New Thoughts (08/28/13-09/03/13)
Who Chose the Words? (08/28/13-08/30/13)
This passage is particularly thick with terms for which our English provides but one word, but the Greek supplies many. Most familiar to us, given the many who have preached and taught upon this passage, are the two terms for love which are present. But, there are also two terms for knowing in view. There are two terms to describe the task assigned, and two terms for those on whose behalf that task is to be carried out. Many, nearly all, of the translations I look at take measures to indicate the distinction between the two terms for love. Some attention is given to the differing terms in the command given. But, I see no distinction made between the terms for knowing.
Before I delve into any matters of distinction of terms or shades of meaning, there is a more fundamental question to resolve: Who chose the words? The NET points out that these men are likely talking in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew. It is noted that these languages had but one term for love. Thus, in their view, it would seem that the variation in terms is primarily a matter of John’s propensity for changing up the language as a matter of good prose. This, of course, requires the base assumption that they did not converse in Greek. Is that really a safe assumption? They are from Galilee, Galileans all now that Judas is gone. They grew up in the Gentile Circle. The governance of that region is heavily Hellenized, as we see in Herod. I would conclude that, while it is certainly possible that they are conversing in Aramaic, it is also possible that they speak in Koine Greek.
I have heard that theory presented which suggests that the nature of the material in the New Testament in many ways needed the gradations and precision of Greek to properly express its points. It was as though God delayed these events until there was a language available suited to describe the events. Hebrew, quite frankly, just wasn’t up to the task. If this is the case, if God saw so great a need for this language to be available, is it so unthinkable that He, in the person of His Incarnate Son, might well have tended to use this more precise language in relaying His lessons to His own?
On the other hand, let us assume, with the NET, that the conversations did take place in Aramaic, and the Greek we have translated is that which came from John’s pen. There still remains the question of who lies at the root of the word choices. In one sense, John clearly chose. He is the one writing. Even if he were recalling conversations originally delivered in Greek, it’s quite possible that he has nothing but memory to work from, and memory can (often does) incline towards selecting its own words. If John has grown more accustomed to thinking in Greek over the years, it’s quite possible his memories have likewise been translated in thought. But, did John choose the words? Is this really little more than poetic license, a matter of style rather than substance?
Well, there remains the matter of Divine inspiration. True, we do not see some uniformity of style that would suggest the Holy Spirit stood behind these men giving dictation. The human authors of Scripture are clearly more than stenographers or scribes, taking down verbatim what the true Author speaks. They write each in their own style. Particularly in the Epistles, but also in the Gospels, we see matters of personality revealed. One can tell John’s writing from Paul’s from Peter’s without great difficulty. There’s a reason we recognize Peter’s voice in the writings of Mark. So, then, the style belongs – at least in degree – to the man. But, the substance? If, as Scripture declares, all Scripture is God-breathed, what does this mean? If Scripture is inerrant, how could it possibly flow solely from imperfect man? It cannot. God inspires. God, at some level, serves as editor-in-chief. He selects which materials are included, which removed. Does He also go so far as to suggest or inspire the specific words and tenses His authors select?
So, then, how does one resolve the question? I fear that if we push the role of Divine inspiration too strongly, we arrive back at authors as automatons, mere secretaries. Yet, this is clearly not the case. If, on the other hand, we leave the entire process in the hands of these human authors, there is nothing to make the results holy. It is certainly possible that God opted to guide the selection of words in some critical passages. It is far more likely that He brought to mind those events He wished to see included, aided in remembering conversations that arose, and inspired the understanding of what it all meant, how these things informed the theology of His chosen authors. But, down to the precise words? Maybe. I am not wholly convinced of that, though.
Barring further information, I would expect Paul to be particularly careful of his wording, because he is trained to such things and has the requisite skills. These men, though, are relaying events from memory, for the most part, Luke being the exception. With him, too, we might expect a more careful use of the Greek language. These others, though, are Jewish authors for whom Greek was at least a second language, and a language with far more options than their own for expressing certain concepts.
Let me wander back to that NET point for a moment. If, indeed, these men spoke in Aramaic, with but one word for love, how might they express the nuance of meaning? Surely, even with the one word, it was possible to discern a distinction between contexts in which friendship was implied, and contexts more inclined towards devotion. Even in English, where we also allow the one word love to cover a spectrum of meanings, one can generally arrive at the correct shade of meaning either by contextual clues, or by inflections of speech, if in conversation.
So, then, perhaps I have arrived at a conclusion of sorts. It does seem to be possible that John, whether of his own intuition or of the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit, is seeking to convey something significant by his choice of words. True, it could be merely the story-teller’s ear for changing the phrase now and again to keep things fresh. But, John is not primarily trying to tell stories. He is trying to convey truths.
I will, however, make early note of another possibility. John, being Jewish, is certainly familiar with the parallelism so often present in Jewish poetry and wisdom literature. There is often in Scripture a tendency to proclaim the same thought in multiple fashions, the better to convey the point. Even Jesus may be seen to be doing this with certain of His parables. How many, for example, seek to illustrate the nature of the kingdom of God, and man’s relationship to it? Is not the pearl of great price making the same point as the woman’s lost coin? Parallelism. If this illustration doesn’t register with you, perhaps that one will. If you don’t get it from this phrase, maybe you understand this other one.
Whatever the case, whether we accept the NET premise of an originating conversation in Aramaic, or direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, it seems to me (at least this morning) that a concern with the particular words John has selected is a reasonable concern. Clearly, there is a historic propensity for carefully parsing the loves of this passage. This is intensified by the presence of that particular term agape, which has such a distinctly Christian application.
I have heard that this word was specifically Biblical, not having a precedent in classical Greek. I am not certain of that point, but it is a thing often said. For all that we have this particular affinity for the term, I expect most of us laymen would be hard put to give definition to it. Oh! It’s that particular love God has towards us, and that we have towards Him! Yes? And what makes that so particular? How is it distinct from the love you have for your family? How is it different than friendship, or hero-worship?
Even perusals of the lexical definitions given for agape and phileo make it clear that precisely demarking the shadings of meaning is a difficult matter. I find both Zhodiates and Strong trying to distinguish the two by comparatives of a physical nature. Phileo is wider, suggests Zhodiates, but agape is higher. No, wait, says Strong, agape is wider. But, they are driving at a similar point. Agape has moral import, a deliberate willing. Yet, it seems to me that phileo also comes of a deliberate willing, so is that really so great a distinction? And, if we accept the fairly standard distinction that agape is that depth of love we have for God, and phileo is more like friendship, well: Do not even our friendships carry a degree of moral importance? Do they not, at least in the ideal, put upon us some moral culpabilities, some responsibilities towards the one befriended?
I actually rather like the distinction that Strong makes, although it feels a bit of a simplification. Phileo, he says, is the love of the heart, whereas agape is the love of the head. I might modify that somewhat to say that agape includes also the head. If we are making a distinction between that sort of love which is pure emotional response, and that which is the result of cold reason, then I think we fall short of the full import of agape. Consider that this is the term which applies to God’s love for us. Would I be so thrilled to stand as the recipient of a love that is solely the product of cold reason, which has nothing of emotion? Is compassion still compassion if the heart isn’t in it? I think not. Consider the term, in its Greek roots. Compassion, that which has so great a grip on our emotions as to make us feel our guts are tied in knots. That is heavily emotional. Yet, the definition of agape points towards compassion. It is, by some definitions, that sort of love which demands that the lover act on behalf of the loved. And, here’s the kicker, the thing that so defines the love God has towards us. Not only is He moved to act for His beloved children, but He is so moved as to act for their greater good, even if they don’t want their own greater good! It is that love which is willing to sacrifice emotional satisfaction in the reciprocating feelings of the beloved in the interest of truly promoting and pursuing the best interests of the beloved.
So, then, if we are to accept these distinctions of meaning, we understand that the first two times Jesus asks Peter this question, He is specifying this higher, self-sacrificial love which, if I may, certainly encompasses the reasoning of the mind, which sees its object as clearly deserving of love, but also includes the heart, with its more visceral, more emotional attachments. Peter, do you have this all-encompassing, fully involved love for Me? And, we see that Peter consistently responds with something a bit less than that. Oh, Lord. You know how fond I am of You. You have my undying friendship.
Why has Peter stopped short? One generally hears this taught as indicating a failure of sorts on Peter’s part. He just couldn’t bring himself to confess to so great a love. Might I suggest, though, that what this really demonstrates is a degree of growth on Peter’s part? Whereas he had so proclaimed the great heights of his devotion back at that last meal together, now he recognizes that such devotion is beyond him. Oh, Lord! Would that I could love You equal to the love You have for me. But, I know it is beyond me to do so. In my own strength, I can only be assured of that lesser love, the love that is from my heart. I don’t know if I can ever truly say my love for You is so all-encompassing.
Taken in this light, we might then hear Jesus encouraging by His commands. Here, Peter, is your act of devotion. Here is your compassionate love for Me: Take care of Mine. Your love for Me, your agape will show as you see to the spiritual health of those I call My own. Peter, you may be having difficulty saying this, but I know you, and I know you will do what agape demands. Take heart, and know that your mind is also with you!
Now, there is another term in this exchange which alters over the course of things. As Peter answers the question Jesus puts to him, his response begins with ‘You know’. Twice he reiterates, Lord, You know I love you. And, even as the love he confesses is presented to us as something less than Jesus was asking, the certainty he offers with regard to that which he confesses is wrapped up in that word. You know. In these first two cases, we are given a form of eido, that sort of knowledge that comes intuitively, or, if you will, with the force of reason. It is a term that can also be utilized for seeing, or for perceiving by other of the senses. But, if one is to distinguish this sort of knowing from others, it generally falls towards the idea of intuitive knowledge.
With the last repeat of the question, though, as John notes Peter’s grief, he presents a longer answer. Lord, You know all things. There, we are again working with eido, intuitive, reasoned knowledge. Then, he proceeds to “You know that I love You.” But, just as Jesus has lowered the strength of love He is asking after, so Peter switches the knowledge he ascribes to Jesus. “You know I love You.” Now, we are looking at ginosko. You have this from experience. You have lived with the proof of my love all about You these last three years. The errors made in the stress of that night have not altered the truth of all else!
What is surprising to me is how few of the translations make any note of this distinction. I understand that many scholars feel there is no real distinction to be had between the two terms, that they are merely used as matters of skill, as coloring for the text. But, I think not. Eido is by far and away the more common word used for knowing, and there is no particular call for Peter to shift words unless he is truly shifting his meaning. Or, alternately, there’s no cause for John to change the word this one time out of four unless he intended to relay a distinction in Peter’s delivery.
So, we have the BBE which gives us “you are certain of” for eido, and “you see that” for ginosko. It is interesting that the sense of the two seems almost counter to what one would expect. Eido, with its direct connection to the sense of sight, would seem the more obvious term for that which one has seen for himself. Yet, it runs the other way. Curious. Wuest, by far the most careful to distinguish shadings in the text, gives us this for verse 17b: “All things you know positively. You know from experience that I have a friendly feeling and affection for you.”
These things will and should color how we perceive the message of the verses before us. But, as the NET explains, there is one other matter which may (must?) influence how we understand the event. The first time Jesus poses this question to Peter, he asks, “Do you love Me more than these?” We are not given indication as to what exactly Jesus is indicating by ‘these’. Is He pointing to the fish? Is He pointing to the other Apostles? And, if we assume the Apostles, is He asking whether Peter’s love for Him exceeds the love he feels towards these others, or is he being asked to take the measure of his love for Jesus as compared to the love these others feel for Jesus?
Well, if one has seen the opening event of the chapter as evidence of Peter giving up, throwing in the towel, then there might be cause to think it is the fish that are in view, and it’s something of a question about vocation. Do you love Me more than your fishing? You’ve got to make a choice here, Peter. As to a matter of who he loved more, Jesus or the Apostles, I don’t think that’s ever been in doubt, and nothing in the context gives us any real reason to hear the question thusly. So, then, I would be inclined to follow the NET’s lead in hearing it as “do you love Me more than these do?” Yet, at the same time I find myself a bit put off that they have worded it that way in their translation.
It is, I think, a very good thing to have these footnotes that go into the challenges of interpretation, offer the possibilities, and indicate where the guiding hermeneutics of the translators land on the matter. But, in a case like this, where the language is, perhaps intentionally, vague and open ended, it seems an overstep to so translate the material as to force the meaning to confirm one’s hermeneutic. It seems to me that the reader is better served by being forced to think the matter through.
For my own part, as I have not found Peter’s actions indicative of some failure of nerve, some giving up on God, I tend to follow the conclusion the NET reaches, and to hear the question in the same fashion. And, there is a greater reason for such a conclusion. But, I want to wait on that for just one moment, while I consider another question that must influence our understanding of the passage: the question of Who the message was for, as originally delivered.
Who Was it For? (08/30/13)
While the conversation here is presented as one-on-one, as an exchange between Jesus and Peter, it is not, so far as we know, a private one-on-one. That Peter is called aside with the command, “Follow Me” at the end would indicate that to that point they had been in the company of the others. That John heard the conversation with sufficient clarity to bring such shades of meaning to mind these many years later supports the thought that he was sitting there listening at the time.
So, then, if we ask who Jesus intended His message to reach, I think we must conclude it was not just Peter. To be sure, there is a very clear message to Peter here, and we shall get to that. But, there is also a message for the others.
I have, I believe, already noted the threefold repetition in this Q&A, the way this emphasizes the point, makes it of paramount importance. Peter doesn’t miss that point. He may, as is so often preached, hear this as the counterbalance to his threefold denial of Christ. I think that is a part of what is going on. But, I am not convinced that part is primarily for his benefit. He knows he is forgiven. He’s already met with Jesus privately, according to Luke. He was so anxious to reach Jesus because he already knew himself restored to His good graces. The others, though, might not be so sure. He blew it big time. So far as we know, he blew it worse than any of the others, Judas excepted, of course. He knew he was forgiven, but they needed to know that he was not only forgiven, but entrusted with a key role.
Three times, the sequence plays out. Three times it concludes with a command, effectively the same command. “Take care of My flock.” Now, as the questions are asked of Peter alone, so, too, is this command given to Peter alone. We cannot hear this in any other way. It would make no sense for Jesus to make specific query of him, and then give this command as He sweeps all present up in his gaze. Why would the command to them depend on the answer of Peter? No, this is a command given to one man, and given to him three times now. That is a message to the others, as much as to Peter. He’s in charge. I have instated him thus. Proceed accordingly.
Now, I would not have us over emphasize the role given Peter, for that has had enough of an impact on Church history already. He is not made the first pope. He is not granted some spiritual authority unique amongst the Apostles. He is given charge. We would do well to see him positioned as first among equals. The flock of which he is given charge at this point is not so terribly large, is it? Depending on the scope Jesus intends, we might number it as the ten remaining Apostles apart from himself, or we might increase it to the 120 who would be found in the upper room praying in coming weeks. But, it’s not the Church down through the ages that anybody would have in view as they heard this command. Jesus is simply making final arrangements for His own as He will no longer be physically manifest with them.
He is also making it abundantly clear that Peter, as the leader of this group, is to lead in full recognition that he is an under-shepherd. He is an aid, not the owner. Peter would be particularly apt to pick up on this. He is a business owner himself. He knows the difference between himself and those he hires to work with him. All catch fish, but the catch, after a fashion, primarily belongs to him as owner. They work for the pay. He works for the business, for his reputation. He is more heavily invested in the success of the operation, and if it all falls apart, the ruin is his alone to bear. Those paid laborers will simply go to another who can pay them.
Peter is also, like the others listening, Jewish. He is familiar with his Torah. He knows his prophets. He was raised right by his mama. The choice of these terms of shepherd and sheep are not lost on him. He is listening, after all, to the One who proclaimed, “I AM the Good Shepherd.” He had announced Himself as that one Isaiah wrote so much about. And, Isaiah, and others as well, had written often enough of how God dealt with under-shepherds who failed to take their duties seriously, who allowed the sheep to suffer depredations. And, here is the assignment thrice made. Peter, I dare say, finds no place for pride in his selection, only for humility, and perhaps a bit of trepidation. But, trepidation will pass once he recalls himself. It is not his strength or skill that shall establish success, but rather the word of the Lord, and His strength.
What Was the Message? (08/30/13-08/31/13)
While I think there is a great deal being said in this passage, beneath the visible words, if you will, or between them, yet there is that which is pretty clear. Jesus, as so often proves the case, is being particularly apt in His discussion with Peter. Were the term not so heavily abused and discounted in our day, I should say His actions here are particularly ironic. It becomes almost impossible for us to look at this exchange without being recalled to the events of the day of Jesus’ trial. As noted, that is a very common point to take up. Three times Peter denied Jesus, three times Jesus walks him through this restoration. And, yes, I think that’s acceptable to observe here. But, I am still inclined to think it insufficient to fully explain the event.
First, we must go back further, to the dinner that preceded Peter’s denials. Think about what happened there. Peter said, “Though all fall away because of You, I will never fall away.” Jesus said, “Really? Peter, this very night you shall deny me thrice before the cock crows.” Peter said, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And all the others echoed Peter’s confidence (Mt 26:33-35, Mk 14:29-31). Now, note carefully that both Matthew and Mark concur that everybody was nodding their heads. Peter may have blurted the words, but everybody there was feeling just as confident of themselves. And, while Peter might fail more spectacularly come the next day, none of them put in a particularly promising performance.
So, while I have suggested some offense at the NET’s translation of verse 15, as it appears in the text, the extended amplification they offer in their footnote rather strikes a chord with me. “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” That would seem to nail what’s going on. Peter, you were so sure your love for Me would allow you to face death, if necessary. Are you still so sure? Do you still think yourself more capable than these others? You have been shown yourself, and now you know better than that. Even so, I am putting you in charge here. No, you are not better than they. But, you are in charge.
And, you others! Recall that you were nodding your agreement with Peter. Yet, you have faced not death on My account, but merely uncertainty, and every last one of you fled for your lives. This is not said in condemnation, not even, really in rebuke. But, it is said that you might see yourselves in the light of Truth. Don’t go thinking that Peter is somehow worse than yourselves just because his was the more spectacular display. Did I not, after all, prophesy that this would occur? It was necessary. It was necessary for his own growth. It was necessary for Satan’s failure, for now Peter is that much better suited to his task. Oh, and notice the closer here: He will face death on My account, and he will face it as befits a man sure of his love for Me.
This being said, did Peter and the others hear something of that threefold restoration in what Jesus is doing? Probably so. I would maintain, though, that at this point it was more important for those others to hear it than for Peter. Peter had already experienced forgiveness. But, that position of leadership that had he held by tacit agreement was strained by what had happened. He was certainly the leader when it came to deserting Christ! But, Jesus, in presenting this threefold restoration, is doing far more. He is stating emphatically, for the record, that Peter is not only the tacit leader by default of the Apostles, he is the appointed leader. He is not only forgiven, not only restored into God’s good graces. He is in charge here, by the order of Christ Jesus Himself. Three times, it is spoken: “Shepherd My sheep.” I can envision Jesus taking in those around Him with the sweep of His hand as He says this. These, Peter: Your friends, your co-workers. They are My sheep, and you are given particular charge of their care. If any amongst them, Peter included, had questions about Peter’s fitness for leadership, this conversation has put an end to those questions.
One last aspect of this that should be explored. Again, let us go back to that evening of Peter’s great boast. In Luke’s coverage of that dinner we have a most interesting comment from Jesus. “Simon, Simon! Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith not fail. For your part, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:31-32). Here is that set of keys Peter has been handed, if we feel he must have keys. The key to his successful leadership lies in this simple point: “I have prayed for you that your faith not fail.” The key to his success lies in Jesus, the chosen Christ of God. It lies, then, in the request of God Himself. What God asks of Himself; can there be any slimmest possibility that He would deny to Himself? “I have prayed.” And, note that unlike the prayer in Gethsemene, there is no note of accepting the inevitable about this prayer. There is no, “nevertheless, Thy will not mine.” No, in this instance, Father, Son and Spirit are unanimous. (Are they ever truly not so?) Peter, I have prayed, and this is your confidence. Oh, you will fall down, just as I have told you. My word, after all, does not fail of its purpose. My Truth does not change. You will fall, but you will return. “Once you have returned.” That’s a prophetic certainty, not a when and if. Once you have returned, you have a job to do: Strengthen your brothers. It is the same job that Jesus is attending to here. Shepherd My sheep. See to their nourishment. Keep them not only safe, but strong. Go and make disciples. It is all one, is it not?
Shepherds Lead (08/31/13-09/01/13)
Given my own recent assignment into this shepherding role, I find it particularly timely to be here in the midst of the command given the under shepherd. It has become painfully clear to me over the last few months just how much the task of the elder is beyond the strength and ability of man. We cannot shepherd God’s people by man’s wisdom. We cannot care for God’s people in mortal affection. We cannot withstand the demands of service in our own strength. The only way we can lead and tend and feed is by heeding that call to “Follow Me!” That being said, what can I draw from this passage to aid me in my desire to faithfully pursue the duties of this office?
To shepherd, of course, has longstanding significance to the life of the Church. It is an image entirely familiar even to these men around their breakfast fire. The priest as shepherd to the people is as old as Moses, who was given forty years as a shepherd to prepare him for ministry as the leader of Israel’s exodus. Think about that! David, also, the greatest king of Israel, was lifted to office from the role of a shepherd. The die is firmly cast, is it not? The prophets greatly reinforce the image, lest we lose sight of it in changing times. The priests, being under-shepherds of God Himself, are held to account for the failings of the nation. If society has gone to the dogs, who is to blame? Shall we blame the king, the president? Shall we blame the schools that poison the minds of our youth? Interestingly, though God indeed holds such institutions to account, it is His own priests who receive the lion’s share of His ire. They are to blame for failing to be shepherds. They have gone from protecting and feeding the flock on behalf of the Owner of the flock, to fattening and preying on the flock for their own comfort and benefit.
Isaiah gives us the voice of God Himself proclaiming the Good Shepherd to come, and we know full well that Jesus laid claim to that office. I will be looking at that proclamation more fully in a moment. But, God Himself very clearly establishes this picture. He is the chief shepherd, the true shepherd, the owner of the flock. Those who serve Him are under-shepherds at best, hirelings at worst. The distinction lies in diligence and faithfulness. The under-shepherd will still have the welfare of the sheep foremost in mind. David, we might recall, was effectively an under-shepherd. These were not his sheep, but his father’s. Yet the record clearly shows his willingness to lay his life down in defense of those sheep. His claims of fending off wolves, bears and lions were no idle boasts. They were statements of fact. “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” What David modeled, Jesus fulfilled.
But, elders are called to be shepherds, just as Peter is here called to be a shepherd. Let me just make this point, then: Peter is not being appointed as pope. The concept did not even exist. He was appointed as, if you will, the elder to the elders. That is the most we may assign him on this basis, I think. First amongst equals, shepherd to the shepherds, but ever and always under-shepherd to the Shepherd.
How, then, did Peter and these others perceive the duty being assigned on this occasion? I don’t think the picture has changed much down the years. The role of the shepherd, from the perspective of the church, has always been to ‘promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church’, as Thayer gives voice to the matter of tending. “It implies the whole office of the shepherd, guiding, guarding, folding the flock as well as leading it to nourishment.” Thus does Zhodiates describe the matter of shepherding.
Focus on those ideas for a moment. “Promote in every way the spiritual welfare.” “Guard, as well as lead to nourishment.” The latter retains the earthy images that Jesus intended to evoke by His choice of terms. Yes! The shepherd, out there in the wilds with his sheep, walking before them, lying down with them, stinking of them. Recall those shepherds back at the beginning of the Gospel? Theirs was not a reliable witness, so far as Israel was concerned. They were low in the social strata, and having come unwashed from the fields, they were not particularly welcome in polite society. That image Jesus evokes of Himself, lying across the gateway of the fold is by no means far removed from the shepherd’s reality. There’s a reason the sheep know their shepherd’s voice, and the shepherd, I dare say, would know his own sheep, even were they found amongst another’s herd. Indeed, these folds out in the wilds might well be shared between herds overnight, each shepherd calling out his own in the morning as they went off to feed.
Why is that shepherd laying across the gate at night? Is it simply to keep the wolf out? That is only a part of the deal. It is also the matter of keeping the sheep in. Sheep, as we all know from common heritage, are prone to wander off. Nose to the ground, nibbling at whatever greens present, they give no eye to what lies ahead, just walk and eat. Left to themselves, they will easily wander right into places of danger, making themselves easy targets for predators, falling right into some crevice from which they cannot extricate themselves. There’s a reason they need a shepherd!
But, notice the twofold aspect of this task: Guard as well as nourish. It is not enough to keep preaching at them, keep expounding Scriptures to them. Discipleship, shepherding requires more. If I look at the examples provided by John and Peter and Paul, this twofold aspect is brought into sharp focus. John, particularly, is on guard against every false teaching that seeks to mislead those under his charge. Paul is much the same. Think of the vehemence in his statement, “even if an angel comes to you with a message at variance with the gospel you have been taught, reject that message!” John would swiftly add, “and reject the messenger. Have nothing to do with him, lest your hospitable treatment be taken as endorsing his false message.” Add to this the constant admonitions towards pursuing those things that reflect God’s character. “If you do these things, you shall not be unprofitable in God’s kingdom.” “Against these things there is no law.” “They will know you by your love (agape) for one another.”
And what happens as the church develops and grows? These men swiftly recognize that seeing to the spiritual needs of their charges will not suffice. There is the matter of physical needs. There are widows amongst their number, women who, in that society, could have no means to provide for themselves. We must provide for them! And, it wasn’t happening. The Apostles did not shrug this off. Neither did they allow the temporal issues to overwhelm and displace the spiritual. They recognized, as Moses had in his day, their own need for help. We, they reasoned, must give our primary focus to matters of a spiritual nature, to the full grasping of God’s Word that we may be faithful in instructing those over whom we have been set. But, if they are starving, shivering in their insufficient clothing, suffering from illness, they will not be in any condition to receive instruction. Just so had Jesus taught by His example. Heal them, feed, them, then teach them. We, too, as elders in God’s house, must recognize when we have reached our limits, and be prepared to appoint those who can serve alongside us. This is, I realize, the whole point of our church’s direction towards “elder led, team driven”.
The elder, the shepherd, cannot do everything. If he does, he has done his sheep no good, only made them fat and lazy, and prime targets for being picked off. No, that will never do. Our Good Shepherd seeks lambs without blemish, strong sheep and wise. His desire, I dare say, is that every last sheep in His fold could, if circumstance required, take up the role of shepherd. His command to us was and remains, “Go and make disciples.” Notice that He does not say, “Go and make dependents.” No way! Paul is even so bold as to say, “If they will not work, then don’t feed them.” You know, I always tend to consider that statement as addressing temporal matters. It’s like the Spiritual antidote for the welfare state. But, is that the whole of it? Lift it back into the spiritual plane, and what does it say? If they are not willing to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, cut them off. They are not of the fold. They are with us, but not from us. They are imposters, wolves in sheep’s clothing. God has no use for sluggards. Seriously! How much of Proverbs addresses this worst of sins? For, if we have no diligence for pursuing the necessities of life in this world, how can we suppose we shall have any urge whatsoever towards pursuing those things which lead to life eternal?
I am wandering. Some shepherd. Let me come back on point. I would turn my attention to that great proclamation Jesus made in this regard. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. A hireling, since he doesn’t own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and flees, leaving the sheep unguarded. The wolf snatches them, scatters them. The hireling flees because he is only a hireling. He could care less about the sheep. But, I! I am the good shepherd, and I know My own, and My own know Me just as the Father and I know each other. I do lay down My life for the sheep. Beyond this, I have other sheep, not of this fold. I must bring them, too, and they shall hear My voice and shall become one flock with one shepherd” (Jn 10:11-16).
There is so much packed into that message! Jesus is the Good Shepherd. This is a title He holds exclusively. No officer of the Church in any age can make that claim. He has proven His fitness for that title. If the shepherd, even by earthly standards, is measured by his willingness to risk himself to protect the sheep, Jesus has gone to the utmost in that regard, truly laying down His life for our protection. Now, we arrive at the condemnation of the hireling. The hireling is, by outward appearance, a shepherd as well. Yet, he is no true under-shepherd, for when trouble comes, the hireling is all about his own skin. The wolf threatens? He’s gone! Let the sheep see to themselves. After all, they’re not his sheep, they’re God’s. Let Him take care of them.
Listen! This is not permitted us. That is the mindset of those shepherds who felt God’s ire in the Old Testament, and rightfully so. We cannot sacrifice others in our pursuit of heaven. This, is a statement that applies not only to appointed leaders in the church, but to every man who counts himself a child of God. Heard in terms of evangelism, how convicting is that point! How many lost souls do we ignore each day, satisfied in our own salvation? But that’s the mark of a hireling, not an under-shepherd! How many of those lost souls are, in truth, sheep of His fold just as we are?
His sheep know His voice, and when they hear Him, the follow Him. How are we doing in that regard? Oh, I would say there are moments when I hear His promptings and act. But, there are far too many occasions where I am looking in the rearview mirror at another opportunity missed. Will God condemn that poor soul to hell for my failure? No. It is impossible! But, I would expect there shall be a price to pay on my own part for dereliction of duty.
“I have other sheep not of this fold.” Surely, that refers to the Gentiles, sheep from outside the fold of Israel. Yes, in its original setting, this is the clear implication. But, what has that to do with us today? We are the Gentiles. We are those other sheep. So what? But, again, look at those whom we deem to be outside the fold. We heard it from the pulpit as recently as last week. Who are the ones we immediately assess as beyond redemption? Who are the ones who, were they to wander into our service, we would treat almost as intruders, who would make us nervous and unwilling to welcome? “I have other sheep outside this fold.” It still holds true. He’s still calling. And, He’s still calling those who most need Him. Perhaps we ought to be making sure we still hear His call! Or have we become too healthy to have any concern for the sick?
Shepherd take heed! “Follow Me!” He remains the Good Shepherd, the only Sure Guide. He remains fully and completely in charge, and He shall judge the worth of our service, whether we have been shepherds or hirelings in His field. We, for our part must remain ever mindful that our success lies solely in first hearing His voice, and then following Him with all diligence. Only thus may we serve to lead others. Only thus can we stand. Only as He builds the house through us shall our labors be anything more than vanity and wind.
Scripture does not leave us to guess at what this shepherding role should look like. There is much in Paul’s writing to address the topic, several of his letters being written as instruction to newer pastors. But, let me simply consider that message given to his friends from Ephesus. In speaking to them one last time as he headed for Jerusalem, he said, “Be on guard, for yourselves and for the whole flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Ac 20:28).
Consider a few points about this instruction. First, the shepherd who is not guarding himself cannot hope to guard the whole flock. If we are lackadaisical about our own spiritual condition, negligent in prayer, slow to hear and slower to act, we cannot possibly be fit to warn those set in our charge.
And, be very clear that they are set in our charge. We have not earned or politicked our way to this shepherds role. We have been appointed. We can as easily be removed. It is, Paul says, the Holy Spirit Himself who has made us overseers. God Who called them, God Who is faithful to complete the work He has begun in them, has – for a season – set them under our care, under our tutelage. He has not given us the right to run roughshod over their conscience. But, He has given us authority. If we will not exercise the proper discipline of the church, we cannot consider ourselves as having been faithful under-shepherds. If, on the other hand, we demand a doctrinal conformity beyond those clear and fundamental doctrines of the faith, we are abusing our position, and abusing those we are intended to aid.
We are to shepherd the church. It is leadership, but of a particular sort. Think of the example Jesus gives in Himself, as well as in His choice of this imagery. The shepherd calls his sheep. He doesn’t drive them. He leads them. He does not push, he beckons. We might go so far as to say he entices. And, what is the shepherd’s goal for the flock? He seeks to see them set in good pasture with safe and plentiful water. With that in mind, he may well advise or suggest a certain extensive theological perspective, but he cannot, must not demand it. On the other hand, where there is clear and obvious untruth, he, like John, must be fierce in defense of Truth. He must do all in his power to prevent the sheep in his charge from wandering into so dangerous a territory.
I think of Psalm 23, with its imagery of our Good Shepherd leading us beside still waters. I contrast this with an old assessment of my own, when considering life in the Charismatic church. At the time I was still deeply enamored of the excitement of that church life, the often exotic nature of worship, the near total freedom to express love for God in whatever fashion one chose. Of course, such freedom often led to excess and counterfeit, and any number of potential pitfalls. In describing this experience, I wrote of it being like riding the rapids. It was, to me, a particular spur towards developing a better understanding of doctrine and theology firmly set upon the Word of God. But, at the time of that writing, I had no thought for getting out of the rapids, only for making certain I had a good lifeline in my understanding of God, and in my God.
But, elder Jeff, how can this be justified, when the good shepherd seeks out the still waters for His charges? To be sure, there is plenty about a vibrant Christian life that will be anything but placid. The martyrs might quibble with a suggestion that Christianity is all about being peaceful, mellow and secure in this world. Anything but! “In this life you will have tribulations.” Never lose sight of that! But, that is not to say that we ought to be seeking out more tribulation than is our lot. No! Paul, in instructing us to pray for our government, does so with a purpose in mind: That we who seek to live godly lives may do so in peace. Indeed, he goes further, instructing that, insofar as it lies within our power, we ought to live at peace with all men. And, does not Jesus Himself commend this? “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
But, the shepherd, recognizing that he can never hope to avoid every danger that might befall, yet seeks to minimize the dangers, not to expose his charges needlessly. What sort of shepherd would he be who called his sheep to shoot the rapids? Sure, there’s great adventure in that, and it gets the blood going. But, the shepherd’s role is not to seek out adventure. It’s to seek out safe pasture, solid food. We cannot be taking the course of listening to any and all who would teach the church, and then correcting their mistakes afterwards.
Listen! I’ve been in that setting. It was the very clear and intentional behavior of leadership. Oh, we’ll try anything once. If it’s ‘of God’, we’ll adopt it. If it isn’t, we’ll teach a corrective. But, how does this ever hope to accord with the directions of Scripture? I cannot help but come back to that shockingly harsh instruction of John, the Apostle of love: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds” (2Jn 10-11). John does not say, go ahead and let him air his views. You can correct his errors later. No! He says to have nothing to do with them, not even to the extent of offering such common comforts as might lead others to mistakenly suppose you agree. And note the degree of admonition here. If you even greet such a false teacher, you participate in his evil!
Shepherd, take care! You are a leader. You are a leader whether you feel like one or not. You have a job, a job given you by God and for God. You have been entrusted with protecting and caring for those whom Jesus purchased by His own blood. He clearly values them highly, and you had best do the same. You cannot be cavalier about their spiritual health. You cannot expose them to all manner of fallacy promoted as truth, counting on being able to counteract the lie at some later date. No! Would you have them eat from the field, and wait to see if any of them sicken and die? Of course not! It would be an idiot farmer who cared for his livestock in such a fashion.
I think of the boy I saw at Penobscot light a few weeks back. He’s walking about, and sees some bulbous fruit-like growth on one of the plants, a Cape rose as we call them. Audibly, he asks himself, “I wonder if this is edible?” and proceeds to take a huge chomp out of the thing! Really? Is this how he deals with new flora? And where are his parents? Have they trained him no better than this? Who is shepherding this young man that he might reach his maturity without ingesting something truly poisonous? God forbid he should wander by any mushrooms. And yet, there are those leaders of the Church who are willing to let their parishioners do the spiritual equivalent of trying to identify the good and bad mushrooms by tasting them, and seeing if they sicken and die.
I cannot but recognize a degree of guilt here, not as concerns the church in which I serve, but in the more personal setting of family life. Yes, it is true that it was concern for my family’s spiritual health and safety that finally moved me to depart the last church. You will understand why, having read the last several paragraphs. And, let me say that there was much good, much real growth had in that setting. But, there is much, as well, from which we still must labor to recover. And for me, perhaps the worst aspect of recovery is that, having been so long in such an atmosphere of thrill-seeking religion, there is something that longs to get back to that excitement, to feel that edge of danger. There is, in particular, a very strong urge on my wife’s part, to enjoy that spiritual high, the adrenaline rush, or whatever you wish to apply as descriptive.
There’s something terribly enticing about such teaching, and frankly, this goes way beyond the question of whether the gifts of the Spirit remain operative. This is more like the Corinthian church without benefit of Paul’s rebuke. This is the sort of atmosphere in which many are convinced that they have taken up the apostle’s mantle. As if! This is the sort of atmosphere where folks are taught of the power they wield over angels and demons alike. You know, it’s one thing to have your people confident in God. It is another altogether to give them false confidence built upon false premises. I think back to that angel who met Joshua. Joshua asks, “are you for me or against me?” The angel, in words that ought to correct all our misconceptions, says, “Neither. I serve the Lord.” He commands, not you.
Peter, in his bit of instruction for shepherds, gets more at the mindset and character of the shepherd. “Exercise your oversight voluntarily, not as though compelled to do so. This is the will of God” (1Pe 5:2-4). If you feel put upon by this call to serve, then you really ought not to answer. If it is an onerous task to you, what are you doing here? That is not to say that the shepherd’s role is all fun and games. If you suppose this to be the case, you also have no business in the role. But, even with the challenges – and they are manifold – there is a joy, a deep joy in serving God in this fashion.
Let me continue with Peter. “Don’t serve for gain, but with eagerness.” Let me stretch this point just a bit. We’re not discussing paychecks here. We’re not talking about grabbing the offering for personal use. That’s part of it, but it’s not the whole of it. There are gains and losses that have nothing to do with currencies and accounts. Are you in this for a gain in reputation or status? Wrong motive! Are you in this that the rest of the church can account you more holy? Wrong motive! Come to it because you are eager to keep the flock safe and well fed. If you are expecting to profit in any way from this service, apart from the great spiritual growth that will doubtless accrue, you are probably in the wrong field. You would do well to consider those shepherds the prophets rebuked. They profited. Oh, yes! They enjoyed their lives as shepherds. Until the Lord struck them down for their infidelity to the task.
“Don’t lord it over your charges. Lead by example.” That, I dare say, is the absolute key. If your example is poor, how can you lead? You can’t. You can only lord. Bullies lead in that fashion. Shepherds do not. Prove to be an example to the flock (and never let it be said that they are your flock. They are His, and never lose sight of that!) Then (and only then), when the Chief Shepherd appears, He Who does own the flock, you will receive a crown of glory that never fades. Thank you, Peter, for this. See? There is a reward, but it must await the end. Indeed, your reward shall be great, far in excess, I dare say, of what you truly deserve as a servant. Don’t come demanding it! I am mindful of that instruction given, “When your Master commends you, you say, ‘I have only done as I ought.’”
If we are faithful leaders of the flock, we will still be able to say no more than that. Peter, when this prophecy of his death was fulfilled, would say no more than that, would even seek to refuse such honor as might be found in being crucified so completely like his Lord and Master. John, for all his fierce defense of the Truth, would say no more than that. Paul, so brilliant of mind, and thorough of doctrine, says no more than that. Well does he understand that there never is, nor ever shall be a place for boasting in God’s presence. Brilliant though he was, it wasn’t his brilliance that made him who he is. It was all God, and he never lost sight of that fact.
Shepherds lead, then, but can only do so as they follow the Chief Shepherd.
Shepherds Follow (09/02/13)
I am riveted by the juxtaposition of commands. Shepherd My sheep. Follow Me. I know there is that simple sense of the latter command, that Jesus was calling Peter to the side. But, there is more. The command to shepherd is of paramount import. But, that command cannot possibly be obeyed without obeying the secondary command to follow Jesus. Here is a humbling word for the shepherd of Christ. Yes, you are His shepherd. However, never lose sight of the fact that you remain an under-shepherd. The sheep you shepherd are not your own. They remain His. If you are a faithful shepherd of His, then you will care for these sheep as if they were your own, but you will be ever mindful of the truth that they remain His. In the end, we shall answer to Him for our work.
I have been considering this primarily in light of this office of elder. However, the same truth applies to the parent, particularly to the head of household. We speak of our children. Yet, they are not our children. They are His. We have custody of them for a season. We certainly have great responsibility during that season. We are entrusted with the care of their physical needs. More importantly, we are entrusted with the care of their spiritual needs. It seems we often take this latter task far too lightly. We are inclined to delegate that part. Most of us would never think of delegating the tasks of feeding our children, of teaching them basic manners. We see that as our job. Granted, educators are trying to pick up more and more of that task, but most of us still recognize this as our duty. And, many will take offense at that school system which presumes to dictate what and when the children are taught. Think about the uproar that usually follows on any alteration in sex education. That is the parents’ prerogative! It does not belong in the schools. How about religious education? For the most part, it is effectively outlawed. Yet, we hear of schools exposing students to less familiar religions, like Islam, Buddhism and Hindu, under the guise of social studies, of learning about foreign cultures. Heaven forfend, though, that one should consider discussing the doctrines of Christianity!
All this to say, we have grown resigned to intrusions into this aspect of parenting. Yet, on the spiritual side, we are pretty much wholly accepting that this is something we delegate. It is the church’s job to train them up in the way they should go, not ours! We are untrained, unskilled. How could we hope to do this job? Many of us have a very similar perspective on all matters of discipleship. It’s the pastor’s job. It’s the teachers’ job. Maybe, if somebody has a particular gifting for evangelism they might take it up. But, not me. My gifts lie elsewhere, most generally, safely within the walls of the church, amongst people of like mind. We have grown to be safe Christians, alas.
What does Jesus instruct us? “Shepherd My sheep.” And, how do we do it? “Follow Me!” It must be noted that one never sees Jesus play it safe. Jesus dares to break with social norms. Jesus challenges hide-bound traditions that stoke spiritual pride, but do nothing of value. Jesus chooses to seek out the dangerous, undesirable, unwanted parts of society. And, notice this: He doesn’t just do this Himself. He brings His sheep with Him! That’s certainly a part of “Follow Me!” Do what I am doing. Live as I am living. Seek the same sorts as I seek. Lo! I send you out as sheep amongst wolves. Yes, there is warning in that thought. But, there is a point: It is precisely the wolves who need help. We always think of those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. But, I tell you there are many around us who are in truth sheep in wolf’s clothing.
So, then: Shepherd My sheep. Seems to me that this will quite often mean going out and rescuing those sheep who have thought themselves wolves. “I came to seek and save the lost.” Why? Because they are sheep. But, they have wandered far from the fold. They cannot be happy, cannot be secure, until they have been brought back. Lo! I have other sheep, not in this fold. And, I must bring them, as well. Go, My shepherds, and find them. If they are Mine, they will know My voice, even when I speak through you.
But, never, never, fall into thinking they are yours. Never, never, think that this is about you. It’s not. You work for Me, and it is to Me you shall answer for the quality of your work.
This leads me to another point which I am simply going to quote from my preparations. “When Jesus calls us to follow, or to shepherd, there can be no minimizing of the import. We either follow in full obedience or follow not at all. We either shepherd with all due diligence or we shepherd not at all.” That follower who does not follow is no follower at all. That follower who comes part way, but then goes off on his own path is still no follower at all.
Note the strength of call that comes with this command to follow. I will offer but a few of the passages wherein Jesus calls. “Follow Me, and leave the dead to bury their own” (Mt 8:22)! It’s well and good, I suppose, that we are inclined to honor our dead, to note their passing with appropriate mourning. But, here’s the thing: If honoring our family keeps us from pursuing God, we’ve got a big problem! If we would rather please them than Him, then we remain dead, do we not? That is the real sense of what Jesus commands. One who has died in his sins, who remained separated from his Creator throughout his lifespan, shall remain thus separated throughout eternity. There’s no honor in that. There’s outright rejection of all that is holy, and there is therefore rejection by Holiness Himself. He who would honor such unholiness rather than pursue Holiness has no place in the kingdom. Let the dead who yet walk deal with it. When will we realize that we all, without exception, come into this life dead? We are all zombies from birth, awaiting the spark of the Lord to give us true life. Sorry if that’s too much pop culture for so serious a topic, but it’s very near the reality of the situation. We are born dead, and only as that second birth, which can come from Christ alone, is given us do we begin to live. Until that time, we go through the motions. We have the appearance of being alive, yet we are dead. Let the dead bury their own. As for you, saints only go to sleep. They shall rise again.
Try another. “If anyone wishes to come with Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me” (Mt 16:24). Soon enough, Jesus would demonstrate that this was no mere figure of speech. And His apostles would do likewise. Peter is being told of this truth even now. But, in that passage of command, the seriousness of following is clearly on display. Nobody hearing that had any misunderstanding about what it meant to take up the cross. The cross was so vile a means of execution that even in Rome there were those who felt it too much. In a nation where the death sentence in any form is seen as too inhumane, such an execution as was represented in the cross is beyond unthinkable. And yet, in many corners of our world, it remains a tool of humiliating destruction.
Those listening heard the point. Be sure of it. Following Me may well mean death for you. It may well mean a particularly excruciating, humiliating, ignominious death. But, understand that if this lies in your future, it does so by My command, for My purposes. And (notice how John describes the prophetic message to Peter), this death will not be pointless. It will not, in truth, be humiliating or ignominious. It shall be glorious! It shall be glorious because even in death, even in such a death as this, you shall be serving to glorify God (verse 19). If this is where I command you to go, yet you must follow Me. And you shall know that I have gone there before you. I ask nothing of you that I have not done Myself.
This was and is the strength of the martyrs. In those earliest years of persecution, when crucifixion might well have been one of the more pleasant ways to go, those who followed Christ in many cases sought out opportunity to die for Him. Think about that! We read of those who, if they were not actively turning themselves in as Christians, were at the very least joyful at being found out. Peter himself, when it was his time to die, is said to have pleaded that he be crucified upside down lest he come too close to the death his Christ had died. Even at that late date, he saw himself as unworthy of so great an honor. Others would face burning at the stake, being thrown to the lions, crucifixion, and any manner of torture. And they would face it in the strength of their Lord. They would face it with a determination to follow Him, wherever He led, and to do so in a manner that would glorify Him.
This has never stopped. Those who would follow Christ have ever found themselves unpopular, rejected by the world, persecuted and prosecuted. We here in America have had probably the easiest time of it. Everywhere else the Gospel has spread, it has spread at great personal risk to the bearer of the Gospel. Yet, everywhere the Gospel has been brought, it has prevailed. It has prevailed, in large part, because those who oppose its spread have discovered their opposition is of no avail. For all the evil and hate and anger that they bring to bear, the children of God remain holy, peaceful, loving. This must at first confuse, but then attract those poor sheep who have worn wolf’s clothing for so long they’ve come to think themselves wolves.
Wherefore this confidence? Wherefore this strength to stand even in the face of death and great pain? It would be too simple, although entirely accurate, to say, “Jesus”, or even “God”. Yes, that is absolutely the case. No man is going to stand for God except it be in the very strength of God. But, we are not puppets that God stands up. We are not playthings in His hands. Neither are we mindless fools. Faith, as I have often insisted, is never blind. Faith has reason. Those initial seeds of faith may have been accepted at face value, but faith that is vibrant and alive, faith that is strong, cannot persist on vain hopes and dreams. That sort of faith which will see us through, which will abound in good works that demonstrate our thankfulness and give us cause to know our own faith real: It is built on solid evidence. We may not have seen the Lord face to face, but we have seen sufficient of Him to know His reality, His truth. We have experienced His faithfulness. We have tested His logic, and found Him never wanting. We have, to our shame, tested His trustworthiness – most often by our own untrustworthiness. We have, to great extent, tested the limits of His love and found Him loving still.
We have heard the words He has spoken, and we have not (as many suppose) simply accepted them as truth without another thought. We have seen them demonstrated as truth. I consider that which Jesus proclaimed in the courts of the temple. “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). Most of us of a certain age will have memorized Psalm 23 in our youth, and even those who have not are likely very familiar with it. “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for Thou art with me.” Even in such darkness as death represents, He who follows Christ shall not walk in darkness, for in Him we have received the light of life. Even in death, that light of life persists, for He has proven by going before us, that life does not end at the grave. Leave the dead to bury their own! As for you, it shall be but a brief nap before joining the host of heaven for all eternity! God is for me, whom shall I fear? Fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell (Mt 10:28)! He alone is worthy of honor, of praise, of service, of following.
So, then, if I am to shepherd this portion of His people with any degree of success, it must be that I shall follow Christ wherever following may lead. I must be thoroughly committed. A disciple can be no less. A disciple who is less than wholly committed is not a disciple, but merely a follower, a hanger on who will walk away when things get hard. We have seen enough of that in the Gospels. Oh! Your teachings are too difficult, Your demands are too much. We’re leaving. Only the disciples recognized that however hard the lesson, “You have the words of life! Where else could we go?”
If, then, the Word of Life has spoken, and called this poor man to be His shepherd for a season, shall I say, “No, Lord, but You clearly have the wrong man”? Shall I just nod happy agreement and give it no further thought. Sure, God. Another assignment. Yep, that’s fine, I’ll get to it when I can. I’ve taken too much of my life of faith that lightly, as though I can deal with it as and when I choose. But, I am a servant. I am at my Master’s call, else I am no servant at all. I am His to command, not to advise. If He has commanded me to shepherd His people, then shepherd them I must. If I must shepherd, it must be as He instructs. If I must shepherd, I must do so with the same strength and devotion I would exercise over my own. Indeed, I must do so with greater strength and devotion, and in Him, I have confidence that I shall.
Yet, I am mindful of myself. I know myself too well. It is easy to leave this all on Him and then go on through my days defectively unchanged. That will not do. I have accepted the responsibility of this office to which He has called me, and I must take up that responsibility. It is not a passive role, this mission of shepherding. It requires a determination to follow. It requires a determination to lead. It requires a true caring and praying for those set in my charge, however inconvenient that may feel, however time consuming. They are not my charges, after all, though set in my charge. They are His, and He has honored me with their care.
Oh, God! It is too much for me. I am so unworthy of this, so woefully unprepared. But, You knew this when You called. And, I thank You that You have, in this season, brought me across this passage. I thank You that You have been, in recent days and weeks, lighting a new fire in me. Forgive me, Father, that I am so slow to ignite, so resistant to Your flame. Yet, the seriousness of the call is before my eyes this morning. I know it may quickly fade from sight in the activities of the day, but let it not be so! Help me, my God. Help me, Holy Spirit, to do this to Your glory, by Your instruction, and in Your strength. You have promised that Your yoke is easy and Your burden light. By all means, then, set Your yoke upon me and lead me in this mission. Let nothing in my execution of these duties bring shame to You, but be glorified in all things, even in me.
Meeting the People - Peter (09/03/13)
