The Few v. The Many

Posted on November 29, 2013 | 7 comments

One of the more unheralded, even obscured, aspects of Chanuka is this question: where were the Jews? We exult in the notion that the victory came about miraculously – rabim beyad me’atim – with the few defeating the many. But why were the Maccabees the few and the Syrians the many? In every struggle for national liberation, the indigenous population is always more numerous than the occupying army, otherwise they do not constitute a nation and likely could not prevail. For example, the Jews before 1948 and the American colonists during the Revolutionary War both outnumbered the British occupiers. How could they not? Part of the problem of being an invader is that the native population is always more numerous. So what happened here that the Maccabees (never numbering more than several thousand, and at the beginning totaling in the hundreds) were the “few” who defeated the “many”?

The sad answer is that the “many” included not only the Syrian tyrant and his military forces but also the Hellenistic Jews who supported them. They were the “evildoers given over to the righteous” and the “brazen vanquished by those were faithful to Your Torah.” But why did the Hellenistic Jews want the Syrian-Greeks to win? Granted, they were imbued with the Hellenistic spirit – but what happened to their patriotism, their national spirit, and their sense of kinship with their fellow Jews?

Perhaps they were realists – and did not see any way in which the small band of guerillas could defeat the world’s most powerful army. So they made their peace with the devil. Such “realism” flies in the face of Jewish history – so they too were defeated. But there is another type of realism that is probably even more harmful.

As the Jewish world continues to fragment, we have grown accustomed to a painful mindset that is pervasive among certain segments of Jewry. For sure, there have always been pro-Arab Jews – Jews who cast their lot with our enemies. Many of the Israel’s most prominent and hateful critics are Jews who become willful tools of those who wish to destroy the Jewish state and bitterly oppose any expression of Jewish nationalism. Some of them traditionally write for the New York Times. Indeed, one of the quickest routes to media fame is to be a Jew critical of Israel in front of non-Jewish audiences.

Add to that list the deleterious phenomenon of the “moral equalizers,” those who see fault on both sides, who criticize Israel for any act of self-defense and weep at the suffering of our enemies – suffering for which our enemies themselves are usually the catalysts. This group is always seeking “peace” (meaning a treaty signing; what happens after is of little concern), strutting about with a faux moral supremacy that them, enlightened ones that they are, to see both sides, to see all sides. They lament, in the words of one, the entrenched “narratives of good and evil, victim and perpetrator,” eschewing a greater concern for their own people than for our enemies. As the writer Cynthia Ozick once noted, in many cases, “universalism has become the particularism of the Jews.”

But shouldn’t we care about our children more than about someone else’s children, or our parents more than another’s parents? Shouldn’t Jews be able to feel more loyalty to Jews before any feelings of loyalty to mankind? After all, that is the essence of nationhood and the hallmark of a people that sees itself as family.

Surely there were Hellenistic Jews who thought that the Maccabees could not defeat the mighty Syrian army – and there’s no sense in fighting a futile, suicidal war. Make peace with them, whatever it takes – and there are Jews today who believe the same thing. Compromise, concede, and hope for the best. That is one group of “realists” who maintain that when you cannot win – by traditional analysis – then don’t fight. Give up.

But there is another group of Hellenists. They don’t necessarily believe that the Maccabees cannot win; rather they believe that the Maccabees (or Israel) should not win. They think that winning is immoral. They are so permeated with a foreign culture and alien ideas that they do not want to win. They would rather lose and die and be perceived as virtuous, than triumph and live and be perceived as morally unfit by the cultural elites of the society in which they live.

And that is the dangerous world in which we live. Israel’s might is muted and its ability even to speak of victory is muffled when it has accepts the limitations placed upon it as well as the narrative of the impossibility of victory, the inevitability of two states, and – for many – the morality that exists on both sides – victim and aggressor, lover of all mankind and the hater of all mankind, and especially the Jews. Even the hater, after all, is a “child of G-d.”

This is why the Hellenist Jews fought against the Maccabees and preferred the Greeks, and it is why Israel cannot even fantasize about victory over its enemies, much less plan strategically for it. But that victory, that spirit, is the very essence of Chanuka, and the exhortation of the prophet Zecharia that our wars are not won with might or force – but with the spirit of G-d that animates our lives, preserves our morality, and will guide us to victory over all our enemies that will culminate in the rebuilt and rededicated Bet Hamikdash.

7 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Holidays, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Esav’s Hatred

Posted on November 22, 2013 | 5 comments

      To say we live in strange times is an understatement when we consider that, just a month ago, anyone who suggested that Israel’s leading allies in the struggle against Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be France and Saudi Arabia would have been a candidate for institutionalization. The French are not exactly renowned for their war-mongering, and the Saudi’s hatred of Israel and Jews is religiously-based and implacable (Jews are still not allowed to visit Saudi Arabia under normal circumstances.) But the French, the Saudis and the Israelis – each for different reasons – do not want to live in a world where mullahs can go nuclear.

     This odd twist confirms the statement attributed to John Foster Dulles, himself noted for his hostility to Israel, that “The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests.” Or, as others have said it: “Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Part of the current situation arises from the recognition – despite the Obama administration rhetoric – that America has retreated from its dominant role in world leadership, and that vacuum has been filled by others – especially by Russia’s Putin, whom Israel’s PM Netanyahu visited this week.

But as the world changes, there is one remaining constant, itself mindboggling.

There is no more enigmatic or consequential story in the Torah than Yaakov’s encounter and struggle with the angel of Esav. Yaakov was left alone and a “man” wrestled with him until dawn. Yet, when the two brothers finally met, Esav was docile – embracing, kissing and crying on his brother Yaakov, as one would expect from long-separated siblings. Nonetheless, our Sages debated the extent of Esav’s sincerity. Rashi (Breisheet 33:4) cites all the opinions: that Esav was genuinely touched; that Esav was faking it and meant ill; and a third opinion, as well, that it was both: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai stated: it is a well known halacha (law) that Esav hates Yaakov, but at this moment he was overwhelmed with compassion and kissed him with all his heart.” But what kind of law is that? How can an emotion be based on a law? And, if it is indeed so, why should it be any different here? How are we to ever know when our brother Esav means well or not?

A halacha is an immutable law. It defines a reality that cannot be changed or undone – but needs analysis. If Esav is synonymous with the major powers in the world, then this “halacha” is an historical verity, and should not at all be a surprise to us, even today. Less than seventy years after the Holocaust, the reservoir of world guilt has been completely depleted. It is still dangerous to be a Jew – in Israel, where a sleeping soldier can be stabbed to death on a public bus by a teenager who undoubtedly will be released from prison in a few short years; in Europe, in South America. Hardly a week goes by in which a Jew is not attacked in some part of the world for being or looking Jewish. A non-Jewish Swedish reporter recently donned a kipa to determine if these reports were true; he wrote that he spent that day in fear for his life.

The propriety of mila and shechita are being widely debated where they have not already been banned – and all under the cover of a higher morality. Iran boasts about developing the capability to eradicate Israel off the map – as King David wrote long ago (Tehillim 83:5) “Come, let us cut them off from being a nation and the name of Israel will be no more.” Too many others are indifferent or supportive, worried only about whether or not it will affect them.

The American President, convinced of his rhetorical abilities and showing none of the infirmity of his growing domestic unpopularity, is ready to have a signing ceremony that depends on the trustworthiness of the Iranians. Obama’s most recent offer to Iran was, essentially, “if you like your nuclear weapons program, you can keep your nuclear weapons program – as long as you say you won’t.” If and when it fails, and the Iranian bomb looms over Israel and the Middle East, he can always add: “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.” After all, that line is already in the teleprompter.

Rav Moshe Bleicher, former Rosh Yeshiva in Shavei Hevroin, wrote that Esav’s power is the antithesis of that of Yaakov, and indeed more popular than Yaakov’s. Both Esav and Yaakov believe in tikkun olam, perfecting the world – something everybody loves. Esav, the “man of the field,” knows how to develop the world. He is extremely talented in that sphere. He forms governments – stable governments – develops economies, and cultivates resources. The Talmud (Masechet Avoda Zara 2b) says of Rome (Esav) that it builds the infrastructure that makes life better and promotes the common good – bridges, markets, bathhouses, civilization, science, entertainment, and health care. Over the centuries, Esav also fashioned values that now animate Western society, and that sound very good as well – equality, rights, free expression and others. Compared to what Esav the nation brings to the world, what does Yaakov the nation offer? A few good sermons? Conscience? Comedians? Nobel Prizes?

It is no wonder that Yaakov feared their confrontation – and at the very moment when his life in exile was over (so he thought) and his existence as a nation in its own land was beginning anew. It is very hard to compete with Esav. We have lost more Jews to the words of Esav than to his sword. To many Jews, the fields of Esav are much more alluring than the tents of Yaakov, and always have been.

That is why “it is a well known halacha (law) that Esav hates Yaakov.” Esav is a counterforce to the children of Yaakov. When we stray and stumble, when we come too close to aping the world of Esav, then his hatred overflows for no discernible reason and forces us to look at ourselves. And his hatred is inexplicable, as is the world’s obsession with Israel, as is its focus on Israel’s imagined sins and its utter disregard for real massacres occurring elsewhere. In fact, there are places in the world today where Jews are hated and the haters do not even know why – places where Jews are hated and the haters have never even met a Jew.

When the brothers met after their long separation, Esav still hated Yaakov, but he had compassion when he realized that Yaakov was no threat to him. The world was his. While Esav was conquering surrounding tribes and building his empire, Yaakov was rearing children and raising sheep. Yaakov was limping, wounded, weak and submissive; there was no need for Esav’s enmity. It would take time for Yaakov’s family – his nation – to grow and develop, to internalize his ideals and to represent the G-d’s will in the world in a way that impresses people with our morality and goodness. That is when the battle will again be joined. That still hasn’t happened, and it won’t, if week after week, the world is shocked (or, by now, probably amused) by the sordid revelations in the tabloids about some sort of misconduct in the Jewish world.

That is not the reality of Jewish life, but that is a growing perception, and only we can change the perception.

Esav develops the earth – his “fields” –  but only Yaakov and his sons can unite the heavens and the earth – to exalt the world so that it can become the repository of G-d’s truth and His presence. That is the ongoing struggle of Yaakov – to transform ourselves, our families, our homes, and our lives in points of holiness for the betterment of all mankind.

 

5 Comments

Posted in Chumash, Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Open and Closed

Posted on November 15, 2013 | 6 comments

     The British novelist Terry Pratchett once said that “the trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.” In a nutshell, that is the problem with the movement self-entitled “Open Orthodoxy.” Too many people are coming along and dropping into the Open Orthodoxy box ideas, values and practices that are more “open” than they are “Orthodox.” After all, Orthodoxy is not an intellectual, moral or behavioral free-for-all. It is a system of beliefs and practices that guide our lives and with which we seek to shape the world around us. Orthodoxy naturally clashes with a society that is more amenable to “anything goes” than the absolutes of commandments that reflect the will of G-d.

     This has been an ongoing controversy in the Jewish world for several years running, addressed here quite a while ago, and has heated up again in the last few weeks. The new president of YCT , Rabbi Asher Lopatin, penned a piece in Haaretz, of all places, essentially blaming the ultra-Orthodox for the continuing castigation of his institution. This was followed by a response by a sizable group of decidedly not ultra-Orthodox rabbis (including myself) which underscored that the opposition to YCT, and especially the excesses of some of its ordainees, comes in large part from the mainstream of the Orthodox world –meaning that almost the entire orthodox world as currently constituted finds its program flawed and wanting.

The defense from an academic – again in the secular Jewish media – came swiftly, as well as a bizarre attack on the traditional rabbinate by a fringe group that invoked the Holocaust as well as all the modern buzzwords of abuse but never addressed an iota of the substance. Even the academic  defense was inaccurate, attributing the “Statement on Open Orthodoxy” to a rogue group of RCA members – “none of them, it should be noted, an officer of the RCA.” In fact, one signatory is a present officer, several are past officers and present members of the Executive Committee, and at least two are past presidents. It is a widely representative group and assembled ad hoc and on short notice. In any event, this group was assailed for disassembling the “Big Tent” of Orthodoxy and compared to the troglodytes of right-wingers in the 1930’s who ostracized the members of the fledgling RCA.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are two unresolved problems. The first is that no one I know is interested in ostracism, tiny tents, witch-hunts or quarrels. Indeed, both Rabbi Lopatin and his predecessor, Rabbi Avi Weiss, are extremely charming, genuine people, with sterling personal qualities who both have accomplished much for the Jewish people. Most people I know are reluctant to deal with this openly because of the respect both men have garnered over the years, notwithstanding the controversial positions they have taken. But this is business, not personal.

Added to this brew is the contretemps over the rejection by the Israeli rabbinate of some of Rabbi Weiss’ letters vouching for the Jewish credentials of Americans wishing to marry in Israel – an admittedly strong step – and we have the makings of a real brouhaha. But it is a brouhaha that is inevitable when we realize that the Torah must stand for something, and that something has to be defined, embraced and loved.

The second problem is internal. On some level it is unfair to attack an institution for statements or acts of its alumni, and the same is true for rabbinical institutions. RIETS, for example, has had a number of its ordainees openly leave Orthodoxy in the past, teach at non-Orthodox seminaries, or otherwise espouse heretical views. But RIETS at least has a tradition that is nearly a century old. Its musmachim have included notable Torah figures and Rabbis who shaped the Torah world. The YCT sample size is much smaller, and therefore disproportionately representative of the institution.

When some YCT graduates deny the divine origin of the Torah, assert that our forefathers never existed and therefore the entire narrative of the Jewish people is false, or insinuate that there was no divine revelation at Sinai, they have done more than force a band of rabbis to constrict the size of the tent; they have departed from Orthodoxy and lost the right to present themselves as Orthodox rabbis.

Similarly, when some YCT graduates remove parts of the davening that they find offensive, when they celebrate the nuptials of two homosexuals, when they invite non-Orthodox female clergy to lead the prayers, when they host or join interfaith prayer services, or, indeed, when they demean and distort the traditional role for women in Jewish with untold ramifications, they are bound to attract the opposition of the traditional, mainstream Orthodox rabbinate. Indeed, as our statement enunciated: “But if Open Orthodoxy’s leaders feel some distance developing between themselves and mainstream Orthodoxy, they should not be blaming others. They might consider how they themselves have plunged ahead, again and again, across the border that divides Orthodoxy from neo-Conservatism. Why are they surprised to find themselves on the wrong side of a dividing line?”

Similarly, no one rejoices in the rejection of Rabbi Weiss’ letters, neither personally or professionally. I genuinely feel for him and his congregants who are affected by this, and I hope an appropriate resolution is found. But there is a point at which the Orthodox world will take note of certain spiritual choices made, and say, “Enough; this is beyond Orthodoxy.” It should be no surprise that the ordination of women will strike the Israeli Rabbinate as the hallmark of the non-Orthodox clergy, as will the hosting in shul of church choirs, as will having a woman lead Kabbalat Shabbat, as will the embrace of halachic leniencies that are far outside the consensus of Orthodox practice. Surely, his new demand for the recognition by the Israeli rabbinate of the conversions conducted by non-Orthodox rabbis is not generally associated with the leanings of an Orthodox rabbi.

Can an Orthodox rabbi really endorse granting Israeli citizenship as a Jew to a “convert” who does not accept the mitzvot, did not go to Mikveh, has no intention of leading a Jewish life? Or, as is Reform practice, can it be expected that Rabbis who cherish unity in Jewish life will nonetheless acquiesce to ascribing Jewish status to the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother? In one fascinating exchange earlier this week, the white knight of the modern Orthodox rabbinate (I say that half in jest), Rav David Stav shlit”a, the head of Tzohar and erstwhile candidate for Chief Rabbi, retorted to a Reform rabbi: “The problem of assimilation among American Jews isn’t just an American problem… Chelsea Clinton married a Jewish man. I don’t dispute your right to think what you want, [but] do you want me to recognize Chelsea Clinton’s child as a Jew? You want me to recognize the rabbi who married them as a rabbi? He added that we sometimes have to pay a steep price in terms of public relations and even love of Torah by not-yet observant Jews, but “we are willing to pay this heavy price because of our responsibility to the people of Israel, and our desire to keep the people of Israel united – even though in the short term, it leads to enmity toward the Torah and its sages.”

Undoubtedly, YCT has a number of fine musmachim, as did JTS in an earlier incarnation of neo-Conservatism, and they must surely recoil at the intemperance of some of the classmates. They have a critical role to play before the reputation of their alma mater is cemented in the public eye as neo-Conservative, if indeed it is not too late already. With the demise of the Conservative movement, there is that niche to be filled – but wouldn’t the ultimate consequences be the same?

There is a limit to which the Torah world can embrace modern notions. Pluralism, egalitarianism, and moral relativity make fine contributions to the Western world, and are an improvement on paganism and ritual sacrifice. But just because they define Western society does not make them Jewish, or even desirable.

If you take the “-dox” (belief) out of Orthodox, then you are left with Ortho-, and we might as well be selling specialty shoes. We are defined by what we believe and what we do, by our fidelity to the Mesorah, our respect for our Sages and our willingness to conform our desires to G-d’s will rather than the converse. A wise person once said that “even an open mind has to close at a certain point or nothing stays in.” The boundaries of “Open Orthodoxy” have to be delineated not in platitudes, clichés and slogans – but in deeds, thought, values and Torah commitment.

In that process they will find the Orthodox world a reliable ally – or a steadfast opponent.

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Machshava/Jewish Thought

One Year Later

Posted on November 8, 2013 | 6 comments

     Exactly one year ago, I published an essay entitled “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire.” Not in my most fevered imagination did I anticipate the response; yet, this essay to date has been read by hundreds of thousands of people across the world, re-printed numerous times by sundry publications, and even translated into several languages, including Polish, Chinese and Russian. Each week, almost a thousand people are reading it still, and someone must have re-released it this week, because both traffic and media interest have increased substantially.

It was written the day after the election, a lugubrious moment to be sure, but with a sad recognition that the trends in American society have not been positive for quite some time, and the damage being done to the United States by this administration may be impossible to reverse. Globally, America is in retreat, an unreliable ally to its natural partners, and a focus of derision by its enemies. Today’s deal with Iran – removing most sanctions in exchange for, basically, promises of better behavior, is not only a betrayal of Israel but effectively a renunciation of Obama’s promises that “Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon” under his watch. And when they do – unless more responsible parties like Israel and (ironically) some of the Arab states act in concert to avert that international threat – Obama will issue a half-apology, blame others while articulating how upset and angry he feels, and act like he is powerless to thwart the ambitions of evil people.

Allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic and others have little confidence in his leadership. On the world stage, he is perceived as small, inconsequential, not taken seriously. Israel, to its peril, relies on his promises.

In the past year, especially in the last few weeks, an expression has been coined to depict the Obama presidency. He is the “bystander president.” Things happen around him, he takes little interest in day-to-day matters, is slow to react, and is always the last to know when anything goes awry. By his own admission, he learned about the crises (scandals) of Benghazi, IRS, NSA, the failed implementation of Obamacare, etc., through the “media.” He seems to get out of the White House a lot, giving speeches, but is never apprised of what is going on in the world until the time has come for him to feign anger and send “his people” into inaction.

Domestically, as predicted in many places, there is a growing realization among his supporters and the political sycophants who genuflected before him and are now scrambling for their political lives that Obamacare is an economic, medical and personal catastrophe. The problems of health coverage in America have now been exacerbated into crises of health care. With doctors dropping out of insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid, and insurance companies fleeing the private market, real people are suffering – and for the first time, those real people (including erstwhile Obama supporters) are front and center telling their tales of woe. And the stories of the travails of real people have a greater impact on observers than abstractions about the free market.

But what is being attempted here with Obamacare is just a continuation of the original problem: the ongoing distribution of free stuff to those who want it from those who work for it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of human nature and economics could have predicted that young people would not pay a lot of money for something they generally don’t need, that more people would seek the free health care of Medicaid, and that mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions enables even more people to wait to pay for coverage until they need it. As always, ideologues are so wedded to their opinions – especially messianic ideologues convinced that only their doctrines are moral, life-saving and indispensable – that they construe reasonable criticism and questioning as heresy.

To cite, again, Margaret Thatcher, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” That has started.

In any event, perhaps the most gratifying result of last year’s essay was the hundreds of emails and letters (yes, letters, as in real mail!) that I have received. Most were not posted as comments to the blog. To be sure, there was some criticism as well (that’s life) but most of the criticism was invective devoid of any substantive refutation of anything I had written. I include here a small and random sampling of those friendly and supportive comments, not (only!) because it is self-serving but, more importantly, because it is good for readers to know that they are not alone. The article struck a chord because there are many, many Americans – and American Jews – troubled by America’s present course. And there are many good people working actively behind the scenes to reverse the political tide and the moral trends, through persuasion and outreach, including some I have met in person and others with whom I have spoken on the telephone.

Ultimate success is not guaranteed, but to all those who wrote, I thank you for your kind words, your passion and patriotism, your love of country and faith, and your resolve to hold firm and fast to the values that bind us to our Creator and to each other.

Here’s a sample:

“The America I knew as a child isn’t the America I read about today.”

“I can imagine you are taking a lot of flak for your “End of the American Empire” piece. I just want you to know that I found your analysis to be right on the mark and your conclusions downright courageous.”

“I wanted to thank you for this article. IT IS THE ONLY thing that has helped me cope in the past few days.”

“I commend your bravery in writing such an article.”

“Thank you for your insightful comments on the election. Over the last several years it’s become apparent to me that my values and beliefs are becoming irrelevant and passe. I can’t open a newspaper, click on a tv station, click on an interesting website without being bombarded with messages that stand contrary to 95% of what I believe in.”

“I am a Christian and I can tell you that everything you said is true as far as I am concerned. I think many Christians would agree with you. I wish we had an “Israel” to do Aliyah. PS: I am in my 70’s and I thank G-D that He allowed me to be born and live in the United States before it voted itself into perdition.”

 “Many thanks for using your gifts to articulate what so many are still unfortunately fumbling around with and have yet to wrap their thoughts around.”

"A friend from Florida just sent me a copy of your sermon, address, letter, of November 7. It is the clearest, most concise description of where we were, where we are, where we are going, and why. Our world has changed and I fear for my grandchildren.”

“Very well said! There are not many Jews who feel the way you do. Well, I am one of them!”

“I was forwarded your email and wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, insightful essay.  I agree with every word, and also mourn the loss of the America I have grown up in and which is now gone. It is impossible to move forward with no hope, and with the fear of what life in this country will be for my children. To compound matters, my husband is a bleeding heart liberal.”
 “I just wanted to thank you for your cogent and prescient outline of our country's future on its chosen path. As a small business owner, I cannot bring myself to jump into the wagon with the freeloaders. However, I will do everything in my power to not pull the wagon. I already pay my "fair share." Further attempts to steal from my business -- which I built -- to give to those who did not, and will not, exert the effort to avail themselves of the blessings of liberty will be met with resolute resistance. I will scale back my business to earn what I need to survive and no more. People will lose their jobs, benefits will be cut and I will pay far less in taxes. You want a charitable donation for a worthy cause? Call Obama. I no longer care.”
 “I'm in complete agreement with your article however, I have one question: How and why would a majority of Jewish people who voted, vote for Obama or any Democrat at this point? He has turned his back on Israel and I fear that this small but courageous nation will not be able to survive much longer.”


“Though sad to read, you hit the nail on the head. This is what is happening to the greatest country in the history of the world. My heart is very sad.” 

“I just received your analysis, via e-mail, of the changing of America. Thank you so much for that dissertation.  It's flying thru the internet.”
“I know it won't change our downward spiral but, at least it's out in the open for all to now understand.  Beautifully written and directly to the point.”
“I wish to congratulate you on your courage to speak unpopular truths, dear rabbi”
“Mr Husband and I -- as well as our like-minded friends to whom I forwarded the article -- were in awe of your articulation of the situation as it exists, as well as your understanding of the dismal direction to which our country is headed. I pray that you don't allow anyone to silence you. So many of us are as outraged as you are.”

“Read and Weep, if we think this is untrue we are kidding ourselves…”

“My pastor is regularly criticized for his bold statements and he recently added this quote to his signature: “We must not mind insulting men, if by respecting them we insult God.” 

“Your voice is clear, and understandable. MORE need to hear your message!!!!

 The last two comments were from this past week. And the work goes on.
 Again, thank you all!

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events