Congregational and Leadership Government and Accountability

Congregational and Leadership Government and Accountability

The teaching course on government and accountability in congregations is called polity. To graduate and be ordained in the association I joined (Presbyterian, 1972), I had to take a course in polity. My first congregation, The First Hebrew Christian Church in Chicago, eventually became one of the first four Messianic Jewish congregations that continued into the future in North America. The name was changed to Adat HaTikvah. However, in the days before that, I sought to come to an understanding of biblical polity. What did I come to believe? Here is a little instrument to help people deal with the question. The survey is a yes or no survey. I note that there are some people who would agree with the statements listed. This will help you to think out where you stand in the light of the Bible’s teaching.

I believe that local congregations should be run by a senior pastor who should make all the final decisions, and all members should submit to him. He may have advisory elders, but the decisions are his to make. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe congregations should be primarily governed and run by a plurality of elders without any designated lead elder or pastor. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that though the final authority in a congregation is in the plurality of elders, there should be a lead elder or pastor-teacher that gives leadership and casts the primary vision for the congregation. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that the final authority in a congregation should be by the vote of the members. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that congregation members, though not the final authority, are part of the decision-making process and should confirm major directional decisions and the budget from the elders before the elders can move forward. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe congregations should be fully independent. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that congregations and their leaders should be linked in associations and mutually accountable. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that the right model of congregational government and leadership is not independence or under the commandment of an association leader, but semi-autonomous where the decisions are primarily the responsibility of the local elders but where an issue of moral failure or in other crises, the leaders of the association will be involved to help resolve such matters. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that God raises the leader of an association and all should submit to him as the decision-maker for the association and for all the congregations in the areas where he chooses to make decisions and policy. Other matters are left to the local leaders. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that congregations and leaders are organized better when they are members of associations where equipping leaders can travel to strengthen congregations through their equipping ability. Equipping also takes place in joint gatherings. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that it is important to define government in written documents locally and also in writing for associations so that there are checks and can balances so all are protected from imbalance. ( ) Yes ( ) No
I believe that it is best to not define government in writing, either locally or in associations, since we should just trust one another and be led by the Spirit. ( ) Yes ( ) No
Associations of congregations are stronger and more fruitful if they are led by a visionary and capable leader. ( ) Yes ( ) No

The Meaning of Woke and a Biblical World View

Recently a conservative who was speaking against woke-ism was asked to define it. He hemmed and hawed when trying to define it, but I did not blame him. It is complex and not easy to define. Woke-ism is a combination of beliefs, faith confessions, and a set of narratives that do not cohere or imply with each other. Yet, this set of beliefs or confessions are usually embraced by the radical woke-ism folks that are described as radical leftists.

Sometimes when a person awakens to what they think is truth, there is a sense almost of revelation, such as when the hero in the movie Matrix takes a little pill and comes to see he lived in an illusion. The person who thinks he discovered radical freedom so he or she can be whatever they choose (as in the view of philosopher Jean Paul Sartre) can experience a sense of exhilaration and release. The former believer may come to unbelief as a sad conclusion which may cause despair, but it might also be experienced as exhilarating and a release. One can then define one’s own life and values without any reference to an intrusive god. A radical behaviorist who thinks there is no free will experiences exhilaration in not having the weight of free choice. Yet when a person comes to God and is born again, it is also something that can be received with exhilaration and release. It is interesting that the Biblical text says, “Wake up you sleepers.” So, the truly woke biblically are those who are converted by the Gospel. The beliefs that many in the left are supposedly woke are often incoherent and the opposite of a biblical world view. Let’s list out some of these beliefs and the contrast.

The first is the belief that there is no objective truth. Truth is relative, so people can speak of “my truth.” The phrase “my truth” is a redefinition of the word truth itself. Truth historically referred to views, assertions or propositions that conformed to the way things really were. “My truth’’ means the way one is committed to live their life and see things. There is no objective evidence of whether such a way is true or not. While it seems that at least science is still accepted as bringing objective truth, even science has been affected. Yet the person who is in the “my truth” orientation will hold to commitments, narratives, and views with dogmatic tenacity, giving no quarter to other viewpoints. The dogmatism is amazing. You would think relativism would produce tepid commitments but the narratives of the so-called work somehow produce fervor. I attribute this to the fact that many people need a religious level of fervor to feel that life is worth living. A biblical world view states that God created an objective world. We can discover how it works. Also, there is biblical revelation that defines who we are and how to live, an objective basis. This is sometimes confirmed by natural wisdom, but often natural wisdom is too weak to stand against the onslaught of relativistic assertions in social issues.
A second big assertion of the so-called woke is that human sexual roles are social constructs. Therefore, biological sex does not define gender. This is a huge tenet of the LGBTQ movement. However, LGBT really defines only five genders. One can be classically male or female (cis-gender) or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transexual. How do we come to transexual? It is not that a biological male or female is attracted to the same sex. That would be lesbian or gay. However, one can see an easy flip where if one who is a biological female is not attracted to a male but a female than she could declare that she is really a male in female bodies since she is so attracted. The same could be said for biological males. One homosexual stated that transsexuality is homophobic because the person in rejecting same sex attraction identifies as the opposite sex. The fact that we also list bisexuality, attraction to both sexes, shows that things can get dicey. At one count there were over 50 genders that could be chosen for self-definition. Some claim alters (multiple personalities) of all different kinds. Of course, there is the fact that transexuals identify with the stereotypes of the opposite sex. Rather than being a sensitive, artistic, and non-athletic oriented male, they must be a female. Then the opposite is also so. The confusion is amazing. With the fifty genders we come to a reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). Believing that sex is only a construct, and that we can self-define as any of many genders can seem liberating and exhilarating, as if being woke. These nostrums lead to pornography in school libraries, drag queen shows for children, and more so that the society proves that it is inclusive. Children are sexualized as part of gender liberation. It also leads to hormone therapy and surgery even for minors. This produces an orientation whereby the schools seek to hide their teaching from parents so they might further the woke agenda. Even doctors have bought into the new genderism despite the great reservations of doctors in Finland and Sweden. The Biblical world view tells us that there are two sexes. Yes, there are social constructs that influence how sexual roles are lived out, but the basic framework is that God created us male and female, and that sexual intimacy is to be limited to a heterosexual lasting marriage. Supernatural healing can resolve gender dysphoria or homosexuality. See the amazing writings of Leanne Payne on this! When one is delivered from the complex maze of today’s gender ideology, repents of sin, and embraces the biblical framework, it can also be liberating and can free us from forever having doubt. We know who we are as male and female in His image. We also discover that almost all world cultures seek to foster the distinction of male and female, but we can also understand flexibility in the way this is lived out. The Gospel calls us to repent and really be changed by the power of the Spirit.
A third big assertion comes from critical race theory. In general CRT asserts that the white race is especially sinful. This is a world-wide evaluation of whites. This sin of white privilege and domination is pervasive in the culture and produces systemic discrimination that is not always overt. It is why there are disparities in wealth and position in society. The world is made up of oppressors and victims. This bipolarity is neo-Marxism. The wealthy class and the workers, the whites and the blacks, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, and so on and so forth. The history of the United States is thereby redefined as an evil oppressive society. Slavery was not just one dark blot on U. S. history but is the defining meaning of the country and the founders were not good in any sense. The way through is an everlasting groveling by whites (even white children in schools) and quotas and set asides so that equality is achieved. It leads to absurdities in claiming that achievement is racist and even math is racist. It redefines racism (they view that white races and ethnic groups are inferior) so that the oppressed can never be racist no matter what their prejudice against the defined oppressing group. It vilifies the founding fathers of the United States as evil and nothing they did was good since the country accepted racism when it was formed. This is a very skewed reading of history. Once again, this is contrary to a biblical world view. All act sinfully. We do not act with justice and fairness but favor our own kind. When we come to Yeshua, we repent and embrace people of all races and colors. Genuine reconciliation then can pervade a culture and produce a just meritocracy. It can also seek to redress real systemic poverty and see all people lifted. Of course, Chinese and other immigrants from India show how much this theory is wrong since in the United States anyone can excel and they do. They are not white! Reconciliation through Yeshua is the key, and all must repent of sin, selfishness, hatred and prejudice. We also assert that a stable family is the key to liberation and overcoming. This view is hated by the CRT folks. Just a little note on education. The leftist woke want to control education and marginalize parents who stand in the way of conveying the woke ideas and narratives. This is why you see such battles in schools today.
Woke economic theory tends to a Marxist redistribution since attaining wealth is not fair in their view. Yet the incoherence here is amazing since the wealthy corporate leaders who back the woke really are not wanting to give up their wealth. So, there are re-distribution schemes that look socialist but keep an elite in power that is more like fascism. Economic justice is defined by equality in wealth. In a biblical world view an economic system should provide the greatest opportunity for the most. Equal opportunity is not a biblical norm since all have various advantages and disadvantages due to family wealth, gifts, talents and more. So equal opportunity is a myth. However a just system is one where there is real and good opportunity for the greatest number. Justice in the Bible is not leveling equality. Such a just system provides the greatest potential to lift the greatest number of people. This is best done in a true free enterprise system with fair rules and a rejection of crony capitalism where the government and the wealthy corporate leaders control all for their mutual benefit.
Those who support abortion rights may be part of the woke. It is easy to see this as embraced by the woke. The child in the womb is dismissed as having no value and abortion is defined as health care for the woman. What a strange re-definition of health care. It is certainly not health care for the baby, and abortion does not add health to the woman. In the Bible the baby in the womb is a creation of God, in his image to be valued and protected.

So how do we define “woke-ism?” Woke-ism is a set of beliefs and narratives that are not necessarily connected that are destructive to society. They have been embraced by the promotion of ideas that have impacted the emotions and minds of people but are not based on solid evidence or epistemology (how knowledge is obtained). Woke-ism includes the ideas of gender ideology and fluidity, critical race theory promotion, a binary analysis of groups as oppressors and the oppressed, radical abortion rights, and semi-Marxist economic redistribution commitments.

Take all the Land Now

Some Christian Zionists and some Messianic Jews have a very strident position on possessing the Land promised to our people. Their attitude is to take all the Land and don’t worry much about the Arab population in Samaria and Judea. With Itamar Ben Gvir, leader of a very radical Otzma Yehudit party and Bazalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionists, the heated rhetoric and actions toward “taking it all” have now become part of the landscape of the Netanyahu government. Some Christians and a very small number of Messianic Jews applaud.

I want to argue that this is a foolish direction and akin to the first century Zealot Party that gained control of Judea and went to war against Rome. Yeshua warned what would happen. Jerusalem would be destroyed because they did not recognize their time of visitation (Luke 19:44). Having not recognized Yeshua, even after his resurrection, propelled them into following a false way. Let us recognize that we as a people still have not recognized that time of visitation. Also, our lack of embracing the apostolic witness to this day, a witness given with great signs and wonders, is compounded history of antisemitism in the historic churches. Yet, the trajectory was set by the Sanhedrin and the post Jerusalem destruction Rabbis in Israel who did not turn to Him. This is why I believe that this is not the time to pursue maximalist visions to take the Land. The Religious Zionist party today is so different from its moderate predecessor, the National Religious Party (NRP). This party with the Otzma Yehudit of Ben G’vir is the return of the spirit of the Zealots.

When I teach on the return to the Land and declare myself a Biblical Zionist, it is based on Ezekiel 36:24 ff. There we read that we will come back to the Land in significant numbers before we are given a new heart and before the Holy Spirit is given to us. Until that day, and until we call upon Yeshua (Matthew 23:39,40), we may well be bringing a counsel that will bring harm to Israel if we council “Take it all.” Let us remember that Israel has still not come to Yeshua. Secular Israel fosters the most radical LGBTQ agendas. Parades celebrate Israel as the most pro LGBTQ nation. Abortion is rampant. The Orthodox Jews still practice a faith that is partially right but which also blinds to Yeshua in a life of a plathora of commandments. The spirit of the Talmud is mostly not in accord with the spirit of Yeshua.

My council is, let’s lovingly support Israel’s right to exist. Let’s stand with Israel. Let’s support the Jewish people in this Land. However, let us not give counsel in agreement with the radical right wing views of “taking it all now.” For this season, living with partial fulfillment of the Land promises I think is wise. We also do care about the Arabs in the Land of Israel and want them to be treated with justice.

The Clash of Worldviews

Recently there were two media reports that show world view implications. In the first report a Catholic school in Canada suspended a student who said that the Bible teaches that there are two sexes and there are not other genders biblically. Some were also complaining about open bathroom and locker room policies for transgenders. I suppose this school was catholic in name only.

A second media source interviewed Jordan Peterson, the brilliant psychologist and cultural philosopher explaining the radical environmental movement in worldview terms. Yes, he agreed, we should care about the environment. However, the radical environmental movement has defined the earth (gaia-the earth goddess) as being raped and wounded by the cancer of the planet, human beings who consume too much, pollute too much and destroy too much. It is a very dark picture. He noted that nuclear power, which could solve energy problems, is rejected. This is not a rational view but a type of irrational religion. Biblical faith is a rational religion.

It is not only these two issues, human sexuality and the environment, but several radical so called “woke views” that have now been joined together to produce an anti-biblical world view and could well lead to more persecution for those who are Bible believers. The biblical world view provides us with a set of beliefs and norms arising therefrom. It teaches that God created the world and human beings in His image. And indeed, Thomas Jefferson was right that it teaches that all human beings are created equal. Therefore, we must find our self- definitions in Him and His Word, and cannot define ourselves. In this it provides the norms and guard rails for human fulfillment. It teaches us that human being were made as male and female and for lasting monogamous marriage. Some few are called to celibacy. It teaches the centrality of the family. It also teaches that the earth is not goddess but was created for human beings who were given dominion but are to be wise stewards. If we make the earth our deity we will destroy the earth since we will lose wisdom (Romans 1-“Claiming to be wise they became fools.”) We are called to make a decision to conform ourselves to God’s Word.

The biblical worldview teaches that all have sinned and need the atonement and forgiveness that is found only found in Yeshua. It also teaches that through Yeshua and His Spirit, reconciliation, practicing love, and sacrificing for others enables all races and ethnicities to join together communities where deep fellowship is possible.

The worldview that is now followed by the radical left so called “woke” roots itself in an idea of human authenticity that is the direct opposite of the biblical worldview. It promotes the idea of the autonomous free human individual who looks deep into his or her own consciousness and discovers in experience their “authentic self.” They define themselves. As such they can define themselves as male or female or several other genders: transgender, fluid gender, non-binary gender, homosexual, heterosexual and more. The society and all its members are called to support self-definition. This includes medical treatments to change genders, hormone suppressants, taking hormones and surgery (even for minors). Those who do not agree are labeled phoebes and are to be canceled and driven out of society. They are disfellowshipped. This is an enforcing of an orthodoxy. The state and business corporations are the instruments of forcing compliance just as the inquisition was in Catholic Spain in the 15^th century. For America, it is probably unconstitutional religious discrimination.

The radical environmentalists then enforce policies that will lead to increased poverty all over the world because their radical non-solutions value the earth above human beings. They cannot produce solutions. Solutions must be based on lifting human beings as the first priority of environmentalism.

Those who embrace “critical race theory” have defined the white races as bad and this includes all Europeans, eastern and western, including Russians, Poles and all others. All other tribes and peoples no matter how depraved in are given a pass. Whites are the oppressors. When there is analysis of why there are disparities in opportunity, having rebelled against biblical teaching, they reject the importance of the factor of stable families. The family is sometimes despised, and it is thought children must be raised by the state as in Marxism to overcome the resistance to progress. Reconciliation, forgiveness, mutual service and love are replaced by hate and grievance forever. Guilt and innocence is defined by skin color. But in the Bible, all have sinned, and no one is given a pass. Blaming others forever is contrary biblical norms.

We are living in the most profound clash of worldviews. Those who hold to the biblical worldview are called to act in love and compassion for the repentance and salvation those who are lost. And we do see those who embrace these false views as very lost. But God has given us the message of reconciliation, and we proclaim be reconciled to God.

Are we moving to an amazing replay of first century Israel history?

It is commonly taught that we are seeing a lineup of nations against Israel, a setup that seems like a replay of the first century but with one amazing difference. Instead of Jerusalem’s destruction, the last days’ final war against Jerusalem will lead to Israel’s full victory with the return of Yeshua. Zechariah 12 and 14 make this very clear.

One aspect for those who do not live in Israel might seem quite amazing. It is that the divisions in Israel seem in some ways quite analogous to the first century. We have Jewish secularists who still desire to be Israeli Jews but are like those who were very Hellenized in the first century. They like the Sadducees do not believe in angels, demons, or the inspiration of the prophets. The Ultra-Orthodox are like the strict Shammai Pharisees who believed that living strictly in accord with myriads of multiplied laws would make us so holy that the Messiah would come and bring us victory. We also have the Zealots of our day who want to take the whole Land now and push the Arabs out of the Land. Recently, in response to a terrorist attack, some of these modern Zealots have rioted against the nearby Palestinian village, burning cars and houses and shooting at civilian innocents. These folks and their leaders are not democratic libertarians. The Prime Minister spoke out against this anarchy, but two of the party leaders in his coalition support the reactive violence and are frustrated at him. Yeshua warned that the Zealots would gain ascendancy and Jerusalem would be destroyed. As in the first century, there are also religious Jews of a more open and tolerant stream like the Hillel Pharisees of old. Will the nations unjustly invade, maybe in some kind of U. N. action in response to zealot policies? Maybe. Or will it be a Muslim invasion of the surrounding nations supported by the rest of the nations (writers W. Shobat and J. Richardson)? We don’t know.

However, as in the first century, there is a growing Messianic Jewish community. In the first century, the destruction of Jerusalem did not lead to repentance and the embrace of Yeshua, though the prophecies He gave were clear and fulfilled. However, this time, the witness of the Messianic Jews with the whole Body of Believers will lead to the embrace of Yeshua before Jerusalem is destroyed. He will return to rule and reign forever.

Charismatic in Name Only

It was the end of October 1967. I was in a time of great skepticism as I worked hard on courses in my junior year at Wheaton College. A chapel forum included the pastor of a nearby church who claimed that the people of his church had received the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and practiced their expression. Maybe I could find a miracle to confirm faith. Soon after I found myself on a double-blind date with a new friend. As we left the women off at the Wheaton College nursing school, we spoke about the chapel speaker. We both wanted to go, and so we went together in my car the following week for their Sunday evening gathering.

The church would later grow to over 600 in its evening meeting with many Wheaton students and a handful of professors as well. At this point in time, the gathering was small, maybe 35 people. There were tongues and interpretations, prophecy and prayers for healing. It was a small intimate meeting. The questions loomed. “Were these people really speaking from a supernatural Spirit? Is this really I Corinthians 14 in practice? I attended this church from then until the end of May 1969. At that time, the church represented what was happening in the early charismatic movement. It was a movement whose leaders and people were zealous to practice the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and who would regularly manifest tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, deliverance, and more. For those who experienced those exciting days, it was like a return to the book of Acts.

In recent years I have connected to leaders, congregations, and movements of congregations that were zealous to practice the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit and to see miracles. More recently, I pointed to the famous John Wimber and his Vineyard congregational movement. His large congregation of 7,000 in Anaheim, California, which I visited in 1989, was notable for the manifestations of the Spirit and even in the very large congregation. This included tongues, interpretation, prophecy, words of knowledge prophecy, amazing healings, and more. There would also be manifestations of prophecy and healings on the cutting edge of evangelism. Wimber practice a freer orientation in his large gathering than in our practice where only those who were vetted for maturity would minister publicly in the spoken gifts.

In recent years we have been concerned that our congregations really experience the gifts of the Spirit as a normal part of their life together. We have invited Sid Roth, Robbie Dawkins, and last year Randy Clark. I think our last conference in Tikkun America made the greatest gains. We desire that our congregations’ experience be a supernatural normal.

I have noticed that many congregations that claim to be charismatic or Pentecostal seem to rarely practice public gifts of the Spirit if at all. They are not manifested in the larger service or in home groups (the house gathering is rightly understood as the context in I Cor. 14). We see many that do not promote immersion (baptism) in the Holy Spirit on a regular basis. Perhaps the majority of congregations in Israel are known as charismatic. However, one senior leader who has been ministering for decades told me that most congregations simply do not practice seeing people immersed in the Spirit by speaking in tongues or the other gifts of the Spirit. I see this in America too, even with Vineyard congregations that were formerly very oriented to gifts and manifestations. How can this be?

I have written before on what I call the second law of spiritual thermodynamics. The general second law of thermodynamics says that the Universe is in a process of entropy increase, meaning that the Universe is using up energy and will come to energy exhaustion. Unless there is an infusion of energy outside of the Universe, this entropy will lead to the death of the Universe. In the same way, it seems that individuals and congregations need periodic infusions of the energy of the Holy Spirit. As one person said, the Bible says we are to “Be being filled by the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), but we are leaky buckets. This might be part of the explanation. Unless we are zealous to live Spirit filled, this can indeed happen.

However, I think part of the problem is that leaders have been sold on directions that are producing a sub-normal congregational life. My sense of this was greatly increased after reading Randy Clarks two books, Baptism in the Spirit, and Intimacy with God through Obedience. The magisterial book The Cessation of the Charismata by John Mark Ruthvan was also an amazing read.

Here is my sense of the reasons.

First, many leaders though having had a charismatic experience, baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues, just do not know how to impart the experience to others or promote it in their congregations. They do not have confidence in themselves to promote it.
Secondly, many leaders to not have confidence to govern a gathering with charismatic manifestations. They back off due to their insecurity. This could be overcome by training under those who are capable in this, but they do not seek out this training. They may give themselves to the excuses in the next reasons given below. These reasons, however, are not necessarily due to insecurity but may be.
It is thought that charismatic manifestations will be a distraction in large gatherings and will turn away seekers who will be confused and put off. Of course, that may happen but if done in right order with good government, my experience is that this reality really draws people. There are churches like Wimber’s that had many thousands, and the reality of real words of knowledge and healings drew thousands.
Some leaders of large congregations see that what they are doing is drawing large numbers. The multi-media, upbeat professional type worship, and engaging message with humor draws many. These services are managed to the minute and all is planed out to perfection. There just is no space for spiritual manifestations. These are in two groups. Those who believe that ministry with the gifts is important and foster it in small groups and those who do not foster it at all though they may have experienced immersion in the Spirit and pray in tongues.

My answer to this is that this may be a sociological phenomenon but may not have the last that some think. When Paul said his preaching was with the manifestation of power so their faith would not rest on the merely human (say psychological and sociological, can we have a superior position than Paul and his instructions in I Cor. 12-14?

I believe that the progress of the Gospel will of course be much greater when we walk out fully the pattern that is in the New Covenant Scriptures. I do want to affirm that the preached word itself does have power to convict and can be effective. However, this is only one great tool in the Holy Spirit tool box.

Here are some guidelines for change.

If you as a leader and are not experiencing the full New Covenant gifts reality in your community, submit to someone who is and learn to foster and govern.
While I believe we should make space for gifts in all our gatherings, the way this is done in large gatherings I believe is best done through vetted people who have proven their quality and who minister in submission to moderating elders. This is a key to success. In the smaller house gatherings, as Paul says, there is time for all to express themselves in word gifts.
Read books that will motivate you so you will not accept “charismatic in name only” as acceptable.
Famous Pastor Don Finto, at 92 years old, exhorted us in our Tikkun Israel leaders retreat, to be constantly laying hands on people until we see physical healing, impartation, and soul healing.

I wanted to also say something about prophecy and public tongues that are meant as a spoken word given for interpretation. I Corinthians does not limit the number of people who can prophecy or give tongues and interpretation. This would obviously contradict I Cor. 14 which says all can speak in turn. It rather limits us to two or three messages of prophecy or tongues and interpretation at a time.

Paul seems to elevate prophecy for its ability to encourage and convict by supernatural knowledge. Yet, he then notes that tongues with interpretation can really be important was well. People have asserted that tongues when interpreted is the same thing as prophecy. However, the great Pentecostal scholar, Gordon Fee (my wife Patty’s professor at Wheaton College over 50 years ago) argued that tongues is usually prayer to God and prophecy is a message from God to the people (His Empowering Presence). My view is that Fee’s analysis of Scripture was correct. The general sense both in Romans 8 of the Spirit interceding for us beyond what we can speak or comprehend and I Cor. 14 that the one who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries to God, shows that tongues is usually prayer to God. Fee proves that the phrase praying in the Spirit means praying in tongues. When tongues and interpretation is exercised in a congregation, the Spirit is searching the deep things of God and expressing the heart of God in prayer beyond mere human ability. When interpreted it shows this heart of the Spirit and can lift a congregation to great heights in prayer.

It was a strange thing to me as young man to find that classic Pentecostal congregations had tongues and interpretation but few or no prophetic words. It almost was a culture that was saying that without tongues being spoken first people could not speak by the Spirit. In charismatic circles, prophecy was common but then it was as if their culture was saying why give a public message in tongues since tongues and interpretation were thought to be equivalent to prophecy. It was as if messages in tongues were superfluous. Gordon Fee clears up that misunderstanding. Tongues and interpretation are not superfluous.

Humanist Manifesto and a Woke Left Creed

Some years ago a group of atheists, agnostic leaders, and scholars got together and produced a Humanist Manifesto. It was first written in the 1930s but was later revised in the 1970s. Though the humanists say it is not a creed, it is quite like a statement of faith – a confession. The woke left today affirms many of the points of this document. You can look it up and readily see the overlap. However, today’s left holds to views that were not anticipated by the Humanist Manifesto. I want to note some of those that overlap and some of the new orientations here. We are truly dealing with an anti-biblical creed and the enforcement of belief from cancel culture which is similar to ex-communication and shunning in the Church world and older Orthodox Jewish world. I do say that the woke are not woke but indoctrinated as if in a cult. Compare these statements to biblical statements and a biblical worldview.

There is no Lawgiver God (Theism) that requires moral obedience. One might believe in some kind of higher power as long as that power does not make absolute demands on human beings.
Human beings are to be valued because we choose to value them as having the unique freedom and power to define their authentic meaning. (Note the famous Yuval Harari at Hebrew University argues that there is no basis for this assertion of liberals today). Their value as human beings is not due to being created in the image of God.
Human sexual roles are social constructs. All gender identities and sexual arrangements should be fully affirmed when there is consent for these arrangements, whether heterosexual, marriage, living together, gay, bi-sexual, transgenders, and more.
We support gender transition for adults and children, including hormone suppressant drugs, hormone treatment, and surgery. People choose gender according to their personal orientations. We support trans people in sports according to their chosen gender.
Abortion is a basic human right and should be available for those who choose an abortion at every stage of the developing fetus.
Climate change is the greatest existential problem facing the world. We need to radically move toward renewables and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
We should curtail the use of animals for food which deplete resources and add to climate change.
We must recognize oppression. Those who have been and are oppressed are victims of white people. Oppressed people should have a common cause to overcome the oppressors. Blacks, Hispanics, indigenous peoples, Palestinians, and more share the oppression and are linked (Intersectionality). The way this must be overcome is by equality that promotes people according to race and ethnicity and to see reparations paid by white people. Systemic racism is the explanation of minority disproportion.
Merit-based systems of economics are from white supremacy and should be rejected.
Capitalism produces unjust distributions of wealth and should be replaced by socialism or at least by massive redistributionist programs. Big government is required to enforce justice programs from climate change to just economics.
The present system of policing and prisons is inherently unfair and racist. Police should be greatly reduced in number and function, and society needs to help the criminals because they are victims of an unjust system.
The U. S. constitution was a racist document and the product of white slave owners. The United States, going back to the colonies, was founded on racism.

Those who do not agree with these affirmations should be canceled, vilified, and called extremists, racists, homophobes, white supremacists, and fascists. They should be de-platformed on social media and fundraising. If they assert the opposite of these views or assert traditional moral and legal norms, they should be blocked from financial services like PayPal.

For an amazing study that addresses much of this, see Wayne Grudem’s Politics. This famous theologian, and professor of systematic theology, has an amazing response to much of this.

Democratic Tyranny

My followers are usually very interested in Israel and know there is quite a controversy about judicial reform in Israel. The divide is intense. To put this in a better perspective, it is worthwhile to review the system in the United States.

The United States is not technically a democracy but a democratic republic. This means that the popular vote is not the all-powerful final say on everything, but there are checks and balances. The Founders had great concern with the corruption of power. They recognized that a demagogic leader could gain the popular vote and lead the nation to tyranny. Therefore, they incorporated many checks to power; the executive power, the President, the power of the Congress, the power of the Court and the power of the electorate.

They established the Constitution, which is hard to amend. Thus, the democratic electorate, the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts must function within the boundaries of the Constitution and its famous Bill of Rights. Secondly, they established a bi-cameral legislature with the most democratic institution, the House of Representatives, and the more limited democratic Senate whose senators were elected by the state legislatures and then later by the people of the states. This protected the less populous states from being controlled by the more urban populous states. Democrats today speak against this since these senators from more rural states sometimes frustrate their agenda, but this was as the Founders desired. Thirdly, the President was limited in his function according to the Constitution to carry out the rule of laws and the legislation of the Congress. He could not make laws. He was given greater freedom with regard to foreign policy, but Congress alone could declare war. He was elected, not by the popular vote, but by electors chosen by the States. In so many ways, there were limits to power. The Courts and the Supreme Court were to apply the laws and could review laws as contrary to the Constitution, as well as noting regulations contrary to the Law. The huge issue today is the recent history of the Supreme Court, which has legislated through a broad view of interpretation contrary to the intent of the Constitution. The biggest example was Roe vs. Wade on abortion, but there are many more examples.

In Israel there is no constitution. The reasons were several. Some thought Israel would be like England with a common law tradition rooted in western democracies. Many Orthodox Jews did not want a constitution but only the Law of Moses. Instead of a Constitution, Israel passed Basic Laws that were not to be changed. Other laws could only be accepted, if they were in line with Basic Laws. These Basic Laws became a quasi-constitution. The Supreme Court of Israel was to judge laws on the basis of Basic Law, and if found to be not consistent to Basic Law, they could declare those laws unconstitutional. However, they also decided that they could judge laws by the standard of accepted general understandings of rights and laws in the consensus of Western societies. They also judged on the criteria of reasonability. The right-wing leaders in Israel really push back on this idea since what is and isn’t reasonable could be subjective. Unlike the United States, judges are not appointed by the Executive with confirmation of a Senate. In recent years we have seen the weakness of the U. S. system since Democrats and Republicans will not vote for qualified people due to their judicial philosophy. In Israel, new appointees are made by a selection committee and not politicians, but heavily dominated by other judges and lawyers. In this way, many on the right think that the Court has too much power.

However, if the Court is to be a check on power, and one of the keys to separation of power, then the present proposals of M. K. Levine go way too far. He will open Israel to democratic tyranny since he proposes a simple one vote majority of the Knesset to overturn any Supreme Court decision. Basic Law is as well in flux. Why? Because only a majority was needed to pass Basic Laws, and a majority can cancel it. It would be far different if Basic Law was passed by a 2/3 majority and could only be changed by a 2/3 majority. Alas, that is not the situation. The present proposals also give the Knesset the appointment power and the overturning power for Court decisions. This could lead to democratic tyranny. The pendulum is swinging too far. Would that we could resurrect Jefferson, Madison and Adams to give wisdom to our leaders here.

We need to pray for Israel that they will embrace good judicial reform. First, to embrace a new foundational law that only 2/3 can establish or reverse Basic Law. This would require a special legislative semi-constitutional body that could establish this one principle for stability. Secondly, that the Court would be restrained on the reasonable standard, and that the Court could be overruled by 2/3s. Maybe it could be 2/3 on its Basic Law foundation for rulings and 60% for overturning the reasonable clause. Then judges could be appointed by some expert judges and by the Knesset together where there would have to be agreement by two bodies for appointment. Reform is needed, but minority rights and stability require that we avoid the democratic tyranny of the Levine plan. Can you imagine that every new parliament could, by majority, just reverse all that was passed as Basic Law by the previous parliament and could also reverse the reversals of the pervious government?

How Close Are we to the Return of Yeshua?

I believe we are seeing trends and events today that could mean that we are very close to the return of Yeshua.

I was recently at a convocation-dialogue with 40 key Church leaders and Messianic Jewish leaders, including leaders of Pentecostal denominations and prayer movement leaders. It was an amazing time. Our thrust was to see a much more effective growth in Jewish numbers in the Messianic Jewish movement because the increase in the saved remnant is part of what leads all Israel to be saved, to life from the dead (Rom.11:14, 15).

Other efforts are being made whose leaders see their efforts as carrying eschatological (last days) implications (last days) leading to his return. First, there is a huge effort to see every people group have the Bible in their language and to be given an adequate witness of the Gospel by 2033. I believe that the best scholarship places the death and resurrection of Yeshua at Passover/ Firstfruits in the year A. D. 33. So, it really could be 2000 years. I don’t believe in date setting but this is an amazing project with an date that is intentional. Their vision is rooted in our shared understanding that the Gospel of the Kingdom must be preached to every people group before He returns. (Matt. 24:14, 15).

There is also a great move of unity. We may not see it in each local region, but I hope this will change. However, in China or Indonesia or many other regions, the unity is very strong. The World Evangelical Alliance networks 600 million Evangelicals. Four-hundred million are Pentecostal and Charismatic. They agree with the vision of the 2033 project and see completing the task of world evangelism as preceding the Second Coming. They expect more and more revivals to push this forward. However, on the unity front, they see themselves working for John 17:21 unity. The prayer of Yeshua that his followers will be One that the World might believe is seen, and I believe rightly, to be about the Second Coming.

Our part is the emphasis on making Israel jealous, leading to life form the dead (Rom. 11:14, 15). This is so important. However, we are joined in the other regards.

These are all happy thoughts. However, there is a sad aspect to last days events that peoples will be given to gross sin which leads to terrible judgments. The book of Revelation shows this. Some years ago, the great jurist Robert Bork, a nominee for the Supreme Court, wrote Slouching Toward Gomorrah. It was a profound book that outlined how the culture was defining freedom in terms of allowing more and more debauchery. Western culture is no longer slowly slouching toward but running headlong to debauchery. Some debauchery is even being celebrated as a new “wokeness.” However, this could be a sign. Could revivals hold back this headlong rush? But as Coach McCartney of Promise Keepers said some years ago, there will be revival on a platter of ruin. We don’t really know for sure.

However, all of this together could indicate that His coming is soon.

The Law of Return and Definitions of Who is a Jew

One of the challenges of the new more radical right-wing government is the great power of the Nationalist Orthodox and the Ultra-Orthodox in the Israel coalition. There are two overlapping issues. First, these parties want to change the law with regard to the definition of who is a Jew, since all Jews have a right to immigrate and receive citizenship according to the Law of Return. Who is a Jew has been defined in Jewish post-biblical history as those born of a Jewish mother or legitimately converted to Judaism. For the Law of Return, this definition, according to Israel’s courts and the general consensus of the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament), included those who converted under Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. However, the Orthodox Parties in Israel want to declare conversion from Reform and Conservative Rabbinates as invalid. For the Chief Rabbis in Israel, some Orthodox converts have even been rejected. For the Law of Return, one is not considered Jewish if converted to another religion. This was from a Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s. However, we should note that this is contrary to Jewish Law (Halakah) which states that one is always still Jewish even if given to false beliefs. Some Rabbis have so objected to this newer idea. They argue, yes, preclude citizenship, but do not say that they are no longer Jewish.

Then there is a second part of the Law of Return. It is that descendants of a Jewish grandparent are qualified. Some Americans but mostly Russian Jews have come under this provision. The Orthodox want to cancel this and only allow one to come from a Jewish parent and strictly that they do not practice any religion but Judaism. Previously there was no such religious test for descendants. This is more recent. This is a terrible thing and does not credit the original idea of the law to save those who would be persecuted for Jewish descent.

The Israel law and Rabbinic definitions of who is a Jew are incoherent. For example, the idea of practicing other religions as precluding citizenship theoretically would be applied to all religions but mostly targets those who believe in Yeshua even if they do not identify as Christians. In the United States, the Supreme Court declared that secular humanism is a religion. Many Jews in Israel are secular humanists. However, this never precludes immigration. Secular humanists deny the foundation of Judaism, the belief in God, the Sh’ma, and His Law, “Here O Israel, the Lord our God is One.” Buddhist Jews claim that their Buddhist beliefs are not religious. I do not argue that such people are not Jews, just wrong in their beliefs but still Jews.

The only coherent policy is to define a Jew as a descendant of a Jewish mother, and better yet a Jewish mother or father who identifies as a Jew. What they believe should not be an issue or all kinds of problems and complications arise. In addition, a descendent of a Jewish grandparent by the broader and coherent definition of who is a Jew is the right and just way forward. Do I have much hope that Israel will do this? No, the cry and resistance of the Orthodox will be too great.