Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but having just listened to Mark D’s lecture about the 18 ways Australian evangelism is lacking, the following point of her write-up stood out:

12. Churches need prophets, priests and kings, according to 1 Peter 5. Prophets do preaching and teaching, priests look after people (for example, hospital visits), and kings are concerned with systems, policies, procedures, real estate and the like. Most churches in Sydney are filled with prophets and there’s a deficit of priests and kings. There is a limit to how many people a prophet can care for, and kings are discouraged by systems that are already built.

When I read that first, it made sense.  Trouble is, what Mark actually said was that most churches are filled with PRIESTS and lacked PROPHETS and kings!  Also, that there’s a limit to how many people a PRIEST (i.e. pastoral type) can care for, cf. the much larger number of people a prophet (i.e. preaching type) can reach without exhausting himself in such depth of personal involvement.

Is he right?

My notes are here.

I don’t have any real comment on the substance of what he said, but the loose-as-a-goose use of biblical categories didn’t inspire confidence at this point.

You can listen to the 18 point here

Greetings Dan,

Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency in our report. At the time of our reporting no recording was available to check all of the details. Frankly, I think Natasha did a marvelous job coming up with the summary she did given the volume of material presented on the day. All praise to her shorthand!

However, now we do have the recording of the presentation itself available - see Robert’s post above for the link - and we will make the ‘priest / prophet’ substitution shortly.

Cheerio,

Mark

There seem to be a proliferation of summaries about! Ben Pfahlert has a summary of my summary on the Sola Panel blog, along with some comments, and it is sparking a bit of discussion too.

Good to see Gordo wrote it up correctly, and that Natasha’s will be brought in line (or has already been).

Still, it makes me wonder:  Natasha’s original version actually sounds more like what I would have expected given my concepts of Sydney from afar.  Where you have a strong evangelical tradition you’d suppose great emphasis would indeed be placed on preaching/teaching - not that close-up pastoring would be exactly neglected either.  Particularly given the vigorous expansion of Moore College in recent years, can it (still) honestly be said that Sydney has a shortage of prophet types?  If so, how come?  And if not, how did Mark draw this impression?

Just curious.

Where does the Prophets/Priests/Kings stuff come from? I can’t find it in 1 Pet 5 :(

Jesus as our prophet, priest and king is said to come from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2

But if you think it through, you will see that Jesus is clearly the prophet of all prophets, the priest of all priests and the King of kings

Hebrews tells us he is our great high priest

Revelation tells us he is the king of Kings
Prophet?
Luke 7:16 Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!”
John 7:37-40 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.  38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” ... 40 ¶ When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.”

Where does the Prophets/Priests/Kings stuff come from? I can’t find it in 1 Pet 5 :(

Leigh, Mark argued on the basis that we are under-Shepherds of Christ (which is in 1 Peter 5). So if Christ is Prophet, Priest and King (as David points out, a standard Reformed way of understanding Christ’s ministry on earth)

I’m supplying the missing step here; Mark didn’t articulate it on this occasion

then it follows that if we are under-Shepherds, and our style of leadership fits into one of Christ’s three styles of leadership.

I hope I’m not caricaturing there. What Mark has done in moving from the fact of Christ’s leadership to the fact of our leadership seems legitimate to me. But to present the categories of ‘Prophet, priest and king’ as leadership styles is, I think, dodgy as.

‘Prophet, priest and king’ as leadership styles is… dodgy as

Now Gordo, come on, surely there’s also the ‘sacrificial lamb’ style of leadership, and the ‘temple’ style of leadership, along with the unforgettable ‘bread from heaven’ style of leadership. What other OT themes fulfilled in Christ can I choose? Hmmm, so many ‘styles of leadership’ to go on…

Gordon Cheng - 09 September 2008 08:18 AM

Where does the Prophets/Priests/Kings stuff come from? I can’t find it in 1 Pet 5 :(

Leigh, Mark argued on the basis that we are under-Shepherds of Christ (which is in 1 Peter 5). So if Christ is Prophet, Priest and King (as David points out, a standard Reformed way of understanding Christ’s ministry on earth)

I’m supplying the missing step here; Mark didn’t articulate it on this occasion

then it follows that if we are under-Shepherds, and our style of leadership fits into one of Christ’s three styles of leadership.

I hope I’m not caricaturing there. What Mark has done in moving from the fact of Christ’s leadership to the fact of our leadership seems legitimate to me. But to present the categories of ‘Prophet, priest and king’ as leadership styles is, I think, dodgy as.

Hi Gordon,

I think your description of Mark D’s argument here as dodgy as is kind.

To use a technical term [ 8-) ] Mark D’s argument here is drivel.

Describing Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King is about infinitely more than American psycho-social babble about leadership styles.

It would be equally invalid to say that because Christ is Redeemer, we are also Redeemers as leaders. Gaaa!!
Talk about confusion of categories and invalid application of metaphor!

Perhaps next time Don Carson and Mark Driscoll are together, Don could take Mark through his very useful book Exegetical Fallacies.

Grace & peace,
Terry

Now Terry, someone who’s obviously studied stand-up routines can’t possibly make those kind of errors. He made us all laugh, so he’s a goodie OK?