People often misuse the Parable of the Lost Sheep, where the Lord leaves the 99 to go after the 1, and draw analogies and connections that don’t make a lot of sense given the premises of the Parable, so I thought I’d make a set of guidelines for logically using the Parable. Note: I have wanted to do this post for a while, and it is in no way a critique or analysis of the Church’s recent 99+1 initiative. The motivation for this came from non-Church sources.
- If you self-identify as “the lost sheep” the logical corollary is that you should return and join the 99 crowd instead of making the Shepherd come after you.
- There is also the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” parable. Sometimes people have to be isolated for the good of the flock, this is part of what Church discipline is for. Jesus didn’t leave the 99 to find the one wolf in sheep’s clothing.
- On that note, the point of the parable isn’t that the one lost sheep is in fact in the right and all of the others are in the wrong. The lost sheep is, in fact, lost, and the point is not that they are going to co-opt the role of the shepherd and lead them somewhere else.
- Jesus doesn’t leave the 99 to find the lost sheep to only find out that the lost sheep was where everybody should have been, essentially replacing the function of the shepherd. Now, maybe you’re right and everybody else is wrong. Fine, but it doesn’t make sense to use the “lost sheep” parable to make that point.
Yes, the parable is often misused.
People who cite the parable are often unaware of the audience Jesus was talking to, and his reason. Those errors or oversights contribute to the misuse.
And, the lost sheep parable does not stand alone — indeed, it is not a stand-alone parable — it is merely part one of a three-part parable, and all three parts must be considered together. But that would require reading nearly an entire chapter of text, and no one has any interest in that.
Unlike the final parable in that sequence of parables we often overlook the fact that don’t blame the sheep for getting lost. It’s either just par for the course of having sheep.
I think this point is so important because it addresses the reason he launches into these parables in the first place which is to explain the ridiculous logic that sinners should be shunned because they have brought upon themselves their own condemnation.
The final parable adds one additional twist that it’s not just the son who wasted his inheritance who can become lost but even those that stayed behind.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea: isolating people is not at all what Church discipline is for. People who have had their membership withdrawn “are encouraged to attend Church meetings and activities if their conduct is orderly.” “Caring members are assigned to minister to a person whose Church membership has been restricted or withdrawn, as the person allows,” the bishop is to meet with them regularly, etc. Stephen C is right that one purpose of church discipline is to protect the Church and its members, and sometimes that requires making it clear that someone is not a member in good standing. But “isolate” is the wrong word.
It’s worth noting that the parable ends with the shepherd physically picking up the lost sheep and carrying it back to the flock. It’s hardly a hero’s journey for the sheep. Everyone rejoices because the sheep has been returned to its previous status as an ordinary member of the flock. Now, maybe it learned something from its experience. It may even be able to share that with the other sheep. It struck me in reading Mosiah this year that even though Zeniff and his people were defying prophetic counsel when they tried to return to the land of Nephi and nothing ever went right for long until they went back to the land of Zarahemla where they belonged, what they learned in the process transformed Nephite society (in particular, it lead to the creation of a Church that was independent of the monarchy and then the end of the monarchy). But the benefits only came after they fully repented and returned to the flock.
To me the sheep and the prodigal = all of us and Jesus is our savior. It represents life on this planet for everyone. We are all Job too.
I also dont equate the lost sheep as a bad sheep or one that sinned. We all seem to assume that. Being a sheep OF the flock to means a believer that somehow found themselves away from the ward and they are crying to come back so we leave the ward and help them back. Jesus picking up the sheep and hauling him back would be a misuse of agency if the sheep was not actually asking to return. A sheep/member that leaves on purpose, should not be forced back (looking at you parents) but the flock should be there if they ask for help back. Jesus will take them back. I am open to being completely wrong as to the real intent of the parables.
Tons of ways to actually look at this stuff tho.
Good point RLD, “isolate” might not be the best word; some kind of protection though.
@REC911 That’s what makes parables fun: there are almost limitless meanings one can find in them. Many of those meanings even teach true principles! But we should bear in mind the author’s intent where it can be discerned, especially when the author is Jesus. Jesus gave these parables in response to Pharisees complaining that Jesus was receiving and even eating with sinners, so identifying the lost sheep (and the lost coin and the lost son) with sinners seems pretty natural.
(That’s why “isolate” stuck out to me, though I know what Stephen C meant and agree with it. In fairness to the Pharisees, “sinners” probably meant “people who aren’t following the Law of Moses” so they were ritually unclean and spending time with them meant becoming ritually unclean as well. This is one of the many times the gospels put two of Haidt’s “moral foundations” in conflict, this time “care” vs. “purity,” and “care” wins out every time.)
You raise a good point about agency. Agency doesn’t really come in when we’re talking about sheep and coins, but the father of the prodigal son shows deep respect for his son’s agency. Some might argue that he facilitated his son’s sin by agreeing to give him his inheritance early, something the father clearly did not have to do, but Jesus is holding him up as a role model.
I think Jesus’ intention in giving the three-part parable (or, if you prefer, the three parables) was to teach the affirmative duty to minister to those who are wayward.
The sheep was innocently wayward, doing what sheep do. There was no intentionality to sin. The shepherd went and found the sheep and brought it back. This might be like a college-age youth who missed a few Sundays. No action is needed by the sheep; rather, the shepherd needs to lovingly act.
The coin didn’t lose itself, but was lost by the woman. She made things right by sweeping and organizing, and in doing so she found the coin. This might be like a person who was offended or otherwise aggrieved by a member, and the member needs to make it right by changing, apologizing, and so forth. No action is needed by the coin; rather the offender needs to reparatively act.
The prodigal son made an intentional decision to leave. The father allowed him to leave, and treated him well even as he was leaving. The father let him go, and did not restrain him. All the time the son was gone, the father did not chase after him. Then, when the son came back, the father happily and quickly received him and restored him. The son needs to amend his ways and return, and the father (and older brother) need to graciously receive.
It is simple ministry that Jesus wants — but too often, followers of Jesus make it too hard — it seems we want to impose punishments, we want to create tasks and reports, we want to categorize and label. I have heard it said that we want to administer rather than to minister.
I hope we can learn from reading text of the Gospels, and act lovingly, act reparatively, and act graciously as appropriate.
Thanks RLD and ji
I think I learned more from your comments than all my years in church meetings! :)
I’d add just one more key message from these parables: what makes the heavens rejoice is change. Here’s where REC911 is absolutely right that we’re all the lost sheep: none of us have become like Christ yet. If we’re not moving towards that goal, as slow and unsteady as our progress may be, then it doesn’t really matter how many boxes we can check off on some checklist of righteousness. In fact, checking a bunch of boxes and appearing righteous to others can be a recipe for complacency.