Category: Theology

When the founders of the United States declared freedom of religion in the United States they set a direction that broke from more than 1400 years of the Western tradition, which first only allowed one legal religion supported by the government, Catholic in the West, Orthodox in many nations east of Western Europe, and then Lutheran in Germany and Scandinavia, and Reformed in Holland and various cantons in Switzerland.  It was difficult for people of those times to believe in an ordered society without a state-enforced religion. Then toleration was embraced in the nations of Europe.  The United Kingdom embraced their Anglican state church but promoted toleration.  State churches were favored with tax support but the non-state churches, sometimes called free churches, also flourished. Roger Williams in Rhode Island Colony founded the first true religious freedom state.

The United States Constitution promoted profound freedom with no favored national religion.  There was a profound understanding of the importance of individual conscience.  At the time of the founding, there was not much thought of other religions outside of varieties of Christianity and Judaism.  There was general support for the Christian consensus for almost 200 years. Religious freedom implied including non-Christian religions and no religion at all.  Abraham Kuyper, a Reformed theologian and politician, and the Prime Minister of Holland at the beginning of the 20th century expanded the ideas of religious freedom by thinking in terms of worldview and justice.  For Kuyper, religious worldview freedom was very tied to education and being able to raise children in the context of one’s worldview, but of course, in support of the democratic values of Holland.  This means equal support for public education through different schools reflecting different world views but required to teach the basics that all need to understand.  These profound ideas influenced Northern European nations and still have an effect to this day. 

However, the new woke movements of LGBTQ+, transgenderism, and critical race theory transgress religious freedom in ways that are historically unprecedented.  Ideas of civil rights naturally expanded to include alternative lifestyles once the Western nations accepted alternative lifestyles as legal and the psychological and psychiatric medical associations removed these lifestyles from their categorization as mental diseases.   None of this implies a necessary conflict with religious freedom as long as religious people can still minister and teach their standards and the power of God and spiritual counseling to enable people to conform to biblical norms.  However, this freedom is being challenged.  

Promoters of the new woke movements are not content with civil rights but are fostering a new faith confession, a religious level of affirmation that now violates the conscience of many who embrace traditional faith confession.  This profoundly contradicts freedom of religion. When traditional faith people are required to work with a flag celebrating alternative lifestyles, then there is a violation of conscience.  There is a requirement now that all must confess these alternative lifestyles as right and good.  This violates, especially, biblical teaching.   We now have lawsuits where artists are being pressured and even prosecuted for not creating art that celebrates alternative lifestyles.  Workers are being pressured to work under a pride flag, including some who work in government agencies, work as firemen, and in police precincts.  Plus, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, DEI, training pressures employees to embrace alternative lifestyles as good.  These directions are profound contradictions to religious freedom and promote a new type of religious tyranny.   There is a gray area when traditional faith people run businesses that are public accommodations and general services.  They might think that their providing is promoting the sin of the customer.  While some libertarians have defended those who do not want to provide such services, arguing that others are willing to provide them, this argument will not be upheld in today’s courts.  However, cases have been won even in the Supreme Court, to free people from that which endorses and celebrates or requires using one’s creative art to represent or support alternative lifestyles. 

However, we should be aware that today’s alternative lifestyle movements do not just seek civil rights and a live-and-let-live society.  It is the commitment of many to marginalize and see the rejection of those who do not celebrate and embrace alternative lifestyles.  This is one of the great civil rights battles of our time, the full civil rights of the people of traditional Christian and Jewish faiths, and perhaps the Muslim faith as well.

Some years ago, I got into an argument with a famous theologian about Islam.  Basing my argument on an amazing book, Islamic Jihad, by Andrew Bostom, I argued that it would be difficult for Islam to reform because its foundational texts have so many calls to conquer the infidel by war and even endorse and demonstrate very gross violence, torture, and beheadings, etc…  He called me a textualist and argued that we could not evaluate Islam on the texts.  A reformed Islam need not give literal interpretations that require following these texts.  I argued that he was right In part because many Muslims find a way to not orient themselves to violence and conquering, but whenever there is a return to being faithful to the origins there is a return to violence and the sword to conquer.  Bostom argued that again and again in multiple places, Islam would return to such violence.  Religions often develop movements that promote a return to be faithful to the literal scriptures and the early patterns.  In Christianity, this is often a return to a semi-pacifism.   Reading Luke 6 and Yeshua’s words on love for our enemies is a case in point.  Just war theory from Augustine did require some serious interpretation.  He argued for only defensive war. Christianity that conquers by the sword is contrary to Yeshua for sure.

Recently I read a book by a secular Muslim or former Muslim.  He does not say.  He was a radical Islamic Fascist.   Abdel-Samad Hamed has written an amazing book that goes over the history of Islamic violence and terror, conquering by the sword, beheadings, rapes, and tortures.  It is a frightening book.  From the 7^th Century to the 20^th, this very comprehensive presentation gives the lie to the idea that Islam has been primarily peaceful.  He is careful to not tar all Muslims as jihadists.   However, there are enough radical fascists who seek a world Muslim caliphate that we should be concerned.  In Hamed’s view, the West does not face what they are up against.    The truly moderate Muslims who would desire a reformed and peaceful Islam that lives in pluralism and mutual toleration with other religions, are in fear of the radicals and do not stand up and fight as they should.  Some who have done so have been killed.  At the risk of his life, Hamed stands up. I note he lives in Germany and fights the battle there. The fascist element includes the desire for a strong dictator as the way of government to enforce Islamic law on society, Sharia.

After the October 7^th massacre in Israel, the World still does not get it.  They worry more about Gaza civilians, many of who have accepted radical Islamic Fascism as their own position.  Israel does worry about the civilians but worries more about the Islamic Fascists who have attacked them.  The West is still in denial.  There is a division between Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam, but both have strong fascist movements.  While some fight each other, for example, The Islamic State/ ISIS fights the Iranian-backed Shiite Iraqis and Syrians. In the present war against Israel, some Sunnis align with Shiites, for example, Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon with Hamas, the Sunni group in Gaza.  I suppose they think they can fight it out later, but destroying Israel and the West comes first.   

When we think of the vast size of the Jihadist Fascist movements, it is alarming.  We begin with those who surround Israel.  First are Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the south in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Islamic groups in the West Bank.  The Islamic groups also have dominant control in Syria and somewhat in Iraq.  Then there is Iran itself, a terrible almost nuclear enemy of the West and Israel.  Turkey under Erdogan plays a double game and acts as if he is with the West, but I believe is really an Islamic Fascist.  Then we have the movement in Africa, Boko Haram and Al Shabab.  It is terrible in Northern Nigeria and the Horn of Africa.  Al Qaida still exists as does ISIS.   The slaughter in Africa is terrible.  We also see such movements in Chad and even Mozambique.   Farther away, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India (not a Muslim nation), Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines (not a Muslim nation) have racial Islamic Fascist movements.  The democratic nations of the West have not begun to face this, but their governments are still in denial.  This cannot be defeated without a clear understanding and all-out effort.

Will this lead to the final war?  George Otis Jr., Walid Shobat, and Joel Richardson argue that the last war against Israel that leads to the return of Yeshua will be Islamic.  Maybe.  This now requires great prayer.  There is some significant Gospel progress in some of these nations, especially Iran.  Let’s also pray for this.

The protest movement against Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is the most bizarre protest to my knowledge.  We studied protest movements as part of history; the protest that led to the beginning of English rights and the Magna Carta in 1215; the protests leading to the American Revolution in 1776;  the protest storming the Bastille leading to the French Revolution in 1789; the protests leading to the Russian Revolution in 1917; the anti-Vietnam war Protests in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and we can name so many more.  Most of them were for some kind of political social rights or greater economic equality.   These movements may not have been solidly based on good religious, economic, or social views, but there was some level of coherence and the people were usually professing, foundationally, the same goals or values.  But this is not the case with these protests. 

For one thing, the protests are more based on mega lies more than any other I have ever studied.  And secondly, the protests bring together three very different groups.   The first group is the Islamic Fascists, who believe in the dictatorship of the Caliph or Muslim rulers world Caliphate.   Hamas and its world partners, Boko Haram in Africa that kills and tortures Christians, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and other such groups seek to violently overthrow the present order of the West and replace it with the Islamic Sunni world state.   Hamas partners with another world movement of radical Shiite Islam led today by Iran and including its partners, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis of Yemen.   Surely if these groups were to defeat the West, they would then turn to fight each other since this is an alliance against a common enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but they would no doubt resume their battle of over 1000 years against each other, Sunni against Shiite.  

The second group is the Neo-Marxists for whom Israel is the white colonial oppressor and the Palestinians are the darker oppressed group.  The Islamic Fascists may mimic the rhetoric for the sake of destroying Israel, but this is not their philosophical or political worldview.  They are good at manipulating media and knowing what these “woke” neo-Marxists want to hear to gain their help to destroy Israel.   Ultimately these two groups would fight.  One needs only to note that the oppressed in neo-Marxism include women gays, lesbians, and indeed the whole gamut of LGBTQ2+ people.  There are people that the Islamic Fascists would and indeed did, toss off buildings and stone.   Women would not have rights but would be covered as they are forced to do in Iran today.  Are the neo-Marxists too dumb to realize this or are they using the chaos to overcome the capitalist West and believe they can deal with Islam later?  After all, joining together produces just the destabilization they desire that Herbert Marcuse called for in his Essay on Liberation (1969).  When it is all destroyed,  a new society can be built.   The goal for these folks is not the destruction of Israel only, but of the American order and the Western order. This group includes Antifa and various radical groups.   Scholar revivalist Michael Brown said that this alliance is so incoherent that it is like Jews for Nazis or blacks for the KKK. 

The third group is all the naïve young people and not-so-young people who really believe these protests are about human rights, a national movement for Palestinians.  Many may not understand neo-Marxism and certainly, they do not understand Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran and their radical support for terrorism.  We have never seen a college population so uneducated and naïve and unable to think, weigh the evidence, and come to good, reasoned conclusions.  Education standards have declined drastically with the decline of the West.  These are just totally subject to the most gross propaganda and don’t even know what they are chanting, the meaning of intifada, or from the River to the Sea.  Yet it feels exciting to be in a chanting marching group for liberation!  

The propaganda attack against Israel is grossly immoral as can be believed.   It is lies from the father of lies at a huge level.  The nation of Israel is attacked by the Hamas movement whose charter and actions are genocidal by the United Nations Treaty on Genocide (1951).  The parallel to this was the genocide promotion and propaganda of the Nazis.  In the most bizarre Orwellian twist, whose promotion would even cause Orwell’s head to spin, the Islamic Fascists accuse Israel of genocide when they defend against genocide and do what they reasonably can to save civilians while prosecuting the war against the genocidal terrorists who showed their total depravity on October 7.  It is a reality reversal. 

The roots of this in Islamic radicalism are not hard to discover.  We have a long history of texts, genocidal war history, and murder that show us that this is only a more recent iteration of a satanic worldview.  However, the roots of Neo-Marxism can also be explained. For us in the West, how did this neo-Marxism gain such sway in our universities and then partner with Islamic Fascism, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union the revealed failure of Communism?  The key is to understand that this is the result of the loss of the moral vision of the West rooted in the Bible.  Once this has been abandoned, all kinds of false “isms” that are not well thought out, nostrums, fill the void.  The reasoning is emotional. 

The moral vision of the West was built up over centuries and was a joining of the best in Greco-Roman civilization and Biblical standards,  but then all was reformed by Biblical norms.  We see this in Augustine’s rules for just war that still inform the West.  We note that genocide was common in the warring tribes of the ancient world and even more recent times, in India, China, and Africa.  The idea of the worth of each human being, and standards for reasoning, evidence, and logic became part of creating the first universities.  The moral vision looked for a society where human rights and material provision could be made available for all who were diligent. It looked for a society where kindness, love, and law were established.  We note today that the importance of a lawful society and enforcing the law equally are today rejected and excuses are given for not enforcing the law. 

The loss of the moral vision of the West has produced Western leaders who have no moral courage.  This is seen in the university presidents that gave in to intimidation and bullying.  People with moral vision and culture do not give in to such tactics, but the culture-formation elite of our universities are largely morally bankrupt.  Only not giving in to bullying can stop bullying and intimidation. 

If we were thinking like FBI or CIA operatives the approach to fighting this movement would be, to paraphrase Eric Bern’s Games People Play, “Let’s You and Him fight.”  We could imagine getting the Neo-Marxists and Islamic Fascists to fight each other over women’s rights and gay rights.  We could envision getting the Sunni Muslim radicals to fight the Shiite Muslim radicals.  Sunni Isis is murdering Shiites in Iraq!  Then it could all fall apart. 

 

However, the above is tongue-in-cheek, though it would be a type of justice. Rather the only answer for this situation is a massive revival of Biblical faith in the West.  Only then can we restore moral vision, real education in universities, the enforcement of law, and the recovery of courage. 

 

ACCOUNTABILITY

My calling and part of my life quest has been to establish good government and accountability in the Messianic Jewish world. This was accomplished in two organizations I led, the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations and in Tikkun America.  Both have been effective.  I have also had a good influence in the Church world.  I have written on government.  I also wrote a book that has been a positive influence, Due Process, A Plea for Biblical Justice Among God’s People.

I grew up in a national and world association of congregations (45 million at that time) that were organized into a structure of mutual accountability in each city, region, and nation.  When moral and doctrinal issues arose, there were eldership councils, or courts of appeal, that would resolve these situations.

When I was 18, there was a conflict in my congregation with the pastor.  They appealed to the regional authorities in the denomination and were not treated well.  I was at the congregational meeting with these authorities.  The members were offended.  Most of the elders, Sunday school teachers, and members left and formed a new congregation. (1966)   I was a charter member.  I remember the first meetings and the heady feeling that we were in the right.  We thought that we now were going to have a more truly biblical organization, an independent congregation governed by elders elected by the democratic vote of the members.  We thought we were returning to a more first-century way of congregational organization, free from the interference and control of denominational leadership.  This congregation has had a record of good ministry and integrity and for many years was pastored by one who became a good friend.  I do credit the fact that there are good independent congregations that do good work and have integrity.

However, I was too young and uninformed about government in congregations to realize the dangers and the importance of being connected to something larger where courts of appeal can deal with issues too hard for local leaders.  When I was at Wheaton College in Illinois, I connected to an independent congregation that went into terrible heresy.  There was no appeal for higher authorities to come and help to resolve the issues.  Many friends and some family members were shipwrecked in their faith in this congregation.  Thankfully, Patty and I left when the heresy was just in its beginnings, well before it was full-blown.   When I sought ordination, I returned to my roots and was ordained in an association with mutual accountability and strong standards.  I no longer believed that independent congregations represented the biblical model.  Rather, I believed in congregations and leaders in mutual accountability with a layer of appeal for serious issues beyond the capability of the local eldership.  I now believe that this is much closer to the biblical model where we see the congregations planted by apostles still accountable to the planting apostles and accountable to the apostles in Jerusalem to resolve a major dispute (Acts 15).  This model gives us more than a hint that there has to be something beyond mere local independent congregations.

Such higher accountability structures hold leaders accountable to basic standards of morals and biblical teaching which I call broad orthodoxy.  Many associations also require congregations and leaders to maintain their distinctives which include more than broad orthodoxy, such as Baptist requiring belief in water immersion and Pentecostals requiring belief in the baptism in the Spirit, speaking in tongues and the supernatural gifts of the Spirit for today.

 

HOLDING LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE AND PROTECTING LEADERS FROM FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND ATTACKS

Associations that have a good government hold leaders accountable to its standards, but also protect leaders from false accusations.  In my 51 years in governing as a pastor and as a trans-local association member and leader, I have found that there are more cases of leaders being cleared from false accusations and then finding the accusers guilty of false accusations. Sometimes the leaders were guilty as charged in very significant sin or error.  Sometimes the accusations were tearing a congregation apart and the false accusations were spreading and being believed.  The situation was beyond a local eldership to handle.  Our outside appeal leadership came and heard the cases and were able to re-establish trust for the leaders.  It is wonderful to look back and see how this was successful in many situations. Several congregations were rescued from destruction and prosper today.  In a very few cases leaders had to step down, be restored or be removed permanently.  Much damage was averted in those cases!

History of Accountability

The Reformation leaders reacted against the Catholic Church and its hierarchical structures which often made the Pope and bishops beyond real accountability.  They exercised almost royal leadership.  Different models were embraced after the Reformation; the mutual accountability of the college of bishops (Anglicans, Methodists), the congregationalist model of accountability to all the members voting and then accountability to the larger association, and the Reformed model of a lead elder in mutual accountability to a plurality of elders at the local level, city level, regional level, and national level.   This last model was the least subject to abuse by leaders.  It was a model of mutual submission.  Some Pentecostal denomination and new stream charismatic associations have also embraced this government structure.  I might note that the government of ancient Israel foreshadows this with the elders of the gate and appeal to Jerusalem for cases that were too difficult.

We cannot look to Rabbinic Judaism for our model.  Rabbinic Judaism produced very different models over the course of its history from the royal master of the dynastic ultraorthodox leader to the democratic models of Reform Judaism but whose Rabbis have some limited accountability in its association of Rabbis, to those who have bet din (courts) in modern Orthodoxy and associations of congregation with standards for Rabbis. The last is closer to a biblical model.  However, we have to look to the New Covenant Scriptures for our applications today.

Situations we Face today

One of the characteristics of our day is that so many have become part of the independent church movements.  In the 19^th century such congregations, without higher accountability and standards would have been considered rogue.  This included approving qualifications for pastors. There are royal pastors types who are very gifted and lead large congregations but whose elders are mere advisors and certainly do not practice real mutual accountability.  There are royal apostles who lead networks and congregations are accountable to them, but they have such control with ability that they would never be opposed by the team leaders of the network.  They themselves are not accountable.

We recently were notified of a scandal in a prominent ministry.  We still do not know for sure what has happened, the extent of guilt, the guilt of others involved and so much more.  Why does this keep happening.  This happens with charismatic and non-charismatic Evangelicals?  I can give examples in both.  There are many reasons, but I want to write on one.  It is the rejection of the wisdom of the historic Protestant denominations.   These denominations had clear standards for vetting ministry leaders and maintained strong accountability structures.  In addition, some of the major Pentecostal denominations also have embraced these standards.

After mainline denominations did not fully embrace the charismatic renewal of the 1960s to the 80s, there was an arrogant “Plague on your house” response to these denominations.  New independent congregations and streams were founded.  Some of the new streams that connected congregations in networks were solid in their vetting and accountability structures (I can name some) and some were not and embraced a royal pastor model or a royal apostle model for the network.  Some did so in actual government documents and some, though with better government documents, acquiesced to a totally controlling but gifted leader. Some prophecies were given that grieved me, that the day of the denominations was over.  I on the other hand believed that they all could be renewed if they maintained a classic Evangelical confession.  So much of the projection of the “new churches” and ministries shows this root of arrogance.  I am part of one major ministry, Toward Jerusalem Council II, that teaches that when the Church taught it had replaced Israel, replacement theology came into the DNA of the Church.  Now each new movement claims to replace the last movement from which it came. Of course, such attitudes and teaching cannot lead us to the John 17:21 unity for which Yeshua prayed.

What has this spirit of independence produced?  Multiple scandals both sexual and financial!  There is no court of appeal. Very large churches and ministries have gone down with accusers having no appeal court to which the accused will submit.  The situation is therefore handled by public accusations, gossip and today by social media exposure.  Some use secular courts contrary to the exhortations in I Cor. 6 and Matthew 18:15 ff. to constitute a court of those who can judge such matters.  For the world outside of the Church, the Church is considered a bunch of crooks, hypocrites and worse.  Yes, the scandals are a minority of churches and ministries, but it seems so much larger due to media magnification.

I ask a question. Where is a big scandal in the denominations that have stayed biblically orthodox? You do not hear of such because it is so rare, though not non-existent.  In the Presbyterian Church in Chicago all salaries and congregational budgets were presented annually to over 400 elders representing over 200 congregations.  Disclosure and transparency were the rule.  Can you think of any scandals in the conservative Presbyterian denominations?  I can’t.

Were I to state my preferred government, it would be a denomination structure that gives great freedom for ministry expansion by those who give the gifts to multiply but who are still accountable to the association.  It would be an association that embraces five-fold ministry.  We see this today with the Pentecostal Holiness Church and also in the Four Square Churches association.

I know that there are many ways to have an accountability and a strong connection to solve this problem.  A five-fold network of congregations should require all to subscribe to appeal to the leadership team or a judicial board that is appointed for such appeals.  This has been our practice in Tikkun for some 40 years.  The Dove Network under Larry Kreider, with hundreds of churches in North America, Central America, and Africa where there are about 200 more, maintain oversight and appeal for their congregations.  Beyond that if there is serous accusation against the leadership of the network, they maintain a group of outside elders that will be brought into judge the matter.  I was privileged to serve them in this way for ten years.  There has never been a scandal in any Dove Church and probably never will be.  Those who join are joining in a commitment to accountability beyond the locality.

I dream that someday in revival and the embrace of the power of the Spirit that God will bring together the congregations of the city into structures for mutual accountability. Does this fit the prayer for unity of Yeshua (John 17:21).   I wrote a little paragraph for a beginning, a minimal standard to overcome independence.

Serious moral or doctrinal charges against the lead pastor/elder or one who has ministry beyond the local church are too difficult for a local eldership and should be handled by an outside group, either in an appeal to the leadership of an association that they are part of, or another group of elders called together who can serve as an objective group to handle the situation.

I believe this standard should also be embraced by non-congregational ministries as well, an appeal beyond their board.  It can be officially placed in by laws and constitutions.

The historic Protestant churches including the Pentecostals and Charismatic streams that have learned from history have established the following standards.

1. That churches are to be related and mutually accountable though joining in mutual accountability associations and that their leaders come together in mutual accountability.
2. That the royal leader idea is to be rejected and the leader of a congregation or association should lead in mutual accountability with other leaders.
3. That there is a real eldership over every congregation and every sodality (specialized missional community).
4. That there is a higher level of appeal from a local eldership to an eldership that is called upon to handle accusations against the senior leader or a group of leaders that is too difficult for local elders to handle.  This is an appeal court of the Church.
5. That there is transparency for finances.  All is disclosed.
6. That leaders are seriously vetted for moral integrity, marriage and family quality, and basic knowledge of the Word of God.

Some years ago, the famous Derek Prince said to me. “Good leaders can sometime do well in spite of a bad government structure.  Bad leaders can sometimes get around a good government structure.  But these are not reasons to not have the best government structures that we can.”  For Derek Prince, good government and accountability greatly mitigates against leadership abuse and gross sin in the leadership.

I have not addressed the issue of the reason leaders fall into abusive patterns of leadership and then also fall into sin.  A great book on this is The Other Half of Church, by Jim Wilder and Michael Hendricks.  It deals with the self-centeredness and the somewhat narcissistic problem in leaders. Leaders who learn to walk in mutual humidly, mutual correction and mutual submission are a great protection for the people of God.  However, that is for another paper.

We recently were notified of a scandal in a prominent ministry.  Most of you can probably figure this out.  We still do not know for sure what has happened, the extent of guilt, the guilt of others involved and so much more.

However, why does this keep happening both with charismatics and non-charismatic Evangelicals?  I can give examples of both.  There are many reasons, but I want to write about one.  It is the rejection of the wisdom of the historic Protestant denominations.   These denominations had clear standards for vetting ministry leaders and maintained strong accountability structures.  In addition, some of the major Pentecostal denominations also have embraced these standards.

However, after mainline denominations did not fully embrace the charismatic renewal of the ’60s to the ’80s, there was an arrogant “Plague on your house” response to these denominations.  New independent congregations and streams were founded.  Some of the new streams that connected congregations in networks were solid in their vetting and accountability structures (I can name some) and some were not and embraced a royal pastor model or a royal apostle model for the network.  Some did so in actual government documents and some though with better government acquiesced to a totally controlling but gifted leader. Some prophecies were given that grieved me that the day of the denominations was over.  I on the other hand believe that they all can be renewed if they have maintained a classic Evangelical confession.  So much of the projection of the “new churches” and ministries shows this root of arrogance.  I am part of one major ministry that teaches that when the Church taught it had replaced Israel, that replacement theology came into the DNA of the Church and now each new movement claims to replace the last movement from which it came. (Toward Jerusalem Council II).  Of course, such attitudes and teaching can not lead to the John 17:21 unity for which Yeshua prayed.

The historic Protestant churches and the Pentecostals and Charismatic streams that have learned from history have established the following standards.

1. That churches are to be related and mutually accountable through joining in mutual accountability associations with their leadership coming together in mutual accountability.
2. That the “royal leader” idea is to be rejected and the leader of a congregation or association leads in mutual accountability with other leaders.
3. That there is a real eldership over every congregation and every sodality (specialized missional community).
4. That there is a higher level of appeal from local eldership to an eldership that is called upon to handle accusations against the senior leader or a group of leaders that is too much for local elders to handle.  This is an appeal court of the Church.
5. That there is transparency in finances.  All is disclosed.
6. That leaders are seriously vetted for moral integrity, marriage and family quality, and basic knowledge of the Word of God.

Some years ago, the famous Derek Prince said to me. “Good leaders can sometimes do well despite a bad government structure.  Bad leaders can sometimes get around a good government structure.  But these are not reasons to not have the best government structures that we can.”  For Derek Prince, good government and accountability greatly mitigates against leadership abuse and gross sin in the leadership.

We are in the middle of Sukkot or Tabernacles when our people were to dwell in tents, the meaning of the plural word Sukkot.  It was to remind them of the 40 years in the wilderness; a time when God provided supernaturally.  It was also a time of discipline for their failure to act in faith and enter the promised land.   Many other meanings are given to Sukkot.  From Numbers, we read of the 70 bulls sacrificed during the 7 days of Sukkot, which in Jewish traditional interpretation is the symbolic number of the nations.  Israel, having had its own sins forgiven at Yom Kippur, five days later, begins sacrifices for the sake of the nations. She is a priestly nation interceding for the nations.  This coheres with Zechariah 14 where after the terrible battle for Jerusalem and the defeat of the international coalition against Israel, all nations celebrate the Feast of Sukkot year by year.  So, for us, it is the celebration of the coming Kingdom of God.

Fr. Dr. Raymond Brown, in his truly great two-volume commentary on the Gospel of John argues that John 5-9 as a section should be titled, “Jesus and the Principle Feasts of the Jews.”  Chapters 7-9 are full of Sukkot themes indicating that Yeshua fulfills or brings to fullness the principle feasts of the Jews.  Two ceremonies are especially important in the context.  One is Yeshua’s proclamation that if anyone thirsts he should come to Him and drink and then. “Out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living waters. (John 7:37, 38)  This was in the context of the very important Hoshana Rabba (7^th day, the great day of the Feast) when water was drawn from the Pool of Siloam and poured out at the altar.   Then in chapter 8 Yeshua proclaims that he is “the light of the world.)  John 8:12.  Brown gives reference to the lighting of the special Temple lamps that gave a marvelous light to Jerusalem.  Again, this is indicating that Yeshua makes full the symbols of the Feast.

One of our leaders pointed out some 35 years ago that John 1 says that Yeshua tabernacled among us.  In taking on a temporary mortal body, was Yeshua also fulfilling Sukkot, and was John giving a reference to it?   I am not sure, but it is possible.

One thing however about Sukkot and all the pilgrim Feasts (Passover, Pentecost/Shavuot, and Pentecost/Sukkot, is that they are times of rejoicing, family, and the instruction of children.  This year our families, the Moores, the Hollands and Ben and Lorena and their son Andrew, all gathered to celebrate. Here are some pictures of the Sukkah and a few of the family in a great time together.

Some fifty years ago the Shepherding Movement was started as a network of congregations.  It was led by five very significant leaders in the charismatic movement.  Charles Simpson, Bob  Mumford, Ern Baxter, Don Basham,  and Derek Prince.  These five were very mature and experienced leaders.  Derek Prince was the first to leave this movement.  I was able to be with him when he was still a part of it (1981) and after he left (1982).  When I came to our congregation in the Washington, D.C. area I hosted a discussion time in my basement recreation room (February 1978).  I shared my goal to strengthen the shepherding of the flock.  One woman cried out, “You mean we are becoming part of the shepherding movement?”  With total innocence, I then said I wanted to foster discipleship.  I did not know that this would have the same reference for this woman and that the Shepherding Movement was also known as the Discipleship Movement.  I said that I was a Presbyterian (I still was in the denomination) and a Messianic Jew, and I had no idea of this movement and what she was talking about.

Later, I looked into the movement and found some good things.  However, there were also very disturbing things.  Leaders usurped the leading of the Holy Spirit and required that all submit their personal decisions to leaders for acceptance or veto.  All but one of the top five, known as the Ft. Lauderdale Five, repented.  The one who did not repent professed that he never taught this error.

However, the Shepherding Movement was addressing a real problem.  They just went overboard in the way they addressed it.  They were reacting to anarchy and damage in the charismatic moment of the 60s and 70s.  Prophecy given to people on who to marry and terribly bad decisions ruining lives with the claim that the “Spirit told me” were frequent. There is mature and immature hearing the Spirit. The congregation Patty, my future wife, and I attended in our Wheaton College Days went into heresy and Gnosticism.  We left in May 1969 never to return.  This congregation was not accountable beyond itself for an appeal with regard to moral and doctrinal error.  It is interesting that Derek Prince and Ern Baxter spoke in this congregation before it went off.  I also know that Ern Baxter was appealed to when he was ministering in a Chicago pastorate about the issues but had no power to do anything about it.  I often wonder if the Shepherding leaders had this church in mind when they formed their association.   

The question that arose was how to bring order and balance to the chaos and lack of accountability in the charismatic movement outside the denominations.  My reaction to the error and chaos was to become a rationalist and to reject the charismatic gifts, prophecy, and the supernatural.  Then when I returned to embrace the Spirit in a charismatic way, I began to work out my views on these issues more explicitly.  They were largely solidified when I wrote my discipleship doctrine guide, Growing to Maturity.  This was developed more in my book Relational Leadership and in the book Dynamics of Spiritual Deception.  Here are the principles that have guided me for the last 41 years.

1.  Congregations are in better order when they are linked in associations, denominations, and apostolic streams.  Those congregations and leaders in these associations pledge to accountability on basic doctrinal and moral foundations.  The overseeing board or team of such associations is a court of appeal for error and such leaders can also investigate reports of abuse, sin and error.

2.  It is important to put guard rails on the prophetic.  Mature leaders confirm congregational prophecy.   Also, they assure that prophecy is always in accord with the Word of God.

3.  Individuals and families are indeed free to follow the leading of the Spirit for their life’s directions.  They are ultimately accountable to God for such decisions.  Every private in God’s army has access to the top general, Yeshua.

4. However, in addition to #3 above, it is important to teach people to seek confirmation from friends and wise leaders before making life directional decisions.  Going through this process of seeking confirmation and agreement can prevent rash decisions and directions that do not end well.  When there is confirmation there is the strength and power of faith agreement. “Plans fail for lack of council but with many advisors they succeed.” (Prov. 15:22)  We have seen that this mitigates against bad decisions.

5. In addition to #4, when there is not confirmation, there should be seeking the Lord and praying again.  If the person cannot shake the conviction of God’s leading them in the non- confirmed direction, it is very important that friends and leaders give affirmation and support for the person to follow their conscience.  In a family it is ideal that the husband and wife agree, if at all possible.  This is also a check.

IF the leaders of the Shepherding Movement had been balanced in their principles, then it would have been great gain for all.  The Shepherding Movement’s demise set the Body back and anarchy ensued again.  However, we see more and more getting this right.