Sunday, September 5, 2010

Allegory is alive and well

After listening to Mumford & Sons on the long drive from Sydney to Tamworth, I was in the M's on my iPod and keen for random sermon time. So Mark Driscoll it was. Sarah was just about to fall to sleep, but became so fascinated by the approach to Nehemiah that she sat bolt upright beside me, and listened in.

Okay, so it's not quite allegory, but did you know Nehemiah was an urban church planter? Neither did I.

Mark Driscoll, from here;
As we're dealing with urban ministry, I think one of the greatest but most overlooked examples is Nehemiah. Everyone likes to read him as a leadership manual, but he's really an urban ministry guy so all of his his leadership principles are in-particularly applicable to urban ministry and urban church planting, because in my opinion Nehemiah was planting a church for the purpose of transforming the city of Jerusalem.
Considering MD's huge focus on Christology, his lack of biblical theology in this sermon really surprised me. He started to go there...
What I love about Nehemiah is that it's about a city. It's a about a very important city, it's about the city from which the gospel of Jesus was to ring out to the nations of the earth. You remember early on in the book of Acts Jesus actually said that the gospel was to ring out from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the earth. And so Jersualem was incredibly important in God's economy and plan, that Jerusalem was to be headquarters for world mission, evangelisation and church-planting. And as you all know it is not accidental but actually providential, that God would chose a major urban city at which to begin the ministry of the news of Jesus spreading out to the world. Well, the problem in the city of Jerusalem is that it was in no way ready for the coming of Jesus, and was not set up in such a way that it could be an exemplary city for the other cities of the world, that it could be an outpost through which communication of the gospel could flow. And so God's going to call this man Nehemiah to go to work in the city of Jerusalem for the purpose of planting a church there.
This is where it ends. The following 49 minutes reads Nehemiah as a church-planting manual. Keep a diary like Nehemiah, do research, align yourself with supporters, appoint administrators, don't be surprised by enemies like Sanballat and Tobiah (a.k.a. bloggers) etc.

I'm still a bit flabbergasted by the whole thing. It's not as if the illustrations weren't valid, but there was really no placing the story within the wider biblical narrative for any extended period of time.

The above quote continues...
And so God's going to call this man Nehemiah to go to work in the city of Jerusalem for the purpose of planting a church there. If you're a dispensationalist, it is a church that he is planting. And he is planting a church there, for the purpose of seeing the renewal of the entire city, which had fallen into disrepair.
As I said above, the approach to the Bible just really took me aback. I don't think I've heard MD on the OT before. He fails to distinguish if Nehemiah is descriptive or prescriptive. There was lots of good wisdom in there for church-planters, but not a lot of insight into reading Nehemiah.

9 comments:

  1. "don't be surprised by enemies like Sanballat and Tobiah (a.k.a. bloggers) "

    And thus, the circle is complete.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you listen to his Song of Solomon series? That was OT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was told by a ministry mate that he felt like taking a cold shower after listening.

    Funnily enough that still didn't intrigue me enough to download. Though from memory, he did mention some of it in the Brisbane 300 men for Jesus event which I listened to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds like a baptist preaching on Old Testament narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are lots of things I love about Driscoll's preaching. But one does sometimes get the impression that the Bible was written in Seattle. (This Nehemiah series was one where I felt this, and there've been a couple in Luke, too. The one on sending out the 72 comes to mind.)

    Having said that, I wonder if it's worse than the way many OT sermons I've heard in Sydney have had Biblical theology as their application (i.e., no application at all, except: "And this is how it points to Jesus!").

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah I don't want to communicate that there aren't things I appreciate and learn from MD's preaching. That's why I was listening. But I guess that's where my surprise was. I thought if the sermon was going to lean towards any particular method of application (from what I've heard of MD) it would be 'It's all about Jesus'.

    I generally try to learn from positive examples rather than negative ones. E.g. Study how people get it right rather than how they get it wrong. But I think a number of the places the application went in this sermon is where I too would go. The problem was that in all sermons we are seeking to create a narrative journey (to some degree). This talk created the narrative aspect with no obvious disconnection from the NT as it looked from the perspective of church planting. A more sound method would be the narrative coming from the book of Nehemiah itself and/or the unfolding storyline of the Bible.

    Thus in this case it was methodology that led to good things being said in a compromised way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not firmly committed on this, Michael, so I'd be interested to know why it's worse. What do you see as the pastoral and ethical implications?

    Off the top of my head, I would say it depends on what you think preaching is for, and how much you expect people to be learning from the Scriptures at other times. If it's your one shot during the week to encourage people to live for Jesus, then application seems like a good thing to me. But if it's your one shot, then you've got other problems.

    Meanwhile, if people are learning this Driscoll method of 'magical application' and not seeing how the OT points to Jesus, then I can see a range of pastoral problems as people take verses out of context and apply them directly to themselves. (Incidentally, I think it would be hard to sit under Driscoll's teaching for any length of time and not think that the OT is fulfilled in Christ.)

    I saw a different pastoral problem in me, however, thinking that the OT had nothing to say about how I lived.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We are choosing between two bads, of course.

    But I find almost every attempt to draw up an OT ethics disastrous (as if you could do a seperate thing called 'OT ethics' in any case). The OT has stuff to say about how you live ... but read Christianly, as we must do.

    Whereas the 'go to Jesus' thing is an excess of a generally good habit.

    ReplyDelete