Sermon for Trinity 15, 2017: The workers in the vineyard

Sermon for Trinity 15:            Matthew 20:1-16

The parable of the workers in the vineyard

Parables are truths conveyed in story. They use scenes and settings that would be familiar to the people hearing them, but they illustrate and convey meaning in the form a story.

As I was saying last week, parables usually have a twist at the end, and this parable is no exception. If you were left thinking “hang on a minute, what about…” then I suspect that is precisely what was supposed to happen.

I’ve read this parable many times, but I’m grateful to Biblical writer Kenneth Bailey and his book Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes in helping me see a lot of things in this passage I hadn’t noticed before, which I’d like to share this morning.

The scene at the opening of this parable is one that would have been familiar to those listening. Workers wait in a well-known location – probably on a main road, and perhaps near a market – for any casual labour they can be offered. Bailey tells us this was still happening when he lived in the Middle East. He saw Palestinians waiting on the main road near the Damascus gate in East Jerusalem, and Israelis would come along in vans to offer work.

So back to our parable. An agreement is made that the workers will receive a standard day’s wages for their work, and they are hired. Later on in the morning, the owner of the vineyard returns. We’re not told why he didn’t have enough men from his first visit; we are just told he comes back. The men are standing – ready for action and eager to be at the front of the queue. More unemployed hands are hired and are told they will receive what is just or right. The owner does the same again at noon and 3pm.

It begs the question why a competent vineyard owner would keep coming back, if he knew how much work there was to do, and how many people it would take. What’s going on? Apparently in the modern-day situation, men would go and wait around for work in the morning, and would either be hired or would go home. But the men here continue to stand around in the heat and humiliation in a slight hope that work may yet materialise. And so the man hires them. Each time, the owner says that he will be just with them. Perhaps by this point in the story we should be asking what is really going on.

Finally the ones who have been around nearly the entire working day are found. Note it’s at the eleventh hour (20:6 ESV. Many translations say five o'clock) – a phrase that has entered our language to mean a late intervention. These are the ones who had only the prospect of going home empty-handed to their families, having been humiliated by the rejection and disappointment of not being hired. Their answer to the owner tells it all – we are here “because no-one has hired us.”

There’s a compassionate tone to this part of the story, but notice the owner doesn’t just give them something. He doesn’t want to humiliate them further with a rather public handout; instead he offers them what they have been looking for – work.

So by the time we get to the end of verse 7, we have three different categories of workers. One have a contract – work all day for a day’s pay. Three groups have a promise of justice, and the last group have a job, but with no specific promise of remuneration of any form.

We’re now confronted with a number of surprises that Jesus’ listeners might not have expected. First in verse 8, a manager (some English versions have words like foreman, or steward) appears. We’ve had no mention of him so far, and it begs the question as to why he wasn’t doing the hiring, rather than the owner.

The next one is hidden from our eyes in the version of the Bible we have here. The original language now calls him “lord” of the vineyard. The Greek work is kyrios. When we see the phrase “Jesus is Lord” in the Bible, that’s the word it uses. When on page 3 in our communion service books we say or sing Lord, have mercy, it’s the Kyrie Eleison. And the next surprising thing the owner (lord) of the vineyard says to his manager is pay them “the wage”. Everyone is going to receive the same!! “The wage” is a denarius – a standard day’s pay.

The final shock is that they will be paid in reverse order. If the first to be hired are paid and sent home, and so on, then everyone would be happy with their lot. Paying them this way means everyone can compare.

So at this point, you can imagine that a protest is coming, and sure enough it surfaces in verses 11 & 12. “Not fair. We should receive more.”

It’s worth pausing here for a moment. The first group haven’t actually been underpaid – they have been paid a day’s wage for a day’s work. It is the correct amount, agreed at the commencement of their working day. The problem is that the others have (in their view) been overpaid. It’s the complaint of the other brother in the parable of the prodigal son. The generosity and grace of the vineyard owner to the unemployed he kept finding in the market place is uncomfortable and provocative.

Here’s how Bailey imagined the owner might respond to the complaints:

You have no complaint! Justice is served! I have given you what I agreed to pay you. You are free to do what you like with what is yours! And I am free to do what I like with what is mine! I chose to pay these men a living wage. You will be able to go home to your wives and children and proudly announce that you found work and have a fuII day's pay. I want these other men to be able to walk in the doors of their houses with the same joy in their hearts and the same money in their pockets. I want their children and wives to be as proud of them as yours are of you.

So you worked through the heat of the day, did you? That's fine. And what do you think I was doing during the heat of the day? Enjoying a traditional siesta? I was on the road to and from the market-trying to demonstrate compassion to others who, like you, are in need of employment. I could have sent my manager to do this. I didn't! I went myself to demonstrate solidarity with the men and help alleviate their suffering. Why are you jealous of them and angry at me? You must understand that I am not only just – I am also merciful and compassionate, because mercy and compassion are a part of justice! Have you never read the servant songs of the prophet Isaiah?

On what basis should the grace I show others irritate you? It appears that you do not care whether or not they can preserve their self-worth or feed their families. You want to take more for yourselves. I have chosen to give more of myself You want to be richer the end of the day. I have chosen to be poorer at the end of the day. Don't try to control me! Take your just wage and get out! ¹

Of course, this parable was never intended to be a template for industrial relations. Business owners would want to keep their labour costs down, not give out extra to people. Workers would want the same hourly rate for everyone working in the same role.

And it’s not just in business or trade that this thinking applies. Just think about how long it can take for communities or workplaces to regard someone as fully part of things, rather than a newcomer. There are some villages and towns where you can live there 20 years or more and still be an outsider. There are some churches where you have to have been there for 20 years or more before you can go on the church council without being seen as a pushy upstart.

But this is about grace. The undeserved and unearned generosity of God, which can’t be parcelled up into units, portions or hourly rates. Jesus uses a story rooted in the world of employment, trade and what we would call economics, to show how differently God works with his people. And it challenges us to approach people in the same way.

The owner in this parable sees justice very differently – it’s about giving people dignity and self-respect. The legally minded would be calculating, but the owner – and by implication God – isn’t. That tells us that God’s grace is about lifting people up, regardless of their capacity to do so themselves. It is not earned or merited; it is given.

It’s also worth just noting where this parable comes in Matthew’s gospel. It comes after the story of the rich young man, who cannot relinquish his riches to follow Jesus. A man trapped in calculation, who cannot accept the infinite and priceless gift of the forgiveness and grace of God. And it’s immediately followed by Jesus predicting his own execution on the cross and resurrection from the dead – the giving of his very self and life through suffering in order to bring the gift of eternal life to us all.

And it’s also a warning to those who seek to control or restrain grace. The owner won’t be swayed by the ones who had worked longest in the vineyard to withhold or reduce the payment. In verse 15, he lays a question before his critics – “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me, or are you envious because I am generous?”

Finally the parable simply ends. It leaves unresolved whether the workers were placated by the answer, infuriated or rioted. That’s deliberate, because the parable is a story – a piece of fiction infused with meaning. The ending of this parable, as with all of them, is the effect they have on us, the response we make, and the way in which we are transformed. It leaves us with questions:

Do we know, understand and appreciate the grace God has given us?

Are there ways in which we try to limit, stifle or constrain God’s grace for others?

Are we jealous of what others have received, or thrilled and content with what we have been given?

May God give us grateful, generous and grace-filled hearts. Amen.

¹ Bailey, Kenneth. (2008) Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. SPCK

Sermon for Trinity 12: Sunday 3rd September 2017

MORECAMBE PARISH CHURCH

Matt 16: 21 – 28

I wonder if you have ever overheard or been part of a conversation when you thought: ‘goodness that’s a bit over the top’. If you can pause for a second and not get swept up in it, you might ask yourself: ‘Where did all that come from?’

Well that’s a bit of what’s happening here when Jesus tells Peter to: “Get behind me Satan” v23. If you were here last week, listening to Anne’s sermon on the verses before these, you may be able to guess the answer to “where did all that come from?”

In case you weren’t, Jesus had asked his disciples: “who do people say that the Son of man is?” They give various answers – John the Baptist, one of the prophets. Then he cuts to the chase: “Who do YOU say I am?” Peter, always the first to reply, gave the right answer: “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”

But Peter’s moment of glory doesn’t last long, because as soon as Jesus tells his disciples what is going to be required of him, how he is about to walk right into the trap set for him in Jerusalem, where he will suffer and be killed and be raised from the dead, Peter explodes: “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” Now does it make sense why Jesus seems so furious with Peter?

It is simply too much for Peter to imagine his wise young teacher coming to such a quick and bloody end, especially an end that can be avoided. Why walk into a trap when you can turn around and walk away? Why take a risk you do not have to take? Surely, Jesus,  you could heal a lot more people, preach to more people, set a lot more people free if you’d just stay out of harm’s way; take the safe option.

It strikes me as I read Stephen and Marie Shin’s last prayer letter that you could say the same to these link missionaries of ours. Aren’t there people in this country who need them to share the message?  Why take 2 little boys to this dangerous country? Why take a risk they do not have to?

We’ve all at least heard of people who have done risky things for the sake of others – running into a burning house to see if anyone is still alive. And less news-worthy stories of someone with a full time job who spends their free time helping that project with asylum seekers or the homeless.

We can admire such people but something in us is often afraid for them, especially if we know them well. Part of us like Peter wants to protest, “God forbid! Isn’t there an easier way to do what you want to do? Do you have to take such risks? What if you get hurt?”

Peter has a way of saying what the rest of us are thinking. But when he does say it, he gets this explosive answer from Jesus. “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

What a shock! What did he do wrong? As far as Jesus is concerned it was the voice of the ancient Accuser, the Tempter, who from the beginning of time has offered human kind alternatives to the will of God – easier alternatives, safer alternatives, anything that tempts us to be something other than what God has called us to do and be.

In Jesus’ case it was the temptation to play safe, to skip the trip to Jerusalem and find an easier way to save the world. And it must have been a very real temptation for Jesus – or else I don’t think he would have silenced Peter so harshly.

But Jesus goes on to say something perhaps even more disturbing: “if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. We know that Jesus had to go to the Cross for us, so then why do we have to take up the cross?

It's probably something we would rather Jesus hadn’t said. So we try to get round it: let’s leave all this taking up the cross stuff to the early disciples and maybe a few more heroic people. It's quite hard enough to get up in the morning and face the challenges of the day, thank you very much.

Maybe we've been put off this verse by hearing some say: “this difficulty in my life is the cross I have to bear” but we don't see much of following Jesus in it. Or we may have seen someone denying themselves the smallest pleasures in life but when we see their souls poisoned with negativity, we think ‘surely that's not what it's about’.

And it isn't! The key to this verse is what Jesus has said about himself in v 21 “on the third day” he will “be raised to life” His taking the Cross led to Resurrection – to LIFE. And for us, taking up the cross, also leads to life, real living.

Peter wanted Jesus to save his life. He couldn’t bear to think of that beautiful life being spilled, wasted. What he didn’t realise was that Jesus’ supply of life was never-ending; and the more he gave of himself, the more he had to give; that when Jesus was raised from the dead, his life would be poured out, through the Holy Spirit, into all the world and into us.

The secret of Jesus’ hard words here is that the way to have abundant life is not to save it but to spend it, to give it away, because life cannot be shut up and saved anymore than a bird or a butterfly can be put in a box and stuck on a shelf. It has to be set free in order to live - and fly.

If we let our fear of suffering and death keep us from sticking our neck out, from taking the risks that make life worth living, we will save our own lives, yes, but we will lose something very precious - living a life that matters, a life for Christ’s sake.

There is quite a lot of pain involved in living this life especially in a world that counts on our fear of death to keep us in line. To follow Jesus means receiving our lives as gifts instead of guarding them as possessions. It means sharing the life we have been given instead of bottling it up for our own consumption.

But a life that pours itself out for others, without hardly thinking about it, knows that there is always more life where that came from, and even when our own lives run out God will have more life in store for us, because our God is a God who never runs out of life.

Sue Kiernan.

3 Sep 2017

Sermon for Lent 3 2017: The Woman At The Well

MORECAMBE PARISH CHURCH          19 March 2017

Exodus 17: 1 – 7

John 4: 5 – 42

The story of the Woman at the Well has a very odd ending. We are left in the air. She had brought her townspeople to meet Jesus and many of them believed in him v 39, so much so that they persuaded him to stay longer. But the woman - what about her? We are not told if she believed that he is the Saviour of the world or whether she was left dithering and undecided.

And the story of the journey of the people of Israel is also full of dithering, indecisiveness. For a short while after they came through the Red Sea all was hunky- dory. Their pursuers had drowned, they were delivered and all was happiness.

But it wasn’t long before difficulties made them miserable and grumpy. They were short of water, and when they do find some, it is bitter. They grumble and complain to Moses about God. God shows Moses how to turn it sweet and drinkable; back to happiness.

A few miles further on they are hungry. They’d probably finished the supplies they’d brought from Egypt, so what do they expect to find in a desert? They grumble and complain to Moses about God. So God rains down bread from heaven in the form of manna, to be freshly baked every day. And quails were driven in on the wind for supper; back to happiness.

But they get sick of it and are miserable and grumpy again.

By the time we get to the chapter we had read to us, Moses is tearing his hair out. Wouldn’t you be? They’d run out of water again. Guess what? They grumble and complain to Moses about God - again. No wonder Moses says to the Lord, v 4 “what shall I do with these people?”

So God had him strike the rock of Horeb and water came out. Even the name they gave the place reflected their attitude: ‘quarrel’ and ‘test’. These fractious people had not really decided to trust God. They would only trust God if He did everything they wanted.

So when a new challenge is given them it throws them into a panic and they pick a quarrel with Moses. ‘Let Moses do the believing in God for us!’ They were behaving like infants, refusing to make the decision for themselves. They had all these opportunities to trust God and they just dithered and wouldn’t commit themselves to this God who had done so much for them.

Back to the Woman at the Well! You would have thought that given half the chance to talk to Jesus face to face, she wouldn’t dither. But the conversation is full of avoidance. All the way through she is trying to put Jesus off; keeping him at a distance, keeping the conversation jokey.

Jesus has broken all the customs of the day for a Jew. He asks a favour of a Samaritan, a race despised by the Jews, and a woman at that. And what’s more, a woman of questionable morality – why else would she come on her own at midday instead of with her community in the cool of the morning? Jesus is breaking down all the barriers of race and gender and social norms. So perhaps it’s not surprising she puts her defences up.

She’s resorts to what she’s good at - the quick repartee:

“How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” She comes off the page as cheeky, even flirtatious.  And Jesus at first responds with warmth and humour but everything he says has a serious point to it. She resists his seriousness, cleverly turning what he says into a debate about their mutual ancestor Jacob. Anything to keep the conversation away from her own personal circumstances!

But Jesus won’t let her get away with it – every time she tries to turn the conversation away from the personal, Jesus brings it back. “Go call your husband!” (v 16)

She finds herself being confronted with what she has been so carefully keeping from him and she has to name her shame: “I have no husband”. The superficial way she usually converses with people is gone. She’s left completely exposed before the only person who has ever shown real understanding and acceptance for who she is.

She can’t bear that penetrating gaze for long and switches back again to discussion, to keeping it all at the level of the mind – a safe place to run when the gaze of Christ becomes too personal. But Jesus wants our hearts as well as our minds.

“God is Spirit” says Jesus to her “and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” The Spirit has a way of getting behind our defences and showing us the truth about ourselves and the truth of God’s unconditional love, poured out like living water slaking our thirst for reality.

But she’s not ready. For one last time she clings on to the safe, the impersonal. “I know the Messiah is coming – he’ll tell us everything.” But it’s something that belongs to a time in the future; it can’t change anything for me now.

 And then, to this Samaritan woman, to this outsider, this nobody who hasn’t shown any evidence of believing him, Jesus says the same words that God used in revealing himself to Moses in the desert: ‘I AM’, I AM He. I am the one you’ve been avoiding but the one you are really looking for. And for a moment all her defences come crashing down.

What will she do? The moment of truth is here, the Truth about everything, is now standing there right in front of her, demanding a decision. And she runs away. She runs to find people who will make the decision for her.

For the first time in her life they listen, they give her the respect she’s craved for so long. They go to find this Messiah for themselves and they believe, (v 42) no longer because of what she said but because they’d heard for themselves and know “this is truly the Saviour of the world.”

Perhaps she just can’t believe that her life can change - just like that, that she is being offered salvation so easily, so freely. We are left wondering - did she allow the waves of God’s grace to overwhelm her, or did she do what the Israelites did and refuse the invitation to trust? We will never know.

But we can end the story for ourselves.  How will we decide? Keep Jesus at a distance or respond to the offer he makes: “the water I give will become in you a spring of water gushing up to eternal life” v 14

Sue Kiernan

Magazine Article: Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships report

This is the article I wrote for the magazine about the House of Bishops report on marriage and sexuality. Since then, the report has been debated, and the Synod voted not to 'take note' of it, which means there is now a commitment to do more work on the issue.

Dear Friends

As I write this, the General Synod of the Church of England will be holding a ‘take note’ debate about the House of Bishops report called ‘Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations’, known as GS2055.

Questions around sexuality and marriage, and the church’s official stance on homosexual relationships has been headline material since at least the 1980s. In 1991, the Issues in Human Sexuality report¹ stated that sexual relations were only appropriate within heterosexual marriage, yet the church should welcome and value LGBT people. It was accused of double standards, as it was more tolerant of gay relationships amongst the laity than the clergy. However, when the law changed to allow people of the same gender to enter civil partnerships, and subsequently to marry, new questions faced the Church, including:

• Would marriage of same-sex couples be allowed in church?
• Would there be any official provision for blessing/dedicating civil partnerships or civil marriages of same-sex couples?
• Would clergy be allowed to enter civil partnerships or marry a partner of the same gender?

When the law changed, it remained illegal for the Church of England to carry out such ceremonies, and clergy are not allowed by the Bishops to bless marriages of same-sex couples². We are allowed to pray with them, but no official prayers are provided. Gay clergy are allowed to enter civil partnerships, as long as they comply with the church’s teaching, but have been disciplined for marrying their partner, as it is seen by the Bishops as undermining the church’s teaching on marriage.

For the last 2 years, ‘Shared Conversations’ brought people together from all viewpoints, to enable open and honest discussion of faith, marriage and sexuality. It was hoped that a new way forward might emerge. The latest report has been prepared for the Synod from those conversations.

In the event, GS2055 restated the 1991 line on sexual ethics and marriage. It asked for a gentler tone in how these issues are discussed, and suggested clarification on what prayers clergy may use with couples. Criticisms of the report are that it says a lot about how difficult this issue is for the bishops, yet it doesn’t seem to say as much about the experiences and struggles of LGBT people in the church. It could be stronger on acknowledging the presence and contribution of LGBT members of the Body of Christ. As some have noted, it refers to welcoming them, but they don’t need welcoming into something they are already part of. This suggests there is still ‘us and them’ thinking in the group who write the report.

3 questions come out of this for me:

1. Have we studied the questions, scriptures and discussions around these questions?
2. Have we listened to Christians who identify as LGBT, currently struggling with these issues?
3. How do we live together peaceably in fellowship when questions like this divide us?

May God give us humility and openness as we continue to learn together.

Mike Peatman



Footnotes

1.Issues In Human Sexuality. A Statement by the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England. December 1991. Church House Publishing. Chapter 5 can be downloaded here.

2. The House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage can be viewed by following this link. Sections 12, 19-21 and 27 of the Appendix are particularly relevant.