The overriding theme of today’s readings is that of the shepherd. The word “shepherd” here means “king.” Jeremiah contrasts false shepherds, i.e., bad kings, who had destroyed and scattered the sheep, i.e., Israel, with a new sheperd, an ideal king, that God is about to raise up, a good and just king, an heir of King David, and who, as a righteous branch, will deal wisely and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. God will gather up a remnant out of his flock that had been in exile, and bring them back into the fold, and they will be fruitful and multiply and become a great nation ruled over by wise and just kings.

Israel and Judah had suffered through a long and terrible history of disunity and disintigration, of conquest by foreign powers, and humiliating defeat at the hands of imperial tyrants. The people had scattered into various lands, some taken forcibly into exile, others having fled as refugees, still others having been forcibly removed from their villages and towns. The blame for all this was attributed to unwise and unfaithful kings, who had abandoned their trust in the Lord, promoted a kind of pluralism that permitted the worship of alien gods, abused and mistreated the poor, and had entered into disastrous foreign alliances.

Israel longed for a wise and righteous king who would unite and save the people. Some longed for a Messiah-king, who as the perfect monarch and as the Lord’s hand-picked representative would fulfill the prophet’s hopes. Many came to believe that the perfect king could be none other the Lord himself, a belief we see reflected in Psalm 23: “The Lord is my shepherd.” Jesus claimed just that authority when he proclaimed that he, in his own person, was ushering in the kingdom of God. It was a message that got him into serious trouble. He claimed divine authority when he healed on the Sabbath, forgave sins, vied with the temple as the place where God dwelt, and flat-out claimed be king of the Jews, the charge that brought about his arrest, torture and execution. In today’s gospel reading, for example, Jesus shows compassion for the people, “because they were like sheep without a shepherd.”

This is hard for us to imagine today, because our experience of authority is so different. We can understand the claim that God is King, but as an historical artifact, a kind of relic even though kings still exist today. The image of the king in the Bible, therefore, does not really speak to us. It does not touch us where we live. How can it in a world dominated by globalilsm, muti-national defense organizations (such as NATO, for example) and by multi-national corporations and financial houses, all of which control and affect our lives? Also, despite our diversity, which we are reminded of constantly, it’s hard to feel scattered. Technology keeps us connected with all parts of the globe, permitting political and economic tentacles to reach into the far corners of the earth. Because of all these globalizing factors, despite our diversity, we are united in ways we hardly realize, and yet it is hard to tell who is in charge. Anyone who has ever dialed a help-line will sooner or later ask himself/herself: Just who is in charge anway?

So to ask who is in charge is probably the wrong question. We should ask: what is it that actually shapes and directs our lives? The great powers and authorities seem to be large impersonal forces of nature or business or power-politics. How can you put a face on the market, for example? Yes there are premiers, prime ministers, presidents and CEO’s, but are they authories or agents? No one appears to be in charge, of anything, and thus there is no one who bears responsibility for how things go.

But we who read the Bible and put our faith in the God of Israel, a personal presence who created the world and all that exits, who chose Israel to be his own for all eternity, and who raised Jesus from the dead—we of all people should ask: “Is what we all assume about the impersonal power of these great forces--of technology or global politics or the market--really true? Are we really talking about things, forces, or are we talking about people, and thus about personal responsibility?

There has been much talk recently about the latest papal encyclical on economics, Caritas in veritate (charity in truth). I recommend it and suggest that, for whatever I might say and despite whatever you might read or hear about it, that you read the text for youself. I mention it because it addresses some of the issues before us today.

Among the chief concerns of the encyclical, as I read it, is that human freedom and activity, including economic activity, come not just with rights, but with ethical and moral responsibilities. Here’s a sample quotation from the encyclical: “Many people today would claim they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people’s integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become license.” [43]

Duties sometimes can be neglected, because no one takes responsibility for one’s actions, which are considered merely part of some grand impersonal, self-sustaining, self-correcting system. The enclyclical notes that the economy is not autonomous; it is not sheilded from influences of a moral character [34]. The market “does not exist in the pure state.” It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction.

We sometimes view the economy as an impersonal force that works on its own internal logic and according to its own laws and structures. Yet, the encyclical reminds us that the economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that prodocues these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called into account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”[36]

If we are talking about persons and not about things, about a God who participates in our humanity, and about the moral consequences of our actions, then the economy, like everything else in creation, cannot be considered apart from the question of God. Then the question of the economy is like our concern about ecology, for example. “Nature,” the encyclical says, “expresses a design of love and truth.” It speaks to us of the Creator and of his love for humanity. Nature must be considered as a gift of the Creator, a gift that has to be used wisely and responsibly if all are to live and thrive.

Ultimately, the document says, “truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and Love.”[52]

We are not governed, and our economy does not run autonomously by forces and structures and by grand impersonal instruments that are immune to moral critique or ethical responsibility. The instruments of politics, of economy and finance, are neither good nor bad in themselves. They are, however, presided over by human beings who cannot evade responsibility for their actions. They are like Israel’s kings, whom the prophets, at considerable risk to their lives, called to task.

Ultimately, however, they are responsible to and serve the interests of the One who presides and rules over all, the Lord and King of the Universe, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose aim, guaranteed by the power of the Holy Spirit, is Love and Truth, whose sovereignty, though universal, is intensely personal, whose power is displayed in his compassion, and whose authority is at once death-defying and life-producing. “The Lord [indeed] is my shepherd; I shall not be in want.”

-Amen-