I’m sure this has been discussed before, but the other day I saw a headline describing a priest’s relationship with his “flock”, and wondered why anyone would derive anything positive from such a designation.
I gather that Jesus and priests are/were supposed to play a protective/guiding/shepherding role concerning their followers. But isn’t calling the congregation a flock tantamount to calling them a bunch of sheep? And I can’t think of any instance in which I heard someone called a sheep in a complimentary manner.
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
On a more serious note, I think humans have the ability to separate two (or more) different meanings for the same word in their minds. In this context, “flock” is positive, as it connotes the followers of Christ. I can talk about my “gang” of friends, without thinking that we’re members of the Crips.
I appreciate the biblical reference, but again, just because Jesus is said to have called his followers sheep, how is that not insulting?
Jesus could have called himself a guide, warrior, teacher, or any number of other things. Instead, he defined the relationship in a way that seems to most completely eliminate thinking and responsibility OBO his followers. In my mind, shepherd/flock doesn’t seem too darned far from master/slave. In fact, at least master/slave suggests that both parties are of the same species.
In the Catholic Mass, Jesus Christ himself is referred to as “Agnus Dei” – “Lamb of God” – so being called a sheep is regarded as very far from insulting!
A shepard cares for his flock. A flock is the life of the tribe and a shepard job to care for the sheep is vital. Shepards keep sheep from starving, they protect them from preditors, they nurse them when they are ill.
To be a sheep now has a different connotation, but when Jesus was compared to a shepard and his followers to a flock, being part of a flock meant you were cared for.
Do religions other than Catholicism refer to adherents as a flock? Do other non-Catholic christians?
As a non-believer, I guess I am somewhat hampered in that I consider an individual’s religion largely a personal choice among many options. And I’m not sure why someone would choose to belong to a religion that emphasizes that members are in need of protection, incapable of thinking for themselves, etc.
Such choice of language seems to make it easier for uncharitable non-religious folk to characterize belief as a crutch for the weak and ignorant.
I’m sure it is terribly insulting if you consider yourself Christ’s peer in some way. But since he is the Son of God (and indeed, the lamb of God himself - since we understand Christ to be fully human and fully divine both) the term becomes not so insulting.
What does it mean to call Jesus the Lamb of God? Another thing I’ve heard countless times but never really thought about.
I guess I always sort of thought of him as a sacrificial lamb - again, not terribly complimentary. Or else a lamb in terms of helpless to do anything other than whatever God told him to do. I find the trinity hard enough to grok, but at some point God told Jesus to go and be born of a woman - so he did. (Is there any discussion of what Jesus was doing before then? I know afterwards he was seated at the right hand…) The God tells him to die and he does.
Is there a connotation of lamb that I’m missing?
(Man, the nuns would be so mad at me - but I never made any pretense to listen during CCD!)
I certainly do not consider myself Christ’s peer. For one thing, I have a far more extensive contemporaneous paper trail!
When you say Chist is fully human and divine, is he still fully human even after having died and risen? I guess this lapsed Catholic kinda assumed the fully human thing was just a temporary gig. But if he is still fully human, then he’s gotta have a body somewhere, no?
It’s fairly common in the protestant denominations I’m familiar with.
“Sheep” and “flock” does have some of the negative connotations that you see in the words. A lot of times, I look at humanity (not just Christians, and I include myself) and think that we deserve the label.
Yes, partly it’s because an unblemished lamb would have been used as a sacrificial animal by the Jews. Christ being crucified is him being a sacrificial animal. And partly it’s because lambs are innocent, and Christ was innocent of sin.
(I find it hard to believe that as an atheist, who’s never been a Catholic, I have to explain this really obvious imagery.)
You strike me as one of the more individualistic people around, even by modern American standards, and America is a land that favors rugged individualism. It may help to keep in mind that your point of view is one that would, if my impression is correct, be considered extreme by most people throughout history.
Well, we are all weak and ignorant in some ways, about some things, by some standards. The recognition of human weakness and frailty is part of, though not unique to, Christianity.
Well, I guess this atheist generally thinks that if Jesus actually existed, much of what is attributed to him is of value as an inspirational and revolutionary teacher and leader. Heck, whether or not there was a historical Jesus, a whole lot of what I understand to be his teachings in the Bible are of unquestionable value. I just don’t understand why people seem so eager to buy all the magic that is packaged with it, but I guess my mind just doesn’t work that way.
To whatever extent I can imagine Jesus as an inspirational or admirable character, to some extent that is lessened if he is merely God’s pawn. And it is hard for me to consider a sacrificial lamb much more than a pawn. It is unable to think, decide, or act for itself.
Then you get into the whole trinity deal. How is Jesus God’s equal, if God is able to sacrifice Jesus? And of course, if Jesus always was and always will be, then was he really sacrificed? Was the crucifixion anything more than a bit of - admittedly painful - theater?
