Text: Matthew 21:23-32
Lectionary Year A, Proper 21
If a three-legged stool is more stable, why do most chairs (and tables) have four legs?
Mathematically, a three-legged stool will always sit on a plane and not wobble. No matter how uneven or sloped, the legs will find contact points at the bottom. A four-legged stool or chair, if the legs are perfectly even, can only be without wobbles if the plane it rests on is also perfectly even. A chair with uneven legs will always wobble, unless the surface that it sits on is uneven to match the unevenness in the legs.
But more stable sitting on a plane doesn’t mean more stable when weight is applied unevenly to the surface of the stool or chair. A three-legged stool is more likely to tip over if the weight at the top deviates too far from the center. A four-legged chair is better able to accommodate a non-centered weight on its top surface. And by extrapolation, the more legs, the better it can remain stable with shifting weight, but for practical reasons, four is sufficient.
By the way, a triangle table with three legs can be just as stable as a four-legged, rectangular table. It’s the shape of the top surface in relation to the number of legs that is important.
[https://jborden.com/2017/07/20/a-real-world-example-of-math-concepts-at-work/]
That concludes this morning’s spatial geometry lesson. Now on to some 18th century theology, specifically the Methodists.
John Wesley developed a framework for doing theology. It has come to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (here’s the connection with the math lesson). The Quadrilateral consists of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.
Scripture is, obviously, the Christian Bible. Wesley saw Scripture as the primary means of determining Christian faith and doctrine.
Tradition includes church teachings and practices through the centuries, but it also includes beliefs and practices of the contemporary church, groups of Christians, and family units. It includes not just one’s own culture and society, but tradition as handed down and practiced globally.
As for Reason, Wesley questioned why God would give humans the ability to reason if they were to simply take Scripture without any additional thinking on it. Logic and disagreements are essential to developing better theology.
For Wesley, Experience was seen as a validator of genuine belief and practices. Experience brings to real life the beliefs appropriated through the other three “legs.”
[https://www.umc.org/en/content/glossary-wesleyan-quadrilateral-the and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral]
All four legs are vital and play a part in the development and practice of Christian theology. Going back to the geometry illustration earlier, too much reliance on one will cause the thing sitting on it tumble. A four-legged chair can accommodate some unevenness, but not extremes.
Although Wesley himself placed Scripture as the top and experience as more a validator of existing beliefs, he had some different thoughts when it came to his screed against slavery, Thoughts Upon Slavery.
He ignores Tradition, which was completely on the side of slavery.
He appeals little to Scripture, which again, is more easily used to defend slavery.
Instead he relies on Reason and Experience, which now includes the reality of slavery and the treatment of slaves, and his own reaction to it, as primary reasons to argue that Christians must be against slavery.
In other words, when Scripture and Tradition appeared in conflict with Reason and Experience, Wesley changed his mind. It should be noted also, that early in life, Wesley argued for the legitimacy of slavery based on Scripture. So Wesley does a complete 180 reversal of his former position based primarily on Experience.
In the 19th century, American Christians grappled with the issue of slavery and both sides argued from Scripture. The plain reading of and the weight of evidence in Scripture is that it supports slavery. The Abolitionists had to turn to creative imagining and re-interpretations of scripture in order to infer that the trajectory of scripture was against slavery.
In more recent times, the role and authority of women in the church has been, and is still being, argued. All sides claim scripture on their side. All sides can point to various historical examples supporting their position.
And all sides use reason and experience to argue their positions.
Whether someone is familiar with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral or not, it is descriptive of how theology is practically accomplished by Christians. Some may say they use only one, or perhaps two, and state that the others are suspect, but the reality is that all four always play a part in practical theology.
The central themes of this morning’s gospel text are authority and repentance. From where or from whom does authority originate? And what separates those who are a part of the kingdom vs. those who are not is repentance.
The gospel text takes place immediately after the prior day’s Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple. After the commercial businesses in the temple court are driven out, Jesus allows himself, in that place, to be surrounded by children and all manner of people wanting healing from Jesus. The next morning Jesus while making his way back to the temple, he sees a fig tree, is hungry, doesn’t see any figs, so he curses the tree and it dies.
All these have gotten the attention of the temple authorities, the chief priests and the elders of the people, who, when they find Jesus back at the temple, question him in regards to where he received authority to do what he has been doing. They certainly have not given him authority, so if not them, who?
Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own, a completely acceptable form of continuing the debate. Jesus’ question centers on the authority of John the Baptist to baptize. We modern Christians think of baptism as purely a religious ritual, but at the time of Matthew’s writing, baptism was a ceremonial cleansing that not only Jews practiced, but was found all over the ancient world. It was not merely religious. It signified the removal of uncleanliness and a return to ritual purity which included a return to full social and political inclusion in the community.
The temple authorities, specifically the priests, based on tradition, held the power to confer purity onto another. (C.f., Luke 17:14.) The ritual could involve sacrifices and other offerings, placing ritual purity and full inclusion in community out of reach for many people.
John’s actions to offer baptism and entry into a new society with associated full inclusion was a direct challenge to the religious, social, and political authority of the priests. The only requirement was repentance. Many came to John to be initiated into this new society and social order. The priests and elders came too, but John called them out for their mere profession. John demanded that they show actual fruit of repentance and not merely rely on their tradition, their ancestry to Abraham.
Matthew does not explicitly offer what this fruit might look like, but Luke’s parallel account shows that the fruit is what Jesus would describe in the Sermon on the Mount, his manifesto for the kingdom of heaven, the new society. The motifs found in the final paragraphs of the Sermon (starting about 7:15) are echoed in today’s gospel reading.
In Matthew’s gospel account, both John and Jesus proclaim the same message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17.) What John has started, Jesus completes. Repentance is the way into the kingdom. Jesus welcomes the children, the sick, the tax collectors, and the prostitutes to be a part of his social circle, the beginning of a new kingdom. While Jesus drives out the powerful and privileged from the temple courts, he welcomes these others into his presence. Just as John the Baptist infuriated the authorities, Jesus’ actions does the same.
Jesus goes on to tell the priests and elders a very short parable, which at first glance doesn’t seem to have much to do with the current debate.
A father, two sons, and a vineyard. These are common Jewish motifs. Key here is that the vineyard represents Israel. The father commands both his sons to go tend the vineyard. The first says no, but changes his mind and does what was commanded. The second son respectfully addresses his father and says that he will go; but he does not.
To the Middle Eastern audience, the expected questions would have been, “Which of these sons showed the father honor?” But that is not the question Jesus asked. Instead he asked, “Which of these did the will of the father?” The second son, who was respectful, showed honor. The first son did the will of the father. In an honor-shame society, honor, especially public honor, is often more important than actual actions.
At this point, the audience might be slightly confused. Where is Jesus going with this? Jesus doesn’t mince words in his explanation and condemnation. Addressing them (the priests and elders) he bluntly states that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God ahead of them because they believed John and did what he commanded – and by inference and extension, believing Jesus and doing what Jesus commands – but they did not and to this point have neither believed Jesus yet.
The first son realized his position and words were wrong, changed his mind – repented – and did the work that his father commanded. The tax collectors and prostitutes realized what they had been doing was wrong, changed their minds – repented – and began to live out the principles of the new society.
The chief priests and the elders, even though they could see the lives changed, they could not accept that John’s and Jesus’ teachings were more in line with God’s will than what they wanted to believe from their traditions and interpretations of scripture.
Jesus took the scriptures seriously. But that also meant hugely creative re-imaginings and re-interpretations that often went against accepted tradition. The apostles and the early church too, had to re-imagine and re-interpret scripture numerous times to expand the vision of inclusion and egalitarianism taught and demonstrated by Jesus.
John Wesley had to change his mind – repent – about what he thought scripture and tradition taught about slavery.
Practical theology needs scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. As new challenges face the church, as the metaphorical terrain changes, the legs will need to be adjusted and readjusted. Sometimes the emphasis might be on one or two legs. It doesn’t mean the other are ignored, but it might mean re-evaluating what has always been accepted. It might mean upsetting the status quo. Minds might need to be changed. Repentance may be necessary.
Our mission is to keep the gospel, the kingdom manifesto, the principles of the Sermon on the Mount moving ever forward to more and more people in the world. The terrain is always changing and it is almost never even. How shall we balance the use of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to offer a steady kingdom to an unsteady world? Are we open to changing our minds – repentance – even of long-held traditions and beliefs if they are found to be insufficient or even wrong?
Are our minds willing to be changed, to repent, for the sake of the gospel?
