Note 1: Inclusivism is the belief that one does not have to be a Christian in order to get into heaven. It is slightly different from universalism in that universalism generally holds that all people will eventually go to heaven, while inclusivism holds that all people can, or that all people have an equal chance, regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances.
Note 2: This parable is loosely based on/inspired by/a retelling of/a response to Matthew 20:1-16, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:
Note 2: This parable is loosely based on/inspired by/a retelling of/a response to Matthew 20:1-16, the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
“‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
“‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
[Matthew 20; 1-16 (New International Version, ©2011) BibleGateway.Com]
This is what the kingdom of heaven seems like: On a certain day a wealthy landowner went out into the marketplace. This landowner was preparing to leave for a journey of several months and wanted to be sure his land would be well looked-after during these months. The landowner gathered a group of workers and said to them, “Tend to my vineyard while I am gone, and when I return I will pay you whatever is right. You must make sure to hire other workers as well, so that all the work will be done. I want as great a harvest as possible, so plant as much as you can. Recruit as many people as you need, and I will pay all of them.” They agreed, and so the landowner led them to the vineyard. Now all the vineyards in that region were located on one side of town where the soil and conditions were best, so he made sure to point out to them which was the correct vineyard. The landowner left that night.
The next day the twelve original workers went back to the marketplace to hire more workers. One sought out cooks to serve lunch to the other workers, another searched for smiths to make tools, a third recruited harvesters, and so on. All were promised that the landowner wanted many workers, and so as many as worked would be paid a fair wage.
Naturally, people told their friends and family about the wealthy landowner who would pay literally anyone who showed up. The news spread, as good news is wont to do, but as it spread it also evolved. Some were told that the landowner would only pay the very best workers; others were told that he was so generous that people would be paid regardless of whether or not they had worked. Others were given bad directions to the vineyard. One dishonest man charged people money to be led to the vineyard, and purposefully led them astray.
And as the weeks passed, the situation changed further. It started when some of the original twelve left because they no longer wanted to supervise such a disorganized group. Then part of a fence collapsed, and some of the workers--reasoning that the owner wanted a great harvest--began to start planting in a small area outside the original vineyard. Taking advantage of this, one of the original twelve broke into an unoccupied neighboring vineyard and convinced people to work there so that he could make some extra profit. As one of those who had actually spoken with the landowner, his word was trusted. It did not take long for several more vineyards to fill up with workers who were convinced they were doing the owner’s will.
So when a new worker showed up after the owner had been gone a few months, he was astonished to see several different vineyards in use. He walked up to the fence and called to the nearest laborer, “Which vineyard is the one everyone’s talking about, where the master’s gone but he’ll come back and pay everyone who works in his land?”
The other laborer wiped the sweat off her face, smiled a little wearily and said, “Unfortunately, no one has seen the owner in months. Everyone says they’re working in the right vineyard. Everyone says they’ve talked to someone who’s actually met the owner. We really...don’t know for sure. But the harvest will happen in a few months, and we all figure that as long as all the vineyards produce and bring profit, the owner will be generous enough to pay us all.”
“So the owner is a generous person?”
“That’s what we’ve been told. Of course, we don’t know for sure what the owner’s like--like I said, the owner hasn’t been seen for months. Even before leaving town the owner was kind of a mystery to everyone else.” She leaned closer to the fence and whispered, “Some people are even saying that the owner is a woman, but that the men want to keep that a secret. I don’t know if it’s true, but I kind of hope so.”
“So how do you know what to do?”
“Like I said, we figure if we produce faithfully, the owner might be generous. And if she’s not, some people say that no one was using the other land, so they figure we don’t really need a master--we can work our own land and eat our own food. Of course, I’m loyal to the owner.”
“How did you decide where to work?”
“I just found a place where the people were doing good work. Like, over there they’re just kind of sitting around or partying. Some of the supervisors have weird ideas, like that women aren’t allowed to do some of the work, but most of them try to take care of the vineyards. Since we don’t know for sure, it didn’t matter as much to me which one is ‘right’. I mean, one thing that everyone agrees on is that the owner wants a huge harvest, and the extra land’s not being used, so does it really matter where it comes from?”
The new worker shrugged and got to work.
More weeks passed, and as the harvest approached, the workers began to anxiously await the return of the landowner. When he finally arrived, it was with fanfare and excitement, in a procession including his steward, guards, and other employees. Even though they didn’t recognize him, his imposing presence was unmistakable. The workers, hundreds of them, flooded to the road, still in smaller groups. Some looked suspiciously at other groups, but many looked eagerly toward the owner. When he spoke, he did not smile. He raised his hand toward the group who had stayed in the original vineyard, and intoned, “Well done, faithful servants. Come and receive your reward, and then enjoy the harvest with me.”
There were murmurs of relief; the landowner was generous after all. He had kept his promise. The group of workers quietly lined up to receive their wages from the steward. When they had finished, the owner turned, still unsmiling, to the other groups. “And what have you all been doing here?” he asked.
One worker, braver than the rest, stood forward. “Please, sir,” she said, “We didn’t know which vineyard to work in. Everyone told us something different. We wanted to work in your vineyard, and if you had been here, we would have followed you.”
“All of the vineyards are mine,” the landowner declared. “But if I wanted people to work in these other vineyards, I would have hired workers for them. As it is, all of you are trespassing. You must leave, and if you don’t cooperate, I’ll have you thrown into prison.”
Now uneasy murmuring started. The worker spoke up again. “But sir, the harvest is just around the corner. We have done sacrificed and done good work all this time--the vines are blooming--if you’ll let us stay a few more days, we would be glad to harvest it all for you--”
Now the owner was angry. “If you wanted to work for me, you should have followed my instructions and worked in my vineyard. Leave me; I don’t know you.”
“He told me to work here!” someone accused, pointing at one of the original twelve, now standing nervously in the group of those who had been paid. “He said you told him to!”
“Silence!” shouted the landowner. “Yes, my servants have made mistakes, but I have forgiven them. It is my money, my vineyard and my right to do what I want with it. You have no right to be envious of what I do with my own possessions.” And he ordered his soldiers to drag them all away to be punished for trespassing.
----------
Some explanation may be necessary: It is indeed legal and fair of the landowner to do this. He does have a right to do what he wants with the land, and his verbal contract with the first workers did say that all those who worked in the right vineyard would be paid. He does have the authority and the right to do this.
However, his actions are not in keeping with his self-described character or goals. If he owns all the vineyards and, as he stated, wants his workers to produce as much as possible, it doesn’t make sense to punish or reject those in the wrong vineyards. Limiting his workers to one vineyard, but not giving everyone enough information to know the right one is like a bait-and-switch, a trick to trap those who guess wrong. They are not punished for not working, they are punished for being incorrect.
If humanity’s salvation is to depend on us giving intellectual assent to the correct set of propositions, instead of on us working faithfully for good, then a just deity must give us--each individual person--enough information to prove which is right, and the mental ability to overcome our biases and reason rationally, to correctly evaluate this information. But we have neither that information nor that ability. There is no definitive proof of the truth of any religion, and few of us are able to objectively consider the evidence that exists.
Personally, I do believe that God can and will do what he wants regarding salvation. If, as I believe, God is the creator of everything, the world and we are literally God’s, and God has the power to make that decision. And I don’t have all the answers, nor would I dare claim the authority to lay out a set of guidelines showing exactly who’s in and who’s out, or how much of a curve a person is graded on for being born into certain circumstances. But the way Team Hell describes their salvation, their deity and their kingdom of heaven, I think is accurately depicted in this parable, and I believe it is slander to say that God is like this landowner. It is certainly not a deity I want to serve.
--Lunch Meat
____________________________________________________________________________
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
Heaven isn't a concept that resonates very much for me, since (as a Pagan) all I'm really sure of and primarily interested in is this life on Earth. But thank you, Lunch Meat, for a thought-provoking post.
Posted by: Laiima | Apr 22, 2011 at 05:54 PM
As an atheist all I'm sure of and interested in is this life on earth. So the parable doesn't work for me. But it does point out the absurdity of a worldview that forbids heaven to some.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Apr 22, 2011 at 06:09 PM
By. The. Way. (And sorry if this has been noted) Here's a little sermon from a megachurch pastor who would really prefer that this not be on the interwebs where people can see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyBVoxt4pQ0
As per usual, just don't read the comments, which is the usual "He's vile but he's 100% right that the only legit interpretation of the bible the one he has, and this is why no reasonable person can believe in god" stuff you'd expect in a youtube comment thread.
Posted by: Ross | Apr 22, 2011 at 06:43 PM
Lunch Meat, your brilliant parable reminds me of those Chick Tracts that end with Mr. Wrongreligion standing before God and being told, "YOU BELIEVED THE WRONG THING! OFF TO HELL WITH YOU! HAW, HAW, HAW!"
*browses Chick website*
Hey, here's one. (Is it bad perspective or is that one GIGANTIC fish by the sunken plane?)
Posted by: Raj | Apr 22, 2011 at 06:50 PM
I'm pretty sure that's just bad perspective, Raj, but it definitely sums up the whole idea of this post. The thing that always gets me is the sheer certainty people like Chick have in their beliefs. I mean, they believe that they are literally betting on eternity here and are firmly convinced the wrong answer is an eternity of torment. Given that they are firmly convinced their is only a single right answer, I don't understand how they don't spend their lives simply quivering in the corner. Instead we get pelted with Chick's and Team Hell cheering squads that the only thing they seem to know is something that is completely unknowable in the first place. I'm sure there are tons of explanations to this, but from my perspective, its a completely inconceivable way to act. As a science minded person, being sure without reliable evidence is an anathema. As a Taoist, I can really only be somewhat sure of the next step on my own path. Anything else is pure guesswork and frankly unimportant.
Oh, and Wednesday was my son's third birthday! It's scary how quickly time flies sometimes...
Posted by: Albanaeon | Apr 22, 2011 at 07:13 PM
Was going to say, some of us, like myself, aren't interested in the owner -- if sie exists or not -- or the hypothetical pay at the harvest. I'm more interested in taking care of the people around now, and do satisfying work.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes | Apr 22, 2011 at 08:42 PM
@Raj and that Chick Tract.
Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. I can accept that he believes this stuff, but how can he enjoy it or think it's good? He writes about this immoral God with such obvious glee!
And the phrase "dear natives", in a better writer, may have been intended to show that the missionaries weren't really good. In the case of Jack Chick ... nah.
TRiG.
*shudder*
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Apr 22, 2011 at 10:18 PM
But the way Team Hell describes their salvation, their deity and their kingdom of heaven, I think is accurately depicted in this parable, and I believe it is slander to say that God is like this landowner. It is certainly not a deity I want to serve.
It is Team Hell's conception of god which drives many people (or at least a healthy number of my acquaintances) to the conclusion that if there is a god and if their description of that God is accurate -- then we would echo Huck's words "All right, then, I'll go to hell."
Posted by: Mmy | Apr 22, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Indeed, I am wondering what your perspective would be, Lunch Meat, for the owner's reaction to people who are saying, "I don't think the owner actually exists, we should be managing this vineyard to benefit the people who are working in it, not to profit some owner who might only exist in the imaginations of the people who originally started this whole business," and advocating planting food crops instead of wine grapes.
I mean, that could just be an indication of the breakdown of the analogy. But it seems to be a valid way of looking at it. A lot of us are unconvinced that there is a heaven to get into, and in any case I feel that living your life for the purpose of getting a reward in the afterlife is devaluing the life you have now, which is the only one for whose existence we have objective evidence.
Posted by: Andrew Glasgow | Apr 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM
@Raj--
Faceless Jesus strikes again! HAW HAW HAW!!!
Posted by: Ruby | Apr 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM
I...That...Jack Chick, seriously?
First off, the Ephesians quote you cite DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR POINT! "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." Gift. Not reward. Gift. Salvation is a "Gift" from God.
Here's Webster's definition: "something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation." I know the "without compensation" may sound like a foreign language to someone who worships capitalism as much or more than God, but it means he neither gets nor needs anything in return, before or after the fact. To say that only those who are faithful to God may be given salvation is to claim salvation is a "reward," something granted for services performed. Reward is not the same as gift.
Also if faith is the prerequisite then why are the missionaries condemned? They quite obviously had faith in God and Jesus. I mean, is Chick REALLY so dense and assholish as to argue Faith ergo not good works? (Don't answer that, I'm afraid I already know the answer). The crux of the matter is that he argues after all his quotes about how good works have nothing to do with salvation, that performing good works is disbelieving in Jesus. I...what? Also, wouldn't converting the unsaved count as good works? Then why do they think that saving others will get them anything but hell?
Fnally, nice use of quote mining. Since the very next verse on the Ephesians quote is, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works..." If we are created to do good works, while are people punished by God for doing good works. This isn't even God determining what is good an evil on an arbitrary basis; this is like a watchmaker who destroys his work because the pieces he makes tell time.
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 23, 2011 at 03:12 AM
Oh Chick. I'll take your Matt 7 and raise you a Matt 25:
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Posted by: Eli | Apr 23, 2011 at 05:56 AM
That tract is a masterpiece of FAIL. The missionaries clearly believe in God and devoted their lives to building schools and hospitals, solely to improve the lives of the people they served, but because they couldn't give a list of people they'd seen say the Magic Words, they get tossed into Hell. Chick can't even consider the possibility that some of those "dear natives" might have come to faith in Christ because, say, their daughter was treated for intestinal parasites in the hospital, then completed her education at the school, and went on to, say, become a nurse or teacher. A good writer might have indicated that the missionaries were hypocrites, only interested in self-aggrandizement, but since Chick isn't a good writer, that's not an option.
Finally, I love the Cretaceous fish in the picture.
Posted by: Karen, who has written and published a new blog post | Apr 23, 2011 at 09:36 AM
Lunch Meat, I take your point (and the parable is lovely), but would your point be better supported if, instead of saying "based on Team Hell, this is what the Kingdom of Heaven seems like", you said "I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is like this," and having the vineyard owner saying "well done, my good and faithful servants" to all who worked in vineyards? I mean, based on your initial note re: inclusiveness, that was what I expected at the end, so the twist kinda threw me.
Andrew Glasgow - I can't speak for Lunch Meat, obviously, but it seems to me that to people who said "we must improve the condition of our fellow workers; that patch over there would be better served if we planted some carrots, and does anyone mind if I raise a goat over here for milk and eventually meat for those that want it," a loving, merciful vineyard owner would say "well done, my good and faithful servants." But then, I'm a Universalist, so my perspective might be skewed.
Posted by: Mike Timonin | Apr 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Interesting, Lunch Meat. A sadly accurate depiction of the Team Hell mindset-- and of course, they're all quite sure that they've kept within the right fences, no matter how fruitful any of the other vineyards may be.
Since it's Holy Saturday, here's another picture of what the vineyard owner thinks of hell, from an old Liturgy of the Hours for the day:
(Yes, it's a Christian-centric quote, but then hell, as Team Hell believes in it, is a Christian-centric concept itself.)
----
Albanaeon: Oh, and Wednesday was my son's third birthday! It's scary how quickly time flies sometimes...
Happy belated birthday to Albanaeon-scion!
And I know that young parents hate being told to savor every moment of their children's childhood, because it's over so quickly-- but it really is! So enjoy!
Posted by: Amaryllis | Apr 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM
@Choir of Shadows: A lot of that ties into something Fred talked about in a TF post a while back: You're talking about people who claim that salvation is through grace alone, but make it clear by their actions that salvations is actually through believing that salvation is through grace alone. If you don't actually believe that, you're damned.
It's quite a paradoxical belief to hold, and I'm not sure how anyone holds it without having a constant headache from the cognitive dissonance inherent in the belief. But there you have it.
Posted by: Jarred | Apr 23, 2011 at 11:33 AM
I remember that article. I believe the points from my post that Fred discusses are the good works=rejection of God, and Ephesians 10. He also had a lovely line that what these people believe isn't Lutheranism or Calvinism, but Lutheranism-ism and Calvinism-ism.
I still don't have an answer (let alone an adequate answer) for how converting the unsaved doesn't count as good works in this. Especially since as Chick even quotes, the non-use of good works in determining salvation is so "that none may brag," and then you have people bragging about how many people they've saved. And bragging about how their faith is so great that they will be saved. Or for that matter, why a GIFT of God is treated instead as a reward for specific actions, when we insist on a literal reading.
Of course, it's a load of crap that these people actually interpret the Bible literally. My theory is that they've adopted the use of the word "literal" as synonymous but less objectionable than "true." To claim that they have the "true" interpretation of the Bible would open them up to all kinds of challenges; in an actual literal interpretation, there really can't be any disputes since "what you see is what you get." The problem there is that they ignore that they are reading a translated text ("If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"), with all the idiosyncrasies of any translated text problematizing literal readings, and, oh yeah, they've just adopted the label "literal" for its supposed indisputability while keeping their "true" interpretation.
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 23, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Good job, Lunch Meat! I've recommended Capon several times on this board, but I recently pulled out my favorite book of his, Between Noon and Three: Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace for another project, so I'm going to post an excerpt. He uses the book to tell a parable even more audacious than the one Lunch Meat does, and he knows how audacious it is; the last three paragraphs of this are in the voice of the offended reader who, like Chick, can't accept either the audacity or the grace. Please excuse the length. Emphasis in the original.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM
I loved this post, partly because the Parable referred to serves as the basis for John Chrysostom's traditional Easter sermon, which I get to hear again tonight and never gets old.
A lot of us are unconvinced that there is a heaven to get into, and in any case I feel that living your life for the purpose of getting a reward in the afterlife is devaluing the life you have now, which is the only one for whose existence we have objective evidence.
And some of us think that the very act of working in the vineyard, side by side with other workers, rejoicing in the gifts of sunshine and rain in their turn, turning the good earth and hard work into grapes that become wine to strengthen the failing, soothe the restless, and cheer those that mourn...
...that IS the Kingdom of Heaven.
And what is this about the Owner's "return"? He/She/They are working right beside us. Over there. The one passing around the canteen, wearing a funny hat.
P.S. Happy birthday to Albanaeon-son! Three is a splendid age.
Posted by: hapax | Apr 23, 2011 at 01:09 PM
OH, and one more Happy Birthday to Albanaeonlet! Three is a wonderful age, and it only gets better for the next few years.
Posted by: Karen, who has written and published a new blog post | Apr 23, 2011 at 01:24 PM
One of the saddest things I've ever read that touches on this is Dante's Purgatorio. In the Inferno, Virgil, Dante's guide, leads Dante through the first Circle, Limbo, which is filled with "virtuous pagans." All the great writers of antiquity are there: Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and Virgil himself. Everyone who's here, Virgil tells Dante, lived a good life, but because they lived before Christ and so couldn't accept him, they're damned. Horribly, all of them were witness to the Harrowing, which is when (supposedly) Jesus came and took all the Old Testament patriarchs and matriarchs with him when he left Hell. So they got to watch all these other souls taken up to God just because they're part of that story.
But Virgil gets another kick in the teeth: after he leads Dante out of Hell, he has to lead Dante through Purgatory, where Dante is purified systemically of his seven great sins. Virgil isn't, though, and so has to lead Dante higher and higher, closer and closer to God, and watch his pupil grow closer and closer to attaining Heaven. At the end, he simply vanishes without a farewell, unable to go any further.
Dante's description of Virgil toiling up the slopes of Mount Purgatorio, surrounded by people striving for grace he himself is denied, suffering the awful endless burden he earned by being born too early, breaks my heart every time.
Posted by: Wednesday | Apr 23, 2011 at 02:56 PM
Mini-Albanaeon is having a big party today with some of his favorite people (g-ma, great g-ma, female cousins) at a family fun center, so he should have a great day today. Thanks for all the well wishes.
And I agree with Wednesday that one of the more depressing parts of the Divine Comedy is how many "good pagans" are punished for simply being born in the wrong time. While their Purgatory isn't all that bad if I remember correctly, in some ways it makes it just as bad because they get to have full knowledge that due to a fluke of timing, they will never get the full eternal bliss that others get for simply being born in right time or place. It was this kind of reasoning that started me away from Catholicism and Christianity in the first place. Even with being taught about Purgatory, I couldn't shake the feeling of absolute unfairness that comes with accepting Jesus is the only way to get to heaven when many weren't even given a chance in the first place.
Posted by: Albanaeon | Apr 23, 2011 at 03:18 PM
I think (but am not certain) that this is my first post on Slactivist/Slacktiverse - it was Fred's Left Behind writings that got me in (can't remember when I started reading his stuff, but I think when I first turned up and began reading the archives, his most recent post featured Rayford being assholeish to his co-pilot at the start of Tribulation Force), so it's weird that I should wait until after Fred moved to Pathos that I should post for the first time.
Anyhoo, I want to say thankyou to Lunch Meat for a brilliant parable (though I think both he, myself, and many others tack on the inclusivist ending in favour of Team Hells'), and to everyone else for expanding on it.
For what its worth, I think the owner would indeed be pleased with people who laboured in the field simply for the joy of the work, rather than the (in their eyes, possibly non-existant) reward, and just as pleased with those who worked providing services and aid to their fellow workers. It's kind of how I see the purpose of humanity on this Earth in general - God planted us here and is glad to see us working the land, regardless of what teams we bud off into, so long as we are working together.
I'm sorry if that's an inelegant means of expressing it - I'll try harder next time.
I was wondering though if Literate could expand on the context of his quote, because while it's beautifully written, I'm not sure of how I'm meant to come at it, or what the piece's complainant is actually complaing about.
Thanks again, and I hope to keep posting here in the future.
*
Nb: Happy Birthday to Albanaeon-Jr
Nbb: The new Doctor Who started tonight, 'The Impossible Astronaut', and it was AWESOME! Can't wait for next week's!
Posted by: TB3 | Apr 23, 2011 at 05:28 PM
TB3, welcome! I will offer you the traditional Slacktiverse greeting: Please don't kill us with sheep. (Long story. Just laugh.) FYI, I am female. :)
The first paragraph is Capon (the author) addressing his reader directly, saying that we have a tendency to screw up Jesus' stories - when we read Jesus' stories about how God loves us, we tend to retell them in terms of "God loves us if..." and "God loves us when..." not just, "God loves us!"
For the rest of the quote, I imagine Capon imitating the voice of a perfectionist parishioner who is offended by the suggestion that real grace and true forgiveness make works-righteousness and especially self-righteousness irrelevant. He's mimicking the kind of person who complains that since he showed up at noon to work in the fields (in the parable above), paying the woman who showed up at 5pm the same wage is downright evil. Or, in my mind, the whiner is the kind of person who says that taxes are a way of penalizing the rich for being productive, nevermind that the poor don't have enough to eat.
I hope that helps. N-th-ing many happy returns of the day to Mini-Albanaeon, and a happy Easter to all who will celebrate it tomorrow.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 23, 2011 at 06:48 PM
tl;dr: The first paragraph is Capon; the rest is (Capon imitating) a member of Team Hell.
Sorry I didn't provide enough context the first time around!
Posted by: Literata | Apr 23, 2011 at 06:51 PM
Many thanks for the welcome Literata!
And a Happy Easter to one and all! God Bless!
Nb: Over the years I've seen the 'sheep' comment many a time, and someday I shall ask what it means, and there shall be much wailing and gnashing of teeth!
Posted by: TB3 | Apr 23, 2011 at 07:21 PM
TB3: It was apparently a misreading of "kill us in our sleep", originally.
Posted by: Deird, who wasn't here then | Apr 23, 2011 at 07:48 PM
He/She/They are working right beside us.
This reminds me of my aunt's bumpersticker. So maybe it should say, "Jesus is here. Look busy." I should call her sometime. Also, she wrote a book:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Roses-Neighborhood-ebook/dp/B004E9U6WA
Posted by: Lonespark | Apr 23, 2011 at 08:33 PM
The new Doctor Who started tonight, 'The Impossible Astronaut', and it was AWESOME! Can't wait for next week's!
You'd already seen it at 5:28 PM? Is it at 8 local time or what?
My thoughts, written as if addressing the characters (ROT13'd for "Impossible Astronaut" spoilers):
Nzl: Tbbq sbe lbh sbe guvaxvat bs lbhe pnzren. Ba gur bgure unaq, lbh'ir unq lbhe zvaq zrffrq jvgu n ybg bire gur pbhefr bs lbhe fcyvagrerq gvzryvar, naq vg fubhyq unir znqr lbh n ybg zber cnenabvq nobhg lbhe zrzbel guna vg nccneragyl qvq. Jura lbh svaq lbhe cubar va lbhe unaq naq qba'g xabj ubj vg tbg gurer, lbh ernyyl fubhyq purpx gb frr vs gurer'f nalguvat arj ba gur qevir.
Ebel: Lbh fnj n cebonoyl-ubfgvyr nyvra naq qvqa'g fpernz? Jung'f jebat jvgu lbh? Vg'f abg yvxr vg unqa'g abgvprq lbh jrer gurer; vg pyrneyl unq.
Posted by: Brin (not Meir) | Apr 23, 2011 at 09:25 PM
Fantastic parable. I will definitely keep that one in mind!
Posted by: textjunkie | Apr 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM
TB3: It was apparently a misreading of "kill us in our sleep", originally.
Apparently-no-longer-here-poster-Tricksterson said, "To everyone who welcomed me, thank you, to everyone who did not welcome me, I will be killing you in your sleep."
aunursa said, "I totally read that as 'killing you with sheep' the first time."
Posted by: Kish | Apr 24, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Ross and Raj: I couldn't make it through either one of your links. I can only make sense of it in terms that I was overexposed to this in my childhood and now I'm "allergic" to it. I'm ashamed that I could swallow any part of this, I'm afraid of having it preying in my mind, and I remember too well crying for my lack of faith (though my good works were, if not numerous, both earnest and courageous).
It's exactly why I'm here and why Fred gladdens my heart, because it's exactly the antidote to the poison.
Posted by: Thalia | Apr 24, 2011 at 01:21 PM
Hey everyone, Mini-Albanaeon's party went splendidly. He had only one melt down, and that was at the very end of the day when something startled him. Considering there was no nap and lots and lots of stimulation, I chalking it up as a miracle along the lines of parting seas and water to wine... I did learn a couple things though...
1. The best parties are really about who you invite. Really the party was more themed to people under 9, but having a whole bunch of adults playing "Simon Says" and "Red Light, Green Light" is hilarious. Particularly when they don't take themselves too seriously to begin with.
2. Dignity can take a hike when the the prospect of video games is available for the adult males of my family. Which is fine, because the females find this just as amusing, when of course they aren't quietly taking turns themselves...
3. Buffets really make it easy to plan a meal, particularly when their is a wide variety of foods. Everyone was happy about the food.
4. Toys are just as fun for grown-ups.
5. Toys are also revenge from adults to their now younger adults for various antics they had before, so I can expect lots and lots of noisy, obnoxious toys without clear off switches.
6. Three year olds don't trust people dressed up as a dog, but they do find them fascinating.
7. Washable is an extremely relative term...
Posted by: Albanaeon | Apr 24, 2011 at 01:47 PM
Huh. I took rather the opposite view. It seemed like one of the *kindest* aspects of Dante's hell. They're not being tortured, they get to spend their days hanging out and talking philosophy with each other, and aside from living adjacent to a sea of dead babies (*that* bit was pretty awful), the only thing unpleasant about their lot was that they didn't get to go hang out with God.
Now, it may have seemed different to me because I was approaching it from the mindspace where it was *assumed* that they would go to hell and be tortured just as savagely as people Dante disliked personally, just for having been born in the wrong time: before reading Dante, the predominant image I'd been given was "Yeah, if you didn't get the chance to become Christian, you go to hell and have red hot coals lovingly applied to your nether regions. We all know it's not fair, but the omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent God doesn't have any choice in the matter.", and Dante seemed to have come up with the answer "Yeah they go to Hell, but Hell has some comparatively nice bits in it."
I also thought it was neat that when the virtuous pagans talked about Jesus, it was clear that they didn't quite comprehend him -- unlike a Jack Chick character who understands Jesus and refuses to OBEY out of spite.
Posted by: Ross | Apr 25, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Oh, I am not saying that Dante was cruel or anything, Ross. Within the framework he was using, he came up with a great solution. He put them in an "almost paradise" that was far better than most of the SOL shrugs I had gotten before. But, it doesn't excuse that the framework itself was fundamentally UNFAIR to begin with. It seemed like many could bowl a perfect game and then find out that we were playing cricket the entire time.
Posted by: Albanaeon | Apr 25, 2011 at 01:00 PM
Hey, sorry I haven't replied before now. I had a much busier weekend than I expected...
General replies--
The reason I wrote about what I didn't think was true rather than what I did (other than the fact that in religion, it's often easier to talk about what deity isn't than what deity is) is twofold: First, I don't think it's my place to try to explain "who's in and who's out" and such a story would have to do that: The owner says "You receive your reward because you did X," implying that anyone who did not X is out. This also reveals the limitations of the metaphor: I think God will be fine with people who work to help and feed each other, regardless of what the unknown master wants, but speaking in terms of economics, ownership and capitalism, I didn't think such a master would make sense. And I do think that the "harvest" is not so much a harvest of "souls" or of stuff that the master gets to keep, but more a harvest of good works that make the world a better place (which implies that the harvest doesn't take place all at once at the end of time, but that every day, the harvest is going on).
The other reason I didn't write a positive parable was because I was trying to avoid sounding condescending to the atheist people and people of other religions here, as if I was saying "It's okay that you're confused about God because my God is cool and loves you anyway." I think that if there is one objective supernatural reality, it's as different from what I believe as it is from what anyone else believes.
I hope that makes sense; I'm on my break and don't have time to really clarify.
Raj, that tract is sickening and full of so much fail I can hardly believe it.
Literata, thanks for posting that quote! I have that book by Capon and it's really good. In fact, I picked it up for a couple of dollars at a sale and I'm so glad I did, because it was the first time someone who was actually a respected writer and theologian (and thus not just a disaffected college student) stated outright what I'd suspected for a while.
I'll see if I can expand on this later, but I've got to go.
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Apr 25, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Apropos Jack Chick, the following tract is funny fail moreso than horrifying fail: Dark Dungeons
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 25, 2011 at 05:11 PM
Raj, that tract is sickening and full of so much fail I can hardly believe it.
The Jack Chicks of the world are why we need all the Lunch Meats we can get. You rock, LM!
Posted by: Raj | Apr 25, 2011 at 09:13 PM
I've always been partial to liverwurst (well, once I'd tried some, anyway), though it's not something I should eat all that often.
I got an actual Chick Tract stuck under my windshield wiper last year. My first reaction was "That's tacky. You're a church, not a car wash." This was followed by disappointment that it was "Creator or Liar?", a relatively tame little thing that just quotes Bible verses and asks "Are you calling Jesus a liar?" at the end.
I'd kinda hoped it'd be something like Dark Dungeons or one of the other tracts I could laugh at.
Posted by: Winter | Apr 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM
I think some of the more entertaining ones aren't widely distributed anymore because they kinda backfired. I mean, these days, almost everyone knows someone who plays RPGs or plays one themselves. Some of them are obsessed losers, some spend more time than they should but are OK anyway, the majority are frequent but responsible players, and some are just casually doing it once in a while. Now of course these are mostly MMORPGs, or console/PC games rather than tabletop games, but the same elements are present, so people are mostly aware that RPGs don't actually affect people the way that the Chick track portrays it.
Of course, when a character dies in a game like that, most of the time there's opportunities to raise hir from the dead, or reincarnate the character's soul into a new body, or simply allow the player to 'take over' an existing NPC character or introduce a new one for hir to play.
Posted by: Andrew Glasgow | Apr 26, 2011 at 08:56 AM
Hapax:
Oh right! Funny hat Jesus. That's my favorite kind of Jesus.
Posted by: Andrew Glasgow | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:05 AM
@Andrew-
I spent the majority of my day off yesterday trying to finish Mass Effect 2 (I did stop to do yard work, shower, and eat) because I was possibly more worried than I should have been that my actions may have caused an ending to the story where characters that I had grown attached would die and therefore not appear in the 3rd game when I import my save file. I don't normally do this.
I rarely venture into the "spend more time than they should be are OK anyway" group, but those games are just so damn good. I'm kind of glad I have to wait til Christmas for the 3rd one.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:36 AM
On the Chick tract: Yeah, it's horrible. The 'highlight' here is that the sinner admits he never saved anyone either. He killed a man, then got saved, but he did nothing else. So why exactly does it matter that the couple didn't save anyone's soul either? At worst, the couple is 'as bad' as the murderer, if we assume good deads are meaningless, they weren't worse. The answer is indeed probably poisturing. Chick feels he knows something. Other people disagree. Chick writes them into hell for disagreeing. You know, I don't often hear Catholics writing protestants into hell these days (not openly anyway) and they have better cause. If someone believes in God and does deeds for God that God didn't really want, he can still be saved. Someone who has only faith and believes he doesn't need to do good deeds when God does want him to however, is screwed.
This brings me to a point Fred brought up in an TF footnote, which makes the winefield-parrible even worse: Apparently the supporters of the 'Jesus is comming 21st of May' are busy declaring that LaHaye's followers will be left behind because... they aren't sure it'll be the 21st? Because LaHaye thinks the end of the world takes 7 years instead of till October the 21st? Seriously, does anyone here know why? But anyway, to change the story of the landowner again: This means the landowner now also refuses to pay anyone who didn't know the exact date at which he came back, or believed he made a trip to buy seeds instead of sell wine on the market, even though they worked on the exact field he wanted. This goes beyond dickish-but-legal behavior and into felony territory.
Also, team Hell arguably makes the story even worse than Lunch meat described. The landowner isn't just an employer who pays i.e. rewards people for working on his field: He's also the ONLY employer in the town, and has himself ensured that anyone who can't pay city taxes will be tortured. Forever. It's a good reason why Fred, Lunch meat and Team love can't make the idea of Hell fit. If Hell exists, God created it. An eternity of torture doesn't sound like it's the 'default' state for a soul to be in. One could argue that God still has a right to run his vacation resort in the sky as an invitation only club, only accesible for those he in is generousity rewards. But if God at the same time ensured that the only place they can go except heaven is hell.... yeah, that's past immoral and into straight-up evil. (And if Team Hell likes to argue that every single human is sinfull and thus deserves torture unless God gives you a get out of hell free card, I'd like to point out that God made humans that way, with his omnipotence. If every single human is sinfull, that sounds like a design flaw to me, made by a designer who is capable of true perfection. No fair taking it out on the things you created evil for being evil.)
Posted by: Ivan | Apr 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM
It's the logical extension of what Fred called Calvinismism: Calvinism just says 'you are saved by faith', Calvinism-ism (as seen in LB) says 'you are saved by believing that only faith can save you' - the next step has to be 'you are saved by believing that only faith can save you and only in this exact fashion on this day and at this time', which is where people start declaring other people damned for predicting the wrong kind of apocalypse.
Presumably the next edition of fundamentalist theology will get even bulkier before someone decides to streamline the package with Rapture 4E, in which you are saved by having faith that everyone else is going to hell.
Posted by: Will Wildman | Apr 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM
@Will: Yeah, it seems the next step for these people. And I'll admit, I prefer to have them spending time and effort fighting each other than us. I'm just wondering if anyone is sufficiently well-versed in this whole world to explain to me exactly the difference between the theories are.
On a side note, I wouldn't have recognized it without this blog, but to my suprise there's quite a few billboard on train stations mentioning the comming may 21st date. I thought in the Netherlands we had our own flavor of RTCs, but apparently there's some Rapture-adherents too, with enough cash on hand to blow it on billboards. (Those billboards were usually in use by the 'Union against cursing'. Those posters, while stupid, I found at least appropriate, because there's a lot of cursing when people miss their trains. I wonder if it's the same financers...) Or it's their folowers' collective life savings and they're figuring they don't need it anymore. I'm wondering if I can find if they plan a gathering, so I can hold a goodbye party across the road. And anyone who's still there come midnight can be introduced to his new life as a fallen sinner.
Posted by: Ivan | Apr 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM
@Ivan, The prisoner had converted someone: his cellmate. And while they don't specifically say so, it's strongly implied that he was deemed worthy of heaven. The missionaries almost certainly converted people. The reason they were condemned is because A) rather than converting people for the sake of converting them, they converted them as a side-effect of their long-time work to HELP people: feed the hungry, heal the sick, you know, the stuff that Jesus commanded his followers to do; and B) they couldn't specify who they had converted.
@Will, Also, Rapture 4e will inexplicably be more like World of Warcraft. And yeah, I always wondered about that in that tract. I mean, has anyone present EVER been kicked out of a group for character death? And that is a seriously crappy party. I mean, she died of poison, her body would be fully intact. 5k gold for reagents, and then if the cleric got one more level, bam, Raise Dead. Or just 5k reagents and a couple hundred for casting the spell. At 8th level? Oh yeah, they could afford it, unless this is the stingiest DM ever. Alternatively, roll up another character. You could even name her Lack Bleaf. That girl had some serious identity issues, or a complete inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality (well, this IS Jack Chick we're talking about here), to do that to herself over a character dying. To give credit where credit is due though, Chick had the group be half male and half female, with a female DM. It surely wasn't intended to be, but it still strikes me as rather progressive.
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 26, 2011 at 03:09 PM
I thought the Jack Chick tract was clear (and also COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG, but anyway) - the guy from prison has said the Magic Words, and Asked Jesus Into His Heart, so he goes to heaven. The missionaries have never said the Magic Words, and are trying to get into heaven with Good Works instead of Asking Jesus Into Their Hearts, so they go to hell.
Fairly simple, in some ways.
Posted by: Deird, whose mother used to worry about her playing D&D | Apr 26, 2011 at 04:03 PM
In all probability, the female DM was a sign of how evil D&D is. :(
Posted by: syfr | Apr 26, 2011 at 04:35 PM
That was my guess. Pretty much all the primary characters are female, which also allows for heavy reference to 'priestesses', which is presumably also Wrong, and of course witch=female with no exceptions. Le sigh.
---
I was looking up the Old English etymologies of words over the weekend (like y'do) to test my theory that popular use of most terms (e.g., witch/wizard = female/male of the same concept) is wholly and completely wrong*, and then found myself searching through Old English translation dictionaries to try to invent the opposite of the word 'warlock', based on its initial form as waerleog, which is usually translated 'oathbreaker' but seems to mean more like 'vow-liar'. (Obviously, because I spent an afternoon on the internet, I am an expert. When someone who actually knows about Old English shows up on this thread and I get pwned, it's going to be awesome.)
I ended up with something like warswar as the opposite of warlock, but I don't see it catching on. Swapping to Old German roots gave me machenaith, which I rather like for a magic-steampunk sound because it bears similarities to 'mechanic'.
*Technically "Yes", although I despair for much hope in convincing the majority of non-wiccans to adopt rigourous terminology. The 'popular' uses that ignore the original meaning tend to be pretty old too. Personally, I always feel kind of warm and fuzzy when I discover that a word actually has a much more specific meaning than I realised.
Posted by: Will Wildman | Apr 26, 2011 at 05:18 PM
@Choir of Shades--your take on it reminds me of the Spoony One's take on Mazes and Monsters, the D&D movie with Tom Hanks. At one point, a guy swan-dives his character onto some "gem-encrusted spikes," killing him. And the other players FREAK OUT, to which Spoony's response is, "Um, guys? Gem-encrusted spikes, remember? Just pry a few off and use them to pay for a resurrection in town."
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/08/01/mazes-monsters/
Posted by: Ruby | Apr 26, 2011 at 06:46 PM
A quick noodle around the Internet looking for a reply to Will's comment brought me to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding
... which should delight the hearts of the science and linguistics fans around here. :-)
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Apr 26, 2011 at 06:47 PM
I hadn't seen that (squee!) but there is this:
http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Headside
Posted by: Rebecca | Apr 26, 2011 at 07:34 PM
I'm going to be really literal here.
I have personal experience with something like the original parable: I belong to a CSA that requires 7 hours of work per year per share, as a part of the payment.
Except- they really do not require that; they just say they do. Roughly half of the people don't do this, and there are no repercussions to them failing to meet the duties they have agreed to. And so they ignore their obligations year after year, and that's why the work requirement has gone up to 7 hours per share from the original 5; those of us that DO the work are being required to do extr5a to compensate for the ones that don't bother.
Frankly, I feel like a complete sucker when I do the work.
It is NOT virtuous to make people decide between self-interest and their obligations. It is far more charitable to set things up so that meeting one's obligations ALSO promotes one's self-interest. If you set these against each other- well, it only makes sense to ignore the obligations, and that's throwing temptation in people's way.
My response to my actual situation: I don't do the work anymore. My husband has less issues with this set-up, and does the work for our share. I still don't approve, and resent that others don't have to do the work that he has to do- but that's his call to do it.
Posted by: Cissa | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:15 PM
Addendum:
So, my question is: do we really want to discourage the people who are willing to do the bulk of the work, by having them do the bulk of the work but get the same rewards as people who contribute very little?
Is this really the best thing to do to encourage people to work for common causes?
Honestly, I think this is more likely to create Individualists; if i get the same pay for 12 hours as someone else gets for 1 hour- I have made a bad personal decision and it behooves me to look at what the person who got 12 times as much for his work did, and model my behavior after him.
This is not good for society at large. In fact, society at large exists to the extent that some people are willing to ignore this practical approach and do the work anyway... and watch others take most of the proceeds. Like, American, now.
yes, the owner has a right to pay people what he wants to pay them. However, by rewarding minimal work over dedicated work, he will find it increasingly hard to fine anyone who's willing to work for more than 1 denarius/hour. If that's an OK resolution- cool, he's got it. And it'll cost him about 10 times as much to get the work done when the workers figure that out.
Posted by: Cissa | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:25 PM
You mean less than one denarius an hour?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:52 PM
The point of the original parable, though, is that if one denarius a day equals heaven, nobody needs more than that, nobody gets more than that, so one denarius an hour is no more valuable than one denarius a day.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Apr 26, 2011 at 09:54 PM
@Cissa--I get what you're saying, and you're right, it really isn't good economic sense for the owner to do what he does. Of course I could point out that the point of the "This is what God is like" parables is usually that God isn't limited by the same things we are--God had infinite money and doesn't actually need the work done--and so God is able to be more generous to us than we are able to be to each other.
But i'm sure you already know that, and literally is a perfectly valid way of examining the parables. And what the master is doing could definitely make the earlier workers feel unappreciated and unimportant--it's not a great way of inspiring loyalty among all of the employees.
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Apr 26, 2011 at 10:52 PM
I just recently read Dark Dungeons again with a group of people who hadn't seen it before. What absolutely killed me this time around was noticing that when she's called off to go talk to her friend before she dies, the girl is sitting there playing DnD ALONE. Clearly DnD, with the little DM screen there and everything, and no one else at the table. What is she even doing? XD
Posted by: Samantha C | Apr 26, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Solitaire? Play the red dragon on the black orc...
Posted by: Andrew Glasgow | Apr 27, 2011 at 05:30 AM
Cissa, Lunch Meat, I think it's only fair that I chime in with the fact that I have essentially the same objection to many of the parables (and Capon's interpretations and/or retellings of them) that Cissa does, except my complaint is about love and life rather than about work and money.
I've reluctantly come to accept that parables are not generally stories about how things work here in the (not yet, raising the canteen to hapax) Kingdom of God. They're actually quite lousy advice, in general, if you take them at face value. I know they're not supposed to be taken at face value, etc. But working out which bits not to take at face value at which times is also part of the problem.
Of course, I'm Wiccan, so I have less trouble with that. Deep down, it is one of the reasons I became Wiccan.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 06:36 AM
@Deidre: That's probably what Chick means, but my point is the couple apparently does believe in God and Jesus. She just didn't understand what TurboJesus really wanted. The comic would have made more sense to me (though still be repulsive) if that couple was some Amnesty International spokespeople or something. Non Christians who decided to help their fellow man, but never thought about God. But I supose in the Chick-verse, non Christians are too busily actively worshipping Satan to do good works. As wrong as 'good works' are, they're still too good for Chick to imagine non Christians doing them. The displayed opinion here is, as Fred called it 'faith therefore not works': Anyone who has proper faith in God won't do good works. Anyone bothering with good works clearly hasn't got enough faith.
I suppose in Chick's mind, God strictly adheres to the rules. It has nothing to do with love, it's just that your HA7b heaven entry form must be filled in with the sinner's prayer exactly worded as demanded, then God lets you in. And he assumes anyone bothering to do good works that he doesn't feel like doing must have gotten the words wrong too.
Also, am I the only one who things 'You must try to convert others' is kind of... work-ish? I'm hesitating to call it good works when done Jack Chick style, but still. The mugger could name one guy he saved (from the fact he was a con in jail, I actually assumed he killed a guy when he said about how unworthy he was and he send his cellmate to God. I guess that's what you get without a RTC upbringing), so he's in. The couple didn't do the good work of converting others, so they go to hell. Ironic.
Posted by: Ivan | Apr 27, 2011 at 09:56 AM
@Ivan: One of the big Chick Tract Themes is that "'christians' (audible scare quotes) who aren't Real True Christians, aren't really truly christian. And will burn along with the sodomites, masons, roleplayers and Catholics." See also his treatment of Catholics. (In the awesomely named tract "The Death Cookie")
Posted by: Ross | Apr 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM
@Literata,
The struggle with explaining them is that not all parables should be interpreted the same way. Some of them are telling how God is and saying that God does things that any rational businessperson wouldn't do--like this parable, and the ones about forgiving debts. In others, the character standing for God acts the same way that we'd expect a human to act--a servant who slacks off while the master is gone is punished.
Then there are parables addressed to humans, not telling us what God is like but telling us how to live, and a lot of them are indeed pretty bad advice if you take them literally (A man finds treasure in a field, so he sells all he has and offers all his money to the owner of the field to get it. You'd think the owner of the field would get a bit suspicious--but the parable's not about physical treasure but spiritual treasure). But there are some that are concrete, practical advice or instructions, like the Good Samaritan. Jesus doesn't want his hearers to think about what abstract spiritual truth the Samaritan represents; he wants them to picture a real Samaritan--those annoying godless immoral people down the street--and realize that to love your neighbor means self-sacrifice, not just loyalty to those who are in the same subculture.*
So yeah, it's more complicated than that, and it's really something you have to think about and not just accept what your Sunday school teacher says. Challenging a student by asking "Should we act like ___ in this parable?" is a good way to develop a moral compass without relying on prooftexts for our rules.
*I started typing this sentence and realized it's really hard to summarize that parable in one sentence and I really want to expand and clarify and offer possible different angles, but my break is over. Grr.
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Apr 27, 2011 at 11:15 AM
@Ross: The Death Cookie? Really?
*Coming up with nightmarish Sesame Street scenarios*
Posted by: sarah | Apr 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM
@sarah: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp (Can't verify link from here; work filters and all). But yes. The Death Cookie.
Posted by: Ross | Apr 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Lunch Meat, thank you for your reply; I'm sorry if it took up too much of your break. I do understand that there are multiple categories of Parables, etc. But through an unfortunate combination of early teaching in extremely conservative Christianity and personal tendencies, it is impossible for me to understand what I consider to be core Christian doctrines (original sin, most notably, but also most soteriology, and the complex mass of moral guidance in parables and examples) in ways that are ultimately compatible with my mental and physical health.
I can go into more detail about that off-board with anyone who is interested, but please note that Christians replying to these topics have a tendency to come across as "Oh, but you haven't heard my personal resolutions to those problems!" so please be careful.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM
I...I just...MY HEAD HURTS! Lucifer looks hilarious, and if I may suggest, Jewish (check out the hook nose, and we KNOW Jack Chick is classy enough to pull any stereotype he can).
Also Jack Chick damned himself by that one. Remember that whole "anyone that adds anything is damned" line? "...that whosoever (that's you) believeth in him should not perish (in the lake of fire), but have everlasting life (in heaven)." Also, I'd say it serves to illuminate Team Hell's methodology: even if the text doesn't support the existence of hell, add it in if we can get away with it. Also, we once again see the predilection for subtracting verses or sentences that are problematic.
"19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
He only includes verse 19 there (Luke 22:19-20; KJV) and leaves out the sentence where he says, "This is my body..." Not just quote mining, but quote editing. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't transubstantiation occur when the wafer and wine passes your lips? So the guy shaking the communion wafer demanding that the guy say it's the actual body of Christ would have to expect, "No, because it hasn't actually been used in communion yet." And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most Protestant sects use consubstantial communion as well? Does that mean that Protestants are cookie worshippers too, or is their cookie worship God-ordained while the Catholic cookie worship is idolatry?
...
I analyze this waaaay too much, don't I?
@Ivan, yep, I made that exact point that saving people is works a but earlier in the thread. I totally agree. Also, WHY ARE THEY BRAGGING ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY SAVED!?
The problem with the one size fits all approach of the vineyard parable is that the one size that fits all is a single unit of a cumulative good (the more you have of it, the better off you are), rather than a non-cumulative good (such as entry to heaven). A better analogy, certainly for a modern reader, would be of citizenship. Should it matter when a person became a citizen in determining whether they receive the benefits of citizenship? Should the vote of someone who just became a citizen a few months ago count less than the vote of someone born here? Should they be denied habeas corpus because their family has been in the country for two years or generations less than your family? I suspect most of us would intuitively say, no, they should not. You can't really be "more" of a citizen or "less" of a citizen.
Bleh, I kind of know what you mean about the "early teaching in extremely conservative Christianity." I had basically figured out that I couldn't believe in God by the time I was 9, and it was years before my father gave up trying to convert me. While I haven't suffered so much on the parables as you seem to have (the parables, being inherently metaphorical were the easiest things for me to reconcile with my understanding of the world), the doctrine and even existence of God seemed too impossible for me to continue being even nominally a Christian. And I apologize if I come off as "Oh, but you haven't heard my personal resolutions to those problems!"
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:16 PM
Choir of Shades, no, you don't come off that way, but thanks for being cautious. It's not so much that I've suffered with respect to the parables, it's just that stories about selfless giving strike me as inherently potentially dangerous, especially when they're in the context of Christianity and could be taken as model behavior. The Workers in the Vineyard isn't a big problem there, but others are. I like the point about citizenship; that's especially relevant today.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Literata: I can go into more detail about that off-board with anyone who is interested, but please note that Christians replying to these topics have a tendency to come across as "Oh, but you haven't heard my personal resolutions to those problems!"
But of course! It is extremely unlikely that a squillion other people have arrived at more-or-less the same resolutions (and then enthusiastically proceeded to share them with you), and impossible that you might actually have, y'know, thought these issues through yourself.
I've had a few such encounters myself.
Posted by: Raj | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:36 PM
{{Raj}}
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:55 PM
{{Literata}}
Posted by: Raj | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:58 PM
please note that Christians replying to these topics have a tendency to come across as "Oh, but you haven't heard my personal resolutions to those problems!"
Hee!
I see that you've read practically everything I've ever posted.
It's terrible, isn't it? Sometimes I worry that I'm sounding just like that second-grader who has suddenly discovered knock-knock jokes.
Posted by: hapax | Apr 27, 2011 at 01:59 PM
Kit,
This science, history, and culture geek's heart is indeed delighted by "Uncleftish Beholding", so thank you. BTW, that Wikipedia article contains a link to Poul Anderson's essay. Soothly we live in mighty years!
@TBAT: Has TypePad developed an allergy to links? I just made three attempts to make the comment above with a link to Anderson's essay.
Posted by: Raj | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:05 PM
King of Siam is testing link sci-yun-ti-fi-ca-ly, Mrs. An-NA!
Posted by: Raj | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:12 PM
{{hapax}} Actually, some of your Neo-Platonic approaches are quite fascinating and generally new to me.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:14 PM
/bursts into song about knowing what we know is so is so...
/wanders away before people throw vegetation.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:15 PM
I can go into more detail about that off-board with anyone who is interested, but please note that Christians replying to these topics have a tendency to come across as "Oh, but you haven't heard my personal resolutions to those problems!" so please be careful.
I'm also sorry if I came across that way; I was actually trying to agree with you. Most of Jesus' parables are not as easy to understand or to reduce to one pithy moral as Christians think they are. Most parables resonate with me deeply because I grew up hearing them; because I don't have any negative experience with them that would create a barrier to identifying with them; and because I agree with the truths they present and feel that they present those truths that well. But--even if we (Christians) could reasonably expect everyone to accept these truths, which we can't--we definitely make a mistake when we expect the parables to convey these truths to all people equally, because some parables have been used to exploit others, some stories are too similar to negative experiences, and some values that are presented are just too far removed from the ethical values that we as humans should be following.
I think Jesus' teaching style as recorded in the gospels is interesting because a lot of what he says he's tailored to the needs of individual people. He says what people need to hear, instead of preaching one impersonal message to everyone. I think we (Christians) miss the point of the variety of parables when we rely too much on ancient parables instead of trying to re-present the spiritual ideas in ways that resonate with individual people. I also think we make a mistake when we overexplain Biblical stories, trying to make them palatable enough to someone else or similar enough to what they already believe. At some point we should just accept that what we think of as "truth" doesn't make sense to everyone, and maybe that's because they're blinded by Satan; more likely we're explaining it wrong; but when it comes down to it it's just not going to work for everyone.
In short, I'm sorry for those of my faith who have refused to accept your incompatibility with Christianity and continue to christiansplain at you about it. That's not right.
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:21 PM
{{everyone}}
Raj, that crowd surfin kitteh ish aweshum.
Posted by: Choir of Shades | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Thanks, Lunch Meat. You didn't sound that way, because I knew you thought in more sophisticated ways than that, and if we've both read Capon, we're obviously not at the third-grade Sunday School level of theology anymore. If that comment had come from someone else, though, it might have sounded like it, so I wanted to be up front about it. I think your point about the individuality of the messages is spot-on and should be included in more conversations of theology.
Hugs all 'round!
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 02:30 PM
It seems to me that there is a whole class of things which are good things if you decide to do them yourself, but bad things for anyone else to pressure you to do. I am afflicted with an aikido teacher who wants his students to smile, for example. I totally agree with him that aikido is fun and that you are more relaxed if you are smiling than if you are grim-faced: nonetheless I take offence to being told to smile, especially when I am depressed. It too easily comes across as "You are here to make me feel good about my teaching: so get with it!"
Humility is another one. It's good to have a realistically modest sense of your own importance, but human experience is that the person telling you to be humble generally needs to be ignored or even fought because s/he is really trying to put you down--make you more compliant and less troublesome. There's a reason that "humiliation" which etymologically should mean "humbling" means something awful instead.
And then there's forgiveness. It is often (not always) better for a person if they can forgive, but telling or even advising someone to forgive is *extremely* fraught, and all too easily becomes siding with the one harming against the one harmed.
If I were constructing a moral code to teach to my co-religionists I think it would need to include a list of "These are virtues but they can never be demanded: they must be gifts, and a gift cannot be coerced."
This is in contrast to things that I think we rightly *can* demand of each other, such as being paid for our work. That is a right, not a gift, and if a person's denied it s/he has every right to take action. Some level of decent and respectful treatment is also a right. But forgiveness is not.
(My city council just now passed a...law? can they do that?...anyway, they just made it illegal to withhold someone's wages without showing solid cause. A councillor is quoted as saying "I'm shocked this law is necessary, but apparently it's a really widespread problem." Yowsa.)
Posted by: MaryKaye | Apr 27, 2011 at 03:09 PM
MaryKaye, I think that's a good rule-of-thumb. (Perhaps that's what the whole beam-in-the-eye comment might have been about?) Personally, I have a rule that says certain things can only be applied in certain relationships, and then only with comprehensive knowledge of the facts available and reality checks drawing on an account outside your own personal opinion. Even then, you might still screw up.
As for withholding pay, IIRC a summer camp that a friend worked for in college would withhold the final paycheck until the counselors sent in their end-of-summer paperwork. As a small-time freelancer, non-payment was an issue for me, but a local law isn't going to help that, unfortunately.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 03:56 PM
{{Literata}}
My city council just now passed a...law? can they do that?...anyway, they just made it illegal to withhold someone's wages without showing solid cause. A councillor is quoted as saying "I'm shocked this law is necessary, but apparently it's a really widespread problem." Yowsa.
My husband is convinced his boss is actually Dolores Umbridge, because every time there's a mistake or something she doesn't like she thinks that adding a new rule will fix it. A few people the other day came to work without their nametags, so she decided that anyone whose uniform has a problem *in any way* will be docked one hour's pay. Also, three strikes and you're fired. I'm quite sure this is illegal, and if it's not it should be, but it's food service--what can you do?
Posted by: Lunch Meat | Apr 27, 2011 at 04:19 PM
That's probably what Chick means, but my point is the couple apparently does believe in God and Jesus. She just didn't understand what TurboJesus really wanted. The comic would have made more sense to me (though still be repulsive) if that couple was some Amnesty International spokespeople or something.
I think Chick would probably answer with Bible verses. The bit from wherever-it-is of "even demons believe that" and the bit with Jesus saying "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter heaven".
...or however those bits go. (It's early. I just woke up.)
Ie, they were using their missionary work to go "Oh, we're so holy, we're doing God's work, clearly he'll want us in heaven", without ever following him. Because, in Chick-land, there is a VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION between "believing in Jesus" and "following Jesus", and only people who have Prayed The Prayer and said the Magic Words can do the latter.
it is impossible for me to understand what I consider to be core Christian doctrines (original sin, most notably, but also most soteriology, and the complex mass of moral guidance in parables and examples)
Huh. I wouldn't really consider those to be core doctrines at all... *ponders*
Posted by: Deird, who needs to figure out how to get her boyfriend to kiss her again | Apr 27, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Good morning, Deird. Much luck with the boyfriend thing!
Hmm. Well, if Christianity is about Jesus, and specifically about his death and resurrection, then the questions of why that was important in the first place and how it worked in the second place seem to me to be pretty pivotal. I'm certainly not saying that Christians who think otherwise are Doin It Rong, I'm just saying that for me those are core issues.
Posted by: Literata | Apr 27, 2011 at 06:33 PM