Here’s some things I take away from her clarifications. First, we both despise hypocrisy in the church. It’s perhaps a bit easier for me to agree on this point than it is for some people of faith, given that as a messianic, I’m not exactly in agreement with all things in mainstream Christianity or mainstream Judaism.

I’m also relieved to see that Kat doesn’t view all churches as equally hypocritical and that some serve great purposes. She mentions several that causes that some churches involve themselves in, like area food shelves, shelters, food banks and, I imagine, even fund-raising for good causes like cerebral palsy, for example.

I can see her point, but I would like to point out that social justice causes and “giving back to the community” aren’t the only forms of good that churches or temples can do, though that is one good type of service they can perform.

But there are other types of services that are more spiritual in nature that also serve equally valued and valuable functions. For example, one cause my messianic congregation supports is a program that helps Jewish people who are stuck in Russia or other countries, who want to move to Israel, to return to their homeland. There’s no agenda to the program, it doesn’t require them to even listen to a messianic message at all, because the program is one run by Jews, for Jews. The extend of our messianic involvement it to offer financial support. As a congregation, we want to be a blessing to the Jewish community, so it’s a program we support and donate to.

Another example, perhaps more personal, is that we sponsor a yearly trip to Israel. It always fills up and we do it regardless of the terror conditions at the time because most of the areas we visit aren’t much affected by that sort of thing; not that listening to the evening news would ever offer the impression that anything happens in Israel except military violence and terrorism. Not so.

It can even be as simple as offering ministry and counseling services to those who need them. Of course, we do have a food shelf and other forms of help for those in need as well.

None of this is to deny the point that there are those who use faith as a shield to hide unholy motives. But I am glad we agree that not all churches are like that.

I also appreciated Kat’s explanation on what she meant about theology versus science. It’s true that even in messianic Judaism, the Torah and the B’rit haDashah are our primary sources, whereas science is more fluid. To use medicine as an example, only a couple hundred years ago, leeches and bleeding people were considered cutting-edge medical science methods of treatment for all sorts of maladies. Fortunately, science has come a long way since then. A course of leeches, for example, can’t suck out a brain tumor.

However, I think this brings us to the fundamental difference between the realm of science and the realm of theology. By its very nature, true science is concerned only with the physical world; that which is observable, measurable, repeatable and disprovable. If a field of study doesn’t meet those criteria, it’s not a true science.

Religion, by contrast, concerns itself not only with the observable, but the invisible world. Religion is about matters of faith, ethics, beliefs, the afterlife, the nature of good and evil and more.

I do have a lot of thoughts about the relationship between science and religion. I do want to go into them in more detail at some point. Possibly soon. But I think we’ve spun a bit off-course from the source of the original focus of this first round of this debate, and I enjoy the dynamic way bringing in an essay by another source can refresh exchanges of ideas like this, and breath new life into the dialog.

So Kat has found an essay that has her fired up, and she’ll do the initial post on that, then allow me to respond. So stay tuned! It’s about to get even more interesting!

Oh, and responses to Kat’s question about why I tend to leave the vowels out of any reference to Adonai, such as G-d or L-rd, have been responded to on Kat’s comment page; I did not ignore her!

Before I begin the next round, though, I must digress a bit and muse a bit on what the purpose of an open debate, or even a friendly exchange of ideas might be. I mean, Kat and I respect each other, so it’s not like I’m expecting her to slap her head like a person in a V-8 commercial, jump up and proclaim, “Wow, that last post was so convincing, I’m not atheist anymore!”

Likewise, I doubt Kat expects me to suddenly transform, like a robot from the live action movie this past summer, from an aspiring messianic congregational leader into a sudden G-d denier because she posts something so crushing in its truthfulness that I can no longer reconcile “reality” to “my faith.”

We’re both bright minds. I doubt either of us expects the other to suddenly flip.

So why debate, if neither if us is likely to change our minds? Why exchange ideas if our ideas are not going to mesh anytime soon? I mean, it’s not like anyone’s paying us in IWC watches for this public display of our deepest beliefs.

Some might argue that approaching others with an open mind is the goal. I disagree. That sounds too sloppy on a mental level, too wishy-washy, and too “I do expect the other person to flip” written between the lines. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not afraid of hearing anyone out. I’m still open to new information, new perspectives and so forth. But I know that I long ago hit the bedrock of my identity, and that it is made of “person of faith” stuff.

So I’d phrase it a different way: I think enjoying a friendly exchange of ideas, or even an open debate, is more about coming into such an even with an open heart, not an open mind. Because for me, at least at this stage in my life, I’m more interested in understanding people and what makes them who they are, as opposed to defeating someone rhetorically.

I realize this is a definition that most college debate teams would reject. But this is real life, not a college debate team. Our purposes can afford to be a bit more humane. And ultimately, how can anyone ever expect to relate to someone if they aren’t open to understanding who they are, where they’re coming from, what they think and believe and what defines them as individuals? Listening with an open heart, even when your own ideas and beliefs and such are at odds to another person’s, is a lofty, but achievable, goal.

One can learn about another person without agreeing on everything.

* * * * *

Kat brought up several points and I won’t attempt to address and counter everything tonight, but I will get to what I feel I can tackle in a reasonable amount of time and space.

One of the big issues Kat opened up is the false pretenses of most religions. Among her complaints are:

* Organized religion is about money and expensive lifestyle.
* Organized religion is never open to new ideas.

These are two themes I can deal with in a reasonable amount of time tonight. All the rest, while worthy of further discussion at some point, will simply have to wait. So let’s get started.

Tenant 1: Organized religion is about money and expensive lifestyles

I will be the first to admit that much of organized religion does err when it comes to the decision either to follow the leading of G-d or follow the demands of money. The examples are too rife to pretend there’s any other conclusion. For example:

*Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and the 700 Club scandal.

*The Catholic Church’s selling of “indulgences – which were basically licenses to sin and be forgiven, before the sin was even committed – in order to build the Vatican, a practice rife throughout the Middle Ages at least.

*The overabundance of congregational leaders in various religions who have joined the ranks of millionaires, and then try to sell the idea that wealthy is God’s preferred state for everyone. (I could rant for at least an entire book-length manuscript against this false and wrong-headed teaching, but now’s not the time.)

* Probably the pinnacle in American religious history of pathological narcissism is science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Prior to inventing his SF-tinged religion, he was quoted as saying, “The best way to become rich in this country is to found your own religion.” He then went on to do exactly that — and none of his congregations ever noticed just a bit of a red flag there.

That’s just four examples quite quickly off the top of my head. Television has helped spread the money-focused corruption of religion, by allowing “TV pastors” to seek money from folks nationwide and worldwide, rather than subsisting on the modest means their own local congregation can provide.

So yes, I can agree that money has corrupted many religious organizations.

But all, Kat? Every single church in America, in the world? That’s where we diverge.

I’ve met lots of congregational leaders in my time and I must say that they run the gamut. Some are wealthy and handle their success poorly. Some are well-to-do but handle their financial solvency with as much responsibility and selflessness as any wealthy person in business who pursues philanthropy rather than pursuing the lining of their own pockets. That comes down to the individual responsibility and maturity of the congregational leader in question.

And religion is hardly an untapped gravy train making every God-salesman (so-called) wealthy beyond their dreams. To the contrary, for every wildly successful mega-church where pastors live The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, there are hundreds of small, modest churches that perform the day-to-day tasks of looking after the spiritual needs of their congregations as their first order of business. For every millionaire pastor, there are hundreds who would be paid far better by taking up a job as a greeter at the local Wal-Mart and who must sometimes hold such second jobs just to make ends meet.

And this is not to mention any of the religious workers who enter the missionary field, living in extremely humble, even undesirable, conditions, often at risk to the health and safety of not only themselves but their spouses and children as well, who do all this because they are committed to giving people in highly secluded or oppressive countries the chance to hear about the religion and vision of God that they believe to be true.

I’m not saying religion doesn’t have hypocrites. There are far too many, in my opinion, and sadly there are more agnostic and atheist professors in American Bible Colleges teaching Bible and theology classes than there are professors who are genuine believers in the religion they teach.

So is it a flawed system with flawed people? Definitely. But I must stress, that is not all there is to it. Kat, while you look at a poll on religion and, I imagine, see a result that claims that 93 percent (or whatever it is these days) of Americans claim to believe in God in one form or another, and that perhaps 76 percent consider themselves, “Christian,” and you end up feeling outnumbered, well…

Let’s just say this. I see polls like that any my BS meter goes into overdrive. If America was 93 percent God-believing and 76 percent Christian – and everyone of them was living according to their beliefs – there are a lot of cultural, societal and moral ills our country would not have. Whether you look at crime rates, the abortion rates, divorce rates, single-parent families, premarital sexuality, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual abuse of children, or whatever other problem you want to focus on – I simply don’t believe the claims.

Even without getting into differing religions, denominations, sects, doctrines and such, even if you kept it as simple as, “Here is a person who not only says they believe in God, but live out their values as believers in that God, and refrain from the social evils that their God forbids,” I believe the real percentage of genuine believers would be several orders of magnitude smaller. Would even 5 percent make the cut? Would 1 percent?

Even the Torah that I hold faith value in is highly skeptical of the number of genuine believers. Take the Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. Abraham’s nephew Lot is living in that area, and the folks there are living God-profaning, rather than God-pleasing lives. So G-d basically tells Abraham, “That’s it. I’ve had it with Sodom and Gomorrah. Destruction’s coming, get your nephew and his family outta there.”

But Abraham didn’t just meekly say, “OK, L-rd, you’re wiser than me, whatever you want.” He battled with G-d over the extent of mercy the L-rd was showing. He challenged G-d to spare these cities of at least tens of thousands of people if only he could find 50 folks there living righteously like Lot. Then Abraham started negotiating down and eventually G-d agreed he’d spare the entire city if even just 10 people living righteously could be found. And in a pair of cities with tens of thousands of people to choose from, not 10, not even one more, could be found.

Call it history, call it a fairy tale, the point hold true either way, and the point is this: genuine people of faith ARE hard to come by. We don’t disagree there. What we do disagree on is that, personally, I don’t agree that all faith-based workers and congregational leaders are living the high life, taking monthly vacations to Matazlan and having a wild party on G-d’s tab.

As much corruption as there may be in religion, there are still leaders, congregations and people who are genuine. They’re just in short supply is all.

Also, this may be a weak counter argument, but I’d also venture to point out that most scientists live better and earn more than most pastors, rabbis, imams and other congregational leaders. In many cases, by far.

* * * * *

Tenant #2: Organized religion is never open to new ideas.

Here, I have to disagree and say that while there are some sticks in the mud, this statement proves that you’re not up on just how dynamic a field theology tends to be.

I actually have a lot to say on this, but I’m well past my bedtime already… so it’ll have to wait for another time.

In the meantime, Kat… TAG! You’re it!