Going back to the scattered fragments and passing references from the most ancient sources, we gain a rough outline of the primordial shepherd. Not so much as the one who owns and herds sheep, but as the head of household we see something we really need today.
It’s not about ownership, but duty to God. The divine moral imperative was raising an extended family on behalf of some higher sovereign. It’s that business of Ancient Near Eastern feudalism, where the whole of a sheikh’s wealth was the people in his clan. They remained free souls as far as the shepherd is concerned because they are God’s family first. If something drives them out of the immediate household, they could leave with blessings if they cared. Otherwise, they were asked to avoid going out of their way to provoke the chief shepherd. The protocols were radically different from what Westerners would expect. The whole point in clinging to the image of shepherd as head of household is that he leads by moral authority, exercising a very limited range of physical force. Even that little was aimed more at protecting the sheep from threats.
The constraints resulted from a focus on daily existence, not results. The shepherd was accountable first and foremost for personal commitment. If his ability was limited, he was apprenticed to someone else, but the necessity of networking with peers was always there, regardless. And while privacy was one thing, the ideal of openness was ever present. A leader was accountable on all sides, though primarily to the sovereign first. He never forgot that this was all about people and their lives in this world.
All of this blather remains idealistic and idyllic until people try to manifest it into reality. By the time it runs through the meat-grinder of Western church traditions, you can no longer recognize it. Orwell’s dystopian nightmares pale in comparison to ecclesiastical doublespeak. Having worked as professional clergyman, I know what I’m talking about.
When was the last time you saw a church open their records to their harshest critics? Even then, the written record may not reflect actual practice. The closest I’ve seen any religious organization come to total openness is when they chained an interviewer to the chair metaphorically until the representative managed to lay out their whole propaganda presentation. If I tell you there has to be a balance point between the bias of the questioner and that of the church authorities, I can assure you most of what I’ve seen in public presentations looks more like combative debate (think of the entertainment value), when it wasn’t slavish softballing of the investigation. But the moral burden is on the churches to reach out to their critics and let them make of things what they will.
Very early in the history of organized Christian religion, leaders began to envy worldly respectability. They brought into the church all their unredeemed social expectations and prejudices and failed to actually leave them at the foot of the Cross. Today we have this upside-down assumption that somehow the churches created some portion of the mainstream social expectations.
This is patently false; the church bears little resemblance to the ancient pastoral family structure that Jesus demanded His followers embrace. Can you imagine? Almost any church you ask will assert with all sincerity that their particular organizational structure and system of internal government is precisely what Jesus taught, regardless how they all differ across the spectrum. Each takes so very much from a wide range of competing secular organizational theories that none of them have a clue what Jesus taught on the matter.
It’s bad enough our actual families are so very far away from God’s revealed expectations. If there was ever a time when people needed the Lord’s family atmosphere for healing and redemption, it’s now. If you happen to find such a thing, it will likely be in spite of the official church organizational policies.
For example, the Roman Catholic policy (at least around here) of transferring priests from one parish to the next every few years. How on earth can any relationships develop between shepherd and flock? They can’t, and that is precisely *why* they do this. The priest must not be seen as a human being, but simply as a representative of Rome. If the priest stands so far above us, how can he understand our struggles?
Contrast that to Kiln of the Soul parish; we may never see you in person yet we can rest assured you’re one of us!
Thanks, Sister. Even with a virtual parish, I thank God every day for the unspeakable sense of privilege it brings to be a part of His people.
I so agree with your post, both of your comments and am very grateful to have you both in my life. My dad was the sheikh of our family, all the way to the youngest of the gradchildren as well as his extended ‘family’ of friends and our friends. Tho separated by distance, he lead us all through each of our trials, tears and smiles. We went to him for advice, a hug, whatever it was we needed, he was always there. Not the same thing as ANE, I know, but it did give me a basis for better understanding the ANE way of life.
i have been very lonely without that tight, big, extended family. It ended when he died. Now, at least, I have you to replace some of that human love and kinship that I have been so lost without!
It’s a blessing for me to serve.