Theology of Urban Mission id

Theology of Urban Mission
By Jonathan T. Iorkighir
Introduction
No amount of reflection on city ministry or urban mission during our age can be proven to
have covered all we need to know about God’s intention for the city. The little that one reads on
urban ministry will reveal that there are lots of gaps that still need to be filled on the subject matter.
This work is one effort at filling the gap in a small way on further reflection upon God’s calling of
the church to the city. This paper will, therefore, consider one vital aspect on urban ministry,
namely, a theology of urban mission. What does God say about the city and his covenant
community’s involvement with and in the city? Is urban mission just an infatuation of some over
zealous mission minded Christians who feel overburdened with the spiritual needs of today’s urban
dwellers, or is their zeal biblical? If it is biblical how does that unfold in God’s redemptive plan for
fallen humanity including the city? How can our mission to the city rest on a firm biblical
foundation? These and other questions are the concern of this work.
Before we proceed, the question needs to be answered as to why we need a theology of
urban ministry. A related question could be as to whether there is even a theology of or for urban
ministry. The first question presupposes the second and both will be addressed as we seek to
respond to the first – why do we need an urban theology? Eugene Rubingh informs us that those
Christians as are involved in urban ministry have a certain zeal with them, it is a zeal they feel is
biblically valid. He says such people are “convinced that they possess an authentic instinct as to the
biblical validity of and imperative for their work.”1 And it may be added, such people appear to be

saying they have experienced the presence of God in the city, and so they celebrate the city as a
marvelously diverse repository of God’s gifts and creativity, and they believe God desires his people
to work for the salvation of the city. But is such zeal enough or even relevant theology for urban
ministry? A good and authentic urban mission can only be embarked upon from a solid biblical
framework if such ministry is to receive God’s approval and blessings as Roger Greenway rightly
observes:
The kind of mission work that pleases God and can expect his blessings is done carefully on
sound biblical foundations…. We cannot expect lives to be changed, city neighborhoods
improved, and vital churches established if our labors spring from feeble, even distorted,
theological roots.2
Therefore, it means that we need a theology of urban ministry to enable us have a biblical basis for
what we do. This prevents us from arbitrariness and the use of only human thoughts and ideas as
basis for what we do in today’s cities. Besides having a biblical basis, we need biblical guidance in
what we do. It is so important to have a guide for all we do in life, and even more for what we do in
theology. We cannot call anything we do as Christian theology if it does not receive its basis and
guidance from Scripture. The necessity for seeking biblical guidance in urban mission becomes
even more apparent due to the emphasis placed on urban mission in modern times. It used to be
1
2

1989), 1.

Eugene Rubingh, Strategies for Evangelisation in Cities (Grand Rapids: CRC Pub., 1986), 29.
Roger Greenway and Timothy Monsma, Cities: Mission’s New Frontier (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

2
that western churches sent missionaries to the developing world, especially to Africa, to engage
mostly in rural or village mission work. Today most of that has changed and most missionaries, if
they come, will be involved in ministry settings that will be at least partially urban. Missionaries
who work in Africa today, have their residence in cities even when they are involved in mostly rural
mission work. Most villages have been turned to at least towns, and people’s life styles have largely
changed from a typically rural setting to an urban-like lifestyle. This means the church in Africa
needs to squarely face a new dimension of ministry that is urban conscious. But such theology
needs to receive its guide from the Bible and hence the need to carefully develop a biblical theology
of urban mission to guide the church in her new role in the cities of Africa.
The rapid growth of cities makes urban theologizing an imperative. Predictions of the
growth of cities turn out to be so accurate when viewed in the light of the growth of Abuja, the
Nigerian capital. Abuja is a city of a million today, but it was founded as the new capital in 1985.
Other African cities show a similar growth pattern. The church cannot fold her arms and watch this
growth. Something has to be done and a theological basis for what needs to be done is unavoidable

just as Ray Bakke observes that “the way to reach the city is not through programs but by being
biblical people.”3 This means if we see the urgency for urban mission we need to develop a biblical
basis and guidance for it. The need for concerted urban ministry in Africa has been highlighted by
several and hence the need for a biblical theology of the city. Aylward Shorter while highlighting
the need for urban ministry in Africa, fails to even hint at developing a biblical basis for it. But
rather, he sees the need in terms of the social injustices of the city in Africa.4 Poignantly missing in
his stated reasons is the biblical mandate or basis for the church’s involvement in urban mission.
But one thinks if we should be involved in any city ministry we should be so biblical about it in the
first instance.
The Urban Reality of our day
The need for a biblical theology of urban mission is made more apparent by the urban reality
of our day. People have moved or are moving to the cities. Manuel Ortiz refers to a prediction by
Rafael Salas that “by the end of the twentieth century the world would experience radical and
overwhelming change, with the majority of people living in urban centers, primarily in the cities of
Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”5 Raymond Bakke goes straight ahead to say this prediction has
come to pass since according to him, “the whole world has come to the city.”6 In 1979, Timothy
Monsma in An Urban Strategy for Africa, had already wondered what the cities of Africa will be
like by the year 2000. He went on to the predict that:
3

Ray Bakke, The Urban Christian: Effective Ministry in Today’s Urban World (Downers Grove: IVP, 1987),

62.
4

Alyward Shorter says “Urbanization is reality that cannot be wished away. In the final analysis, however, it is
the unjust reality of in contemporary Africa—the producer of and product of a systematic injustice…. There are at least
four reasons why urbanization is a life or death issue. These can be stated as follows: (1) urbanization pollutes. (2)
urbanization impoverishes; (3) urbanization disorientates; (4) urbanization secularizes” (Urbanization: Today’s
Missionary Reality in Africa,” African Ecclesial Review 35:5 [October 1990], 290-300]).
5
Manuel Ortiz, “The Church and the City,” in The Urban Face of Mission: Ministering the Gospel in a
Diverse and Changing World (ed Manuel Ortiz and Susan Baker; Phillipsburg: P & R. Publishing, 2002), 43.
6
Raymond Bakke, “Urbanization and Evangelism: A Global View,” in The Urban Face of Mission:
Ministering the Gospel in a Diverse and Changing World, 32.

3
By the year 2000, African cities will be much larger than they are today, and may also be
better organized in terms of intercity communication networks and government…. At the

same time there are indications that they will be African cities that will preserve African
culture to a greater or lesser extent…. One also likes to dream that at the heart of these cities
will be strong Christian churches that have gathered in African believers from many
different ethnic groups. These churches will be strong because of their sizeable
membership.7
Monsma’s predictions seem realistically accurate. The Nigerian cities have grown considerably by
the year 2000 and so has the urban churches in Nigeria. Elsewhere, Monsma states that in tropical
Africa there were (in 1979) over fifty cities of 100,000 population or more and several cities with
more than one million population.8 The United Nations Center for Human Settlements published
her report on human settlements in 1986. According to the report, only 14 percent of the world
population lived in urban areas in 1920, but by 1980, that population rose to 40 percent. The report
also predicted that if this trend continues, nearly half the world’s population could be living in
towns and cities by the turn of the century.9 In reaction to this report, Alex Zanotelli submits that
this rapid urbanization is even more realistic in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin
America:
Urban settlements in the poor countries are at present growing three times faster than those
in the developed countries. In fact, 85 percent of growth in the world’s urban population
between 1980 and 2000 is projected to take place in the poor countries. This heralds a
change of truly gigantic proportions.10
Alyward Shorter calls attention to the reality of urbanization in Africa that begs for the church’s

response. He rightly observes that urbanization is a reality that cannot be wished away. It is a
living concomitant of human history, human culture and human economic development.
Urbanization is an unjust reality in contemporary Africa.11
The growth of these cities in Africa and the world in general has become a living reality and
the church has to work with it. Today more than 50 cities in Nigeria alone have a population of
over one million and several large churches are found all over the cities in Nigeria. A case could be
made here of the NKST church in Abuja alone with a communicant membership of 1,200, but this
church was founded only in 1995. Cities all over Africa have witnessed a similar growth with
accompanying growth in the African urban churches.
Such rapid growth in the African cities and their churches begs for the Christian church to be
involved in urban mission, but before she does that well, there is need to provide a sound
theological base for these churches if the church in Africa is to stand the tide of theological
relevance in today’s world. This is because the large churches in the cities are experiencing a
heterogeneous membership they have not had before. Besides, such churches have had different
tribal cultures represented in them giving rise to the problem of which form of worship style to
7

Timothy Monsma, An Urban Strategy for Africa (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1979), 132.
Ibid., xiii.a
9

David Barrett, “Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 1989,” International Bulletin of Missionary
Research 13:1 (January 1989), 37.
10
Alex Zanotelli, “Facing Problems of Rapid Urbanization,” African Ecclesial Review 30:5 (October 1988).
11
Shorter, “Urbanization,” 290.
8

4
adopt and which language should be used in the worship services. This need makes it necessary for
seeking to know God’s clear teaching on the city and the ministry of the church in it. This will help
the church to not repeat the mistake of the past as clearly cautioned by Roger Greenway:
As evangelical churches and mission organizations awaken to the challenges of a rapidly
expanding urban world, there is the danger that the urgency of the task will cause them to
neglect biblical foundations…. Urban mission has suffered a great deal from such
negligence in the past. As a new era of urban ministry unfolds, we must not repeat the
mistake.
The only way to not repeat the mistake as expressed by Greenway is by beginning with a biblical
theology of urban ministry. Sound urban ministry and strategies require firm theological
foundations, which come about only through earnest prayer, biblical study and hard work.

A final reason for seeking to establish a theology of urban ministry arises from the fact that
the church might reap devastating consequences for failing to work in and for the city. We might
face serious consequences if we fail to work in the city. In this connection, Greenway asks the
question as to how the cities of Europe were lost by the church. And he responds that the European
cities were lost because the church there had neglected them.12 We need not repeat this mistake and
lose the cities of Africa at this time. And the right way to start getting involved with the cities in
Africa is by being biblical about it and developing a biblical foundation for urban ministry that
seeks to engage the issues of urban ministry.
The Shape of Theology of Urban Mission
Now that we have stated the need for a theology of urban mission, what needs to be
addressed is the shape of that theology. What is the nature of this theology and how do we go about
it? This question is important because we now live in a world of myriads of theologies. In the
years gone by, systematic theology seemed to be the bedrock of all theologizing, but was replaced
by an emphasis on biblical theology and the emphasis have shifted now from biblical theology to
ethnic theology. This is theology that seeks to interpret scripture in the context of every ethnic
community, and in this day we have theologies like black theology, feminist theology, African
theology and Asian theology.
These various theologies have proved unhealthy for a responsible theology of urban mission.
Unhealthy in the sense that these theologies provide an unacceptable label for urban theology but at
the same time gives it a name in order to kill it. It is like the African proverb which translates like,

“naming a dog in order to kill it.” Otherwise such labels of urban theology as ‘liberal theology’
have done little to help the church’s reflection on its mission and ministry to the city. David
Claerbaut laments what can be described as a slinging mud situation within the evangelical church
over the question of the church’s involvement in evangelism and social action.13 One party in the
argument is of the opinion that the church does not quite have a biblical mandate to have concern
for the poor since such concern smacks of theological liberalism while the other is of the opinion
that for the church to minister in the city she must respond and address issues of social justice as a
part and parcel of her city evangelism. This is a situation that John Perkins describes as saddening
because “much of the church’s energy has been drawn away in criticizing each other, and the result
12
13

Roger Greenway and Timothy Monsma, Cities: Mission’s New Frontier (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
David Claerbaut, Urban Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 16-17.

5
14

has been less-than-effective spiritual ministries.” This is truly saddening because if the church is
to minister to the human beings in the city, it should consider these people as complete persons

created in the image of God. This should lead the church to addressing all the issues affecting the
human person in the city like poverty, homelessness, unemployment, corruption and injustice etc.
But to label these issues and assign them a place outside the scope of the church’s ministry is to also
deny that God created humans as complete entities either bodies without souls or souls without
bodies. Greenway laments but faithfully informs us that “only a holistic approach to ministry can
satisfy biblical directives and the needs of the city.”15 Greenway is absolutely right because at the
base of this theological debate is an unsound biblical theological bias on which both parties in the
debate base their arguments.
To further illustrate this half-hearted approach to urban theology is to cite the practice of
those who take one biblical reference to the city, or one incidence of the city in which the city is
portrayed in some what bad light. Instances of this include references to the city in Genesis like
Gen 4:16, 17 where Cain is described as leaving the presence of God and going to dwell in the city
of Nod. The Bible describes Cain as building a city and naming it after his son Enoch. Even
though this is the first mention of ‘city’ (ir) in the OT, it is built when Cain departs from the
presence of God, it is a city built in rebellion. Secondly, the downfall of Lot in Gen 19 is blamed on
his pitching his tent in the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. Third but related to these is the typically
western analytical argument, it maintains that incidents of the city in Genesis often show an
eastward movement away from the presence of God. For instance, Adam and Eve moved out of the
Garden of Eden and went Eastward (Gen 3:24), Cain went East to found the city of Enoch (Gen
4:17), the Tower of Babel builders were in the East (Gen 11).16 A common mistake to this approach

that is also anti-redemptive historical is that it fails to take into consideration what other Bible
passages after Genesis say about the city. For instance, one might want to question what is
important in maintaining the position that the city is always east bound. What does being east
bound imply? Does this not mean that God is also anti-East? But weightier is the counter argument
that the Bible after Genesis calls God’s people to the city and causes them to work for the city and
to pray for the city. Again, even in Genesis, the Bible nowhere mentions that the city is intrinsically
evil and anti-God. After all it is the same Genesis that we find Abraham praying for the ten
righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18). We shall later return to this when we begin a proper
theology of the city.
The theological approach to urban ministry that can stand the test of time is one that looks at
the whole counsel of God from a redemptive historical perspective.17 The redemptive historical
14

John Perkins, “Urban Church/Urban Poor,” in Metro Ministry, David Frenchak and Sharrel Keyes, eds.,
(Elgin III: David C. Cook, 1979), 45.
15
Roger Greenway, Calling our Cities to Christ (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 27.
16
For a detailed discussion of this, see Harvie Conn and Manuel Ortiz, Urban Ministry: The Kingdom, the City
and the People of God (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001), 85-90.
17
The redemptive historical interpretation of scripture is espoused by most reformed interpreters but is most
clearly explained by Geerhardus Vos, founder of biblical theology. He says revelation shows a certain progressive
movement in history. The revelation of God “has not completed itself in one exhaustive act, but unfolded itself in long
series of successive acts.” Redemption is also historically successive “because it addresses itself to the generations of
mankind coming into existence in the course of history.” (Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments [Carlisle:Banner
of Trust, 1992], 5-6). See also Herman N.
Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988).

6
interpretation of scripture, held and espoused by most reformed theologians in the Calvinistic
tradition provides a better method for a holistic theology of urban mission. But to take one aspect
of Scripture and build a theology on it is invitation to unwholesome debate and irresponsible
interpretation. Such approach might reflect even brilliantly on a facet of divine revelation but may
in effect limit the perception of the complete and all-embracing biblical import. What does the
whole of scripture say about the city and the involvement of God’s missionary people in it? It is not
a choice between evangelism and social concern; it is always and must remain both.
A theology of urban mission must involve the biblical statements concerning the city; it
should also involve what the community of God’s people is to do with regards to its mission to the
city. In doing this, the progressive redemptive witness of God’s word about the city must be kept in
mind and applied as we proceed to do a biblical theology of the city.
A Biblical Theology of Urban Mission
It is important that we take a careful look at how we do any theology at all. The Church of
Christ has suffered divisiveness due to the formation of some theologies. In doing a theology of
urban ministry, we need to carefully consider the various ways in which the Bible presents the city
and how it challenges us to work towards the redemption of humanity including those in the city. In
order to accomplish this, we shall look at the Bible and the city, and the biblical injunctions
concerning our involvement in the city. This will be done following the progressive redemptive
epochs as found in the Bible.
The Bible and the City
In beginning any theology at all, we need to begin with the Old Testament and progress to
the New Testament. The Bible mentions 119 cities and makes references to 1227 cities in various
perspectives.18 These references are spread throughout the Bible, and we will commence
considering them from Genesis and in that order.
The City in Genesis and the Patriarchal Period -- Genesis provides the very basis for developing a
theology of the city. It is commonly called the book of beginnings, and thus it is the right place to
begin a theology of the city. Even though the word city (ir) begins to appear in Genesis 4,
according to Harvie Conn, the concept of city is present beginning at Genesis 1, the story and
history of creation.19 What God put in place was a city, over which he (God) was king as an
This approach simply takes into consideration the comprehensive view of scripture on any issue beginning from
creation to new creation, from the garden to the city, from the fall to the consummation of redemption in Christ. For
further explanation on this method, see Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and
Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 96-100; Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and
Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001.
18
Rubingh, Strategies, 30. A wide range of urban theology scholars seem agreed on this number as the exact
occurrence of city in the Bible: Francis Duboss, How Churches Grow in an Urban World, Nashville: Broadman, 1978),
101.; Lausanne Committee for World Evangelisation, Thailand Report – Christian Witness to Large Cities (9800), 6.;
Claerbaut, Urban Ministry, 18.; Harvie Conn and Ortiz, Urban Ministry; Ray Bakke with Jim Hunt, The Urban
Christian: Effective Ministry in Today’s Urban World (Downers Grove: IVP, 1987), 62.
19
Harvie Conn argues that the story of creation itself is an urban prologue, it is the story and history of God’s
original design for the city: “Genesis as an Urban Prologue,” in Discipling the City: A Comprehensive Approach to
Urban Mission (ed. Roger Greenway; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992),13.

7
apologetic against other gods as was espoused and believed unto by the peoples of the ancient near
east.20 According to this view, as far as the Bible begins in the garden and ends in the city” is
enough evidence towards God’s intention to create a cosmic city. Original creation with the cultural
mandate given to the first humans, Adam and Eve to fill, rule (Gen 1:28) and subdue was nothing
more or less than to develop the garden into a city. All subsequent human culture and tradition that
was to follow them was to live in a city form. Following Harvie’s argument, we begin to see that
urban involvement is not a novel idea but is as old as the book of beginnings itself.
Cain, and the city of Enoch:- Further into the book of Genesis, we come to the first mention
of the city that was built by Cain (Gen 4:16-17). We need to notice that Cain’s city is one built after
the fall. As mentioned before, especially Jacques Ellul in his 1970 work, The Meaning of the City,
has used Cain’s city project to advance an anti-urban bias. Ellul looks at the city as a symbol of
human, destructive technology, and that perspective makes him to consider the city as nothing less
than sin.21 This view and those of others, fail to look at the redeeming grace of God for the city.
The Genesis record here clearly portrays even the city of Cain as the center of civilization. It is in
this city built away from the presence of God, that we find the first technological advances within
the human race. The descendants of Cain make developmental strides in the areas of music,
technocrats who begin to forge bronze and iron tools (Gen 4:20-22).
God’s original plan was to build a cosmic city, a perfect city with rivers and security, but
without injustice, corruption and pollution. Cain is a typical display of human rebellion after the
fall so that he begins to play God, his ambition is to be like God and build a city like God. So with
Cain’s city project, we learn that it is not the city that is the problem but Cain, the builder of the city.
However, we need to look further into God’s progressive dealings with humanity after the fall. The
plan to redeem humanity includes the redemption of also all human institutions that were intended
by God at the first creation. So even though Cain’s city is built out of rebellion and away from the
presence God, that city and ours too stand in need of redemption before God. And God instituted a
plan for redeeming humanity and creation in general (Gen 3:24). Even though humanity might
make the city into something else, God’s grace still hovers over the high rise buildings of the city
and its slums and this quote from Meredith Kline is helpful:
Man may turn the city into something more dreadful than the howling wilderness, but that is
another matter. As the provision of God’s common grace, the city is a benefit, serving
mankind as at least a partial, interim refuge from the wilderness condition into which the
fallen race, exiled from paradise, has been driven…. Functions that would have been
performed by the city apart from the Fall are now modified by being turned to the new
purpose of offsetting, to an extent, the evils arising through man’s sinfulness and as a result
of the common curse on the race.22

20

Conn, “Genesis as Urban Prologue,” 14-16.
For works espousing such argument, see John M. Halligan, “A Critique of the City in the Jahwis Corpus”
(Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1975); Frank S. Fick, The City in Ancient Israel, Missouls: Scholars
Press, 1977, 1-23; Don C. Benjamin, Deuterononmy and City Life: A Form Criticism of the Texts with the Word City
(‘ir) in Deuteronomy 4:41-26:19 (Lanham,: University Press of America, 1983), 39-47; Isaac M, Kikawada and Arthur
Quinn, Before Abraham was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 9-35.
22
Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, Lecture Notes
printed by the author, 1983), 2:23.
21

8
Despite the fall of humanity including the city, God still has a gracious concern for the city
and Cain’s city cannot be looked upon as bereft of any iota of that common grace of God.
The City at the Towel of Babel – Before we come to the tower of Babel episode, Genesis first,
introduces us to the city builder, Nimrod (Gen 10:8-12). He is described as a hunter but his most
achievement was in the founding of cities namely, Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth
Ir, Calah and Resen. It is in one of his cities, Babel, that we have the Tower of Babel episode taking
place. The idea of towers was a common one among Near Eastern peoples, but they called them
Zigurrats, a high rise building in which the priest of the city held communication with the city
deity.23 As such those high-rise buildings were like cosmic links between the gods and the city,
heaven and earth.24 However, it must be pointed out that the Tower of Babel event in Genesis 11 is
not mere historical legend with no historical facticity.25 It’s a real event that took place and the
ziggurat tradition of the ancient Near East might have taken root from it.
We need to observe here that even though God confused the language of the Tower of Babel
generation, it cannot be taken as divine wrath against the city with its high-rise buildings. What
God is against here is the human pride and rebellion that informs the building of the Tower/ziggurat:
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let
us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole
earth" (Gen 11:4). So at Babel, man attempts to create unity and to build a city without God and is
doomed to failure.26 What is so tragic about Babel, says De Ridder, is that “man always tries to
create unity in disobedience.”27 Even in this prideful rebellion against God, the people of Babel
were looking for something good to come from the city, protection. They believe if they build a city
tower, they will not be overcome by an invading army and forced to scatter on the face of the earth.
The city will provide a certain security. Here again we see the common grace of God in the city
being appealed to by a rebellious generation.
Abraham and cities of Sodom and Gomorrah – In Genesis 11:1-9, the descendants of Noah want to
build a tower and settle in a city in contempt for God, in contrast, God calls Abraham out of the city
in Genesis 12. Abraham expresses his faith in God and leaves the city to an unknown destination
(Gen. 11:31-12:5). Conn succinctly develops the contrast between Abraham and the Towel of
Babel builders:
The tower builders rebelliously refuse to wander anymore; Abraham wanders faithfully,
“looking forward to the city with foundations, whose builder and architect is God” (Heb
11:9-10). The planners of Babel seek to make a name of themselves (Gen 11:4); God
promises to make Abraham’s name great (12:2).28
23

Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, Matrix of Man: An Illustrated History of Urban Environment (New York: Praeger,

1968), 42.
24

Mircea Eliade. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,
1959), 39-41.
25
See Kline, Kingdom Prologue 3:23.
26
Roger E. Hedlund, The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1985), 31.
27
R. R. De Ridder, Discipling the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 21.
28
Conn, “Genesis as Urban Prologue,” 21.

9
Abraham’s links to the city do not make him appear like a city person as such, his wandering
life make him appear like a rural village man. Several sermons speak of Abraham as a village
person. In fact, considerable biblical scholarship depicts Abraham as a semi-nomad.29 In those days
when most of Africa was rural, Africans tended to equate their rural life to that of Abraham
identifying him as a peasant rural farmer.30 However, a closer examination of Abraham’s life style in
his historical and environment context reveal that he was more of a city business traveler than might
appear on a cursory look at the biblical records. Cyrus H. Gordon and others want us to look at
Abraham more as a traveling merchant prince since that might bring us closer to the truth about his
city connections.31 Abraham grew up in Ur and was called out of it. This was the greatest trading
city known in the then existing world. His routes of wandering were always along the most heavily
traveled urban trade routes. Haran (Gen 12:4), from which Abraham was called, a second time was
another great city and caravan center. These city connections make Abraham an unlikely rural
dweller as might be thought of. We cannot, therefore, support the argument that God has a dislike
for the city and that is why he called Abraham out of the city to a rural life. Abraham still had city
connections before and after his call.
The twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which had connections with Abraham are
described as being oppressive, violent, erotic and orgiastically depraved. In Genesis 18:20, the angel
says: "How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! And as
the angels finally arrive in Sodom, they come face to face with the wickedness and depraved, erotic
and orgiastic desires of the city (Gen 18:5, 8-9, 13). Lot had chosen this city just for the very reason
that most in Africa flock to the city—its promise of wealth and ease (Gen 13:10-12). But Abraham
had refused the wealth of this very city when its king had offered it to him. This action should not
be confused with the idea that Abraham’s refusal to accept the wealth of the city was in line with
Yahweh’s dislike of the city and its wealth. God, through his common grace, bestows his riches
upon the city, as such the wealth of the city cannot be considered as intrinsically evil. The wealth of
Sodom and Gomorrah was not evil, but the people were. Abraham refused it because he believed
his wealth was coming from Yahweh, his covenant God and not from earthly kings. Later the
prophet Ezekiel condemned the people of Sodom for “pride, surfeit of food, uncaring for the poor
and prosperous ease:32
This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and
prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did
abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it” (Ezek 16:49-50).

29

For an extended list of such scholarship consult Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 774-77.
30
Dr. Shimrumun Yakobu compares Abraham’s life with that of the Tiv, a tribe in central Nigeria and
concludes that both lifestyles are similar since they are just agricultural rural farmers. Mbaheberu man Tiv (Makurdi:
Lamp Word Books, 1985. See also Jacob Akpera, “
31
Cyrus H. Gordon, “Abraham and the Merchants of Ura,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17 (1958): 28-31;
John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1975), 13-38; For an extended
discussion of this see Frick, The City in Ancient Israel, 188-93.
32
See also Lausanne Committee for World Evangelisation, “The Thailand Report - Christian Witness to Large
Cities” in Lausanne Occasional Papers 9 (1980), 6.

10
Scripture also speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah as a symbol of God’s judgment against
wickedness (Deut 29:23; Jer 49:18; Amos 4:11; Luke 17:29). But in all these God did not write off
Sodom and Gomorrah. His promise of grace is not forgotten either. Israel is likened to Sodom but
God promises restoration and comfort to Israel. Lot and his family were rescued from Sodom and
Gomorrah as reminders that the city is not a total write off but there is a remnant of grace for the
city in Genesis.
A discussion of Abraham and his urban connections cannot be complete without reference to
the covenant and its urban under pinnings. When God called Abraham he made a covenant with
him (Gen 15:17-21; 17:1-14). The covenant blessing promised to Abraham included his children
after him and also the nations or peoples with their cities (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). Abraham
continues to have connections with city peoples as seen in Genesis 14:1-16 when he enters into
alliance with five urban kings and recovers the wealth of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen
14:1-16). It is a result of the covenant blessings that he begins to be a blessing to these city
dwellers.
This pattern of covenant blessing and city connections continues in the lives of Abraham’s
children. Isaac finds a wife from the city of Nahor (Gen24:10) and there is a prediction of urban
blessing and rule for Rebecca’s children: “may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies”
(Gen 24:60). The reference to “gates” here is nothing short of city gates, which means the
descendants of Isaac will be city dwellers through conquest over their enemies. Isaac himself
encounters Abimelech, king of the city of Gerar and makes a covenant with him Gen 26:18-33).
Again in the life of Jacob we see this city connection and divine covenant blessing.
Wherever God appears to Jacob a city naturally springs up. During his flight from Esau, Jacob
spends a night at Luz where the Lord appears to him at night. He renames the city, Bethel “The
house of God, and the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:16, 19). At this place a city springs up bearing the
name of the God of Abraham. And when Jacob flees from Laban and spends another night at
Penuel, another city springs up in commemoration of what happened to Jacob there (Gen 32:22-32).
Jacob names this place ‘Peniel,’ meaning face of God, and it again becomes a city named after the
covenant God. Abraham bought land from the people of Hebron (Gen 23:17-20), and Jacob buys
land from the citizens of Shechem (33:18-19). The people of Shechem acknowledges Abraham’s
presence as blessing and so did the city of Shechem acknowledge Jacob’s presence in their midst
(Gen 34:20-24). All these are reminiscent of the covenant blessings that spill over into the cities of
the peoples.
We read the concluding chapters of Genesis which are very much dominated by the story of
Joseph as he becomes a blessing to the cities of the Gentiles. In Genesis 19:5, we read that
Potiphar’s house is blessed because of the presence of Joseph. “By making use of Egypt’s cities as
store houses for grain (41:35, 48), Joseph averts a universal famine. His relief program saves not
only Egypt but also the children of Jacob.”33 In this way we can see how grace is contained in

33

Conn, “Genesis as Urban Prologue,” 25.

11
God’s judgment. In the Joseph story we come to realize that God turned his brother’s jealousy and
envy to save the earth’s cities and his people. “Again, judgment carries the purposes of grace.”34
Moses, the Egyptian Bondage and the Exodus:- Beyond Genesis, we continue to see the grace of
God around the themes of covenant redemption for the cities. In Egypt, the people of Israel become
builders of cities for Pharoah’s storehouses. The major occupation of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt
was the building of Pharoah’s cities. “They built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh
(Exod 1:11).” This would make one argue again that cities are an affront to God’s grace as they are
built out of oppression and exploitation of the weak and underprivileged. Such argument shares the
same fallacy with those who base their argument on one or limited piece of biblical story. Further
reading will reveal that God is against city projects built out of oppression and exploitation and that
is why he judged Pharoah and Egypt and removed the Hebrews from such oppression with an
outstretched hand. The same God that delivers the Hebrews from Egypt freely gives them cities out
of his grace and in keeping with his covenant promises (Deut 7:17-19).
Among the outstanding features of Moses as leader of Israel was the legislation mediated
through him by God. These laws cover all areas of civil and religious life. They are clear laws
against oppression, treatment of the poor, corruption, economics and government, issues of utmost
importance for the daily existence in the city. We see here that Moses legislation took care of life
and administration of the city as well as rural life. Moses also legislated for the identification of six
cities called cities of refuge for the protection of those guilty of involuntary manslaughter (Num
35:9-34). When Joshua took over from Moses the leadership of the nation, he designates those six
cities of refuge as symbols of God’s graceful protection (Joshua 20:1-9). One can see here that the
argument against the urban ministry because cities are an affront to divine purposes and are east
bound, does not always bear the weight of the rest of scripture. Here it is God himself that requires
for the establishment of six cities as symbols of divine protection.
When the Israelites finally settle in the land of Canaan, God takes the cities of the peoples in
the land and gives them to his people as gifts without their laboring for them like they did for
Pharoah’s cities (Deut 6:10-11; Psalm 107:36). “No human hand achievement wins them (Deut
8:17); the same divine hand that delivers from Egypt gives them freely (Deut 7:17-19).”35 Why
would God give his people cities? Because they are good and can be enjoyed by his people as they
get involved with them.
David and Jerusalem, the city of God:- In the Old Testament, after Eden, the city of Jerusalem
becomes the dwelling place for God. The Bible describes Jerusalem as the cosmic center for God’s
administration of the cosmic peace made possible under the covenant (Ps 122:6-9). David
consolidated his rule of the covenant nation at Jerusalem and made it the capital of the twelve tribes.
Sometimes the city is named after David, “the city of David” (2 Sam 5:9 see also Luke 2:4, 9)).
This use started after David had conquered Jebus, the city of the Jebusites and made it part of

34

Isaac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn, Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11 (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1985), 121-22.
35
Conn, “Genesis as Urban Prologue,” 26.

12
Jerusalem. This was certainly a synecdoche use as Jebus was just part of the city of Jerusalem.
Sometimes the Bible also refers to Jerusalem as ‘Zion.’ It is a synonym for the “City of David” and
Jerusalem, but its use is so much limited to the Wisdom Literature and the poetic books, especially
the Psalms. It is mostly used figuratively in reference to the heavenly Jerusalem (Isa 60:14; Heb
12:22; Rev 14:1).37 Of particular interest here is the reference in Hebrews 12:22 which describes
Mount Zion as the heavenly Jerusalem and the city of the Living God: “But you have come to
Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in
festal gathering.” God lives in a city! This is the eschatological fulfillment of the city that was
intended to be in the garden but was thwarted through man’s disobedience. According to Hebrews,
that intention is realized through God’s grace for the city. Here we have a picture of the description
of Jerusalem in the OT that one day Jerusalem will fulfill her role as the “joy of the whole earth” (Ps
48:2; cf. 68:31; 86:9; 137:1-2, 5-6) because at the coronation of her eschatological king, Gentiles
will also participate in her messianic feast (Ps 72:10-11). As the city of God, Jerusalem will be set
in the center of the nations, with countries round about her (Ezek 5:5).
The Bible gives the city of Jerusalem an exalted place in the plan of God, but we must not
forget that it was this very city that Jesus bemoaned her rebellion and arrogance and pronounced
judgment against her (Luke 19:41-44). At Jesus weeping over the unbelief of the city of Jerusalem,
no one would expect such exaltation will happen to the city, but we are here shown the grace of God
again for the city being displayed. Out of covenant faithfulness and love, God cleanses up
Jerusalem and makes her into his own city where he rules the whole universe. This should speak
clearly well to the church, as she thinks about involvement in urban ministry. God has not
abandoned the city, he will clean it up and save it from eternal damnation and the church is the
vehicle through which this becomes possible. The theology of Jerusalem also informs us again that
through the redemptive historical progression of events, we realize that the cities of Enoch, Babel,
Sodom and Gomorrah and Jericho were all types of the city of God, which will fulfill the perfect
role of the city as God had intended them at the beginning. Jerusalem, the city of God, will take up
the typological significance of all those corrupt cities and show that God has a grand finale for the
city.
So a theology of urban mission should not end with specific cities in the OT but it should
foresee the eschatological signification of the city in general while recognizing the grace of God for
the city. That will inform the church to better get involved in urban mission with optimism and not
disillusionment seeing that our cities today are just as bad. The flight theology of the city does not
help matters, as it consigns cities to utter destruction and nothing more.
36

36

W. S. Lasor, “Jerusalem,” ISBE 2:998-1032. So many verses in the Psalms refer to Jerusalem as either
Mount Zion or Zion or daughter of Zion: Psalm 48:2 beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in
the far north, the city of the great King.
Psalm 48:11-12 Let Moun Zion be glad, let the towns of Judah rejoice because of your judgments. Walk about Zion,
go all around it, count its towers,
Psalm 50:2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth
Psalm 149:2 Let Israel be glad in its Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King.
Psalm 147:12 Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!
37

Lasor, ISBE, 1000.

13
The Prophets and Cities:- The prophets condemn in unequivocal terms the injustice found in the
city and pronounce judgment against it. Looking at such condemnation, it might appear like the
prophets are anti-city, but there is a graceful side to such pronouncement of judgment. Isaiah
condemns the covenant breaking of Jerusalem, and her desire to be like other cities as well as her
injustice to the poor (Isa 10:1-2).38 Micah predicts the destruction of Assyria (5:6) that it will be
shepherded by a sword and not a staff. And like Assyria, the prophet continues that the cities of
Israel will be demolished (Micah 5:11-14). Isaiah likens the destruction of Babylon to the demise
of Sodom and Gomorrah, he observes that instead of being populated by humans, the city will be
filled with jackals, owls, and wild goats (Isaiah 13:19, 21-22; Jer 50:39-40). Jerusalem will meet a
similar fate and her streets will be populated with similar animals and birds (Isaiah 34:12-15).
Damascus will also be reduced to a heap of ruins (Isaiah 17:1-3) and the city will stand desolate,
forsaken like the desert (27:10). The city of Jerusalem, which was once the joy of the nations will
become the delight of donkeys, and pasture for flocks (Isaiah 32:12-14). While the prophets
pronounce judgment on the cities, it must be remembered that they also held out an arm of love and
grace towards the cities. The point of bringing judgment upon those cities was for their ultimate
repentance in order to avert the pending judgment.39 God will not forget his covenant of grace with
either Jerusalem or the gentile cities. Covenant blessing will touch them all. “Mercy will rebuild
what justice broke down.”40 As a matter of fact, God did not wait for the cities to become saturated
with injustice and all manner of ungodliness before he threatened judgment, but from the onset, he
revealed to the nations what he was going to do so that they might repent. When they failed to
observe those statutes, he warned them severally through the prophets before judgment would
come, but in a situation where repentance happened, the Lord also withheld the pronounced
destruction of judgment. A good case in point here is the city of Nineveh.
Nineveh was one of three Assyrian capitals, and a biblical theology of urban missions
develops around it in the books of Jonah and Nahum. The Assyrian empire was brutal in its
warfare41 and Nineveh, the capital, mirrored the brutality and oppression of the empire. When
Shalmaneser, the Assyrian king, invaded Samaria in the early eight century BC (2 Kngs 17), he
captured the city and took 27, 290 Israelites into captivity. Samaria was then resettled with people
form the various cities of the Assyrian Empire, and they developed a mixture of Jewish and pagan
religious practices. Their descendants were the Samaritans who feature in the New Testament and
developed a hostile relationship with the Jews. Sennacherib was the next Assyrian king who
attacked and took away what was left of Israel and Jerusalem. Their philosophy of resettling
conquered territories with a mixture of peoples was to totally destroy a sense of homogenous
identity and erase a sense of historical roots. This epitomized their brutality and inhumanity. Jonah
1:2 describes the city as great and whose wickedness had come up to God just like the cry of Abel’s
blood went up to the Lord (Gen 4:10). Nahum 3:3 describes their brutality in war: “Horsemen
38

Ezekiel’s condemnation of Sodom is already quoted on page 16.
See also Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical
Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 235. Greidanus rightly observes that the purpose of the prophets
announcing impending judgment was “to bring Israel to repentance in order thus to avert the very content of the
message.”
40
Conn, “Genesis as Urban Prologue,” 27.
41
Bakke, A Theology as Big as the City, 65.
39

14
charging, flashing sword and glittering spear, piles of dead, heaps of corpses, dead bodies without
end they stumble over the bodies.” The NIV Study Bible amply presents the wickedness of
Nineveh thus:
The Assyrians were brutally cruel, their kings often being depicted as gloating over the
gruesome punishments inflicted on conquered peoples. They conducted their wars with
shocking ferocity, uprooted whole populations as state policy and deported them to other
parts of their empire. The leaders of conquered cities were tortured and horribly mutilated
before being executed.42
Why would God send Jonah to a city like this? Doesn’t this city deserve to be punished
right away without any warning? Bakke says this mission is like sending a modern rabbi to Berlin
and informing him his ministry will be blessed and the Germans will become an even greater nation
than they were under Hitler.43 God did not act like we may