The Danger of Worship, Part II: We Become Like What We Worship

Worship transforms us. What’s particularly amazing about how worship transforms us, however, is that we become like what we worship. That is to say, we take on the likeness and the spiritual realities of whatever we are worshiping. The Bible paints this truth in two ways: (1) it shows how idolatry, the worship of false gods, makes us like idols (deaf, dumb, and blind); (2) it shows us how the worship of Jesus conforms us to his image. I will deal with the first part of this reality today and the second in my next post. If you are what you eat, then what does that mean about what you worship?

Theologian G.K. Beale has done a masterful job of presenting this point in his work We Become What We Worship. What Beale argues, from numerous Old Testament and New Testament texts (most notably Isaiah 6 and Deuteronomy 29) that God uses the language of sensory-organ malfunction to describe the spiritual blindness associated with the sin of idolatry (see Isa.42:17-20; 43:8-10; 44; Psalm 115:4-8*). What he argues is that just as idols have eyes carved on them and ears carved on them but do not actually have working senses so those who worship such idols lose their spiritual senses. A carved idol has eyes but can’t see, so those who worship such an idol lose their spiritual sight. Beale then turns to the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32) as a paradigmatic illustration of this kind of sensory-organ malfunction. He suggests that the language of Exodus 32 could be interpreted very plausibly to reflect the language of cattle metaphors. So Beale writes, “Sinful Israel seems to be depicted metaphorically as rebellious cows running wild and need to be gathered.” So we can make several observations: (1) They are “stiff-necked” (2) They were “let loose” (3) They “quickly turned aside from the way” (4)  They needed to be “gathered together” “in the gate” (5) Moses would “lead the people”. Hosea 4:16 makes similar comparisons between Israel and cattle. Verse 17 of Hosea connects this behavior with idol worship, which Beale points out in the book of Hosea is often calf worship.  This all gives clear understanding to Paul’s words that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ…”(2 Cor. 4:4).  The faithful, too, are easily led astray by their idolatry, for it is the nature of worship to make us like that which we revere.

So Israel became like stupid cows because that’s what they worshipped. How this plays out in our lives is both different and similiar. We too become like what we worship, but we don’t usually worship our cattle. Instead we worship things like money, sex, physical apperance, possessions, etc. and in doing so we become like them. Think about your own life and what you often make an idol. How does your worship of that thing or that person affect you? Each idol has its own affects. So we associate greed with the worship of money. We associate perversion with the worship of sex. We associate frivolousness with the worship of possessions. The list could grow and grow, but the point being that the more you worship these things the more like them you will become. And the reality is that if we are not careful we will wake up one day and be so deep in our worship that we find we have been utterly transformed by it.

The worship of sex is the best known case study. Those who worship sex grow and grow in their sexual perversion until they find themselves, years down the road so deep in it that they are committing sins that they always knew as vile, disgusting, and swore they would never do. Their worship of sex has transformed them, which is why a little dabbling with this sin or that sin is a big deal (not a small mistake). Worship transforms us until we become what we worship! Idolatry is worship that leads to our ruin!

The Danger of Worship, Part I: Introduction

I was captivated recently by the reality of how dangerous and transforming worship is. When worship is of the right things we are dramatically changed for the better. When worship is of the wrong things, we too are transformed. Theologian G.K. Beale suggests, rightly, that worship leads to our restoration or our ruin.

In countless places throughout the Scriptures we read how perveted, depraved, and wicked a people become when they worship the false gods of human hands. Idolatry is disaster!

In my next series of posts I hope to extrapolate this more, and look at some examples from Scripture. The application gleaned from this study has such profound implications for our living and these too are worthy of our consideration. If worship transforms us, then, we must all pause and ask “what am I being transfomred into?” Worship, needless to say, is dangerous!

Communities of Grace, part 4

Grace is usually easier to see from a far than is ungrace, which can be subtle until you are in the midst of it, but there are some specific trends that you can point to among churches that clearly emphasize grace in life and word. As in the last post, I have narrowed those markers to just a handful for brevity sake.

(1) Jovial Leadership –> Communities almost always take on the character of their leader and so to be and breed a community of grace must start from the top and work its way down. Environments where the leadership has been grumpy, overly serious, consistently stressed, etc. you will find a community that resembles him. But where the leadership can joke, laugh, and enjoy life and ministry you will find a community that embraces grace and joy as well. There is indeed a place for seriousness, and especially as a pastor there are seasons of seriousness. But when you can’t laugh at yourself, laugh with your people, and share joy then you have not understood the gospel and you will breed censorious and grumpy people. Leadership should laugh.

(2) A Kingdom-Mindset/Missional Church –> A church that can look beyond itself, out the four walls of its context and see lost people is a healthy church. This church will avoid the pitfalls of legalism as it strives to engage its community with the life saving power of Jesus Christ. Any church that shares the gospel will find its fulfillment and excitement in that task and not in its own self-preservation and promotion. Missions makes a humble church and humility leads to grace.

(3) Diverse in Appreciation –> Here I have in mind a church that can appreciate God’s truth, grace, and work wherever it may be found. They may have their own specific affiliations (Southern Baptist, PCA, Calvinist, Arminian, Dispensational, Amillennial, etc.) but they refuse to be stuffed into boxes and isolated from the rest of Christ’s people. These churches can appreciate the work of God across camps and denominations. These people can learn from business men, construction workers, journalists, scientists, as well as preachers, missionaries, and classical theologians. Their commitment to the Bible isn’t diminished, but they use their Bible to help them look at the world around them and find truth wherever it may be found (All Truth is God’s Truth). Where one camp, one denomination, one group rules over, solely influences, and determines a church’s thinking there will be ungrace brewing in the background. We learn from all of God’s prophets, wherever and whoever they might be.

Communities of Grace, Part 3

Since they are so prevalent I thought it important to contemplate what it is that leads a church to become a community of ungrace. I can’t imagine any church starting out saying that they want to become legalistic, unloving, culturally threatening, and condemning. So how do gospel people get to that state? The obvious answer seems to be a disregard for Scripture, making the rules of men the rules of God. But I think beyond that there are some other noticeable trends. I have narrowed it to what I think are three common trends that lead to communities of ungrace.

(1) Absence of “Kingdom-Mindset” –> churches that become so narrowly focused on themselves, their ministry, their reputation, their programs can easily sink into a state of pride and self-absorption. These communities become all about themselves and lose sight of what God is doing around them and through other Christians and churches. They don’t partner with other churches unless it was their idea, and they become very consumed with who gets credit, who gets converts, who gets members, etc. Pride is a massive danger that can deaden a church’s witness, and mission. Proud churches, self-absorbed churches, tend to be more consumed with keeping people and ideas in their church and can become very bitter towards other congregations. This is among the first trends leading to the development of a community of ungrace.

(2) Focus On A Ministry –> churches that become absorbed with one particular ministry can tend to make a program or a strategy the end-all of their community. Not only will they think that they do it best (all others who do AWANA, or who do social outreach, are second place at best), but they will begin to look down on anyone who doesn’t do it like them. Their success, or supposed success, in one area will lead to neglect of other areas of the church, or, even worse, an assumption that this program is the church. This unhealthy obsession and arrogance over a program or a ministry will lead to ungracious community life.

(3) Sacrifice Community –> Finally, I think churches that become communities of ungrace see church as a once a week event. They misunderstand the organic nature of church as Scripture describes it. Instead they view the church as an event that takes place during a certain set time, in a certain building, with certain prescribed activities. Community, then, becomes sacrificed for the sake of the event. There is no involvement among members beyond the corporate worship service, or the Sunday school class. The sacrifice of community becomes evident when there are problems in the church. Members who have conflict with one another “resolve” it by leaving or by breeding contention among the congregation. When the leadership attempts to change a program or an activity members become extremely hostile because they see that activity or program as a necessity of the church. It has always been part of the event and therefore to change the make-up of the event is to change the nature of the church. Community is not included and therefore changes become major issues. The sacrifice of community leads to ungrace.

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.