Lost sheep in wolves’ clothing
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:11 pm
Wolves indeed prowl at the edge of every community. I understand that better now than when I first began pastoral ministry. I do not recall any seminary courses that addressed the challenge of predators!
When our small church began to develop a “Safe Church Policy� several years ago, some members were uncomfortable with the notion of requiring police checks for volunteers and the need to spell out explicit expectations and boundaries for the practice of ministry. It seemed to run counter to the culture of trust that people wanted to believe we could have in the church. Still, with a bit of education and the sharing of a few stories to illustrate our vulnerability to attack, the church was ready to build some fences – and share the role of watchers - to keep the wolves at bay. Dr. Laniak’s motto, “Trust and verify� certainly seems wise.
At the same time, I appreciate the insight of “corinthpastorbob� that
“…the distinction between a literal sheep and wolf is easier to discern than the distinction between people they symbolize. In our world of shepherding, one person can be part sheep, part shepherd, and part wolf - or can morph from one to the other.�
Church leadership sometimes needs to set clear limits on the participation of particular individuals following wolf-like behaviour. Even as we name and guard against destructive behaviour, I believe that we need to avoid demonizing the person – recognizing that this “wolf� is also a “lost sheep� in need of rescuing. This is easier said than done! It’s far more convenient to build “wolf-proof� fences that also keep lost sheep from getting too close.
If a wolf is also a shepherd, then the problem is so much more severe. The church simply cannot allow known wolves to wield the shepherd’s staff! We may pray for their transformation into found sheep – but need to be cautious about restoring the staff to them prematurely.
When our small church began to develop a “Safe Church Policy� several years ago, some members were uncomfortable with the notion of requiring police checks for volunteers and the need to spell out explicit expectations and boundaries for the practice of ministry. It seemed to run counter to the culture of trust that people wanted to believe we could have in the church. Still, with a bit of education and the sharing of a few stories to illustrate our vulnerability to attack, the church was ready to build some fences – and share the role of watchers - to keep the wolves at bay. Dr. Laniak’s motto, “Trust and verify� certainly seems wise.
At the same time, I appreciate the insight of “corinthpastorbob� that
“…the distinction between a literal sheep and wolf is easier to discern than the distinction between people they symbolize. In our world of shepherding, one person can be part sheep, part shepherd, and part wolf - or can morph from one to the other.�
Church leadership sometimes needs to set clear limits on the participation of particular individuals following wolf-like behaviour. Even as we name and guard against destructive behaviour, I believe that we need to avoid demonizing the person – recognizing that this “wolf� is also a “lost sheep� in need of rescuing. This is easier said than done! It’s far more convenient to build “wolf-proof� fences that also keep lost sheep from getting too close.
If a wolf is also a shepherd, then the problem is so much more severe. The church simply cannot allow known wolves to wield the shepherd’s staff! We may pray for their transformation into found sheep – but need to be cautious about restoring the staff to them prematurely.