In a political discussion the other day, the line "I know who Jesus would vote for" was tossed into the pot for a bit of fun. You may be surprised, but it wasn't actually me who said it, and nor was it offered as some sort of heavenly endorsement of the Coalition. Far from it.
At the time, I opted not to make mention of the unlikelyness of Jesus to favour political parties that support and promote such things as abortion, homosexuality (and the right for homosexuals to adopt children), stem cell research, public education systems dedicated to teaching much that is far less than the truth, and policies dedicated to the eroding and replacement of tried and true family/traditional values with some sort of "Bill of Rights" that trample responsiblities and righteousness into the ground and then drive back'n'forth over the top a couple of times for good measure.
Instead, I took a more light-hearted approach to how Jesus tackled such things as Public Service bloat by calling a tax-collector away from his appointed task. I could have added that Jesus helped create a new job in the fishing trade by calling Peter away from his boat and nets to fish for souls instead of Sole, but thought better of it considering the potential welfare dependents created out of that job change.
Anyway, this "I know who Jesus would have voted for" line has had me thinking for the last couple of days, so I've decided to explore the idea of "WWJVF" (Who Would Jesus Vote For) in the context of a particularly contentious issue at the moment. That being:
The Unionism/Collectivism of the ALP vs the Individual Work Place Agreements ala AWAs of the Coalition.
Would Jesus vote for a party that favours unionism/collectivism ? Would He join a union ? Or would He vote for a party that promotes individual reward and responsibilites ?
Well, who better to give a view here than Jesus Himself. In Matthew chapter 20, Jesus has the following comparison to make regarding the Kingdom of Heaven and a particular workplace. It follows on from the "Eye of the Needle" parable in chapter 19, and is given in response to Peter's question about what are the rewards for giving up everything to follow God.
SOQ
"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just'. So they went off. And he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
EOQ
At the time, I opted not to make mention of the unlikelyness of Jesus to favour political parties that support and promote such things as abortion, homosexuality (and the right for homosexuals to adopt children), stem cell research, public education systems dedicated to teaching much that is far less than the truth, and policies dedicated to the eroding and replacement of tried and true family/traditional values with some sort of "Bill of Rights" that trample responsiblities and righteousness into the ground and then drive back'n'forth over the top a couple of times for good measure.
Instead, I took a more light-hearted approach to how Jesus tackled such things as Public Service bloat by calling a tax-collector away from his appointed task. I could have added that Jesus helped create a new job in the fishing trade by calling Peter away from his boat and nets to fish for souls instead of Sole, but thought better of it considering the potential welfare dependents created out of that job change.
Anyway, this "I know who Jesus would have voted for" line has had me thinking for the last couple of days, so I've decided to explore the idea of "WWJVF" (Who Would Jesus Vote For) in the context of a particularly contentious issue at the moment. That being:
The Unionism/Collectivism of the ALP vs the Individual Work Place Agreements ala AWAs of the Coalition.
Would Jesus vote for a party that favours unionism/collectivism ? Would He join a union ? Or would He vote for a party that promotes individual reward and responsibilites ?
Well, who better to give a view here than Jesus Himself. In Matthew chapter 20, Jesus has the following comparison to make regarding the Kingdom of Heaven and a particular workplace. It follows on from the "Eye of the Needle" parable in chapter 19, and is given in response to Peter's question about what are the rewards for giving up everything to follow God.
SOQ
"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just'. So they went off. And he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
EOQ
What have we got here ?
(1) An employer who negotiates one on one with potential employees. AWA 1, Collectivism 0.
(2) Employees who are happy to turn up for what the employer was offering. AWA 2, Collectivism 0.
(3) Other employees who were happy to turn up based on a mere promise of "I will pay you what is just". AWA 3, Collectivism 0.
(4) An employer who was even happy enough to take on employees that no one else seemed to want - why else where they left in the public labour market place all day ? No change in score.
(5) At the end of the working day and the agreed upon wages distributed as per the Individual Work Place Agreements, some employees suddenly thought they should get more than what they had formerly agreed to. That sounds like the kind of attitudes (i.e. greed, envy and jealousy) often associated with certain modern Trade Unions kicked in, thereby showing a common contrast between Collectivism and Individual Workplace agreements. Thus, AWA 4, Collectivism 0.
(6) An employer who calls the employees "my friend" and reminds them that as per the agreement, they were not being cheated. Demonstrating again that Collectivism was in no way a part of these workplace arrangements. AWA 5, Collectivism 0.
Well, based on that, I think I know who Jesus might vote for too ...
It is also interesting to note that Jesus appears to be saying that "The Kingdom of Heaven" is similar to this kind of arrangement. In context, obviously "Eternal Life" is part of the common wage He was referring to - bestowed almost gift like by the employer regardless of the worth or actual efforts of the individual.
Some get it and all they did is merely turn up when asked, whereas others choose to slave their day away for the same reward.
Ah, NOW we are starting to sound like Collectivism ... (smile)
regarDS
regarDS
Posts
