I just read A Book You’ll Actually Read On Church Leadership by Mark Driscoll. Here are six things I loved about it:
- It was very Christ-centred, starting with chapter 1—“Pastor Jesus”.
- It was biblical: Driscoll footnotes Bible references all the way through, enabling the reader to test his thoughts against God’s word.
- It was courageous: he talks at length about ‘the elephant in the room’—the issue of the roles of men and women in ministry. He constantly discussed ministry with connection to the Bible’s teaching on the Trinity and the family, which is crucial to understanding the equal but different teaching of God.
- It was funny: “You will not read a bunch of cute stories about bunny rabbits giving their lives to Jesus and such because I do not want to waste any of my words or any of your time” (p. 10).
- It was practical—the insights regarding ministries needing to “act your size”. The “Sample Church Membership Covenant” at the back of the book is superb.
- It was liberating: the prophets, priests, king leadership gifting paradigm is very helpful. Most Christian leaders feel the need to be good at everything—that is, fantastic preachers, teachers, visionaries (prophets in Driscoll’s schema); great interpersonal communicators who resolve conflicts, understand human suffering and love chatting into the wee small hours (priests); and are great planners, mission executors, team-builders (kings). Driscoll says, “As leaders, who are flawed and not Jesus Christ, we are an imperfect combination of these three roles and tend to be the strongest in one or two of the three. Rarely does someone have a high capacity in every area.” That’s liberating.
It is a very good book. I commend it to you.
thanks for the review.
i really like his material on #1. it’s a shame that it’s so easy to forget ‘Pastor Jesus’ when talking about church and leadership structure.
2 cor 4:5
Thanks Ben.
RE #6…
I think your reflection on the PPK paradigm is the best way to respond to that metaphor. Let’s see it as another way of affirming the liberation which comes with the knowledge of how God has gifted the church.
However…
I really find the PPK thing ultimately unhelpful, and have been disappointed in the way I’ve seen it used over the last year. In particular the way people love to pigeon-hole others into the ‘Priest’ category, and then use that label to imply that the ‘Priest’ doesn’t really understand certain issues, and will forever be a bleeding heart who needs to be kept to their place lest they stunt the church’s growth. “The problem is, you see, I’m a Prophet/King, and you’re a Priest”.
It becomes really disturbing when the self-proclaimed ‘Prophet/King’ then shrugs their shoulders at the ‘priestly’ needs of their ministries, or even shrugs their shoulders at the beggar sitting at their own gate. The ‘priestly’ tasks actually form a large part of our core business as the Christian Church, so at the very least I would expect ‘Prophet/Kings’ to have a plan as to how the priestly duties are to be rolled out in their own patch. Leaving it just to the ‘Priests’ is a bit self-defeating; if they are indeed ‘Priests’ then their abilities to serve efficiently and strategically wouldn’t be that great. It takes a ‘Prophet/King’ to motivate and plan for it to be done properly.
‘Prophetic’ rant over.
How interesting…an aspect of a book that one likes pertaining to church leadership is that it is funny?
Interesting…
#5… is a church membership covenant helpful? The problem is that a non-Christian can fullfil all the outward, tick-the-box applications of discipleship and not have submitted his heart to Christ. At the same time, there could be genuine Christians unable to meet all the criteria for membership, due to uncontrollable circumstances (such as unable to give to the church financially because their unsaved (or saved!) husband gambles away all their money).
I am having trouble seeing how Driscoll’s understanding of prophet, priest and king is consistent with scripture in relation to leadership of a church.
There were no Biblical references for this critical section of the book.
Di
I haven’t read the book – so I’m not sure why I feel qualified to comment
But I share Diane and Martins concerns about the PPK analogy.
It is obviously true (and often forgotten) that we ought to model our leadership on that of Pastor Jesus. But we must strive to follow this model only in the ways the Scriptures suggest.
In other words, the control on the way we apply the command to be Christ-like leaders should be the Scriptures themselves.
For example the call to be Christ-like obviously doesn’t include the call to bear God’s wrath against the sins of our congregations! No one would dispute that, but does it include being PPK for the congregation in some sense?
Do the Scriptures teach that we ought to follow a Prophet, Priest, King model and that we may be more or less sufficient in one of those areas? I am not convinced, and it sounds like Driscoll’s book lacks a clear case to persuade me.
That said, if this scheme helps us model those aspects of Christ-likeness which the Scriptures do call for – then it may be an incredibly useful, tho inevitably flawed model – as Ben writes.
Mark Howard
On first reading your name (the same as my dear husband’s) I just knew it couldn’t be him!! His claim to fame is that he has never blogged, although I am working on him!!
So Mark Howard is not necessarily Mark Howard of Dianne Howard!!!
Please don’t tell me you are married to a Dianne!
Cheers Di
Marty, I don’t know much about the PPK idea, but isn’t your point the same problem that happens more broadly with the issue of spiritual gifts? Too often, the implication is that gifting is a qualifcation for some work or exemption from others, or that people need to stop and identify a particular gift before being able to do anything, rather than looking for what can be done and utilising and appreciating the fact that we don’t all do exactly the same thing.
Dianne,
Just got married to a Cherilyn so you don’t worry – no parallel universe to worry about.
Jonathan, I agree. I think in both cases the problem arises from taking a scriptural idea and running with it either further, or in another direction to the authors of Scripture.
Thanks for the review. I’ll read that one.
Concerning PPK, the biblical pattern is God tests a man – a single individual – firstly as priest, then as king, and finally as a prophet, who is included in God’s decision-making council and who is now mature enough to alter the course of history with his words. Adam failed as a priest. Abraham succeeded on all counts (overall). We see the same elements in the history of David, also.
Of course, individuals have their respective strengths, but all three roles are part of growth to spiritual maturity which includes judicial responsibility. In our old age, we should be full of wise words under a glorious crown of white hair, like Jesus.
Mike,
Thanks for that fuller explanation. But I’m afraid I am not convinced that this pattern IS God’s pattern, and I am fairly sure the process you describe isn’t outlined anywhere in the Scriptures as such.
While the idea is an interesting one I don’t see the Apostles using this paradigm to instruct us. Surely if this were God’s pattern we might expect the Pastoral in particular to appeal to it.
The other danger with it is that (for me at least) it seems to run the danger of taking away from the Lord Jesus and his role as Prophet, priest and King.
Surely the point about Adam, Abraham, David etc isn’t so much about God setting a precedent for the appointing of Church leadership but him preparing the way for the coming of Jesus. PPK are categories God established in history to reveal his Son to us. They were ‘shoes’ God made through history for Jesus to fill- not primarily (and I’m not even sure secondarily) a pattern for appointing leaders.
Mark
Thanks for your reply. The pattern boils down to 1) obedience (priestly duties); 2) authority (kingly decisions) and 3) inclusion in God’s council to determine judgment.
I take your point about these being shoes for Christ to fill. It is a good point. But this process of growth began with Adam, and is thus for all men as God restores us to the image of the Perfect Adam.
I really believe we need a greater emphasis on the Old Testament, and little or no division between the Testaments. This pattern is found in Paul, but subtly. Paul himself began as broken bread (obedience) and finished his life as poured out wine (wisdom).
Another prerequisite for eldership in Scripture is grey hair. That sorts out the elders from the novices. By this stage of life, a man has been through at least one ‘death and resurrection’ experience, and is broken bread. Too many leaders today are not broken men.
Mike,
Again, thanks for the clarification. I agree that we need to be more literate with the Hebrew Scriptures. But, I don’t agree with the way you are using them.
I feel like you are imposing a pattern on the Scriptures rather than reading a pattern out of them. I don’t think the authors of the OT wanted us to draw the kind of leadership principles you are describing out of the things they wrote.
I would be happily convinced if you were to include some references that explicitly outline this pattern.
I am also unsure that the Apostles make grey hair and ‘brokenness’ a qualification for Eldership. Nor do I see any evidence that God made the wisdom that comes from age a qualification for leadership in his dealings with national Israel.
Hi Mark
I understand where you are coming from. Part of the problem is our process of proof-texting rather than looking for typological patterns.
I wrote a book about this process, and it is certainly there. Briefly, how many leaders of God’s people did God first send on a personal exodus into some kind of wilderness (or persecution) before they were ready to govern? There is a pattern of head first, then body, which certainly points to Christ (and you even find it in Leviticus 1’s ascension offering and the feasts in Leviticus 23).
By broken, I mean someone who has truly been “wilderness” refined and found to be obedient.
As for the white hair, it does occur many times in the Bible, but as an image of eldership, not a hard-and-fast rule. I haven’t yet read Driscoll’s book, but we need to emphasise to keen young “leaders” that they are not qualified unless they have been through the fire and learnt to obey.
I went through Bible college in my early 20’s, and in the years afterwards was amazed at the trials all those I studied with went through.
Now I understand the phrase “Don’t be amazed at the fiery trials.” If we are found trustworthy, we qualify for greater responsibility. If we fail, like Israel in the wilderness, God waits for the next generation.
Again, these are general principles, and a gradual process, but true nonetheless. God wants wise judges (Heb. 5:14).
Mike, thanks for sharing on trial as qualification for leadership, great comment.
If only everyone was aware that trials are golden and necessary and should be welcomed. As Ralph Winter said, “I am willing to fail. Risks are not to be evaluated in terms of the probability of success, but in terms of the value of the goal”.
We’re not to conduct our ministry based on success so that we submit to the world’s idea of safety and comfort, instead we are to risk being the scum of the world (like the Apostle Paul said he was) for the sake of God.
Simon and Mike,
No matter what I think of the PPK model I heartily agree that ministry is and should be costly and risky. Trials produce character (‘proven worth’) without which the resilience and resolve needed for truly Christian ministry wouldn’t be possible. Its also the visible progress of Christian ministers through these trials which sets an example for other believers.