Jesus Christ the Shepherd: Is He a Good One a Bad One?

The imagery of Jesus as a shepherd has its roots in the Jewish Bible and the heritage of the Jews of the region. But its roots and how it made the Jews who would hear about Jesus feel is lost to the feelings invoked by modern Christians. That is, as opposed to an analogy the imagery simply brings comfort to modern Christians. However, to me, I only see an error.

It is the shepherd who takes care of the flock. This is perhaps what gets Christians feeling genuinely good about their Savior as he is proactive in their lives, just like the shepherd is proactive with his flock. However, it is the good shepherd who ventures forth to find his lost members. To the good shepherd, every member of the flock is important, and the good shepherd would do anything in his power to find his lost sheep.

Yet, only about a third of the world's population is Christian, and roughly half of that amount are non-religious [1]. With this information, I find it difficult to believe that Jesus is the shepherd of humanity, and if he is than I am not convinced that he is a good shepherd. Certainly, if he were the shepherd of humanity, the non-religious population counts as the most lost of the sheep, especially the atheists which comprise of that group. And it would be for this group which the shepherd may need to go to extremes to reclaim.

I can foresee, however, the Christian responses: "Jesus is not obligated to help those unwilling to find him;" "Jesus is above the demands of humans and the calls for experiential evidence from non-believers;" "Jesus has already done that which would qualify as evidence [2]." Though these could possibly be true, I can think of a counter-example which dismantles these responses. The counter-example is Paul's experience.

It is fascinating to consider this example. Paul, whom is claimed to have persecuted Christians [3], was literally knocked off of his horse by Jesus on his way to Damascus. This kind of show of power is expected for God or a messenger of his. Yet, why does he not do this often? Again, if Jesus was a good shepherd of humanity, why does he not show his great power to everyone like he does to Paul? Why does he not knock me out of my chair and speak to me, taking the shape of a ball of light, and to tell me to stop writing this blog entry?

Of course, the Christian would respond that I am demanding too much from Jesus or God. However, I do not think so. It is the duty of the shepherd to maintain his flock and to find his lost sheep. In terms of Christianity, I am a sheep who is misplaced from the flock. Unless Jesus is only the shepherd of Christians and could care less about humanity as a whole, he is obligated as a good shepherd to find me and bring me to his flock. Yet, he has not.

Now I see another response coming forth from the crowd: "But what about the Bible? It is a map to join the flock". Though this is potentially true, would this still be the mark of a good shepherd? Does the shepherd give his flock a map and hope they return to him at the end of the day? Of course not. The good shepherd is proactive, and though I hear many tales of Christ's presence in the Christian's life, I hear of none from the non-believers. Though I hear plenty of him guiding the members already present in his flock, I hear little about him venturing forth and gathering his lost members.

A map is hardly good enough for those of us who demand experiential evidence. For an entity that had the capacity of appearing before Paul and knocking him of his horse, I would assume such a feat is possible to occur again and again to different people. Sadly, this day has not come for roughly two-thirds of the population of this world. The cynic within me doubts it ever will, and it even doubts that it happened to Paul.

So I leave my readership with this thought. Anytime you hear Jesus being called a shepherd, remember that a shepherd is one who is proactive with his flock. So, is Jesus the shepherd of humanity as a whole, or only for the select few who call themselves Christians?

Notes
1. CIA World Factbook - 33.03% Christians vs. 14.39% "non-religious". I combined the 12.03% non-religious with the 2.36% atheists listed in the World Factbook. (Accessed 2/16/2007)

2. John 10:11 reads "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." Though I disagree with this interpretation, you can read "The Good Shepherd: Expositional Study of John 10:11" by Fred G. Zaspel to understand where my contrived response comes from. (Accessed 2/16/2007)

3. "Conversion of Paul" - Wikipedia Article (Accessed 2/16/2007)

Chrsitianity: A Walking Contradiction?

I wish to post something thought provoking, but unfortunately I've been too busy reading Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design authored by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross and Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement edited by John Brockman. Though I could bore readers with a lengthy rant concerning the abuse and perversion of thermodynamics by theologians and pseudo-philosophers over the past few decades, instead I will enlighten everyone with an article I stumbled upon when reading comments from another blog.

The original blog post where this is from can be found here. Essentially, Dawson Bethrick argues that Christianity is a walking contradiction. According to Bethrick, the Athanasian Creed "affirms that Jesus is 'both God and Man,' that he is 'fully God, fully man,' that is, both wholly divine and wholly human." From this, one can gather that the Athanasian Creed is arguing that Jesus is both a man and both a divinity. From this identification, that Jesus is both A and B whereas B is not-A and A is not-B, Bethrick observed the following contradictions when considering typical Christian assignments to the nature of God:

• God is uncreated, but man is not uncreated
• God is divine, but man is not divine
• God is supernatural, but man is not supernatural
• God is perfect, but man is not perfect
• God is immutable, but man is not immutable
• God is almighty, but man is not almighty
• God is sovereign, but man is not sovereign
• God is omniscient, but man is not omniscient
• God is omnipotent, but man is not omnipotent
• God is omnipresent, but man is not omnipresence
• God is omnibenevolent, but man is not omnibenevolent
• God is infallible, but man is not infallible
• God is infinite, but man is not infinite
• God is eternal, but man is not eternal
• God is immortal, but man is not immortal
• God is incorporeal, but man is not incorporeal
• God is non-physical, but man is not non-physical
• God is immaterial, but man is not immaterial
• God is incorruptible, but man is not incorruptible
• God is indestructible, but man is not indestructible

It is apparent, then, that a contradiction exists within the nature of Jesus unless one utilizes by fiat an exception to Jesus. That is, that Jesus, by exception, is both divine and human. In other words, it is only by an exception that Jesus is both A and not-A.

And so this reduces to a culminating question. What assigned such an exception, and how can we incorporate it without fiat or circular reasoning?