Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
Jesus’s parables about agriculture have always confounded me, especially the ones where he explains what he’s talking about. Ironically, his explanations often leave me more confused than the parable itself. The parable of the wheat and the tares (or the parable of the weeds) is no exception. Apparently I wasn’t the only one either.
In doing research for another writing project, I was perusing copies of The Liberator, the prominent anti-slavery newspaper from the mid-nineteenth century. In one issue George Bourne (writing under the pseudonym Onesimus) wrote about this passage. Bourne was an abolitionist Presbyterian known for his insistence that his church communion not tolerate any members who enslaved other human beings or partook in the associated trade. In the early nineteenth century, Bourne faced other Mainline Protestants wielding this parable as an excuse for moderation on the question of slavery.
His opponents said slavery was abhorrent and against the teachings of Jesus, but that ultimately it should be left to God to separate the wheat from the chaff. Excommunication or the withholding of membership or communion from those practicing enslavement was a step too far. Toleration of the slaveholder was more important than the liberation of the enslaved. Bourne wrote, “We are told we must let the tares remain, lest we should pluck up the wheat at the same time. But does not this perverse application of the merciful Redeemer’s parable truly destroy all christian (sic) discipline, if it is to be illustrated by reference to slavery?”[1] He continues at length to regard the toleration of slavery with genuine incredulity, rightfully pointing out that under no circumstances could one claim to follow the way of Jesus and at the same time tolerate (and by toleration, provide endorsement) slavery.
Last month, the city attorney of St. Paul, Minnesota, announced that “current evidence is insufficient to meet [the] standard for criminal charges” for anti-ICE protestors who disrupted a local church where one of the pastors was also an ICE official [2. Much of the commentary surrounding this event followed the same pattern as Bourne’s opponents in the nineteenth century. They were far more concerned with the preservation of the comfort and toleration of ICE agents and sympathizers than they were the actual oppression and violence being carried out in the streets of Minnesota.
This parable shouldn’t prompt us to be patient. The weeds and the chaff remain harmful enemies to life (Jesus even goes so far as to call them the work of the devil). The parable provides the eschatological hope that one day the weeds won’t choke out our life anymore, not that we shouldn’t worry about them. Yes, the parable is insistent that when the fullness of God’s movement comes, the chaff and the weeds go into the fire. There will be no oppression, injustice, and violence against God’s children anymore. For now, those things grow in our midst but it won’t always be this way. It’s not inevitable and it’s not final.
Pastors preaching this parable this week would do well to counsel not tolerance or patience with evil, but hope that we will outlast it. Ice melts, after all.
Rev. Wesley Spears-Newsome (he/they) is a pastor, organizer, and author from North Carolina.