I have no official congregation, no ecclesiastical ordination, no pulpit, robes, or baptistry. No building or building plans. I don’t perform weddings or funerals, don’t visit strangers in the hospital, or wrestle in the political in-fighting of a denomination. The word “divinity” is not associated with my name. No one calls me “pastor” or even “brother Mike.”

In spite of all these absences in my life, I still regard myself as a shepherd. I think like a shepherd, talk like a shepherd, act like a shepherd. I am, if nothing else, a shepherd. Perhaps not always a good shepherd, but a shepherd just the same.

Here’s what precipitated this thinking and post.

A few days ago I came across the writings of an official, ordained, pulpit-owning, robe-wearing, baptizing minister of the gospel who said some things with which I strongly disagreed. I disagreed only a little bit for doctrinal reasons but a whole lot because of what I believed to be an unloving attitude toward people whom I consider to be my sheep – those who theologically think like I do.

The writings of this minister said, in no uncertain terms, that people like me couldn’t lay claim to certain appellations reserved for him and his flock. Now, I could really care less whether or not such titles could be apprehended by me and my kind; I do care, though, that somehow people in my flock were being relegated to the fringes of spirituality and doctrinal wholesomeness. Like Jephthah in the Book of Judges, we were proclaimed to be the bastard children of the community and didn’t really have a legitimate claim to the family name.

I responded with an intentionally sardonic post of my own that was decidedly focused on the character of the person dismissing us from the inner circle of true believers. Not only was the person hypocritical – he could disagree at some points and still belong, but we couldn’t – but he was employing a doctrinal shibboleth to create divisions in the body of Christ. I did not – and still don’t – understand what was to be gained by alienating those that didn’t think like him.

Doctrinal distinctions are inevitable in this lifetime, of course, and I have no problem with them. People of similar theological perspectives tend to congregate, worship, and serve together. That’s fine. But there’s really no need to puff ourselves up at the expense of others and parade around because we are the “real followers” of a particular doctrinal system.

The minister got wind of my post, read it, and wrote me to say that he was deeply offended and wanted me to remove my post. He did not apologize for what he said but did say he was sorry that it had upset me. I took it down and then discovered that he, too, had removed his post.

He then decided to take his entire blog down because of what had happened.

A part of me thinks that the “right” and “Christian” thing to do would be to feel guilty and take my blog down, too. I considered it for an evening before deciding otherwise the next morning. I am still unconvinced that I did anything wrong, but I am certainly open to rebuke if it can be demonstrated to me that I have, in fact, sinned.

I try not to attack peoplewithout provocation. There was a time when I would but I outgrew that decades ago. A shepherd does not go looking for the wolf.

The shepherd does, however, defend the flock when he believes it is being attacked. That means that I will respond to the threat with whatever force I deem necessary to remove the danger and restore a sense of safety and comfort to the flock. If and when the wolf retreats, I don’t track it down and inflict more injury. My hope is that the wolf will think better of coming around again.

Somehow, though, I’m the bad guy in this story. Because I reacted to an unloving post with a strong, defensive post of my own, I’m in the wrong. I’ve stepped over some invisible line or norm of Christian civility and niceness by striking back to defend those that needed to be defended. Particularly egregious, it seems, is that I attacked the man’s character. But since I believed it was his character and not his doctrine that was the problem, what should have I attacked? I found his originally post to be unloving, self-serving, self-gratifying, unnecessary, and unwarranted – a turf war, essentially. I regarded my reaction to be both necessary and warranted.

Part of me grows weary of having to respect the rights of perpetrators, of having to tread lightly because the bully on the block might be upset if I stand up and fight back. This is a pretty wimpy Christianity that I don’t tolerate very well: if someone is going to start a fight, they shouldn’t start whining and crying foul if the person attacked gives back better than he got.

If I’m wrong or over the line, I want to know. People that don’t want to know when they’ve crossed a line need to stay away from my lines. I don’t care so much if I’m attacked personally – which is not to say that it doesn’t hurt – but I simply cannot stand by while someone does harm to a flock for which I feel responsible.

If I’m wrong, I want to know biblically where I’m off. Until I discover or am taught that, I’m going to keep defending. Without apology.


2 Cor 1:13