Introspection: Lines in the Sand

I share these thoughts hoping they are of help to someone else.

Comments are always welcomed.

If you find these thoughts helpful, please share.

Lines in the Sand

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

We reject the either or

They can't define us anymore

'Cause if it's us or them

It's us for them

From "Us for Them" by Gungor

When Jesus enters Jerusalem, tensions escalate between Him and the religious leaders.  First, He throws the whole city into an uproar when He rides into town on a donkey.  Next, He barges into the temple and turns over the tables of the merchants and money changers, proclaiming that the temple, which was meant to be "a house of prayer," has become instead "a den of robbers."  After that, He levels some extremely harsh criticisms against the religious leaders in the form of parables.¹

At this point, the religious leaders start striking back, asking Jesus loaded questions in the hopes of getting Him into trouble.  The Pharisees, who are normally opposed to the Roman occupation, find some unlikely allies in the supporters of King Herod, Rome's puppet ruler of Galilee.²  It is said that "politics makes strange bedfellows."  People from both groups approach Jesus, feigning respect and humility, and ask Him, "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?"³

The question represents a highly contentious political issue of the day, and it was strategically chosen to force Jesus into a dilemma.  Answering either in the affirmative or in the negative will cost Him greatly.  If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, He will lose the faith of those who hate the Roman occupation and look to Him as their liberator.  On the other hand, if Jesus says that it is not lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, He will be arrested as an enemy of the Empire.⁴

Basically, the Pharisees and the Herodians draw a line in the sand and try to force Jesus to pick a side.  The two groups are not unlike modern-day Christians who draw lines in the sand and then vehemently try to convince themselves and others that Christ is on their side and that to disagree with them is to set oneself up as an enemy of Christ Himself.

Jesus understands what the Pharisees and Herodians are trying to do, and He refuses to play their treacherous game.  He borrows a coin that would be used to pay the tax, holds it up, and asks, "Whose head is this, and whose title?"  Someone replies, "The emperor's."  Jesus then says, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's."  Jesus doesn't give his critics an answer they can use against Him but instead gives them an answer that leaves them scratching their heads.⁵

Six years ago, I delivered a sermon about this very story at my home church.  I noted that people have a propensity to draw lines in the sand and divide themselves into diametrically opposed groups based on things like political leanings, religion, skin color, and economic status.  Christians with such divisive inclinations love to claim that God is on their side.  The truth, I proclaimed, is that God is bigger than any of the things we use to divide ourselves.  Christ calls us out of our us-versus-them mentality, uniting us around a greater purpose, as evidenced by the fact that He called one disciple who violently opposed the Roman Empire and another disciple who was employed by the Roman Empire.

My sermon focused especially on political divisions between Christians.  I must admit that, at that time, I was rather ambivalent, apathetic, and cynical regarding all things political.  What I really hated was how bitterly people are divided over politics.  I had never even voted at that time, and I would not have voted the following year, were it not for some unexpected nagging from friends.  I went to the voting booth, and, taking a cue from the 1985 comedy Brewster's Millions, I wrote in "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on every ballot that allowed a write-in vote.  It was, for me, a protest vote against a broken system, a vote against corruption, pandering, mudslinging, and partisanism.

My perspective has changed quite a bit since then.  During the 2016 election, I found one of the two major presidential candidates so utterly vile, repugnant, and dangerous that I was compelled to go to the voting booth on Election Day and cast my vote for the other major candidate, even though I wasn't a particularly huge fan of that person either.  I realize that, like me, a lot of people voted not for the candidate they liked but against the candidate they hated and that both candidates had qualities to hate.  Still, I've found myself questioning the rationality and even the spirituality of those who would vote for candidate who so obviously emerged from the very bowels of hell.

To put it bluntly, I've drunk the partisan Kool-Aid.  I've gotten caught up in the us-versus-them game I critiqued six years ago, and I've chosen a side.  That said, I'm not sure I could still deliver with any sense of integrity the same sermon I wrote years earlier.  I struggle to agree with what I said back in 2011 when I was still ambivalent toward politics, but I will admit that what I said back then, before I was corrupted by the 2016 election, was probably right.  Not all changes in perspective are necessarily for the better.

Last year, on the evening of Election Day, there was a service of Holy Communion at my church.  Normally, during Communion services at my church, there are two stations at which someone may receive the elements.  One station is to the left of the Communion table and the other is to the right of it.  The election night service was a bit different, as there was only one station, meaning that people on both the left and right sides of the sanctuary had to come together in the middle to partake of the one loaf and the one cup.⁶  One thing I think Holy Communion teaches us is that it is the broken body and spilled blood of our Savior that brings a broken humanity back together at one table.

Six years ago, I noticed that Jesus didn't really seem to answer His critics' question, for He did not explicitly say what rightfully belongs to the emperor.  I wondered if, by diverting attention from what belongs to the emperor to what belongs to God, Jesus is suggesting that His critics are asking the wrong question.  Perhaps he is saying that people should be less concerned with what they are expected to give to the government and more concerned with what they are called to give to God.

What I had not considered back then is that, if Jesus is indeed implying that a coin that bears the image of the emperor belongs to the emperor, then we could deduce that something that bears the image of God must belong to God.⁷  On what then do we see God's image?  At the beginning of the Bible, we read, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."⁸  If you're still not quite sure what Jesus is saying you should give to God, go and take a look in the mirror.

At a time when the divide between the political Left and the political Right is more bitter than ever, we Christians who find ourselves on either side of the aisle politically must remember that our loyalty is not to an elephant or a donkey but to a Lamb, namely Christ.  To paraphrase St. Paul, there is no longer Conservative or Liberal, and there is no longer Democrat or Republican, for all of us are one in Christ Jesus.


Notes:

1. Matthew 21:1-22:14
2. William Barclay.  The New Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Two.  2001, Saint Andrew Press.  p. 318
3. Matthew 22:15-17 (NRSV)
4. Barclay, p. 317
5. Matthew 22:18-22 (NRSV)
6. Jonathan Tompkins.  "How Can I Practice Politics and Keep the Faith?"  Travelers Rest United Methodist Church podcast, 04/03/2017.
7. Amy Piatt.  "Paying What Is Due."  First Christian Church of Portland, Oregon podcast, 10/19/2014.
8. Genesis 1:27 (NRSV)

The photographs of the denarius are used courtesy of CNG Coins under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.  The photographer is in no way affiliated with this blog.

Perspective: The Hard Work of Forgiveness

I share these thoughts hoping they are of help to someone else.

Comments are always welcomed.

If you find these thoughts helpful, please share.

The Hard Work of Forgiveness

Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, how many times should I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me?  Should I forgive as many as seven times?"

Jesus said, "Not just seven times, but rather as many as seventy-seven times."

Matthew 18:21-22 (CEB)

Oh, Father, give me grace to forgive them

'Cause I feel like the one losin'

From "Losing" by Tenth Avenue North

When one of the Disciples asked Jesus a question about forgiveness, Jesus responded with a parable.¹  One day, a king wanted to collect some debts.  One of the king's servants had racked up a debt of ten thousand talents, an amount he could never hope to repay.  The king ordered that the servant, his wife, his children, and all his property be sold as payment for the debt.  The servant then fell to his knees and begged the king for an extension.  Out of compassion for the servant, the king had a change of heart and decided to forgive the debt.

The servant then went out, found a fellow servant who owed him a mere one hundred denarii, grabbed him by the throat, and demanded repayment.  The debtor begged his creditor to be patient with him, but the servant who had just been forgiven of his own debt had him thrown into debtor's prison.

Word reached the king that the servant he had just forgiven refused to forgive his colleague of his debt.  Angered by his servant's pettiness and unwillingness to treat others as he had been treated, he decided to reverse his decision, and he had the servant tortured until he could repay everything he originally owed.

It is generally accepted that the king who forgave the servant's debt represents God and that the servant who was expected to forgive his fellow servant's debt represents each of us.  That said, the parable offers us a rather straightforward lesson.  If God has forgiven us for our wrongdoings, then who are we not to forgive others for their wrongdoings against us?  If we refuse to forgive others, we should not expect God to forgive us.

What more is there to say?

The amounts mentioned in the parable are worth noting.  Since the words denarii and talents, when used as monetary units, don't mean very much to us nowadays, it might be helpful to translate them into modern dollar amounts.

The servant was owed 100 denarii.  A denarius was the typical amount a laborer was paid for a day.  If a worker was paid the current minimum wage in the United States and worked a typical eight-hour day, he would have been paid fifty-eight dollars per day.  If the servant was owed one hundred days' wages in our day, he would have been owed $5800.00.²

The servant owed the king ten thousand talents.  A talent was the amount of money a laborer would have made in fifteen years.  If a laborer worked five days per week and fifty weeks per year for the daily wage established above, he would make $217,500 over the course of fifteen years.  If the servant owed the king ten thousand times this amount, he would have been over two billion dollars in debt!³

The amount the servant refused to forgive wasn't exactly chump change, but it was nothing compared to the ridiculous amount the amount the king forgave.  From the king's perspective, the servant's unwillingness to forgive what was owed to him probably seemed rather petty.

I wonder if maybe this parable is meant to give us a God's-eye view on the topic of forgiveness.  Any good parent would agree that a crime committed against a child is a crime committed against the parent.  Since we are all beloved children of God, a sin against any of us is also a sin against God.  That said, the number of sins committed against God is no less than the sum total of all sins committed against all human beings throughout history.  At this time, there are approximately 7.6 billion people on the planet,⁴ but the Population Reference Bureau has estimated that more than 107 billion people have walked the earth since Homo sapiens first appeared on the planet.⁵

Every one of us has suffered wrongdoings at the hands of other people, but God has uncountably many more sins to forgive than any one of us will ever have to forgive individually.  If God is indeed willing to forgive all of these sins, then any unwillingness to forgive on our part must seem petty from a divine point of view.

I've recently noticed that, whenever Jesus taught the Disciples about prayer, He would often broach the subject of forgiveness.  When He taught them how to pray, He gave them a prayer that includes the following: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."⁶  Perhaps He was teaching them to make a commitment to forgive others whenever they asked God for forgiveness, or maybe He was teaching them to pray that God would forgive them to the extent that they have forgiven others.  Jesus went on to teach the Disciples what He would later teach them in the parable, that God will only forgive the sins of those who forgive other people.⁷

On another occasion, Jesus taught the Disciples about the power of praying without doubt.⁸  He also said, "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses."⁹

God is more than willing to forgive us for all our wrongdoings, but we must also be willing to forgive others for their wrongdoings against us.  Though I speculate that our unwillingness to forgive might seem petty from a divine perspective, I would not say that forgiveness is easy from a human perspective.  I would never want to make light of the great suffering people have endured at the hands of others.  Forgiving a wrongdoing can be quite difficult if the nature of the wrongdoing is especially heinous.

I think that sometimes we confuse forgiveness with repressing our anger.  Some wounds require treatment beyond the normal healing process, and simply putting bandages on them and forgetting about them will only cause them to become infected.  Likewise, bottling up our anger will only cause us problems later on.

St. Paul writes in one of his letters, "Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil."¹⁰  Before you zero in on his instructions not to sin and not to "let the sun go down" on our anger, realize that he says that we have permission to be angry.  We must acknowledge our anger and allow ourselves to experience it so that we can work through it in healthy, constructive ways, or else our anger will fester and work itself out in us destructively.  We must work through our anger so that we can forgive, or else we will "make room for the devil," so to speak.

The hard work of forgiveness might involve seeking professional help from a therapist or a counselor.  It might mean setting boundaries between oneself and a repeat offender, for it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a person to forgive someone who refuses to stop hurting her.  The hard work might involve working to prevent oneself and others from being wronged in the same way again.

Forgiveness can be difficult, but it is necessary if we are to live the lives of love, peace, freedom, and wholeness God wants for us.  May God help us to do the hard work of forgiveness.


Notes:

1. Matthew 18:21-35
2. $7.25/hour x 8 hours/day x 100 days = $5800.00
3. $7.25/hour x 8 hours/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year x 15 years x 10,000 = $2,175,000,000.00
4. Wikipedia: "World Population" (retrieved October 2017)
5. Wesley Stephenson.  "Do the Dead Outnumber the Living?"  BBC News, 02/04/2012.
6. Matthew 6:12 (NRSV)
7. Matthew 6:14-15
8. Mark 11:20-24
9. Mark 11:25 (NRSV)
10. Ephesians 4:26-27 (NRSV)

Parable of the Wicked Servant was painted by Domenico Fetti in the early 1600s.

Perspective: Be Careful Whom You Call "Lost"

I share these thoughts hoping they are of help to someone else.

Comments are always welcomed.

If you find these thoughts helpful, please share.

Be Careful Whom You Call "Lost"

For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.

Luke 19:10 (NRSV)

Hello, it's Me

I couldn't sleep

I was just counting sheep

And I'm missing you

From "Bring You Back" by Paul Alan

If I had to choose a favorite kind of Bible passage, I would have to choose the parables of Jesus.  The parables, I believe, are not meant to teach us a singular lesson, but are rather meant to engage our imaginations with the goals of disrupting our normal ways of thinking, liberating us of our assumptions about reality, and revealing to us important truths about ourselves.  In other words, they mess with our heads.  It seems that, no matter how deeply I've dug into a parable, there are always more riches to be mined if I just keep digging.

Jesus had a reputation for associating with the types of people who were generally ostracized by the "good, upstanding religious folk" of the day - tax collectors, prostitutes, and the like.  One day, while teaching a crowd, He overhears some of His critics expressing their disapproval for His hanging out and eating with so-called "sinners," so He begins telling a series of parables.¹

First, Jesus tells a story about a shepherd who has one hundred sheep in his charge.  One day, the shepherd notices that one of the sheep is missing, so he leaves the ninety-nine where they are and heads out to look for the missing one.  When he finally finds the missing sheep, he picks it up, places it on his shoulders, and carries it back home.  Overjoyed, he calls on his friends and neighbors to join him in celebrating the recovery of the lost sheep.

Next, Jesus tells a story about a woman who has saved up ten drachmas - silver coins each of which is worth a day's wages.  One day, the woman notices that she is missing one of her coins, so she starts cleaning and searching her house.  When she finally finds her missing coin, she calls on her friends and neighbors to join her in celebrating the recovery of her lost coin.

These two parables establish a certain pattern:

1. Somebody realizes that something important to him or her is missing.
2. He or she searches for it until it is found.
3. Full of joy, the searcher celebrates because he or she has recovered what was lost.

In the first parable, a shepherd realizes that he is missing one of his sheep, so he searches for the sheep until he finds it and then invites his friends and neighbors to celebrate with him.  In the second parable, a woman realizes that she is missing a coin, so she searches her house until she finds it and then invites her friends and neighbors to celebrate with her.

Jesus then goes on to tell what is probably His most famous parable, a story about a rich man who has two sons.

One day, the younger of the two sons approaches his father and requests his share of the family fortune.  The father gives his son his inheritance, and, a few days later, the son moves far from home and begins living a life of wine, women, and song.  Eventually, his money dries up, and, to make matters worse, a famine strikes the land.  Desperate, the young man starts working for a pig farmer.  As he turns a lustful eye toward the junk he's feeding the pigs, he remembers how well his father treats his servants.  He decides to return home, apologize to his father, and beg his father to hire him as a servant.

When the son arrives at home, his father sees him from a distance and runs out to embrace him.  Before the son can even make his spiel, the father has him dressed in fine clothes and throws him a welcome home party.

Jesus' third parable seems to break with the pattern established by the first two.  A son leaves his home with his inheritance and squanders all of it by living a debauched lifestyle.  When he returns home, his father celebrates by throwing him a welcome home party.  It could be said that the father "loses" a son and celebrates when this son is "found," but, unlike the shepherd who searches for his lost sheep and the woman who searches for her lost coin, the father does not search for his "lost" son.  The shepherd is concerned enough about his lost sheep to leave his other sheep and search for it, and the woman is concerned enough about her lost coin to turn her house upside down looking for it, but the father doesn't seem very concerned about his "lost" son.

I wonder if maybe the father doesn't go out and look for his younger son because he knows that his son isn't really "lost" in the first place.  All the time, sons and daughters forsake their upbringing, spend some time living their lives on their own terms, come to realize how foolish they have been, and then get their lives back on track.  Are these sons and daughters ever really "lost," or is straying from one's upbringing only to eventually return to it just a part of growing up?  Perhaps the father realizes that his younger son is just going through a rebellious phase and that he will come to his senses eventually.

The Amish, who are known for their separation from modern society, their simplistic lifestyle, and their strict religiosity, have a practice called Rumspringa.  The enforcement of the Amish communities' rules are relaxed for teenagers, and a certain amount of misbehavior is expected and even overlooked.  Some youths even leave their homes for a while to see what the world is like outside their communities.  Ultimately, Amish youths will have to choose for themselves whether they will join their church and take on the expectations of their communities or leave the communities entirely.  A majority choose to remain within their communities, and even some of those who initially choose to leave eventually return.²

There is a second part to Jesus' third parable.

While the younger son was out living life on his own terms, the older son has been at home, working hard for his father.  While working in the field, the older son hears music and dancing, so he asks one of the servants what is going on.  The servant tells him that his brother has returned and that his father has thrown him a welcome home party.  The older son is livid.  His worthless brother leaves home, squanders their father's money doing God knows what, and then has the damn nerve to show his face at home, and then the old man throws him a party.  The older son has worked hard for his father and has never given him any grief whatsoever.  Where was his party?

The father notices that his older son is absent from the party, so he goes out to look for him.  When he finds his son, he pleads with him to join the celebration.  The son tells his father off, comparing himself to a slave and criticizing his father for his apparent lack of appreciation of him and for his favoritism toward his brother.  The father replies, "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.  But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found."

It is the latter part of this third parable that more closely follows the pattern established by the first two.  While throwing a welcome home party for the younger son, the father realizes that the older son is missing, so he goes out and searches for him.³  There is indeed a "lost" son in this parable, but perhaps the lost son is not the rebellious younger son who leaves home to live life on his own terms for a while, but rather the well-behaved older son who stays at home, does everything that is expected of him, and silently grows resentful.  In the words of Kent Dobson, "Maybe the one you've lost is sleeping in your own house."⁴

Unfortunately, we do not know if the father gets to celebrate the recovery of his lost son.

With the first two parables, Jesus teaches His critics that He came to seek the lost.  With the third parable, He subtly suggests that they, and not the "sinners" who are drawn to Him, are the ones who are really lost.  "Sinners," represented by the younger son, are drawn to Jesus because He offers them the grace they need, grace denied to them by the typical religious folk, represented by the older son.

We need to be careful whom we label "lost."  People who screw up and make big messes of their lives are not necessarily lost.  Many of them would happily return home, spiritually speaking, and turn their lives around, but they need to know that they will be welcomed and accepted, in the same way that Jesus embraced the tax collectors, prostitutes, and other so-called "sinners."  The people who are truly lost are the ones who sit in churches every Sunday and look down their noses at the rest of the world.  They honor Christ with their lips, but their hearts are actually far from Him.⁵  What is truly tragic is that they don't even realize how lost they are.

The hazard of being religious is the temptation to forget how messed up we are.  We think that, for some reason, we have a special relationship with God, and we set ourselves apart as insiders among outsiders.  We focus on the wrongdoings of others, while developing a giant blind spot around ourselves.

Like so many of Jesus' parables, the Parable of the Prodigal Son is, I think, meant to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.  It is a comfort to those of us who are far from home, spiritually speaking, for it reminds us that we are always welcome to come home.  It is an affliction to those of us who have become complacent and self-righteous, for it warns us that we might be further from home than we think.  We're truly lost when we don't realize how lost we are.  May we be self-aware, and may we put aside our judgment as we seek to become like the One who welcomed the outcasts.


Notes:

1. A majority of this blog post is based on Luke 15.  Quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version
2. Wikipedia: "Rumspringa"
3. Kent Dobson.  "Parables: Prodigal Son."  Mars Hill Bible Church podcast, 06/21/2015.
4. ibid.
5. Adapted from Isaiah 29:13

The Return of the Prodigal Son was painted by Pompeo Batoni in 1773.

Perspective: The End of Entitlement

I share these thoughts hoping they are of help to someone else.

Comments are always welcomed.

If you find these thoughts helpful, please share.

The End of Entitlement

So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

Matthew 20:16 (NRSV)

Not because of what I've done
But because of who You are

From "Who Am I?" by Casting Crowns

Jesus once told a story about a rich man who owned a vineyard.¹  One day, at six o'clock in the morning, the vineyard owner went to the marketplace and found some day laborers who agreed to work in his vineyard for a denarius, the typical daily wage for a worker.  He went back three hours later and hired more workers, agreeing to pay them "whatever is right."  He returned to the marketplace three more times that day - at noon, at three o'clock, and at five o'clock - hiring more and more workers to harvest grapes in his vineyard.

Scholar William Barclay notes that a Palestinian grape harvest could be a race against time.  Grapes would be ready to pick in late August, but the rainy season typically began in mid September, leaving a relatively small window of time to harvest the grapes.  Naturally, a vineyard owner would want to harvest his grapes as quickly as possible, and, the more workers he hired, the faster he could bring in his harvest.  It is not unrealistic that a vineyard owner would go out to hire harvesters throughout the day, as the man in Jesus' parable did.²

At six o'clock in the evening, the workday ended, and the time came for the workers to receive their wages.  Per the vineyard owner's instructions, the manager paid the workers, starting with those who were hired last and ending with those who were hired first.  When those who were hired one hour ago came forward, each was paid a denarius, as was everyone who was hired throughout the day.  When those who started working early in the morning came forward to receive their wages, they too received a denarius, the same amount paid to those who had worked just one hour.

As one might expect, those who were hired first were angry that they were being paid the same wages as those who were hired last.  After all, they had done twelve times as much work, so they were entitled to twelve times as much compensation.  They approached the vineyard owner and said, "These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat."

It seems to me that the vineyard owner could have avoided this whole confrontation had he just paid the workers in the same order in which he hired them.  Those hired first could have received the wages for which they agreed to work and gone home, totally oblivious to the fact that those hired last would receive the same amount for doing only a small fraction of the work.  For some reason, the vineyard owner made it a point to pay first those he hired last.  It is almost as if he was trying to teach his workers something.

Of course, the parable would not be nearly as impactful without the confrontation.

The vineyard owner replied to one of the workers who confronted him,
Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?  Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you.  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?  Or are you envious because I am generous?
Contrary to what the first workers thought, the vineyard owner hadn't cheated anybody.  After all, he paid them the wage for which they agreed to work.  He was not unfair toward the workers he hired first: he was merely generous toward the workers he hired later.

What led the first workers to believe that they had been cheated was their sense of entitlement, their notion that they deserved more than the other workers because they worked longer.  Though humanity has built entire economic systems and legal codes on such an idea, perhaps it is all just one grand illusion.  Perhaps the vineyard owner wanted to deconstruct this illusion.

Reflecting on this parable has forced me to confront my own sense of entitlement.  St. Paul's exhortation to "rejoice with those who rejoice"³ can be difficult for me at times.  Whenever I see engagement pictures and pregnancy announcements on Facebook, I am reminded of how much further down the proverbial road almost everyone else my age seems to be.  I've been a good person, relatively speaking, so why can't I have what others have?  It is difficult for us to be happy for other people - or even just happy for ourselves - while we are harboring envy and bitterness.

Essayist Joseph Epstein once mused that "of the seven deadly sins, only envy is no fun at all."  It has also been suggested that "comparison is the thief of joy."  When we dwell on what we think we deserve in comparison to other people, we forget that everything good in life is a gift.  Even the opportunity to work and contribute to society in some capacity is a gift to be enjoyed.

On an episode of the television series Louie, the titular character, portrayed by comedian Louis C.K., is approached by his daughter Jane who complains that her sister Lilly was given a piece of mango and that she wasn't.  Louie says to her, "The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough.  You don't look in your neighbor's bowl... to make sure you have as much as them."⁴  To put this thought in more general terms, one should only concern oneself with what other people have to make sure that they have what they need, not to compare one's own lot in life with theirs.

Barclay notes that, in first century Palestine, day laborers lived a hard life.  Day by day, they would go to the village square and wait for someone to hire them, as they did in Jesus' parable.  They often lived hand to mouth, so whether or not their families ate depended on whether or not someone was willing to hire them.  There were even commandments in the Jewish Law that required employers to pay their workers at the end of day since they and their families depended on their wages.⁵  Some of the workers in Jesus' parable were having a bad day.  When the vineyard owner went to the marketplace one hour before quitting time, he asked the workers he met, "Why are you standing here idle all day?"  They replied, "Because no one has hired us."

As a man of means, the vineyard owner used his wealth - both his vineyard and his money - to help those in need.  He made sure that each of his workers, even the latest of the latecomers, went home with a living wage, and he afforded each of them the dignity of having worked for it, even if he only worked for an hour.  He wasn't interested in giving his workers what they deserved: he was only interested in giving them what they needed.  Also, he wasn't very concerned about what anyone thought about his decision.

Jesus bookended His parable with the revelation that, in the Kingdom of God, "the last will be first, and the first will be last."⁶  This statement is often understood to be a great reversal, but I wonder if it is really more of a great equalizing.  Perhaps those who think they are entitled to be first will feel that they have been demoted, while those who are accustomed to being last will feel that they have been promoted.  In reality, they all will have become equals.  I have heard it suggested that "the first will be last" and "the last will be first" because everyone will be standing in a circle and not in a line.

Shortly before telling this parable, Jesus was approached by a rich man who asked Him, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"⁷  As a man of wealth, he was accustomed to being able to obtain for himself anything he ever wanted.  Perhaps he thought that "eternal life" was one more thing he could buy for himself.  Furthermore, because he was rich, he had the means to do certain "good deeds" that might not be feasible for others.  For example, a wealthy churchgoer can fund a fellowship hall and get her name above the door, but a vast majority of the people who sit in pews every Sunday do not have buildings named after them.

Jesus replied to the rich man, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."⁸  Jesus assigned the rich man a "good deed" that would have effectively stripped him of all of his advantages in society, making him no different from anybody else.  Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."⁹

Some speculate that when Jesus spoke of "the eye of a needle," He might have been referring to a particularly narrow city gate that was used primarily when the main gate was closed for the night.  If someone wanted to negotiate his camel through the gate, he would first need to unload its baggage.  To experience the kind of life to which Jesus invites us, we will likely need to unload some things, spiritually speaking.¹⁰  Perhaps it is difficult for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God because people typically aren't very eager to give up any privileges they have.

Perhaps our sense of entitlement is something else we need to unload if we want to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God.  If Jesus is right, that the Kingdom of God is like a vineyard owner who cares more about what his workers need than what they deserve, then we will need to leave our entitlement at the door.  Our God is not fair: our God is gracious.  Thanks be to God.


Notes:

1. A majority of this blog post is based on the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, found in Matthew 20:1-15.  Quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.
2. William Barclay.  The Parables of Jesus.  1990, Westminster John Knox Press.  p. 162
3. Romans 12:15a (CEB)
4. "Pregnant."  Louie.  FX.  06/23/2011.  Television.
5. Barclay, pp. 162, 164
6. Matthew 19:30; 20:16
7. Matthew 19:16 (NRSV)
8. Matthew 19:21 (NRSV)
9. Matthew 19:24-25 (NRSV)
10. Kent Dobson.  Bitten by a Camel: Leaving Church, Finding God.  2017, Fortress Press.  pp. 35-36

The photograph of the grapes was taken by Wikimedia Commons user Dragonflyir and is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.  The photographer is in no way affiliated with this blog.