Can We Do Good?

An ethics prof. asked me this question yesterday in my oral comp.  Talk about tricky…

My initial response was “Yes, we can do good.” to which the prof replied, “Oh really?”  Frankly I think this is a very loaded question.  There’s two ways to answer this question depending on what is meant by “do good.”  Theologically, this is question having to do with the relationship between Creator and creature.  Ethically, the question refers deeds/actions (i.e. feeding the hungry).  But in the Reformed tradition, theology and ethics are inseparably united (Calvin states in his Institutes that all of life is spiritual – which sounds awfully close to setting his readers up for a material/immaterial dichotomy a la Gnosticism…but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt).

Saint Augustine was clear when he asserted that without grace we can do no good.  As the major proponent of the doctrine of original sin he understood all of creation – even human beings – as tainted by sin.  No matter what we do or how “good” our intentions, it is impossible for anyone to do something that God would look upon with favor – on our own account.  But that’s the theological answer, and only part of the theological answer at that (my opinion which “Prof. Ethics” disagrees with).

Following his response I thought perhaps I had misunderstood the question and then added the caveat of the last paragraph.  But I then continued on, this time with an example, and stated that if by “do good” he means something more physical such as giving a glass of water to the thirsty, then anyone, Christian or otherwise, can do good.  Anyone is capable of handing a glass water to someone who needs it and to consider what is generally accepted as a “good deed” to be inherently evil is pretty ridiculous.

The follow up question was, “Do you think God looks with favor upon those deeds that non-Christians do?”  In the spirit of consistency, I answered yes – but it does get tricky here.  More accurately, it’s probably something more along the lines of God just not caring one way or the other (I’m talking only about good deeds here).  When pressed further on this, I should have gone into a defense based on Paul’s statement about unbelievers unknowingly living according to Law as a result of common grace.  I could have highlighted the fact that most people recognize that everyone does something “good” from time to time.  As Christians we understand that even those actions are ultimately the result of grace, but that grace is not a saving grace.

The internet is full of forums and blogs that claim that unbelievers are incapable of doing anything good.  The logic says that because they are not transformed by the Spirit they are doomed to be completely given over to immorality.  But does being given over to immorality mean that they never do anything “good?”  Again, that all comes down to what you mean by “good.”  Theologically – that is, compared to God’s infinite goodness – no good exists in this world; we are inherently evil.  Hence the reason we need Jesus and are saved “by grace through faith.”  But from a more human aspect, people do good every day.  I cannot understand why or how Prof. Ethics could observe an unbelieving doctor or nurse push themselves to their limit for the purpose of saving a life simply because they honestly believe that life is intrinsically valuable.  We may have different ways of arriving at that conclusion, but does that mean the Christian is right and the non-Christian is wrong despite both attempts to protect human life?

Likewise, the Bible is chalked -full of examples of God using non-believers to do His will – to bring about a positive end.  I’m not suggesting that those people were ultimately saved, but good and/or morally neutral deeds were done (think Joseph and Potifer).  

I think this is one area that the two of us will never agree on.  Perhaps I’m too much of an optimist.  But more likely, I’m probably just revealing myself to be the “wishy-washy” Calvinist I sometimes am …

Filed under: Random

Missional Church Planting

In preparation for Assessment Center in February, I’ve been asked to read the book Planting Missional Churches by Ed Stetzer.  I don’t want to be too critical, keeping in mind that I’ve never been the lead-guy at a church plant and Ed has planted (at the time of writing) three churches throughout the East Coast.  Ed is a career church planter and professor of church planting.  He’s affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and considered to be one of the foremost experts on church planting in North America today.

Although currently anchored Grand Rapids my ambitions are to plant a church in Portland, OR.  And so, everything I do and think about church planting is geared toward planting in that context.  The odd thing is, the best way to get a feel for church planting in the Pacific Northwest is to read books by people like Donald Miller who aren’t even vocational pastors or church planters.  There’s very little material dedicated to planting in the Northwest; it’s almost as if there’s a reality that if you need to ask, you probably don’t belong there to begin with – which to a certain extent is true.  

But as I’m reading this book and looking over the companion website www.newchurches.com I’m realizing that Ed is operating with a fairly “traditional” approach to church planting.  Throughout PMC and the material on his website is an underlying presupposition that bigger is better when starting a church.  In other words, Ed is fully convince of the “old adage” that the bigger the core team the more likely the church is to succeed.  He has yet to raise any concerns about the traditions/assumptions those members will bring with them and how that will affect the over ministry.  Granted I am only half-way through PMC but I have looked over nearly every inch of the website and have found nothing addressing this potential pitfall and the chapter titles seem unlikely to address it in the book.

Filed under: Book Review, Church Planting, Ministry

Assessment Center & Exponential ‘09

The next few months will be critical for ensuring that I can secure funding for church planting in the CRC.  At the end of February, Mishaela and I will be attending Assessment Center (I finally got my application in and received the next packet of stuff to do).  Although I’ll be the church planter and funding depends largely on my ability and skill set, the CRC wants couples to attend AC together.  This year, AC is being held in Holland, MI at the City Flats Hotel – which I hear is quite the place.  The application was a full 10 pages long (10-point font) asking some very personal and hard-to-answer questions.  After sending that in, I received a couple books (yesterday) dealing with my strengths and one entitled Planting Missional Churches.  So far PMC is a bit boring – lots of good information for church planting, but definitely not as exciting as Rob Bell, Dan Kimbal, Donald Miller, or Mark Driscoll.  They’re also requiring a few papers and profile tests to be done by mid-January.

Exponential ‘09 is a church planting conference in April in Orlando, FL.  I never been to Florida so I’m kinda looking forward to it just because it means going some place new.  It’s supposed to be the premier church planting conference, set-up and organized much like Urbana (you sign up for various tracks the focus on particular topics/”majors”).  Mishaela will be coming along on that as well.  This isn’t required, just something we’re really interested in.  I expect Mishaela will probably follow the “Spouses” track and I already know I’ll follow the “Pre-Launch” track.

So lots of stuff.  In the meantime, I’m still waiting to hear something more solid from Classis Columbia and finish up candidacy requirements.  All I can say is: I can’t wait until Spring term arrives so that life can slow down a little.  By that point, everything will be past and the only thing I’ll need to be concerned about is graduating…

Filed under: Random

Wealth = Blessing

Well, okay…maybe not quite.  But this is something I learned this week while writing my most recent sermon (which has not been posted because I’m really not happy with the way the manuscrit turned out – but the sermon itself went well).

The sermon was on Matthew 6:19-21 and centered around the theme of focusing our hearts on “treasures in heaven.”  As part of my broader contextual study of the passage, I spent a bit of time looking at the Sermon on the Mount as a whole.  One of the things I came across is that in this sermon, Jesus is repeatedly “attacking” Jewish thought of the day.  One of the major beliefs taught by rabbinic Judaism of the first century is was that material wealth represented God’s blessing.  In other words the more wealth a person possessed, the more it was assumed that God was blessing that person (and by extension, the more “spiritual” that person was).  Negatively stated, the poorer you were (or the harder life was for you), the assumption was that God was cursing you.

With that in mind, all of a sudden, a whole slew of other Bible stories and passages came to mind that that little tidbit of information helps to shed light on.  Here are some examples:

Any OT passage that makes a point of mentioning a person’s wealth.  I’ve always wondered why the number of donkeys, camels, servants, and wives was so important.  Especially when you’re reading about someone like Solomon for example, whose “goodness” can be easily proven by the things he did.  It was all in an effort to show the reader (or hearer of the original oral tradition) just how blessed and favored that person was by God.  I suspect there’s a tie-in here to the the Jewish belief that good things happen to good people, while bad things happen to bad people.

The story of Job.  It’s clear at the beginning that Job’s wealth is connected to his being blessed.  And at the end of the story, the author again proves Job favor with God by listing off his many possessions.  Likewise, Job’s friends and wife all urge him to curse God because of the “obvious” wrong God is doing to Job.  They reason that Job must have sinned (although the text asures us he hasn’t) otherwise God would not be afflicting him in the manner that he is.  This thinking is rebuked, and yet the Jews still continued to link wealth and blessing.

The widow who gives only a single coin.  To those who witnessed the deed, there was no doubt in their mind that this woman was cursed.  Otherwise she would have been rich.  Because she was cursed, the offering she gave was questionable.  But Jesus applauds her humilty and generosity over those who are wealthy and give only a few coins.

The story of the rich young man.  First off, it’s ironic that he would have come to ask Jesus about gaining eternal life in the first place.  Afterall, he was already rich – therefore blessed by God – and really didn’t have anything to worry about.  But when Jesus tells him to sell everything he owns and follow him, the young man goes away discouraged.  We typically think that he went away because he loved his money too much.  Is it possible that he was discouraged because he thought Jesus was telling him that he had no hope/chance of getting saved?

The man born blind.  When Jesus and his disciples come across a man born blind, the disciples immediately ask Jesus who had sinned.  The assumption is that the man was blind because of God’s cursing/wrath.  But Jesus answers by saying that no one sinned – there is no curse.  Rather, the man was born blind so that God’s grace, mercy, and glory would be revealed to the people around.  Again, wealth/health assumed to be a sign of God’s blessing.

The Sermon on the Mount.  According to Matthew, Jesus began the Sermon with the beatitudes.  The people who Jesus pronouned blessed are the very people who Jews assumed to be cursed.  And then look at the final verses of the Sermon: the people were amazed at the authority with which Jesus taught.  I would suggest that the authority is that Jesus was bold enough to stand in a public area and over and over again criticized long-standing Jewish convictions (you can bet, the rabbis and priests didn’t like a word he said – Jesus was teaching “heresy”).  Verses 6:19-21 are just one example of the “authority” with which he spoke.

The thing is, we still do the same thing today.  We tend to look at the people in our churches and think that God is blessing them more than us because they have more stuff.  And not blessing the poor because they have less.  Jesus is trying to change that way of thinking; God didn’t care about how much stuff you could acquire, he cares about your heart – about your worship.  He may bless certain people with greater wealth, but that doesn’t mean that he cares more for them than anyone else.  The lesson here is in verse 21: “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.“

Filed under: Bible Study, Theology, Worship