Something from Matthew got me thinking about politics and wealth polariz-

[1932]

ation.

This was discussed at church recently, but only briefly. It got me thinking.

In Matthew, Jesus tells a parable about a vineyard owner who hires day laborers to work his land early in the morning. Later in the day he realizes he has more work, so he hires more laborers. At the end of the day, he realizes that he needs a few more men, so he gets some more men to work fer a few hours. He asks them why they're still available to work so late in the day and they say that nobody else hired them all day.

At the end of the day, when the work was finished, the vineyard owner tells his foreman to pay the last first and the first last and to pay everyone for a full day no matter how long they worked. This upsets the men who worked all day because they felt they worked harder and deserved more. Jesus says that you should never begrudge someone because of his or her generosity.

This parable raises issues that I've read about recently in the book The Health of Nations, which is a fascinating argument about how wealth polarization is bad for society on many levels, but especially is bad for the health of its citizens.

To me, this parable is about the same issues raised in The Health of Nations. It is saying that the only way to make sure that society can produce an economy that can give every man a full day of labor is to make sure that everybody who works is able to accumulate financial security, and that you don't have huge ranges of economic outcomes for people.

The parable is about how polarization of wealth is bad. It's about who someone who is entitled to higher pay should not think that they deserve more than someone who wants to work but couldn't because the local economy is screwed up. It's about how workers shouldn't look at their less fortunate fellow citizens with disdain just because they weren't lucky enough to be picked at 9 am and instead had to wait until 2 pm.

And there's also something of the New Deal in this parable. The land owner realized that there was something wrong with a local economy where capable men could only find an hour or two a day of work and that planting the seeds of economic security in that class of people whould create the demand that would produce a better economy (these men would become the consumers of the produce he harvested). This is, essentially, what the New Deal was all about and it's the essence of true Keynesian economics.

Finally, it's a parable about how the people who benefit the most -- the vineyard owners -- should recognize that, for their own good (spiritual and economic) it is important to look after the people who are less fortunate. The money the vineyard owner paid to the workers who only worked a couple hours above what they earned was basically a voluntary tax -- it was funding social security. And that landowner was going to reap much more than he sowed because of that investment in people.

[MissMarple]

1. Thom Hartmann had a good point last week.

He asked do workers exist at the whim of business so a few can acquire all the capital, of does business exist to serve the community? This also goes with Abe Lincoln's belief that labor is superior to capital because labor creates capital. Capital doesn't create anything.

[faithnotgreed]

2. yes - and its incredibly sad that only certain parts of the Bible

are quoted and pushed by the hard right = those subjects that they know will stir up the hatred and divisiveness

certainly do not hear them talk of such giving and sharing as you outline
nor of love and respect and care for the planet

[mattomjoe]

3. Ever notice that the religious right quotes almost exlcusively from the OT

It's like the pages of the Gospels of every single conservative Bible were stuck together.

[faithnotgreed]

5. and only a few of the verses apparently came highlighted as well

[txaslftist]

4. Hate to be a nit-picker...

...but I think the parable was meant to illustrate the justness of the fact that all who toil for the Lord, whether they come early or late, recieve the same reward, ie- the Kingdom of Heaven.

It's kind of a similar point made by the story of the prodigal son and the shepherd who rejoiced upon finding the lost lamb...

I think using it to justify general economic inequity may be a stretch. Not that Christ didn't have quite a bit to say on that score...

[mattomjoe]

6. You're right, it is a metaphor

but nonetheless, it is also a philosophy that runs counter to what many conservatives feel is "just" (i.e. appealing to what one has "earned").

[Salviati]

7. But shouldn't we all strive to emulate the generous spirit of the Lord?

It seems to me that if a parable is meant to illustrate the justness of the Lord, then the parable itself must illustrate the justness of it's characters. Parables can be interpreted on many levels, and each of these interpretations can be useful in illustrating a good point.

[1932]

8. Parables don't have one single meaning.

The point of speaking in parables is that their meaning is much richer because they're loose frames for looking at a myriad of permutations of experiences.

I don't think my interpretation is a stretch at all, and at the very least I encourage you to read The Health of Nations.

[elehhhhna]

9. even the old nazi henry ford knew this principle.