Biblical Foundations
for Urban Ministry
The word “city”
occurs more than 1,200 times in Scripture, and at least 100 cities are mentioned
by name—many of them significant in size and influence. “…Abraham’s city of Ur numbered 250,000.
Ancient Ninevah was so large that it took three days to cross it on foot (Jonah
3:3). Babylon at the time of Nebuchadnezzar was an amazing city with eleven
miles of walls and a water and irrigation system…not equaled again until the
end of the nineteenth century” (Linthicum 1991, 21). These are prominent
cities, and it is the nature of cities for their influence to expand far beyond
their geographical boundaries. Roger Greenway states that, “whatever happens in
cities affects entire nations. The world goes in the direction that cities go”
(1999, 113). This is certainly more true today than 4,000 years ago.
At first glance,
the city appears to be antithetical to everything that is godly. In the Old
Testament, cities like Babel
(Babylon ), Sodom and Gomorrah , and Ninevah all
have a negative history. Only Jerusalem
is presented in a positive light.[1] But
that does not mean God wanted His people to ignore opportunities for ministry
in the city in those times (as this paper will later prove).
While in rebellion
against God, the murderer Cain built the first city, which he named for his
firstborn, Enoch (Gen 4:17 ).
The later construction of the city tower
of Babel 1:28 ;
11:4). In response, God instituted the diversity of languages, which confused
the residents of Babel
and caused them to disperse over the face of the earth.[2] Babel eventually gave
rise to Babylon —a
city-state that casts a dark shadow over the people of God in the Old
Testament and even serves as a symbol of evil in the New Testament (Linthicum
1991, 24). Yet God would later reveal Himself through His people in a place
like that.[3]
The wickedness of
the ancient cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah was
a great offense to God (Gen 13:13 ;
18:20 ), and He destroyed
them both by fire (Gen 19:1-29). Multiple references to Sodom and Gomorrah are found in Scripture as evidence
of God’s judgment upon the wicked cities. They repeatedly serve as examples of
what happens to the ungodly (such as Deut 29:23; Jer 23:14 ; Matt 11:23 -24; 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7). Missionary theologian
Lesslie Newbigin asserts that “the picture of Lot
and his wife fleeing Sodom
has been an immensely powerful one in shaping Christian imagination”
(1989, 237). It fosters the notion that Godly people flee the city![4] However,
it is noteworthy that Abraham intercedes for the city in spite of its many ills
(Gen 18:22 -33). He serves
as a model for all who would pray for God to preserve their city.
The prophet Jonah
did not share Abraham’s compassion. When called to warn the great and evil city
of Ninevah of
God’s impending judgment, he rejected that call and sought to evade both God
and his responsibility (Jonah 1:1-3). Ninevah’s wickedness was legendary, and
its atrocities against Israel
were especially offensive to Jonah. But Ninevah is described as “a great city
to God” (Jonah 3:3)[5], and He
has great compassion for it in spite of its tendency toward evil. Jonah eventually
(but reluctantly) obeys, and the city responds in repentance (3:6-9). As a
result, God spares the city from destruction—an act that displeases and angers
Jonah (4:1). His selfish ethnocentrism is revealed in the closing verses of the
book as he waits in the suburbs, expressing more concern over his own comfort
than the fate of the city. Jonah’s distance from the city and his contempt for
it epitomizes the attitude of so many in the modern church who do not look at
cities with God’s eyes (Maluga 1999, 186). Like Jonah, they seem more focused
on the problems rather than the potential for transformation.
The writings of
the prophet Jeremiah also reveal God’s heart for another wicked city: Babylon . It was here
where the people of God would be forced to live for 70 years. God spoke through
Jeremiah to remind the people that, though He was responsible for sending them
into exile, He had not abandoned them or forgotten them in their plight. In
chapter 29, God gave His people specific instructions on how to conduct their
lives in the city: “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their
produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and
give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters;
multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I
have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on
its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (29:5-7).
The exiles were
encouraged to put down some roots in the city, pray for the city and be a
blessing to the city. More surprising than hearing they were to be in captivity
for a long time was the affirmation that they could find God in (what they
perceived to be) a godless city! The comforting assurance of God’s activity (29:11)
seems out of place when one considers the context of city life: “For I know the
plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans
for welfare and not for evil, to give you a
future and a hope.” As Linthicum states, this is an important and powerful reminder
for city-dwellers today: “Why are you in the city in which you find yourself?
You are there, Jeremiah suggests, for one reason and one reason alone. You are
in your city because God has called
you there. You are in your city by God’s design, by God’s will. Whether God’s
plans for you in that city turn out to be plans for your peace and not for your
disaster depend on whether you can see yourself as being called by God into
your city, and then whether you can seek to live faithfully according to that
call” (1991, 148). God can and does work through His people on behalf of their
city no matter what the circumstances are.
In the New
Testament, the city was the focal point of ministry in the early church. The
church was birthed in a city. Just prior to His ascension to heaven, Jesus
commissioned His disciples to be witnesses “…in all Judea
and Samaria and
to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), but they were to begin in Jerusalem —a city! As the gospel of Jesus
Christ spreads out from there, cities such as Antioch , Philippi ,
Thessalonica, Corinth ,
Ephesus , Athens , and eventually Rome become centers of
church expansion. In fact, “it is no exaggeration to say that the book of Acts
deals almost entirely with cities; missionary work is almost limited to them” (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 128).
Church historian Kenneth Latourette confirms this perspective by saying: “At
the outset, Christianity was predominately urban. It moved along the trade
routes from city to city. By the second decade of its second century in at
least some parts of Asia Minor , it had spread
widely into towns and even into the countryside, but its strength was in the cities
which were so prominent a feature of the Roman Empire ”
(1953, 75). But, in addition to following the trade routes, was there any other
strategy that resulted in this focus on the city?
The Apostle
Paul—the church’s premier missionary—initially pursued a strategy in keeping
with his own ethnic heritage. When he and Barnabas began their first missionary
journey, they “…proclaimed the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews” (Acts
13:4). In seeking out Jews, they “…were bound to focus on cities: in the
provinces outside of Judea , Jewish communities
could only be found in cities” (Schnabel 2008, 282). Going where a Jewish
audience could be found meant going to the city. Later, as Paul turned away
from the Jews to give primary attention to Gentiles, cities continued to be the
center of activity. Eckhard Schnabel describes Paul’s evangelistic ministry in
the city as focusing on five specific areas: “…synagogues, marketplaces, lecture halls, workshops
and private homes” (2008, 288). He concentrated on urban areas, not only
because of the masses of people, but for their potential of influence on the
surrounding region.
For this reason,
Paul had an urban strategy. He was selective where he chose to focus his
attention. “He concentrates on the district or provincial capitals, each of
which stands for a whole region: Philippi for Macedonia (Phil 4:15),
Thessalonica for Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess 1:7), Corinth for Achaia (1 Cor
16:15; 2 Cor 1:1), and Ephesus for Asia (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Cor
1:8.…These ‘metropolises’ are the main centers as far as communication,
culture, commerce, politics and religion are concerned” (Bosch 1991, 130). As a
result of this strategy, churches were planted in the cities, villages and
countryside of each specific region.
Establishing
churches in major cities was essential to Paul’s plan. However, it was not
enough just to plant a church. “Most of Paul’s letters were written to city
churches as primers on how the church can effectively carry on ministry in a
city” (Linthicum 1991, 22). To be effective, they had to understand their
unique context (Linthicum 1991, 66). Every city was different, and thus, every
church was different. Paul either personally invested sufficient time in some
of these Christian centers (such as Corinth
or Philippi ), or sent a co-worker who would
(such as Timothy to Thessalonica), so that the believers would be discipled and
grow toward maturity. These congregations were expected to possess a vital
faith that would be passed on to the surrounding areas (Allen 1927, 18). This
“trickle-down” approach resulted in a rapid spread of the gospel as the message
originally accepted in the city was then disseminated to outlying areas.
However, some of
the New Testament churches did not fare so well in fulfilling this purpose. Instead,
the influence of the city seemed to have overwhelmed their mission. The Corinthian
church, with its numerous problems, is an example. In writing about the
effectiveness of the churches in the cities of Asia Minor (Rev 2-3), Linthicum
states, “Some of these churches were seduced by their cities, in one way or
another allowing the Gospel to conform to the world rather than becoming agents
to enable the world to be transformed by the Gospel” (1991, 310). This is
always a danger—regardless of the setting. But “if the city shapes the church,
we can be sure that the church will no longer be the servant of God with
redeeming power for the salvation of men, but will have become a slave to the
secular thinking and lifestyles of the urban society” (Greenway 1978, 12). The
effective church remains conformed to the image of Christ so that it can
provide a transforming influence.
What is commendable
about the Asia Minor cities is “…they assumed
a pro-active role toward their cities, rather than a reactive role. The
essential response of these seven urban churches was to engage the interior
spirituality of their cities” (Linthicum 1991, 310). This engagement with their
cities is exemplary for churches today. Urban communities should not just be
localities where congregations have a presence through worship but areas where
the body of Christ is resident, engaged with the culture and making a difference
for the kingdom. This requires ministry leaders having the ability to interpret
the community as well as interpret the Scriptures so they can address the essential issues of life in the city (Bakke
1987, 62).
This pattern of
beginning in the cities and spreading to outlying areas is how the early church
“…turned the world upside down…(Acts 17:6). For much of Christian history, the
church was an urban phenomenon. “…The church saw cities as gifts of God, royal
routes to the evangelization of the world” (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 79). When the modern
missionary movement of the 18th century began to spread to the
coastlands of Africa and Asia ,
cities continued to receive the primary focus with the expectation that the
faith would spread outward (as it did in Paul’s day). However, it did not
permeate the beyond the coasts sufficiently. Vast interior populations were
remained untouched by the gospel. For this reason, the missionary focus turned
toward the interiors of continents and, more recently, to the unreached or
hidden peoples of the world.[6]
As a result, it has
been suggested by some that the attention given to these more remote areas of
the world has been at the expense of urban mission (Roberts 2007, 58). Numerous
urban church strategists decry this perceived abandonment of the city at a time
when the cities of the world have exploded with unprecedented population gains.
In emphasizing this urban challenge as a major unfinished task for the church
today, missiologist Patrick Johnstone writes, “We have been winning the
countryside and losing the cities, and all the time our rural constituency has
been draining away to the cities” (1998, 243). History indicates that the key
to reaching the countryside has always been to reach the cities first (Roberts
2008, 130). In the words of Ray Bakke, “large cities are both magnets, drawing the nations into them,
and magnifiers, broadcasting the
gospel out into the hinterlands” (1997, 168). The gospel never flows from the
rural areas to the city. It begins in the city. “The engine for societal change
is in the cities,…used wisely, it could be the dynamo for the growth of the
Kingdom” (Johnstone 1998, 241). If that
is true, ministering in cities must be a major focus of the overall strategy
for fulfilling the Great Commission in the 21st century.
[1] For
example, Isa 2:2-4 depicts how the peoples of the earth would be drawn to Jerusalem as God’s glory
was made manifest in the holy city (Conn
and Ortiz 2001, 90-91).
[2] One
could interpret God’s action at Babel
as His opposition to cities in general. That is not the issue here. He
dispersed the residents of Babel
for their attempt at self-sufficiency apart from Him and for their direct
disobedience to His command to fill the earth. Bob Roberts makes the point that
while the garden is the metaphor for creation, “…the metaphor for the future is
the city. The ultimate city the Bible describes is…a perfect city because it
belongs to God” (2007, 61). Therefore, apart from the image of the city as a
wicked place, there is the image of the holy city where God dwells and our much
anticipated destination (Newbigin 1989, 237).
[3] See Jer
29 explanation on p. 6-7 of this paper.
[4] Was it
ever God’s will for a city church to close their doors and relocate to the
suburbs? The Jesus who prayed, “I do not ask that you take them out of the
world, but that you keep them from the evil one” (Jn 17:15 ) is the same Jesus who can protect His
people in the city.
[5] The
English Standard Version (ESV) provides this meaning in the footnote.
[6] This
shift in focus was in large part due to the desire of missiologists to “finish
the task” of world evangelization by making sure that every unreached people
group had the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel of Christ. It was
not that they believed the city was unimportant, but that a reproducing church
was already present in urban areas. Places where the message of Christ had never
been proclaimed needed to be reached!
