Reflections...

A sermon preached at Kowloon Union Church on 24 September 2023, by Hope Antone. The scripture readings that day were Matthew 20:1-16.

“Whatever is Right”

 

One of the things that my siblings and I looked forward to, when we were growing up, was the visit of our maternal grandparents. They came with many kinds of produce from their farm in the province – bananas, cassava, corn, beans, sweet potatoes, and leafy vegetables. Sometimes they brought eggs, live chickens, a piglet, or a small goat. 

 

After the sharing of food and stories, Grandma would gather the grandchildren together. She would untie her handkerchief of coins, then gave a coin to each child. The biggest 50-centavo coin went to the 1^st grandchild; 25-centavo coin to the 2^nd grandchild; 10-centavo coin to the 3^rd grandchild; and 5-centavo coin to me, the 4^th grandchild. This became a regular feature of our grandparents’ visits. As you can tell, this happened many years ago, when the coins could buy sweet things that children enjoyed. But the grandchildren grew up, the younger ones learned the value of each coin. One time, the 3^rdgrandchild mumbled, “It’s not fair. Why do we keep getting small coins?” 

 

This childhood story came to mind as I was reflecting on the parable of the workers in the vineyard. It reminded me that there are different views of fairness, depending on where people were coming from. Perhaps my Grandma thought it was “fair” to distribute the coins by matching their sizes with the grandchildren’s ages. Hence, the biggest went to the eldest; the smallest to the youngest. No one complained in the beginning. But later, the younger grandchildren began to grumble. 

 

The “parable of the laborers in the vineyard” is sometimes labeled as the “parable of the grumbling workers.” It tells about a vineyard owner who hired workers at different times of the day. He hired the first batch at around 6AM; the second at 9AM; the third at 12noon; the fourth at 3PM; and the fifth at 5PM. By 6PM, he instructed his manager to pay the workers, starting with the last hire and going to the first. The last hire worked for only an hour and received the usual daily wage. Everyone, no matter how many hours they worked, received the same daily wage. 

 

This made the first hire complain: “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.” 

 

The vineyard owner responded: “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?” 

 

For the vineyard owner, paying the agreed “daily wage” was fair enough. To the second hire, however, the vineyard owner simply said, “I will pay you whatever is right.” 

 

Somehow, “whatever is right” has a note of ambiguity to it. Whose perspective of “whatever is right” would it be?  

 

The owner’s perspective lies in his response to the grumbling workers: “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?” 

 

In today’s context, workers expect the “right pay” to be based on the agreed payment for the agreed work. Some employers may follow a merit system, which includes several considerations to determine the salary: one’s training, experience, position, job description, years of service, etc. However, for some types of work that use digital technology, the number of hours may not be the only basis for one’s pay. Instead, the volume of completed work might be.    

   

Some employers have made effort to humanize or socialize the labor system – e.g., by adding the needs of workers as a consideration in determining the salary. However, there are still employers whose labor practices cause grumbling among their workers.  

 

I know some Filipinos working as English teachers in a certain country where English is not the dominant language. They are usually given extra assignments, on top of their teaching, because they’re known to deliver whatever they’re tasked to do. But these Filipino teachers are put on the lower salary scale because they are not “native” English speakers. I was shocked to know that a high school graduate, with the skin color, accent, and passport of a “native” English speaker, was accepted to teach in a school and paid much more than an experienced Filipina with a master’s degree, who developed the curriculum materials for the school, aside from handling her own classes.  

 

I am sure we have our own experiences of fairness, or lack of fairness, in our work places, or in the labor system itself. 

 

But we also need to remember the spiritual significance of the parable. Jesus shared the parable to describe what life is like in the reign of God. It is a life where the values of the world that we are so used to, are reversed or overturned. Thus, “the last shall be first, and the first shall be last” (Mt 20:16). The values of the world privilege certain people due to their age, class, race, gender, position, sexual orientation, or ability to get first in line. But these are not so in the reign of God.

 

The parable of the workers in the vineyard describes a most unusual employer who makes all workers equal by giving them equal pay, regardless of how much time they worked in his vineyard. We can guess that this unusual employer represents God and the pay that he gives equally to the workers represents divine mercy, forgiveness, salvation, eternal life. The grumbling workers are those who feel privileged and entitled – that because they have been toiling longer, they deserved a bonus! The generous vineyard owner or employer has a different merit system: everyone deserves the same wage, the same reward. This is unthinkable in our world of cut throat competition.      

 

One way to understand the parable is to read the passages around it in order to find some clues to its meaning. Matthew chapter 19 includes an account of Jesus’ encounter with a rich young man who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus instructed him to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow him. But he walked away very sad for he was very rich. 

 

Then Peter commented: “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus’ response seemed to affirm that time would come when all those who left homes/families/fields for his sake would inherit eternal life. Later, in Mt 20, after Jesus predicted his death, the mother of James and John asked him to grant her sons the seats at his right and at his left in his kingdom. 

 

So, Jesus told the parable to warn his disciples of possible blocks to eternal life. Eternal life is that quality of life which is like God’s life. For the rich young man, attachment to possessions and positions was a big hindrance. For the disciples who already left everything and followed Jesus, their expectation of reward and special privileges was a big hindrance to life in God’s reign. 

 

Jesus taught that the wage, or reward, of eternal life, is for everyone – those who have already followed and those who are yet to follow – regardless of the length of one’s walk of discipleship. Let us therefore stop comparing – who is more, or less, deserving of God’s blessings. For when we do, we are asserting that only we are more deserving. It is not for us to judge the worth or lack of worth of people for everyone is created equal in the image of God. 

 

So, may the parable inspire employers to be more humane in their treatment of their workers. 

 

Above all, may the parable remind us that Christ’s call to discipleship is not a promise of rewards and special privileges intended for a few. It is a call for everyone to simply follow him, and to do whatever we can to make that God-experience (i.e., eternal life) a reality for someone. When we do so, we also get a foretaste of eternal life. Thanks be to God for such good news!