One of Biden’s campaign promises when he ran for president was the forgiveness of at least some of America’s student loan debt. Not surprising, it’s controversial, and for a lot of reasons. There are many very intelligent people talking about whether this is or isn’t a good idea. That is to be expected, and their opinions are to be respected.
But most of the vitriolic rhetoric comes from a group of people who wear the banner of Christ blazoned across their chest like a sash in a beauty pageant (only they don’t look as good in a bikini). Just a quick search through the land of Evangelical pundits reveals just how bad this “loan forgiveness” would be for all people, but especially for the followers of Christ. One quote that sums it up entirely, in all its ugliness, is the now infamous quote of Laura Ingram:
My mom worked as a waitress until she was 73 to help pay for our college. Even helped with loan repayment. Loan forgiveness just another insult to those who play by the rules.
Enough has already been said about this quote, especially in regard to letting her mother slave away to pay student loan debt that she could have easily paid off in a few years after her career took off.
A quick glance at the Fox “news” Website will give you hundreds of objections to Biden’s plan—and they all seem to boil down to this: “I had to pay, so you should too.” The followers of ‘Evangelical Jesus’ have always had a problem with anybody getting something they didn’t get—especially if it’s a leg-up. This is nothing new. There were people like that in Jesus’ day as well, and he told a parable about them. It’s called the “Workers in the Vineyard parable”:
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.”
~ Matthew 20:1-16
Having read this parable many times through the eyes of an Evangelical, this became to me what scholar F.F. Bruce would call, “The Hard Sayings of Jesus”: One of those parables where Jesus seems to flat-out oppose the “fairness” that I, as an Evangelical was entitled to. And to be honest, there are legitimate reasons to feel this parable is unfair. Especially if you’re struggling every day to make ends meet.
A cursory reading of the story brings up a lot of profound questions about the fairness of life, the fairness of God, and how we should respond to our feelings about it.
So let’s look at the parable a little deeper.
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.
First of all, this is Matthew, and the Jesus in Matthew’s gospel had an interesting perspective on the Kingdom of Heaven, which I have talked about in other articles. But a quick recap of those articles would be that Jesus considered his Father, and US, to be the Kingdom of Heaven: On earth as it is in Heaven.
Jesus starts the story by telling us that his Father is like a landowner—particularly a vineyard owner (he makes wine, the stuff that makes us happy). He doesn’t tell us much about this landowner, but we can extrapolate certain things based on the story. This landowner had resources and liked to use them to help others. His vineyard required workers, some of which were probably seasonal, but he also used day laborers.
He went out into the marketplace.
We’re familiar with this concept of a marketplace from television and movies: a town square where people set up their carts, trolleys, and wagons to sell their wares. This is also where unemployed men went to find work for a day or two. In today’s terms it is also relevant since the marketplace has come to represent where we can digitally share our concerns and ideas and thoughts.
Jesus tells us his Father went out in the morning, which would be around sunrise. Then he went out again at nine (three hours later), then noon, then three, and then again at five. He told them, “You go to work for me, and I will pay you whatever is right.”
This comment, “Whatever is right,” coming from a Father that Jesus saw as just and fair is an important comment that often gets lost in the telling of the story.
When evening came the owner of the vineyard had his foreman call his workers and pay their wages, the last ones hired first. The last workers hired received a denarius (a day’s wages). It’s also important to note that a denarius was a Roman coin which is important in that it will also raise a lot of political and emotional responses amongst Jesus audience, which I’m not going to go into here. But using Roman currency to support a Jewish family was considered a slap in the face to the sovereignty of God’s chosen people.
Because of the amount the later workers received, those hired first expected to receive more. However, they too were paid a denarius, and it pissed them off. They became vocal and began to ‘grumble against the landowner.’ “Those who were hired last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.” (Note the term: Equal.)
To be clear, this is a legitimate argument. Working in a vineyard was backbreaking work. And they had to endure the burning noon and afternoon heat.
However, the owner of the vineyard didn’t agree with their complaint:
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?’
And it’s this answer that has always troubled me. At first glance it almost seems dismissive, as if the landowner had no compassion at all as to what the workers were going through. These were dayworkers and life was hard for them. To work their asses off all day and see those who worked only for an hour get the same pay had to feel like a slap in the face. And, according to Jesus, they “grumbled.” I personally think he’s using sarcasm in this particular phrased.
Many Christian scholars interpret this parable to mean that Jesus was talking about ‘Christians’ coming to God and not having to do all the work that the Jews did. Others see it as Jesus’ response to ‘deathbed’ conversions. But I see it as something far more practical, and closer to the actual financial/spiritual plight of his audience. In that lens, the answer is a lot to unpack.
First of all, the Father told them he was not being unfair. They did agree that morning to work for a denarius. In a literal sense, he was true. They did. Though I doubt they could have bartered for more. This was the offer, and they took it.
The Father goes on to say that “he” wanted to give the one who were hired last the same as he gave the others. Based on Jesus’ description of the Father in other parables, this would make sense. The Father wanted to make sure everyone had a day’s wages (what they needed), even though “he” called them at different times. The word “called” is important here as well, since it was the Father who initiated the interaction.
Then he goes on to ask them, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”
Of course he does. It’s his money. And this is a significant point in this story. This money belonged to the landowner. The Father owned the resources, and he shared those resources with his children as he saw fit. The earth and its resources, including Rome, belonged to God, and it was his to do with as he pleased.
And then he asks if the earlier laborers are envious of his generosity.
That’s a tough one. Is it generous to give the same to those who did less as it is those who did more? It strikes me that a generous person would reward hard work based on merit. And this is where so many other of Jesus’ parables come into play. His Father was always giving to those who least deserved it, forgiving those who had abused his trust, and showing compassion even to those who were hostile toward him (see is parable about the vineyard owner’s son).
So, back to student loans. In a real-world perspective, some people seem to be very lucky, while others scrape by. There are going to be people who get what “I” wanted. If by some miracle, Biden is able to get this debt forgiveness through Congress, then some people are not going to have to go through what we went through. My mother will not have to work into her seventies to pay of my student loan bill while I make millions of dollars a year and let her mange the debt (thankfully, since she’s already there).
The Laura Ingram’s in Jesus’ audience would have been profoundly offended—as illustrated by the actual Laura Ingram. What Jesus was suggesting is that she’s not special, and she may be asked to work a little harder than those around her. Those she doesn’t consider as important has her. Jesus’ Father, a.k.a. the Kingdom of Heaven, is going to give the same to those who came late to the party. And we, a.k.a. the Kingdom of Heaven, may feel slighted. We worked hard even though it looks like the “others” didn’t. But this means that someday, when we come late to the party, and we will, the Kingdom of Heaven will still support us too. The landowner, a.k.a. Jesus’ Father, wants to make sure we all have a days wages, even if we are called later than others (give us this day our daily bread).
And then Jesus ends with this—his most famous statement:
So the last will be first, and the first will be last.
In the context of this story, his Father paid the last group of workers first—the same amount as the first group of workers. Jesus’ Father has an affinity for those who come late to the party. “Just because.” And I’m guessing that at the end of the day, if the late workers would like to continue working for the landowner, they’ll all be asked to come in at sunrise, the beginning of the next day. So this parable only applies to that particular day.
Some American students are going to get a break when it comes to their student loans. Do they deserve it? That’s not up to me to decide. We chose to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, which means we will support the work of the proprietor and recognize, as Jesus did, that he is generous even if it doesn’t look like it. The Father was generous to all his l laborers, though it didn’t necessarily look that way. And if he’s generous with them, he’ll be generous with us too, though maybe not today.
This truly is one of the ‘Hard sayings of Jesus.’ We need to look at the Kingdom of Heaven, and the way it awards benefits, through the lens of Jesus. The Kingdom of Heaven is like… That includes both God, and us.
Sorry Laura Ingram, it doesn’t look like you.