The Qualities of a Shepherd

A Sermon preached at St Martin-in-the-Fields on April 30, 2023 by Revd Dr Sam Wells

Reading for address: John 10: 1-10

The Queen’s funeral last September portrayed the nature of the British constitution in vivid and colourful terms. Here we had the monarchy, flanked by Parliament, upheld by the military, blessed by the church. The unspoken question lurking below the ceremonies marking the Queen’s death was this: were these ceremonies, as elaborate as they were extended, marking the passing not just of the Queen, but of that whole configuration of the British state? Amid all that shouting and marching and processing and protocol and the Lord Chamberlain’s memorable breaking of the wand, were we beholding the true mystery and glory of the monarchy, or the end of its power and pretension?

Next weekend we’ll begin to uncover an answer to that question, when we witness the kind of king Charles III seeks to be, and what balance of continuity and change he believes he’s called to embody. I want today to reflect on the nature of monarchy in the light of account of the good shepherd in John’s gospel, and to identify what kind of king might be called for in the nation, Commonwealth and wider world today.

John chapter 10 offers three characterisations of those interacting with sheep. We have the thief, the hired hand, and the good shepherd. It’s worth pausing to look at the portrayal of the thief and the hired hand, because these become the backdrop to what becomes the depiction of the good shepherd.

John talks elsewhere about the thief. Jesus denounces the Temple as a den of thieves when he drives out the moneychangers at the start of the story. John describes Judas as a thief, who used to help himself from the common purse. He describes Barabbas as a bandit, and sets up the choice of the crowd between the criminal Barabbas and the good shepherd, Jesus. It’s clear that throughout the gospel, not just here in chapter 10, John is distinguishing between leaders who lay down their lives for the sheep, and those who come to steal or kill or destroy. But John also has some harsh words for the hired hand. The hired hand is useless when it comes to the shepherd’s first duty, which is to protect the sheep from the wolf. The hired hand is neither the owner of the sheep nor their shepherd, and simply runs away, leaving the sheep at the wolf’s mercy. It’s not hard to see the thief as a portrayal of the Jerusalem leadership of Jesus’ time and the hired hand as a depiction of the Roman occupying army. These were the two versions of leadership on offer, and Jesus has little time for either of them.

So what qualities does a good shepherd possess? There are three. The good shepherd enters by the gate; the good shepherd knows and cares for the sheep; and the life of the good shepherd is laid down for the sheep. Meanwhile the shepherd’s purpose is to bring the sheep abundant life. Let’s examine these qualities and purpose in a bit more detail.

We can interpret ‘enters by the gate’ as ‘attains authority by legitimate means.’ This is not an insurgency. The gatekeeper recognises the shepherd. The shepherd has done what it takes to be fit for the role. The shepherd is not a thief, whose motives are purely selfish, or a hired hand, who will flee at the first sign of trouble. The shepherd is the real deal.

Then there’s knowing the sheep. The shepherd calls the sheep by name, and has a voice the sheep recognise. Can you imagine knowing the names of every single one of your sheep? Yes, if that was the best way to demonstrate your care for them and affirm your relationship with them and gain respect from them. Can you imagine, when your sheep mingled with other sheep, being able to summon just your sheep and lead them away from the other sheep just by their knowing and responding to the sound of your voice? This is a profound bond of trust and understanding. There’s no question in the sheep’s mind the shepherd wants the best for them.

The third quality shows the shepherd is at least as invested in the wellbeing of the sheep as the sheep themselves are. The shepherd’s life is laid down for the sheep. Nothing is more important to the shepherd than the abundant life of the sheep – not even the shepherd’s own life. There’s no joy for the shepherd that doesn’t involve abundant life for the sheep: the shepherd won’t give up on the sheep and revert to something more important or rewarding. There is no such thing.

And what is the shepherd’s purpose? ‘I came that they may have life,’ says Jesus, ‘and have it abundantly.’ The shepherd has no ulterior motive for keeping the sheep. We know sheep were kept for the warmth of wool, the drink of milk and the food of lamb’s meat. But there’s no reference to any of that here. Here we get the heart of what God wants for us: abundant life. There are no conditions here, no bargain: simply the offer of life in all its fulness.

In just 15 verses John’s gospel gives us Jesus’ description of what he wants for us and his formula for leadership. The goal of leadership is that your people find abundant life. The leader to take them there is one who attains authority by appropriate and recognised means, who profoundly knows and is known by the community, and who has no goal in mind other than its flourishing.

I think we can confidently say this goal and this formula and raise all the issues for us to reflect upon as we consider the coronation of King Charles III. Let’s start with legitimate authority. Here it’s good to remind ourselves we’re not talking today about a king who is an autocrat, still less a despot or a tyrant. We’re talking about a constitutional monarchy, sometimes called a crowned republic, in which the role of the monarch is a little like that of the flag in the United States – something to honour and salute as a way of revering the nation; but different from the flag in that it can talk and walk and relate, and, to use the traditional language, be consulted, encourage and warn. Those who say, ‘Who elected him?’ are assuming the alternative to a hereditary monarchy is an elected president. Whereupon we look round the world and debate whether the current crop of elected presidents is much of an improvement on our monarchy; but I see the alternative to a hereditary monarchy as something like a flag or a pledge of allegiance or a written constitution: and the advantage of a person is that with a person you can have a real relationship.

That brings us to the second part of the formula, knowing and being known. The king doesn’t have to know everybody, but everyone needs to know him – and trust that he sees and hears and knows the sorrows and hopes, appreciates and enjoys their culture and traditions, perceives and understands their predicaments and challenges. The Queen’s broadcast in April 2020 when she finished by saying ‘We’ll meet again’ was perhaps the greatest moment of her reign, because she encapsulated the plight of her people in the face of the pandemic and demonstrated that she understood it and shared it. This is where the challenges of our king’s family life are not an inhibitor to his performing the role but an actual asset, because by now everyone’s aware that there’s little about marriage and family life and its ups and downs that Charles doesn’t understand. He’s been passionate about ecology and architecture, and has faithfully built the Prince’s Trust into a leading vehicle of opportunity, so he has plenty of experience in civil society and what makes our culture tick.

As to the third aspect of the formula, the one thing no one in this country or the Commonwealth can have any doubt about is that the legacy of the late Queen is to have had no goal in mind other than the people’s flourishing. The British monarch is a symbol of this country’s commitment to the flourishing of all its people, bar none, and of all people everywhere. The most demanding aspect of being king is not the scrutiny or constant public attention but the setting aside of any purpose other than that of the people’s flourishing.

The British monarchy has a particular way of understanding what that flourishing means. The monarch is Defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England. This is not about according privilege to the C of E or pretending the whole nation is Anglican. It’s a statement that this nation understands flourishing holistically, as about body, mind and spirit, never subsiding into a notion of well-being as simply material, but always as about forever not just today. And it’s a commitment the C of E shares with the monarch: a responsibility to every resident of this country, not just those who see themselves as Anglicans.

The King has declared that his coronation should be a time for honouring volunteers. I hope it’s also a time for reflecting on leadership, as legitimate, relational, and sacrificial, and as oriented to the flourishing of one’s people. This is an important way we embody the teaching and example of Christ.

But there’s one dimension in which Jesus is different from almost every human leader. Jesus went beyond being a shepherd and became a lamb – the most vulnerable of the flock. When he says, ‘The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep,’ he’s talking about himself. It’s not just that as creator and sustainer of the universe he has the most legitimate authority of all. It’s not just that he knows us better than we know ourselves. It’s not just that the abundant life he wishes and prepares for us is the everlasting life for which we were originally created. It’s that he cares so much for us that even the prospect of agonising death doesn’t prevent him continuing to lead and guide and accompany us. That’s the difference between the leader we follow and the God we worship.

May the coronation of King Charles focus our attention on the qualities needed to shepherd the nation and Commonwealth; may it empower each one of us in the way we shepherd those in our care; and may it renew our wonder at the good shepherd who himself became a lamb, and whose goodness and mercy follow us all our days, that we might share green pastures and dwell in God’s house forever.