Here are a few troubling figures: In just the first quarter of 2014, France alone has marked a 55 percent rise in violent anti-Semitic acts and a 41 percent rise in the number of anti-Semitic threats. I wrote marked because only those incidents in which a complaint was filed with the police have been accounted for. Many go unreported.

And this is without mentioning the anti-Semitic content prevalent on social media, also on a precipitous climb. The situation in Belgium is similar, as it is across the entire European continent.

Was the horrible shooting attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels different from other anti-Semitic incidents—which usually entail the violence ending before someone is murdered? Possibly. But this anti-Semitism must be placed within a broader historical framework.

Jews have been on European land for over 2,000 years. Relative to our fraction of the population, we have contributed more blood, sweat and intellect to that continent than any other nation. What have we received in return? People talk about the Holocaust. And before that, everything was hunky dory?

The old anti-Semitism was predicated on the conflict over which was the true religion. Replacement theology fanned the flames of this discord, which is to say, when the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah (and as the Son of God), they severed their covenant with God. In response, God replaced the Jewish people with the church. Murderous anti-Semitism grew stronger as the idea that the Jews were to blame for “killing God” and crucifying Him became more entrenched.

The new anti-Semitism has two aspects: European and Muslim. Muslim anti-Semitism fills the void left by the Christian rabble of the Middle Ages—attacking Jews simply because they are Jews.

The new European anti-Semitism is tied to the disruption of the constitutive European myth, which they became accustomed to seeing everywhere for 2,000 years: a crucified Jew. The establishment of the state of Israel meant the return of Jesus to His nation and land as a Jewish Israeli national. This time, however, He is holding modern weapons and is no longer willing to be crucified.

What remained in Europe was the empty space once occupied by the crucified Jew. It is not for nothing that the decaying European elites so often focus their vitriol on the sovereign Jewish state. It simply does not coincide with their worldview: Jews are living independently in their historical homeland and are managing quite well, thank heavens.

We hear the cries of despair coming from the Jews in France, Belgium, Sweden and Holland, from Germany, England and more—and we cannot believe it. What are you doing over there on that continent, for the love of God? Have we not had enough of being slaughtered and raped and coerced and converted to Christianity and to Islam and humiliated and destroyed by the sword and starvation? And every time we thought we would be harmed no more, were we not attacked yet again and expelled in disgrace?

In the name of what ideal are you continuing to suffer this anti-Semitism? You are ashamed to show “signs of being Jewish,” so as not to arouse the anti-Semitic demon from his slumber.

The following is from Rabbi Yissachar Teichtal, who had vehemently opposed Zionism but changed his views as the Holocaust began, wrote an amazing book titled Eim Habanim Semeichah (The Mother of Children Is Joyful) before he was murdered on a transport train during the closing days of World War II: “All the blows that we have received is to arouse us to return to the Holy Land.”

Teichtal quotes Rabbi Simcha Bunim Bonhart of Peshischa, who died in 1827 and correctly predicted the painful history that was to unfold in Europe: “If, however, we do not strive to return to our Land willingly … we will suffer the agony and pain of the staff of our enemies until they force us to run … to Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel].”

Dear Jews, there is nothing left for you in Europe. Europe expelled its Jews and received instead tens of millions of Muslims. Come back home to Zion, before it is too late. This is the fitting response to anti-Semitism. Here you can share your fate with your brothers and sisters, contribute toward a good future for the Jewish people and live a sovereign life in an independent Jewish state. Come home.

Dror Eydar is a senior columnist for Israel Hayom. For the original article, visit .

Last week I lay on the floor of my laundry room trying to light the pilot light in our troublesome water heater. At the beginning of the month, my husband took an 18 percent pay cut. In an effort to cut expenses, we dropped, among other things, a handy insurance policy on our household appliances. And just five minutes before my daughter emerged from the shower announcing there was no hot water, my mechanic called with a $1,300 car repair estimate.

My first attempt to light the heater failed. In the 10-minute let-the-gas-clear-out waiting period that followed, I told God, “I really could use your intervention right now. I really don’t want to call the plumber again.”

I thought I heard Him chuckle. “What is it you need Me to do?”

“Remind me that we’re going to be OK,” I said. “Remind me that You’re real.” And then I felt silly. “I know it’s just a water heater. I know it’s just money. But I need to know You’ve got us.”

On an intellectual level, even that prayer sounded silly to me. There is no magic prayer that makes trouble go away. And I’m one who believes that not all of God’s promises are for this life. In fact, Jesus promised this life would be hard, especially for those who follow Him. So what was I really asking for?

I think I was asking for Him to strengthen my faith. I don’t know about yours, but mine is dynamic. On some days it’s super strong. On others a faint breeze could blow it over. Circumstances (and, OK, maybe things like personality, brain chemistry and hormones) play a big role in what kind of day it is for me.

My new novel, Afloat, is a supernatural-disaster survival story about a motley bunch of people stranded on a river in a floating home. They are divided over how to get out alive, and two deaths expose hidden intentions and dark histories. In the story, God makes a promise to the hero, Vance, and then appears to break it. He promises survival to those who do a certain thing, but not everyone who does it lives. What’s that all about? It puts Vance into a tailspin of doubt.

When life is painful, doubt is like a blister that puts a barrier between the wound and the world. The protective layer—maybe God isn’t real after all—is undesirable but normal and maybe even part of our healing process. Because in my experience, God has the greatest opportunity to reveal Himself to us in the deepest valleys of life.

If you know a little about me, you know I’ve spent most of the last two years in various phases of a long crisis. During this hard season, doubt about God’s love for me, care, and even His existence have breathed a hot fog around the edges of my mind. Doubt is never comfortable for me, but I’m learning to value seasons of doubt as a chance to know God more fully.

“You don’t really need Me to prove myself to you,” God said to me in the laundry room. “You’re strong. You know what you know. Besides, you humans like to give My fingerprints other explanations.”

I know. God is the greatest victim of identity theft that ever was.

“Still, it would be nice,” I said.

That chuckle again.

The hot water heater lighted on the second try. That afternoon, the mail held a small tax refund from a 2011 adjustment and news of a small medical credit due to us from a bill paid last year. The sum was about the price I would have paid the plumber if I’d had to call him. (Still had to pay the mechanic, though!)

Call it whatever you want. I call it evidence. And maybe a divine sense of humor. The troubles will go on, but so will faith.

How do you find strength for faith when doubts claw at your heart? Sound off on Facebook.

Erin Healy is an award-winning editor and bestselling co-author (with Ted Dekker) of the supernatural suspense novels Kiss and Burn. Healy delivers a unique take on suspense with a little decidedly feminine point of view, although she admits her latest release, Afloat, has more of the male point of view than her previous releases. She began her career as an editor and has worked with many popular authors in a number of genres. Healy currently resides in Colorado Springs, Colo., with her husband, Tim, and two children. She is a member of International Thriller Writers and the American Christian Fiction Writers.

Three months ago, when I wrote a column titled “10 Men Christian Women Should Never Marry,” readers shared some heartbreaking stories of their marital mistakes. One woman admitted, “The man I married is six of the 10 things you listed!” Many other readers also asked this honest question: “If my husband is one of those men, can I divorce him?” (You can read that column here.)

I don’t enjoy recommending divorce to anybody. God instituted marriage, so it’s sacred. It’s a holy bond that we should protect. Jesus Himself said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt. 19:6, NASB). Yet in the same passage He mentioned immorality (v. 9) as an allowable reason for divorce. In a fallen world full of sin and unfaithfulness, divorce is not always avoidable.

It’s true that many Christians are too eager to bail out of a marriage after their first big argument or when the flame of romance dims. Too many people view divorce as a convenient escape hatch. Yet this flippant disregard for covenant vows is not acceptable for a follower of Christ. Any Christian couple that stands before God to seal their union should be committed to staying together through thick and thin.

At the same time, I have counseled with both men and women who were trapped in severely dysfunctional marriages—and it was obvious some of these relationships simply could not be restored. In those cases, I had to ask them to prayerfully seek a divorce—and find support, counseling and prayer as they walked through the traumatic aftermath of a painful breakup.

Here are four situations in which divorce may be an advisable option:

1. Unrepentant adultery. If a husband or a wife is unfaithful to their partner, it’s possible to forgive and reconcile. But that’s only an option if the person who committed the adultery is willing to admit their sin and break off the illicit relationship. If the affair was a one-time experience, and the guilty spouse is broken over their sin, then healing is possible. However, a man who is constantly cheating on his wife (or vice versa) is deceived, and he is also putting his wife at risk of disease. If your spouse is having sex with someone else, you are not required by God to tolerate that behavior.

2. Domestic abuse. I never counsel a woman to stay in a physically abusive marriage. The wife needs to get herself and her children out of the house if her husband is beating her or making violent threats. It is irresponsible for any Christian minister to tell an abused woman to stay in a domestic situation that is physically dangerous. Separation is an option for a season; if the husband is willing to receive counseling, it might be possible to save the marriage. But God does not expect you to stay married to an abuser. He wants to rescue you out of that situation!

3. Emotional cruelty or control. I know women who have endured years of verbal abuse from husbands who claim to love God but don’t understand that their dominating attitudes are slowly killing their wives. Some husbands think they have the right to monitor and analyze their wives’ every move. Others scold their wives, scream at them or subject them to constant profanity and angry tirades. For victims, this can lead to depression, addiction and even suicide. If the abuser is not willing to repent of such toxic behavior, the spouse needs to get out before the abuse destroys what’s left of his or her self-image. This principle also applies to spouses who are involved in drug abuse, alcoholism or criminal activity.

4. Spiritual incompatibility. Many times one spouse will come to faith in Christ before the other. In the best situations, the believing spouse leads the unbelieving spouse to the Lord. But what if that spouse never embraces Christianity? Paul told the Corinthians that they can stay together but that it is not wrong to allow an unbelieving spouse to leave (1 Cor. 7:12-16).

In some conservative churches, leaders teach that divorce is never acceptable and that a person who chooses to divorce—even if they have been abused—is in sin if they leave the marriage. These hardliners will typically declare, “God hates divorce,” quoting Malachi 2:16, and then suggest that even the innocent party in a divorce will be judged by God. That’s an unfair use of Scripture. God’s mercy is bigger than that!

God certainly hates the pain, shame and family disintegration that accompanies divorce, but He also offers healing, restoration and freedom to people who have endured a marriage breakup. As we work to protect marriages and encourage strong families, let’s also leave room in our hearts—and in our theology—for people who simply cannot stay in irreparable relationships.

J. Lee Grady is the former editor of Charisma. You can follow him on Twitter at @leegrady. He is the author of Fearless Daughters of the Bible and other books.

When I listened to my voicemail I was absolutely shocked. An angry young man on the other end line spewed, “How dare you, Jennifer LeClaire, tell Michael you don’t believe me. Don’t you know that I get every message you send and receive on your phone? How dare you!”

Yes, apparently someone I know found a way to hack into my smartphone’s messaging system and intercept every text message I sent or received. This person was reading personal details about my life, as well as the lives of those I was ministering to, for months. It was beyond creepy.

Of course, when I realized this I immediately signed out of my messaging account and changed all my passwords. But when the dust settled I was reminded of a lesson: the devil always overplays his hand and, ultimately, the devil always exposes himself in the end. Although there’s no scripture and verse in the Bible that says that, there are plenty of examples in the Word that prove the point.

Justifying Job

Job’s faith was sorely tested at the hand of Satan. Job lost his sons and daughters, his possessions, and even his health. It was so bad that his embittered wife suggested he curse God and die and his friends suggested there was some secret sin in his life. But he would not turn his back on Jehovah.

“When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold. My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandment of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth, more than my necessary food” (Job 23:11-12).

Although God gave Satan permission to sift Job, he overplayed his hand. God not only vindicated Job among his wife, brothers, sisters and friends who judged his heart, he also set Job up as their intercessor, elevating him to a position of honor.

Job had a heart tender before God even in the face of the enemy’s attacks. And we know the end of the story: “And the Lord restored Job’s losses when he prayed for his friends. Indeed the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10)

Moses Marched On

Pharaoh kept the Israelites in bondage for hundreds of years. One day, God called a deliverer named Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel; ‘Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness'” (Ex. 5:1). Pharaoh didn’t take too kindly to that command and made things even harder for the Israelites, commanding the taskmasters to withhold the straw to make bricks without reducing the quota of bricks (see Ex. 5:6:9).

After each plague God released into Egypt, Pharaoh would promise to let Israel go—and then change his mind. This happened over and over and over again until finally, one last time, Pharaoh actually allowed Israel to start leaving. But before they got too far out, Pharaoh changed his mind again and sent his army out against them. Pharaoh overplayed his hand and was defeated at the Red Sea.

“Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its full depth, while the Egyptians were fleeing into it. So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. Then the waters returned and covered the chariots, the horsemen, and all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained. But the children of Israel had walked on dry land in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left” (Exodus 14:27-29).

Haman Figuratively Hanged Himself

Haman had it out for the Jews. He was second in command to the king. Everyone honored him except Mordecai, who refused to bow to him in the streets. Haman loathed Mordecai and when he discovered his Jewish descent he set in motion a plan to destroy not only Mordecai—but all the Jews.

“Haman said to King Ahasuerus, ‘There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from all other people’s, and they do not keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain. If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasuries'” (Esther 3:7-9).

Mordecai called a fast and his niece, Esther—who happened to be married to the king—joined in. She found favor with the king, exposed Haman’s plan and turned it around on him.

“The king said to Queen Esther, ‘The Jews have killed and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the citadel, and the ten sons of Haman. What have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition? It shall be granted to you. Or what is your further request? It shall be done.” Esther said, ‘If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do again tomorrow according to today’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows” (Esther 9:12-13).

Here’s the takeaway: Be encouraged. The enemy sometimes turns up the heat, but God is in control. He won’t allow more to come on you than you can bear—and he won’t let the enemy have his way in the end. The devil always overplays his hand and God always restores anything Satan manages to kill, steal or destroy.

If you’ve lost anything at the enemy’s hand, then believe for a Job-like restoration and if things look all but lost, remember Moses and Esther. You win! Amen!

Jennifer LeClaire is news editor at Charisma. She is also the author of several books, including The Spiritual Warrior’s Guide to Defeating Jezebel. You can email Jennifer at @ or visit her website here. You can also join Jennifer on Facebook or follow her on Twitter.

Mary Neal drowned during a kayak accident. She describes an intimate experience with angels and heaven that may change your view of eternity.

As the pastor of a Primitive Baptist church, my friend Charles Carrin was an ardent cessationist and entrenched five-point Calvinist for many years. He subscribed—as all cessationists do—to what I believe to be an unbiblical view: that God by His own will “ceased” long ago to deal with His people in a direct manner supernaturally. No more supernatural healings. No visions. No direct revelation. None of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation.

Cessationists do believe in the supernatural occurrences in Scripture, of course, but they have no expectation that God will intervene supernaturally today except, perhaps, through providence. But the notion of the gifts of the Spirit being in operation today, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10-12, is out of the question.

Even so, one day my Baptist friend prayed something like this: “Lord, I want to be filled with Your Holy Spirit, but I have three conditions: I don’t want to shout, I don’t want to be spectacular and I don’t want to speak in tongues. Now, with that in mind, You may proceed.”

Nothing happened.

As it turns out, he was also a chaplain at the federal prison in Atlanta. He was assigned to a man who had been converted and filled with the Holy Spirit after being imprisoned. Whereas Charles went weekly to minister to this man, the prisoner began to minister to Charles. It is one of the most amazing reversals of role I have come across.

Little by little Charles became hungry for God in a fresh way. After a long while he became willing to ask this prisoner to lay hands on him—with the prison guards watching. He invited the Holy Spirit to fall on him without any preconditions. He was filled with the Holy Spirit that day and was never to be the same again. He was eventually forced to resign his church.

Let’s Be Fair With Cessationists

One should never underestimate our cessationist friends’ love for God, Scripture, sound teaching and holy living. They are the salt of the earth. Some of them are among the greatest vanguards of Christian orthodoxy.

I repeat: They certainly do accept the miraculous in the Bible. They simply do not believe that God reveals Himself immediately and directly by revelation anymore. God, of course, could do it, they argue; He has simply and sovereignly chosen not to show His power as He did in the earliest church.

The absence of power, therefore, to the cessationist is not owing to our unbelief, lack of faith or expectancy. God Himself decided that kind of power was for the earliest church. Any amount of praying, fasting, intercession and waiting on God will not bring about His power. You cannot twist God’s arm to do what He decreed isn’t going to happen.

Cessationists do not want to appear smug or unreachable; they simply don’t believe the claims of charismatics and Pentecostals who have reportedly seen the miraculous. They are not questioning our honesty; they feel we have been either too optimistic, perhaps gullible, if not actually deceived.

Furthermore, cessationists understandably get turned off by flamboyant healing evangelists who make their extravagant claims. What causes some cessationists to dig in their heels is not only the lack of hard evidence, but also that the claims to healing miracles are so often surrounded with Hollywood-style showmanship and questionable teaching. These television evangelists sometimes appear like move stars who love the attention.

What’s more, those people who are said to be slain in the Spirit and fall backward are also supposedly healed. That is certainly the impression that is given. But when honest skeptics who want to get to the bottom of the claims go back to these same people to interview them, the results are often rather sobering. It often turns out that very few, if any, were actually healed. This scenario has been repeated again and again.

I can truly sympathize with cessationism. It seems to me the extravagant claims and lifestyles of many healing evangelists are far removed from the humility of the early apostles. I also find it disquieting when prominent healing evangelists absolutely forbid people in wheelchairs from being pushed to the front of the auditorium before the services. Ushers are positively told not to let people in wheelchairs be positioned near the stage; it draws attention to them, especially when the handicapped people are not called out to be prayed for.

It wasn’t always this way. In the years between 1949 to 1951, it was very different. I have good reason to believe that healings of crippled people actually took place then. People in wheelchairs were welcomed—and often healed. They often carried their own wheelchairs back to their cars. And they stayed healed.

I will tell you why I believe this. I have personally talked with three men (and others who knew them well) who were very prominent in the healing ministry in the 1950s. They have shown me photographs, letters and testimonies of people who wrote to them. I got close enough to some of these men to know they were not making things up.

What convinced me further is when they also admitted that the healings came to a halt. They were vulnerable to admit to this. It made me feel that the photographs and letters were genuine. But for some reason the miraculous healings diminished in the 1950s, although some of the evangelists did their best to keep praying for people as they had previously done—but with fewer results.

It’s a Hypothesis, Not Dogma

Here is the ultimate truth about all this: Cessationism is a hypothesis. It is not a teaching grounded in Holy Scripture—like the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Jesus and salvation by the blood of God’s Son. Cessationists have chosen to believe God does not reveal Himself directly and immediately today.

I do think, however, that many cessationists would sincerely welcome supernatural healing if they actually saw a person healed or if they themselves were healed (should they become willing to be prayed for) and remained healed. Most cessationists would be thrilled with a miracle, if indeed it was genuine and they had the undisputed facts before the healing and after the healing.

I know some cessationists become open to the miraculous when one of their own loved ones becomes seriously ill. God sometimes uses a critical illness to get our attention. I don’t mean to be unfair, but there is nothing that changes the mindset of a cessationist like one’s own fatal illness or the serious sickness of a loved one. That often makes them open in a way they would not have been before. General Douglas MacArthur used to say, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” So, too, desperation is something God may use to give us a wake-up call.

But what would worry me is this: if cessationists would be disappointed if the irrefutable evidence of genuine healings came forth. It is surely not good if they turned the hypothesis of cessationism into a dogma and then would resent it if a person were miraculously healed. If only such people would uphold cessationism as plan B in the event God might intervene and show His undoubted power.

Perhaps It’s for Our Good

Sometimes it actually happens—a cessationist is convinced of a miracle and changes his or her views. But not often. Why? I cannot be sure.

But I have my own hypothesis: to test the faith of those who actually see the miraculous but have to enjoy it in relative solitude without their friends being convinced. That solitude can become downright painful—when one’s integrity is questioned and yet one knows for a fact what God did. It’s like the earliest church being convinced of Jesus’ resurrection, whether they saw the resurrected Christ or because of the immediate and direct witness of the Spirit. It was so real to them and so foreign to others.

But what if God in some cases keeps some skeptics from seeing the miraculous even though it actually takes place? What if miracles are largely for those believers in God’s family who have accepted the stigma of being “outside the camp” (Heb. 13:13)?

After all, why didn’t the resurrected Christ appear to everybody on Easter Sunday? One might choose to argue that this would have been a reasonable thing to do if God truly wanted everybody to believe in His Son. Why did Jesus reveal Himself only to a few? Why didn’t Jesus knock on Pontius Pilate’s door on Easter morning and say, “Surprise!”? Why didn’t Jesus go straight from the empty tomb to Herod’s palace and say, “Bet you weren’t expecting Me!” He appeared only to a few—those who were His faithful followers.

I also suspect that God sometimes allows just a little bit of doubt when it comes to the objective proof of the miraculous. This keeps us humbled. And sobered. Pastor Colin Dye of London’s Kensington Temple has put it like this: “Miracles always leave room for doubt, as they were not intended to replace faith, only to reveal the heart. Also, the fact that Jesus’ miracles in Galilee were not believed shows that the very best of them were not knock-down proofs for those who are hard of heart and unbelieving, and to reject their testimony is to bring greater judgment on those who witness them. Perhaps it is out of God’s mercy that God is pleased sometimes to withhold them, at least until the time is right to bring to light the true state of people’s hearts—to bring in the elect and to reveal the apostates.”

Perhaps you and I need patience while our friends or loved ones are totally convinced “there’s nothing to it” when it comes to the miraculous. After all, how could Peter prove that Jesus had ascended to the right hand of God on the Day of Pentecost? He couldn’t. But he believed it. And all the rest could do was to believe his word—or reject it.

Let the Spirit Vindicate Us

Jesus was “vindicated by the Spirit” (1 Tim. 3:16, NIV) in the days of His earthly ministry. This meant He got His approval through the Holy Spirit from the Father alone—not from people’s approval. It also referred to His followers who were drawn to Him in faith by the Holy Spirit.

Faith is a gift of God (Acts 13:48; Eph. 2:8-9). This means those who believed in Jesus had been drawn to Him by the Spirit (John 6:44). And Jesus’ vindication by the Holy Spirit continues to this day. Even though He is at the right hand of God and is highly exalted in heaven, the only ones who believe this are those whose hearts have been drawn to Him by the Holy Spirit.

My hypothesis, then, is that the principle of vindication by the Spirit is at stake when it comes to the miraculous. Vindication by the Spirit is an internal vindication. The Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts.

Furthermore, those who are faithful believers in Jesus’ power today are more likely to see His healing miracles than those who say, “I will believe it when I see it.” In other words, as Jesus appeared to those who were previously drawn to Him, it may be that God shows His manifest power to those who have previously believed He is willing to show His glory.

Could it be, then, that God withholds the lack of hard evidence to skeptical people for our sakes? If so, it becomes a rather huge testing for us. The issue is this: Will you and I still be faithful if our cessationist friends never see God’s manifest power for themselves? Many of us would so love to be openly vindicated. But what if God is behind the withholding of His manifest power to our critics in order that we get our vindication not from people’s approval but from the Father alone? This would mean that we, too, are vindicated by the Spirit—His internal witness—and not by the external, visible and tangible proofs of His power.

God could show His healing power at any moment. For instance, a few years ago I received a curt letter from a very close friend. He lovingly chided me for my associations with Pentecostals and charismatics. But since he wrote me that letter, his own daughter became critically ill and was expected to die. The very charismatics he would not normally turn to prayed for his beloved daughter. She was gloriously healed. And stayed healed. My friend made a 180-degree turn. He announced to his friends, “I am a Baptist charismatic.”

But why doesn’t God do that all the time? You tell me.

My point is simply this. Let us not live for the vindication of our theological views. God wants us to receive the praise that comes from Him alone (John 5:44). If we became openly vindicated of our position that God manifests His power and glory today through the gifts of the Spirit, we might succumb to the praise of people. We could. We all have fragile egos. God forbid that this should happen to us—that we would start saying, “I told you so.”

R.T. Kendall was the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London from 1977 to 2002. He now lives in Nashville, Tenn. He is a well-known speaker and the author of many books, including his newest release, Holy Fire: A Balanced, Biblical Look at the Holy Spirit’s Work in Our Lives, from which this article was excerpted.

Here are a few troubling figures: In just the first quarter of 2014, France alone has marked a 55 percent rise in violent anti-Semitic acts and a 41 percent rise in the number of anti-Semitic threats. I wrote marked because only those incidents in which a complaint was filed with the police have been accounted for. Many go unreported.

And this is without mentioning the anti-Semitic content prevalent on social media, also on a precipitous climb. The situation in Belgium is similar, as it is across the entire European continent.

Was the horrible shooting attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels different from other anti-Semitic incidents—which usually entail the violence ending before someone is murdered? Possibly. But this anti-Semitism must be placed within a broader historical framework.

Jews have been on European land for over 2,000 years. Relative to our fraction of the population, we have contributed more blood, sweat and intellect to that continent than any other nation. What have we received in return? People talk about the Holocaust. And before that, everything was hunky dory?

The old anti-Semitism was predicated on the conflict over which was the true religion. Replacement theology fanned the flames of this discord, which is to say, when the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah (and as the Son of God), they severed their covenant with God. In response, God replaced the Jewish people with the church. Murderous anti-Semitism grew stronger as the idea that the Jews were to blame for “killing God” and crucifying Him became more entrenched.

The new anti-Semitism has two aspects: European and Muslim. Muslim anti-Semitism fills the void left by the Christian rabble of the Middle Ages—attacking Jews simply because they are Jews.

The new European anti-Semitism is tied to the disruption of the constitutive European myth, which they became accustomed to seeing everywhere for 2,000 years: a crucified Jew. The establishment of the state of Israel meant the return of Jesus to His nation and land as a Jewish Israeli national. This time, however, He is holding modern weapons and is no longer willing to be crucified.

What remained in Europe was the empty space once occupied by the crucified Jew. It is not for nothing that the decaying European elites so often focus their vitriol on the sovereign Jewish state. It simply does not coincide with their worldview: Jews are living independently in their historical homeland and are managing quite well, thank heavens.

We hear the cries of despair coming from the Jews in France, Belgium, Sweden and Holland, from Germany, England and more—and we cannot believe it. What are you doing over there on that continent, for the love of God? Have we not had enough of being slaughtered and raped and coerced and converted to Christianity and to Islam and humiliated and destroyed by the sword and starvation? And every time we thought we would be harmed no more, were we not attacked yet again and expelled in disgrace?

In the name of what ideal are you continuing to suffer this anti-Semitism? You are ashamed to show “signs of being Jewish,” so as not to arouse the anti-Semitic demon from his slumber.

The following is from Rabbi Yissachar Teichtal, who had vehemently opposed Zionism but changed his views as the Holocaust began, wrote an amazing book titled Eim Habanim Semeichah (The Mother of Children Is Joyful) before he was murdered on a transport train during the closing days of World War II: “All the blows that we have received is to arouse us to return to the Holy Land.”

Teichtal quotes Rabbi Simcha Bunim Bonhart of Peshischa, who died in 1827 and correctly predicted the painful history that was to unfold in Europe: “If, however, we do not strive to return to our Land willingly … we will suffer the agony and pain of the staff of our enemies until they force us to run … to Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel].”

Dear Jews, there is nothing left for you in Europe. Europe expelled its Jews and received instead tens of millions of Muslims. Come back home to Zion, before it is too late. This is the fitting response to anti-Semitism. Here you can share your fate with your brothers and sisters, contribute toward a good future for the Jewish people and live a sovereign life in an independent Jewish state. Come home.

Dror Eydar is a senior columnist for Israel Hayom. For the original article, visit .

After being arrested on sexual abuse charges, Geronimo Aguilar left Richmond Outreach Center (ROC) about a year ago. Now, Joe Donahue—the pastor hired to fill his shoes and bring healing to the Virginia megachurch—is also on his way out the door.

“This man is the man God has raised up as the leader of the Richmond Outreach Center, and he will lead this ministry into the future,” Jonathan Falwell, who has been acting as a consultant for ROC, told the congregation when they announced the former teaching pastor at First Redeemer Church in Cumming, Georgia, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“I’m telling you tonight, God has heard the prayer of the Richmond Outreach Center … and God has said … ‘I will deliver you from the hands of every single person who mocked this church. And I will deliver you from the hands of every single person who laughed at this church.’ … There is a new day dawning for the Richmond Outreach Center, and that day begins right now,” Falwell said at the time.

That day ended seven weeks later. ROC was not immediately available for comment, but Donahue is speaking loud and clear from a heart of confusion.

“My wife and I love the ROC,” he wrote on a statement on his website. “We believed that God had called us to the ROC to lead the church to health, growth and to become a New Testament structured church. In the words of my 4 year old, ‘We love the ROC family.’ We still believe that God has called us to the ROC, to minister to the church family, the community and to repair a broken foundation.”

Donahue says he understood it would be difficult but never anticipated anything like what has occurred since Thursday. 

“Despite ongoing encouragement from the board of directors, and without warning, I was terminated,” he says on his website. “I would have greatly valued a conversation. I love accountability and love to be sharpened. If I was leading the church in an unbiblical manner—I would repent and seek forgiveness. My hope was to repair and rebuild the foundation of the church, while keeping the ministries running.”

Donahue then outlines his “9 Phases to Calming the Storm at the ROC,” which you can read here.

“In 7 weeks, I realize I have no ‘political capital’ among the people,” he concludes. “If I am the only one standing in the field fighting for the church—I will do it. The Church belongs to the Lord. Not to me. Not to the Board. Not to the members. It belongs to Jesus and He has revealed the structure of the church in the Bible—and that is good enough for me.”

A pregnant woman was stoned to death by her own family outside a courtroom in Pakistan Tuesday.

Farzana Parveen’s father called her murder an “honor killing” because she married outside her family’s will.

“I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it,” her father told police.

Parveen reportedly married a man named Mohammad Iqbal for love. She was waiting in front of the court to testify in Iqbal’s defense because her father had accused him of kidnapping the 25-year-old woman.

Nearly 20 people attacked Parveen and her husband in broad daylight before a crowd of onlookers in front of the high court of Lahore, Pakistan.

The attackers included her father, brothers and her cousin, who was the man her father said she was supposed to marry.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reports that some 869 women were murdered in “honor killings” last year. About 1,000 women die every year in “honor killings,” according to The Washington Post.

Eighty-nine percent of Muslims who say Shariah should be law of the land in Pakistan support stonings for adultery, according to a Pew survey.

Though both men and women face stonings across 14 Muslim countries, women are more frequently the targets.

I’m an African-American man. Black women constantly complain about the dearth of “eligible” black men to date and marry. Noted sociologist William Julius Wilson has argued that “the increasing levels of non-marriage and female-headed households is a manifestation of the high levels of economic dislocation experienced by lower-class black men in recent decades.”

He further argues, “When joblessness is combined with high rates of incarceration and premature mortality among black men, it becomes clearer that there are fewer marriageable black men relative to black women who are able to provide the economic support needed to sustain a family.”

Then you add in the unfortunate increase in homosexuality within the black community and you have a recipe for disaster.

This is why black men need more white women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Even though they are conservative media personalities, they have done more to promote the well-being of black males than many of the very women who stridently complain about the lack of “eligible” black men.

Coulter is a friend, and I find her comments regarding the black community very insightful. Look at what she said two years ago on This Week With George Stephanopoulos: “Groups on the left, from feminists to gay rights groups to those defending immigrants, have commandeered the black civil rights experience.”

She continued, “I think what—the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right. There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions … or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left.”

Stephanopoulos asked, “Immigrant rights are not civil rights?”

Coulter responded, “Civil rights are for blacks … what have we done to immigrants? We owe black people something. … We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.”

Earlier this year, she said, “I mean, my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people. I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African-Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies? It is low-wage workers, it is Hispanics, it is blacks.”

I don’t know Ingraham personally, but I like what she had to say last month about Democrats and blacks:

“[Congressman] Steve Israel is reprehensible in what he said [on alleged racism in the Republican Party]. … Nancy Pelosi, throw her into the ring [for similar comments]. … I say this is a race to the bottom. … The Democrats have failed the black youth in this country with their terrible economic approach. Do we call that racist?

“They turn their heads away from the millions upon millions of black babies slaughtered in the womb over 10 years. … Is that racist? … Is it racist that they allow inner cities to continue to crumble as families decay across the board in America—especially hard hit is African-American families. … It is reprehensible and it’s all about November. … This is not about, ‘They care about black people.’ They care about their majority eroding away.”

So, let me make sure I understand. Black women complain about the state of “eligible” black males to date and marry, yet they support the policies of a president who is going to make the problem much worse.

Under Obama, blacks have regressed on every economic, social and moral indicator that is tracked. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the current black unemployment rate is 11.6 percent; for blacks aged 16-19, it is at 36.8 percent.

However, the average black unemployment rate during the terms of the last three presidents, as well as the average over the past 30 years, are noteworthy. Under Clinton, it was 10 percent; under George W. Bush, 9.3 percent; but under Obama, 14 percent for the total time he has been in office. The 30-year average for blacks is 12.4 percent.

Campaign slogans notwithstanding, this isn’t the kind of change we have been waiting for.

Obama has done more for same-sex marriage couples than he has for his same-race brothers and sisters. In fact, Newsweek dubbed him our first gay president—not for his sexual orientation, but for his relentless pandering to homosexuals.

Obama has also advocated amnesty for those in this country who are here illegally, which will only continue to increase the unemployment rate in the black community, especially among low- and under-skilled black workers. This will further decrease the pool of potential black men for women to date and marry. Let’s face it, our women are not going to marry someone who is unemployed or underemployed.

Historically, black women have been notoriously protective of their men and children. It is ironic that Coulter and Ingraham, two conservative white women, are now assuming that role. We black men need more white women like Coulter and Ingraham, not back women who will give a pass to a failing black president.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached through his website, . You can also follow him on Twitter at @raynard1223.