The Limitations of Knowing

[phargrove]

The Limitations of Knowing

In Named and Known, Laniak describes the intimacy a shepherd has for his flocks. This intimacy is built daily when the shepherd has to be involved by counting, checking, carrying, nursing back to health, rescuing, protecting, and milking. Indeed, a (wealthy) shepherd named Abu-Manir who had 2000 sheep, nevertheless was with the sheep everyday and in the summer slept outside with them also; “If I weren’t with them every day, I shouldn’t be their shepherd.�

I take both comfort and a sense of failure from this reading. The comfort comes from the fact that “God’s intimate knowledge of each individual in his flock began before we were even born…His thoughts about us are countless� (p. 105). When I frame shepherding in the context of God’s protective care for us, His sheep, I affirm with gratitude “the LORD is my Shepherd.�

It is when questions are asked that I get discouraged: “What kind of knowledge do we have of those in our flocks?� Laniak rightly notes our flocks are a mosaic of people who have feelings, aspirations, convictions, needs, names, unique callings, and histories. He asks also if we as shepherds have dug down deep know what impacts, affects, and motivates each one and does every individual get resourced in a tailored way?
The task seems impossible. I am still learning my wife’s feelings, needs, aspirations and such and we have been married for 16 years and have daily interaction and conversation. It seems to be a matter of scale and proportion. I heard recently that a Senior Pastor of a 5,000 member church saw his shepherding responsibilities with the church staff and ordained lay leadership (this still would be a group around 100).

To build this type of intimacy that Laniak speaks of by analogy to shepherd s and sheep needs to be discussed. Humanity’s depth and complexity on a small scale makes intimacy difficulty, it must be worked for. A study by Cornell University found that only 48% could name 1-2 close friends.
Having close friends and shepherding a flock under your care (physically or spiritually) are different but the principle can still be applied: there are natural limits.

As a pastor, it would be difficult for me to know intimately the way the devotional implies more than a handful of people. Does this mean I throw the towel in? No, the overall message of knowing your sheep holds true, it does not matter if the size of the flock. There will be more ability to drill deeper into the lives of fewer people if the flock is smaller, but that doesn’t mean that efforts cannot be made on a larger scale cannot be done.
Practically, there are several take-aways that can be applied here. First, remembering names. I don’t have a good way to remember people’s names and I know it is important. Second, know those things in people’s lives that are important and need prayer. Jotting down parts of conversation, knowing anniversaries of important dates that would benefit from pastoral attention is a good place to start.

I have found that as I move toward this, having a system is important. If I have to rely on my brain to keep track I am in trouble. Putting reminders on the computer and entering in as recurring reminders (setting a task to come up every year on the death date of a church member in order to contact his wife for example) has been helpful to move toward this type of shepherding that knows and also cares for the flock.

[llynch]

We all want to be known and loved- as we are, and as we hope to be! And part of being named and known is being remembered. I appreciated what the blogger of "The Limitations of Knowing" wrote on our very human limits regarding the shepherding of large numbers of people. I think the idea of concentric circles of knowing come into play- intimate friends and hopefully your spouse as the closest, then friends, then acquaintances, then larger associations, then the general public. Co-workers, neighbors, schoolmates could fit anywhere in the continuum. Paying attention to people and truly listening is almost a lost art. I know of a respected psychiatrist who answers texts, fiddles with his iPad and the like much of the time when he has a client in the room. Even if he can be effective (hmm) the person sitting there deserves his full attention.
The strategies mentioned by the blogger- posting reminders of anniversary dates in the computer, developing name recognition tools, etc go a long way toward feeling shepherded. Fundraisers have used this strategy for a long time. It is all about the relationship and being attentive and remembering (which for most people is done via computer by writing down contact information). Of course without genuine caring it is all a sham. Just as the shepherd in the beginning of Laniak's book said, you have to have the heart for the animals to be a good shepherd. How much more for people!