I think everyone who has ever shared a home with a child or a teenager has heard this phrase at least once: ‘But it’s not fair!!’. You may have said it yourself when you were younger.
When I was about 13, fairly basic mobile phones started to become common and affordable, and I got a little plastic Siemens with an orange screen for my birthday. I was very happy, because most of my school friends already had one and now I was finally keeping up with the trend. My happiness, however, lasted for only two days, because two days later, it was my brother’s birthday and he got an identical phone. The problem was he was three years younger! It would have been fair if he got his phone when he was the same age as me, when he too had proven that he was mature and responsible enough to deserve one. Or maybe I should have got something else for my birthday, because I was the older sister and surely deserved a bit more than him. My parents clearly thought getting identical gifts would make it fair, but in my head, it did not work like that.
Reading the story of the workers in the Gospel of Matthew brings up similar feelings. I can well see why those who had worked for the whole day were feeling resentful watching how those who had done barely any work were receiving an identical reward. Not fair indeed. Except the landowner disagrees. For the landowner, it is not about fairness but about equality and generosity. He did pay those who grumbled fairly; he just chose to pay extra to those who worked less. Because he decided to be not only fair but also generous, giving to everyone equally regardless of their input.
This may sound weird, but this passage makes me think of a Soviet slogan, ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’. This phrase was first popularised by Karl Marx and then became one of the defining maxims of communism, which the Soviet Union aspired to. Compared to a lesser socialist principle where workers are still rewarded according to their work, this higher communist ideal states that all labourers must be given everything they need for a good life regardless of how much work they did. Putting aside any political context, I would have thought this principle could have come directly from Matthew 20. Except it obviously did not because neither Marx nor the Soviets tolerated the Bible in any shape or form. I am not sure it would be right to say that Jesus was a communist either.
Historically, both socialism and communism and Christianity have been opposed to each other. Marx famously called religion ‘the opium of the people’, while Lenin and Stalin, up until a certain point, did everything they could to destroy the Church across the Soviet Republics. The Church in the West, where it could freely express its political opinions, was also very vocal in return. Apparently socialism and communism have been condemned by the following Popes: Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Numerous encyclicals and publications, starting in 1849, openly condemned the teachings of Marx. One work that stands out, however, is Pope Leo XIII’s ‘Rerum Novarum’, published in 1891. In it he calls for rejection of materialist socialism but also strongly criticises capitalism and, for the first time, acknowledges the hardships and suffering of the working class. In the world of labels, strong ideologies, and opposing, seemingly incompatible political, social and moral principles, Leo XIII sees a dialogue between the two systems and the value in acknowledging the positives and the negatives of both. He sees nuance and a prospect for a dialogue and mutual flourishing where others see irreconcilable differences. A similar kind of reasoning has been shown by the late Pope Francis, who was suspected of communist leanings for his criticism of capitalism. To this, he responded with a critique of Marx but pointed out that communists do think like Christians when it comes to attitudes towards the poor, the weak and the marginalised.
With this sort of thinking, it is not a problem that a Biblical passage can indeed speak of deep Christian truths – God’s generosity, undeserved grace and care for those who have come last or have little – and simultaneously embody a communist ideal of equal distribution of goods regardless of the amount or quality of labour offered. Why not if this is a good thing?
The problem is a lot of us do not tend to see it this way. The labels we use to describe different worldviews and political leanings can lead us to believe that one either has to subscribe to one system of ideas or another and there are no grey areas. They also trick us into thinking that individual thoughts, ideas and principles that constitute those systems cannot exist outside them and be appreciated and followed individually, on their own merit, without necessarily subscribing to the whole thing. Instead, these labels end up creating and promoting a sense of ‘otherness’, erasing any nuance. Once you are part of one you cannot belong to or align with the other. And this is true not only of the 19th century Catholic/communist divide – it is still true today. ‘Woke’ and ‘far right’ have pretty much become swear words in describing the ultimately juxtaposed worldviews. Behind those words, we no longer see the individual ideas, beliefs and desires that people who subscribe to each group actually have. And yet, there is a good chance that there are lots of common passions – for prosperity, peace, security, happiness. The paths towards achieving them are seen differently but I am sure none of us are that different in what we want from life, for ourselves and all of society. And if a passage from the Bible can express both the ideas of Christian love and Marxist prosperity and offer a point of connection, then points of connection must be found elsewhere.
You see, one of the most socially, as well as theologically, significant things about Jesus is that he does not use labels. In fact, he actively resists them: the Samaritans, the lepers, the Pharisees – all of these words are irrelevant to him. Instead, he sees people for who they are, not what others say they are. He advocates for values, principles and behaviours because of how they treat people and how they honour God, not what system of ideas or political models they fit into.
The generosity that is shown in today’s parable reflects the generosity of God. An illustration of that is readily available in our Old Testament reading: God gives Israel food when they need it, when the Israelites are not only not working but are grumbling and moaning at God. And yet, He gives them what they need. I think the Exodus reading shows us who God is and the Matthew reading tells us how to live in His image. Generosity and care for those who have less, even at the expense of our often selfish feeling of ‘fairness’, is something to be commended and promoted. And it has nothing to do with politics and economics and instead everything to do with Christ. Importantly, this kind of generosity is not only material but moral, extending to all, transcending labels and divisions. It is to do with values and not principles. But if we get hung up on what we consider ‘fair’, on what we define as right and on whom we perceive as deserving, we will never discover that generosity and will never understand the kindness which the landowner has shown to the workers and which God shows to us everyday. So let us learn from this and model it ourselves, even if no one else around us does. Amen.