Elnwood's Xanga

Sage Advice on Relationships

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:43:39 GMT

All of you should treasure the advice of your elders. They have a lot of wisdom and experience to share with you. This includes your parents, your grandparents, and others at your church, your school, or your work place.

There is one piece of advice that a co-worker gave me eight years ago that I still remember to this day. I was a summer college intern, and she was a middle-aged black woman who I believe was either widowed or divorced.

She asked me if I had ever had a girlfriend, and I told her I hadn't. And she told me, "Don, the next time you're interested in a girl, you just walk right up to her and say, 'Hey there, I don't know if you've noticed me, but I've certainly noticed you, and I've had my eye on you for a quite a while now, and I know deep down in my heart that I would love to get to know you better."

"Wow," I said. "That's good." Such wise, profound advice!

Then I asked her, "So if a guy went up to you and said that, would it work on you?"

"Pshhhhh. No."

Ever see a major car accident unfold before your eyes?

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:34:06 GMT

So I was on the way to work this morning driving in the leftmost lane, when out of nowhere, a car flies across my view from the right, pieces following off and smoking. It proceeds plows into the side of the car in front of me, pushing it into the center divide. It was ugly. And I'm headed right towards them.

I'm not going too fast, but I'm not sure if I can avoid them, but I slam on the breaks, and the steering holds up well enough that I barely jog around them in the lane to my right, and avoided to not run over any pieces from the car on the road. Thank God for keeping that lane open and for good Honda engineering!

If you have time, say a quick prayer for those involved in the accident.

Oh yeah, and I'm twenty-eight years old today.

Southwestern Baptist Seminary's Homemaking Program

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:31:24 GMT

"The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers coursework in Greek and Hebrew, in archaeology, in the philosophy of religion and - starting this fall - in how to cook and sew," writes Rose French in an Associated Press article. The seminary is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The curricula is 23 units which include classes on general homemaking, the biblical model of family, clothing design and construction, and nutrition and food preparation.

Terri Stowall, the dean of women's programs, says, "Whether a woman works outside or strictly in the home, her first priority is her family and home," she said. "We just really want to step up and provide some of these skills."

The program has received much criticism. Pastor Benjamin Cole of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, who says, "It's quite superfluous to the mission of theological education in Southern Baptist life. It's insulting I would say to many young women training in vital ministry role. It's yet another example of the ridiculous and silly degree to which some Southern Baptists, Southwestern in particular, are trying to return to what they perceive to be biblical gender roles."

David Key of Emory University says, "Women continue to make more inroads into traditional male bastions, which could be provoking [Seminary President Paige] Patterson to do this. [Patterson is] trying to draw the line in the sand of where women need to be." He compares Southwestern Seminary to Southern Seminary, and says, "Southern at least appears to realize the realities of modern day life — that often times husbands and wives must both work outside the home to support the family."

There are a number of criticisms against this program that are simply based on false assumptions. The first is that homemaking is being imposed on women. But this is not the case. Dean Stovall says that the program is one of ten women's programs and "only targeted to women whose heart and calling is the home." This is not every woman, but those who desire it. President Patterson relates that seminary wives were the ones who asked for these classes. Rather than being imposed on women, it is the women who want to take these classes.

The existence of such a program does not mean that Southwestern believes married women are not to work, as Key implies. If women desire to follow a track that is geared toward not working outside the home, shouldn't they have that freedom? It is not as if Southwestern Seminary restricts women from pursuing occupational fields. There are seminaries that will not grant a Masters of Divinity to a woman, but Southwestern is not one of them. A woman can get a Ph.D. in Theology at Southwestern.

The second assumption is that the program is a non-rigorous seminary major. Again, this is false. First of all, it's not a seminary major per se; it's an undergraduate program. There are many other undergraduate colleges that offer home economics-type of classes. The program is is just one concentration of the undergraduate Bachelor of Humanities degree offered at the College at Southwestern. The homemaking classes make up only 23 units of the ~130 units required for the major. Is this a non-rigorous major? Let's just say it requires twenty classes in history and thought, four classes in Greek or Latin, four classes in Old and New Testament, and four classes in theology. It would be solid academic preparation for a seminary degree anywhere.

Now, I'm not saying I would recommend the program. What I am saying is that we ought not dismiss these women who are called more specifically to ministry within the home, and who see training in homemaking, as well as theological training, as beneficial to their Christian lives.

Doctors should not evangelize?

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:47:17 GMT

So writes Richard P. Sloan, Professor of Behavioral Medical at Columbia University Medical Center.

"Because medical patients very often are in pain and fearful, they are especially vulnerable to manipulation by physicians who, even in these days of medical consumerism, retain positions of authority in the physician-patient relationship. When doctors capitalize on this authority to pursue a religious rather than a medical agenda, they violate ethical standards of patient care," he writes.

Sloan also opposes exemption for doctors who believe that certain treatments are unethical, stating that "because doctors have state licenses giving them exclusive rights to practice medicine, they have an obligation to deliver medical care to all those who seek it, not just to those who share their religious convictions."

What Sloan is doing is presenting a false dichotomy. He writes, "being a medical professional means assuming certain responsibilities and foremost among them is acting in the interests of your patients rather than allowing your personal religious beliefs to interfere." He is pitting religious beliefs against the interest of the patients, but there is no clear distinction.

For a Christian doctor, religious belief plays a major part in determining what is in the best interest of the patient. For example, many doctors, Christian or non-Christian won't perform an abortion, and not only because it would violate their own conscience, but because they believe it is not in the best interest of a patient.

A Christian doctor knows that what makes a person well is, in addition to proper medical care, is believing the gospel. Sloan presents these ends as opposed to each other, but proper medical care and soul care do not oppose each other. It is not as if a Christian doctor is neglecting medical care at the expense of sharing the gospel.

Sloan wants to present "the best interest of the patient" as something that is purely objective, but it is not so simple. What Sloan wants is to impose his own view of the best interest of the patient over and against the views of a given Christian doctor. To those who oppose Sloan's view, he makes the following suggestion: "find another profession."

Practical Eschatology

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:12:22 GMT

"What's your millennial view? Are you premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial?"
"I'm panmillennial."
"Which means ... ?"
"It will all pan out in the end."

Most Christians are of the opinion that one's view of eschatology, that is, the study of the end times, really doesn't matter and really doesn't affect the life of a Christian. Other Christians will use eschatology as a test of biblical fidelity.

In a letter written to President Bush by 34 prominent evangelicals from groups that include Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, World Vision, InterVarsity, Vineyard USA, Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals, thank President Bush for working towards a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

This where it gets theologically hairy. Dr. Jim Hutchins, president of Jerusalem Connection and the Washington-area director for Christians for Israel, denounces the letter, and says, according to OneNewsNow, “I would suggest that the basic theological underpinning of this is super-cessionism, and that is to say that the church is the new Israel, that Christians have replaced Jews as the covenant people of God … [and that] the covenants that God made with Israel and the Jews are now null and void because they have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.” Hutchins calls this Replacement Theology, and holds that the covenant between God and ethnic Israel is still in effect and suggests that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza.

Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary and one of the signers of the letter to Bush, answers the charge of "Replacement Theology" on his blog. He writes, "I do not support a 'replacement' theology regarding the theological identity of 'Israel' – I did earlier in my career, but I have changed my view in recent years. God’s original covenant was with the ethnic people, Israel, and that covenant has not been cancelled. We Gentile Christians are not a 'new Israel' in a replacement sense. Rather we have been grafted onto Israel. In these latter days, the Lord now says also to Gentile Christians, 'but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people' (I Peter 2:9)." As attested by a comment posted to his blog, Mouw's view will continue to be called "Replacement Theology" by many who oppose his view.

So we have two different theological positions which represent two different policies in the Middle East. But are the theological positions necessarily linked? To look at that, let's take a step back.

Mouw's view is representative of what is known as Covenant Theology. The idea is that God's covenant carries on today in the church. This view is generally represented by the older denominations: Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics.

Hutchins' view, that God's covenant is with national and ethnic Israel and still continues, represents a school of thought known as dispensationalism. This view is commonly held among Baptists, Anabaptists, and Bible churches and can be found taught at schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Biola, Moody Bible Institute, and others.

I suggest that dispensationalism does not necessitate political support of Israel (which I would call Christian Zionism). There is a dualism within dispensationalism regarding Israel, and it is best represented in Romans 11:28: "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." On one hand, a dispensationalist will say that ethnic Israel is God's beloved, but on the other hand, Israel is an enemy of the gospel!

Present day Israel is an enemy of the gospel. They actively persecute Palestinian Christians. There are Christian groups in America that give money directly to the Israeli government, and it's a crying shame. Dispensationalists would do well to remember the first half of the verse and give unconditional support to Israeli policies.

Dispensational theology teaches that the national of Israel will turn to Christ during the seven-year tribulation prior to the return of Christ after the church is raptured. Given that the Church and Israel are enemies in the present age, why should the Church support Israel? The Scripture says that a house divided will not stand. If or when God restores Israel to Christ, it is then that Christians should support Israel.

Having said that, my theological leanings are in line with Mouw's. George Eldon Ladd has a brief rebuttal of dispensationalism in his book "The Last Things." Among other things, he points out that Romans 9 quotes Hosea regarding who God sees as His people. What was originally applied to Israel is applied to the Gentiles by Paul. Thus, Ladd says, and I agree, that Gentiles are now among the covenant people of Israel.

Though I believe the questions of eschatology are worth studying, I personally don't think that a dispensationalist or covenant theologian need to take one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict. What both sides should agree on is that we should strive for peace.

Does striving for peace mean that we should work for a two-state solution? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There are some things in the letter that I'm not fully comfortable enough to throw my support behind it. I'm cautious to throw my support towards one particular solution. I'm not convinced that the two-state solution would be stable, and it might give Palestine the foothold it needs to take over the rest of the land, which is among their stated goals. We need to be prudent in our negotiations for peace.

Also, the letter places an emphasis on historical, legitimate rights of both the Israelis and Palestinians (and likewise, the Christian Zionists appeal to the historical right of Israel only). An appeal to historical rights seems rather empty. Nations rise and fall and are in a continual state of flux. If you took into account every historical right of every single people group, there wouldn't be enough land even if we had several earths to distribute.

So while I would stand by the principle of working toward a just peace that is found in the letter and I would agree that we should not withhold warranted criticism of Israel, I would not be comfortable with many of the specifics found in the letter.

One thing the letter emphasizes is prayer for our leaders. Foreign policy is an extremely difficult issue, and we should pray that they would have wisdom in these negotiations.

Most would consider the Southern Baptist Convention among the Christian groups most supportive of war. According to their own Baptist Faith and Message, though, Christians are to seek peace and to end war, and it rightly emphasizes the importance of the gospel to accomplish those ends. I think it's a good statement, so I will close with it.

Peace and War

It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.

Heaven and Hell

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:02:52 GMT

Newsweek / Washington Post's On Faith posted the following question:

"Do you believe in heaven or hell? If not, why not? If so, who's going there and how do you know?"

It's amazing how far off these religious experts were.

Alan Segal, Professor of Jewish Studies at Columbia University, states:
"Almost all Americans believe in an afterlife; but mostly the evangelicals alone believe in hell. I found this out while I was researching my book, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in the West. Sometimes the polls say over 90% of us believe in heaven or some other positive afterlife while the numbers of us who believe in hell largely track the evangelical and fundamentalist communities. This seems to suggest that we want hell to keep us on the straight and narrow and also just as much or more to punish our religious enemies."

What I want to know is how Segal jumped from "evangelical and fundamentalist" to "want hell to keep us on the straight and narrow" and "as much or more to punish our religious enemies." A liberal bias, maybe? It's not very comforting that Segal's view of evangelicals is that we are moralistic and vindictive towards those in other religions.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists don't believe in hell in order to keep people in line (indeed, most believe in eternal security) and out of spite against other religions. We believe hell is the deserving punishment of all mankind because we have broken the commands of God.

Katherine Flake, Professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt, is a Mormon. She writes:
"Once one admits a belief in divine judgment, the question of fairness necessarily arises. Millions never hear of the Christian gospel or are subject circumstances that give them limited opportunity for moral development. Latter-day Saints believe the playing field is leveled by provision of a two-stage process in the afterlife: the first, called the “spirit world” allows for further preparation for the second (the degrees of glory) and the demarcation between the two is marked by God's judgment. Those who did not, in mortality, hear of Christ will be taught and have the choice of whether to be baptized. In the next world too, faith is an act of free will and not required for resurrection. Once all have had the chance to make an informed decision, they are judged by God and inhabit the degree of glory commensurate with their choice."

I once had a conversation with a Mormon co-worker, in which I stated, "Most people have this general concept that God has to be fair, and that God is obligated to give every person a chance. I think that concept is completely unbiblical." The co-worker practically fell out of his chair. "Whoa!! I have never heard anyone ever say that before!" But it's true. If we appeal to fairness, then all who have transgressed the law of God will perish in hell for their sins. Salvation is my God's grace, and the Bible does not teach a second chance after death, but teaches that many will be caught unawares by the judgment of the second coming like in the account of Noah and the flood.

There are many, many other anecdotes from people on the religious panel, including Chuck Colson. Even Colson, though, discussed hell primarily as the consequence of refusing God's offer and not God's wrath against sin. He mentions hell as a consequence of God's justice and wrong moral actions, but at the same time says "We aren’t sent to hell by God, we send ourselves there by refusing God’s gracious offer." There is the same appeal to a fairness in the gospel call that Flake wrote about, and hell is seen as more about a consequence of one bad choice (refusing the gospel) instead of punishment for a lifetime of sin and rebellion. Nevertheless, Colson gave the most biblical explanation of all the panelists.

Pride: The Antithesis of the Gospel

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:48:16 GMT

"Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall."
-- 1 Corinthians 10:12

A close friend of mine recently remarked, "The most prideful people I have ever met have been Christians." This is a common perception. For example, when Jerry Falwell passed away, many vilified him for his strong stances against homosexuality and other perceived social ills. Christians such as Falwell are seen as prideful to think that their religion is correct and that others ought to conform to Christian standards of belief and living. Interestingly enough, Falwell's arch-enemy on social issues, Larry Flynt, wrote an opinion piece for the L.A. Times describing his close friendship with Falwell, demonstrating that despite Falwell's strong stands, he still exhibited Christian love to his enemies.

My friend, though, was speaking as a life-long Christian who has been involved with many Christian ministries. In my friend's experience, many of the Christians, particularly those in leadership exhibited a lot of pride, in boasting and in being judgmental of others.

I have been fortunate that this has not been my experience. In fact, it has been quite the opposite. Almost without exception, the Christians that I have known have been very humble people. The Christian leaders that I have known have in fact been exemplary in their humility. Mark Dever, my pastor from DC, immediately comes to mind as a humble man who is deeply devoted to serving and praying for his flock. I can name and give thanks for many other humble Christian leaders who have served me faithfully and self-sacrificially.

The message of the gospel is one that utterly excludes pride. To accept the good news is to admit that you fall short of God's standard, and that, without the righteousness of Jesus exhibited in the shedding of his blood in perfect obedience, you are deserving of everlasting punishment. To be a Christian is to turn away from your own desires and conform to God's. It is to declare, as David did, "I am a worm, not a man," (Psalm 22:6) and undeserving of God's grace.

Over the course of my Christian life, I have come to recognize humbleness as the distinguishing mark of a Christian. A person who has even the smallest grasp of the gospel recognizes that boasting is excluded (Romans 3:27) in the Christian life. While I have met many people, Christian and non-Christian, whom I would characterize as humble, I have very rarely encountered Christian who do not consistently exhibit humility.

There have only been two times in the course of my Christian life where I have encountered a Christian who consistently exhibited pride. The first was when I was involved in a Christian organization, and there was a guy who was elected treasurer of that organization. He was very outspoken. He always felt like he was right, that he was essential to the group, and that he was underappreciated.

He lived in the same building as I did at the time, and once, when I was passing through the hallway in the wee hours of the night, I ran into his girlfriend, wearing her nightgown.

After much struggling of what I should do, I eventually confronted him with his sin, but he said that he didn't think that he was doing anything wrong in God's eyes. There was no other recourse after that. The organization wasn't a church, so there were no steps of discipline taken. I don't know whatever happened to him. I really don't think he was ever a Christian. Later, I met a guy who went to high school with him and had kept in touch, and he also concurred. He also said that this guy mentioned perhaps going to seminary. What a scary thought.

The second time I encountered deep pride in another Christian was when I was leading the worship team at my church. There was an on-again, off-again woman on the worship team who would complain constantly about the songs we would choose, and the way they were arranged. She would complain that we sounded awful when she didn't sing with us, and talk about how beautiful we sounded when she sang. When she wasn't on the team, if a particular song was not arranged to her liking, she would refuse to sing. On one occasion, she even cried when I made a decision over and against hers.

Just by having her on the worship team, she single-handedly made my life absolutely miserable, week-in and week out. But she was a long-time Christian, married with three kids, and an organizer of the women's fellowship at church. Who was I to question her walk?

Eventually, she got fed up with my leadership and stopped coming to the worship practices. Not long after that, she filed for divorce with no biblical justification. After refusing any form of biblical counseling and refusing to submit to biblical teaching on divorce, she was put out of the church by the voting membership.

Excluding some prideful Christians that I have encountered on internet message boards, these are the only two Christians I have personally encountered who consistently exhibited pride in their attitude and actions. By their actions, both of these people have shown themselves to be unrepentant of clear sin and, in my mind, have shown themselves not to be Christians at all.

Now, I'm not saying that every Christian that is prideful is not a Christian. Through these experiences, though, I have become deeply skeptical of any Christian who consistently shows fruits of pride rather than fruits of humility and repentance.

I have recently completed a study on Psalm 23. One of the primary themes is that of God Almighty lowering himself to be a shepherd. Sheep, by their nature, always go astray (Isaiah 53:6). As far as I know, sheep are the only animals that cannot survive in the wild without human supervision. They are skittish, stupid animals that have no means of protection. If not led and left alone, they will eat all the grass in a field so that it doesn't grow back and starve to death. If they fall on their backs, they won't be able to turn back over and will starve if a shepherd doesn't set their feet right. Sheep need care 24 hours a day, so the shepherds will always be dwelling among their sheep.

Jesus Christ is the good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:1-18). He became a human to dwell among us (John 1:1-14). As an example of servitude, he washed his apostles' feet (John 13:1-8). He is, thus, an example for us, and especially for pastors, who are called shepherds of the people of God.

"Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
-- Philippians 2:1-11

Request: does the statement "The most prideful people I have ever met have been Christians" ring true in your life? Sound off here.

Another telephone survey ...

Sun, 20 May 2007 18:57:49 GMT

They just had to wake me up from my Sunday nap ... anyway, this was the first question.

"What do you think is the biggest issue facing the state of California today?"
"Sin."
"What?"
"Sin."

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:17:06 GMT

Dear Readers,

Sandra Flores, a member of my church and a dear friend who faithfully serves on the worship team as a vocalist and a violinist, needs to raise a few thousand dollars within the next month for her ministry trip to Turkey and Romania. Her group will be giving villages instruments and giving seminars on how to play.

She is a full-time college student in music and has very little money, and has been working in musical theater as an actress and painting sets, which pays very little. As of now, she is still short at least a couple thousand dollars.

For more details on her trip, see her blog entry here:
http://www.xanga.com/Operabuffain3acts/584708184/a-call-to-the-missions-field.html

Please thoughtfully and prayerfully consider supporting her in this ministry. If you can give any amount that will help her and encourage her, please do so. All donations are tax deductible through San Diego Christian College.

God Cares for Baruch

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:30:51 GMT

The word that Jeremiah the prophet spoke to Baruch the son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a book at the dictation of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, to you, O Baruch: You said, 'Woe is me! For the LORD has added sorrow to my pain. I am weary with my groaning, and I find no rest.' Thus shall you say to him, Thus says the LORD: Behold, what I have built I am breaking down, and what I have planted I am plucking up--that is, the whole land. And do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not, for behold, I am bringing disaster upon all flesh, declares the LORD. But I will give you your life as a prize of war in all places to which you may go." (Jer 45:1-5 ESV)

The book of Jeremiah is the longest book of the bible, containing more words than any other despite having fewer chapters than Psalms and Isaiah. It follows the life of Jeremiah the prophet as God speaks through him, pronouncing judgment upon the nation of Judah and destruction via the nation of Babylon. If you've never read it before, I highly recommend it. Despite its length, it is paced very well, interspersing prophetic poetry with narrative.

The simple message to Judah is to obey God, and you will live. Despite what the other false prophets said, God speaks through Jeremiah to say that the Babylonians will overcome Judah, and if they surrender now, they will survive, but if they resist, their lives will be spared!

Well, the short answer is that Judah never listens to God and they keep getting taken away and killed. Jeremiah the prophet himself is seen as a traitor to his people and often persecuted, chastised, beaten and thrown into prison for speaking the words that God placed in his mouth. Jeremiah 20 is a particularly gut-wrenching lament in which he curses the day he was born.

And then we come to Jeremiah 45. In the longest book of the bible, we find the shortest chapter in it at five verses. Baruch is Jeremiah's scribe and messenger boy who has brief appearances in Jeremiah 32 and 36. Now, we can assume that Baruch, being associated with the much scorned Jeremiah, was also facing persecution. Instead of another prophecy of doom from Jeremiah to the nation of Judah, God sends Jeremiah to give a message to Baruch, the guy with a bit part on the stage of God's plan.

"Woe is me," Baruch has cried, but the Lord heard him. As David wrote in Psalm 40, "I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry." We may forget it at times, but God listens and hears all of our cries. He cares for our lives. We may deceive ourselves that God cares for and blesses the Abrahams and the Jeremiahs, and the Billy Grahams and Mother Theresas of the world, or the pastors and the missionaries, but doesn't really hear us when we pray. What a fantastic lie that is! God speaks in a message to this helper named Baruch, whom we know very little about, and lets him know that God has not forgotten or forsaken him.

This is not a fluke occurrence either. By now most of the evangelical world is familiar with the Prayer of Jabez that is in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. Again, Jabez is just a blip on the map in the whole of God's revelation to humanity, and yet God hears Jabez's prayer and answers it.

Next, let's look at the content of the message that Jeremiah brings to Baruch. God basically says to him, "Look around you! Judah is collapsing; the whole world is being torn at its seams, and you are worried about yourself! People are being destroyed left and right for their sin, and yet you will live! Why are you worrying? I will continue to care for you and preserve your life!"

This type of lament is not restricted to just Baruch. I think God's word to Baruch is also a response to Jeremiah's lament in Jeremiah 20. I've always found it troubling that God doesn't answer Jeremiah's lament. It seems to tell only half the story. For example, in the Psalms, every psalm of lament ends with a turning back to God to worship and to trust him. Yes, we are suffering, but we know that God is with us, but we don't see that at the end of Jeremiah 20. Instead, I think God answers Jeremiah's lament by speaking through him to Baruch.

There are Christians of all different stripes, and each of us is susceptible to particular types of sins. For some it may be anger, for others it might be lust, and for others it might be anxiety. Every Christian, though, struggles with selfishness. Indeed, I believe that every sin can find selfishness at its root. The two great commands are "Love God," and "Love your neighbor" (Matthew 22:37-40), but we fail in these when we decide that loving ourselves is more important than loving God and loving our neighbor!

As people who are not yet fully sanctified, we still have this spiritual myopia that we fail to see God's larger picture and his overwhelming grace towards us, and instead we are selfish in our desires and feelings. Baruch is no exception to this, and God confronts him to say, "Look around you! The whole world is dying, and yet you have life! Don't be anxious -- be thankful!" Paul writes to Philippians the same message: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God" (Philippians 4:6).

And what was true for Baruch is true for us as believers. What was happening then is a foreshadowing of what is happening today. If we believe the gospel, our sins are paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ. We have life in a world that is dying spiritually! I've been out to the parks of San Diego with friends holding signs proclaiming judgment and the gospel that saves, and 99% of people don't give us a second look. Many times we are mocked and scorned, though it is not even comparable to what Jeremiah went through, or Paul or other Christians throughout the world. But even in one of the most "Christianized" nations, the world is dying. People are not just lost, they are dead. We are surrounded by walking corpses.

How, then, can we remain anxious and depressed when we know that we have been saved from the grave unto new life, as Jesus Christ was risen from the grave? We were being swept away in the flood, and yet God has rescued us. We ought to be joyful for our salvation, and proclaim not that "the Lord has added sorrow," as Baruch laments, but that the Lord is good! (Psalm 34:8).

And we ought not forget our obligation to proclaim the gospel. We may have a fatalistic perspective based on our soteriology or eschatology that people are going to die anyway and that the world is going to hell in a hand basket regardless of what we do, so we ought to just accept it and not do anything. May we never think that way! That certainly is not the perspective of Jeremiah! He continued to proclaim God's word to people, even though people did not listen to him, and people did not repent and obey God. Our duty to proclaim the gospel should not be based on results. It should be based on faithfulness to God and his commands, which should spring naturally from a heart that is regenerated that wants to please God.

May we as Christians not focus on our own issues and circumstances, but instead be thankful for what God has given us in his son, Jesus Christ, and proclaim a gospel of salvation to a world that is dying.