What Shall We Then Do? Part XI of Religion and Politics

As I’ve discussed in multiple articles, the mixture of religion and politics has a long and sordid history. That does not suggest, however, that religious people avoid politics or issues having a religious, moral or ethical base not be raised. Rather, Yeshua’s words should take precedence, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and then all these things will be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33) God’s kingdom is reflected in a way of life that puts God and others before ourselves. It means we treat all people with respect, recognizing that everyone is created in the image of God, even those whose values may be diametrically opposed to ours. As Yeshua said, before we criticize another, we need to remove the logs in our own eyes. This must be the basis of any involvement in political affairs.

So, what shall we do? The one clear Biblical admonition is to pray for government leaders. Paul states in his first letter to Timothy, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” The Book of Proverbs contains several passages related to the importance of civil leadership being just and righteous. “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.” (Proverbs 29:4) So prayer for those in authority must include the plea that they promote justice in society. As the passages above say, the result is stability, peace and quiet.

We are also to pray for our nations. Interestingly, a verse highlighted by the Moral Majority in the late 1970’s, can provide some guidance: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (II Chronicles 7:14) Of course, these were God’s special words to King Solomon when he dedicated the First Temple, and they were directed to the Israelites during what’s known as the First Commonwealth (1000 BC-586 BC). Whether we can extrapolate those principles to modern society is up for debate. Nevertheless, the Moral Majority used this passage to highlight the decline of morals in American society and to call the nation to repentance. The irony is, however, that the emphasis of the verse is upon those who are God’s people humbling themselves and turning from their wicked ways, not necessarily the society at large.

Expanding upon this point is a passage from I Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Whereas the Moral Majority’s focus was to organize a political movement to alter the cultural changes taking place in the US, the Biblical passages above emphasize that if we want God to move in our societies, then we, as His followers, must get right with Him and act like Him. This is similar to Yeshua’s commandment mentioned above about first taking the log out of our own eyes before attempting to remove the speck in someone else’s.

To assume God will change society through our political action is pure folly. God moves on society as His people call on His name. Certainly, society changes as more people put God first in their lives. Yes, there is a place to press political leaders with issues that concern the followers of Yeshua. But to associate Yeshua and His kingdom with a specific political agenda is a grievous mistake. The result is the contamination of the gospel, and many people losing any interest in pursuing God.

Next time: What Shall We Then Do, Part 2

The Do's and Don't's of Political Involvement of Religious Leaders - Part X of Religion and Politics

Religious leaders have a sacred trust. Their mission is to represent God. Their role is to speak about God, to shepherd and care for their flocks, to set an example of godly living, and to challenge the spiritual, ethical and moral condition of their congregations and society. As I wrote in an earlier article, religious leaders have a somewhat prophetic role vis a vis society at large.

Religious leaders have a great deal of influence over their flocks. This reality is certainly appropriate when it comes to articulating God’s ways and will for spiritual life. However, it can become dangerous when it crosses over into politics. When religious leaders become close to politicians and their political agendas, trouble ensues. One of the clearest modern examples was the relationship between Rev. Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon. For many years Graham was outspoken about political affairs, and as his popularity rose, he was sought out by many political leaders. Graham spent a great deal of time with Nixon and strongly supported him publicly. When the Watergate scandal broke, Graham defended him to the end. However, when the secret tapes of White House recordings were publicized, revealing the extent of Nixon’s corruption, Graham was completely shocked.

In Marshal Frady’s biography of Graham, Billy Graham, A Parable of American Righteousness, he wrote:

“When Graham at last finished tracking through those confidential exchanges between Nixon and his operatives, he became physically, retchingly sick — a nausea that clung in his vitals through the rest of that afternoon. Through the following days, according to his intimates and his family, he seemed lost in some blank abstraction, a heavy slowness hanging to his movements as if he had just suddenly entered for the first time into the earth’s dull and massy pull. His mother remembers that his very face seemed to dim — “There just wasn’t that usual glow in Billy’s face. It was like the light had gone out.”

 After Watergate Graham changed course with respect to his involvement with politicians.  In a 2011 interview with Christianity Today, he said, “I … would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back, I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”

Religious leaders should never become tools of politicians and/or politics, and politicians should never become tools of religious leaders. They are part of two separate institutions. Merging the two opens the door for corruption in both. As Graham said above, politicians, as everyone else, have spiritual needs. But meetings between politicians and religious leaders should be kept private, and the contents of such meetings should remain private.

Religious leaders and institutions should never endorse a politician. This is a huge mistake. Public endorsements lead people to believe that a religious leader views the election of a politician to be God’s will. Followers of the leader see the leader’s endorsement as an imprimatur of God upon the politician, and, thus if they don’t support the particular politician, they are violating the will of God. Additionally, once a religious leader endorses a politician, it becomes increasingly difficult for the leader to challenge the politician, especially if the politician becomes ethically or morally compromised. This was a deep regret of Billy Graham in his relationship with Nixon.

None of this is to suggest that religion and religious people not have a voice in the political affairs of the country. But there’s a big difference between taking public positions about various policies and endorsing politicians. In my view even asking a candidate’s views about his/her personal faith is appropriate. One’s faith properly influences their world view, perspective and policy. Yet a politician’s personal faith should always remain separate from the aspirations of a religious institution or organization. Presidential candidate and later President John Kennedy had a great response to the public’s fear that if he were elected, the Roman Catholic Church would control the policies of the United States:

“But let me stress again that these are my views – for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens to also be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for me.”

I challenge religious leaders of our era to refrain from political endorsements and remove themselves from political associations with political candidates and elected leaders. They are making the same mistakes that Billy Graham made with President Nixon.

Next time: Then What Shall We Do?

Partisan Politics is a Problem - Part IX of Religion and Politics

At the birth of Yeshua the angel said to the shepherds, “Do not be afraid for behold I will bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David, a Savior who is Messiah the Lord.” Note the proclaimed good news was for all people: Jew and Gentile, man and woman, even later for Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. Increasingly, however, the gospel message is associated with a particular political party and a certain type of political agenda. In my view, the association has undermined the gospel message and created a barrier for many people to hear the good news of Yeshua the Messiah.

As I’ve written earlier, I served for several years as a counsel in the US Senate. While there I led a Bible study for Congressional staff. Many people attended who worked for both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress. We had one rule: when entering the doors, discussions about politics and legislation remained outside. Inside, I taught from the Bible, explaining the stories and making them applicable to our daily lives. We then took personal prayer requests, and I prayed about every request, as long as it was not political in nature. I kept a record of the prayer requests in a book so we could see how God answers prayer. I also posted several gospel tracts I wrote, called, “Is Something Missing”, on a bulletin board outside one of the Senate’s restaurants. Over a few years, many of these tracts were taken. Finally, when I left Congressional work, my former boss, a US Senator, wanted me to come back and counsel other Senators and their families on how the legislation I worked on would affect them. I met with at least fifty Senators and their families from both parties. At the conclusion of each session, I explained to them about the book of prayer requests I kept, and asked if they had any personal prayer requests. All of them heartedly shared requests, and many of them were very personal and heartfelt. Why am I writing this? Because everything was done in a non-partisan way. Politics was not discussed. Rather, it was always about God and the people.  The gospel is for all people.

I worked on Capitol Hill when the Moral Majority was formed. While I agreed with some of their views about social issues, I vehemently disagreed with their approach. I believed organizing churches around the country to elect certain types of candidates, campaigning on their behalf and becoming a public political organization was a grievous mistake. I saw numerous religious leaders say the most bizarre things about Congress, the Presidency and politics. At one point during a Congressional meeting, I challenged Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club, who was becoming increasingly political, about the mixture of religion and politics. He pooh-poohed my concerns.

I left Capitol Hill in 1987, went to seminary and entered the ministry. I led Tikvat Israel Congregation, a Messianic Jewish Congregation in Richmond, Virginia for twenty-two years. I prohibited the placement of political brochures and Congressional voting records in our congregation. I never spoke about political issues, with the exception of the one message in 2008 about this very subject – Religion and Politics. I shared from the bimah (pulpit) at the opening of every service by stating, “our goal on every Shabbat is to come into contact with the living God and be transformed into His image.” Thus, my messages were about knowing God, hearing from God, walking with God and living a godly life.

This is the good news: that God broke into a dark world in the person of Yeshua the Messiah to transform humanity. As the Apostle Paul said, “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, then the Gentile.” This gospel message is wholly separate from politics and certainly partisan politics. As the angel said, it’s for all people. Please consider what has happened in the US. At least one-half of the population, if not more, is turned off to this message because of its association with partisan politics. The United States is in desperate need of a revival, but as the Apostle Paul also said, “judgment first begins in the house of God.” I challenge religious leaders across the spectrum to distant themselves from politicking and return to sharing the good news of Yeshua the Messiah.

Next time – is there a role for religious people and leaders in the political arena?

Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's - Part VIII of Religion and Politics

In the famous response to a question about the lawfulness of paying taxes to the Roman government, Yeshua proclaimed, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” While the context was designed to entrap Yeshua into either losing public support or causing a Roman government crackdown against him, still the statement implies that he saw a separation between state matters and religious ones. On the other hand, when reading his teachings captured in the Sermon on the Mount, there is a clear message about creating a society of goodness and justice, a so-called “city on a hill.”

The context of the Sermon on the Mount is an expansion on how the ancient prophets viewed an idyllic nation of Israel. In the prophet Isaiah’s view, all of the nations would stream to Israel, to be taught God’s ways, and as a result, peace and justice would encompass the earth. There is clearly a tension inherent in the Biblical perspective towards religion and politics. One’s religious beliefs naturally influence one’s values and resultant world view. Since politics is the process for how societies govern themselves and how decisions are reached, then religion, through religious people, will and should influence politics. As was discussed in an earlier article, religious people helped organize the Abolitionist movement, leading to the abolition of slavery. The Abolitionists saw slavery as a great evil. Similarly, many associated with the pro-life movement are religious people who see abortion as an evil, snuffing out the life of the unborn.

It should be expected and welcomed that religious people be involved in politics, whether running for office, working on political campaigns or raising organized voices over particular positions. But through it all, followers of Yeshua must understand they belong first to another kingdom, the kingdom of God. In this kingdom lives are ordered around serving God first and exemplifying His character to those around them. Nevertheless, the kingdoms interrelate. All the while serving the Lord and building His kingdom, His followers should call the larger society around them to the higher standards of God’s kingdom, to protect life, promote justice and pursue peace. As the prophet Micah said, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

I believe this is the model for the relationship between religion and politics. It is similar to the role the prophets assumed in ancient Israelite society. Essentially, they became the nation’s social conscience, speaking out against corruption, idolatry, exploitation of the poor, and calling the nation to fulfill its ideals and mission. Yet, most of the prophets were more outsiders than insiders. They largely were not part of political leadership, and the few that were showed their fidelity to God by speaking out against corruption and injustice to those in authority, exemplified by the prophet Nathan’s condemnation of King David’s behavior towards Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Those prophets who encouraged political leaders’ wayward ways were deemed false prophets.

More recent religion-inspired political action, however, has deviated from this path. A whole branch of Christianity now is associated with a political party. The kingdom of God seemingly has merged with an American kingdom. This is a big problem.

Next time: The Problem with Partisan Politics

Israel's Religion and State Conundrum - Part VII of Religion and Politics

For almost two thousand years, Jews prayed daily for their return to the land of Israel. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, Jews began to migrate there, mainly from Russia. Most of these early pioneering Jews were secular. However, there had always been some religious Jews located throughout the land. The type of country that Israel was to become was as varied as the opinions of those who flocked to it. Theodore Herzl, the father of the Zionist movement, envisioned the new state to be a pluralistic advanced society, a type of “light to the nations.” Traditionally, religious Jews believed that the Messiah to come would draw the Jews back to the land, and thus most were opposed to the early attempts to form a Jewish nation state. One key bridge builder, however, was Rabbi Avraham Kook, a highly respected rabbi and the first Ashkenazic (European) chief rabbi of the British Mandate in Palestine. He argued that God was using the secular Jews to establish Jewish presence in the land, to eventually bring wholeness to the world, and to usher in the coming of the Messiah. He essentially is considered to be the father of Religious Zionism, the view that God is calling the Jews back to the land of Israel.

Some form of democracy was embraced by almost all of Israel’s modern founders. A constituent assembly was formed in the 1920’s, appointing an executive council to govern the Jewish inhabitants and institutions of the land. The constituent assembly was constructed upon proportional representation. Due to Rabbi Kook’s influence, various religious parties served in the assemblies, along with many other parties. When the modern state of Israel proclaimed her independence in 1948, the Declaration of Independence contained the following statements:

Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. . . The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

Since that time, the Israeli government has argued that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. In fact, it is possibly the only modern democratic nation that is defined and identified as a type of religious state.

Two factors control the level of religion and its influence in Israel: 1) the Chief Rabbinate; 2) politics. The Chief Rabbinate is headed by two rabbis, one from the Ashkenazic (European) community, the other from the Sephardic (Spanish, Mid-Eastern) community. The Chief Rabbinate controls numerous aspects of Jewish life in Israel: marriage and divorce, burials, conversion to Judaism, kosher laws, immigration, Jewish schools, Jewish holy sites, and rabbinical courts. The power of the Chief Rabbinate originated with an agreement reached between David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, and one of the major religious parties, just prior to the founding of the State. Ben-Gurion sought to garner the support of the religious sector in order to present a unified front before the United Nations, which was about to determine whether Israel would be considered its own nation state. The religious parties were concerned that the country would be a solely secular state and would thus hurt the status of the religious institutions and participants. 

This arrangement by Ben-Gurion became known as the status quo agreement. It covered four primary areas that are important to Orthodox Judaism: the preservation of Shabbat for the nation, the regulation of kitchens in government owned areas according to Orthodox kosher rules, the conducting of marriage and divorce under the Chief Rabbinate, and control over educational curriculum in the schools, where full autonomy would be given to the different Jewish denominations. In addition, issues of personal status (who is a Jew) would be determined by the Orthodox definitions. These concessions to the Orthodox community have led to numerous unintended consequences played out mainly in the political arena.

Israel’s government is based on a parliamentary system. Throughout her seventy-one-year history, no single political party has won a majority of parliamentary seats. Consequently, governments are formed through a coalition of parties, often with smaller, narrow interest parties. Those smaller parties invariably include religious ones. The religious parties seek to protect and even expand upon the status quo agreement above, despite the fact that the vast majority of Israelis are secular. For example, the religious parties successfully prevent the operation of public transportation on Shabbat in almost all areas of the country. This ultimately affects primarily the poor because those with cars can travel if they want.

 Another example is the religious control over marriage. Orthodoxy has very strict standards as to who is a Jew, and will not marry a couple if either party fails to meet their definitions. Since the only rabbis approved by the Chief Rabbinate are Orthodox, and a Jew can only be married by the Orthodox, many citizens cannot be married in Israel. This has negatively affected thousands of Russian immigrants, among many others, who do not have acceptable papers to prove “pure” Jewishness. Around twenty percent of Jewish Israelis marry outside of Israel, either because they don’t meet the Orthodox definitions or they do not want an Orthodox style wedding, especially when most of the couples marrying are not Orthodox themselves. The religious parties so far have blocked the institution of civil marriage in Israel.

A final example is the maintenance of military exemptions for the religious who are studying in special religious schools. This was also an arrangement made between David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties at the founding of Israel. At that time the religious parties implored the Prime Minister to permit the study of Torah for a select group of scholars as a substitute for required military service. As of now, that has expanded to thousands of potential military recruits each year. The military exemption for the religious community has caused tremendous resentment among the majority in Israeli society, whose children serve and die in the Israeli military. There have been many attempts to change the law, but the religious parties have successfully thwarted them.

As was stated earlier, Israel was formed to be a Jewish state, a place where the perennially persecuted Jew could come and live in freedom. But the Jewish people are not just an ethnic group. Rather they are a people, in part, defined by a religious and historical experience. Consequently, religion always will play a part in Israel’s national identity. As has been discussed in earlier articles, the merger of the state and religion throughout history has a poor track record. The question for Israel is, can she find a way to maintain a Jewish identity without imposing strict religious standards upon a society that largely balks against them. This probably is the only way for Israel to flourish, to be a Jewish and democratic state and to fulfill Theodore Herzl’s vision of being “a light to the nations.”

Next time: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

The Rise of the Religious Right - Part VI of Religion and Politics

The second half of the 20th century saw major social and cultural changes. African Americans won a long battle for Civil Rights. Public schools desegregated. Children were bused out of their neighborhoods to distant schools to ensure desegregation. The Supreme Court ruled prayer and Bible Study in public schools to be unconstitutional. Huge protests erupted against the Viet Nam War. Many young people began experimenting with illegal drugs, including highly psychedelic ones. Women entered the workforce in large numbers. The Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, ensuring equal rights for women, passed the Congress and was ratified by numerous states, although it failed to pass a sufficient number of states to become effective. Abortions became legal and increased in frequency. Gay rights became a popular cause, culminating in the later Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of gay marriage. For many, the changes were deeply unsettling.

Following the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, public schools could no longer be segregated by race. Consequently, many churches, particularly in the South, established private Christian schools, which remained segregated. In the late 1960’s when the federal government threatened to remove tax exempt status from these schools, several Evangelical leaders concluded that the time had come to organize opposition to government intrusion into religious affairs. Up to that point, most Evangelical leaders maintained that religion and politics should remain separate. Simultaneously, Republican Party operatives saw an opportunity to break into the Democratic strongholds in the South by appealing to the white evangelical churches during the 1968 Presidential campaign. Thus began the gradual alignment of white evangelicals to the Republican Party.

Until the mid-1970’s opposition to abortion mostly arose from the Catholic Church. In fact, most Evangelical leaders were not opposed to abortion. But abortion rights became infused with the feminist movement. With the increasing numbers of women entering the work place, familial gender roles were being challenged. Abortion was seen as another way for women to assert their independence from men. Gradually, opposition to abortion, known as the right to life, became the cause celebre for Evangelicals.

What was lacking, however, was a systematic way to challenge these cultural changes. The establishment of the Moral Majority by Rev. Jerry Falwell in 1979 offered the solution. Falwell had preached earlier in his ministry that the Church and the State should be separate. However, in his view he had an awakening. He felt a God-led imperative to return America to its Christian foundations. The Moral Majority helped to usher in a religious/political movement that has survived and prospered to this day. It organized chapters around the country. It called for the involvement of Christians in all aspects of politics. It publicly supported candidates for office. The Moral Majority and other offspring organizations fashioned talking points and issues that determined whether a candidate should be supported by Christians.

In the first major political campaign following its formation, the Moral Majority supported the Presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Ironically, incumbent President Jimmy Carter had run for the Presidency and won in 1976, being the first major party candidate in history to proclaim he was “born again,” the watch phrase of the Evangelical movement. However, because Carter failed to support some of the positions of the Moral Majority, the organization swung its support to Reagan. With the Reagan election and the taking of the Senate by the Republican Party, for the first time in twenty-five years, the wedding of the Moral Majority and its various offspring to the Republican Party was sealed.

Since that time until now, there have been numerous Evangelical political organizations formed: the Family Foundation, Eagles Forum, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, Religious Roundtable, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Council for National Policy. While the emphases of each group differs, they agree on most things: opposition to abortion, opposition to gay rights and marriage, the nomination of conservative justices to the courts, smaller government (except for the enforcement of the above issues), gun rights, sexual abstinence before marriage, distinct roles between men and women, school choice, religious liberty, increased military spending, opposition to immigration and interestingly, support for Israel.

The political party in power has determined the influence of the various Evangelical organizations. During the George W. Bush administrations, Evangelicals influenced several policies, including successfully tapping taxpayer funded programs that assisted the needy by channeling them through church affiliated organizations. The Evangelical movement hit a low point during the Obama administrations. The administration kept Evangelical leaders at arms’ length and even targeted church organizations that were involved politically. Most surprising has been the almost unqualified support of Donald Trump by the movement. Consequently, the Trump Administration has granted greater access to Evangelical leaders than any before it. The Evangelical movement has influenced Trump Administration policies on the nomination of judges, opposition to the LGBT movement, opposition to abortion and various religious liberty issues. Despite a majority of Americans having an unfavorable view of President Trump, a huge majority of Evangelicals maintain a favorable view of him. His strongest support leading into the 2020 election campaign comes from Evangelical Christians.  

Next time: Israel’s Religion and State Conundrum

Religious Groups Enter the Political Arena – Part V of Religion and Politics

The rise of the Moral Majority in the 1970’s, the Presidential candidacy of Pat Robertson – a well-known evangelist -- the establishment of several religious/political groups and the emergence of the Religious Right are the latest manifestations of the intertwining of religion and politics in the United States. This is not new, however. There have been numerous such movements in US history. We will examine four: the Abolitionist movement, the Temperance movement, the Civil Rights movement, and the rise of the Religious Right.

Abolitionist Movement

Many, if not most, of the members of the Constitutional Convention and early leaders of the new republic were highly influenced by the philosophies of the Enlightenment period, which downplayed religion and focused on the natural rights of man. Beginning in the early 19th century, and lasting for over 20 years, came a huge religious revival, later known as the Second Great Awakening. Like most religious revivals, the emphasis was on personal experience with God, repentance from sin, and conversion to Christ. The revival affected wide swaths of the east coast and mid-western parts of the US. Many who were impacted by this movement began to press for social change, particularly in the areas of political and social inequality, corruption in government, and public morality. Of course, the clearest target was the institution of slavery. The Abolitionists argued that this was a terrible sin that must be repented of and rectified.  

By the time of the Great Awakening, the international slave trade to the US had stopped, and all the Northern states had emancipated previous slaves. Southern states had far more economic interest in maintaining slavery, mainly due to the profitability of the cotton industry where slaves were used extensively. Beginning in the 1830’s, the religious fervor from the Great Awakening spilled over into social action by many, leading to the formation of the Abolitionist movement. While the country was wrestling with halting the expansion of the domestic slave trade, the Abolitionists demanded the immediate end to slavery. Abolitionists called for electing anti-slavery politicians.

In 1840 the Abolitionists successfully formed a new political party, called the Liberty Party, and ran a candidate for President. The party remained small but ultimately led to the formation of the Free Soil Party, whose goals were more limited than those of its predecessor -- simply seeking to block the expansion of slavery into the newer states. Eventually, the Free Soil party merged with the newly formed Republican party, whose platform called for the eventual abolition of slavery. The 1860 Presidential election saw the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, prevail. The result was the opening of the Civil War. Following the Civil War, slavery was abolished. While the Abolitionist movement got its start from religious people, it was not a religious movement, per se. Its goal was to liberate African Americans from slavery and to empower them to enjoy the freedoms that the rest of Americans enjoyed.

Temperance Movement

The Great Awakening also spurred other social action, including combating rampant alcoholism. The so-called Temperance movement started in the late 18th century, warning that the continued consumption of alcohol led to spousal abuse, family neglect and unemployment. Various societies arose to “temper” alcoholic consumption. Just as the Great Awakening led to concerns about slavery, it also began to support limiting, and ultimately to abolish, the sale of alcohol. The Abolitionist movement above consumed most of those pursuing social change in the early and mid-19th century. However, with the enactment of 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, essentially dismantling slavery, attention became more focused on temperance.

In 1893 the Anti-Saloon League was formed by Reverend Howard Hyde Russell. The League called for the election of politicians who would vote for alcohol regulation and ultimately prohibition. The League’s motto was “the Church in action against the saloon.” The League formed religious/political coalitions that successfully led to the enactment of legislation that created “dry” states and counties. By the late 19th century most Protestant denominations supported restricting the sale of alcohol. In 1917 the Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the states in 1919. The law prohibited the manufacture, importation, sale and transport of alcohol.

Almost immediately following the prohibition of alcohol, organized crime set up boot legging operations, personified by Al Capone and his Chicago Outfit, to meet the demands of the people. Clearly, alcohol consumption declined during the Prohibition era, but the combination of increasingly violent organized crime, the cost of government enforcement, the loss of revenue from the no-longer- applicable alcohol taxes, and the demands of the public, led to the eventual repeal of the 18th amendment in 1933. It is the only constitutional amendment ever repealed. The entire Prohibition story is an example of the merger of religious and state issues that failed.

Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights movement was, in reality, the continuation of the aims of the Abolitionist movement. While the Abolitionist movement was successful in abolishing slavery, legal, economic and social discrimination against African Americans continued through the 1960’s, particularly in the South. For African Americans the church played a central role in their communities. It was the one place where they could gather, socialize and organize. Even early in the 19th century the Black churches combined their faith with aspirations for freedom.

By the 1940’s and 1950’s the Black church was the one place where there was money and organizing ability for African Americans. World War II helped to break some of the racial barriers, because many African Americans served gallantly in the military, and for the first time were allowed to work in major industries. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower initiated limited Civil Rights agendas. But it was the Rosa Parks affair, where she refused to relinquish her bus seat to a white passenger, that sparked the Civil Rights movement. Ultimately, under the leadership of Rev. Martin Luther King, the movement caught the public’s attention. King and other Civil Rights leaders used Black churches to organize protests, enroll voters and apply political pressure. Eventually, the movement succeeded in passing major Civil Rights legislation.

While Rev. King and other leaders were Christian ministers and gave the Civil Rights movement a religious foundation, the reality is that a relatively small number of Black Churches actually participated in the movement. Most White churches were not involved, and most in the Evangelical world, especially in the South, were opposed to the movement. On the other hand, Jewish religious leaders formed the one white religious group actively supportive of the movement. It seems the Civil Rights movement was an outgrowth of the African American dream for freedom that was accentuated in their churches. However, the Black Church was not the driving force behind the Civil Rights movement.

Next time: The Rise of the Religious Right

Religion and Politics, Part IV

The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789 as a revision to the Constitution. The original Constitutional Convention rejected the inclusion of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution itself. However, many at the Constitutional Convention, as well as those within the states who were required to ratify the Constitution, objected to the lack of protection for individual rights within its main body. Knowing that the Constitution’s ratification was at risk, James Madison pushed through the Congress a series of amendments to the Constitution protecting individual rights, which also required state ratification. Ten of the original twelve amendments, along with the Constitution, were ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it the basic law of the land. The Bill of Rights constitutes the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment protects the following freedoms: speech, press, association, petitioning the government, and religion. Interestingly, this great declaration of freedoms begins with what’s known as the establishment of religion clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” In other words, the First Amendment, which lays out various individual rights of the people, begins with the statement of prohibiting the government from establishing a religion. Why?

As I wrote in Part III, the founding fathers were very cognizant of the dangers of state-sponsored churches from European history. Their goal was to protect religious expression in the new nation and to prevent the commonplace amalgamation of Church and State. Several years after the enactment of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson, as President, wrote the following: ““I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” In this particular case, as President of the United States, Jefferson was responding to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut, which was concerned that the Constitution assumed governmental authority over religious liberty, which they viewed as an inalienable right. Jefferson’s response assured them that there was a wall of separation between the government and religion, because religion was a matter between a person and his God and that man is accountable to no one other than God with regard to his beliefs.

Both Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had battled in Virginia with the State-sponsored Anglican Church. They both felt it was improper for citizens of the state to pay taxes that, in turn, would be used for clergy’s salaries and the upkeep of churches. Without a doubt, the founding fathers tried to build a government that protected religious belief and worship while ensuring that no one religious institution was preferred over another.

On the other hand, at the time of the Constitution’s ratification the United States was largely a Protestant nation. All of the founding fathers were associated with Protestant denominations. Significant Catholic immigration didn’t begin until the mid-19th century. Jewish presence was infinitesimal. Yet, even then, President Washington wrote a famous letter to an early Jewish synagogue in Rhode Island ensuring that Jewish citizens would be treated as others: “for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Nevertheless, massive immigration to the United States since the mid-19th century brought numerous religious expressions and cultures. The dominant Protestant culture felt threatened by these newer expressions and an ever-growing secular one. Consequently, there has been push back. Beginning in the 19th century and expanding into the 20th and 21st centuries, religious groups and organizations have sought to change American public policy. Next time: Religion enters political space.

Religion and Politics, Part III

During the time of Yeshua, the pagan Roman Empire controlled much of the known world and ruled over most of the world’s Jews, including those in Israel, known as the land of Judah at that time. The politics and government of the land were complicated, shared between the Roman governor and the Jewish Sanhedrin. There was significant political unrest, culminating in the Zealot-led revolt forty years after Yeshua. In fact, one of Yeshua’s twelve apostles was a Zealot, Judah the Zealot. Yet, Yeshua never addressed political issues. He didn’t condemn the Roman military occupation. He encouraged and participated in the payment of taxes. He instructed his followers to not resist his arrest. He even suggested his followers go beyond the humiliating Roman measures, such as being forced to carry Roman soldiers’ equipment for a mile, by carrying them two miles. This was in order to exemplify a different way of living.

In the Book of Acts, Yeshua’s disciples only resisted the governing authorities when they barred the preaching of the gospel. The Apostle Paul did take advantage of his Roman citizenship in order to be freed from illegal imprisonment, and he used the Roman legal system to eventually appear before Caesar. But this was for the purpose of furthering the presentation of the gospel message.

Similarly, the Apostolic writers have very little to say about politics and government. When they do comment, they focus on submitting to authority, praying for government rulers and living a godly life. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and with it the sharply reduced authority and influence of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the effective government over the Jews as well as everyone else was the Roman government.  Early church leaders discouraged Christian involvement in government due to the requirements to pledge loyalty to the Roman gods. However, as Christianity grew, increasing pressure was applied by Roman society on Christians to participate in the economic and social life of the empire, and to join the government and the military. The argument was that Christians profited from the Roman state, including its defense, even while not participating in it. Around 250 A.D. the Church Father Origen responded that Christians provided alternate service to the empire by improving the morality of society and praying for the government. (Interestingly, this argument is mirrored by ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders in Israel today as a means to exempt ultra-Orthodox Jews from secular work and serving in the military).

These views changed with the formal Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine in 313 A.D. Religion and politics essentially merged and continued that way until the eighteenth century. The most influential theological work on the topic was Augustine’s City of God, 426 A.D. In it he posits there are two cities, the earthly city and the city of God. The two are intertwined and often in conflict. The Christian’s focus is to be the city of God. However, since the Christian lives in the earthly city, he must seek to influence it. Augustine saw the Christianization of the Roman Empire as a positive, as long as the Empire sought to advance Christianity.

Among the many problems with the merger of the church and the state, possibly the most serious was how it viewed and treated non-Christians. This certainly was true in the treatment of Jews. Jewish and Christian tension was evident even by the late first century. When Christianity became the state religion in the fourth century, state-sanctioned violence against Jews became increasingly common. It worsened over time, particularly in the Middle Ages, but continued up to the modern era.

Sadly, whether examining the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, the Holy Roman empire, the Russian empire or the rise of nation-states with institutionalized churches, the merger of church and state led to church-sanctioned wars, corruption in both church and state, huge social and economic differences between the clergy and the laity, limitations on individual rights, and resistance to science and modernization. The same was and is true throughout the history of Islamic empires and nations.

These facts are what led to the enactment of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which, in part, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Next time:  the US founding fathers on religion and state.

Religion and Politics, Part II

As far back as recorded history goes, religion and politics were intertwined. In the ancient world priests played critical roles in advising political leaders. Political leaders turned to priests to divine the will of their gods, even seeking to manipulate the gods for their purposes. In many ancient cultures the king was considered a divine figure, such as the pharaoh of Egypt. However, ancient Israel was different.

The leaders were not divine, and unlike most other ancient nations where kings had ultimate authority, the kings of Israel were subject to the laws of God given at Mt. Sinai, known as the Torah. In essence, the Torah functioned as a type of national constitution. In addition, ancient Israel had a version of checks and balances in government. During Israel’s first commonwealth (1050 BC – 586 BC) the kings had executive authority. The priests, among other things, functioned as a judiciary. Finally, the prophets served as the social conscience of the nation, often reprising the leadership for injustices against the poor and needy.

During the Second Temple period (530 BC – 70 AD), Jews inside and outside of Israel were, for the most part, subject to foreign rulers. The priesthood took on a more prominent role for Jews living in the land of Israel, effectively governing the people. Even by the late Second Temple period, the Sanhedrin, the ruling entity of the Jews, primarily was comprised of priests.

Towards the end of the Second Temple period, Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah came. His teachings marked an apparently different path for his followers in relationship to politics and government. When asked, Yeshua disregarded political questions. A classic case occurred when he was questioned about paying taxes. At the time, the Roman government imposed a heavy tax burden upon the population. The taxes, in part, paid for the Roman occupation of the land. The taxes and the concomitant military occupation caused deep resentment in the Jewish populace, ultimately leading to a huge revolt forty years later. The question about taxes was designed to entrap Yeshua in one of two ways. If he argued for not paying taxes, he would be branded as a political revolutionary, leading to his probable arrest by Roman authorities. If he advocated paying taxes, he likely would be accused of being a traitor to his people.

But Yeshua’s response made a distinction between worldly kingdoms and the kingdom of God. He asked the questioners whose image appeared on a coin. When they said Caesar, he responded, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” What did he mean? The governments of the world have their systems, and as participants in those systems, people under those governments were subject to the systems’ rules, e.g., paying taxes. However, God was building His own kingdom, and ultimately His followers owed their allegiance to Him. At times these kingdoms would clash.

Yeshua expanded upon this view in his confrontation with the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. After being handed over to Pilate for judgment, Pilate asked Yeshua if he was the king of the Jews. This was a political question. But again Yeshua made a differentiation. He responded that his kingdom was not of this world. “My kingdom is from another place.” He concluded by saying he came into the world to testify to the truth. In other words, yes, Yeshua is the king. However, he is not a political ruler. His kingdom is the kingdom of God, which supersedes all earthly kingdoms. The earthly kingdoms and the kingdom of God interface. However, it is clear from Yeshua’s teachings that the goals and practices of those belonging to the kingdom of God will differ from those of earthly kingdoms.

Next time: Let history be the judge

Religion and Politics, Part I

An old adage is you don’t talk about religion and politics over dinner. Why? Because if you want to maintain relationships, these subjects are to be avoided. These days, however, the subjects are unavoidable. And sadly the old adage seems true. Everywhere I look, long-standing relationships are fraying. During the 2008 US Presidential campaign I spoke to the congregation I was then leading, Tikvat Israel in Richmond, Virginia, on the subjects of religion and politics. Fellowship was deteriorating because of strongly pronounced views about the candidates, especially Barak Obama. I tried to provide guidance on the subject by reviewing Biblical passages about the relationship between faith and politics and providing a brief overview of the history of politics and religion. I concluded the message by outlining what I believed to be ways for the two subjects to healthily interact. That message is the basis for the first part of a multi-series of comments I will be making on these subjects. I look forward to interacting with anyone who will constructively respond to what I write.

I grew up in a political home in Washington, DC. My father was involved in politics from as far back as I can remember. He ran numerous political campaigns, worked in the US House and Senate and later was Deputy Assistant to President Nixon. He took me to President Kennedy’s inauguration. I worked with him on various campaigns, and in high school I attended the Republican National Convention. In the summers during my high school and college years, I worked in various Congressional offices. I was involved in student government in college and, following law school, I worked in the Congress as a chief counsel to a US Senate subcommittee. As a Congressional lawyer, I helped write laws, conducted hearings and investigated the Executive Branch.

It’s funny – growing up in that environment I never considered how unusual my experiences were. Friends of the family were almost all politicians of sorts. Most of them were hard working and intelligent. Religion, however, was never discussed. I grew up in a secular Jewish family. We did belong to a synagogue where I attended Hebrew school and had my Bar Mitzvah, but my family was not religious. Everything changed, however, when in high school, I became a follower of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. Now, religion became a hot topic in my family, ultimately leading to my removal from the family for almost thirty years. However, the conflicts had nothing to do with interaction of religion and politics. It was personal.

At age 34 I abruptly changed direction in my life – I left Congress and political life behind, went to seminary and eventually became a rabbi of a Messianic Jewish congregation in Richmond, Virginia. I served there for over twenty years. While I believe my political experience helped me in the ministry, I never mixed them. The only talk I ever gave on a political topic was the one I mentioned in the first paragraph. While at Tikvat, I was never involved in any political campaign and never voiced my views about any political candidates. I did, however, encourage the members to vote.

Eight years ago my wife and I moved to Israel. I am no longer actively involved in ministry, although I’m still a follower of Yeshua and attend a congregation. Rather, I and others opened a law practice, and I have joined and become active in a political party in Israel. I’ve written this rather long introduction because my life has been immersed in religion and/or politics. I believe this provides me with a unique vantage point on the subjects and how they interact. I have strong opinions on these subjects, and I am sure many will disagree with me. However, I hope that my thoughts will provoke many to think more deeply about these subjects and to use a popular phrase, “to think outside of the box.”

Close, but No Cigar

As many know from past updates, I’ve been involved with the Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) political party for the past few years. It is a centrist party, built on numerous principles, including, among other things, advocacy for religious plurality. Over a year ago the party was running neck and neck in polls with Likud, Bibi Netanyahu’s party.

When the government collapsed last Fall (a common occurrence here in Israel), elections were called. Over forty political parties were vying for Knesset seats. To enter the Knesset, a party must garner 3.25% of the votes or around 135,000 votes. This grants a party four seats. Each additional seat needs another 35,000 votes. There are 120 seats in the Knesset. No one party has ever achieved a majority, necessitating the formation of coalition governments, which often include smaller, narrow-interest parties.

One of the newly formed parties was led by Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israeli military. His candidacy immediately drew excitement as a serious contender to Netanyahu. Eventually, his party merged with Yesh Atid (above) and another party, to form the Blue and White party.

The merger created quite an upheaval for Yesh Atid. Yesh Atid had been planning for new elections for years, had organized a large and effective field operation and had written an extensive political platform. Suddenly, everything changed. I had built some good relationships within Yesh Atid. The leaders knew I was a Messianic Jew, and I had already discussed with some of them what we as Messianic Jews were hoping for, i.e., an end to discrimination, particularly with respect to immigrating to Israel. While I supported the formation of the Blue and White party, I wasn’t quite as enthusiastic because I was uncertain about the new party’s commitment to some of the issues I felt were important.

Just before the election, the polls showed Blue and White neck and neck with Likud. We were trained to work the polling stations. I was sent to Zichron Ya’akov, just south of Haifa on the Mediterranean coast and inhabited by large numbers of Anglos. I spoke with and handed out leaflets to hundreds of voters. I estimated about 50% of the voters were supportive of Blue and White. In fact, one group that arrived at our polling station was a fully dressed wedding party. Now, that’s commitment. I gave the bride a flyer.

For our party to be able to form the next government, we needed 4-5 more seats than Likud, because of the proliferation of right wing parties that would naturally ally with Likud and thus give them a majority of seats. In the end, Likud and Blue and White virtually tied, each gaining 35 seats. For both parties it was a major accomplishment.

Prior to the election, Blue and White declared its intention to try and form a unity government with Likud, absent Netanyahu as the leader. A unity government, comprised of the major parties, is the hope for the nation, enabling it to address some of the critical issues facing the country without being held hostage by ultra-Orthodox parties and extremist nationalistic factions. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Blue and White refuses to join a Netanyahu-led government due to corruption charges hanging over him and his constant undermining of the democratic principles of the country.

The newly forming government likely will be even more right wing than the last, which was the most extremist government since the nation’s founding. I believe the plight of Messianic Jews will worsen. The Ministry of Interior had already begun to target Messianic Jewish citizens of Israel, refusing to issue new passports to some and challenging the right to citizenship of others. Up to now these attempts have been thwarted in the courts, but the courts are being transformed by the appointment of nationalist-leaning judges, who already are re-interpreting earlier decisions and blocking Messianic Jews from immigrating.

What’s particularly frustrating for us is the Evangelical Christian fawning over Netanyahu when Messianic Jews – the actual brethren of the Evangelicals – are subjected to increasing pressure from his government. Making matters worse was the passage of the Nationality Law last year, potentially making Jewish nationality superior to democratic principles. This law could be used to further target Messianic Jews, among many other minorities.

The one hope is the likely collapse of the newly forming government. Netanyahu’s indictments will be formalized in a few months, putting pressure on some of the coalitions parties, including Likud itself, to withdraw support from Netanyahu. This could cause the government to collapse, or force Netanyahu to resign. At the same time, a crisis is looming with the ultra-Orthodox community. Under a Supreme Court ruling, all ultra-Orthodox young adults will be subject to military draft beginning in July unless the Knesset can pass a reasonable alternative for this community. The ultra-Orthodox parties want full exemptions for their increasingly large communities. Up to now, they have blocked compromise solutions. It’s possible this conflict will lead to a government collapse. Honestly, one of these outcomes is my hope and prayer.

In so many ways Israel is a miraculous nation. Her future is now threatened from within. Please pray.

Election Time Again

Unlike the US electoral system, there is no set election schedule for Israel’s national elections. Technically, the Knesset serves a four-year term, but rarely does; the last one was 30 years ago. Rather, the government can call for new elections at almost any time. This is usually precipitated by one of the coalition parties dropping out of the governing coalition, thus causing the government to be unable to pass legislation. In the most recent case, the party headed up by the former Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, resigned from the coalition due to dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the continuing crisis at the Gaza border. With their resignation, the governing coalition was left with a one seat majority. At the same time, the government was under a Supreme Court mandate to address the military drafting of the ultra-Orthodox, who oppose the mandatory draft for its young people, claiming the study of Jewish religious texts protects the country from its enemies more so than military service. Since a new draft law had to be passed this month due to the Supreme Court decree, the government realized that without the support of its ultra-Orthodox governing partners, the law could not pass, and the governing coalition could not survive.

Also unlike US politics, Israel’s election campaigns last just a few months, not two years, and most campaign funding comes from public coffers, not private ones. While many in the US feel the two party system does not represent them adequately, the huge amounts of money required to fund alternative parties makes it almost impossible to form new national parties. This is not the case in Israel. From before the founding of the State, there have been numerous parties. Today, the Knesset has ten/eleven political parties, ranging in size from five seats to thirty seats out of a total of 120. The largest party is Likud, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, also the Prime Minister.

The next election is set for April 4. As of now, the generally unreliable Israeli polls have Netanyahu and Likud well ahead of their opponents and likely leading the next government. This could change with the expected indictment of the Prime Minister for corruption. He is currently under four separate criminal investigations. The police have recommended indictments in three of the cases. The state attorney is recommending at least two of them move forward. The final decision on an indictment rests with the Attorney General. Assuming indictments are leveled against the Prime Minister, the timing becomes important. If they are done prior to the election, they could have a dramatic impact upon the election’s outcome. If done following the election, assuming Netanyahu’s party does well, the Prime Minister could argue that he should not be removed from office when he just won a resounding victory at the polls. As of now, Netanyahu claims that he will not resign if indicted (he’s not required to), and the actual legal cases against him could take years. On the other hand, a Prime Minister under criminal indictment would be politically handicapped and probably be forced from office by other parties who had joined the new coalition government.

Adding to the election chaos is the recent formation of brand new parties, which have the potential to strip voters from existing parties. The three most significant changes are the formation of Israel’s Resilience, a party led by General Benny Gantz, the former chief of staff of Israel’s military; the departure from the Jewish Home party of Neftali Bennett (Education Minister) and Ayelet Shaked (Justice Minister) and their formation of another party, the New Right; and the split in the Labor Party of the current party leader, Avi Gabbay, from Tzipi Livni, who heads the Hatnuah (Movement) party that joined with Labor in the last election. I’m even thinking of forming a party – the Hebrew Illiterate party. Anyway, expect more changes before Election Day.

As many know who read my newsletters, I am active with Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) headed by Yair Lapid. The party currently has eleven seats, is a centrist party and is generally associated with leading the opposition to the current government. According to polling last year at this time, Yesh Atid was running neck and neck with Likud, and Lapid was considered the main contender to Netanyahu. More recent polls show the party dropping back, especially with the proliferation of newer parties. The most recent poll shows Yesh Atid with 17 seats, compared to Likud with 26, putting them within striking distance of prevailing, especially with the looming indictments of the Prime Minister.

Interestingly, many, if not most, Israelis do not like Netanyahu, but don’t see an adequate replacement. The Israeli economy is strong and growing, and as James Carville, former campaign manager for Bill Clinton, famously said, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Additionally, particularly in the past year, Netanyahu has been traveling the globe, making deals with “moderate” Arab states and strangely welcoming far right political leaders from various countries. This creates an image of a strong leader. Nevertheless, if Yesh Atid does well in this election, it could position itself to take over if the next Netanyahu-led government falls due to corruption charges.

While I don’t agree with everything Yesh Atid stands for, there are three positions that I find compelling. 1) The party stands for religious plurality. It argues that the ultra-Orthodox should not hold the monopoly in Israel on religious matters, especially when they represent around 10% of population here, and far less outside of Israel. This position could ultimately redound to the benefit of Messianic Jews. 2) The party stands for personal integrity. The last Prime Minister recently was released from jail. The former President of Israel is still in jail, and the current Prime Minister easily could end up in jail. Yesh Atid vets all of its members who are on the Knesset lists. In fact, two of its former MKs (Knesset Members) were removed by the party in the past year due to corruption. 3) The party stands for a final resolution with the Palestinians. More than anything, the Palestinian situation in the territories is the albatross around the neck of the country. Israel basically controls a people group with few rights. The party believes a regional conference with “moderate” Arab nations, the Palestinians, and the US could fashion a reasonable solution, thus eroding constant international criticism of the country and further enabling Israel to become a light to the nations.  

Next Sunday, Yair Lapid will be presenting in English to an audience in Tel Aviv. He had a similar presentation in Jerusalem several months ago that was very well attended. I will be involved again in the event’s organization. The next few months will be increasingly busy with electioneering. Please pray for the upcoming election and that corruption in high places be exposed.

The Nationality Bill

This coming week the Israeli government is attempting to pass controversial legislation called the Nationality Bill. In its most simplistic form the bill attempts to enshrine into law the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, not a particularly radical idea since Israel’s Declaration of Independence already states that. The idea behind the legislation is to codify it into a Basic Law, which is a type of constitutional law in Israel. But why it’s necessary is anybody’s guess, and it has stirred up tremendous opposition because of different provisions within the statute.

There are two competing legal and social philosophies that make up the character of the nation of Israel. One, it is considered the nation state of the Jewish people. Two, its government is based upon democratic principles. This tension is embodied in the text of Israel’s Declaration of Independence:

“We . . . hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. . . The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

In recent years, this tension has surfaced continuously with the Israeli Supreme Court’s assertion of authority to strike down legislation it considers violative of democratic principles enshrined in some of Israel’s Basic Laws. Consequently, more right wing political parties have called for restraining the Court’s authority to review laws passed by the Knesset and actually requiring court rulings to also consider Rabbinic law as well as civil or common law in its rulings. This, in and of itself, is highly problematic and could cause a host of problems for, among others, Messianic Jews. The Court already refers to Rabbinic law in certain cases where Messianic Jews are barred from immigrating to Israel. Imagine what would happen if it applied the same reasoning to employment, housing or social benefits.

However, there is one section in the new proposal that has caused the biggest outcry, including from the President of the State, Reuven Rivlin. The section actually allows religious or national groups to establish communities that could deliberately exclude others from their communities. During committee proceedings, one of the Knesset members, an Ethiopian Jew, called the proposal, “pure racism, a disgrace.” The response by the sponsors was, “It’s not racism; it’s Zionism.” If such a proposal passes, one could expect increased housing discrimination, including against Messianic Jews. While social discrimination does exist in Israel, there is little to no actual legal discrimination, except for issues involving immigration to The Land.  This Nationality Bill could actually make discrimination legal.

A few months ago, Yair Lapid, the leader of the Yesh Atid Party, of which I’m an activist, introduced his own nationality bill. Here’s what he had to say:

"Today, at the start of the summer session of the Knesset, we are submitting a very simple bill. The Nation-State Bill. Not formulated in the language of conflict and discrimination like the coalition wants but in the clear and unambiguous wording written originally by MK Benny Begin (from the Likud). The Bill we submit states simply: The State of Israel will be open to Jewish immigration, the ingathering of the exiles and will promote the development of the land for the benefit of all its inhabitants. It will be based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace as envisioned by the prophets of Israel. It will maintain complete social and political equality of rights for all its citizens, irrespective of religion, race or gender. It will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. It will preserve the holy places of all religions and be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Our Bill states that the nation-state of the Jewish people is the State of Israel, a democratic state, an egalitarian state for its minorities with the blue and white as its flag, the seven- branched menorah as its symbol and “Hatikvah” as its national anthem.”

Lapid’s proposal is quite a contrast to the bill being currently considered. Israel is called to be a light to the nations. Yeshua said, “You are the light of the world . . . Let your light shine before others that they may see your good deeds and glorify your father in heaven.” In many ways, Israel is a light to the nations, but passing legislation that is deliberately discriminatory and divisive is not the way.  As I’ve said before numerous times, this particular coalition government is the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. It continues to harm relations with American Jewry. Its discrimination against Messianic Jewish immigration is almost unprecedented. It’s time for a change. Please pray for the defeat of this current legislation.

Mess in Gaza

For almost 400 years most of the Middle East was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. This includes present day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and other nations. World War I brought the demise of the Ottoman Empire, and following the War the Allies (predominantly the British and the French) divvied up the area. The area consisting of Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan became known as the British Mandate. As you can see from the map below, the British created the nation of Jordan from this Mandate. Previously, the British had agreed to give the region of Palestine (the entirety of the British Mandate) to be a homeland for the Jews. At this time there were about 100,000 Jews living in the land (most of whom had immigrated over the past 40 years) and 500,000 Arabs.

Following World War II and the Holocaust, there was an almost universal sense among the Western nations that a nation state of Jews needed to be formed in the land controlled by the British Mandate. This resulted in United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. The land of Palestine (excluding Jordan) would be divided between a Jewish state and an Arab (Palestinian) state. This is the first time the issue of what becomes known as the Gaza Strip arises. In the map below you can see the yellow strip (later known as the Gaza Strip) along Mediterranean Sea, designating this area as part of the future Arab state. What’s particularly notable is its proximity to the West Bank.

In the end the surrounding Arab nations and the Arabs within the partitioned area rejected the Partition Plan and instigated a war against Israel. The result was an Israeli victory, a significant increase of land under Israeli control, the absorption of the West Bank under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian control. Note in the map below how the Gaza Strip is now significantly separated from the West Bank, especially in comparison to the original Partition Plan.

Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were displaced from Israel during the war. These Arabs and their descendants now are often referred to as Palestinian refugees by the Arab communities. See the map below which shows 190,000 Arabs from Israel relocating to the Gaza Strip. Today, out of the 1.9 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, one million are considered refugees.

The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in, among other things, the Gaza Strip, the entire Sinai Peninsula and the West Bank coming under Israeli control. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of 1979 peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The Gaza Strip remained under Israeli control. In 1988 Jordan renounced any rights to the West Bank. In the 1993 Oslo Accords Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) agreed on a plan of limited autonomy of PA control over much the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The hope was that over a period of time PA control would increase and possibly lead to the formation of a Palestinian state. See the map below.

In 2005 then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip and to hand over administrative control of the Strip to the PA. In the 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, won a shocking victory. Hamas was considered a terrorist organization by Israel and most Western nations. In an essential civil war in the Gaza Strip in 2007, the PA was thrown out of the government in Gaza, and the PA banned Hamas involvement in the West Bank, thus creating two governing organizations over portions of the Palestinian lands. Since that period, Israel has fought several wars with Hamas in Gaza and has blockaded the Strip from almost all international trade, fearing the development of a military arsenal to be used against Israel. Unlike the PA, Hamas continues to call for Israel’s destruction and launches constant terrorist and bombing attacks against Israel. In addition, the current Egyptian government has prevented most trade going to and from Egypt through its border with Gaza. The combination of Israel’s and Egypt’s blockades against Gaza and Hamas’ allocation of its limited resources to weapons and terror against Israel has resulted in widespread poverty and unemployment in what is considered one of the most densely populated areas of the world.

Recently, Hamas decided to launch a popular protest against Israel by gathering thousands of demonstrators and busing them to the Israeli border protected by a security fence. Hamas used the events of Israel’s soon to be 70th anniversary of the state’s founding (called Nakba – catastrophe – by the Palestinians) and the anniversary of Land Day, remembering the confiscation of Arab lands in northern Israel in the 1970’s. Hamas has used the demonstrations to call for Israel’s destruction and return of the refugees from the 1948 war to their former lands within Israel proper.

Sadly, the first day of demonstrations a week ago led to a confrontation with the Israeli military on the border, resulting in several Palestinians being killed and hundreds more shot. News reports of the events are in tremendous conflict with Palestinian reports of Israeli snipers shooting peaceful protesters, while Israel reports that Israeli snipers are shooting at Palestinians that are attempting to throw Molotov cocktails and breaching the security barrier. Both sides acknowledge that some of those killed were Hamas military operatives. On the other hand, it does appear that many of the injured Palestinians simply were peacefully protesting.

The Gaza situation seems like it has no good solution. With Hamas in power, a peaceful resolution appears impossible. If Israel makes progress in peace negotiations with the PA in the West Bank, and if the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank thus improve, then perhaps the Palestinians could force a governmental change in Gaza. In the meantime, please pray for wisdom and restraint on the part of Israel’s military leadership. Also, pray for a change of heart in Israel’s government to seek real peace with Palestinian leadership. Finally, pray that Hamas would be exposed to the Palestinians in Gaza as the primary source of their misery.

Trump's Jerusalem Announcement

In one sense, President Trump’s announcement about recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is much ado about nothing. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the founding of the modern state. The entire government is located there. While other countries may not formally recognize it, the reality is that any country that has relations with Israel implicitly accepts that Jerusalem is the capital. Foreign dignitaries meet Israeli government officials in official Israeli government offices in Jerusalem. Even former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to visit Israel, addressed the Israeli leadership in the Knesset in Jerusalem, not on the beaches of Tel Aviv. Honestly, the avoidance of formal recognition was simply an exercise in futility and assuaged the international community into thinking that there was something to be gained by tying formal recognition to an eventual peace treaty. The two issues are unrelated.

On the other hand, President Trump’s insistence that formally recognizing Jerusalem could jump start peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is completely ridiculous. The reason there are no negotiations is that neither side is serious. Any final settlement will require Israel to relinquish most of the West Bank to the Palestinians, which would cause the current government to collapse. In addition, the current Palestinian leadership would likely walk away again from any negotiated settlement, like they have a number of times since the year 2000.

What is likely to happen, however, is a weakening of relations between Israel and some of the “moderate” Arab nations. The rise of Iran has caused a number of Arab states to look for partners to restrain Iran’s expansion plans. Israel has been the beneficiary because of its defense superiority and ingenuity, which the Arab governments desperately need. Now, however, the Arab Street likely will sympathize with their Palestinian brothers and make it almost impossible for Arab governments to maintain relations with Israel.

For the United States, this was one more action by the President that further weakens US standing in the world. He has already forfeited Asia and parts of Africa to China, parts of eastern Europe and the Middle East to Russia and now further emboldens Iran and radical Islam. For someone who campaigned on strengthening America, most of his actions have had the reverse effect.

An interesting question is whether America’s formal recognition of Jerusalem will have a salutary spiritual effect on Israel, the US and/or the world. In Genesis 12, God tells Abraham that those who bless him (and his descendants) will be blessed, and those who curse him will be cursed. There are numerous Biblical passages about God’s love for Jerusalem, His plans to protect her and anyone who comes against her will be destroyed. There are many examples throughout history where it appears that a nation which treats the Jewish people well prospers. The reverse also seems true when nations have persecuted Jews. In my view strengthening Israel’s defenses and assisting her in making peace with her neighbors, including the Palestinians, is a far better way to support Israel than a proclamation about Jerusalem. Having said that, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and all nations should simply accept it.

Messianic Business Forum

Messianic Business Forum

A week and a half ago, Israel First Fruits (http://israelfirstfruits.org/) hosted their fifth annual Messianic Business Forum in Jerusalem. The goal is to match budding Messianic Jewish and Arab Christian entrepreneurs with international investors to start businesses and better integrate into Israeli society. Our law firm sponsored and played a very active role in the forum.

On the first day a series of Israeli high-tech startups presented their inventions. Wow! They were amazing. Here are a few highlights:

1)      The production of protein from fruit flies to supplement animal protein to compensate for dwindling animal stock supplies.

2)      Interactive videos to assist in the recovery of brain injury victims.

3)      Bone replacement through growing coral in specially designed lakes and then using the coral to replace bones. Apparently, coral is stronger than bones and meshes with bone growth.

4)      Development of a fragrance that, strategically placed in agricultural fields, repels pests without the use of pesticides.

These are a few examples of how Israel blesses the nations, as promised in the Bible. I must say I was proud to be an Israeli as I listened to the presentations.

Later that day one of my partners and I met with potential investors concerning our project to assist young Israelis in buying their own homes. I have attached a summary of the proposal to the bottom of this blog. That evening I had the honor of opening the dinner with a short message and prayer to about 150 people.

The following day we met with more investors and then held our own seminar about investing in real estate and business in Israel. I shared the investing in real estate part. If you’re interested in a video of the presentation, write to me.

At the conclusion of the two-day event, our daughter, Jennifer, accompanied by our son-in-law, Jonah, led worship to begin the dinner. When a number of the internationals discovered she was my daughter, they congratulated me – she did a great job! I confused them when I said the guitarist was my son-in-law, because many know Jennifer’s husband, Judah. I explained Jonah was married to another daughter of mine. The people looked relieved.

Income HOME PROJECT

Investment Opportunity

High returns. low risk. no hassle.

Generate long-term income by investing in property in Israel without the usual hassle and expensive fees.

Our experienced team of lawyers at Cohen, Decker, Pex & Brosh (CDPB)created an investment platform with anticipated returns of 15% for every 5 years and optimal risk distribution. Using our platform that's based on matching investors with pre-qualified Israeli residents ("partner owners"), the investor will receive returns through mortgage payments and increased property value, and will be able to avoid expensive maintenance and management fees.

OVERCOME INVESTMENT BARRIERS

Investing in Israeli real estate is complex and often accompanied by large tax assessments. Because the investor is frequently subject to ongoing costs of regulation, property maintenance and management fees, cutting into returns, real estate investment from abroad is often cost prohibitive.

Investment with Mutual Benefits

A team of professionals including real estate experts, financial advisers, and project managers formed by CDPB will match investors to qualified Israeli partner owners (meeting strict criteria) who wish to purchase a home. With a contracted partnership between investors and partner owners, investors will avoid foreign investment taxes, minimize administrative and management liabilities, and maximize returns.

InCome Home Project benefits both investors and partner owners.

·         Investors will receive a stable ROI without the hassle of managing the property.

·         Israeli residents (as partner owners) will be able to purchase a home more easily

STABLE ROI

The 15% ROI will be generated from:

1. Monthly mortgage payments paid by partner owners.

2. Increased property value and equity.

AN UNRIVALED OPPORTUNITY

This is an unprecedented investment opportunity, and no other firm or agency offers it. While it's possible others could imitate the idea, CDPB's strong relationship with the local community distinguish its service. And, the general nature of the investment vehicle limits the impacts of potential competition.

LET'S GO TO MARKET!

The first and primary step is to develop a list of interested investors looking for low risk returns and long-term income potential. Once we establish a core group of interested investors, our team will solidify the program logistics and launch the investment platform in full.

YOUR PARTNERS IN ISRAEL

Cohen, Decker, Pex & Brosh offer a diverse legal team to help you process and manage your investment. CDPB is uniquely qualified to represent clients and businesses from around the world. They speak several languages and one partner, Jamie Cohen, is a member of two state bars in the U.S, a foreign lawyer in the Israel bar, and is experienced facilitating American-Israeli business relationships.

The Beginning of the End for Bibi

Bibi Netanyahu has been Prime Minister of Israel since 2009. When combining his recent terms in office with a shorter term in the 1990’s, he has served longer than any Prime Minister other than David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the state. However, it’s likely his days are numbered. For the past few years there have been several criminal investigations concerning financial improprieties involving the Prime Minister. Just the other day one of his closest advisers turned state’s evidence against him. This means a likely indictment for corruption will be issued soon. The corruption investigations cover a series of unrelated events, including receiving illegal gifts from wealthy individuals, a deal with Israel’s most popular newspaper for favorable coverage and kickbacks from a huge German/Israeli submarine contract.

While Bibi has been popular in the US, I have felt that he has greatly harmed Israel’s standing in the world, and the inclusion of ultra-orthodox parties in his current coalition government has been disastrous for Messianic Jews. In the two most recent elections, 2013 and 2015, we voted for Yesh Atid (there is a future), led by Yair Lapid. Yesh Atid is a centrist party, which includes platforms, among other things, for integrity in government and religious plurality. As many of you know from prior newsletters, I’ve gotten involved in the party. Most of those in leadership know I’m a Messianic Jewish leader.

Shortly, after we returned from the US, the party organized protests around the country, condemning the corruption in government. Since one of the protests was in the city of Afula, which we live next to, I was invited to participate. Up to now I’ve been involved in the English speaking branch of the party, since my Hebrew is lousy. But this event was for Hebrew speakers.  The Yesh Atid regional leader speaks limited English, and encouraged me to participate, which I did. We hung up banners on the four corners of a major intersection. They said,  “Fed Up with Corruption” – Yesh Atid.

After hanging the banners, we handed out tracts to cars waiting at the traffic lights about corruption in Israel and how Yesh Atid plans to change it. Handing out tracts is pretty popular here among the ultra-Orthodox. Usually, the hand-outs involve a blessing to which you’re supposed to donate money. Many readily received the tracts that I handed out, although no one gave me any money. I felt like the old days when I used to hand out gospel tracts. At the end Noga, the leader, wondered how I did in conversing with people because of my limited Hebrew. I told her that I said to each person “Shabbat Shalom, Yesh Atid.” Shabbat shalom because it was Friday. She laughed. I thought why converse, even if I could. What you want is the literature to be distributed to as many as possible. Afterwards, I heard from the leader of the English speaking branch that Noga told her I was awesome. I replied it’s hard to be awesome when all you’re doing is handing out tracts. I guess I had the anointing.

I will be going to another leadership meeting on Monday to prepare for a big speech in English by Yair Lapid, the head of the party, to be given in Jerusalem in September. It’s hard to say when and if elections will occur. If Netanyahu is indeed indicted, then he will likely be forced from office, leading to elections. This could occur at the end of this year or the beginning of 2018. In the most recent polling Yesh Atid is running neck and neck with Likud for the most votes. If there was an indictment of the Prime Minister, Likud probably could not win the next election, paving the way for Yesh Atid and a more centrist government to form.

It's Time for a Change

Approximately, two million Christians visit Israel each year. They tour the areas where Jesus ministered. They bring hundreds of millions of dollars into Israel every year. Many significant Christian leaders are welcomed with open arms by the government. Some even receive a private reception with the Prime Minister. There’s actually an Israel Knesset Christian Caucus, comprised of Knesset members from the major parties, who build relationships with Christian leaders from all over the world. And, yet, as well described in a recent Kehilah News article, the government continues to block the rightful immigration of Messianic Jews to Israel.

Many Messianic Jewish young people serve with distinction in the Israel Defense Force. One such soldier was recently awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence. A Messianic Jew won a televised national singing competition. Another won the annual national Bible quiz. Messianic Jews serve in the government, law, high tech and medicine, to name a few. The government’s response: tighten the screws on Messianic Jewish immigration. Now, whether applying for immigration to Israel from outside or inside the country, questions are asked whether the applicant is a Messianic Jew or attends a Messianic Jewish congregation. If they answer yes, they are blocked from immigrating. For every other Jew applying for immigration, one only has to prove Jewish heritage to successfully immigrate. It is shocking discrimination.

So, what does the church world do? Nothing. Do you think Jesus or Paul would approve cozying up to a government that blatantly persecuted their followers? It reminds me of lines from the Eagles’ famous song, “Hotel California,” where people unwittingly are welcomed into the high life without regard to the consequences, “Welcome to Hotel California, such a lovely place, such a lovely face.”

But something can be done if the believers of the world would draw their heads out of the sand. Here’s some suggestions:

1.       Every Christian leader who meets with the Prime Minister or a Knesset Member should ask when will discrimination against Messianic Jewish immigration cease.

2.       Christian donations to Israel should be made contingent upon requiring the presence of Messianic Jews from Israel in donation ceremonies. You may think this is overly strident. However, when I was president of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, this is exactly the arrangement we made with a Knesset Caucus group who requested we raise money for a worthy project in Israel. I demanded and the Knesset Member relented to allow me to publicly say at a ceremony in Israel that the money was raised by Messianic Jews in the United States.

3.       Christian tours to Israel should demand as part of their tours to meet with Messianic Jews and view their various humanitarian projects.

4.       Christian leaders should cease their accolades of the Prime Minister until he acquiesces to Messianic Jewish immigration to Israel.

5.       Christian leaders involved in political lobbying on behalf of Israel should include demands that the Israeli government cease discrimination against Messianic Jews.

6.       The approximate 15,000 Messianic Jews in the land should vote for political parties that support religious plurality, rather than parties who will likely join with ultra-orthodox parties to form a government that will automatically target Messianic Jews.

The Apostle Paul said this in Romans 11 about Messianic Jews: “I ask then: Did God reject his people [the Jews]? By no means! . . . So too, at the present time there is remnant chosen by grace.” It’s time for the Church world to support the remnant who believe in the land of Israel.

Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day)

Following Passover there are three relatively modern Spring holidays seriously observed in Israel – Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), Yom HaZikkaron (Memorial Day) and Yom HaAztmaut (Independence Day). For Yom HaShoah (last week) ceremonies were held throughout the country, remembering the millions of Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust. Many of the early settlers in modern Israel either were fleeing the Holocaust or came here from the displaced persons’ camps in Europe following World War II. Our kibbutz holds a ceremony every year. We’ve attended most of them.

The ceremonies began the evening before (Jewish day begins in the evening). Following a few musical pieces and short statements of memory, the remainder of the ceremony focused on a woman from the kibbutz who had recently died. Her life was presented through a video. Of course, everything was in Hebrew, so it was challenging to follow, but through my limited Hebrew and an abundance of photos, I got the gist of the story. The woman, Merav, grew up in France to a relatively wealthy family. In 1940 the Nazis conquered France, and most Jews were transported to extermination camps in Poland. Somehow, as a child, she avoided that development and apparently was hidden in the home of a Christian family. In 1947, now a teenager, she boarded one of the ships to Israel and grew up in our kibbutz. The presentation showed her meeting her husband, having children, and building a new life in the land. She was interviewed on the film, probably by then in her 60’s or 70’s. I didn’t really understand much, but different photos showed her with her husband, children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Several years ago a historian tracked her down and organized a trip of other people who had lived in the French home during the war. There was a reunion a few years ago at the French home where the children had been saved.  Apparently, at her late age she was unable to go, but one of her children went and met the children of other survivors of the war that had been sheltered in this home. It was very compelling. At the reunion they traveled to one of the war cemeteries where either one of Merav’s brothers or one of those from the home was buried, having been a soldier for the Allies. Another sibling was taken to Auschwitz and didn’t survive the war. At the end of the ceremony, one of her grandchildren gave a short speech about her. All in all, it was very moving, despite having a limited understanding of what was going on.

I’ve seen numerous documentaries and movies and have read many books on the Holocaust. While intellectually I understand how and why it happened, seeing the photos of Jews being rounded up and herded onto trains to death still shocks me, and to this day, it still confounds me. Nevertheless, this woman’s story captured the essence of the resurrection of the Jewish people and the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Seeing the photos of her and her descendants all together proved Hitler wrong and God right, when He said that He would gather back His people from the four corners of the earth and place them once again in their own land.