Why shepherds have a challenging and difficult task today: When it comes to racial division in the church, the culprit is today’s social justice agenda, and immoral sexual identity or tolerance relates to the LGBTQ activism and agenda.  The former is not biblical justice, and the latter is not biblical morality.  Racially, we are called to be one in Christ.  Sexually, we are only physically male and female in Christ–—not emotions or immoral desires.

Shepherds, that is ministers, priests, and other church leaders, have a most challenging and difficult responsibility–—especially today.  You may ask why or even articulate a Hmm! Throughout church history, it has not been easy.  There have been challenges resulting from false teachings, heresies, apostasies, moral scandals, and persecutions.  However, it may be questioned how can it be more challenging or difficult today?  Hopefully and eventually, I hope to be capable of shedding light on the why.
First, the flock and shepherds themselves need reminding of what shepherds are tasked to do and how they genuinely fulfill their obligation to the sheep.  Wouldn’t it be helpful to go to a sheep farm to observe what they do or to even go back in time in order to understand the biblical definition and description of shepherding?  Basically, shepherds were responsible to both feed the sheep by leading them to green pastures and to protect the sheep by anticipating dangers such as predators, rocky cliffs and dense bushes in which they could become entangled.
Personally, I’ve wanted to visit a sheep ranch to learn how differently ewes and rams are treated, as a constant conflict exists throughout church history and today as to the roles of men and women in the church.  I once thought of writing a book or essay entitled “Ewes in Rams’ Land.”  I hope this brings a smile on both men’s and women’s faces!  I’ll leave you to guess in what direction that would go; and you might be surprised!
Back to the shepherds and their task(s); feeding and protecting the sheep appear to be equal in importance for the sheep.  In many churches, expository preaching–— preaching through an entire book of the Bible–—is considered the summa cum laude preaching method, so much so it can even become an idol for some.  In other churches, topical preaching is the favored choice, while yet in others short, pithy homilies are de rigeuer.
Each perhaps has its strengths and weaknesses.  Certainly, expository preaching feeds; but does it protect when specific threats arise?  Topical preaching may do a better job of protecting, but does it promote nurturing feeding?  Not as familiar with short homilies, I’m incapable of distinguishing clearly which is stressed or if neither are.
Today’s shepherds do well to recognize their sheep–—like those grazing in a meadow–—are seriously in need of lush pastures for feeding and anticipatory protection from predators, falling down rocky cliffs or becoming entangled in thick bushes.  Both are equal responsibilities for shepherds who love and care for their Master and His sheep.  In other words, feeding and protecting the sheep are fulfilled by shepherds who are genuinely committed and loyal to their Master/Owner of the sheep.
The sheep will never flourish or thrive without feeding from “the whole counsel of God.” They also will not persevere if they are not protected from false ideologies and teachings or moral scandals.  They require clear focus on what the dangers are.  Someone else has written that sheep have poor eyesight but have a keen sense of hearing; are timid and nervous–—defenseless against predators; tend to huddle together and go where one sheep goes.  In other words, they are fragile and self-defenseless.
Today, just as throughout the Church’s history, Christians and the church are speedily assaulted with one deceptive ideology after another.  It’s not the time to ignore or be silent in face of such assaults.  This may be the weakness of expository preaching, that is, it doesn’t take a rest from feeding to protect the sheep.  The sheep need to be made aware of what ideologies are false and why from diverse biblical passages.  That requires topical preaching.  It also requires sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s urging to focus on protecting the sheep.  Shepherds do well to remember there are also new lambs in the flock.  It‘s not enough for church leaders only to be aware or to be engaged in fighting infiltration of racial divisions and embracing sexually immoral identities or tolerance.  These are just two of the most aggressive false ideologies infiltrating the Church currently–—all three branches–—and particularly Evangelical and Reformed Faith churches and denominations.
I expressed hope to shed light on why shepherds have a challenging and difficult task today. When it comes to racial division in the church, the culprit is today’s social justice agenda, and immoral sexual identity or tolerance relates to the LGBTQ activism and agenda.  The former is not biblical justice, and the latter is not biblical morality.  Racially, we are called to be one in Christ.  Sexually, we are only physically male and female in Christ–—not emotions or immoral desires.
Shepherds (clerical and laity), continue to feed the sheep, but please–—really please–—protect your flock as well.  Don’t ignore or be silent to the dangers your Master’s sheep face.  They need you to do both tasks.
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder andwitness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glorythat is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you,exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, accordingto the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness . . . (1 Peter 5: 2)
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.

Is it possible that some of us, having rightly rejected the prosperity gospel, have subtly succumbed to another insidious belief? I call it the scarcity gospel—the assumption that we should expect God to do little through our churches or in our lifetime. We don’t expect to see people come to faith in surprising numbers through our churches. We don’t expect to see a surprising work of God’s Spirit sweep through our churches and strengthen the faith of congregants. We don’t expect to see the gospel advance in places and among people where the church is underrepresented. We expect little. 

I have watched the prosperity gospel grow in popularity during my lifetime. It used to be preached primarily in small Pentecostal churches scattered around the country. Now it’s the central message in some of America’s largest churches. It fills arenas and is the subject of bestselling books. It’s become so prevalent that its eccentricities are a key part of Righteous Gemstones, an HBO series.
I have traveled the world and have seen firsthand the devastating effects of the prosperity gospel in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It promises material wealth and physical health to those who trust in God. It implies—often insists—that a lack of wealth and health is tied to a lack of faith.
The greatest tragedy is that Christ is not central. His sacrificial atonement is replaced with our sacrificial giving. His glorious resurrection is replaced with aspirations of our glorious “success.” The prosperity gospel is indeed heresy.
And yet, I think some Christians reading this article might be missing a bigger danger closer to home.
The Scarcity Gospel
Is it possible that some of us, having rightly rejected the prosperity gospel, have subtly succumbed to another insidious belief? I call it the scarcity gospel—the assumption that we should expect God to do little through our churches or in our lifetime.
We don’t expect to see people come to faith in surprising numbers through our churches. We don’t expect to see a surprising work of God’s Spirit sweep through our churches and strengthen the faith of congregants. We don’t expect to see the gospel advance in places and among people where the church is underrepresented. We expect little. And that may be what we actually experience during our lifetime (James 4:2b).
We aren’t promised the church will advance or progress exponentially. Yet we should expect God to do more than we can ask or think (Eph. 3:20), while entrusting him with the final result.
Read More

Christians, who understand what God requires, obey or disobey on principles, not whims or wishes. Schaeffer observes that wherever the Reformation flourished, two essential and inseparable aspects from the Christian worldview governed citizens: (1) because God ordains governments, he establishes proper order, including officials to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7); and (2) the obligation to honor God’s ordained civil authorities does not eliminate “civil disobedience” when magistrates command what God forbids or forbid what God requires (99).

A foundational premise of Francis Schaeffer’s message in A Christian Manifesto is that Christians became fragmented in their thinking concerning the American culture, society, and government. He argues that evangelical leaders failed to equip Christians adequately to recognize and address the radical shift taking place before their watching eyes. Thus, ministers unwittingly induced Christians in the pews to separate life into sacred and secular realms. This misguided compartmentalization prompted Christians to withdraw from the world around them and cede the public square to the burgeoning shift from the worldview governed by nature’s God to a worldview ruled by “material-energy, chance orientation generation” (89). Tragically this withdrawal from society intensified the worldly sacred-secular division.
So, as the general society increasingly adopted a totalizing world and life view contrary to Christianity, all the while raiding aspects from it, evangelicals also shifted away from upholding and representing Christianity as the comprehensive view for all of life. Generally, following the lead of their ministers and teachers, Christians came to think and speak in terms of “bits and pieces” instead of holistically. They’ve lamented abortion, family breakdown, or the erosion of public school education, but they have failed to see that all of these symptoms are in fact part of one larger problem: an anti-Christian worldview rooted in humanism.
At the founding of the American nation, the Christian worldview was integral to the drafting of the Constitution and the shaping of the stated principles and actions even of individuals who were not Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The gradual erosion of this worldview brought incremental changes throughout the nineteenth century. Schaeffer argues that during the first eighty years of the twentieth century a more rapid departure from that worldview subjected every institution to substantial alteration—whether family, school, church, or government.
Pietism’s “platonic spirituality” regards the “material” world as separate from and less important than the “spiritual” realm. Thus, Pietism’s “bits and pieces” view of the world could not withstand the ascendancy of Naturalism’s comprehensive worldview. Scientism, one of Naturalism’s spawns, sought to supplant the infinite Creator (whose providence is the basis of all reality) with a finite and supposedly self-sustaining creation. Naturalism is a view of the whole creation consisting of only material or energy that has always existed and has self-assembled into its present complex form by the random, unintelligent, and impersonal movement of evolution through billions of years.
Published just a few years after the nation’s bicentennial in 1976, A Christian Manifesto (1981) made the case that our nation’s prevailing worldview “violently opposed . . . what the Founding Fathers of this country and those in the thirteen individual states had in mind when they came together and formed the union” (89). He rightly argues that when the nation’s Founders declared independence from Britain and drafted the Constitution, they were guided by a basically Christian and biblical understanding of the relationship between the individual and the state. While many hastily assume America’s founding was birthed in rebellion, a more diligent inquiry reveals a conservative impulse that upheld the rule of law.[1]
Importantly, the worldview that gave birth to this nation, among both Theists and Deists, upheld the belief that creation’s God endowed humans with rights to be protected by the civil government as a “delegated authority” to which citizens are obligated to submit out of reverence for God (Romans 13:1–7). 
Read More

Related Posts: