Sermon: Authority for a New Kingdom

Text: Matthew 21:23-32

Lectionary Year A, Proper 21

If a three-legged stool is more stable, why do most chairs (and tables) have four legs?

Mathematically, a three-legged stool will always sit on a plane and not wobble. No matter how uneven or sloped, the legs will find contact points at the bottom. A four-legged stool or chair, if the legs are perfectly even, can only be without wobbles if the plane it rests on is also perfectly even. A chair with uneven legs will always wobble, unless the surface that it sits on is uneven to match the unevenness in the legs.

But more stable sitting on a plane doesn’t mean more stable when weight is applied unevenly to the surface of the stool or chair. A three-legged stool is more likely to tip over if the weight at the top deviates too far from the center. A four-legged chair is better able to accommodate a non-centered weight on its top surface. And by extrapolation, the more legs, the better it can remain stable with shifting weight, but for practical reasons, four is sufficient.

By the way, a triangle table with three legs can be just as stable as a four-legged, rectangular table. It’s the shape of the top surface in relation to the number of legs that is important.

[https://jborden.com/2017/07/20/a-real-world-example-of-math-concepts-at-work/]

That concludes this morning’s spatial geometry lesson. Now on to some 18^th century theology, specifically the Methodists.

John Wesley developed a framework for doing theology. It has come to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (here’s the connection with the math lesson). The Quadrilateral consists of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

Scripture is, obviously, the Christian Bible. Wesley saw Scripture as the primary means of determining Christian faith and doctrine.

Tradition includes church teachings and practices through the centuries, but it also includes beliefs and practices of the contemporary church, groups of Christians, and family units. It includes not just one’s own culture and society, but tradition as handed down and practiced globally.

As for Reason, Wesley questioned why God would give humans the ability to reason if they were to simply take Scripture without any additional thinking on it. Logic and disagreements are essential to developing better theology.

For Wesley, Experience was seen as a validator of genuine belief and practices. Experience brings to real life the beliefs appropriated through the other three “legs.”

[https://www.umc.org/en/content/glossary-wesleyan-quadrilateral-the and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral]

All four legs are vital and play a part in the development and practice of Christian theology. Going back to the geometry illustration earlier, too much reliance on one will cause the thing sitting on it tumble. A four-legged chair can accommodate some unevenness, but not extremes.

Although Wesley himself placed Scripture as the top and experience as more a validator of existing beliefs, he had some different thoughts when it came to his screed against slavery, Thoughts Upon Slavery.

He ignores Tradition, which was completely on the side of slavery.

He appeals little to Scripture, which again, is more easily used to defend slavery.

Instead he relies on Reason and Experience, which now includes the reality of slavery and the treatment of slaves, and his own reaction to it, as primary reasons to argue that Christians must be against slavery. 

[https://medium.com/solus-jesus/as-methodism-unravels-remember-john-wesley-disregarded-his-own-quadrilateral-when-he-changed-his-42f3045a97e6]

In other words, when Scripture and Tradition appeared in conflict with Reason and Experience, Wesley changed his mind. It should be noted also, that early in life, Wesley argued for the legitimacy of slavery based on Scripture. So Wesley does a complete 180 reversal of his former position based primarily on Experience.

In the 19^th century, American Christians grappled with the issue of slavery and both sides argued from Scripture. The plain reading of and the weight of evidence in Scripture is that it supports slavery. The Abolitionists had to turn to creative imagining and re-interpretations of scripture in order to infer that the trajectory of scripture was against slavery.

In more recent times, the role and authority of women in the church has been, and is still being, argued. All sides claim scripture on their side. All sides can point to various historical examples supporting their position.

And all sides use reason and experience to argue their positions.

Whether someone is familiar with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral or not, it is descriptive of how theology is practically accomplished by Christians. Some may say they use only one, or perhaps two, and state that the others are suspect, but the reality is that all four always play a part in practical theology.

The central themes of this morning’s gospel text are authority and repentance. From where or from whom does authority originate? And what separates those who are a part of the kingdom vs. those who are not is repentance.

The gospel text takes place immediately after the prior day’s Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple. After the commercial businesses in the temple court are driven out, Jesus allows himself, in that place, to be surrounded by children and all manner of people wanting healing from Jesus. The next morning Jesus while making his way back to the temple, he sees a fig tree, is hungry, doesn’t see any figs, so he curses the tree and it dies.

All these have gotten the attention of the temple authorities, the chief priests and the elders of the people, who, when they find Jesus back at the temple, question him in regards to where he received authority to do what he has been doing. They certainly have not given him authority, so if not them, who?

Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own, a completely acceptable form of continuing the debate. Jesus’ question centers on the authority of John the Baptist to baptize. We modern Christians think of baptism as purely a religious ritual, but at the time of Matthew’s writing, baptism was a ceremonial cleansing that not only Jews practiced, but was found all over the ancient world. It was not merely religious. It signified the removal of uncleanliness and a return to ritual purity which included a return to full social and political inclusion in the community.

The temple authorities, specifically the priests, based on tradition, held the power to confer purity onto another. (C.f., Luke 17:14.) The ritual could involve sacrifices and other offerings, placing ritual purity and full inclusion in community out of reach for many people.

John’s actions to offer baptism and entry into a new society with associated full inclusion was a direct challenge to the religious, social, and political authority of the priests. The only requirement was repentance. Many came to John to be initiated into this new society and social order. The priests and elders came too, but John called them out for their mere profession. John demanded that they show actual fruit of repentance and not merely rely on their tradition, their ancestry to Abraham.

Matthew does not explicitly offer what this fruit might look like, but Luke’s parallel account shows that the fruit is what Jesus would describe in the Sermon on the Mount, his manifesto for the kingdom of heaven, the new society. The motifs found in the final paragraphs of the Sermon (starting about 7:15) are echoed in today’s gospel reading.

In Matthew’s gospel account, both John and Jesus proclaim the same message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17.) What John has started, Jesus completes. Repentance is the way into the kingdom. Jesus welcomes the children, the sick, the tax collectors, and the prostitutes to be a part of his social circle, the beginning of a new kingdom. While Jesus drives out the powerful and privileged from the temple courts, he welcomes these others into his presence. Just as John the Baptist infuriated the authorities, Jesus’ actions does the same.

Jesus goes on to tell the priests and elders a very short parable, which at first glance doesn’t seem to have much to do with the current debate.

A father, two sons, and a vineyard. These are common Jewish motifs. Key here is that the vineyard represents Israel. The father commands both his sons to go tend the vineyard. The first says no, but changes his mind and does what was commanded. The second son respectfully addresses his father and says that he will go; but he does not.

To the Middle Eastern audience, the expected questions would have been, “Which of these sons showed the father honor?” But that is not the question Jesus asked. Instead he asked, “Which of these did the will of the father?” The second son, who was respectful, showed honor. The first son did the will of the father. In an honor-shame society, honor, especially public honor, is often more important than actual actions.

At this point, the audience might be slightly confused. Where is Jesus going with this? Jesus doesn’t mince words in his explanation and condemnation. Addressing them (the priests and elders) he bluntly states that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God ahead of them because they believed John and did what he commanded – and by inference and extension, believing Jesus and doing what Jesus commands – but they did not and to this point have neither believed Jesus yet.

The first son realized his position and words were wrong, changed his mind – repented – and did the work that his father commanded. The tax collectors and prostitutes realized what they had been doing was wrong, changed their minds – repented – and began to live out the principles of the new society.

The chief priests and the elders, even though they could see the lives changed, they could not accept that John’s and Jesus’ teachings were more in line with God’s will than what they wanted to believe from their traditions and interpretations of scripture.

Jesus took the scriptures seriously. But that also meant hugely creative re-imaginings and re-interpretations that often went against accepted tradition. The apostles and the early church too, had to re-imagine and re-interpret scripture numerous times to expand the vision of inclusion and egalitarianism taught and demonstrated by Jesus.

John Wesley had to change his mind – repent – about what he thought scripture and tradition taught about slavery.

Practical theology needs scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. As new challenges face the church, as the metaphorical terrain changes, the legs will need to be adjusted and readjusted. Sometimes the emphasis might be on one or two legs. It doesn’t mean the other are ignored, but it might mean re-evaluating what has always been accepted. It might mean upsetting the status quo. Minds might need to be changed. Repentance may be necessary.

Our mission is to keep the gospel, the kingdom manifesto, the principles of the Sermon on the Mount moving ever forward to more and more people in the world. The terrain is always changing and it is almost never even. How shall we balance the use of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to offer a steady kingdom to an unsteady world? Are we open to changing our minds – repentance – even of long-held traditions and beliefs if they are found to be insufficient or even wrong?

Are our minds willing to be changed, to repent, for the sake of the gospel?

Sermon: Justice Isn’t Fair

Text: Matthew 20:1-16

Lectionary Year A, Proper 20 

“That’s not fair!”  

Anyone who has spent any time around young children has probably heard that phrase leveled against the child’s playmates. And any parent who has had a teen has probably been on the receiving end of that very same phrase about something that the parent has done. 

 

That is also the same thing that the group of workers hired first in the day level against the landowner — the master — at the end of the day when they discover that their wages are exactly the same as those who worked less than they did, some considerably less. 

 

And if we are truly honest with ourselves, we too, find the actions of the master questionable in how he distributes the wages equally without regard to time worked and it would be reasonable to assume, effort made. This is a parable that offends our sensibilities and norms. Our sense and understandings of what is fair is violated. 

 

An easy “out” in interpreting this parable can take the form of limiting it to just the spiritual realm and turning it into an allegory of the Christian walk. In this interpretation, the wages given are grace and salvation. It is something given by God at the end of the age, when Jesus returns, when those who die in Christ receive their rewards. No matter how long or short their Christian life might have been on earth, or how easy or difficult their life may have been, the same grace and salvation is given to all. It still doesn’t seem entirely fair — think a deathbed conversion of someone who lived their life indulging their desires — but it somehow feels easier to accept this interpretation.

 

The immediate literary context where this parable is located might seem to support this spiritual interpretation. Matthew chapter 19 includes the story of the Rich Young Man who asked what he had to do to earn eternal life. Jesus’ response was that he must sell everything, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. The Rich Man could not, Jesus told the parable of the camel and the eye of a needle, and the disciples were flabbergasted that anyone could be saved. 

 

Then Peter — who else? — declared that they, the disciples, had left everything to follow Jesus, so he asks what would be their reward? Jesus replies that they will receive authority, a return far greater than they had given up, and eternal life. 

 

Today’s parable follows immediately after this. 

 

But in the greater context of the entire gospel account by Matthew, I believe that there is more to the context than just a distant-future reward. 

 

Let’s take a look back at the Lord’s Prayer in chapter 6. We recite this every week, so I’m sure it is quite familiar. 

 

However, a number of New Testament scholars have suggested that the phrase “on earth as it is in heaven” found at the end of the third clause is in fact, implied at the end of each of the first three clauses. So the first part of the Lord’s Prayer should read, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name on earth as it is in heaven. Your kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

The Lord’s Prayer talks about the kingdom of heaven as not something in the far distant future, or an entirely separate realm, but something that is breaking into and being established on the earth, during Jesus’ time, during the apostles’ time, and in our time. 

 

Thus, when we read a parable that begins, “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who…,” we should read it not as a parable that is pointing only to a future eschaton, but talking about the here and now also. 

 

And that makes this parable difficult and uncomfortable. Because we read it and can’t see how the behavior of the master could work for any length of time in actual society. 

 

There are many themes that are found in this parable, but the one I’d like to bring out today is this: justice isn’t fair. Now, in colloquial, modern vernacular, justice and fairness are often interchangeable. But when Matthew talks about justice, especially God’s justice, it is quite different from fairness. It should also be noted that the concept of justice found in the gospel is closely related to, and could be considered synonymous with, righteousness. In other words, justice and righteousness is about doing as God would do, particularly in regards to the oppressed, the marginalized, the forgotten, and the powerless.

 

The master of the vineyard in the parable probably had regular employees, but perhaps this was harvest time and he needed extra workers. Day laborers who had no regular employment would come to the common, public area of their town or city, early in the morning and hope that they would be selected to work for the day. The master goes out and find some. He spells out the day’s wage and the first set of workers agree that this is a fair wage.

 

What is unexpected is that the master goes out multiple times after the early morning, to look for additional workers. Did he suddenly discover that there was more work than the hired hands could handle? Commentators suggest this is unlikely. It was rather, compassion, that led him back out. He knew that he didn’t hire all of them on the first round and so he goes out to see if they had all been hired by other employers, as would be expected. But he sees that there are still many workers waiting to be hired. The master does not need more hired hands, but he hires them anyway. He goes out three more times, and for these groups he promises that they will be paid what is “just.” 

 

The master goes out for the fifth time, late in the day, already evening, with just an hour left for any work to be done outside. He finds that there are still some waiting. Some have suggested that these were workers, who, perhaps being lazy, came later in the day. Certain English translation options might reinforce this idea. But commentators from cultures where day laborers are common protest that this would never be the case. All the workers have been there since early morning, waiting to be hired. 

 

The master, again out of compassion, hires them. He does not promise this group any pay, but they agree to work. The master could have just given them the wage he would have given anyway, but he doesn’t. Rather, he offers them the dignity of work, if even for just an hour, so that they can honorably return home to their families and report that they had worked. 

 

At the end of the day, in another surprising turn of events, the manager of the vineyard comes out to pay each of the hired hands. If the owner had a manager, why did he not simply send the manager to hire the day laborers? Because the master wanted to be directly involved with his hired labor, and as a result was moved by compassion to go out and hire more workers than there was work. 

In yet another surprising turn of events, the master directs the manager to begin paying the hired hands with the last ones hired and the first ones, last. He could have made everything easier and avoided conflict by paying in the expected, chronological order. But he does not. He wants those hired earlier to see what he does. Then he directs the manager to pay the last group hired “the wage,” meaning a full day’s pay. 

 

As each group gets the same pay, the ones in the first group get frustrated and then angry. They had worked all day, in the heat, and yet they get the same wage as the ones who only “worked” one hour? They are not just complaining. They are accusing the master of making the last group equal to the first. The master has treated all the groups identically, and it isn’t fair! 

 

It is important to note that no one in this parable is underpaid. And all were up early to seek employment. Even the first group, with all the complaints, was paid a fair wage. The master reminds them that they had agreed to this pay, up-front. They have no grounds for complaint. The master dismisses them and wants nothing more to do with them. 

 

Each of the other groups was paid what was “just.” And in the case of this landowner, to be “just” meant providing all his workers a wage that they could live on for the next day. We are reminded of the Lord’s Prayer where it reads, “Give us this day our daily bread.”

 

Some scholars suggest that “on earth as it is in heaven” continue to be extended to the three petitions at the end of the Prayer. So we could read, “Give us this day our daily bread, on earth as it is in heaven.” 

 

For some of us, this is our prayer. We do need our daily bread provided. But for some others of us, we are in positions to help answer this petition. What do we do about this parable and the ethical, and even potential economic issues it raises? 

 

Like most of Jesus’ parables, no clear answers are given. I think that we often do disservice to Jesus’ parables by turning them into allegories and giving them pat answers. I think that parables are meant to raise difficult questions and lead us into discomfort. So in that spirit I leave you with questions:

 

·       Is the parable too unrealistic in its ethical demands for justice from followers of Jesus? Especially if it means some kind of literal applications of what the master has done?

·       If we are employers or otherwise able to provide for others, what does a “justice” — meaning justice as God defines it — look like for those that we support?

·       For those of us who are wage earners: if we see a colleague receiving what we think is “more than fair,” does this parable challenge our assumptions and how we might work through the sense of unfairness? (As long as you aren’t being underpaid?)

·       If we, as followers of Christ, are to be implementing the new society, the kingdom of heaven, here on earth as it is in heaven, how do we implement the ethics of justice that this parable seems to demand of us?

 

Let us sit with these questions and wrestle with them. Let us see how God wants us to live out the counterintuitive principle that God’s justice is generous, but it is not fair.