Reflection on today’s Lectionary readings: Exodus 16:2-15 and Matthew 20:1-16
For years I have believed ethical Christians need to challenge intolerant Christian Evangelical Fundamentalism, and that we need to do so on Christian grounds. Evangelicals, who promote hatred and discrimination, actively reject the message of Jesus. In the 21st century, Evangelicals have become explicit in their alignment with White nationalism, which is one of the main dimensions of fascism.
From a civil government point of view, White nationalism is unambiguously a betrayal of the Constitution. Americans have the right to hold and express controversial views, and I am sworn to defend that right. But those who express open hostility to the Constitution should not be allowed to hold any public office—from local police officer up to the presidency—because, like me, they would have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.
But also, from a Christian theological perspective, Evangelical Fundamentalists are actively anti-Gospel and, by their own actions, they reject and oppose Christianity. I have previously written on how anti-immigration policies directly oppose Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. There is no way to reconcile the Gospel with exclusion of others, especially it you yourself have immigrant ancestors. In my case my great-grandfather Axel arrived from Sweden without legal papers. None of his descendants will ever have the right to “break the rungs on the ladder behind them” given our illegal-immigrant history. Nor was Axel fleeing from political persecution. No, there was a famine in Sweden, and he faced possible starvation. Axel was an ‘economic opportunity illegal immigrant.’ Yep. One of Those.
Right-Wing Red Tape and the Bible
Today’s readings—in the standard Lectionary cycle shared by Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians—challenges the American practice of restricting social programs through “means testing.” We not only humiliate the poor by demanding that they demonstrate that they “deserve” public assistance; but we also sacrifice a significant proportion of every aid program to pay government employees to review and approve or deny those benefits. It is a lot of red tape. And it is red tape created by conservatives who resent the very idea of public assistance.
The most successful counter-factual program is mandatory primary and secondary public schooling. Universal public schooling became mandatory in order to phase out child labor in dangerous factories and mines. If it were not mandatory, then poor families would have put their children to work full-time which was 12 hours a day before unions got it reduced to 8 hours per day. Public schooling remains flawed because funding is locally-based, so that kids in poor communities get less funding per student than kids in rich communities. So there is room for improvement. But compared to our housing and healthcare policies, public schooling is an outstanding success. Thanks to the Black Panthers, nationwide school lunch programs were also developed. Public schools are therefore a major factor in preventing childhood malnutrition.
Most importantly, there is no means-test for being admitted to public school. No tax-dollars are wasted on checking your records to make sure that you ‘deserve’ to send your child to public school. At least at the local level, the principle is equal treatment under the law. The only reason you do not have the children of billionaires and custodial workers in the same classroom is because of residential segregation. That is another moral failure which planners need to address; but that is a separate essay.
The Specific Lessons from Today’s Readings
In the reading from Exodus (Ch. 16, verses 2-15), the Israelites complain of their hardships as they cross the Sinai desert, fleeing from enslavement in Egypt. Moses and Aaron endured these complaints, but God delivered birds, dew, and mana for the people to eat. There is no indication in this passage that the Israelites were grateful, but they were all given sustenance.
This is the core ethos of public service today. When we take the oath to defend the Constitution, we also commit to serving the poor and the rich, the grateful and the ungrateful, equally. The First Amendment also states that we may not establish a state-religion, but we are also encouraged to “promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare” of our republic. Promotion of morals is VERY established legal precedent, as we now see Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic-Socialist policies informed by his Muslim faith and heritage.
Likewise, we are on solid legal ground drawing from actual Christian scripture to inform our policies. The main problem is that American policy has generally been more miserly and cruel than the Gospels call for. Today’s reading from Matthew is a clear example of the radical generosity Jesus calls for. It is the parable of the vineyard-owner who pays equally to all who worked for him, whether he hired them at daybreak, mid-morning, or noon. Those who worked all day were resentful that they were not paid more. The owner expresses what we think of as freedom-of-contract: he offered a fair wage to all, and paid one denarius to each. He could have consumed time trying to pro-rate the daily pay; but he has no idea why the mid-morning laborers were not there at dawn to be hired early. Maybe they were tending to a sick relative. Maybe they lived farther away and had to walk farther to reach the market-place. Rather than consume his own resources trying to figure out the relative merits of each case, he just paid them all the same wage.
Means-Tests are Un-Christian and Un-Civil
You might disagree with this lesson from the Gospel of Matthew. Americans should not base our public policies entirely on the Gospel. But if you do claim to be Christian, the message here is unambiguous. The parallel, in our Constitution, is the principle of equal treatment under the law—whether you like the person or not. Our best applied model is universal public education: we don’t waste time or money trying to figure out if some child is ‘deserving’ of education or not. In public education, we don’t waste public resources and right-wing red tape in an effort to humiliate the poor. Likewise, I believe that even arrogant, entitled billionaires should be covered by universal health-care. I also don’t want to catch a disease from them. That is the mutual-aid aspect of equal services, no questions asked.
It is legal to believe in inflicting humiliating, time-consuming “means-test” criteria against the poor. It is the conservative position, and I am sworn to protect conservatives’ right to a policy position with which I disagree. But that position is unambiguously antithetical to Christian values. Punishing the poor cannot possibly be reconciled with the Gospels. If you hold these positions, you actively reject Jesus, your own salvation, and any right to claim that you are Christian.
We are all deeply flawed. But there is a vital difference between screwing up when you are trying to do the right thing, in contrast to deliberately doing harm. There is a difference between unintentional mistakes and intentional acts of evil. Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals are not just making mistakes. They are intentionally committed to a path of evil.
Fortunately, there is a guide to bring even the Evangelicals back to a path of righteousness. You probably own several copies of this guide. If not, you can take a Bible from pretty much any local church (tell them Pietro said it was OK). And if you lose faith because you see the cruelty, bigotry, and malice of your Evangelical Christian community, try another church. Or a mosque. Or a synagogue. We all struggle with the same ethical challenges. The terms and terminology differ; but I have had the great fortune of worship-experience in multiple Christian denominations, and among Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and among Sunni and Shia Muslims. God’s light might reach you more clearly if it comes from a different direction, especially when it is not obstructed by human-inflicted betrayals and shame. We’re all heartbroken basket-cases. Rather than cringe in the darkness of shame, bigotry, and intolerance, let us embrace the light and defend the rights of those who differ from us. We are all sacred.