Category: Theology

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.

Sometimes I assume that my Official Page followers already have a grasp of the Holiday and their meaning in Yeshua. The Fall Feasts include Rosh Hoshana, then ten days later, Yom Kippur-the Day of Atonement, and five days after this, the seven days of Sukkot or Tabernacles.  After the seven days, there is an eighth day assembly, a day of no work, Shimini Atzeret. 

Rosh Hoshana translates literally as the head of the year or the new year.  It is mentioned in the post exilic prophets but is not emphasized as the head of the year in the Torah. Rather it is called Yom HaTeruah, The Feast of the Blowing (of the shofar-the horn of the ram).  It is a day of rest with no work. Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the calendar and recounts the atonement ceremonies in the Temple while including many prayers of the confession of sin that connect us to forgiveness.   Sukkot recalls the days in the desert when we lived in tents in the desert for 40 years, and ate supernatural food and drink.  Our clothes did not wear out. 

However, today’s article is on Rosh Hoshana.  There is very little about the meaning of the Feast in the Torah.  The instruction is that everyone needs to hear the sound of the shofar and then take the day as a day of rest unto the Lord.  Jewish tradition fills in the vacuum.  The prayers for the day emphasize the Kingship rule of God and God’s judgment.  It is as if Yom Kippur meanings blend into the meaning of Rosh Hoshana.  There is a festive meal on the evening when the Feast begins and plenty of food the following day.  However, the prayers are solemn.  Maimonides, the famous rabbi of rabbis of the middle ages, said that the shorfar was an awaking call, to wake up from sleep and deal with the issues of God, sin, judgement and eternal life. 

For me, as a Messianic Jew, the most noteworthy tradition of the day is the reading from Genesis 22 on the sacrifice of Isaac.  We recall in in Genesis 22 that God gave the strangest command, that Abraham was to sacrifice his only son of Sarah on the altar.  In the history of Christian interpretation this text is seen as prophecy of the sacrifice of Yeshua, the only Son of his Father in heaven, who sacrifices him on the altar for our sin.  Some Christians have also argued the act of sacrifice was an intercessory act of Abraham giving his all, his most important relationship, to God at such a level that it called forth from God to give his all, the most important gift of his Son as our sacrifice.  In this interpretation, both were necessary and are tied together.  Of course, the Father’s will was to give his Son as a sacrifice, but could He find someone that would give his son in a like way to call forth His great gift?

Judaism finds amazing and helpful meaning in the sacrifice of Isaac.  The sacrifice of Isaac (vicariously though not in actuality) was an act of such merit that it is the foundation for all the sacrifices in the Tabernacle and Temple.  The location of the sacrifice was on Mt. Moriah where the Temple would be built.  Was it actually where the Most Holy Place would be?  This leads to the rabbinic teaching that the sacrifices of the Tabernacle and Temple were only efficacious became they participated in the meaning of the sacrifice of Isaac.  Of course, we would say they are efficacious because they participated in the in the sacrifice of Yeshua.  There is a question as to whether or not the sacrifices were efficacious at all on the basis of Hebrews 7 which says that the blood of bulls and goats and not really take away sin.   My view is that since Messiah is the Lamb slain form the foundations of the world, these sacrifices did provide forgiveness on the basis of Yeshua’s shed blood.  I understand that the argument in Hebrews to say that the blood of bulls and goats in themselves cannot take aways sin, but point to and participate in the blood of Yeshua.  Only due to Yeshua’s blood do we have atonement. 

Jewish tradition does provide meanings that are helpful in enriching our celebration of this day.  Of course, Gentiles are not responsible to keep these sabbath days.  But if they are in Messianic Jewish congregations we join together in common life.  Those in the church world do well to at least teach on the meanings made full in Yeshua. 

In my apologetics evidence for our biblical faith, The Biblical World View, An Apologetic, I argue that there are different levels of God’s intervention in healing. Today we have miracles galore worldwide done in the name of Yeshua/Jesus. It is less prominent in the West due to skepticism, but it is happening significantly here as well. I recently attended a conference of Global Awakening with Randy Clark where many miracles took place. 

The most astonishing miracle and sign of Gospel confirmation is a creative miracle. Creative miracles range from resurrections from the dead, the most wonderful and astonishing of all, to replacing organs or creating organs where they are missing. Eyes have been created. Blind people have been given sight which in the most amazing cases means that missing eye parts are created instantly. Parts of bones have been created, limbs have grown out, and so much more. In my book, I mention the testimony of Barbara Comiskey, who on her death bed with advanced MS, was instantly healed, flesh put on her calves, and organs recreated. Such creative miracles are described in Craig Keener’s book Miracles, almost 1000 pages of documented evidence. 

Just shy of creative miracles are instant bodily healings of cancer and other debilitating diseases, deaf ears healed from nerve damage conditions, diseases of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, and cancers, etc. When these healings are instantaneous, they are really almost in the first category. A miracle is the only reasonable explanation, supernatural intervention. 

The third category of God’s intervention reverses the course of a disease, but the full healing takes place after time of improvement. Some explain this as the body’s own amazing functions kicking in. Stage four cancer that is not instantly healed but which after prayer goes into decline with eventual full remission is an example. This can be the case for heart disease, kidney disease, liver diseases, lung diseases and so many more. Diabetes and high blood pressure are other examples. Doctors who do not believe in God’s healing power will speak of spontaneous remissions or the bodies rejuvenating power. When this process of reversal begins after prayer, we are justified in saying that this shows the intervention of God.