Can the Orthodox Jewish Religious Accept the LGBT People?

Can the Orthodox Jewish Religious Accept the LGBT People?

The weekend Jerusalem Post featured an article with the headline asking if the Orthodox Jewish Community could accept LGBT people and especially young people. It is interesting to note the phrasing. What does acceptance mean? Does it mean tolerance in spite of disagreement with the lifestyles of LGBT people? Or does it mean supporting their basic civil rights? Or does it mean endorsing the moral and religious legitimacy of their lifestyle? I think the modern Orthodox Jewish community will support the first two meanings of the term, but acceptance does not mean endorsing the lifestyle. The Modern Orthodox, for the most part, reject these lifestyles as immoral. The ultra-Orthodox is made up of many different streams which will for the most part not accept LGBT people. The ultra-Orthodox do not spend time on the issues of civil rights and are mostly concerned to perpetuate a ghetto of ultra-Orthodox practice, and they will reject openly LGBT people in their communities.

In the United States, civil rights are probably supported by most modern Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Orthodox Christians. However, that right ends when it would force artists to do creative expressions that would message fostering the LGBT lifestyles. The larger question today is if the LGBT community will accept the traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims who want to proclaim that human sexual expression is reserved for those who are in committed heterosexual marriages and that all other sexual involvements are immoral. It is possible that both the LGBT and traditional religious communities could support one another in civil rights and mutual tolerance. But tolerance does not mean forced agreement. If you are an observer of the West and America in particular, the question now is if the civil rights of traditional religious people will be respected by the LGBT community or will they seek to get such people fired, shut down their businesses, and picket their homes! It seems as if anything less than endorsement is considered hate by the LGBT community. Traditional believers say they love the LGBT people but want to promote traditional morality and encourage the LGBT people to give up the LGBT lifestyle and become committed to traditional morality. This will probably only take place by a religious conversion experience.

Apocalyptic Times

I recently thought of writing about the danger of a massive human tragedy of enormous scope. I am writing about the potential of acts of war that can bring untold death and destruction. C. E M. Joad was one of the more significant philosophers of the 20th century. He was an atheist who used to argue for atheism on British Broadcasting Company Radio. Then he converted to Christianity and wrote two books which were a great influence on me in my days of searching. One was The Recovery of Belief and the other God and Evil. Both books argue that evil is endemic to human life and proves the Bible view that the human race is under a curse and cannot extricate itself from evil but must have a Redeemer. One part of his writings shows that all inventions for human progress also involve concomitant evil and tragedy. The invention of cars leads to untold tragedies in highway deaths. We accept this as progress. Industrialization led to pollution and diseases form dirty air and the death of minors from mining coal. Insecticides that increase crop production and feed more people, then cause cancer. Nuclear discovery gives us nuclear power and nuclear waste. The worst aspect is that nuclear knowledge gives us nuclear bombs. We create robots to make life easier, but the robots will lead to the loss of millions of jobs in the near future. We produce computers with artificial intelligence, but artificial intelligence, something, will eventually control the people who made it. We produce robots for war and could find ourselves being destroyed by robot armies!

In this article, I want to note just two of the terrible possibilities. One is a pulse nuclear bomb that is set off in the atmosphere and shuts down the electrical infrastructure of a nation. The other is a sophisticated cyber-attack that can also shut down the whole electrical grid not only of a small country like Israel but the United States. Yet, politicians do not address these concerns. They make climate change a minor issue by comparison. The article in the J. Post today did not assert that millions would die as others have asserted. Rather, it pointed to the loss of medicine due to refrigeration being shut down and the lack of needed medicines leading to death and disease. The loss of transportation means the loss of food. Fuel pumps would be shut down and transport would come to a halt. While connecting everything by computer and internet seems to be a great advance, it is fraught with the greatest danger.

To avoid a pulse attack, we have to be vigilant to prevent regimes that would use such a weapon from getting it. Today Iran is a primary worry for such a weapon delivered by a missile. Of greater concern is the cyberattack. A rouge movement like Al Qaeda, ISIS or others who have computer geniuses could conceivably do this. Experts say that the way to prevent this is to have parallel grids disconnected from the internet system and also to decentralize the grid with regional separate grids. This is expensive but is a lasting answer. It is amazing that no politician is addressing this. Yet it seems to be the most pressing of issues.

I would think that secularist would lose sleep over this. I do not because I believe in God. The word apocalypse means revelation, but its common meaning is a disaster of terrible proportions. This is because the judgments in the book of Revelation seem so devastating and that is one name of the book. Yet, we could conceivably be in danger of a terrible disaster where millions will suffer and die. Politicians are terrible at caring about the long term issues and the sacrifice needed to prevent disaster. Shouldn’t followers of Yeshua be sounding the alarm?

Should Gentiles Keep The Feasts of Israel?

As we move into the Holiday season, I want to address the issue of Christians keeping the Holy Days.

I am not planning on defending my interpretation of the passages that talk about Gentiles keeping the Feasts of Israel, also called God’s appointed times, and the Feasts of the Jews in the Gospel of John. They were God’s appointed Feasts for Israel. They are still central to Jewish tradition and Jewish identity and have been celebrated continuously even with the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jewish nation in the first and second centuries. They are all national holidays in Israel.

I read Romans 14, Galatians 3, and Colossians 2 straightforwardly. I know that there are arguments that the passages do not really mean what they at first glance, in almost all translations, seem to say. Romans 14 states that keeping specific days is according to the conscience of the person who keeps does so. He does not enjoin their keeping. In context, of course, Paul knows that Israel was and is enjoined to keep the Feasts and the Sabbath, but the context is that Gentiles are not so required. Colossians states that the Feasts are a shadow of the realities that are in Yeshua, who is the substance of the feasts. The Colossians are exhorted to allow no one to judge them with regard to a Feast, New Moon or Sabbath day. The New Testament scriptures do not explicitly require the observance of the Holy Days by Gentiles, so we want to avoid making any requirement that Gentiles observe these days in the same manner that are incumbent upon the Jewish people. Yet, the sentiment that all scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 2:15-16) portrays that it is possible for Gentiles, both K’rovei-Yisrael (those who have been led by the Holy Spirit to join Messianic Communities for the sake of Jewish witness) and other Gentile believers who wish to participate with Jewish congregations as guests, may experience spiritual enrichment and greater revelation of Yeshua as a result of a deepened understanding of, and participation in observances of the biblical feasts and Holy Days.

However, the conclusion that the Biblical Feasts are irrelevant is foolish and incoherent. The Feasts of Israel are revelatory and teach us about God’s provision for our needs, the work of the Messiah Jesus, and are prophetic for the end of this Age and the Age to Come. Understanding the Feasts is part of understanding the Bible. Why did Yeshua die during Passover? Why was he raised from the dead on First Fruits? Why does the book of Hebrews interpret the atonement of Yeshua on the basis of the Day of Atonement (Heb. 7-9) and the meaning of our spiritual life through the Sabbath (Heb. 4)? When we understand this, then Gentiles can be supportive of Jewish people who keep these special days.

I think one of the very good ways that I encourage is that the churches would teach on the Feasts during the seasons that Jewish people celebrate them. This brings out the reality that the Church is an international people joined to Israel. Understanding Israel through the Biblical patterns of Israel is greatly helpful. Of course, a picture is worth a thousand words. Joining with Messianic Jewish congregations for celebrations can be a great way of bringing out the meaning; a key teaching tool. Many do Passover Seder Demonstrations for churches.

Must Christians keep the Feasts, and take particular days of the year as Sabbath Feast days? No, in my view the Bible is clear. But should Christians connect to the meaning of the Feasts in various ways? Yes, if we are to understand the Bible better and be more in tune with rooting in Israel.

Demonizing those who Disagree

I mentioned in my most recent post that General James Mattis wrote an article on the dangers of tribalism and a type of tribal warfare in America. Then more recently Carol Roth, a centrist and independent politically, wrote a very strong article expanding on the same theme. It is not that we disagree but that the other side is the enemy and evil. It is not just the loss of real tolerance and respectful speech. Politics is now elevated to religious fervor since for many this is the central meaning to life.

The primary reason I see for this is the breakdown of the moral consensus of society that was based on the Judeo-Christian Biblical ethic and the importance of biblical faith in some way as a foundation to the society. Even civil religion had its benefits as part of this consensus, though of course, people were not saved by it! Mattis and Roth missed a central issue. When one half of the population believes that killing children in the womb is murder and the other half believes it is a right without which women are not respected, we have such a real division that it is challenging to not demonize the other and both sides do. The pro-choice position is heinous to me, but I still must speak to such people with love and not hate. The loss of faith among many of the pro-choice people does not provide an ethical foundation to treat pro-life people other than as an enemy seeking to destroy women’s rights and freedom. The lawyer for the attacker against Judge Kavanaugh attacked him and others who are more pro-life as misogynists, though the Pro-life movement was mostly women! You can see the polarizing narrative creation.

We see this with issue after issue. On one side are the radical Green deal people who say the world will end soon unless we do radical things that will bring millions into poverty. The other side has doubts and quotes reputable scientists who are in the minority who point to other than human causes for warming and that the danger is exaggerated. Some believe if the human cause is important a more gradual approach is warranted that really does not destroy the lives of people. For those on the Green new deal side, the others are the enemy, hated and vilified.

Also on the immigration sides, those who want controlled borders are called racists though they profess to believe in inviting all races but legally. The level of vilification is terrible, and our Presidents rhetoric does not help. On the other hand, some want blacklists of donors and to “out” Trump supporters for shunning and protest. The people are not engaging in reasoned debate but on the campus and in many locales, the response is bullying, shaming, and rage. I do think that the left is mostly to blame but there is plenty on the right as well.

Think about the LGBT movement. They do not want to just have civil rights but to destroy all that does not support their immoral position. This includes Christian Athletes in Action, to the Salvation Army! So they try to shut down the leading Chicken franchise and ban it from airports and universities.

Bill O’Reilly gives an example of a professor who wrote a book on racists. Every white person who believes he is not a racist proves he is a racist by denying it. And if one admits it, then one is a racist too, of course. Therefore, it is a sin that can never be overcome. It is a total trap and a logical error. This kind of rhetoric can lead to race wars. Yet the left does not speak of the murder rate of black on black and care about a solution for the horror. It is the fostering of hatred for whites and many whites on the left go along with it.

The break down in Israel is similar. Our Prime Minister calls his major opponents in the Blue and White party leftists. But they believe in strong defense, security and are pro free enterprise. In most countries, they would be moderate conservatives. They just do not want to be in a government with the Prime Minister who may soon be indicted or yield to the power of the Ultra-Orthodox. The charges are so extreme. The Ultra-Orthodox make statements vilifying the secular as evil and seeks a controlling interest in the next government. The secular vilifies them back. I have longed for a societal consensus in Israel based on belief in God, belief in traditional morality and a more flexible but positive approach to tradition than the rigidity of the Orthodox. Not much chance of that with Israel’s own LGBT radicals and very liberal abortion policies!

So western societies are breaking down into a kind of tribal warfare.

Again there are two reasons; first loss of the fear of God and a consensus on ethics and morals based on that. With that breakdown, a loss on both sides of a commitment to treat one another with respect. I could at least hope that those who profess to follow Yeshua would lead the way in respectful loving speech when they address their concerns.

Speak Loudly, but Carry a Little Stick

We are soon entering into elections in Israel in just over two weeks.

The right of center party of Benjamin Netanyahu is facing off against Blue and White, the centrist party of General Benny Gantz and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid.

One of the interesting aspects of the campaign is that Blue and White presents itself as committed to a much stronger party against Israel’s terror supporting enemies than Prime Minister Netanyahu who has a reputation for being a hardliner and Mr. Security for Israel. What are the facts about this debate? I want to look at three primary battle fronts and ask some hard questions. How has Israel dealt with Lebanon since the last war with Hezbollah? Secondly, how is Israel handling Hamas, and finally, how has Israel handled the terrorism from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)? President Teddy Roosevelt famously said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” In other words, use real and serious power. Then your words do not have to be loud. The accusation against Benjamin Netanyahu is that he projects great strength, but really is speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. I summarize here the arguments.

First in regard to Lebanon. After the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006, a U. N resolution was passed that led to an Israel withdrawal. The war lasted 34 days. I was visiting my brother in an assisted living facility in Valdosta, George. Richard was a Major in the Airforce and had a good grasp of military strategy. We were quite amazed that Israel tried to win this war by air power and only late in the war brought in ground troops. Also, Israel bombed the infrastructure of the nation of Lebanon and did not merely concentrate on Hezbollah which could have freed Lebanon from the tyranny of this group. He thus turned Lebanon more deeply into an enemy and really empowered Hezbollah. My brother and I were amazed at the feckless way the war was fought under Prime Minister Olmert. The U. N. promised a peace keeping force on the Lebanon border that would prevent Hezbollah from rearming. When Secretary of State Condolezza Rice declared that this would be a robust U. N. force, I knew beyond a doubt that the U. N. would do no such thing but that Hezbollah would be rearmed. Today, this has indeed happened. Hezbollah now threatens with hundreds of thousands of missiles and some may be precision ones, even threatening Tel Aviv. Israel policy under Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to prevent transports from Iran, but really has never the less allowed the rearming. His response could have been, “They are rearming, and if you, the U. N. do not prevent this re-arming, we will go back and disarm them. And we will continue to do so again and again until the U. N. resolution preventing re-arming is enforced.” But short term relative peace in the North and the prevention of the loss of Israeli soldiers, has been attained with terrible danger to the half of Israel.

Secondly, we look at the situation in the West Bank. For years Israel has allowed the Palestinian Authority to pay terrorists attackers and their families. If they die as martyrs, the payments to the families are high. The worse the terrorist, the better the payments. Those in jail in Israel find their families are paid handsomely. We would not object if the payments were at the normal welfare level. This incentivizes terrorism. For years Israel protested, but only recently cut off tax payments in the amount of these payments to the P. A. But this took years. Then Israel allows squares and streets in the West Bank to be named after terrorists, even the worst ones. And Israel allows textbooks to teach anti-Semitism and fosters hate for the Jewish people and Israel. As an occupying military Israel could enforce standards so that this would not be done. Could you imagine the parallel in Germany or Japan after World War II? They had to submit in ways that teaching Nazi ideology or Japanese superiority would not be tolerated. How can there be a peace agreement when the whole culture celebrates terrorism and fosters hatred?

Third, Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, since the last Gaza War, fears the international community and its unfair response were they to fight a war. A war is more difficult since using civilian human shields is a military strategy for Hamas. So Hamas and Islamic Jihad send rockets to terrorize the towns near the border. They protest the blockade but if they gave up violent attacks and arms for the sake of attacking Israel, the blockade would end. We have explained that the policy of the government in Israel is to keep Hamas in power so the Palestinians have divided government (West Bank under P. A. and Gaza under Hamas) and the two-state solution becomes impossible. But it has been pointed out that if Israel would simply take out more of the Hamas leaders, those surviving would be more likely to cooperate and end the rocket attacks and the violent border protests. Perhaps the Prime Minister believes that such a policy could lead to the collapse of Hamas, but others in Blue and White argue against this. The Prime Minister is building a border barrier against Hamas, and bombs military targets while preventing the loss of life. He speaks loudly. Does he also carry a small stick? Gaza simply needs to give up its military arms that are only needed to attack Israel and the blockade is over.

The next election in two weeks cannot be said to be a contest against a hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu and a dovish left-wing. This is simply not true. The Prime Minister has done many things right, but this election is a very difficult one, not only on domestic policy and the power of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel, but also on Security policy.

Religion, Patriotism and Family

Many responded with great alarm to a recent survey commissioned by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news. Among people aged 55 and older, nearly 80 percent said that patriotism was very important compared with 42 percent of those aged 18-38. The number that says religion is very important fell by more than 50 percent. Two-thirds of the older group cited religion as very important compared to fewer than one-third of the younger group. Among the older group, 54 percent said that having children is very important compared to only 32 percent of the younger generation. Hence the American fertility rate is at an all-time low: 1,764.5 births per 1000 women; the replacement rate is 2.1.

One commentator noted that this is the result of leftist indoctrination on the college campus where religious faith, especially Christianity, is discredited and disdained, and where the United States is not explained as a great nation founded on great principles but flawed and making progress. Instead, students are presented with a nation born in racism, sexism and homophobia. (Of course, one has to ask which cultures before modernity practiced women’s equality and treated women better than the Christian West, or which cultures embraced homosexual relationships. Did Islamic cultures do so? Do they now? Of course, that is not the point. The point is to discredit the Christian West for the most part and America in particular).

Young adults are the product of an educational system that is destroying the historic national consensus on these three values. This is a far cry from historic education in America when teachers believed they were the transmitters of the important cultural values that were the national consensus. These values produced a coherent national identity. These values made progress possible, for progress is measured by the fulfilling these values or ideals. The loss of these values is destructive in the extreme. However, we are not without hope. In such a vacuum of meaning, there is potential for great revival. People can begin to feel the emptiness of it all.

The religious consensus of the United States was Judeo-Christian. Will Herberg, many decades ago, wrote well about this in his book Protestant, Christian and Jew. He noted that these three agreed on values making up a national consensus. First that there is a God who holds all accountable. This is reflected in the movie The Ten Commandments and the intermission comments by Cecil B. Demille. Such values as treating every person as an end in themselves, valued as created in the image of God, and revering marriage and family as the building block of the society. The Church and Synagogue were respected as foundational in reinforcing values that were necessary to a good society. Patriotism arose from the belief that the country was worthy of the sacrifice of its citizens because it was birthed in unique values of human worth, justice and freedom.

As we have noted in the past, those in charge of culture formation, the educators, especially in the universities, but public schools as well, and in the media in both entertainment and information, have for many years been conveying a deconstruction of all three. Why have a family if it is likely that the earth will not be able to sustain a worthwhile human life? Why have children since career and personal well-being is more important? Of course, the potential of a positive outcome in raising children is potentially one of the most fulfilling aspects of life. There is now a self-centeredness and an orientation toward materialism that simply does not desire the personal sacrifice. Yet, relationships are the meaning of life. The loss of faith and hope for the future lead to increased suicide for those whose goals are thwarted. The famous columnist, Cal Thomas, wrote a piece on this survey that I reviewed while I was still in the process of writing this. He emphasized the constant presence of media with young adults that does not give any sense that the good life is tied to these historic values and bemoaned that this will be a disaster for the nation. Who will be willing to sacrifice in war for a nation that is tribal and that does not have a common patriotism based on the worth of the nation?

As if this was not sufficient commentary, former Defense Secretary General James Mattis decried the state of the country as breaking up into a kind of tribalism with opposing identities that despise one another. The survival of the nation is dependent on a common identity that was based on the historic values noted herein. And how does this apply in Israel? We as well struggle with the secular orientations of self, though less so. The ultra-religious despise the secular and vice versa. There is also a deconstructing narrative from the left that undercuts patriotism in Israel. On the matter of patriotism, I have always argued for a guarded and more humble patriotism, not a chauvinistic one. Yet respect for the nation’s values and ideals where they are right and believing in those values and ideals and seeking to form a more perfect nation is a valid motivation. When a Messianic Jew looks at all this, it is clear that only a return to a biblical world view can reverse these terrible trends.

The Controversy Over Israel’s ban of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omer

The Democratic Party is near schizophrenic, having voted with the Republicans against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction) movement, but then having a fit over the Israel ban of two radical congresswomen. What should be simple was made complex since they are members of congress but also the first women in congress to take radical anti-Israel stands based on radical movements from the Muslim Brotherhood and aligned with Hamas. Make no mistake about it, BDS was founded by people who seek the full destruction of Israel. “From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free.” The founders of BDS do not seek a lasting peace in a two-state solution, but agree with those declaring the State of Israel an illegitimate colonial imposition on the indigenous Arab population. This simplistic narrative is propaganda that in an Orwellian way seek to portray the Israelis as the oppressors without taking the terrorism of the other side into account. If BDS succeeded, it would mean the end of Israel.

Make no mistake about it; Gaza would be totally free and even able to declare itself a nation, have free trade, develop tourism, businesses and more if they would do one thing. That one thing is to give up violent opposition to Israel. The oppression is self-chosen through their violence so they can play the victim card and turn the world against Israel by a false narrative. As for the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority turned down two generous offers for a two-state solution, one under Prime Minister Barak and one under Ehud Olmert. It was quite obvious to most Israelis that the Palestinians were playing Israel and the world and had no intention of an agreement other than one that would lead to the destruction of Israel. Both the Fatah Movement of the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas Movement seek the same goal; the destruction of Israel. The method of the former is more subtle, even to pretend to be open to a real two-state lasting solution for peace. The method of the other is violent resistance and not even to countenance any negotiation that would look like accepting the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

The mistake of the Israeli government was its weakness to first entertain these two congresswomen coming separately from the bi-partisan delegation from Congress that came very recently. They refused to go preferring instead a trip to create a massive propaganda media feast against Israel. The two women have made anti-Semitic statements as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which has been adopted by many countries including the United States. Just because voters in their districts foolishly elected these two as their representatives does not undercut Israeli right and policy, which is to deny entry to any who are involved in supporting BDS and seeking the destruction of Israel. Nancy Pelosi is trying to hold her radical wing together with the rest of the Party so she wimped out in not passing a resolution condemning the statements of Ilhan Omer early on in this congressional session, but allowing it to be watered down to a statement against all racism and prejudice. The radicals, known as the squad, are playing the Democratic leaders. But by not dealing with this, they are opening the door to the Democratic Party becoming an anti-Israel party. Some have noted the parallels to the anti-Semitism in the Labor party in Britain under Jeremy Corbin and called this the Corbinization of the Democratic party: the drift to socialism and semi-Marxism, the anti- Israel stands and the rejection of traditional moral values. Israel made the right decision to ban these two and there should not have been a question, though Israeli Parliamentarians, American politicians, and media people questioned it. Being elected to the U. S. Congress or to any legislative body in countries in relationship to Israel does not give one a pass to enter Israel and bypass its policy to ban people who support BDS and anti-Semitism. America has banned people from other democracies who they deemed problematic. Messianic Jews in Israel can give us some perspective!!!

The Great Distopia, Our Cultural Decline

In only a few days terrible news about our cultural drift cames into my purview. I read an article by Daniel Henniger, a great article in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal on August 8, entitled The Deep Dangers of Life Online. Then a study reported on in the N. Y. Post stated that 22-25 % of Millennials say they have no friends and some even no acquaintances (positive lesser relationships). Then a sports writer complained that kids do not play sports “like we used to” and most kids give up sports at 11 years of age. Then the co-founder of Facebook wrote about its dangers and he does not allow his kids to be on it. It is habit-forming, numbing and dangerous! Other hi-tech leaders from Silicon Valley decry the effects of the internet and tell families to keep their kids away from it or at least to strictly limit it. All of this in just two days!

Henniger points to studies showing that the amount of internet time is strongly correlated to anxiety, depression, and suicide. He writes, ”I don’t think the human brain was designed to endure the volume of relentless inner-directedness that is driven by these new screens. It is not natural or normal. Anyone who spends that much time immersed inside their own psyche is headed for trouble.” He goes on to show how the internet foments anger and rage in lonely individuals.

I well recall the joy of growing up playing sports. Yes, I was fat and it was difficult, but it was a family value, so I plodded along. Hours were spent on the field, stick ball, baseball, basketball and football from grade school to college. We learned teamwork, unselfishness, effort, perseverance, discipline, and yes, friendship.

In Seminary, I read two books that I often bring up. Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock and Vance Havners, A Nation of Nomads. Both decried the fact that we were creating a nation of fleeting and shallow relationships. Toffler noted that economics was driving moving and changing at such a rapid pace that marriages and friendships would be difficult and that many would just stop trying. Marriages would not last. Havner called for putting the breaks on. Then I read Bruno Bettelheim, The Informed Heart which recounts what he learned in the Holocaust. A parallel book was Victor Frankl, also written from the Holocaust where he argued that human life had to find personal meaning to be sustained. The meaning of life is in relationships. This indeed was a biblical emphasis. What would they think of our fleeting relationships today in the texting and internet culture? The most important thing is intimate relationships among persons, beginning with our relationship with God. Texting and Facebook cannot replace personal “being there.” Then I think of the feminist movement. So much of the argument is that women are not being paid equally (they really are for the same job and experience). But studies show that they are not being paid equal as a total sum of income because they take time off for their children and other enriching activities. Would that feminism did not seek to find primary meeting in climbing the economic ladder to equality with men so they can live as empty a life as the men! Rather would that the protest had been for work for both men and women that enabled time for personal growth in relationships. Loving and stable marriages and families is on the best level of what life has to offer. Building lasting communal intimacy in congregational life is difficult but when attained is a high value.

The dystopia of modern life is primarily due to the breakdown of intimacy in lasting relationships, marriage, friendships, congregational community, and volunteer organizations of committed people working together! The recent spate of mass murders, way before President Trump (he is not to blame for this despite the claims on the left) may be a symptom of the breakdown of relationships in our culture. Anger and loneliness together are a dangerous mixture.

What is to be done? We need to unplug and find our primary life offline! Then we need to commit to build lasting relationships. It is to build a counter-culture, to stay in one place for a long time, to build a congregational community, to build a good family and more. We have to build a counter culture that is aware of the issues and lives contrary to the trends of our day. It is not easy, but we did it in our building congregations from the days my leadership in congregations. We seek to do it in Israel as well. We need to raise consciousness of what is happening.

The Homeless

The homeless issue in the United States is horrendous. The liberal run cities are allowing the homeless to take over areas of the city creating squalor without historic precedent in the United States. There are rats, now even bubonic infection, and other serious diseases. Living on the street is defended as if it were a right. Some are even defending using the parks for the homeless and thus having the parks no longer a joyful place for normal citizens and their families.

The solution is very straightforward but expensive. First, it has to be understood that the homeless are 98% of people with serious mental illness or drug problems. So here is the solution.

A massive church effort to win the homeless through the Gospel, healing centers for addicts like Teen Challenge, and Church mental health facilities. These can provide healing prayer as well.
Passing laws so that living on the streets is illegal.
Providing shelters for all homeless. The homeless have to use shelters or be in facilities for the mentally ill.
Police to enforce the standard that no one lives on the streets.

So why is this not done? My guess is that it is expensive and easier to just ignore the situation and then offer some liberal crocodile tears by showing support by allowing the camps with all their squalor to expand. The homeless are people created in the image of God. They may want to live on the street, but for their sake, we can not allow them to. This is a freedom that we cannot promote.

The Black Underclass

The Democratic Presidential Debates open up the issue of the Black underclass especially in the light of President Trump’s critique of the city of Baltimore and Elijah Commings, whose district includes the poverty areas of the city. Trump states that Commings should do something with his district instead of focusing on investigating him. For this Trump is called a racist. But all that is beside the point. The issue is the city underclass. The murder rate is horrific; the drugs, the rat infestation, and sub-par housing and more are so tragic to behold. We are seeing the results of 60 years of bankrupt liberal policies. Here are a few aspects of it.

Ignoring the importance of spiritual foundations for a solution. The Church is also much to blame because as I have written many times, the white churches with money should make the poor the center of Gospel efforts as the key to change.
Incentivizing fatherless homes by the way welfare is structured. Rather welfare should incentivize fathers to be in the home and education and work for mothers where it is not possible to have fathers in the home.
Not training in the black community for family life.
Fostering an education system that is bankrupt as the only alternative rather than charters and vouchers as a way out of schools that do not perform. $16,184 is spent per pupil in Baltimore. Yet in one school no high school student could read or do math at grade level! Schools should have to perform up to a level or be closed. Testing should constantly measure this progress. Can you imagine what a private school could do with this much money per pupil? Cut the non-teaching part of the system drastically and get results from a good teacher? Our teaching colleges train the lower end of academically capable people. We have to attract good people to teaching in private and public schools. The money should go do them and not the bloated non-teaching sector of the schools.
Not recognizing that a massive police presence will be necessary to stop crimes and drugs. These should be community police that build relationships in the neighborhoods. There should be so many that it is not possible for crime to continue. But instead, liberals vilify the police. Yes, there are problems, but vilifying police will lead to more tragedy.

Where are the Church leaders to mobilize the Church for massive involvement and presence in these communities?