Lectionary:
Proper 20(C)
Most stories
have heroes and villains. There might be plot twists that cause change in how
they end up, but nevertheless most stories have the good protagonists and the bad
antagonists. I think of any number of fiction and non-fiction stories, and that
is generally the case. Any of the fairy tales that are told, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, popular movie and TV franchises such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel
Cinematic Universe, and the list
goes on.
In fact, when stories only involve good characters and no conflict, it
leaves us longing for more. Or if stories only consist of villains, we end up
frustrated because there is no satisfying resolution.
And we want good to triumph over evil. When it doesn’t, again we are frustrated
and hope that the next episode or sequel will finally bring about the
resolution that we expect and want.
The parable Jesus told that is recorded in Luke 16 is a perplexing one.
It seems that the dishonest manager wins at the end and is even commended for
being shrewdly dishonest. Why would Jesus tell such a parable?
The author of this Lucan text also appears to have been quite troubled
with the conflicted ending to the parable and the lack of expected resolution.
So, he appended a bunch of moralistic sayings after the parable. At least that’s
what many biblical scholars think happened regarding the text from the second
half of verse 8 to verse 13.
This is such a weird and troubling parable that there is no consensus
on what it means. There are as many interpretations as there are commentaries
and sermons. And some preachers decide to skip it altogether, at least during this
lectionary cycle.[1]
That is a somewhat longwinded way of saying that we’re going to tackle
this passage, but what I’m saying may be completely off-base. But I hope not
entirely, and I hope that it adheres to at least some methods of sound
interpretation that make sense.
I think looking at it in small sections and asking questions and looking to see if there is anything more that is assumed beyond the immediate text might be a good way to begin.
1 Then
Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges
were brought to him that this man was squandering his property.
First, note the intended audience: it is the disciples. Sure, there
were others around including the crowd and religious teachers. But this parable
is for the disciples.
Second, the characters are introduced. The first is a rich man. Is he a
good or a bad person? The text doesn’t say. Some interpreters think he is a
good man.[2]
Others, because he is rich, assume that even if he is not evil, he cannot be
good. And why is that? Because a rich man in that time and place would have to
be part of the patronage system and the system of acquiring wealth, which usually
means moral and ethical corners have to be cut. And simply being rich means the
person most likely has a large number of servants, indentured servants, tenant
farmers, and slaves of which many would be exploited. Given that in Luke’s
gospel wealth and rich people are universally seen negatively, I think it is
safe to assume that the reader is supposed to understand that the rich man of
this parable, even if not intentionally evil, is not a good person as Jesus
would define it.
The second character is a manager of the rich man’s estate. Among the
servants employed by the rich man, a manager would rank fairly high and
probably be receiving adequate pay. But for some reason (greed?), the manager appears
to have been misappropriating or embezzling some of the property for himself.
At least that is what the master hears. We aren’t told how he hears
about it and who it is that rats on the manager.
2 So he
summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an
accounting of your management because you cannot be my manager any longer.’
The master summons the manager and fires him. There is no attempt from
the master to make sure what he heard is correct. Perhaps the sources he
considers trustworthy, or maybe he doesn’t care. We aren’t told. But neither
does the manager offer any protestations, implying that what the master heard
was probably correct.
The master demands “an accounting of your management.” This might sound
like an explanation that is demanded from the manager, but it is better to
understand this as, “Return my ledgers that are in your possession.”
3 Then the
manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the
position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4
I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may
welcome me into their homes.’
The fired manager is in a dilemma. Because of the elevated position
that he had, he might be seen by the others lower in the estate as the master’s
lackey and enriching himself at the expense of their livelihoods. How will he
survive if he no longer has the master’s resources, and he is not welcome in the
community? He must do something quickly to earn enough honor to be welcomed
into community. He has a “Hail Mary” solution. This is before any kind of rapid
communication, and the firing seems to have been done in private. No one else
has yet received the news of a change in management. As far as everyone else
knows, the manager is still the manager.
5 So,
summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you
owe my master?’ 6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He
said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7
Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred
containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’
Before they could be any the wiser, the fired manager summons all his
accounts, one by one (so as to not arouse too much suspicion and gossip, and
also to avoid the presence of witnesses). He takes the ledgers that he is
supposed to return, but before he returns them, he will make a few changes to
them. But not in his writing, but in the handwriting of each of the clients.
Their handwriting is proof that they agreed to the reductions. The clients still
assume the fired manager has authority, and so they do what they are told.
After all, who would refuse a large reduction in rent owed? The actual
reduction is said to be about “five hundred denarii” in both examples given,
about an 18-month wage for an average farm worker.[3]
8 And his
master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly… (Luke
16:1-8a NRSVue)
The master receives the ledgers back and sees what has been done. Or
maybe the master hears first how the community is suddenly overjoyed and
praising him for being such a generous master. In any case he quickly puts one
and the other together and realizes what has happened.
He has gained great honor in the sight of the entire community for his
supposed generosity. He cannot now go and explain what really happened, because
to do so would not only lose the honor that was just added, but more, because
he had been duped by one of his servants. And the manager might have possibly
even saved his job, because how could the master allow the community to see
that he had fired the manager who was “only doing his job?”[4]
And this is the point in the text that is considered the end of the
original parable by most biblical scholars. The rest of today’s reading is
commentary by Luke to try to get to an acceptable interpretation, some of it
better than others in applicability to the parable.
And we are at the same dilemma: what was Jesus trying to communicate
with this most inscrutable and weird parable? The plainest reading is that
dishonesty might be okay when circumstances call for it, and perhaps that the
end justifies the means. But that seems so unlike what Jesus would promote.
I want to add here that although most Christians would disavow outright
dishonesty in achieving a goal, manipulation is not nearly as frowned upon when
it is a means to “saving souls”, “protecting the reputation of the group”, or
“advancing ‘the Christian’ agenda[5].” I
think specifically about church growth tactics that are employed in some circles,
ongoing coverups of abuse in the church, and tactics used to gain and maintain political
power in the name of “protecting Christian values”. One could conceivably stretch
today’s parable to justify such manipulations and coverups.
Thus, we are again back to where we started: the dilemma of what to do
with this opaque and difficult parable? Jesus told it and Luke included it, so we
can assume that it meant something valuable to the original hearers and
readers.
What we have is a parable that is told to by Jesus to his disciples; a
rich man who although not necessarily evil, is part of a system of honor and
wealth that is evaluated negatively by Luke; and an employee of the rich man
who is depicted as dishonest but also shrewd.
I suggest that this parable has no hero. Neither may be clear villains,
but both are complicit in a system that the gospel writer criticizes. Whereas
many other of Jesus’ parables have suggestive elements that disciples are to
emulate, I suggest that in this present interpretation, the entire parable may
be seen as a warning to the disciples.
What is the warning? I think it is that the societal and cultural
system of honor and shame, the system of patronage, the system of masters and
clients cannot be redeemed. That to participate in it is to be complicit in it.
Was the manager doing anything that the master wasn’t doing, or
wouldn’t do if he was a manager instead of the master? In the pursuit of wealth
and power, tactics are generally emulated, because they work. The only trick is
to not get caught. The problem with this manager is that he got caught. But in
demonstrating his cleverness in his Hail Mary attempt to save himself, he seems
to have gained the admiration of the master and (at least in one possible
scenario) proved his mettle to the master with his cunning play.
I think that at least one message that Jesus communicates through this
parable is turning the conventional-wisdom structures of society upside-down.
We can see this from the very beginning of Luke’s gospel. Part of Mary’s
Magnificat reads,
51 He has
shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:51-53 NRSVue)
I think Jesus wanted to show his disciples that simply trying to reform
existing systems and structures would not bear fruit. It has to be a complete
revolution and a change in thinking (one might call this repentance).
The temptation to become part of the system and its structures and
relationships is great. The history of Christianity doesn’t take too long after
the first generation for it to happen. And that’s been our story ever since.
Perhaps the warning is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because none of us
can simply quit the environment in which we live and breathe. But perhaps there
are times when we do have a choice in the matter, and that is where this
warning should be heeded. Have there been times when some of us have stayed in
a toxic system, hoping to reform it from within? Have there been times when some
of us chose to join a system for which you had some reservations, but thought you
could just take the benefits and remain untarnished? How did these turn out?
In our efforts to engage the world
around us, to be a source of positive contributions to society, we should never
compromise the compassion and love that Jesus taught his disciples to have and
live out. We must strongly resist the temptation to take shortcuts and employ
means that may bring short-term gains but long-term entanglements with
relationships that take us farther away from the mission of living God’s love
to all. May we have the wisdom to discern correctly and the shrewdness to maintain
the course of compassion and love, even when that seems difficult and against
cultural norms.
A few ideas that I originally had, but ultimately did not
use. I thought of a number of examples of stories and actual historical
instances where people flouted law and/or misused their authority, usually for
an ethical, moral reason. Using these would have led to a different
interpretation of the parable.
Robin Hood: fighting against a corrupt Sheriff, redistributing
ill-gotten wealth back to the poor.
Les Miserables: a broken wealth and legal system that excessively punishes
a minor crime committed to feed his family.
Japanese
Diplomat Chiune Sugihara – Lithuania, World War II. After receiving recall orders, he continues
to write exit visas to refugees that would be harmed by the Nazis. Chiune Sugihara - Wikipedia
Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard –
“They also considered simply leaving the company to Fletcher
and Claire. But even that option didn’t work, because the children didn’t want
the company.
“It was important to them that they were not seen as the
financial beneficiaries,” Mr. Gellert said. “They felt very strongly about it.
I know it can sound flippant, but they really embody this notion that every
billionaire is a policy failure.”” -- Patagonia Founder Gives Away the
Company to Fight Climate Change - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
[1]
“Once in a while, we just can’t stomach an inscrutable parable and for days
like that, the prophet Jeremiah offers us something very different indeed.” A
Song of Sorrow, Pentecost 15 (C) – September 18, 2022 – The Episcopal Church
(https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/a-song-of-sorrow-pentecost-15-c-september-18-2022/)
[2]
Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p 334. “From the
existence of these reports, the listener learns that the master is respected in
his community. There is no hint of criticism of his character.”
[3]
Bailey, p. 339.
[4]
Feasting on the Gospels—Luke, Volume 2, Kindle location approximately
3505.
[5]
And here I write this tongue-in-cheek, as what I’m thinking about are those
“Christian” agendas that don’t seem to have any basis in Jesus’ teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment