Communities of Grace, Part 2

If Communities of Grace are those which not only teach the gospel but live it out, I should say very clearly that the opposite is equally as true. Communities of Grace are not simply those who live lives of service and care for others, but who actually teach the gospel.

It is very popular to promote service, love, “grace,” and social justice as if it were the end all of the church. There are those who present a false dichotomy: teaching or living, and suggest that teaching is really unimportant (or even contrary) to gospel lives. So the teaching of the gospel can, indeed often is, offensive and therefore does not appear to be complimentary to a community of grace. For the gospel clearly teaches that all men are evil, wicked, and hateful and deserving of God’s wrath. That God sent His Son to bear that punishment for sinners and that all must submit themselves to God, confess that they are wicked, and trust totally in Jesus’ death and resurrection in order to escape judgment. It’s not exactly a message we, in our nature, applaud.

But communities that only practice grace have missed the all important motivation for their grace when they downplay or ignore the gospel. There is no cause for grace unless God has been gracious to us and calls us to that response. Furthermore to live grace without teaching grace is to suggest to non-Christians (and Christians alike) that grace is really a virtue of their own making, and not a result of the life changing work of the Spirit of God. So to be a community of grace we must avoid the moralistic teachings of the world and centralize on the true gospel of Jesus explained in deed and WORD.

Communities of Grace

It never ceases to amaze me how many churches there are that talk freely and honestly about the grace of God, yet at the same time create an environment that is totally contrary to that very concept of grace. Environments of grace are places of freedom, creativity, hope, trust, and mutual responsiveness. These environmnets point people toward the grace of Jesus by means of mutual displays of it among the congregation. They applaud creativity and allow for an openness about struggles, doubts, and fears among people. It is in places like this that non-believers feel welcomed, and where Christians can fully grow and flourish.

Grace Environments, however, have a counter. These counters are what Philip Yancey called communities of “Ungrace.” Communities of Ungrace are environments where frear, distrust, condemnation, and legalism flourish. These contexts undermine the teaching on the grace of God, however strong it might be, by their lifestyle. Anywhere where members of a church fear others finding them out, or where their individualdifferences are distinctly highlighted, or where the doctrines of men are central you will find communities of ungrace.

This is so important to remember because contrary to what many think it isn’t enough to simply have a church that teaches the right things. If your church lives in a way that is totally contradictory to the teaching ministry it will undermine the very validity of what is said by the teachers. Life matters, and life influenced by doctrine is what marks a true church of grace.

What I Learned At Catalyst

The Catalyst Conference in Atlanta is not the typical kind of conference I am use to: Incredibly professionally produced, extremely artistic in nature, cultually engaging, and leadership focused. The music was loud, the speakers were all different and from distinct theological and philosophical frame works. But by God’s grace I learned some amazing and clarifying things this week. I’ll list some of them here.

(1) I am full of pride – One of the recurring themes at this year’s leadership conference was the reminder that we are God’s servants, on God’s mission. The desire to promote my own ministry, be my own hero, celebrate my own giftedness, or the consistent discontentment with my and/or jealousy of other ministries is unworthy of a gospel servant. Surprisingly, Rob Bell drove this home to me the most. I am no fan of Rob Bell (in fact regarding his views of the atonement I am concerned about whether or not he is even a Christian), but the lecture he gave on being the man that God has specifically equipped and called you to be was perfectly crafted to impact my heart. Andy Stanley, as well, gave a great reminder that we, as leaders, are not to be concerned with inviting God to be part of our story, but pursuing our role in God’s story.

(2) I can learn from many different people – The saying “All Truth is God’s Truth” was very clearly crystalized for me on Thursday. I am thoroughly Reformed in my theology, but I fear that many in the Reformed tradition, because of this solid commitment, lose out on learning because they limit those to whom they are willing to sit under. Catalyst invited people from different worldviews and different disciplines to help enlighten and equip Christian leaders to engage their worlds and lead their churches better. Jessica Jackley, founder of KIVA (a microfinance operation dedicated to partnering with struggle third world business) gave a great resource to churches for impacting our world. Even someone like Malcolm Gladwell, a business world thinker and writer, reminded us of the significance of humility in effective leadership. I was profoundly impacted by the importance of listening to God wherever and through whomever he speaks. Of course in the end I am committed to the Scriptures, to the voice of God as he has revealed himself there. But where God is working in the world to give me insight in how to do things better I want to learn and be a good student.

It was a great time for me and I hope that you will consider Catalyst for yourself.

Atonement and the City: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 11)

The Center of the Atonement

The atonement accomplishes so much. As we have seen with the Christus Victor model: The atonement overthrows the power of evil! Other models present the atonement as accomplishing other great things for us as well. The healing view teaches us that Jesus’ work on the cross puts an end to our ill and suffering. Joel Green and Mark Baker point out that there are a myriad of metaphors in Scripture to speak of Jesus’ work. They write:

In the New Testament, the saving effect of Jesus’ death is represented primarily through five constellations of images, each of which is borrowed from the public life of the ancient Mediterranean world: the court of law (e.g. justification), the world of commerce (e.g. redemption), personal relationships (e.g. reconciliation), worship (e.g. sacrifice), and the battleground (e.g. triumph over evil).[1]

Of course this is all true and Biblical, yet there is something missing that is, I believe, the very center of any understanding of the atonement. You see it missing even in Green and Baker’s assessment of the multi-faceted nature of the atonement. What I believe is at the very heart of a Biblical understanding of the work of Christ is what theologians term Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Let’s explain the term upfront, then I’ll defend why I believe it is the center of the doctrine of the atonement.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement can best be understood by looking at each of the terms of which it is composed. “Penal” refers to judgment. This term adds meaning to Christ’s death by saying that in dying Jesus bore a penalty. “Substitutionary” means that Jesus, in dying, took the place of another. He served as their substitute. Finally, the term “Atonement” is a theological term meaning “at-one-ment.” It’s an Old Testament term associated with God’s overlooking the sins of his people (Israel) as they made sacrifices in the temple. Under the New Covenant Atonement comes to mean the work that Christ did in earning our salvation by offering himself as a sacrifice. The Penal Substitutionary view, then, may succinctly be defined as follows: that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.[2]

Now when we discuss this doctrine we are assuming a few things: (1) That God is just; (2) That humans are sinful; (3) That God, because he is just and we are sinful, must punish us; (4) That Jesus bore the wrath of God in our stead. These are pretty big assumptions and they must be proved from Scripture if the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is to stand. So let us turn now to grounding these assumptions in the word of God.[3]

---

[1] Joel Green and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. 23.

[2] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. 21.

[3] One might observe that I am assuming the authority and sufficiency of Scripture as well. You would be correct to say that, but since this whole paper is written from the perspective of a Biblical inerrantist, I will not defend that assumption. To do so would require a whole other type of paper.

Atonement and the City: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 10)

Now after completing a trek, like that, through the Scripture and explaining that God has a plan to redeem cities it would be easy to mistake me for something I am most definitely not. There is a popular brand of theology going around today which looks at the cross of Christ as absorbing human evil and giving men an example to follow in their overthrowing the powers of darkness. Now at one level this is all true and important. But making this the sole or even central picture of the cross is to have a deeply flawed theology of redemption. There has been good criticism of this view recently.[1] I want to be clear and say that I agree with those critics. But believing that cultural renewal is part of God’s plan I have been forced to ask, then, how the atonement relates to that subject and particularly how it relates to that subject within a Biblical theological framework. That is my goal in this next section. The atoning work of Christ is at the very heart of all my theology as a Christian, and that includes God’s love for the city.

Sin Is The Central Issue

It is agreed upon by all that sin is the central issue in the discussion. What’s wrong with the city, what makes it in need of redemption? Sin. The matter of debate turns on how we define, or more particularly where we root, sin. For some sin is a social evil (exemplified in communal acts of genocide, environmental destruction, and the like), it is not so much a personal moral perversion or orientation. What this does is cast sin in terms of injustice in the world, offense against fellow men, offense against creation, and nearly completely avoids the Scriptural conclusions that sin is our offense against a holy God. What this means for the gospel, then, is that Jesus’ death is an answer to the social evils of the world, not necessarily an answer to my alienation from God. This line of thinking follows very much the Christus Victor view of the atonement. This model of the atonement, which is indeed true, says, “That through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, God defeated the devil.”[2] Greg Boyd elaborates on this view by saying the following:

According to the New Testament, the central thing Jesus did was drive out the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31). He came to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). He came to “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” in order to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by fear of death” (Hebrews 2:14-15). Jesus lived, died and rose again to establish a new reign that would ultimately “put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25) … In a word, Jesus came to end the cosmic war that had been raging from time immemorial and to set Satan’s captives free (Luke 4:18; Ephesians 4:8).[3]

What Boyd has written here is indeed in Scripture and is indeed true of the work of Christ. Jesus did come to overturn the power of evil and to restore the world to its pre-fall state. In this regard I agree with him. But his theology, as with many others who view cultural change as of great importance, lacks the distinctive explanation of our role in this world’s evil. It is not simply that we are slaves to Satan and bound to do his evil will. The Bible teaches as well that we are inherently sinful and, by our very nature “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). It is this latter part that is so often overlooked in the equation. Many are readily willing to recognize the evil inherent within the “world,” but it is the insinuation that humanity itself is evil that seems to be lacking in their theological equation. We are more victims than rebels, as they see it. So Boyd again writes, “Salvation clearly involves forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is itself rooted in a person getting freed from Satan’s grip, and therefore freed from the controlling power of sin.”[4] Note the manner in which our relationship to sin is discussed. We are described as captives of Satan, rather than as those whose very nature is to rebel against God. I am not denying our bondage to sin, I fully believe this, but I am saying that by overlooking our corrupt nature Body and others like him have missed the heart of the gospel. So Tom Schreiner rightly perceives, “Boyd also claims that the Scriptures depict sin as a power that enslaves and does not focus on individual behavior. He is correct in saying that sin is a power that overwhelms us, but he downplays, perhaps inadvertently, the notion of individual responsibility.” He continues:

Even though sin is a power that holds us in bondage, such a reality does not lessen individual responsibility. Paul believes we are sinners in Adam and under bondage to sin, but Paul also maintains that we are fully responsible for the sins we commit.[5]

Finally, Schriener observes how much more explanation is need for Boyd’s theory to give full balance to the language of Scripture, he writes:

Boyd also lacks clarity in explaining how Christ’s death led to triumph over demonic powers…Boyd says Christ’s solidarity with us in his radical love defeated the power of evil. This contention is not worked out with any exegesis. It is asserted rather than demonstrated…Jesus did not conquer the devil merely by showing us how much he loved us. The Scriptures are more specific than this. The devil’s hold over us was broken when our sins were forgiven on the cross by virtue of Christ taking our place and suffering our punishment.[6]

It is the same with someone like N.T. Wright, who claims that salvation is the declaration that Jesus is King. He states it plainly when he says, “The gospel’ itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true, and only Lord of the World,” and, “That the crucified Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead; that he was thereby proved to be Israel’s Messiah; that he was thereby installed as Lord of the world.”[7] This is all well and good, but, as John Piper points out, Jesus Lordship in and of itself is not good news. Piper comments:

Coming at Wright’s claims about the gospel from another angle, they do not fit real life- neither Paul’s nor ours. The announcement that Jesus is the Messiah, the imperial Lord of the universe, is not good news, but is an absolutely terrifying message to a sinner who has spent all his life ignoring or blaspheming the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and is therefore guilty of treason and liable to execution.[8]

You see what’s missing from this equation, by whomever is perpetuating it, is any notion that man must have his guilt before God dealt with at the personal and individual level.

Now in relation to God’s love for the city let me make the connection. God does love the city, and does have a plan and desire to have a city that is filled with people who worship him. But sin has corrupted that plan, not simply by distorting the city, but particularly by manifesting its evil through the willful wrong and rebellion of human beings. Man’s rebellion in the garden and man’s continued rebellion today is what is wrong with the city. One need only remember that God cursed the earth with thistles and thorns as a result of Adam’s sin, as a form of punishment on Adam. The ground didn’t do anything wrong, it is cursed because of humanity’s blatant rebellion against their creator. What we need to see, then, is that God’s love for the city is not somehow detached or separate from God’s redemption of humanity. The former can only happen after the latter is achieved. Any notion that salvation is about us joining God’s mission, misplaces the centrality of the cross in the atonement. As Greg Gilbert has written:

I think there are a few barbs from emergent theology that have managed to hang on in evangelicalism, some of them more worrisome than others.  I am convinced that one of those—and without a doubt the most dangerous—is the temptation among many young evangelicals to rethink and rearticulate the gospel in a way that makes its center something other than the substitutionary, wrath-enduring death of Jesus in the place of sinners for their sin.   I see that happening in a couple of different ways, depending on what you’re reading—or watching. Sometimes that impulse works itself out in authors simply shunting the cross over and (wittingly or unwittingly) making the center of the gospel story something else entirely.  Maybe it’s Jesus’ lordship, or God’s kingdom, or God’s purpose to remake the heavens and earth, or His call for us to join him in his work of cultural transformation.  Time after time, in book after book coming off of Christian presses, the highest excitement and joy is being ignited by something other than the sin-bearing work of Christ on the cross, and the most fervent appeals are for people to join God in doing this or that, rather than to repent and believe. In the process, the story of the gospel is made to be (deliberately or not) rather cross-less. That’s one dangerous problem.[9]

We must first have our relationship with God, individually, restored before we can speak of joining God on his mission to restore creation.[10] What this means, then, is that at the heart of our theology of the city must be a proper understanding of the atonement. This is our next subject.

---

[1] See a couple of articles written by my good friend Greg Gilbert, “Culture-Making and Plant-Growing;” “Not Just Important, Not Even Just VERY Important. ‘Of First Importance;’” and “But HOW is the Evil One Defeated.”

[2] Greg Boyd, “Christus Victor View,” in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Ed. by James Beilby and Paul Eddy. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. 24.

[3] Ibid. 30.

[4] Ibid. 32.

[5] Ibid. 50.

[6] Ibid. 52-53.

[7] Quoted in John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. 82.

[8] Ibid. 86.

[9] “Not Just Important, Not Even Just VERY Important. ‘Of First Importance’” www.9marks.org

[10] As a side note, what I find very disturbing about this view of the atonement is that it makes our salvation rather utilitarian. We are saved merely as a means to God’s greater plan to restore the created order. God does not love us in ourselves, but rather loves us as part of the created world only. He loves us like he loves the trees.

God’s Heart for Urban Centers: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 9)

Conclusion

The Bible has much to say about the city, some of it is good and some of it is bad. We cannot gloss over the fact that Scripture often speaks of the city as a place of corruption, evil, and rampant sin, and that God is often the destroyer of cities. But all of this does not deter God from His original plan to have a city of people who worship Him. God not only came up with the idea for a city, established the first city, and made a home among His people in the city, but God continues today to love the city. And one day He will bring about the eclipsing of this earthly city with a heavenly one, one that fulfills His original design for the city and one where people perfectly live out city life as God intended.

God loves the city; now the question comes to us…Do we love it?

For further reading on this subject see:

• Arnold, B.T.  “City, Citizenship.” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. ed. D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, Brian S. Rosner, and T. Desmond Alexander . Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2000. 414-416.
• Bakke, Ray. A Theology As Big as the City. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997.
• Carson, D.A. Christ and Culture Revisited. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
• Edwards, Jonathan. The End for Which God Created the World. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.
• Hoekema, Anthony. “Heaven Is Not Just An Eternal Day Off,” Christianity Today (June 6, 2003), http://www.chrsitianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/54.0.html.
• Jacobsen, Eric. Sidewalks in the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2003.
• Keller, Timothy. “A Biblical Theology of the City.” Online at www.theresurgence.com
• Van Pelt, Michael & Richard Greydanus. Living on the Street: The Role of the Church in Urban Renewal. Hamilton, ON: Work Research Foundation, 2005.
• Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

God’s Heart for Urban Centers: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 8)

Cities of Worship

            It is in this one area particularly that we see most evidently the effects of the Fall. All men were created to worship and each seeks and longs for something that he/she may worship. Of course, originally that “something” was God, but the Fall has perverted our worship so that men now worship everything but God. Men will worship celebrities, sex, drugs, cars, jobs, money, self, and even recreation/comfort. We are prone to worship whatever, whenever. Romans 1 states this very plainly when the Apostle Paul explains the nature of sin:

Romans 1:18-25  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.  ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  ²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,  ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Our worship is contaminated by sin because we would not worship the true and living God. The city, as a place of worship, now harbors that sinful idolatry, and it has for centuries.

            The earliest example of united worship against God is found in the scene now described as “The Tower of Babel.” The Bible records for us a scenario where men gather together to build a city which would bring them glory and honor (Gen. 11:4). As God looked on and saw their self-worship He was not only offended but concerned for man himself, and so God confused their language and spread them over the whole face of the earth in order that this deed would not continue. But of course God knew that man would find yet more ways to indulge in false worship.

            Throughout the Wilderness period of Israel’s history there were key moments where either individuals or the nation as a whole pursued the worship of a false god. Few Bible-literate people can forget the story of the Golden Calf in the desert. And even after settling in the Promised Land Israel still finds a way  to worship other gods. The portrayal of various kings throughout the history of Israel (as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles) shows just how faithless these people were. Repeatedly they erected “high places,” which were altars for the worship of foreign gods. Living in the city did not end idolatry, infact Jesus points out to the woman of Samaria that the “where” of worship does not matter as much as the “whom” of worship (John 4).

            Worship and the city go hand in hand. Wherever people congregate there is usually some form and fashion of worship happening. The Fall may have corrupted it but it has not been totally lost. We could quickly note that after the exodus from Egypt God established a mobile city with the Jews that was centered around His presence in one of the tents. And once Israel was established in the land the Temple began to be built and became the center of Jerusalem’s life and geography.

            The key to the city’s being a place of worship is its ability to draw people together around a deity, an event, or a place. Tim Keller explains it this way:

Ancient cities were religious institutions. They were usually built around a ‘ziggurat’- the original skyscrapers! They were temples where a particular god was thought to ‘come down.’ The cities were seen to be the royal residence of the god, and the city was dedicated to him/her. The city was where the cultus for that god was centered, and where you went if you wanted to serve him or her. All of this was probably a twisted ‘memory trace’ of the original design of God, that the Edenic city, the new Jerusalem, would be the place where people would meet Him, where His temple/presence would be.[1]

Even today this is part of the nature of city life. People gather to worship various things in cities, depending on the city and the type of people. Some cities worship their sports teams or events, some their heritage, some their politicians (though this is increasingly rare in the Postmodern era), and some actually worship false gods (like Salt Lake City and its dense population of Mormonism).

            While this fact of false worship is extremely troubling for the Christian it is a common grace that the desire for worship still resides in man and the Christian church can pick up on that desire to use it for God’s glory. The church, in other words, must be in the city if it is to play a part in reforming the worship of men in the city, but there is more on this below so I’d better not get ahead of myself

---

[1] Keller.

God’s Heart for Urban Centers: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 7)

Cities of Cultural Development

            The ideas of diminished Fundamentalism may say otherwise but God is not against culture. Nor are “culture” and “worldliness” the same thing. Let’s start by defining our terms correctly. What is culture? Culture may properly be understood as a way of living developed by a group. I get this definition from missionary Lesslie Newbigin who writes:

By the word culture we have to understand the sum total ways of living developed by a group of human beings and handed on from generation to generation. Central to culture is language. The language of a people provides the means by which they express their ways of perceiving thing and of coping with them. Around that center one would have to group their visual and musical arts, their technologies, their law, and their social and political organization. And one must also include in culture, and as fundamental to any culture, a set of beliefs, experiences, and practices that seek to grasp and express the ultimate nature of things, that which gives shape and meaning to life, that which claims final loyalty. I am speaking, obviously, about religion.[1] Religion- including the Christian religion- is thus part of culture.[2]

When we speak of culture we have in mind a way of life for a specific group of people, which explains, of course, why there are so many different cultures (because there are so many different peoples). The city is and was meant to be a place for developing culture, and drawing out all the resources needed to create that culture. The city is, frankly put, a place of initiating culture.

            The Bible represents this idea, that the city is a developer of culture, mostly through stories concerning cities. As the authors of the various books of the Bible describe cities, and describe the peoples of those cities they inform us about their various cultures. Keller points out that even wicked cities are described as having culture. So the wicked city of Revelation 18 is said to be a place of “music and the arts (v. 22a), crafts and works of all arts and manufacturing (v. 22b), trade and retailing (v. 23c), technological advance (v. 23a), family building (v. 23b).”[3] And the Bible shows us that what was true of these wicked cities was also true of God’s city too.

            Jerusalem was rich with culture. They had the Temple which was built by various laborers and decorated by skilled artists. They had musicians and priests, they had nobles and slaves, they had farmers and kings. There were popular songs of the day (1 Sam. 18:7), heroes (like Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and David), and there was worship. This culture does not reside only in the earthly Jerusalem, but we find it in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

            The New Jerusalem contains a feast and a wedding (Matt 22; 25), there is singing there as the redeemed join the angels in worshiping around God’s throne (Rev. 14:3), and there are various cultural expressions (Dan. 7:27). There will be culture in heaven, a culture that both incorporates the existing cultures of our current world (though cleansed from all their sin) and which unifies them into a new and heavenly culture.

            Heaven[4] has one language, indicated by the numerous statements regarding the one “voice” which the people speak to God in. Heaven will also bring together people from every tribe, and tongue, and nation on earth, and with them their various cultural expressions. So Dr. Randy Alcorn wisely writes:

The elders sing to the Lamb: You are worthy…Your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. And you have caused them to become God’s Kingdom and His priests. And they will reign on the earth (Rev. 5:9-10, NLT). Who will serve as the New Earth’s kings and priests? Not people who were formerly of every tribe, language, people, and nation. Their distinctions aren’t obliterated but continue into the intermediate Heaven and then into the eternal Heaven.[5]

Heaven is a place where these people from different cultures can come together and bring with them their various cultural expressions to glorify God together. God loves diversity and even in the New Jerusalem He does not destroy or diminish it. Theologian Anthony Hoekema comments, “In the life to come various types of people will retain their unique gifts. These gifts will develop and mature in a sinless way, and will be used to produce new cultural products to the everlasting glory of God’s name.”[6] The Bible supports Hoekema’s view by speaking of music and musical instruments (including, though probably not limited to, harps, trumpets, and cymbals) (Rev. 8:7-13;15:2). The Bible also speaks of dancing, of planting vineyards, and of general merriment (Jer. 31). There is laughing, singing, dancing, playing, eating, resting, telling stories, and worshiping in the New City. If this is not culture then nothing is, and it is all found in the Kingdom of God and includes various expressions of it from various peoples.

            The city has long been a place of cultural development and it continues to be such a place today. Though much of the cultural expression developed by the city today reflect the Fall more than redemption in Christ, there are exceptions and there can be more. Solomon speaks of the common grace of God as allowing non-Christians to develop culture that Christians can gather together to both benefit from and to glorify God through. Solomon said: For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God (Eccl. 2:26a). So there is much that can be redeemed from the culture, even culture created by unregenerate men.

            I can quickly think of great movies which open up theological discussions and great thoughts about God, man, sin, redemption, etc. Movies like Amadeus, The Shawshank Redemption, Spiderman 3, Superman, Gladiator, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Stranger Than Fiction, Chariots of Fire, The Truman Show, and Signs are just a few of the movies that point viewers in some fashion Godward.[7] Music, painting, sculpture, literature, and other arts too can have profoundly spiritual effects.[8] There are, of course, the other obvious ways that we benefit from culture, such as government, housing, transportation, protection, etc. All this comes from the city, where the resources of men and women, created in the image of God, gather together to develop a way of living known as a culture. Timothy Keller brings this thought to a conclusion with this practical note:

The city, then, has a powerful magnifying glass effect. Since God invented it as a ‘cultural mine,’ it brings out whatever is in the human heart. Why? The density and therefore diversity of the city brings out the best (and worst) in the human heart. How does it do so? The divinely-given ability of the city to do ‘culture-making’ can be discerned at the most practical level by the urban resident.[9]

 

---

[1] For more on the relationship between religion and culture  see Part III

[2] Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. 3.

[3] Keller.

[4] By the word “Heaven” I do not mean the intermediate state, which most people default to when they think of heaven. Rather I am speaking of the eternal Kingdom of God set up on earth as part of the New Heaven and New Earth. 

[5] Randy Alcorn, Heaven. Wheaton: Tyndale, 2004. 362. 

[6] Anthony Hoekema, “Heaven Is Not Just An Eternal Day Off,” Christianity Today (June 6, 2003), http://www.chrsitianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/54.0.html.

[7] For more on this see David R. Dunham, “Theology at the Movies.” Louisville: Sovereign God, 2006; and Rich Clark, “In Praise of Film.”  www.christandpopculture.com . See also Robert K. Johnston, Reel  Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue.. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

[8] See Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination.  Colorado Springs: Shaw, 1989.

[9] Keller.

God’s Heart for Urban Centers: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 6)

Cities of Refuge

            God commanded Israel that as they settled in the Promised Land they were to set aside six cities that were to be given to the Levites (Num. 35:6). These six cities, three on each side of the Jordan River, were to also be cities of refuge, “where you shall permit the manslayer to flee.” The idea behind these six cities was both the protection of the people and the purity of God’s chosen city.

In the ancient context when one man murdered another it was the responsibility of his living family members to seek vengeance. This of course could result in constant family feuds, and eventually in the destruction of the peoples. To rectify this problem God instituted the cities of refuge where a manslayer could flee for sanctuary and await a more fair trial. But there was indeed something else going on in God’s mind when He commanded the establishment of these cities. Peter John Naylor explains:

The root cause for the cities of refuge is found in the Abrahamic covenant (which is implied in vs. 33-34), that bloodshed pollutes the land. Israel was not to defile the land where God dwelt among them…The ultimate reason, therefore, was not justice for its own sake. Rather, it was to maintain God’s purposes, set forth in the Abrahamic covenant. These were, first, to preserve Israel’s fellowship with God, who is of purer eyes than to look upon iniquity (Hab. 1:12-13); and secondly, to preserve Israel in the land. In this matter, two of the promises are joined (34).[1]

The city was a place of protection and civil justice, and it was created to be such by God. Tim Keller comments, “When Israel moved into the Promised Land, the first cities were built by God’s direction as ‘cities of refuge,’ where the accused person could flee for safety…Thus God invented cities to be a sign of divine, not self, protection.”[2] God created the city for the protection of men and it is meant to be a pointer to His own love of justice and His own great defense.

            Of course the cities of refuge are ultimately meant to be a pointer of the greatest refuge man can take from the greatest threat he faces. They are meant to point us ultimately to the cross of Christ and the atonement that is our refuge from the wrath of God. Naylor picks up on this when he writes, “The gift of cities of refuge was not an incidental matter. It was vital and practical and touched the heart of God’s plan of redemption.”[3] Jesus is the ultimate refuge to whom all manslayers must flee.[4]

            In God’s common grace He still allows the city to be such a place for men today. We may readily recognize the perversion that sin has brought into this gift; for vile men are much more able to hide in the shadows of the city than they are in the sweet fenced in yards of the suburbs.[5] But the weak, the frail, the homeless, the poor, the minorities find more security in the city than they do in the rural areas. Keller explains why this is as true of cities today as it was in the Old Testament. He writes, “The density of the city creates the possibility of strong minority communities. Density creates diversity. The dominant majorities often dislike cities, but the weak and powerless need them.”[6] The city is still a place of refuge and safety, not as perfectly as God had intended, but thanks to His common grace that ideal still lingers on in some form.

 

---

[1] Peter John Naylor, “Numbers.”  New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century Edition. ed. by D.A. Carson, R. T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1994.197.

[2] Keller. 

[3] Naylor, Ibid.

[4] It is relevant here to point out that all men are “manslayers” in so far as they have hated another; Jesus Himself said that those who are angry with their brother are guilty of murder (Matt. 5:21-22).

[5] Of course one would be foolish to suppose that such men do not live in the suburbs too, any local news channel will reveal otherwise. 

[6] Keller.

God’s Heart for Urban Centers: A Biblical Theology of the City (Part 5)

The City as God’s Invention

This is the picture that the Bible paints for us of the city. God instituted and established the idea. In fact He gave directives to Adam and Eve to create culture and build a proto-city. The Fall brought disastrous effects upon the city, largely because of the corruption of man who would now use God’s good gift for sinful purposes. But God has not abandoned the city (even while the “great-white flight” from American cities seems to suggest He has). Rather God has a plan to see the city brought back to its original intent and design, to be a place of culture, safety, and gathering where men worship together the one and true living God forever. Timothy Keller writes that the New Jerusalem is “the Garden of Eden, remade. The City is the fulfillment of the purposes of the Eden of God. We began in a garden but will end in a city; God’s purpose for humanity is urban!”[1] He reminds us that the city was God’s invention, not man’s! This was the same impression that Dr. Meredith Kline, commentator/theologian, got. He writes:

The city is not to be regarded as an evil invention of ungodly fallen man…The ultimate goal set before humanity at the very beginning was that human-culture should take city-form…there should be an urban structuring of human historical experience…The cultural mandate given at creation was a mandate to build the city. Now, after the fall, the city is still a benefit, serving humankind as refuge from the howling wilderness condition into which the fallen human race, exiled from paradise, has been driven…The common grace city has remedial benefits even in a fallen world. It becomes the drawing together of resources, strength and talent no longer just for mutual complementation in the task of developing the resources of the created world, but now a pooling of power for defense against attack, and as an administrative community of welfare for the relief of those destitute by reason of the cursing of the ground.[2]

The City was part of God’s original creation and design for the world, and particularly a gift given by God to men. And today the city continues to be a place where God protects and provides for His people, and where men gather to work, defend, and indeed glorify God. Let’s look, in our next study, at some of the ways that the city did these things in Scripture and how they still can do them today.

---

[1] Keller.

[2] Meredith Kline, “Kingdom Prologue.” Quoted in Keller.