Some of my experiences with Pentecostalism (Part 2)

When I was a boy, on Sunday evenings, I would listen to the live radio broadcast of the small “sanctified” church that was on our block (literally, down the street and around the corner). “Sanctified” was the term used in the Black community to describe Pentecostals (the members, themselves, referred to each other as “saints”). This church was a congregation of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), a predominantly Black, Christian denomination and currently (I think) the largest Pentecostal denomination in this country.

On this radio broadcast I would get a taste of how “sanctified” people worship. I recall hearing songs that had a very upbeat, fast tempo. With the Hammond organ, drums and tambourines, you could not say there was anything sad and mournful about sanctified music. (Just a word about tambourines: Along with their Bibles, some of the saints would bring their own tambourine to church. We’re talking genuine participatory worship.) As in most Black churches, whatever the denomination, there was hand clapping (always on beats 2 and 4; never, ever on beats 1 and 3), but the tempos were so fast, it was difficult for most of us non-Pentecostals to keep up (I’m pleased to say, when it comes to hand-clapping, I eventually learned to keep up with a sanctified beat!).

By far the most unusual features of sanctified worship were the dancing and speaking in tongues. When the services would get into high gear, the tambourines and drums would beat out the rhythm for the “holy dance”. (It was a bit later before I actually saw holy dancing in action—quite a sight to see, by the way.) The percussion would whip things up to a very fast rate of tempo (still emphasizing beats 2 and 4), and the Hammond organ would play along using a rapidly running bass. When I heard that music, I knew the saints were holy dancing (or “shouting”, as they also called it). It was fascinating to me since absolutely nothing like that ever occurred in my staid African Methodist Episcopal church (some of the women in my church would occasionally holler and scream…but dancing? That was going too far, for us AMEs.). The “shouting” or holy dancing would go on until the saints got it out of their system.

The other unusual feature was speaking in tongues by the pastor (I can’t tell you whether it was genuine or not; I’m just reporting what happened.). No doubt, others were also occasionally speaking in tongues, but since this was radio, the pastor was the only one I heard. Tongues were, indeed, unusual, but I didn’t find it scary, demonic, threatening, or anything like that. I just understood at the time, this is how “sanctified” people worship—this is simply what they do.

This was the extent of my exposure to Pentecostalism until my high school years. At that time, I became aware that Pentecostalism wasn’t restricted to the Pentecostal church, but it also appeared in more mainstream churches.

(To be continued…)

Some of my experiences with Pentecostalism

Recently, I’ve come across some discussions on the blogosphere (most notably at Pulpit Magazine: here, here, and here) about the gifts of the Spirit, cessationism versus continuationism, the present ministry of the Holy Spirit, and so forth, subjects which are in some way identified with Pentecostalism. I’d like to eventually give you some of my thoughts about cessationism versus continuationism, but I thought, perhaps, it would be helpful if you first knew a little bit about where I’m coming from on this subject.

First of all, I’m not a Pentecostal. But, I have had some exposure to Pentecostalism—starting from childhood, actually. Pentecostals lived in my neighborhood. In fact, we lived across the alley from an older Pentecostal pastor, who happened to be a friend of the family. He died when I was about nine years old. Maybe some of you out there have had nothing but negative experiences with Pentecostalism or negative images of Pentecostals but, in general, my experiences have not been bad.

There were three types of churches in the Black community in the area where I grew up: Black Baptist, Black Methodist (AME), and Black Pentecostal. When I was a boy, Black people called the Pentecostals and their churches “sanctified” (I know all true believers in Christ are sanctified, not just Pentecostal believers, but let me just tell the story). Most, though not all, of these “sanctified” churches were members of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC).

But, before I go on, a little bit of church history (I'm writing this off the top of my head, but, I believe I've got the basic facts correct):

The Church of God in Christ is a predominantly Black denomination, founded in about 1897 (if I remember correctly) by C.H. Mason and C.P. Jones—two Black holiness Baptist preachers. In about 1905 or 1907, Mason visited the Azusa Street “revival” in Los Angeles and experienced the “baptism of the Holy Ghost” and spoke in tongues. As I understand it, Mason came back from Azusa teaching the Pentecostal “baptism of the Holy Ghost”. Jones didn’t accept this addition of tongues to the holiness doctrine of a “second work of grace”, so he left Mason and started the Church of God, Holiness. Mason, who claimed the name Church of God in Christ was revealed to him in a vision, kept the group he and Jones founded and moved it in a Pentecostal direction. I don’t think it’s well known that the COGIC is older and larger than the more well-known Assemblies of God, and one of the fastest-growing denominations in this country. Also, I found it particularly interesting to learn that the COGIC, under Black leadership, was an interracial group. Sadly (and so typical of racial relations in the U.S.), in about 1914, whites pull out of the COGIC to form the Assemblies of God.

End of history lesson.

Anyway, when I was growing up, you could usually recognize a “sanctified” woman or girl by the fact that they wore absolutely no makeup and never wore slacks or pants. Sanctified folks believed in holiness, which usually seemed to mean no drinking, no smoking, no dancing or partying, no makeup, and no pants on women.

As far as worship in the sanctified church, you could count on lively, upbeat music, complete with Hammond organ, drums and tambourines. You seldom, if ever, saw drums in the Baptist or Methodist churches, and you never saw tambourines. In the sanctified church you were guaranteed to have those instruments. The reason I know this is because there was a little sanctified church on the block where I grew up. Since they had no air conditioning, their windows would be open in the summer, and you could hear the pastor preaching and the people singing all over the neighborhood. They also had service nearly all day on Sundays. “Morning” worship lasted until about 2pm. Then, I think there was an afternoon service. Finally, this church had a Sunday evening live radio broadcast, which I used to listen to, occasionally.

It was on their radio broadcast that I would hear what, to me, were some of the most unusual features of “sanctified” worship.

(To be continued…)

Random thoughts about the church growth movement (Part 5)

Why was I feeling down and sorry for myself after reading a church growth magazine? It was because there is something about the church growth movement that makes you want to compare yourself with those “successful” pastors and churches that are being touted today throughout evangelicalism.

It is my belief that the church growth/“seeker-sensitive”/“purpose-driven” movement is inherently man-centered. The philosophy of the church growth movement causes one to focus on other people and on oneself. And that’s the heart of the problem! Once you get your eyes on people and on yourself, and start comparing yourself to other people, you’re going feel discouraged if you don’t “measure up”.

This is wrong. This is unbiblical. This is sinful.

God wants His people to be God-centered and God-focused. With our eyes on God, we won’t be discouraged and we won’t be proud. We’ll “think with sober judgment”, as we ought (Romans 12:3). It is my belief that churches would be better served (though, some of them might become a bit smaller) if they just stuck to the Bible.

In contrast to the man-centered rhetoric of the church growth movement, there is this encouraging word from the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:17-31):

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

When I read God’s Word, I’m encouraged, because I’m certainly not "wise according to worldly standards", powerful by any definition, or “of noble birth”. I’m sure the average, highly-trained, mainline, Protestant minister would consider me “foolish” (Perhaps even some of my unsaved family members would think so, also). I certainly feel weak when I consider the immense responsibility that goes along with being a minister of the gospel. But, look at what we’re told: “[God] is the source of your life in Christ Jesus…” It’s not about me and how qualified I am by man's standard; it’s about God. This is all about God’s wisdom, His power and His ability!

That’s not only an encouraging word; it’s liberating!

I pray that more evangelical churches would conduct themselves as if God’s Word were really true. You know what I mean? We’ve simply got our focus in the wrong place. We think too highly of ourselves.

You know, I think I’ll just stick to what God has to say.

(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Random thoughts about the church growth movement (Part 4)

Finally, I was also discouraged after reading this magazine of the church growth movement because, deep down, I knew I could never meet the leadership standards of the church growth experts. Let me explain.

I’m a product of the traditional Black Church. Everything about this magazine screamed white, suburban, upper-middle class, American. As I wrote earlier, I came away feeling, this is not for the Black community, not at all. In all honesty, I can’t relate to the values of the church growth movement. These “values” are foreign to me and to the church-going Black community in which I was raised.

But, this magazine touched an even deeper nerve with me. You see, almost eighteen years ago, with fear and trembling, I answered what I then felt (and still feel) was God’s call to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I said “Yes!” to God, not because I felt spiritually worthy or academically qualified or theologically knowledgeable. Rather, I said “Yes!” to God because I saw that people without Christ were lost, and many of them were in the church. I said “Yes!” because I saw people in the Black community perishing because of a lack of knowledge of God and His Word. I said “Yes!” because I felt God had called me to go wherever He sent me, to such as these, and “Preach!” That was a Saturday night, and I was in my bedroom, alone with God. I was 25 years old and single at the time, living at home with my great-grandfather (who died about four months later).

The next morning, Sunday, I told my great-grandfather what had happened. When I got to church later that morning, I told my pastor what I felt God had told me to do. I wasn’t subjected by my church to a spiritual gift assessment or required to take a personality test. I wasn’t required to enroll in an approved seminary. The pastor simply made an announcement to the church and a date was set for me to preach my first sermon, in order to demonstrate if I, indeed, had “the gift”.

Although I’d never studied homiletics, exegesis, hermeneutics, or anything like that, I set about preparing a message to preach. I prepared with prayer. I obtained my text and subject by prayer (Luke 19:11-27, “Will You Be Ready When Jesus Comes?”). I studied my King James Version Bible and a couple other translations, along with help from my Strong’s Concordance, and prayed to God for understanding. I wrote down what I felt God wanted me to say and, the Lord being my Helper, I delivered that message on Wednesday night, May 31, 1989. I had wondered how I would ever find enough to say for more than five or ten minutes. As if to dispel any fear that I wouldn’t have anything to say, God helped me preach for 40 minutes!

This was the humble start of a nearly 18-year odyssey that has taken me “through many dangers, toils and snares”.

Reading this magazine, and looking back on 18 years, which include many disappointments related to career and ministry, I began to feel very discouraged because I didn’t “measure up”. The church growth movement touts excellence, relevance and success. Now, I do the best I can do, but I wouldn’t call myself “excellent”, when it comes to ministry. I can’t say that I’ve ever tried to “make” the Word of God relevant. In fact, I never thought it was irrelevant! I don’t think of myself as a “success”. I mean, I’m not an entrepreneur or an innovator. I can’t point to anything I’ve “launched”. I suppose “unchurched Harry and Mary” would say I was a decent enough guy, but I can’t say they would be drawn to me. In fact, they’d probably be repelled by my conservative theology. I have no seminary degree and no record of pastoral achievement. I don’t know how (and, really, have never tried) to be clever or engaging. I don’t have a desire to “connect” with today’s culture. When God gives the opportunity, I just preach.

So, after reading what the church growth people had to say, I was feeling down and sorry for myself. Why? (To be continued…)

(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

Random thoughts about the church growth movement (Part 3)

I was also dismayed that there is more than a little hint that growth (i.e., more people) indicates God’s favor and blessing upon a church. Strongly implied is the belief that small churches lack God’s blessing and are, therefore, inferior. I think this is an insult to small churches all over this country…and the world, for that matter. There are churches where the gospel is preached by godly men, where the people are sincere in their faith and loving which, for reasons known only to God, will never grow to be large. For instance, some churches, because of their remote location or settled populace, will never attract new people because there rarely are any new people to attract. For many reasons, some churches will never grow to be large. It does not automatically follow that these churches lack the blessing of God.

The same thing can be said about pastors and preachers. Not every man that God calls will draw the crowds of a Whitefield or a Spurgeon when he preaches. Some may labor faithfully for years, like Noah, and see few, if any, converts. Others may face constant rejection like the prophet Jeremiah. The point is: God’s favor and blessing upon a church or ministry does not necessarily translate into numerical growth.

Secondly, there is more than one way to grow. Not all growth is numerical. There is so much focus on numbers, but a far greater concern should be, is there spiritual growth? Isn’t a small church, where Christians are being faithfully taught from God’s Word, lovingly discipled by their brothers and sisters in Christ, actively learning and living out the faith in the routine of daily life, and growing in the likeness of Christ—isn’t such a church also growing, because it is filled with Christians who are themselves growing?

I noticed something interesting when I viewed the online version of this magazine. On the webpage, I noticed a link to the “Top 100 Fastest Growing U.S. Churches”. Looking at the list for 2006, I saw the names of several churches I’ve heard about. Among these several churches, I recognized churches that could (charitably?) be characterized as being on the doctrinal “fringe” of Christianity. I recognized other churches that probably, to most Christians, represent a more mainstream, biblical version of Christianity. Here’s my point: size of church apparently has nothing to do with the doctrine taught or not taught. A church could be wallowing in heresy, but still gain recognition as one of the “Top 100 Fastest Growing U.S. Churches”. The implication of the "Top 100" list is that these churches are successful, blessed churches where God’s Spirit is at work bringing phenomenal growth. But, if false doctrine is being taught, believed and embraced, can all the numerical growth really be of God? I can’t see how that is possible. It seems to me that it could not be God’s blessing upon a church when God is being dishonored by false teaching.

I’ve known of churches that were growing numerically but whose leaders had sin issues. I used to struggle with trying to reconcile the numerical growth with the sin in the leadership, until I came to realize that large numbers of people prove absolutely nothing. If the “growth” was really evidence of God’s blessing, then the unrepentant sin in the leadership would prove that God didn’t really care about sin. Obviously, that can’t be correct. God does care about sin, therefore, the “growth” wasn’t evidence of God’s blessing; rather, the growth proved nothing! Churches can grow in numbers when the Word of God is accurately and faithfully taught, and churches can grow numerically where heresy is taught and the leadership lives in sin. Just look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). This “church” has grown tremendously in numbers over the last 20 years, but it is still a false, cultic religion. Ted Haggard, the now disgraced former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, pastored one of the “Top 100”. Obviously, his sin didn’t hinder his church from growing.

So, I say again, numerical growth proves nothing. The notion that bigger is better is, basically, unbiblical.

(To be continued…)

(Part 1, Part 2)

Random thoughts about the church growth movement (Part 2)

Why did reading this church growth magazine cause me to feel discouraged? I am not sure that I fully know why. Perhaps there are several reasons. I will mention three of them that come to mind.

First of all, it seems church growth is being reduced to a mere science: just apply the correct methods and you’ll have growth. I cannot escape the feeling that the underlying belief is that church growth is merely a byproduct of marketing technique, human talent and ingenuity. From the bit of reading I did in this magazine, I did not receive the impression that there was anything remotely supernatural to church growth. In fairness, I did not read this entire magazine, and right now, I do not have that issue of the magazine in front of me; I’m writing from my recollection of the reading. However, the impression I was left with was that church growth has nothing to do with the power of God and has everything to do with the application of the correct methods and techniques.

I find this disturbing for a few important reasons. First of all, this philosophy of church growth, to my mind, bears no resemblance to what I read in the Bible. The book of Acts is the historical record of the beginnings of the Church. When I read Acts, the picture I come away with bears no resemblance to Willow Creek or Saddleback or any of the more well-known “megachurches” that are idolized by the church growth movement. The Church in Acts wasn’t seeking relevance, rather, it was counter-cultural: It cut against the grain, and aroused the ire of the surrounding culture.

When I read Acts, I don’t see people coming to the Church, grinning from ear to ear, saying, “Isn’t this a warm and friendly church? I do so enjoy the upbeat music, and, you know, Pastor Peter’s sermons are so positive and humorous, and our children are so excited about the children’s ministry, and I just love the coffee they serve…!” On the contrary, when people came to the first Church, they came crying, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).

Can you imagine the Church in Acts being described as “fun”? The apostles are arrested for proclaiming Jesus as the Christ (Acts 5:17-42). Ananias and his wife Sapphira drop dead because of lying to God in church (Acts 5:1-10). Stephen is stoned because of what he is preaching (Acts 6:8-7:60). If the Church had any “fun”, we don’t know about it because God didn’t bother to have it recorded in Scripture.

The preaching of the Church recorded in Acts, apparently, wasn’t very “seeker sensitive”. For example, note the reactions to Peter’s sermons on separate occasions: “they were cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37), “greatly annoyed” (Acts 4:2), and “they were enraged and wanted to kill them” (Acts 5:33). Stephen’s sermon elicited a similar response: “Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him” (Acts 7:54). By church growth standards, I’d have to say that Peter and Stephen needed to improve their styles of communication, be less “judgmental” and more sensitive to their audience’s “felt needs”.

I think the reason there is little resemblance between the “successful” churches of the church growth movement and the Church in the book of Acts is because, frankly, unbiblical methods and techniques have been adopted by these churches in order to manufacture growth.

(To be continued…)

(Part 1)

Dr. Magary's sermon on Psalms 1 and 2

I finally have a link to the sermon on Psalms 1 and 2 preached by Dr. Dennis Magary of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Magary preached this sermon at our church the last Sunday of 2006. Dr. Magary has good message to keep in mind as you go forward into 2007.

Random thoughts about the church growth movement

My family and I were at church the other night. I thought I had two music rehearsals, one at 6:30 and the other at 8:00 but, as it turned out, the 6:30 rehearsal was going to be next week. That meant we ended up with an hour-and-a-half to spare until the rehearsal began. So, while my wife took the boys to McDonald’s to get something for them to eat, I found a place by the church offices to sit down and rest my feet.

On a table next to the chair I was sitting in was a Christian magazine that looked interesting, so I decided to read it. I had never read this magazine before, but I quickly discovered it was one of the magazines of what I would call the “church growth” movement. Right upfront, I must admit a personal bias against the church growth movement. There are probably several reasons for my negative feelings, and I’m not sure I’m fully aware of all the reasons.

Some of it, no doubt, has to do with my personal background and experiences. The fact is, until our present church, which we began attending a little over 6 years ago, I have never been a part of a church with more than about 300 or so active members. The idea of purposely “growing” a church to a size of multiple hundreds or thousands was probably unknown to me until I was grown. What I read in this church growth magazine was so foreign to my early church experience, “it ain’t funny”. Perhaps (or very likely) this is just me, but as I read I kept thinking about my church experience which, prior to our current church, was exclusively within the Black community. I kept thinking, these writers aren’t writing for the church in the Black community. What they are writing isn’t for Black people. Maybe this is something I need to work through. If so, pray for me. Nevertheless, this is a thought that went through my mind.

Maybe my bias against the church growth movement has something to do with how I was first introduced to the “seeker-sensitive” church. Willow Creek Community Church is probably the mother church of the “seeker-sensitive” movement. I first heard of Willow Creek from my mother, who began attending when she still lived in Chicagoland. I remember when she first told me she was attending a church. I thought there must be something wrong with this church. Why? Because I would no more associate my mother with church than I would associate David Duke with the NAACP. My mother was never a Christian in any biblical sense of the word, and didn’t pretend to be one. Today, she is a part of a Science of Mind “church” (pray for her, please). So, the fact that she found a church that she liked made me suspicious. Plus, this church didn’t sound like any church I had ever known. Since that time, let me hasten to add, I found Willow Creek wasn’t weird or anything like that. But, it is interesting to me that she could attend Sunday “seeker” services, enjoy them, yet not only not be drawn to Christ as Savior and Lord, but also experience (apparently) no conviction of sin. It does make me wonder about the kind of gospel that was proclaimed there.

At any rate, I read through much of this magazine in the hour-and-a-half that I had to wait. As I read, I began to feel very discouraged.

(To be continued…)

"He's never failed me yet"

I'm hopelessly sentimental. I could reminisce all day long. One of the joys of this past Thanksgiving Day was that we had my sister, Maere, as our guest. It had been such a long time since we had spent any time together, and so we spent a lot of time on Thanksgiving Day talking about things "back in the day". My son commented to his mom that he hadn't heard me talk that much to anyone besides his mom. He said I seemed to enjoy having his aunt over. Well, I did!

Often, my mind reflects back on past memories—good and bad. One thing I often think about is my "parents", who were actually my great-grandparents. "Pa Bill" and "Grandma" have been deceased 17 and 20 years, respectively. There are so many things I wish I could talk to them about now, so many questions that I would ask that never occurred to me to ask when I was younger. Mostly, I would love to be able to thank them and tell them I love them.

Since my mother was but a young teen when I was born, I was placed in foster care. When I was 2-months old, my maternal grandfather, "Daddy", took me out of the foster home I was in, brought me "home" to North Chicago, and gave me over to his mother and step-father to raise. I never left their home. I stayed with Grandma and Pa Bill until they died, and I can look back and say God richly blessed me through them.

In this day of single-parent households, I am grateful I had a two-parent upbringing. Growing up, I knew I was loved, and I never wanted for anything that I really needed. I had lived out before me a truly good example of what marriage and marital commitment is about. Pa Bill modeled what it takes to be a respectable and responsible man and Grandma was the epitome of a mother, as well as a fount of wisdom and common sense (or "plain ol' horse sense", as she called it). I strongly believe that I was spared many of the pitfalls that I see young people today fall into because of the grace of God in giving me a stable, two-parent household in which to grow up.

I am grateful that I grew up in a home where education was valued. My great-grandparents didn't have much of an education. They both grew up on small family farms in rural Alabama and migrated to northeastern Illinois in the 1920s in pursuit of a better life (which meant factory labor or custodial and domestic work). Grandma went no further than 8th grade while Pa Bill only made it to the 6th grade (and the way things were for Black children in the rural south of those days, they were probably about 18-20 years old by that time). They didn't have a lot of "book knowledge"—Pa Bill could barely read—but they knew education was important. They wanted me to take advantage of the educational opportunities they never had. Going to college was always a "given" for me. Pa Bill said, "I want you to get your education so you don't have to clean toilets and scrub floors, like I had to." One of the proudest moments of my life was when I graduated from college. I had stayed an extra year to earn my Masters degree. Pa Bill was there to witness the event. Grandma's health was failing rapidly by that time, so she wasn't able to be there in person, but when I got home the first thing I did was show her my diploma cover to let her know, "I did it!". Grandma died less than 3 months later but, thank God, both she and Pa Bill lived to see me get my education.

I'm also grateful that I grew up in a Christian home. This Christian home included my great-grandmother's widowed sister, "Aint Willie", who lived next door. Now, Grandma, Pa Bill and Aunt Willie didn't know theology like you out there in the Reformed Christian blogosphere. They didn't know what a Calvinist or an Arminian were. I'm pretty sure they never heard the expression, "Doctrines of Grace", and the only T.U.L.I.P. they knew was a flower. But, they did know, "Ye must be born again". They knew that Jesus Christ was the only way to God. They knew the Bible was right and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong. And they knew that God hears and answers prayer. It was through my household of origin, through the prayers and example of Grandma, Pa Bill and Aunt Willie, that I came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

At the start of another year, as I think about where the Lord has brought me from, my heart is filled with gratitude. Like the Black gospel song says, "You don't know what He's done for me...", and I can't tell it all, either! Suffice it to say, God has been good! As the old folks would say: "He's been better to me than I've been to myself!" That's why I must praise Him and continue to "press on toward the goal". The words of another old Black gospel song come to mind:

"We've come this far by faith leaning on the Lord; Trusting in His holy Word, He's never failed me yet." (Albert A. Goodson)

Amen.

I look forward to what God has in store in 2007, and pray that, according to His grace, I may grow closer, stronger and deeper in Him.

May God grant you the same.

Happy New Year 2007!!!

Today at church, we had a guest preacher: Dr. Dennis Magary of Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary. He preached a relevant and spiritually challenging message from Psalms 1 and 2. In each of these Psalms, according to Dr. Magary, we are presented with a question, the answer to which will make all the difference in our lives as we enter a new year.

Psalm 1

1Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

3He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. 4The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

5Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; 6for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

In Psalm 1, we're confronted with the question, "Who are you going to listen to?" In 2007, will we be self-instructed or God-instructed?

Psalm 2

1Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, 3"Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us."

4He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. 5Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6"As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."

7I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you. 8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

10Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. 11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In Psalm 2, we're confronted with the question, "Who is going to be in charge?" In 2007, will we run our own lives, or will we acknowledge God's rule over our lives?

If we choose to be God-instructed and God-ruled, the psalmist is clear: We shall be blessed (Psalm 1:1 and 2:12b).

If we choose to be self-instructed and self-ruled, the psalmist is equally clear: We shall perish (Psalm 1:6 and 2:12a).

May God grant that, in 2007, we would submit to His teaching and rule over our lives.

May you have a happy and blessed New Year.