I suppose that depends on what you are to begin with. If you’re a cow or a buffalo, then does it make sense to be a sheep? But, if you’re a sheep, then does it make sense to be anything but a sheep? A sheep that’s eager to be a wolf without a master can never really be free, can it?

We read this passage from Mark that mentions sheep and shepherds and we can’t help but hear in the background the rich images from John’s gospel and the stories we’ve absorbed since childhood picture books of Good Shepherds etc. Indeed the other readings for the day set up that context for hearing this piece from Mark. It’s no wonder that we try to interpret this fragment of Mark in terms of what it is to be a sheep or not be a sheep or what a good shepherd might be like. I think what I wanted the homily to do was undermine that interpretation a little so that maybe something else could come through. Mark sets up Jesus’ response to the crowd in which he teaches them as being because they were like sheep without a shepherd. But Jesus doesn’t say he was putting himself in the place of Good Shepherd nor that he was teaching the crowd to be better sheep. So rather than jumping to conclusions … what if there are other non-sheepy readings of this story — what might they be like? And why would I be so eager to be a sheep anyway? What is the attraction of having a shepherd — even a good one — and is that attraction wholly good?

I remember hearing a sermon once that said that the thing about the Christian life is that you’re always supposed to keep your “L plates” up. I thought that was quite humbling and encouraging.

But I do agree Jesus wants us to take responsibility for ourselves and the decisions we make. Would “responsible sheep” be too much of a mixed metaphor?

The latter makes Jesus less of an enabler and seems more about freedom.

I wonder whether God doesn\’t choose to be the lamb with the broken leg so we have to carry him around our necks and make the bond and learn not to stray.