Question(s) for Christians

[xcrunner]

Hoping not to take the discussion off topic for long. B-Grad, I occasionally teach a course on employee compensation. Most college level compensation textbooks incorporate this parable somewhere. I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the point of it. That is, I can usually manage a classroom discussion of its implications for compensation, but I always feel like I'm missing the larger point. If you've got a minute, can you enlighten?

I'm not Christian and BG can probably answer this better and more knowledgeably than I can, but:

I think one of the generally accepted messages of that parable is that it does not matter when one 'converts' to Christianity--the rewards will be the same. By 'converts' to Christianity, I mean 'accepting God' or 'loving God'.

So those who are Christians their whole lives receive no greater rewards than those who convert late in their lives.


That is one of the standard themes that I learned, anyway. No doubt about it, though, the parable is a great one, one of my favorites in the Bible.

Another piece of information, by the way, is that those "standing idle" may have been old, weak, or generally less fit to work, which is why nobody would hire them. If that is the case, then the parable could also take on a simple meaning of helping the weak and elderly.

 

[Jake]

Something that occurred to me...

For those of you who have the inherent suspicion that the Government is incapable of running "charitable" programs at an appropriate level, and who cite waste, too much money being spent on overhead, etc..

Isn't it also true that private organizations are likewise not immune from this sort of spending ... and this is just a number I'm pulling from my ass .. 80 cents on the dollar on staffing, etc? Furthermore, isn't the private charity perhaps more open to out and out corruption.

Unlike government, no private charity can force me to "contribute" to their causes. If I don't like how a private charity operates, I can stop giving it my money. If I try that with the government they'll send agents with guns after me.

Otherwise, it's exactly the same.

 

[Jake]

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first post that suggested government's attempts to provide a seemingly-beneficial public service could actually be motivated by the desire for control over the people.

Ya think? :ohwell:

 

[Gatorubet]

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first post that suggested government's attempts to provide a seemingly-beneficial public service could actually be motivated by the desire for control over the people. Very well said by bgrad, as usual.

Ya think? :ohwell:

Yeah.

Thinking that government was attempting to do the very purpose that it was created to do, well - that is quite a stretch. :crazy:

 

[jwinslow]

Yeah.

Thinking that government was attempting to do the very purpose that it was created to do, well - that is quite a stretch. :crazy:

Fool me once, shame on them.
Fool me without ceasing, shame on the future of humanity.

 

[Gatorubet]

Political positions are largely independent of depth of faith. It annoys me when people use their religion to justify one or another political position; it's quite possible to be Christian and to be conservative, liberal, or neither. That's all I have to say about this.

Quitter.

 

[Gatorubet]

The First Amendment does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which was meant to keep the U.S. government from establishing a national church like the Angelican church in England. It was designed to keep the government out of the Church business- the main reason our forefathers left England. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from President Thomas Jefferson in response to a letter from an Anabaptist Minister who was concerned the Congress was going to make the Methodist Church the national Church. The words appear no where in the Constitution.

My original point had nothing to do with the separation of Church and State, a principal I generally support though I think some people go to ridiculous extremes like removing "under God" from the pledge.

Well, we are not a nation under God. At least one we can agree on. And the "God" part was put in for McCarthy era anti-Commie reasons. So putting it back the way it was originally written is not all that atheistic - unless the original version was anti-Christian. It's not like the founding fathers wanted Jesus injected in the Constitution. That is what church is for - or not, depending on your faith. I want God in my church, and politics in my secular life.

The very last thing I want is a theocracy.

 

[cincibuck]

Well, we are not a nation under God. At least one we can agree on. And the "God" part was put in for McCarthy era anti-Commie reasons. So putting it back the way it was originally written is not all that atheistic - unless the original version was anti-Christian. It's not like the founding fathers wanted Jesus injected in the Constitution. That is what church is for - or not, depending on your faith. I want God in my church, and politics in my secular life.

The very last thing I want is a theocracy.

My understanding is that much of the Constitution is written as a reaction to the governments that surrounded these men. Thus a fear of nobility is addressed with the idea of a President, fear of a large standing army comes out as the need for a "well regulated militia" (and not for the right to own an assault rifle) and the guarantee that soldiers can not be quartered without the permission of the owner. Finally comes separation of church and state as a reaction against a state religion -- a compromise that would certainly have to be made to keep thirteen separate states united in as much as their make up was Puritan, Catholic, Church of England, Quaker and Unitarian.

 

[Gatorubet]

Yep. Which is not to say that many of the founders were not profoundly Christian. But the ones we know the best, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc., were not Christians in the sense the religious right wants to paint them. Washington was a Deist. Jefferson was - at best - a Deist who disbelieved in the divinity of Christ and the "magic" parts of the Bible. Franklin an agnostic, and Adams an atheist - as was Thomas Paine.

So while we cannot say that nobody desired a link between church and State, we can safely say that the movers and shakers of the Revolution has no interest in creating a Christian Theocracy.

 

[MaxBuck]

The Lord is risen. Alleluia!

HAPPY EASTER, EVERYONE!

 

[Steve19]

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I decided not to nail my hands to a 4 X 4

 

[MaxBuck]

I decided not to nail my hands to a 4 X 4

Good idea. It's hard to manipulate the transfer case with your feet.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Hoping not to take the discussion off topic for long. B-Grad, I occasionally teach a course on employee compensation. Most college level compensation textbooks incorporate this parable somewhere. I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the point of it. That is, I can usually manage a classroom discussion of its implications for compensation, but I always feel like I'm missing the larger point. If you've got a minute, can you enlighten?

Xcrunner pretty much answered your question--although instead of looking at the idea of conversion, I would frame it in terms of serving G-d, and rather than just limiting it to the time of service, it should be expanded to the nature of such service.

I think when looking at the passage from Matthew 20, you have to realize that it is in response to Peter's question in chapter 19, when he asked what will be his and the disciple's reward for giving up everything to follow Jesus. Jesus tells them that the reward will be that they receive 100-fold what they have given up and that they will sit on thrones with him to judge the 12 tribes of Israel. But after the promise of these rewards, he then follows up with the famous saying of the last shall be first and the first shall be last and then with the parable of the laborers.

When we look at the parable, Jesus starts by saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is like.... The Kingdom of Heaven would have been understood by first century Jews as God's sovereignty over the world, which was contrasted by the kingdom of wordly powers that existed and still does to this day.
JewishEncyclopedia.com - KINGDOM OF GOD

Therefore, if we break down the parable, the landowner is God, for there can be no other authority in the Kingdom of Heaven. The vineyard is God's kingdom--which could be understood as Israel, the Messianic Kingdom, or most broadly, anywhere G-d's authority is followed rather than earthly authorities. Finally, the workers are those who serve God in the kingdom. As can be seen, these workers come to serve in the kingdom at varying times, but they all receive the same reward. This seems to be saying that regardless of one's service in the kingdom, the reward will be the same. Or in other words, it is not the server or the nature of the service one does in the kingdom that really matters, but it is who one is serving that matters.

I take Jesus' parable to be a warning to the disciples to understand that although their rewards will be great, they should not take pride in those rewards, for the rewards will be fair to each as God will determine what is fair. And most importantly, the purpose of service in the kingdom is not to accumulate rewards; it is to serve the king.

 

[BayBuck]

Thinking that government was attempting to do the very purpose that it was created to do, well - that is quite a stretch. :crazy:

True, I suppose it is the nature of government to exert control over its citizens and subjugate their desires to those of its leaders.