Uncategorized
“Hunger” based on Matthew 20:1-16
On
Thursday morning I opened an article about the impact of COVID on
hunger around the world. The article started with a picture of a
malnourished child reaching out to a caregiver.
For
better or worse, I closed the article right then, my stomach already
roiling with horror and my whole being already feeling overwhelmed by
the scope of the issue.
As
these things go, a few minutes later I turned to sermon research, in
this case re-reading the chapter on Matthew 20:-16 from William R.
Herzog’s book, “Parables as Subversive Speech.” Herzog reminds
us that the day laborers in Jesus’s day were people who died of
malnutrition, people that society thought of as “expendables.”
Furthermore, these “expendable people” were the ones whose labor
enriched wealthy vineyard owners along with kings, emperors, the
military, the bureaucrats, and the religious leaders. The work of
agriculture was profitable, but as with any other industry, the
cheaper the labor, the more profits for those on top. Thus, the work
of day laborers was considered so invaluable as to be worth less than
what a person needed to eat in a day.
This
did not make my stomach feel any better.
Then,
I thought of the book, “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold Story of
Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg that the Intersectional Justice
Committee book club read recently. In that book, Isenberg explains
that this country was colonized and founded while assuming that ~15%
of the WHITE population was “expendable,” in this case referred
to as “white trash.” This is IN ADDITION TO the dehumanization
of Native Americans as their land was stolen, the enslavements of
Africans and their descendants, and the consistent dehumanizing of
all people of color.
When
I read “White Trash,” I was horrified to realize that the people
who were considered “expendable” as our country was founded and
as it has continued – the ones sent to work in mines regardless of
safety conditions, the ones sent to build the railroads and to
dynamite mountains, for example, whose safety didn’t matter because
there were always more people who could be brought in to work – and
whose wages didn’t matter because there were always people willing to
work for anything, the ones who died young after hard lives — were
just the same as those day laborers that Jesus talks about. AND
they’re the same people who live with food insecurity in the richest
nation in history, the same people for whom subpar education is
deemed sufficient, the same people from whom wages are often stolen
without recourse.
We
still have “expendable” people in our society, we just don’t talk
about it explicitly. Worse yet, our country’s policies exacerbate
wealth inequality around the world, so that there are even more
people even more desperately poor and “expendable” outside the US
than in it (and within the US the number of people we deem unworthy
of sufficient nutrition is a moral atrocity.)
And,
of course, the pandemic has made this all worse. Were we once had
10-15% of the population of the US going hungry, at least double that
amount are now estimated to be hungry. 30% of our population.
Now,
there are some things we can do, if we are able. We can give to
SICM, to help the food pantry provide food in Schenectady. (They
also need volunteers.) Similarly we can give to or help with the
Sunday Morning breakfast here, or at the Regional Food Bank. The
organization “Bread for the World”1
is our long term partner in education and advocacy to end hunger, and
they have many ways for us to respond.
But,
for now, I want to look at this parable.
Because,
not only do I believe Herzog that this parable was about the
struggles of day laborers and the ways that vineyard owners and the
systems they were a part of excited to oppress the poor and extract
wealth for the wealthy – I think Jesus TOLD THIS STORY to day
laborers.
Because
I think that God and Jesus are on the side of the people the world
sees as “expendable.” And, in particular, I think Jesus’s
ministry was PRIMARILY to the poorest of the poor. So, his teaching
was teaching for those who were struggling, including this story.
Which
should impact how we hear it.
The
people the first hearers of the story associated with was the day
laborers – the people who had lost their ancestral land, had no
notable trade or craft, and had fallen through the safety net. The
people waiting and hoping to be needed in the fields and paid so they
can eat that day.
The
first shock in the story is that the landowner comes out to hire them
himself. That didn’t happen in real life, but it helps the story
exemplify WHO is benefitting the most from their labor. The second
thing to note is that while the laborers hired first got to agree to
a wage – not a good one, but the normal one – the next sets of
laborers went into the fields without even an agreement. The final
set didn’t even get a say – they were SENT to the fields without
being told if they’d be paid.
Another
thing to notice is that this a VINEYARD and not a wheat field or
vegetable plot. The owner of a vineyard had to be wealthier than
average, because a vineyard took 4 years of intense labor as an
investment before profit would come in. That said, it was more
profitable than other land use. So wealthy people liked to buy other
people’s ancestral sustainable farmland and make it into vineyards.
The
owner’s response to the complaints of those who worked 12 hours being
paid the same as those who worked 1 is to dismiss the value of their
work. That was especially insulting because WORK was all that day
laborers had to offer. That is, the owner told the laborers they
were worthless.
However,
the parable tells us something else. The landowner had to keep
hiring people all day because there was so much work to do that he
wasn’t even able to estimate how much labor he needed. The vineyard
would not have been able to exist, much less produce anything,
without labor. The sub-subsistence wages of the laborers were part
of making the vineyard owner even wealthier, but moreso, the LABOR of
the day laborers was IMPERATIVE to his wealth. Wealth that, again,
he is making off of the land that they once used to LIVE and not just
struggle to survive.
The
parable also makes clear that the owner’s actions aimed at keeping
the day laborers competing with each other. Herzog says,
To
ensure a timely harvest, the landowner needed their labor. Yet the
lack of cohesion so evident among the day laborers allowed the
landowner to conquer them by dividing them. This is why the owner
spoke only to ‘one of them.’ The banishment of that one served to
intimidate the others and put them in their place. … [The owner]
smothered the truth that he was dependent on them and, as as result,
that they could have power but only a power tha grew out of their
solidarity. Divided, they would fall one by one before the withering
hostility and judgement of the elite. (Herzog, 96)
Jesus
told a story that let his hearers see more clearly the power they
had, the worth and value they had, and the need they had to work
together instead of competing with each other. The system is was
designed to oppress. The system today is too. And opting out isn’t
really an option for most people – at least not alone. But
together we can choose a different system.
Our
country has more than enough food for all the people. Our WORLD has
more than enough food for all people. The issue is not food, the
issue is distribution. And Jesus reminds us that people working
together can work for the common good.
May
Jesus inspire us to work for the common good, and may God strengthen
us and offer us wisdom so our work is productive. Amen
Questions
for reflection:
What
do you see being done for the common good?
How
should food be distributed?
In
what ways does society treat some people as “expendable”?
What
do you see being done to change that?
Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady
September 20, 2020