On Friday my wife and I got the call that mom had been taken out of the home and moved into the hospital. Her stage four cancer is advancing quickly and we’re now definitely in her final days… probably her final week, at best.

While we stayed Friday night for Erev Shabbat Service in order to charge our spiritual batteries for the long, difficult time ahead of us, we were on the road home the next day and fortunately found very good hotel deals on short notice; on a weekend no less!

It’s difficult to be talking so plainly about Mom not being with us anymore in a few days; ironically, Mom is handling it better than any of us. She is a strong believer and the strength of her faith at a time like this – a time when most people would feel more like cursing God than praising Him – is humbling and an inspiration.

It doesn’t require any Delta machinery, but it does take a lot of courage to step out in faith and admit the goals you have in pursuing deeper study of the Torah and ministry. Recently, I had to ask my rabbi if the advanced study classes I was taking would continue, since attendance seemed to have fallen very low.

When I confessed to him that I hoped there’d be a way for me to continue, he got straight to the point: “To what end?” It’s a relevant question, because he is not one who believes in study for study’s sake.

Going under the concept that to those whom little is known, little is required, and to whom much is known, much is required, he does not give out ordinations lightly or as bookshelf trophies. He wants to know what a person’s going to do with it.

For me, that’s simple; well, actually, simple on the surface and highly complex in the details.

The simple truth is, he’s inspired me and I now know why G-d prompted me to be part of the advanced study in the first place; I believe I’m called to become a congregational leader.

That’s the simple part.

The complex part is figuring out how to live up to that calling; it’s no easy job, being a messianic rabbi, and certainly not for the faint of heart.

When I admitted I wanted to be a congregational leader, his next question was equally pointed and insightful.

“Do you think you can weather the storm that’ll come your way?”

That one requires more thought; while I beleive with training I can become the kind of person who can, I think it would be the height of ego to say I’m already there. I need time, training and the blessings of the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, Yeshua, and the gifts of the Spirit if I’m ever going to reach that stage.

But I’m willing to being the journey; hopefully that counts for something.

Troubles never happen when we are safe, healthy, happy and completely able to deal with them. If that were the case, they wouldn’t be any trouble at all.

Tonight, I received a call from my dad. It seems my mom, who survived a stroke in August, is back in the hospital, this time with a very low heart rate and in need of a pacemaker.

This comes at a very bad time, as such things always seem to; both my wife and I currently have been working for temp companies and our current assignments both ended within a couple days of each other. Neither of us has found new assignments and so money is extremely tight right now; in fact, if at least one of us doesn’t start a new job soon, our ability to meet February rent could be in doubt. Even the best budgeting software can’t help you out when there’s no money coming in.

Yikes, right? In and of itself, that’s enough stress for anyone.

Now this with my mom. Our hearts are to be there when she goes into surgery in the next day or two; while we’ll find a way to be there if necessary, it really could throw our ability to meet February rent into even greater doubt.

It is times like these when we are put to the test of how deeply we believe the teachings of Torah; and having been through such a crisis (granted, we both had jobs back then) late this summer with mom’s health, we can only trust that Adonai will bring us through once again.

Greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. Adonai will grant us his strength, regardless of the outcome.

When a believer is finally convinced in what they believe, it would require a New York moving company to get them to budge on their beliefs. While I find steadfast faith inspiring, such unwillingness to be open to new teaching is what keeps some people from missing out on all that G-d has for them.

For the Jewish people, two thousand years of anti-messianic teaching has created a blind spot for the possibility that Yeshua was indeed the promised messiah. Some have even abandoned the messianic hope altogether, which is a shame. Yet that is relatively minor compared to the error of the Christians.

Mainstream Christianity long ago abandoned the Jewish roots of their faith, and it shows up not only in the big issues, but in the details. They exchanged the true name of Yeshua for the less-Hebraic-sounding Jesus. They exchanged Adonai’s own feasts and festivals, declared and established in the Torah itself, for shame pagan holidays like Easter and Christmas. They celebrate most of their holidays with a feast of ham, rather than a kosher menu that Yeshua himself could have joined them in.

Any Christian who says Jewish people are “too stubborn” to recognize the truth of Adonai and his messiah, Yeshua, needs to take a good long look in the mirror; what they see reflected there could easily be found in Webster’s Dictionary as the very definition of the word “stubborn.”

Believe it.

Although it is not one of Adonai’s appointed feasts or festivals, I am grateful for the Thanksgiving holiday.

In this crazy, mixed-up world, Thanksgiving is one holiday that has a rather pure intent: it reminds us of the importance of being grateful for what we have, rather than coveting what we lack. When it comes to secular holidays, there’s not many others like it.

Christmas: Aside from the fact that it’s not really Yeshua’s birthday, but a celebration co-opted by Christianity that originally celebrated the birth of the Roman god Mithras, Christmas is really the term life insurance of holiday; it’s all quite temporary, covering your needs for a time but with an expiration date well in mind. It’s also a gimme holiday; in this case, gimme presents.

Halloween: Gimme candy or I’ll egg your car or TP your house and trees. One of the worst gimmes holidays.

Easter: Gimme candy and colored eggs!

So many holidays are about filling our unfulfilled wants and desires. Thanks Adonai that in at least one secular holiday, our country is reminded to say, “Thank you.”

Even if some don’t know who they ought to be thanking.

Writing about faith isn’t always fun.

Now, blogging is a fun form of writing, to be sure. And faith, for avid believers like me, can also be fun. But I’m not sure the two always mix well in inspiring a sense of fun.

For me, faith is a bit more serious and deeper than the “fun” label implies. That’s not to say faith isn’t fun. I’ve found ways to get my bat and bar mitzveh kids to get excited about searching through Torah, and I’ve developed a knack for making the principals of Torah relevant to the world as they know it.

But blogging about faith is sometimes more utilitarian than it is fun; kind of like buying car covers rather than a jazzy new sound system for a car.

I think it’s because, to blog meaningfully about faith, you have to know your stuff, and that means research. Fortunately, I enjoy research most of the time. But all of the time? No, not always.

Still, once one gets down to actually doing it, I think writing or blogging about what I believe had deepened my faith more than most traditional faith-building activities.

Kat pointed out I’d missed her intent on some things she wrote in her last rebuttal. Be sure to read her response if you have not yet done so, before proceeding.

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!

Kat Cooper and I have just been getting warmed up in our open debate on atheism and religion, and we have a long way to go. If you haven’t checked out Ms. Cooper’s entries yet, you simply must catch up now. There’s a lot to respond to, and just a lot of fun topics to exchange ideas on.

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!

In my travels through the blogosphere, I’ve met many interesting folks and … surprise, surprise … not all of them are messianics. Of course, considering our particular blend of Judaism and Christianity is a relatively obscure (but growing) one at this moment in time, that’s not surprising.

One such interesting person I’ve met recently is fellow blogger Kat Cooper. She possesses a sharp wit and intellect, a great sense of humor and, despite the rough language she sometimes indulges in, has quite good insights on a wide variety of issues. She is also an atheist.

Now, why would a faith-oriented blogger want to begin a debate with an atheist blogger? Well, Kat can speak for herself over on her site, but my reasons are fairly straight-forward.

First, I think too often in the blogosphere, atheist sites and faith sites stand in their own corners of the ring, tossing rotten tomatoes at each other without ever really speaking to each other. On rare occasions when they do speak directly, it’s a big yelling mess with both sides essentially painting the other as stupid, which doesn’t help either side.

By contrast, Kat and I struck up a friendship on a technical blogging level and already respect each other. Our hope is to engage in an exchange of viewpoints without giving in to useless name-calling. To foster a dialog based in mutual respect. We’ll see how well it works as it unfolds.

As for any personal reasons why I’d want to do this? It’s pretty simple. Anyone entering a journey to be a congregational leader has to expect that he or she will encounter folks who don’t agree. Learning how to communicate and defend the ideals for which a messianic believer stands as a congregational leader is, therefore, an essential skill. Learning how to do so without losing one’s cool or losing respect for the other party is similarly essential, whether the person being disagreed with is a religious Jew, an anti-Semite, a replacement theology Christian, or an anti-faith atheist. If one can’t manage to maintain respect for a person who disagrees, the usefulness of a dialog quickly disappears entirely.

So, for me, it’s a great exercise in apologetics. And for both of us, the posts and comments our two sites exchange will hopefully entertain as well as provide food for further thoughtful debate for both our audiences, diverse as they promise to be. So, both Kat and I are ready. We’ve backed up the figurative transfer tanks and are ready to start exchanging perspectives. Let’s get started with what I hope will become at least a semi-regular feature for both our blogs, the “Open Debate” series.

***

I selected the topic for our first exchange, and it’s a timely one. Over on liberal blog syndicate, The Huffington Post, writer Sam Harris last week posted an essay provocatively titled, Science Must Destroy Religion. No matter who you are, atheist or person of faith, it’s worth reading, especially in context of the forthcoming exchange between MessianicMusings.com and MySingleMomLife.com

Opening posts in a debate are always a bit challenging, but let me start by saying that I was a bit disappointed by the incongruity between the title of Harris’ article, and the actual content. The title sounds like a shot across the bow of religion in the cultural war, a call to arms for scientists to actively work to destroy religious faith.

As it turns out, the actual essay isn’t quite as activist as the title would lead one to expect. Instead, Harris wastes a good portion of the opening paragraphs citing the same old tired cliches we’ve all heard before from the atheist community about how religious faith equals ignorance and is the cause of every evil in the world from most wars ever fought to the common cold.

OK, maybe he didn’t blame the common cold on religion. Yet.

Rather than an active cultural war or the burning of churches or anything quite so drastic as the essay’s title might draw to mind, Harris simply makes the proposal that, somehow, scientists and other anti-God “rationalist” thinkers have been “too polite” and need to start fighting the rhetorical war of words between science and religion with all the evidence in their arsenal and thus somehow vanquish religion on an intellectual level.

As we go further in depth in this debate, I will dig into some of the more detailed flaws I see in Harris’ essay, but on the “big picture” scale my basic reaction to this is, “Since when have atheists been holding back anything?”

From the more obvious pop culture incidences, such as comedienne Kathy Griffin’s recent Emmy outburst, to the more substantial clashes, Harris’ view of a “too polite” scientific community holding back out of fear of hurting the feelings of people of faith, I find a flood of evidence that whatever orders of destruction Harris thinks he’s issuing, the ‘rank and file’ atheists are already about the task and Harris is late to the party.

For decades the ACLU has been working hard to take the separation of church and state to its most extreme degree of interpretation. No Ten Commandments in courthouses, no prayer in schools, no Christmas or Hannukah breaks (it must be referred to as a “winter break.”) And anti-faith folks are hard at work to get “under God” removed from the Pledge, “in God we trust” removed from all currency and, in all likelihood, getting “God” out of “God Bless America” as well. Doesn’t sound like a docile crowd to me. Now, if we could ever convince the atheist crowd to join up with folks of faith in an effort to get any mention of divinity removed from public expressions of the phrase, “Damn it!” we might find a common cause at last!

So yes, I question the accuracy of Harris’ perception of the atheist community as too polite and docile. They seem sufficiently activist to me, and have accomplished quite a bit of cultural change over the last 50 years or so that works to their advantage rather than to the advantage of folks of faith. Personally, I’m less interested in defeating “the other side” than I am trying to increase mutual respect of individuals on both sides of the fence toward one another.

I also take issue with his concept that religion is, by nature, anti-science and vice-versa. I could argue that much of science has been established by men and women of one religious faith or another. But that’s a far more detailed can of worms and I’ll come back to it another time.

Tag, Kat! You’re it!

It’s a place I’ve been in life, a state of being many have been or can at least empathize with.

“I believe in Adonai,” we sometimes say. “I love him and I believe him. But I’m just finding it hard to trust.”

There are many things that can sap us of our ability to trust. Disappointments are the most common. Perhaps we thought, in our desperation to connect with an attractive member of the opposite gender while we were single, that haShem was “calling us” to coupledom with a certain someone, and when that relationship did not work out as hoped, we felt disappointed, even betrayed.

Or perhaps we grew up believing G-d would let no harm befall us, which worked fine until living through a tragedy like a fire, a devastating storm, a personal assault or whatever other ills tend to befall unsuspecting people in this fallen world. As a result, our trust can be affected in haShem’s ability to keep us safe.

These are deep, personal, painful issues that cannot be resolved in a single blog post, but they are worth exploring in greater detail than a term life insurance policy.

For now, let this be said: the Torah makes little distinction between faith and trust. To some translators, the two terms are interchangeable. Was Noach inspired to build an arc in the middle of nowhere, with no water around, by a distant, mental-state concept like faith? Or did it require an action-inspiring trust?

Food for thought.