So where is the most "strategic" place to live?

But before you go any further in this post let's get something straight - I am not necessarily disagreeing with Tim Keller, or Hugh Hewitt, or Os Guinness or Rodney Stark or other people like that who have pointed out the vital importance of taking the gospel to the power centers of our world.  I might be disagreeing, but then again I might not . . . I'm just saying.

As we were discussing these guys all have a point - it can be fairly easily shown that the apostle Paul took the gospel to the great city centers of the ancient world.  This turned out to be good strategery, because as the gospel captured the cities it filtered out to the countryside.

Still, you have to admit that Will Willimon has a point.  Now again, I'm not trying to start something here, and don't hold it against him that he's a methodist (shh!) and please don't tell the folks at presbytery that I am having cyber-fellowship with a guy who's an arminian, maybe even a wesleyan-arminian - but he kinda makes sense when he says:

One might have thought that Jesus would do something effective.  If you want to have maximum results, don't waste your time talking to the first person whom you meet on the street, figure out a way to get to the movers and the shakers, the influential and the newsmakers, those who have some power and prestige.  If you really want to promote change, go to the top . . .

But Jesus?  He didn't go up to the palace, the White House, the Kremlin, or Downing Street.   (Jesus never got on well with politicians.)  Jesus went outback, back to Galilee.

Why Galilee?   Nobody special lived in Galilee, nobody except the followers of Jesus.  Us.

The resurrected Christ comes back to, appears before the very same rag tag group of failures who so disappointed him, misunderstood him, forsook him and fled into the darkness.  He returns to his betrayers.  He returns to us.

Feeble attempts at humor notwithstanding - Willimon raises some issues worth pondering.  I do think that some of the best kingdom work being done today is being done in city-centers like New York and other places like it.  And I do buy the rationale of Keller and others who point to Paul's example for their emphasis on the city.  At the same time, the example of Jesus suggests we ought not to write off the potential of those out of the way places.

One of the interesting points of commonality between Willimon here and Keller and others is their decisive "non-power" orientation.  Willimon makes the point that Jesus didn't go for the power centers.  The same methodology works for Keller and the others in New York.  They are counter-cultural in that they live in the power-centers and refuse to make power-grabs.

Maybe the "strategic" issue is not so much the location where you live but the orientation by which you live wherever you live?

Thoughts anyone?

Comments

[Larry Gross]

I think you've hit it with regards to orientation by which you live. I believe Keller et al were (are?) responding to the surge of Christians who were fleeing the urban centers to the suburbs (or further) to escape paganism and worldliness. That was exactly the wrong view. Once in the city, we are to be engaging people for the sake of the Kingdom. This isn't done by focusing on the powerful (per Christ's example and Paul's example), but by reaching out to the common man and preaching the Gospel.

My 2 cents...

[Stephen Murray]

Is Jesus' ministry a paradigm for our ministry all the time? I'm not sure - I think that scratching below the surface might reveal other theological reasons for why he spent his time with who he did on various occasions. This is one of my problems with an over-incarnational reading of the gospels - we simply are not supposed to incarnate everything that Jesus does. In Acts Paul is expressly on mission - in the gospels Jesus is doing a whole lot of different things as well as being on mission. Its a tricky business discerning what is prescriptive and what is descriptive and didactic in other ways and I think we need to be careful here.

I agree with the comment above - I think Keller is trying to reverse a worrying trend, and rightly so. And I agree with you, David, in that orientation by which you live is the key issue.

[sdesocio]

Man did you open the flood gates. I think much more poignant to the idea of Strategic places is Paul's missionary journeys. Especially in Romans 15 Where Paul says he has completed his ministry to the whole of the eastern Mediterranean, yet we can see that most of his time was spent is city centers.

Just a shot across the bow.

[Matt Beatty]

I'm still at a loss as to why many (not necessarily those writing and commenting here...) frame the whole discussion as an "either-or" and not a "both-and." I think we'd all agree that precious few of us have the gifts to minster to the powerbrokers in Boston, Seattle, LA, Wash DC, and NYC. Some, like Tim Keller, quite obviously excel at ministering to a certain group of folks. One might argue that to effectively preach, teach, disciple, etc. among our nation's most highly educated and sophisticated takes a great deal of natural gifting and hard-won wisdom gained through pastoral experience. Others with less natural gifting and experience might be better suited to minister in less demanding environments. Paul could be the Apostle to the Gentiles (I imagine, largely due to his being raised in the Hellenized city of Tarsus...), but he doesn't imply that those ministering in the Judean countryside amongst fellow Jews were somehow disobedient or not doing important work. It would appear that a range of giftings, interests, inclinations, etc. will always be used by the Lord to reach all his people.

[David Wayne]

sdesocio - shot across the bow received! This is a great discussion - thanks to everyone for chiming in.

Stephen - you raise a good point about whether or not Jesus ministry is a paradigm for all time. That's at the heart of much of the debate over the emergent church, and discussions of "incarnational" ministry. It's a fair question - some who take that approach oppose Jesus to Paul, but the fact is that Paul and the apostles were the earthly successors of Jesus, and they were continuing His ministry - thus, it may be that the shift in focus from the backwoods of Galilee to the city centers was the God intended evolution of ministry.

But the question is why did Paul go into the city centers. Did he go to capture the power-structures or to undermine them, or something else? I have heard some say that it is the mission of the church to "capture the robes," i.e. to place ourselves in positions of power and influence. The "robes" represent those who wear robes - judges, teachers and clergy, and the thought is that if we "capture" those spheres then we will be able to Christianize society. But, was that Paul's strategy? I don't think so.

And I would throw one comment back to Matt Beatty - Matt, I am not sure that saying the city is more demanding and the countryside is less demanding is the right way of distinguishing the two. They are just different. I can see some ways that the countryside is more demanding from a gospel standpoint than the city. Often in the countryside there is a form of cultural Christianity that innoculates people to the gospel. Sure, you may not have the crime and some of the other technicolor social ills of the city in the countryside, but from the reports I hear sometimes there is a greater receptivity to the gospel in the city than the countryside.

[Tony Stiff]

Much to consider here brother, thanks for a very provocative post!

[Dale]

I come from a assembly of god so my take is a little different. You go where the Holy Spirit leads you. The fine tuner gets more sensitive the longer you follow Jesus. The Holy Spirit lead Tim to NYC.
Most peope when they are new christians stay put where God finds them. For good or bad. Then they move on.
If you are referring to strategically planning by denominations or mission agencies then yea larger cities are proably the way to go. But then again there are many barren areas in this country in the suburbs and rural areas that lack good teaching also. I actually prefer living in those areas but hesitate to go back because of lack of good churches. So am I know being lead by the spirit with that statement? I don't know it's proably more critical thinking involved. Many people self select anyway in truth. Thank the Lord for grace and his sovereign plan or we would all be in trouble.

[Matt Beatty]

Thanks, David for your clarifying remarks. I guess I'd still say, in spite of your thoughtful and well-put remarks, that ministering in NYC is tougher for MOST people - provided one is doing what one should be doing - not just hanging out in coffee bars, etc. Having grown up in a rural portion of the Bible belt, I know what you're getting at with the talk of "innoculation" - it is real for sure. But it seems to me that there's a reason why, for all its problems, churches in the midwest are growing. Not necessarily growing in precisely the ways that I want, but there is real movement. The city, where I've also spent some time as an adult, are tough: they demand a level of self-sacrifice, intelligence/education (if ministering to the well-heeled...), language study (if working among recent immigrants), long hours (rural/small-town folk think a 90 hour work week is crazy...).

But your comments are fair, for sure.

[DLE]

I find it disconcerting that Keller has, in the past, used Jonah as his prime example of a man leaving the country to minister in the city.

The problem with that example, though, is that I've never seen anyone prove that Jonah stayed at Nineveh permanently. Commentaries I've read say Jonah probably went back home to the country after his mission was over, staying at Nineveh only for a few months.

Doesn't really prove Keller's case, does it?