).
Matthew 18 has the famous Parable of the Lost Sheep: “If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?” Since this is Jesus speaking, it’s easy to assume the answer to the question must be, “Yes, of course he will.” But in shepherding sheep in real life, that would be stupid—he would be recklessly jeopardizing the well-being of the ninety-nine. The answer Jesus is looking for is: “In shepherding sheep, no—prioritize the ninety-nine. But in shepherding people, yes—prioritize the one.”
It's interesting that leading directly into the Lost Sheep parable Jesus is speaking about his “little ones.” These are not literally children (they’re “those who believe in me”) but he likens them to children in terms of their vulnerability. He uses deliberately OTT language toward anyone who “despises” one of these little ones, or “causes them to stumble” (it’s “better for him to have a large millstone hung round his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea”).
It seems clear that we should be reading the “little ones” and “lost sheep” as one combined passage, rather than two separate ones. One clue is that the “lost sheep” parable in verses 12-13 is sandwiched between “See that you do not despise one of these little ones” in the preceding verse 10 (there is no verse 11) and “In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost” in verse 14.
What might be the pastoral application today? The first question is the identity of these “little ones” or “lost sheep” on whose behalf Jesus speaks so strongly and severely warns those in ministry about mistreating. As with Jesus’ teaching in parables generally, we have to look below the surface imagery (of children/sheep) and focus on the underlying characteristics of those being represented.
These “little ones” and “lost sheep”:
Are at risk of pastors causing them to stumble (if that were not the case, the passage would be unnecessary). The Greek means, “putting an impediment in their way,” and is elsewhere translated as “causing them to fall away, or to be lost.” Jesus directs graphic, dire warnings to the people who cause that to happen or allow it to happen.
Are vulnerable, but not of their making (children are not to blame for being children; sheep are not to blame for being sheep), and hence they need extra special care because of that vulnerability.
Are “sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9). They’ve been abandoned or let down by their pastors. Jesus has compassion on them because they’re “harassed and helpless.” In N. T. Wright’s translation, Jesus is “deeply sorry for them” because they’re “distressed and dejected.”
Are susceptible to being “despised” (verse 10). Again, Jesus strongly warns shepherds not to do that, because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven”—meaning, they’re especially close to God, and by implication, more so than those to whom he’s speaking.
Are a minority (one, versus ninety-nine). Economic self-interest on the part of real-life shepherds would suggest that the minority should be treated as expendable for the “greater good” of the majority. But beware applying that way of thinking to the Kingdom, says Jesus, because “your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost” (verse 14)—lost to him, and by extension, lost to the church.
That’s quite a range of characteristics, isn’t it? So which groups share such characteristics, in our world today? Perhaps we might think of immigrants; asylum seekers; outsiders, generally; and certain minority social groups, economic groups, or ethnic groups—all of which might be thought of as “other” (versus the majority) and at risk of the kind of treatment that Jesus condemns.
But might it not be the case (perhaps this has already occurred to you) that a community which most obviously reflects—and has most regularly suffered the effects of—being treated in those ways by the evangelical church is LGBTQ people?
This Matthew 18 passage is rarely, if ever, cited in the LGBTQ debate, which generally focuses rather narrowly on five so-called “clobber texts” (so-called because they are used to pejoratively “clobber” LGBTQ people on God’s behalf)—two in Leviticus and three in the New Testament—along with a “natural law” kind of argument as to God’s timeless intentions for human sexuality and gender. This is not the place to discuss any of that; I am simply observing how the “little ones” and “lost sheep” narrative might be read in relation to LGBTQ people and the church if we are so minded.
Church leaders should beware the risk of placing themselves on the wrong side of what Jesus is saying concerning the appropriate godly attitude and response toward any minority that reflects these “little ones” and “lost sheep” characteristics. The specific danger for LGBTQ people is that they become collateral damage; casualties of the evangelical church’s culture war against what it sees as a “spirit of the age” that is hostile to it.
Conservative evangelicals should ask themselves whether they are in danger of placing the interests of their doctrine of exclusively heterosexual marriage over the interests of simply loving and welcoming people as they are and leaving the rest to the Holy Spirit. To be mindful of the damage they may be doing; to be asking themselves for what good purpose. They need to be absolutely sure that (a) God shares their own strength of feeling on the subject and (b) they see it as such a high priority for them to enforce. The question of what is or is not sin concerning same-sex marriage (and for that matter, transgender matters)—the “big issue” in evangelicalism right now—can easily be answered by simply leaving it to the Holy Spirit, while we just love people and receive them as they are.
This brings us to the question in the title: Are we called to be shepherds or sheepdogs concerning individuals’ personal moral behaviour? In general, I mean. After all, it's the role of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin; does he want zealous Christians (even leaders) to be doing it for him? Moreover, each person’s status before God as regards sin and righteousness is ultimately between them and God. It is not for us to pronounce on that (and still less to condemn). The role of shepherds is to protect and care for sheep. Only if a person’s behaviour may place others at risk of harm should the sheepdog in us leap into action.
It's certainly possible to amass a selection of biblical texts that argue for being tough on sin and unwelcoming toward those who habitually practice it. We can also throw in a bit of wrath language, too, and fear of hell, deploying it on God’s behalf to keep his church pure and holy (or something along those lines). But to many sincere evangelicals, this will be uncomfortable; it will not resonate with the Jesus they know. It will sound more like being sheepdogs than shepherds. We should take serious note that the Good Shepherd “is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine” (Matthew 18:13). “Ninety-nine” groups who are the majority are always in danger of assuming Jesus is happier about them.
Jesus had no encounter with any LGBTQ people that we know of (though Matthew 19:12 may be of some relevance; cf. Acts 8), but many will “read across” from his loving and welcoming approach toward other minorities who were despised and vilified on cultural grounds by the religious authorities of the day—which they, too, claimed to be based on purity, holiness, and a disdain for sinfulness. We don’t know “What Would Jesus Do?” but many will feel they can take a good stab at it based on other precedents from his life and ministry.
In Romans 14:10, Paul says, “Why do you judge your brother or sister? Why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” In other words, you can leave that to God, because “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (verse 12). Paul repeats, “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” (verse 13, echoing Jesus’ language in Matthew 18).
Paul’s overarching theme in Romans 14 might be summarised as the role of conscience in relation to what is and is not sin for one person, as opposed to sin for all persons. The question is how broadly that principle may be applied. Directly, the chapter addresses localized issues of the day concerning food matters (ones that no longer concern us today), but we may discern a wider scriptural principle in Paul saying, “Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (verse 22), and “Let us, therefore, make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (verse 19). The question is what practising that looks like, in what areas of life.
Save insofar as we are talking safeguarding, I suggest the church should always default toward being shepherds of God’s sheep rather than his self-appointed sheepdogs. If we take with the utmost seriousness what Jesus has to say about his “little ones” and “lost sheep”—and give that the benefit of the doubt wherever possible—we shall avoid placing ourselves not only on the wrong side of history but the wrong side of Jesus.