AMCP 20 September 2020
Matthew 20: 1 – 16
This sometimes-named parable of the labourers in the vineyard came alive for me in March 2018. Sonia and I were fortunate to be travelling in Rajasthan State, India. Early one morning, from the window of our bus, as we drove through a village, I noted a large number of men and women gathered near the village crossroads - waiting. Some seemed older and others very young. I asked our guide: “What’s happening here?” His response: “They’re day labourers – waiting to be hired.” Our guide then described the exact same employment relationships between those available to work and the landowners (or more likely the landowner’s agent) that I knew from the parable. The labourers were faced with all the uncertainties related to whether they would be chosen to work and for how long, opening themselves up to possible exploitation, mirroring exactly what I knew about this parable, but now some twenty-one centuries later.
With renewed interest, I now ask: “How do we remember the story; “what do we hear”; “what do we assume as we read the story”; “what does Matthew assume we know”; and “why is this story only recorded by Matthew?”
I’ve discovered that this parable has many names: the parable of the workers in the vineyard; of the labourers in the vineyard; of the generous landowner; of the gracious landowner; of the union-busting employer; of the equal-opportunity employer; and of the affirmative action employer. Each of these reflects the perspective of the reader and commentator. The question is: what title should we hear today?
A parable is described as an allegory: a story with a hidden meaning. There are two ‘traditional’ and parallel views often heard. These views are that the landowner stands for God: the gracious master. God grants salvation to all penitent sinners. Parallel to this is an understanding that the upset workers, those who have toiled for many hours represent the Jews, who are having to come to terms with the ‘Johnny-come-lately’ Gentiles – the newcomers to the religious scene in Palestine, who this Christian-centric Gospel proclaims will receive the same reward! This later comment reflects the response to a growing Christian influence within Jewish Synagogues and the tension between the two groups.
Is this how we read the story? Is this how we hear the story? It doesn’t do much for me. I am reminded of the context which Matthew is writing. Most Jewish people were peasants. Most agricultural land was owned by absentee landlords: the land being cultivated by labourers like those in today’s reading. The economic reality of Jewish peasants was marked by poverty, subemployment, heavy taxation, and dispossession. And, given that the Jews were also living under Roman colonial rule, their socio-political reality was characterised by oppression, political marginalisation, racism, intermarriage with other ethnic groups, and discrimination. With this in mind, are we really hearing about a ‘generous’ or ‘gracious’ landowner? Or, is Matthew highlighting, in a straight-forward manner, that at the end of the day the workers are all vulnerable and powerless, and that they have lost their dignity, and their unity. With this understanding, do we ‘hear’ their complaining; and do we ‘hear’ the landowner ‘rubbing their noses in it?!’
As I process these thoughts, I must ask myself how I am reading the text, and what is my experience? I have lived a privileged life. I only once went to the labour exchange looking for work. I had just left school and I wanted a job prior to going to University. Following this, I have always been employed when I have been available for work. I have always been paid on ‘pay day’, though not always accurately. I have always had ‘enough’ to provide for ‘my daily bread’. I am well aware that this is not how others would reflect on their experience.
This week I have re-read a perspective on the parable written by Pablo Jimenez. It focusses on Hispanic people in the USA, drawing on the experience of unemployed Latinos - those who provide childcare or housekeeping for the affluent; those who stand at busy intersections and offer to do house or yard work for US$20 a time; those who work all day at home sewing for outlets; those who provide cheap labour in construction or custodial jobs; those without (immigration) papers (the illegals). I see many New Zealand parallels. I think immediately of those ‘pesky’ window washers at intersections; the seasonal workers who provide labour for our horticultural sector, who are not always well cared for and who recent court cases would show have been exploited; and those branded overstayers, reluctant to seek COVID-testing in our current pandemic ravaged world; and those men and women who work more than one job or double shifts to provide for their families, and their children who have left school to take up the employment that keeps bread on the family table. Many are employed at minimum wage levels. I celebrate that this Parish is a living wage employer. The example is profound and should not be underestimated. It is a blot on the landscape of Aotearoa that there are those deemed to be fully employed, and yet are unable to provide for the basics for their families.
The Hispanic commentators name today’s Gospel ‘the parable of the affirmative action employer’. These commentators read into the parable that the employer goes beyond pay based on hours worked to focus on need: the landowner promising to pay whatever is right, the usual daily wage knowing, that the workers will only be able to take care of their families where this is the case.
Had it not been for COVID-19 we may have known the result of the 2020 General Election and the two Referenda today. As we continue to determine how to cast our vote in these ballots, now less than one month away, how do we ‘hear’ the parable? Does it influence our thinking? Do we ‘hear’ the imperative that a just society provides the means for each person to have access to their daily bread – ‘food’ sufficient for the day? Will our votes set the scene for ‘food sufficient for the day’ to be available for everyone? This is a question which has been asked by humankind through many generations. The reading from Exodus set for today presents the imperative stated by a gracious, forgiving God, overlooking grumbling to provide food sufficient for each day. This was reinforced to those grumbling against Moses when ‘food sufficient for the day’ was provided; and doubly reinforced when hoarded resources rotted and were no longer available to the community.
As we ponder on these things, we are reminded this day that God’s light shines through the actions of our giving hearts and our generous spirits; and that Christ’s voice calls us to heal the wounded and keep the forces of death at bay. It is our collective prayer that in our sharing we may bring God’s kingdom closer to a world in need. So be it.
Amen