We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

I want to preach Christ. And I want to do it from everwhere. Jesus says he’s everywhere in the Bible, so when I preach, I want to find him, and make him clear to people. 

Sometimes, this is easy. Turn to Mark, and it’s fairly easy to see Jesus. Turn to Esther, and it’s not so easy (whoaoh there cowboys! Don’t rush ahead to the comment bit yet…).

Or in Job. This Easter I thought I’d be a smarty pants. Job 19 -  ”I know that my Redeemer lives”. Piece of cake, thought I. Jesus = The Redeemer, He lives. Easy. 

Until I started working on it. Who was this Job? Job in the opening chapter, we’re told, is a good God fearer - makes sacrifices for his family and has lots of cows. Sounds like Abraham, probably one of his contemporaries. Which means he’s proper early in the Bible story. Pre-exodus, and importantly, pre-law of Moses. That’s important because it’s from the Law that we get all our understanding of the Redeemer that Jesus ultimately fulfills. So the question I started asking (and am still asking) is ‘what did Job mean when he said ‘Redeemer’?’ And as much as I tried, I couldn’t answer with ‘the same as us’. 

See, I know that Jesus is our kinsman redeemer because a redeemer had to be like the one that he was taking the place of, or avenging. As Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh to redeem us from the curse of the law, he was like us, and did for us what we couldn’t do. I see how Jesus fulfills the Redeemer thing. But if Israel was not going to have any idea about what a Redeemer was meant to do for another few hundred years what did Job mean… and don’t even get me started on Job not even being an Israelite…

Two things over-ride my thinking. First is this ‘progressive revelation’ thing (a posh way of of saying that as the Bible story developed, people learnt more about Jesus). I think it’s real. To me, it makes perfect sense that Adam knew less than us, Abraham knew less than us, Moses knew less than us… Isaiah knew more, but still less than us. Now, as Jesus goes ‘no one gets to the Father except through me’ it’s clear that they were all saved by Jesus. But whether they knew that as we do? I seriously doubt. 

Which brings me back to Job. It’s clear that he trusted God. It’s clear that he was vindicated by God. and that he spoke to God. And all of this, looking back, I am convinced is Jesus. Lookinh via the cross, I know that Job 19 is about Jesus. I just don’t have a clue whether he knew this at the time.

The other factor is that I want to be true to the text. I don’t want to go all Spurgeon on anyone. I know “he was greatly used by God” and that I should pray for a bit of what he was given… but he’s no model for explaining the text  is he? (Except for the Treasury of David for some reason…). 

But maybe I’ve gone too far over to the dry side. All word and no spirit, that’s what they call it. The more I tried to find Jesus legitimately in Job, whilst fighting my temptation to see him as I see him, before seeing him as Job saw him… the less I could see anything. Are you confused? Good. So was I.  

In the end, I cut my loses. And went after Romans 1 instead.      
 

It seems to me that every where you turn at the moment there is talk about the ‘theology of the city.’ Everyone is speaking about it*, Don Carson, Tim Kellar, Steve Chalke, Queen Elizebeth, hey if Mark Driscoll says the word city one more time he’s going to find out what sort of manly man he’s bred. Everyone is just now figuring out the whys and hows of reaching and using cities for Christ.

Great isn’t it. Only thing is, I live in a little ‘hick’ town. My experience in my whole life has been pretty anti-city. I grew up on a hill, choose a university to stay rural and have come back, settled and plan to live in the wilds when I get married in 3 months. What the heck can I learn about mission when all everyone is talking about is the city? I’m scared of the city, it’s too bright!

As I showered this morning, thinking about this city obsessed Christian age, I wondered, ‘Do I have to move to the city to be a good christian?’ Is there any point in rural folk reaching other rural folk or should we all go beef up city churches and send a monthly food package to our closely bred cousins in the valley?’

The answer I guess has got to be no, emphatically no. But here’s thing, I’m not quite sure why. As I’m bombarded with city talk I think my mind is slowly being eroded. I could give you a hundred and one reasons why we need to reach the cities, but I can only think of one reason to reach the rural. May I at this point reference our very own JTizzles sermon from this Sunday gone, a first in a 3part series on ‘The art of Contextualisation’ (part two by our very own Sammy Davies). Point two was this, “Go to where people are.”

See, this is my conclusion. As long as people live in the rurals, we have to reach the rurals. As long as people live in the city, we have to reach the city. The only difference is volume. If we have a passion to see lost people come to know Christ (price check on that passion, I’m sure that’s to wishy washy for prognosis, please replace with something more suitable such as ‘to see Christ glorified as filthy sinners bath in the redeeming blood of the cross’) then we have to reach people, WHERE EVER THEY ARE. That’s the key to contextualisation. We reach them where they are at, be that location, language or level of understanding.

Theology of the Rural - Simple, Christ came to save the lost. Lost people live in the country. Let’s be part of what HE’S doing.

*not all of these people are necessarily talking about the theology of the city.