IrContent

This video speaks for itself. It is only a few mintues long, so make sure you watch the whole thing (the last few seconds are amazing). As one of my Matt friends used to say, “This folded me like a towel.”

What is a good Church? This question is becoming something of a major debate these days. Some say bigger is better, some say seeker sensitivity is paramount, others want to return to whatever version of “the early Church” they happen to like. If we listen to Rick Warren and Bono a good Church is one that is socially active – its goodness being defined by the amount of good it is doing for the world. But the debate cannot be settled by an appeal to “doing good” because goodness is not the same for different things. Until we know what makes something good we cannot tell whether it is good or bad. . . .So how do we know what “good” means when applied to different things? It seems that we call things good or bad instinctively – but breaking down that instinct is necessary if we are going to call the more difficult ones. So let’s start with something obvious: A shoe is said to be good when it is comfortable, but a knife is said to be good when it is sharp. But sharpness in a shoe would be bad, just as comfort on the edge of a knife would be bad. So we know that a shoe is not good for the same reason a knife is good, yet we use the same word “good” for both. How can this be?

Aristotle had a pretty profound answer that seems pretty obviously true once you hear it (a sign of good philosophy). He noted that we ascribe goodness to various things for various reasons because of teleology. Teleology is the study of a thing’s “end” or purpose. In other words, the purpose of a thing (and the means to attaining it) is good for that thing, and what defeats or impedes its end is bad. A shoe’s purpose is to provide comfort – so sharpness would be bad for a shoe but it would be good for a knife whose purpose is to cut. Problem solved? Not yet.It is one thing to say that goodness depends on a thing’s purpose, but how do we find its purpose? If we disagree on the purpose of a thing, we will also disagree on what makes it good. Aristotle had an objective answer to that as well. Let’s consider our knife and shoe again. How do we know that the purpose of a knife is to cut, or a shoe to bring comfort to a foot? Can’t a knife be used to open a can? Can’t a shoe be used to throw at unruly children? We seem to know instinctively that while these things can be used for these purposes they are not the best choice for those ends. Why aren’t they the best choice? Because other things can be employed to accomplish those purposes better.That is the key to Aristotle’s answer – whatever it is that a thing can do better than any other, that is its purpose. A piece of bark with a string tied to it might bring the foot comfort – but a shoe does it better. A key might do the work of cutting through the tape on a package, but it won’t do it as good as a knife. So it is by a thing’s operation that we come to know its purpose, and according to its purpose we can discover whether or not it is good.

Now for the big question – what is it that the Church does best? According to the Bible the purpose of the Church is to make disciples (which includes but exceeds evangelism: Mt. 28:19), teach and defend biblical doctrine (1 Pet. 3:15), provide believers (not seekers) a place to fellowship, observe the Lord’s supper, and pray (Acts 2:42). Some other purposes of the Church include ministering to those who are in physical need (James 1:27). It should be pretty clear that the Church alone can do some of these things - but the world can do the rest as well.

While the Church can do all these things, and much more, what can it do better than anything else? The world can feed the poor and fight disease, but only the Church is charged with the proclamation and defense of the gospel. Only within the Church can Bible doctrine be expounded, Christian fellowship take place, the Lord’s Supper shared, etc. My concern is that some people seem to think that the Church, as the body of Christ, must be involved in all good things. Thus, we are told by Rick Warren that Church must step in to stop AIDS. Bono says a Christian who isn’t solving the world’s hunger problems is not a Christian. While the Church can do these things I would argue that those things are not its purpose.

Now, so long as these other activities do not impede the Church’s purpose they can and should be undertaken. But to place a lesser good above a higher good is a form of evil (Lk. 14:26). Thus, the church that takes on the social ills of the world as top priority is a bad church. The church that makes unbelievers comfortable by “seeking to meet their felt needs” instead of informing them of their dire fate apart from Christ is a bad church. There is nothing wrong with doing as many goods as a one possibly can – but a good church is one that does primarily what it was made to do - and is unhindered by what it was not.

(The Lake of Ice from Dante’s Inferno by Gustav Dore)

Hell does not seem to be a very popular topic within the church these days. It just seems mean, doesn’t it? If God is love (1 Jn. 1:8; 4:16), and loves the world (Jn. 3:16), then how could He send people to Hell just because they don’t choose to love Him back? There is a basic misunderstanding in this question and it is largely the church’s fault that it exists. But if we explained the gospel in its fullness this kind of objection would not come up . . .The problem is with a presentation of the gospel which starts out with, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life . . .” then proceeds to, “the reason you don’t have this great life is because sin has separated you from God,” and finishes with, “God sent His son to die for you so you can be reconciled to Him if you believe.” Now wait, someone might ask, isn’t all that true? Yes, it is true – but woefully incomplete. This kind of gospel presentation is akin to telling a rapist that he ought not rape women because the women won’t be his friend afterward. While this is certainly true, it is also deceptively lacking in truth.Without a proper understanding of sin we will not correctly understand salvation. Therefore without a proper understanding of sin we cannot communicate the true gospel. The gospel must begin with all that we are being saved from. So, did Christ die a horrific and unbelievably painful death so that God can be our buddy? Is salvation being saved from a less-than-wonderful life? Is the gospel about finding our “best life now”? Is the gospel concerned with finding our “driving purpose”? No. It is about . . . are you ready for this? . . . avoiding punishment in Hell. But, of course, Hell does not make sense with the popular “gospel” message of relational life enhancement. Only a very cruel God would hurt people for not liking Him right?

So let’s look at the consequences of sin according to the word of God. First, it is true that sinners are spiritually dead – separated from God (Eph. 2:1; 2 Thess. 1:9). But that’s not all there is to the story. Too many people stop there, apparently believing that the mere threat of separation from God will drive people into His arms. Now it is true that some people at rock bottom will respond to a message like this. But it is also true that evangelical conversions over the last few decades have an 80-90% backsliding rate. Could this be because these folks responded to a “gospel” that promised them a big friend in the sky that turned out to not fit their desires?

The problem with the relational life enhancement “gospel” is that it treats non-Christians as if they were Christians. You see, non-Christians don’t want God (Rom. 3:11). If they wanted God, they would be believers. But they don’t. Now, how does the promise of remaining separated from God come off as a threat to someone who already doesn’t want God? As Aquinas said, “No one is afraid to lose what he does not desire to gain” (SCG, 3.145). Those who desire evil have already turned from God. Consequently, exclusion from God is not enough to call them to repentance.

Again, we need to present the whole gospel. What else does Scripture tell us about the consequences of sin? That sinners are God’s enemies (Hab. 1:13; James 4:4; Rom 5:10), that God’s wrath is upon sinners (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; Rev. 19:15), and that God wills sinners’ punishment (Dt. 28:63; Ps. 7:11; 10:7; 1 Sam. 2:25; Mt. 13:41-42; 25:31-41; 2 Pet. 2:3; 3:7; Rev. 20:11-15). True, God does not desire that people choose this route (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pt. 3:9, Ezk. 18:23) – but this does not mean that He does not also will the punishment of evildoers. So, Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from the goodness of Heaven, but also with the affliction and punishment of Hell.

BUT . . . this punishment is not simply given because God wants some love and isn’t getting it. It is because those who choose evil over good are God’s enemies, deserving of His righteous wrath and punishment. Hell is that punishment – not for not desiring a big buddy or daddy in the sky, but for being wicked and desiring evil over good (and, in a sense, Hell gives the sinner the desire of their hearts even as Heaven gives those who desire God their’s).

Salvation, therefore, is not simply a chance to get to be with God forever. It is also the avoidance of the just penalty for being an evil enemy of the Great God of the Universe. Without this fact not only does Hell not make sense, the gospel itself makes no sense. And we can hardly blame someone for not believing what doesn’t make sense.