By Their Fruits

 

This blog was started as one about riding motorcycles, and now I'm beginning to add other areas of interest. This is a sermon I gave in August, 2024. It's about evaluating competing claims from various Christian apologists and leaders.

Matthew 7:15-20

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous 

wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from 

thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 

18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does 

not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

By Their Fruits

Have you ever noticed how many Christian denominations there are? I’m not talking about religions other than Christianity, just Christianity. According to the Center For the Study of Global Christianity, there are about 200 currently active in the USA, and about 45,000 worldwide.
 

And this is not a new issue. We in the western church tend to think that until 1517 that there was just the Roman Catholic church, and it was the Reformation that started the splitting, but then we remember the Orthodox Church, and it’s easy to think that the Great Schism in 1054 CE was just the first split. The thing is, from the death of Jesus until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, there were already about 50 denominations.

 

Why? Why so many? Why do they continue to divide? Why do old denominations end, and new
denominations begin?

There are many answers to those questions. Sometimes it’s down to biblical interpretation. The Bible is not a book, it’s a library comprised of many books. So many books that the various denominations cannot even agree on that. The western protestant bible contains 66 books, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic bible contains 73 books. The Orthodox bible contains 81 books. These books were written over the course of roughly 1500 years by many authors in many historical circumstances writing to many different audiences with many different needs. None of these authors were aware at the time they were writing that what they were writing would one day be included in this library with the other 65, or 72, or 80 books. None of the authors knew they were writing “The Bible”.


This is to say, the bible is not written in one voice. The various books of the bible have different points of view and areas of emphasis, and as a result the books are not always in perfect agreement. One may wish to pretend this is not the case, but a reasonably careful reading of the bible makes it clear that it is very much the case.  And that’s okay. In fact, I’m inclined to argue that it’s a good thing. We’re not all the same, and neither is the bible. But sometimes, people latch on to one point of view, or even one passage, and their focus on a narrow area can lead them into conflict with whatever is the dominant Christian doctrine in their time and place, as happened with Luther and his understanding of Romans 1:17.

This is before we even get into the topics of translation and interpretation, and as has been pointed out every translation requires interpretation. Meaning, you have to understand what a Greek or Hebrew manuscript means before it can be translated into any other language, and this is fraught. A statistic that illustrates this is that there are something like 50 different English translations! Fifty!

The result is that people read different things into the bible. People find different things that speak to them, and different things to minimize or ignore. From those different readings and understandings people then develop different doctrines. Doctrine is that stuff we say we believe, but which is not unambiguously stated in the bible. Doctrine can include many things; the trinity, the role and significance of Mary, the meaning and events of the Eucharist, child vs adult baptism, even which day of the week is correct for the sabbath.

And this, like the ambiguity often found in the bible, can be a very good thing if what it enables is different people being able to find their way to a relationship with God. We know this. We’re here in a congregation and denomination that tends to not read the bible literally, that tends to not lock down on rigid dogma, that is explicitly non-doctrinal. Many of us found our way here from denominations with rigid doctrines and bible readings that were obstacles to our relationship with God. So this diversity of denominations may be God’s way of reaching more people where they are.

Doctrine and dogma and biblical interpretation, however, are not always benign. Sometimes that doctrine
justifies making one group of God’s children less valuable than others. There are some denominations that
make women subservient to men. There are some denominations that condemn whole races or regions of the world. There are some denominations that create doctrine around sexuality, gender, and reproductive rights that favor in-groups while diminishing the personhood and autonomy of out-groups, claiming that people in those groups are beyond God’s love. Many times these denominations adhere to doctrines that deny God’s love not only for members of other religions, but for members of other denominations. There is even some doctrine that condemns to hell members of one’s own denomination. I’m looking at you, Calvin. All this while believing that the creator God who is the source of all things condemns rather than loves God’s own creatures. 

It has always been thus. There have always been religions that favor their adherents, and justify maltreatment of everyone else. Both Judaism and Christianity began as tribal religions that favored their own. Even though Paul in the letter to the Galatians emphasizes the need to move beyond Jew vs Greek, male vs female, slave vs free, yet even in the early years of the faith, there were others who wrote letters in Paul’s name that diminished women. 

The fight against tribalism has been a persistent struggle. Even today we see this in full force as some American Christians seek to present themselves as persecuted, and so make up outrages to justify their self-righteous victim-hood. Nothing godly or loving in this. It is simply an attempt to motivate adherents while trying to claim moral high ground. 

 

In the past 50 years or so that struggle has intensified. In the seventies when it became clear that some churches in the south and their associated parochial schools, known as segregation academies because admission was limited to white students, were at risk of losing their tax-free status. Facing this, religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, combining with political operatives like Paul Weyrich and Ralph Reed, sought an issue to galvanize their members and motivate political action, came up with the idea of opposing abortion since they could more easily frame it as a legitimate religious belief than they could racial segregation.
 

This began the rise of the religious right. As these leaders gained power, it served their interest to define
themselves to the American public as “the only real Christians”. They portrayed themselves as the most pure, the most committed, and the most faithful, even though substantial portions of their doctrine were very recent, such as opposition to abortion, belief in the rapture, and so on. They succeeded in convincing large broadcast and print media outlets that they were the authentic voice of Christianity. As a result, they managed to portray themselves to the public as the sole possessors of Christian truth, thus presenting themselves as the voice of Jesus. 

 

The voice of Jesus became associated with the voice of hate preachers as we mainline Protestants stood quietly by saying, “We don’t believe that”, or, “we’re Christians, but not like that”, but that doesn’t make good TV without bombast and outrage, so the media returned to the haters, be they Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and others who were more than happy to share their hateful doctrine dressed in the garb of personal piety.

What makes this even more troublesome is that they use their religious doctrine to appeal to and justify the prejudices in their adherents as a means to gain political power. Scripture explicitly warns us against such motivations. In Matthew 4:8-10, it reads:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’ ”

This is not to say that religious people should not bring their moral, and theological points of view to the public square. As an example, Dr. King’s actions were motivated by God’s love rather than by hunger for temporal power, but those who would sell their souls to a political movement so they can legally define who is within the circle of God’s love and who is not, they’re not serving God.

What serves God? What are the fruits of faith in God? Scripture gives us examples.

The prophet Micah made it clear in Micah 6:8:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God?

In the New Testament, we hear directly from Jesus when representatives from John the Baptist question him in Matthew 11:4-6:

4 Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with a skin disease are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. 6 And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”

Or later in his ministry, Jesus is questioned in the marketplace in Matthew 22:36-40, and he boils it down:

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

If you believe that God is the creator of all things, of all people, and you love God, then Jesus’ conclusion is obvious, that the way you show your love and obedience towards God is to love what God loves, and God loves everyone and everything.

Jesus expands on this late in his ministry in Matthew 25:

35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

The actions Jesus describes are acts of love, acts of inclusion, good fruits, not acts of hate, acts of exclusion, bad fruits. Paul echos this in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13:

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see only a reflection, as in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love.

Which brings us back to the 7th chapter of Matthew in which Jesus describes knowing people by their fruits. None of us can claim to fully know the mind of God. None of us can know for certain which doctrines accurately represent God. None of us can know for certain how to understand conflicting or ambiguous bible passages, so Jesus gave us something simpler; look at their fruits, their actions, and see whether those fruits reflect God’s love. While we’re doing that, we will be well served if we also look at ourselves. By the standard of the Dorothy Day quote in today’s Reflection, my own love of God has some improving to do.

Given all this, how do we get beyond simply bleating, “We’re Christians, but not like that”?

We do it with love. Love individually and love collectively. We worship the God who so loves the world, and our job is to be vessels of that love. We do it with Winter Nights. We do it through Mercy & Justice. We do it by advocating for environmental justice. We do it with our witness in support of God’s LGBTQIA children, we do it in support of refugees, we do it with backpacks, we do it in support of those whom others seek to exclude, and there is always more to do. The Kingdom of God only comes through love. The Kingdom of God only comes through changing hearts, and our best method for changing hearts is to live our Christian witness, our Christian love, loud and proud.

Amen

I Sing a Song of KLR

 

I Sing a Song of KLR

 

Disclaimer - This is not to say that KLR is a great bike, or to say it’s the best bike I’ve ever owned, 

or even that it’s the best bike I own currently.  It’s none of those things.  But, it is hilarious!

Preface - Why do you ride motorcycles?  Really?  I’ll bet that most of us have more than 

one answer to that question.  One of the big reasons I ride is that it’s fun.  It’s that simple.  

There may be other answers too, but for many of us it comes down to it being fun.  Now, 

if you subject that answer to the old “five whys” analysis, you may find that there is texture 

to that fun.  The experience of moving through space in three dimensions, in feeling a range 

of forces acting on us, the feeling of successfully getting the bike to go exactly where you want 

exactly the way you want it to.  Fun can also include finding limits.  The KLR is all about limits. 

It’s not my first rodeo.  I’ve had a KLR before, an early Gen2 (2008).  At the time, I bought it to augment the 1100 

Hypermotard I had.  I know the KLR is slow.  I know its handling is, um, interesting.  I sold that earlier one 

because I was trying to use it to commute from the East Bay to Palo Alto, and trying to keep up with traffic on 

280 was abusive, so I traded it in for my first of three (so far) Versys 650’s.  No regrets.  For use on paved roads, 

the Versys is much more capable, and yet…

This past winter I was making plans for a visit of riding buddies from the UK, and I was hoping to arrange bikes 

for them.  At the time my garage contained a Kawasaki Versys 650, a Guzzi V85TT, and a Royal Enfield INT650 

(Interceptor everywhere but the US -  thanks Honda).  Last year when friends came over, I offered the Enfield to 

one of them, but he declined, so we arranged a different bike - a bike no longer available.  I rode the V85TT, one 

of my guests rode the Versys, and we borrowed the other bike.  

This year I considered several options for used bikes, including picking up another Versys 650.  Another obvious 

consideration was a 650 V-Strom.  There were other bikes on the list (e.g., air cooled Multistrada, Buell Ulysses, 

etc.), but none of them had very different capabilities compared to my existing bikes.  This led me to consider the 

other ways I’d use the bike, and I concluded that I’d like to do some more off-road riding, but to do so on a bike 

that I’d primarily ride on paved roads.  This resulted in my thoughts drifting back to my Gen2 KLR, its broad 

capabilities, and its incredible aftermarket support.  

Back in February, I saw a great deal on a leftover 2023 at my favorite Kawasaki dealer, Fremont Kawasaki.  As 

usual, they made it as painless as possible for me to give them my money.  Seriously, other dealers could take a 

lesson.  

Getting back on the KLR was not surprising, but still a little shocking.  It’s big.  It may “only” be a 650, but it’s 

physically large, though among adventure bikes it’s no more than average.  It’s slow.  No really.  Especially during 

break-in.  During those early days it felt like Kawasaki had sourced the engine from a lawn tractor, except less 

exciting.  The handling was odd.  Not terrible, but odd.  For instance, some newer bikes with 21” front wheels 

mask the feel of the big wheel rather well (Triumph Scrambler 1200xe comes to mind).  With the KLR there’s 

never any doubt that the front is a 21”.  Turn-in is, shall we say, languorous.  

That said, the riding position is lovely.  The position is open with lots of legroom.  You’re seated fairly close to 

the steering head.  Not nearly as close as a Hypermotard, but closer than my other bikes, and I like that.  It allows 

me to weight the front wheel as I turn the bike, making it more responsive than that bike front wheel and lazy 

geometry would lead you to expect.  It’s wider between the knees than I’d like, but such is the cost of carrying 

lots of fuel.  On a purely personal note, I don’t much like the seat.  That's very personal, and others may find it to 

be to their liking.  

When I bought the KLR, I developed a shopping list from all the opinions out there on the internet.  I haven’t 

bought most of them yet, but I have picked up a few.  One of the consistent recommendations out there is a 

replacement shift lever, so I ordered one even before I’d picked up the bike.  I have yet to install it.  Despite my 

big feet (13 US), and adventure boots, I have absolutely zero problems shifting the bike with the stock lever.  I 

guess I should validate information before acting on it.  

Let’s cut to the chase.  Knowing that the KLR would be the slowest of the three, I couldn’t give it to a guest, so 

I’d be riding it.  The others would use the Versys and the V85TT, neither of which is fast, but both of which are 

substantially faster than the KLR.  These guys are no slouches.  We met and became friends 18 years ago when 

competing the Centopassi in the French and Italian Alps.  They know how to ride quickly on technically 

challenging roads.  It was going to take some effort to make the ride interesting at a pace that the KLR could 

achieve.  

How did it go?  Thirteen days, something like 3800 miles.  Big days, day after day, riding all day, everything from 

the Little Dragon in California to the Little Dragon in Oregon, from the summit of Ebbetts Pass to Hells Canyon, 

from the Great Basin to the Lost Coast, from sagebrush to redwoods, technical goat trails to super slab.  The KLR 

did it all.  

How did it do it?  Let’s talk about power.  The gen3 KLR has no tachometer, but it does have a rev limiter.  I’ve 

caned the crap out of it, but never hit the limiter because the power notably drops off before you encounter the 

limiter, letting you know that it’s time to shift up.  If you cane it, grab great big handfuls of throttle, and hold it 

against the stop until it stops pulling, it will progress with surprising alacrity.  Not fast, just not glacial.  

As for handling, I remember the words of Peter Egan in an article for Road & Track in which he described 

restoring a Model A Ford.  He described its handling as, “Not so’s you’d notice.”  Applies to the KLR too.  Come 

on, a spindly frame, cost-defective suspension, semi-knobby tires, that big old 21” up front, you’re never going to 

mistake it for a Panigale.  But, that doesn’t mean it’s not fun.  

This is the beauty of a KLR.  Not much power.  Not much handling.  Not much brakes.  You can find the limits of 

everything at fairly low speeds, which makes it easy, which makes it fun!  Ever provoke your bike into a wobble?  

Easy on the KLR.  Ever bounce yourself out of the saddle on a long-ish travel suspension bike?  The KLR checks 

that box too.  Ever make the frame flex?  The KLR is your grocery store bucking bronco.  Ever make the back 

end step out under power on dry pavement?  Toss in some washboard road, and the KLR will oblige.

The KLR’s weakest suit is in making quick overtakes, but be prepared, be in the right gear, and when the 

opportunity presents itself, it can even pick off a poorly ridden Eye-Abuser (sound it out) on a twisty road.  Of 

course, lots of times the opportunity never presents itself, and that can be frustrating, so you have no choice but 

to chill out.  Plus, in my case it may be saving me from performance awards.  

Bottom line: the KLR makes you work for it.  Lots of riders out there on lots of bikes that require very little of 

them, and maybe they’re happy that way.  They ride bikes that don’t care what gear they’re in, bikes that turn-in 

easily and accurately with little in the way of technique, that accelerate easily in any gear at any speed, that brake 

quickly even with horrible technique.  None of those things are true of the KLR.  The KLR demands your 

engagement.  It demands your active partnership in any effort to go fast.  When you push it too hard, it lets you 

know.  It gives clear feedback regarding what’s working, and especially what isn’t working.  It makes you a better 

rider, and in the process it makes you laugh out loud, and I’m all for bikes that make me laugh out loud.  

What's Holding You Back?

If you're not riding the way you'd like, what's holding you back?  It's nice when we can externalize it, and say, "These tires are almost done.  This bike has no cornering clearance.  If I only had the latest magazine and webforum fodder under me, then I'd really be something."   Nice, but often untrue.

What if it's really internal rather than external?  Easier to fix or harder?  Easier to recognize and examine, or harder?

This question has been on my mind for the past month.  It started when I was behind another rider who appeared to be fundamentally competent, but excruciatingly slow (not hyperbole).  He appeared to look through the corner, push on the inside bar, accelerate on exit, and so on, but the bike barely leaned, and was even slow on the straights.  In my head I kept asking, "What's holding him back?"

It's an interesting question, because when you ask it in front of a mirror rather than in reference to someone else, it gets more challenging to answer.  The blanket answer really comes down to beliefs.  Do my beliefs hold me back?  I'm pretty sure the beliefs of the rider in question were holding him back.  Easier to say that than it is to identify which exact beliefs are culpable, and come up with a way to change those beliefs. 

If beliefs might be holding us back, one approach I'm experimenting with is to write down my beliefs about any given situation - riding or non-riding - and my beliefs about myself and my abilities.  Armed with that list, rather than ask myself how to change a belief, I ask myself what would happen if it's not true.  What if the tires will still grip past 10 degrees of lean angle?  Okay, how about 20 degrees?  How about 40 degrees?  How would the world be different?  How would I ride?

These beliefs and their questioning need not be limited to motorcycling.  You need to apply some judgment to the questions and the way you choose to test for truth.  For instance questioning your beliefs regarding gravity, or the solid nature of the oncoming bus should probably be tested in some way that won't lead to grave bodily harm. 

With the above caveat in mind, what do you believe?  How do you know it's true?  How would you ride and live if it weren't true?  How can you (safely) test it?  Challenge yourself. 

Do You Believe in Tar Snakes?

Sung to the tune of the Lovin' Spoonful's "Do You Believe in Magic?"

Sunday I was out for a ride, and when passing over a mid-turn tar snake, the bike got a little wiggle on.  Woke me up a bit.  Then it reminded me of the famous quote attributed to Henry Ford, "Whether you believe you can, or you believe you can't - you're right."

Say what?  Everybody hates tar snakes, right?  That's what I believed until I met someone who didn't, someone who seemed completely unperturbed by the presence of tar snakes.  How could that be?  They're slippery.  They're bad when they're hot.  They're worse when they're cold and wet.  They make your bike slide, your elbows stiff, your breathing stop, and other things pucker.  How could anyone not hate tar snakes? 

This guy didn't love tar snakes, he just didn't care.  Wasn't he afraid that tar snakes would put him on the ground?  That's what I asked him.  His response was to shrug his shoulders and say, "They just make the bike wiggle a bit." Wait!  These things put my heart in my throat every time the bike steps out over them, and he says it's just a "wiggle".  Does this guy have ice water in his veins?  If not, what explains his insouciance in the face of imminent disaster?

When I pressed him, he said it was pretty straightforward.  If it's just a snake or three that he's going to be crossing when leaned over, that he gets his braking done so that he can get smoothly back on to a positive throttle, keeping his eyes up and looking for the exit, and stay loose on the bike.  That way, when the bike moves it will only step out a couple of inches, then sort itself out.  On the other hand, if he stiffened up, looked at the front wheel, slammed the throttle shut, and grabbed some brakes, there would be a little more drama. 

The key insight that unlocked it all for me was the realization that most tar snakes are only a few inches wide, and this if your tire slips off of one that its next contact point will be asphalt, and grip will be restored.  Brilliant insight, huh?  The other stuff listed above is just good motorcycle fundamentals that I know I should be doing anyway.  The breakthrough was the belief that traction would be restored in a split second.  Just a wiggle.  On the other hand, if I believed that the tar snake would put me on the ground, I might still stiffen up, close the throttle, look at the ground, and have quite a moment. 

The usual caveats apply; if there is a whole nest of tar vipers, or a large tar patch, you will quite likely have a bigger slide, or even ruin your day, so deal with that situation accordingly.  If you're just dealing with the usual confederation of disorganized tar snakes, get your braking done before tipping in, get your eyes up and toward the exit, and smoothly apply a light throttle, and your belief will pay off. When it comes to tar snakes, do you believe you can, or do you believe you can't?  Henry Ford, nailed it - either way, you're right. 

Oh, and all you dirt riders in the back of the room, you can quit snickering now. 

Stirling Moss Said It. What's It Got to Do With You?

Stirling who?  Stirling Moss, perhaps the greatest racing car driver to never win the World Driving Championship.  An immensely talented driver who was particularly good at open road races back in the 50's, like the Mille Miglia and the Targa Florio.  These races favored drivers who could read the road effectively because of the challenge of "learning" such a course.  Stirling also raced Formula One, and endurance events like LeMans.

Once, Stirling was being interviewed by a motorsports journalist who asked him why he didn't late brake the same way many of his opponents did, and he quipped, "Better to go in slow and come out fast than to go in fast and come out dead."

Think about it.  Here's a guy who's getting paid to win, and his method is to go in slow and come out fast.  So many more choices that way.  So much better opportunity to respond to the unexpected.  So much more latitude to be on the gas to stabilize the bike once you get it leaned over.

You're not getting paid to win races down your favorite mountain road.  That makes taking Stirling Moss' free advice even more affordable. 

Want a Better Brain?

A couple of years back, my friend "Budman" Kobza told me about a study that indicated that riding motorcycles is good for your brain.  Who knew?  All about dealing with novelty, and solving problems, and predicting the future, and honing skills.  How cool is that?

Okay, so novelty, and solving new problems is good for your brain, right?  So, will you get that novelty and problem solving experience if you always ride the same roads?  What about if you ride new roads?  In new places?  What about if you ride new roads, in new paces, and on the wrong side of the road?  You'd be a genius, right? 

Welcome to riding in the UK (or Japan, or New Zealand, or Australia, or...).  Last month, we were in the UK for a bit of riding with friends, and a bit of race watching.  Learning to always keep yourself on the appropriate side of the road, even when you are dealing with junctions, driveways, roundabouts (not that hard, really), or meeting an oncoming vehicle coming around a blind turn on a very narrow road (can be quite hard, really) is a great way to exercise your brain.  Always having to hold part of your attention to one side to assure that "reflexes" don't take over and put you in exactly the wrong place.  It's a good mental workout.  Screw Luminosity!  This is REAL fun! 

Okay, so you can't hop across the pond to ride on the other side of the road, what should you do to stay sharp?  (Cue the broken record)  Yep, ride new roads.  Dig out your Benchmark Atlas, or your Thomas Brothers map, and look at little roads a couple of counties away.  Stuff running over ridge tops, or down in creek drainages will work.  Places you haven't seen before.  Roads where you don't know what's around the next corner.  Towns with cafes whose pie you haven't sampled.  You know, for science. 

And if by chance you do find yourself in the UK with a motorcycle, find the smallest roads you can see, and go play.  Not A roads.  Not even B roads.  Look for the ones that aren't even classified.  The local roads out to villages with 8 houses and 2 pubs.  That's where you want to be going.  After all, it's for your brain. 

Smooth Throttle - A Little Trick to Make it Easier

Smoothness, the act of riding smoothly is a topic for a whole host of potential blog posts, maybe even a blog of its own.  Instead of trying to address all that stuff that contributes to riding smoothly, here's a little tip to make it easier to be smooth on the throttle.

Ready for it?  Cover the front brake.  Come again?  Yep, by putting a finger or two of your throttle hand over the front brake lever you provide yourself a kinesthetic reference point that you can then move the throttle in reference to.  By looping a finger or two around there, you make it possible to consistently move the throttle in tiny increments, ever so important when:

• You're in a low traction situation, and you need to manage the throttle carefully
• You've got one of those new-fangled fuel injected bikes that lurches when opening up from a closed throttle
• You're deep into a turn and on the edge of the tire, and you need to feed throttle in smoothly
• You're riding one of those terrible, bumpy goat roads I'm always raving on about, and every time you hit a bump the throttle moves and the motorcycle lurches

Yep, I know that the MSF teaches its students to not cover the front brake, and I understand their pedagogical purpose in taking that out of the mix while on the range with rank beginners.  Are you a rank beginner?  I didn't think so.  Doesn't apply to you.

You're a big kid now.  Try it out if you aren't doing so already, and see how smoothly you can manipulate the throttle.  Keep it up and the next thing you know you'll be able to blip the throttle on a downshift while smoothly braking, astounding your friends and neighbors without the benefit of a slipper clutch.  How cool would that be?