Senior columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Ari Shavit, has written that the 20th century was ?the most dramatic century in the dramatic history of the Jews. In its first half, we lost a third of our people. But the second half of the century was miraculous. In North America, we created the perfect diaspora, while in the land of Israel we established modern Jewish sovereignty. The Jews of the 21st century have today what their great-grandparents could only dream of: equality, freedom, prosperity, dignity. The persecuted people are now emancipated. The pitiful people are now proud and independent . . . [Israel] is the demography of hope: an almost extinguished people renewing itself.?

I recently came across a noteworthy article that summarizes Google searches among Americans seeking answers to religious questions. The results are curious and reveal much about American culture in the early 21st century. Here is a brief summary of some of the salient findings:

The number one Google question in America is ?who created God?? Second is why does God allow suffering? If God is all powerful and all good, how can He allow suffering? The third most-asked question is, ?why does God hate me?? The fourth is, ?why does God need so much praise??

The term evangelical used to be a meaningful term. It normally meant someone who holds that the Bible is the final source of authority; that the Gospel transforms lives; that personal piety is an important quality of life; and that the values, virtues and ethical standards found in Scripture reflect the character of God. But, in 2016, the term ?evangelical? carries little substantive meaning. Generally speaking, today?s ?evangelical? seems to worship the ?moralistic, therapeutic, deistic? god that sociologist Christian Smith has identified in his research. And several American evangelical leaders are embracing a raw, pragmatic ethic in their presidential endorsements.

On Friday, 22 April 2016, representatives from 167 nations gathered in New York City to sign the Paris Climate Accord, negotiated in December 2015. Among other things, the signers agreed to slow greenhouse gas emissions. It has been hailed as a pivotal agreement to combat climate change, and President Obama regards it as one of his most important achievements. How should we think about this agreement and will it actually make a difference?

Two recent books explore the impact social media and sexuality issues are having on American, adolescent girls: American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers by Nancy Jo Sales and Girls and Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape, by Peggy Orenstein. Several important insights are gained from these books:

America in the 21st century seems disorderly, somewhat chaotic and rather dysfunctional. There are four major forces sweeping through American civilization all of which partially explain this disorder. Columnist David Brooks capably summarizes these four forces: 1. Global migration is leading to demographic diversity. 2. Economic globalization is creating wider opportunity but also inequality. 3. The Internet is giving people more choices over what to buy and pay attention to. 4. A culture of autonomy validates individual choice and self-determination. The Economist emphasizes the importance of both Google and Facebook in this culture of autonomy. . .

Romans 1:18-3:21 declares quite clearly that God has revealed Himself in three major ways: Through His creation, through human conscience and through His moral Law given to Israel. Further, Hebrews 1 (and indeed the entire New Testament) also makes clear that Jesus is God?s crowning revelation. Each of these four revelations of God insists upon a responsible and accountable response. In short, humanity cannot ignore these revelations of God.

With the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders (Democrat) and Donald Trump (Republican), the specter of protectionism is raising its ugly head again. Both Sanders and Trump favor a wholehearted rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trade in Services Agreement, all of which the US negotiated with 11 Asian nations. Protectionism is a noun which characterizes a world of high tariffs (taxes on imported goods), the slowing of world trade and the subsequent contracting of the world economy. . . So why are Sanders and Trump against these trade initiatives? Why do they wish to return to a time of high protective tariffs and more difficult barriers to world trade?

In the April 2016 edition of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg offers one of the more insightful articles to date on President Obama?s foreign policy?and, since his presidency is nearly over, his legacy. The article presents insights into the mind of President Obama found nowhere else. For me, one of the more valuable aspects of the article, which was based on a series of candid interviews Goldberg had with the president, is Obama?s views of the Middle East. Goldberg summarizes Obama?s perspective: ?Obama has come to a number of dovetailing conclusions about the world, and about America?s role in it. The first is that the Middle East is no longer terribly important to American interests. The second is that even if the Middle East were surprisingly important, there would still be little an American president could do to make it a better place. The third is . . .?

In today?s Middle East, there are two major Islamic powers striving for power and influence?Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran. This rivalry is tense and fueled by centuries of bitter hatred and competition. This rivalry is evident in Yemen, Iraq and the bitter civil war in Syria. What is the difference between these two branches of Islam? Why does it matter and how important is this difference in understanding today?s complex world?