Self-Serving Interpretations

Tags

Christianists, David Barton, Enlightenment, fundamentalism, John Locke, Matthew, minimum wage, religious right, Rousseau, Vineyard owner

I haven’t posted much here lately of a religious nature. And I usually describe this blog as part political commentary and part religious commentary.

Yet, I’ve been sensitive (probably too much so) to the fact that a good many of my readers are either agnostics or atheists and have little or no interest in things spiritual.

But, of late, I’ve been thinking hard about David Barton and his awful pretense of “historical” revising. We all know of course, his proclivity to proclaim that America was “founded on Christian principles.” While we agree that most of the Founding Fathers were Christian in some form or another, it is equally clear that the dangers of a religious-political union were well-known from history and there was a deliberate determination to not allow that unholy alliance to be the government of the new nation.

Barton, who has a BA from Oral Roberts University (which tells you a lot in and of itself) in religious education, has the temerity to hold himself out as “expert on historical and constitutional issues.” What he actually does, is cherry pick statements from historical documents and the bible and create a web of arguments that favor his view–that America is meant to be a nation ruled by Christian principles (supposedly as defined by him and others who agree with his fundamentalist notions).

Ironically, the Founding Fathers were steeped in exactly the opposite philosophy. The long history of the Roman Church and its marriage with the kings of Europe served an object lesson in how not to govern. Moreover, the FF were men of the Enlightenment, and any high school student in the US knows that they were deeply influenced by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, both Enlightenment thinkers, who posited that man was more than capable of learning the secrets of nature and governing himself. One’s personal belief in a deity, was just that, personal.

One of the dangers of people like Barton is that they use their “talents” to create a history that favors their agenda and that of the party they affiliate with. In this case, Barton provides the “philosophical” underpinnings to the Republican notions of free market economies unfettered from regulation of any kind. In other words, toss out all the anti-trust, anti-child labor, minimum wage, safe working conditions legislation. This is God’s will.

Of particular interest to me as of late is the continuing claim that “Jesus opposed the minimum wage.” Setting aside for a moment the obvious idiocy of this, since there is no reference to “minimum wage” in the bible, let us examine the crux of the argument.

Most often cited in this discussion is Matthew 20: 1-16. In this parable, a wealthy vineyard owner seeks day workers for his fields. In the morning he finds some and agrees to a wage, and sends them out. At noon, some more are found, and they too are sent to the fields. Late in the work day, a few more are found and sent for a hour’s work.

As the men line up for payment, those who worked a full day are chagrined to see that the owner is paying those who worked only an hour the same wage as those who worked a full day. They complain. The vineyard owner points out that they agreed to their wage before they began working. What is it to them how he deals with others? And here is the phrase that the Christianists hang their hat on:

“Have I no right to do what I like with my own?”

To the so-called Christian who wants to protect his/her own wallet, more lovely words were never spoken. Why God says that a business owner has the right to do with his money as he wishes! The government has no right to order them to pay people any set sum of money!

Such greedy and selfish people virtually ignore the obvious point Jesus makes, and see nothing but that one sentence; that along with various verses strewn throughout the psalms and scriptures which talk about not placing undue emphasis on wealth. (Except the wealthy I guess did place a lot of emphasis on money in order to become so.)

This is then married to the “Jesus never said that Rome should care for the poor” and “it’s the job of charitable works to take care of the poor” (the poor being those people we conclude are deserving). There you have it. A perfectly constructed argument that allows “Christians” to keep their money in their pockets and the government out of social safety-nets. (An amazingly high percentage of these fools do take their Social Security and Medicare when they reach retirement. Shocking isn’t it?)

Actually the clear import of the parable is this: The vineowner was a good man. He recognized that all those who worked for him that day had to eat and probably had families they had to feed. He had no idea what may have prevented the later arrivals from getting to the town square earlier. Who knows how far they traveled to seek work?

He provided a decent wage to all who worked because they had themselves and their families to support. He recognized the need to make sure that all were cared for. If you struck an agreed-upon bargain, what was it to you if the owner struck more favorable bargains with others? The implication is, that the long-day workers were the greedy ones! They wanted more if the owner was paying the latest workers a “living” wage.

This is the kind of thing that fundamentalists do with scripture, twisting and dishonoring it in order to serve their personal desires. And of course, in doing so, they dishonor God, the Bible, and other Christians.

And sad to say, Barton continues to be the darling of the likes of Bachmann, Huckabee and Gingrich and others who play to the fears and greed of the “religious right.” 

Related articles

• Liars for Jesus: Exposing David Barton and Other Revisionists (atheistrev.com)
• GOP’s Favorite Fake Historian Spins The New York Times (alternet.org)
• Lying: A Virtue (aafwaterloo.wordpress.com)
• David Barton Claims Founding Fathers Debated Creation/Evolution (jonathanturley.org)

Room For All in Lent

Tags

God, Inspirational, Jesus, Lent, religion

Image via Wikipedia

Today begins the annual time of penance and preparation for the glory of Easter. Yet, even our atheistic friends can benefit from the challenges posed by the season of Lent.

As children, we all probably recall friends who observed the time. One heard, “what are you giving up for Lent?” I recall many a friend of mine in childhood who blanched suddenly, eyes growing big as saucers. “What’s wrong?” we would ask. And there would be a mumbled “I gave up french fries for Lent” as the offending food slid down the throat unwillingly.

While we still do “give up” things, some of them even food items, we also “give up” old ways that have proven untenable, harmful, or hurtful. We often “add” practices that are designed to bring us in a  more constant “present moment” with the divine.

It is a poor Christian who arrives at Lent, and then decides what practices will be adhered to during the 40 days. It requires a certain amount of thought and prayer. We spend the time in the last weeks and days before Lent in preparing. We contemplate, we uncover, we decide what needs fixing, where we have failed, how we can correct wrongs done.

But even if we give no thought until today, we can still do this. I don’t think God is concerned if we only get in 39 days or 38. It’s the sincerity that counts.

For those who are not in faith, why, Lent provides that same incentive to better ourselves, to end bad habits, to acquire new ones. Indeed it’s ever so much better than New Year’s resolutions. They mostly fail, because the great maw of “forever” brings us to a halt almost before we begin. Observing Lent only requires a commitment to stick with it for 40 days, (more actually since weekends aren’t counted), and that is doable.

Who among us is perfect? Who can’t stand a bit of tweaking around the edges? Who doesn’t want to repair a broken friendship or family relationship? Who doesn’t want to start a new creative endeavor, read more, or engage in more hands-on volunteer work? Now’s the time to make that commitment to stick with it for a few weeks.

Time for a new habit to become a tried and true one. Time to evaluate and institute a change here or there. Time to uncover something more deeply seeded in one’s psyche.

For the faithful, Lent is a time to mourn our failings and offer small penances to God (really to ourselves), attaching consequences to our wrongs. It is our opportunity to grow close to our Lord in his suffering as He chose to show his followers the depths of his belief in the path that  he shows us is  true communion with our Creator. It is our time to work at our sainthood, distant and unlikely as it may well be.

It is odd that we remember the old question: “What are you giving up for Lent?” for in Matthew, Jesus told his disciples the exact opposite. Don’t let the left hand know what the right is doing. Don’t pray in public, nor lament over your fasting. Don’t make a public display of your “righteousness”. (Matt 6: 1-6)

There is no righteousness in shouting to the world all you are doing in Lent. If you are sincere, then keeping those things between you and God are all that is necessary. If your chosen practices are truly meant to improve you, then, no one need be aware.

Take a moment and think whether you might benefit from some changing act or practice during the next few weeks, safely aware that it need not last forever, but just might, if you don’t impose a forever commitment. You might be surprised at the wonders that come your way.

Blessings my dear friends.

 

Related Articles

• How the Season of Lent Can Motivate You (fitsugar.com)
• What is Lent?. (greatriversofhope.wordpress.com)
• Living Lent: a season of life (johnpmcginty.wordpress.com)
• This Lent, clear the debris and go to confession (archden.org)
• Lent 2011! (culturalawakening.wordpress.com)

Fa La La La La and All that Stuff

Tags

chimpanzees, culture, evolution, Jesus, Mad Men, Matthew, Nativity, Poetry, weird hobbies

Last night was the longest night of the year, the shortest day. We had an eclipse that I didn’t see because of cloud cover. It’s only four days until Christmas. The Baby Jesus is coming! Since I’ve got all I need for a cozy holiday, I don’t give a flying fig newton if it snows us in.

For all these reasons, I’m not gonna talk about any of the repulsive, idiotic, evil, buffoons in Congress and elsewhere, until after December 25. We are gonna focus on funny, sweet, interesting, mind-opening, items that enrich, enliven, and empower. Promise.

But come, December 26, well we will be our old snarky self. Count on it.

Now to actually find some nice news.

I know I posted a book review yesterday. You’ll probably want to pick this one up too: It’s called Swallow and would make a great coffee table book, guaranteed to start a lively conversation.

Proving that there is a hobby out there for everyone, one Dr. Chevalier Jackson, began collecting items that he had removed from the bodies of his patients. Umbrella tips, opera glasses and padlocks. There are stories galore of people with strange desires to ingest all manner of bizarre “things.” Mary Cappello tells the tale I am told, with wit and aplomb. Take a look if you can swallow that kind of thing :O

***

Every parent knows that children, both boys and girls, attempt to emulate their parents and parent themselves. They use pets, and dolls mostly.

Well it turns out that chimp youngsters, especially girl chimps try to do the same. They carry sticks around, cradling them, and other wise mimicking the “mothering” behaviors of their moms. Although in chimp society, females do most of the child care activities, even a boy or two has been seen caring for his stick. (Don’t you dare go there!)

Which just goes to show, that girl apes are really just chimps off the same block. :O

***

Namelessneed is one of those real poets. You know what I mean. The kind of stuff I can’t write, but wish I could. You should always pay attention to such people because they touch you in the most unexpected ways. Go read W O R D M A T H S because I said so.

***

Some families read Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus, as a Christmas Eve ritual. They mostly don’t read the opening part, with  all that genealogy stuff. Boring you know. Tim, at Straight-Friendly, shows us why we should read it, and what lessons we can learn from it. If you don’t read Tim regularly, you’re, well, missing more than you know.

***

Do you miss Mad Men?  I do. Awfully bad. Really. Big Think has an article on it and why it’s still the best of the best.The message speaks volumes to our lives today. I wouldn’t argue with that assessment. Funny I should, since I have about as low an opinion as one can get of Ad men. I mean they are creatures of some other planet. I guess, their excesses, portrayed so elegantly on the show, are a lesson to us, one we should look at seriously.

What is my bitch with Madison Avenue you ask?   It’s that  their ads never bespeak a world that is actually real. Case in point.

There are, at this time of years, innumerable ads urging us to go out and buy cars as gifts! wrapping them up in big bows and surprising our beloved with their favorite brand. Except, that 99.9 percentages of us cannot afford to do this. Do they really thing the .01 percent who can watch television? Somehow, I rather doubt. it.

***

What’s on the stove: t-bones with baked potatoes/sour cream and cauliflower with cheddar cheese.

Is Anyone the Wiser?

Tags

bible, Corinthians, God, Jesus, Matthew, parables, Paul, Talents, truth, wisdom

I’m often befuddled by why the certain scriptures are joined together in the daily and Sunday readings. I often do not see the fit.

Today, for better or worse, I do. Beware: I know not what this may mean. Either I’ve been enlightened, or what passes next will be worthless.

In the first reading, Paul speaks to the Corinthians: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; . . .” 1Cor.1:27.

There are many other instances where Paul, the psalmists, and others enjoin us to set aside our worldly wisdom and pride and listen to the Lord. Jesus himself did as well.

Now the fundogelicals (coined by Grumpy Lion), would have us believe that higher education and all that “fancy” learnin’ is being condemned here, and God is really telling us that the common average person need only read the actual words of his book, and receive the perfect truth unto all things.

But I don’t think that is what Paul or any of the others is really saying. And I believe the attached Gospel reading informs us as to the true meaning.

In Matthew 25: 14-30, Jesus tells the parable of the Talents. In the story, the Master, going on a trip, parcels out his wealth among his servants to care for. He gives no instructions, but gives the largest amount to the most competent, giving only one talent to the third, and apparently, least competent of his servants.

The first two servants take the Talents given them and invest them, by trading. The third, fearful of losing the Master’s money buries his Talent for safekeeping. We don’t know what kind of speculation and risk the first two ran, only that they were successful in doubling what had been given them. But the risk appears to have been certain.

The Master receives his servants and is pleased with the first two, and outraged at the third who exclaims that knowing the Master to be harsh and one who by apparent quick wits is able to make money without any work, has thus hid his one  Talent without risking anything.

I have often been puzzled by this parable. Certainly I see that Jesus is saying that God is sending out servants to do the work of conversion and bringing the people to God. The third, fearful of God’s wrath, doesn’t “preach” to anyone, but only remains “secure” in his own salvation. This I get.

But the story seems not the way of the world, not how we would expect the Master to respond. Why does he congratulate those who took his money and risked losing it, and condemn the one who protected his funds?

This is what Paul is referring to. Jesus upsets our standard thinking. The way of the wise, in the world, would praise the third servant for protecting the assets of his Master. But God wants us to risk ourselves because only in doing so do we really gain our salvation. It is by risking ourselves for the sake of others that pleases God.

We are taught that the lessons of God are not the lessons of the world, and are framed in ways that jar and upset us. They make us think!

This is no denigration of learning or conventional wisdom. God has no desire that we remain in caves living simple hunter-gatherer lives. He gave us marvelous minds and he wishes us to use them. We are to discover electricity, the uses of the atom, the live-saving properties of plants. We are to learn the methodology of how live evolved upon this planet.

All this is good and proper. All this can enrich life and make it better for all.

But, only if, IF we remember that God’s wisdom is quite another thing. God has no need of wisdom about thermodynamics or string theory. He knows the ways of His universe all too well. His wisdom is “other” and is at odds with our world of logic and induction and deduction.

This is why Jesus’ parables are always difficult. They cut across the grain of our sensibilities and alert us that important stuff is about to come. We cannot dismiss the seeming illogic of the parable of the talents because it was told by our Lord, and thus we must ponder and think it out, and realize the hidden truth.

The truth is not made obvious, because superficial acknowledgement is not true faith. Faith requires time and attention. If we seriously love, we seriously spend time thinking about God and what he would have us do.

If we seriously love God, then we seriously love each other, and we seriously do our important brainy things with the good of all in mind. We turn our considerable mind talents to increase the betterment of life for all God’s creatures, the good, the bad, the gifted, the simple, the eager, the lazy, the old and the young. For great and small, we prepare and risk ourselves in doing our best to express our love through our works.

And thus, we are able to proclaim as Paul does “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

In the Hands of an Angry God?

Tags

angry God, born again, cleansing fo the temple, compassion, fundamentalism, Jesus, judgment, love, personal salvation, social issues

Yesterday I was reading blogs, and came across a gem from Christian at Sharp Iron. His post is entitled, Mel Gibson in the Hands of an Angry God. Some of the insights Christian offers were profound and helpful in my ever ongoing quest to understand the mind and motivation of the fundamentalist.

I’ll be summarizing some of his points and expanding upon them, but please do go read his post. It is well worth your time.

Christian has that unique position of having traveled from the far right evangelical to the more moderate middle. He speaks with first hand experience of what it means to be of the “born again” genre. Born again seems to refer in the fundamentalist mind, to one who has surrendered to Christ. And that seems to mean one who has publicly admitted that they belief that Christ is savior, come to earth to die for our sins and through our faith in him, guarantees our eternal life.

Christian ponders how this coincides with who Jesus was as prophet, healer, and revisionist Jew. And he offers, I submit, an excellent rationale for how conservative Christians reconstruct Jesus to fit into their already extant worldview.

He in effect claims that they fail in the born again transformation, merely carrying their inborn anger at “the way things are” over into their new faith. God becomes the avenger of all that they dislike, and Jesus, as he puts it, will return with  wrath upon “those who have it coming.”

In this he provides I believe a big answer to why fundamentalists are the way they are.

Let me explain. First lets look at the concept of being “born again.” Although the Right Wing Christian believes born again refers to “acceptance of Jesus as personal savior” it quite clearly doesn’t mean this at all. Refer to John 3:3-8 wherein Jesus explains what it means. He says that being born again is not belief in him but being reborn (transformed) by the Spirit.

Moreover, the Greek phrase is gennatha anothen.  While it can be translated as “born again,” it is more properly translated as “born from above.” This latter is the translation of the NRSV. Indeed, the KJV (preferred text of fundamentalists) ONLY translates anothen as again in these two verses from John: 3:3 and 3:7. In every other place, the KJV translates the word in some other way.

More to the point, the purpose of being born of Spirit, is to be transformed. And this is where Christian makes his point most strongly. They are not really transformed at all.

 One of the most serious errors that fundamentalists make in their “theology” is to equate the bible as some textbook guide to PERSONAL salvation. It is not that, and never was. It is NOT what Jesus taught.

Sure, Jesus spoke TO people, but his message was not directed toward some personal piety that would guarantee  “salvation to individuals. He spoke, rather, against the prevailing cultural consensus of his time–against the Holiness codes and purity codes and that strict adherence to these was what would save Israel. Rather, he charged that one must have a heart of compassion and love, and by following that, they were imitating the Father’s love and compassion, and THAT would save Israel.

What the fundamentalist gets wrong is he “transforms his conduct from drinking, gambling, whoring, swearing, and all manner of PERSONAL inadequacies and presumed evils, and then goes to church regularly, or at least reads the bible a good deal, and declares to everyone within hearing that they too must do as he has done or they will be condemned.

God is the avenger who will punish those who are not born again, Jesus will judge and consign to Hell all slackers upon his second coming. Nowhere is there a true transformation which causes one to love one’s enemies and  that by “doing  unto the least of these” you do it to me.

War and hatred are not discarded as any fair reading of Jesus’ preaching would entail. Instead, the fundamentalist retains all his angers and hatred for others in the guise as Christian points out, of “righteous indignation” which they happily show you in the New Testament. Indeed the “Cleansing of the Temple” is found in all four gospels. It remains the singular statement of perhaps an angry Jesus.

I say perhaps because there is nothing said about anger at all in the synoptic versions. In Matt. 21:10-17, Mk. 11:11, and Lk. 19:45,  all agree, “he came into the temple and drove out the moneychangers and overturned the tables. Nothing is said about anger. Nor  does John’s version, (thought by many to be the closest to accuracy) Jn. 2: 13-17.

As Christian points out, this event could hardly have been a new thing for Jesus. He had been in the Temple many times. There was nothing new in what was going on there. He could not have been truly angry; rather, he wished to make a point, to get the events of his final days in Jerusalem underway. All texts report that the disturbance got the attention of the high priests and the scribes and Pharisees. It was this that was the final straw, and they determined that his ministry must be stopped lest it gain the upper hand. That fairly seems to have been his motivation.

This I think helps us to understand why right wing Christians maintain that war is a viable means to an end, and indeed seem to be in the forefront of promoting it to secure political ends. It explains why the death penalty finds adherents in this group.

It also I think, explains why social justice issues, fall on deaf ears, as regards them. All too often those on the margins, like those in the time of Jesus, were not good believers. Not good followers of the rules. Condemned by the Pharisees as unclean, as sinful by their conduct or failure to abide by the purity and holiness codes, they were the very folks that Jesus spent their time with. But alas, as we are all to a degree wont to do, we discard that which doesn’t fit our preconceived notions.

The fundamentalist finds fertile ground in the Hebrew Scriptures for an angry, avenging God. They relate to this God who will right all the wrongs they themselves perceive, and they then pervert and subvert the message of Jesus to conform as the returning JUDGE of all.

As Christian points out, this is not transforming, but merely recreating God and Jesus to suit one’s own proclivities. Personal salvation is the only goal, the Kingdom is only about heavenly mansions where we will get to live like the rich finally.

It explains a lot.

Amen.

Plain Meaning?

Tags

bible, ethics, Jesus, love, Matthew, violence

Today’s Gospel is Matthew 10:34-39. To those who are deeply trained in biblical scholarship and know the difficulties of interpretation, this passage brings shudders.

Shudders, because in the hands of those who believe that there is such a thing as “plain meaning” much evil can be wrought from it.

I had no desire to tackle this passage myself, but unfortunately apparently I am supposed to, since I read an article in a theological journal this morning on Christian ethics and integrity and authenticity, and, well, this passage simply makes the point so well.

So you see, I really had no choice. I’m learning that being hit over the head once is sufficient, thanks be to God!

If we are to live an ethical life, the writer argues, then consistency is called for. He claims a couple of ways of looking at it. First there is the “purity” paradigm wherein the person claims a dominate value (loving God) and subsumes all of life’s decisions to it. The other is called the integrity paradigm and reflects a coherence among all life’s capacities and needs coming to unity in a richness of existence. ¹

It is a bit technical but what I think the author gets at is the idea that we can become quite rigid under the purity paradigm. We get caught up defining what constitutes proper “love of God” by how ever we interpret that to mean, and by what means we use to determine it. Biblical literalists would obviously see it differently than a social justice progressive.

Along comes Jesus, telling us that:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

We are headed for trouble here. The literalist can easily in his “plain meaning” mode, suggest that Jesus here endorses violence to attain the ends he promotes. Certainly those demented souls who shoot doctors who perform abortions, so read the passage. Loving God means upholding their interpretation of what God wants. They must wield the sword.

But as we say again and again, context is everything here. First of all, read the entire chapter. If you do, you will see that Jesus is telling his disciples what they will encounter in spreading the message. He sends them out to do good words and to preach the message of love, hope and repentence. But he warns them that they will not always be met with friendship and welcoming.

The Word is a sword, calling forth extraordinary effort that some are unwilling to make. To these the disciples are admonished to leave those towns “shaking the dust from your sandals.” They are not told to beat unbelievers into submission or to stone them. Hardly are they told to take up sword against them.

No, Jesus, merely reminds them that the Gospel message, though one of hope and joy is also a difficult one to live by, and there are powers who will find it in opposition to their lives of greed and priviledge.

So difficult is this, that entire households will be split between those that will come unto them and those that won’t. They are not to fear, for God is with them and will protect them.

If indeed families split over his teachings, then let it be so. For love of God does comes first, or should. But indeed, remember, it is following Jesus that is the way to show that love of God. And Jesus message is always about healing, forgiveness, love, and hope. There are simply too many references to Jesus’ admonishment of violence as not the “way” to think otherwise.

When Jesus says at the end,

Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

he does not speak, in my opinion of martyrdom so much as he tells us that we only think we have life. Until we are willing to risk all for love and justice and our neighbor, we have no real life, only a shadow ephemeral life. When we are willing to set that aside, and offer our lives fully to other, then we will finally gain our real life in God.

The cross is not suffering on behalf of Jesus or God. Rather it is the willingness to actuate love in all circumstances, regardless of consequences. We find love at the center of all things. We support and congratulate love. We celebrate it in each other without reference to status, gender, orientation, or any other human thing. For God made all to his good desire.

That is the sword–the sword of radical love-that will one day be beat into a plowshare when all bend the knee of the heart and confess that God is where we each and every one of us move and have our being.

Amen.

———

Footnote

1. Schweiker, William, Consistency and Christian Ethics, The Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 90, #3, Summer 2008, pg. 567.

Mind Your Own Business!

Tags

fairness, generosity, God, Jesus, Vineyard owner

The parables in the bible are meant to cause us to pause. They are not always easy to understand or digest. I think that is especially true of the parable of the vineyard owner and the laborers.

I can imagine that a slew of folks don’t like it much. I recall, on reading the bible for the first time, the end of many a parable was not at all what I had expected. This one is no exception.

For those of you unaware of the story, a short synopsis. A vineyard owner goes out early, presumably at daybreak and finds day laborers who he sends into his fields at the going rate of pay. Throughout the day, he continues to return to the town square and find laborers and sends them out, the last at 5 pm, when the end of the work shift is apparently 6 pm.

Now an interesting thing happens. Instead of letting the men line up at will, he instructs that the latest into the fields should be lined up first, and the one’s who have worked longest should be at the back. This insures of course that those at the end of the line will witness what he does in regards to those who worked the least hours.

And since this is deliberate, the owner for unstated reasons wishes to make a point. As he pays the guys who worked one hour a full days wage, the grumbling begins. The guys who have worked eleven hours our more, expect that they will receive even more, but they don’t.

In fact the owner does what he must have wanted to do. He chastises them. He tells them. First, you got exactly what you bargained for before you started. Two, it’s my money, not yours, who are you to tell me I can’t be generous?  And three, are you just envious of what is mine?

Now I can see how this would grate on the average hourly paid working stiff. After all, that is the point isn’t it? One is paid so much an hour. It would appear grossly unfair if someone who didn’t work the same number of hours got the same wage. We can assume in this story that a days wages was based on some agreed upon number of hours, from sun up to sun down probably.

I can see a blue collar gal being pretty angry here, and not getting what Jesus is driving at. Or perhaps, getting it all too well, and not agreeing with it.

But for the average “fair is fair” kinda person, there is something to be said for the remark of the vineyard owner: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”

That is, of course, latched onto when we get to talking about taxes and government programs designed to achieve some basic equanimity in life quality for all citizens. Isn’t that the argument often used by the right? “I worked hard to get what I have, I shouldn’t have to support lazy people who want to receive it as a hand out.”

There is no little of this attitude of group dynamics going on here. We are the responsible group–we work, we pay our legitimate taxes for the military and so forth, we attend the PTA, and we raise our kids and make sure they learn to be honest people. You others–you probably don’t do any of those things because you can’t seem to accomplish the first thing–get a job.

Therefore YOU don’t pay taxes (untrue of course), don’t attend PTA meetings, and don’t teach your kids any basic code of conduct, which is why they join gangs, sell drugs, and drop out of school.

All neat and tidy.

Said folks like to think that God does the same. Meaning, He (and it’s always he) rewards the faithful and well, he tut-tuts and wags a finger at the lazy. They like to think that God is as they would describe it: FAIR.

So this story, just bothers the heck out of them, except for that one line of course. Or they twist it into a nice little ditty about how anybody can give as much as they want away in charity, and that is the rightful means by which the poor (but still lazy) should be dealt with.

What they do not do is think: Is Jesus trying to tell me that as long as anyone tries, even if they fail, they get equal treatment before God? I mean think about it. The day laborers who were still without work at 5 pm were not people who nobody chose all day. The owner returned again and again and each time send all there into his fields.

So, it must mean that perhaps a good many of these laborers had arrived late–overslept? been busy with personal pursuits? nursing hangovers? Who knows? But there is reason to believe they were not diligent in getting to the town square on time for the first call to work. So they might be termed lazy mightn’t they?

And Jesus is saying, hey, we all have limitations. We are all failing in some way. Some of us fail to have drive and motivation and skill at working. Some of us have mental disabilities, or moral failings. But even if we don’t try very hard, those who try at all have a right to be upheld and rewarded and ENCOURAGED.

Being a Class A worker doesn’t make you special. It makes you responsible to work on your own limitations and let God the vineyard owner give beneficence as he sees fit to whom he sees fit. Mind your own business! Work on removing that plank from your own eye.

Amen.