Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for [this amount]? Take your pay and go. ... Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?
Who said these words? The CEO of Goldman Sachs after being asked why this worker got less than that one? Think again!
These words actually come from the mouth of the vineyard owner in Jesus' parable in Matthew 20:1-16. Workers grumble when some are paid more than others and the owner says "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Take your pay and go!" Is this an outright endorsement of private property rights from Jesus himself?
Now, I know that the parable doesn't say - this is how employers should behave. Instead, the parable begins "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went ... to hire men to work in his vineyard..." So you might say, this parable merely describes the kingdom of God and has nothing to do with earthly property rights. It is merely telling believers not to begrudge those who, having lived sinful lives, were saved at death's doorstep. This may well be, however, I am not sure that the one interpretation necessarily excludes the other.
If the landowner in the parable is meant to represent God, and the workers are meant to represent believers coming to know God at various stages in their lives, then the implication is surely still that God is treating the people in a morally proper way; a good way, the right way. The landowner clearly honors the contract with each worker, even though the pay comes out different in each case. The landowner reprimands the workers for being envious. Are the Christians not called to emulate Christ (God) in their actions? If honoring contracts and deciding to reward each worker according to how he sees fit is good enough for God, then why would it not be good enough for an earlthy employer? Instead of decrying inequality of wages, perhaps we should start defending the landowner's right to determine what wages he wants to pay to whom, as long as he is honoring contracts signed with each worker? The successful Christian employer, would still be subject to all the important personal exhortations to help the poor and the widows, to thank God for his income, to voluntarily give a coat to him who has none etc. but he would be saved from the call to give equal pay for equal work, and - ultimately - saved from the common judgement that he has no right to control his property by deciding how much to pay to whom.
I often find myself arguing for private property rights (as an extension of individual's right to life) from moral philosophical or utilitarian grounds. Can a defense of private property be argued forcefully from a Christian perspective?
A point about the exegesis only: One of the dangers of using Jesus' parables to draw conclusions about the subject employed is that we can't always be sure that Jesus approves of the action of the figures. With the Samaritan we are on safe ground since Jesus hmself tells his audience that the man is an example of a truly compassionate neighbor. But what about the unjust judge who the widow naggs until he gives into her, not because her claim is right but because she keeps bothering him. Most interpreters would not decide either that God himself is unjust or that the best way to deal with corrupt officials is to just keep pestering them. The same is true of Jesus' example of the torturers as an example of hell. Most would not read Jesus as declaring the moral legitimacy of torture.
ReplyDelete