Lausanne World Pulse – Urban Articles – Theology of Place and the “Bethel” in Cite Du Peuple, Cap-Haitien, Haiti

By Glenn Smith
April 2009

I will never forget walking the streets of Cité du Peuple, outside of Cap-Haitien, Haiti, with a young pastor named Mario. He was considering a call to work in a church in the city. “I cannot imagine raising a family and pastoring a church, let alone living in this slum,” he shared. Yet this reflection is no different from people who walk the more difficult areas of my home city, Montreal, Canada, muttering how undesirable it really is. Or the people who are convinced that if they lived in a different section of the city (usually closer to the outer suburbs or more affluent neighbourhoods), worked for a different company, or worked in a better environment that it would be a lot easier to follow Jesus.

But if God, by his Spirit, transforms people, is he not interested in the places we live as well? If we look closely at the movement of mission in scripture and Jesus’ life, we see that the biblical narrative takes us from the particular to the universal in the lives of people, in specific moments in time and in geography.

Beginning in John 1:43-51, the Apostle John gives us a glimpse into a theology of place. The larger paragraph (1:35-51) deals with initial encounters between Jesus and his group of followers. John draws attention to Bethsaida, the city of Peter, Andrew, and Philip. This specific section is Philip’s invitation to Nathaniel to come and see Jesus. But this whole book is rooted in the prologue (1:1-18); in the purpose statement (1:14) John introduces us to a reference point for a theology of place when he writes, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The pattern of mission for John is incarnational; the tabernacle is the reference point.

Peter initially invites Philip to meet Jesus. The follow-up encounter with Nathaniel is interesting (1:43-46). Philip draws attention to Jesus’ divinity (“We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote”) and his humanity (“Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph”). Nathaniel’s reaction is classic: “Can any good come from Nazareth?” His reference is in part due to his interpretation that no prophet was known to have come from Galilee. Furthermore, this town and the region were attributed to be lacking in culture with a very particular dialect.¹ In any event, Philip skips the occasion for debate and simply invites Nathaniel to come and see. Honest inquiry is the true antidote to all forms of prejudice and ethnocentrism. 

The interaction between Nathaniel and Jesus (1:47-50) is informed by several issues. In accordance with Patristic interpretation, it is preferable to see Nathaniel (meaning, “God has given”) as a close companion to the Jesus movement rather than a member of the twelve apostles, as John is the only one to mention him.²

Yet in the real encounter, he also provides the reminder that God in Jesus is inviting Israel to return to God. Jesus gives us this clue when he states, “Behold, an Israelite in whom there is no guile.” Coupled with the historical reference to follow (in the conclusion to the exchange), it is not hard to see Jesus pointing back to Jacob, Israel the deceiver.³ Jesus has offered supernatural insight into the man’s character. This will confirm what Philip has stated about Jesus.

Glenn Smith is senior associate for urban mission for the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and is executive director of Christian Direction in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is a professor of urban theology and missiology at the Institut de theologie pour la Francophonie at the Université de Montréal and at the Université chrétienne du Nord d’Haïti. He is also professor of urban missiology at Bakke Graduate University in Seattle, Washington, USA. Smith is editor of the Urban Communitees section.