(Very liberal points of view about to be expressed. You have been warned. )

I must admit that I’ve always had a problem with a portion of today’s reading. Specifically, Matthew 21:18-22.

¹⁸ In the moring, when he [Jesus] returned to the city, he was hungry. ¹⁹ And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. ²⁰ When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” ²¹ Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. ²² Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.” (NRSV)

Leaving aside for a moment the question of answered prayer, does this action seem to anybody else to be totally out of keeping with Jesus’ character? Did the fig tree “choose” to have no fruit? This seems to be an act of spite!

My own personal feeling is that this event probably didn’t actually happen, at least not in the way described. (See, I warned you this was going to be liberal). The only way this makes any sense to me is if the fig tree is a metaphor for for the believer, who is expected to bear good fruit.

Now, on to the “you get what you ask for in prayer” bit. I’ll grant, of course, that my understanding is limited, but I try to relate God’s response to prayer to my response as a parent to my daughter. My wife and I have always tried to be permission-giving. That is, our default answer is “yes,” unless, and this is a big unless, there is a good reason not to say yes. But sometimes those good reasons do exist. Perhaps her request would be dangerous. Perhaps it conflicts with something else of more importance. Whatever. I think that’s how God sees our requests. God wants to meet our needs. Sometimes that means saying “yes” to your requests. Sometimes it means saying “no.” And sometimes other needs are more important than our requests. (Oh, and, for those of you assuming my daughter is some spoiled demon child. She’s a wonderful, remakably well adjusted high school senior. Far from perfect, of course, but she’s the type of child who would make any parent proud.)

I know that Wendy posted an article about this in her blog, but I saw this today, which is a response by Brian McLaren to all of the controversy stirred up by his original comments.

Leadership Blog: Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 4: McLaren’s Response

I didn’t spend a great deal of time with the original article, but I did read through this response, and the comments posted about it. I have to say that I thought it well written and thoughtful. It doesn’t “answer questions” so much as it clarifies intent, and promotes serious debate without debasing one side or the other.

I’m very much a liberal, and hold views on this issue consistent with that mindset. But I welcome healthy, respectful debate on the issue. I think Mr. McLaren is encouraging the same in this letter. The “early phase” of the discussion on the Harbour blog about the conflict regarding Eklektos and SBTC was not characterized by such a heathly debate, but I have hopes that it’s one its way to being more civil.

One Year Bible Blog: January 30th readings
(I’m trying out a new posting tool. We’ll see how this works)

I’ve always liked the “workers in the vineyard” story. We get such a tight focus on what’s “fair” that we forget what’s “just.” The early workers received a just wage for their efforts. By our standards (and apparently those of Jesus’ time as well) it wasn’t “fair.” No doubt today the vineyard owner would be sued for discrimination or unfair labor practices.

I actually like to focus more on those workers who were hired at the last minute. It’s easy to see the point of view of the early workers, but I think I identify more with the later ones. The assumption I think people make is that they had it easy. Just sitting around all day, doing almost no work, and then suddently get a full day’s wages. But consider their position. They almost certainly needed to work in order to feed their families. It cannot have been a pleasant experience for them to realize that they and their children would probably go hungry because nobody had hired them. It may not be hard physical labor, but it’s certainly no picnic either. Even when they were hired, I’m sure they didn’t expect much pay. And then suddenly finding themselves blessed with far more than they deserved or expected. What joy and gratitude they must have felt. I can see the landowner’s face, enjoying every minute of that response.

I think that’s why God offers the gift of Grace. That reaction of joy and gratitude for something we know we didn’t earn, and can never earn.

As an aside: I like Mike’s choice of art today. One of the pictures appears to be by one of our favorite artists, Zamy Steynovitz. We have several of his serigraphs in our home.

I’ve added a minor enhancement to BlogWatcher. It’s so minor, in fact, that most people probably won’t even notice it. It has to do with handling dates that are way out of line.

In the old version, BlogWatcher trusted the publication date for each item. In most cases, its still does. But there are three cases where it does not any more

1. The item lists a publication date in the future
2. The item lists a publication date far in the past
3. The item lists no publication date at all

In all cases, BlogWatcher will now record the date that it first “sees” such an item, and will use that, instead of one of these bogus values. If the item contains a “good” date, it will record it. Otherwise, it will use the current date and time.

I did this because one of my subscription items showed a publish date of January 4, 2007. So it always came to the top of the list. Now it will properly sink down the list as new items come up.

I don’t normally do these quizzes, but I figured I should do this one. I appear to have come out tied between “Modern Liberal” and “Emergent/Postmodern” which seems about right.

You scored as Modern Liberal. You are a Modern Liberal. Science and historical study have shown so much of the Bible to be unreliable and that conservative faith has made Jesus out to be a much bigger deal than he actually was. Discipleship involves continuing to preach and practice Jesus’ measure of love and acceptance, and dogma is not important in today’s world. You are influenced by thinkers like Bultmann and Bishop Spong.  Modern Liberal   75% Emergent/Postmodern   75% Classical Liberal   68% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan   64% Charismatic/Pentecostal   57% Neo orthodox   43% Reformed Evangelical   39% Roman Catholic   39% Fundamentalist   0% What’s your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

But, if I change my answer on the tiebreaker, I get this:

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don’t think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this  Modern Liberal   75% Emergent/Postmodern   75% Classical Liberal   68% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan   64% Charismatic/Pentecostal   57% Neo orthodox   43% Reformed Evangelical   39% Roman Catholic   39% Fundamentalist   0% What’s your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Alan over at “A Different Perspective” has written a comment on the Intelligent Design debate. His comments seem to echo some of my own in the Intelligent Design “section” of my post on the January 16th readings for the Bible in a Year Blog.
Alan was the author who’s work I co-opted in my rant on the goings-on between Faith Harbour and SBTC. I’ve never met him, but he certainly seems to be a thoughtful, intelligent person. I’d recommend giving his site the once-over.

Oh, and Alan, if you read this. You might be interested to know that my wife uses the same theme as you on her blog, though she did change the picture.

OYB for today

Genesis 48:1-49:33

I guess I really don’t have a lot to say about this, except that, for the most part, Jacob’s “blessings” sound more like curses to me! Judah, Joseph, and Gad make out pretty well. Zebulun and Naphtali get mentioned almost in passing, and the rest come off pretty bad. Well, I’m not sure about Benjamin. So is Jacob causing these things to be through his “blessings,” or is he being prophetic in describing what will be, whether he blesses or not? Or somewhere in the middle? This whole passage confused me.

I did find it somewhat interesting, though, that Jacob wanted to bless the younger of Joseph’s sons over the older. Something which Joseph wasn’t too keen on. Given that Joseph is the one that’s been the most prophetic throughout these chapters, I think the fact that Jacob’s vision for the future overrules his. Even Joseph, who has seemed almost superhuman is in patience and faithfulness, still doesn’t have all the answers.

Matthew 15:29-16:12

Jesus is critical of the Pharasees for not being able to read the signs of the times all around them. It’s seems significant to me that Jesus chose as his example two weather signs that you need to look up to read. The Pharasees, with their focus on rules and the law, are always focused down.

Once Jesus and the disciples have gone off by themselves, they realize that nobody brought any bread. I can just imagine them. “I thought you had it … No, it was your turn to get the bread … No way. I got it last time … ” Then Jesus warns them to beware the yeast of the Pharasees, and they’re sure they’ve been “caught.”

I find it interesting that Jesus talks about the dangers of the yeast of the pharasees when, just a few verses earlier, he had described the kingdom of heaven as being like yeast!

To extend the comparison I was making the other day: yeast makes up a relatively small percentage of bread, but it’s impact is significant. I’m not a baker, so I don’t know what “bad” yeast would do. I know that good yeast give the bread structure. I imagine that bad yeast would just leave the bread flat and lifeless. So I interpret that to mean that we’re to watch for teaching that gives life, and not teaching that binds with a legal code.

The reading for today at the One Year Bible Blog includes Matthew 15:1-28. He calls the church leaders “onto the carpet” so to speak for so burying the word of God in rules and regulations that it’s virtually unrecognisable. To me, it’s very clear that he’s saying that what you do is not nearly as important as why you do it. He’s not giving free license, of course, but …

¹⁸ But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. ¹⁹ For out of the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. ²⁰ These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile. (NRSV)

I think it further instructive that he complains about the Pharasees encourage people not to honor their mother and father, if it builds up the temple coffers. Yet he also, at another point, tells people to leave mother and father, take up their cross, and follow him. (At least, I think that’s how it reads. That general idea, anyway) So, in essence, he’s encouraging the very thing he charges the Pharasees with! I think this further supports the idea that the intent, much more so than any individual act, is what defines sinfulness.

I found this article in my monitoring of posts related to emerging church. However, I think a lot of what’s being said could easliy be applied to the current debate over what’s going on right now regarding Eklektos, the Harbour, and SBTC. (Sorry to those of you who read this who aren’t local to me, and have no idea what this is about)
From the article:

First and foremost, you need to understand that we do not define the emerging church based on theology. This may seem odd, but we who will admit to being part of the emerging church do not feel the need to shy away from the movement when one person makes a theological statement we completely disagree with. Some critics have called us evasive because of this, but I believe the emerging church is not evasive as much as it is held together by things other than theology.

The most common thread is a belief that the current structure of church is broken. For some, that means making changes to the current church structure. For others, like myself, the desire to see new structures for the local church come forth drives us into action and participation in the emerging church movement.

My guess is that, theologically, the author of this post would be a lot closer to the members of the SBTC, and Randy, than they would be to me. I definitely fall under that dread category of “liberal.” But I also think that he’d be interested in frank, but respectful, debate on the issue. Something that, with a few exceptions, has been sorely lacking up till now.
Randy and I disagree on quite a bit from a theological perspective. But I have a great deal of respect for him, as I think he does for me. He’s willing to challenge me, and be challenged by me, without resorting to name calling and shunning.

Following a rather convoluted chain of links, I happend upon a post from Friday by Bob Carlton at The Corner, referring to an article in the New York Times by Charles Marsh entitled “Wayward Christian Soldiers.” The key sentence here for me, at least as it relates to our recent conflict here in Baytown surrounding Faith Harbour, Eklektos, and SBTC, is this:

The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness.

Now, I don’t claim to belong to the same evangelical “camp” as Mr. Marsh, so it may not be appropriate for me to be bringing this up. But I personally find it refreshing to find a self-avowed conservative expressing this sort of opinion. With a very few exceptions, most of the conservatives that I’ve known are so convinced of their own “inside track” to God’s Truth that they’re closed off to any other position.

There’s nothing wrong with believing, to the core of your being, that your convictions are right. In fact, that’s pretty much the definition of a conviction. But I think it the hight of hubris to be absolutely closed to the idea that those convictions might need to be altered at some point in time. I may be biased by the fact that this is my wife speaking, but I think that both sides of this debate could use a healthy dose of the humility and vulnerability shown by her post.