Sermon: On Loan from God

Lectionary: Proper 13(C)

Text: Psalm 49:1-12; Luke 12:13-21

Parable of the Rich Man,
Rembrandt, 1627

There are certain passages that come up in the lectionary where I wonder if anything more needs to be said. Today’s gospel reading is one of those. In short: greed is bad; be generous instead. Today’s reading also seems rather on the nose with societal goings-on around us that I wonder what more could be said.

It is easy to point fingers at others. It is easy to read this text, think about billionaires and point fingers at their lack of morals and ethics. It is easy to read this text and point fingers at the self-centeredness of the ultra-wealthy and how they seem to have no regard for those just getting by.

None of us sitting here today is among the top one percent in wealth. Most of us must make trade-offs in our budgets and spending. Some of us might consider ourselves comfortable, but not so comfortable that we don’t have worries about finances. Does today’s reading contain anything relevant for us?

Jesus tells the parable of the rich fool in response to a man in the crowd approaching Jesus so that he could settle an inheritance dispute between him and his brother. However, it was more than that. The man, probably the younger brother, had already made up his mind that he was going to get the share of inheritance that the law entitled him to. He was going to exercise his right to have the property divided and given to him. He just wanted a declaration from Jesus that this plan was approved.

It needs to be understood that there was no requirement that an inheritance be divided after the patriarch’s death. Psalm 133:1 praise families who continue to live together: “¹ Look at how good and pleasing it is when families live together as one!” (CEB) In Genesis 13, the separation of Abram and Lot, because each family had grown too large to remain together, is seen as a tragedy.

The younger brother who had come to Jesus had already decided that he wanted to separate from his family and take his portion of the family land with him. “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Bailey) responds Jesus.[1] First, as was with Martha and Mary, Jesus does not take kindly to demands that are made to him. If Jesus is Lord and Master, making requests and accepting what is provided is appropriate. But not demands. Second, Jesus came to bring people together into his community, not to divide. Those who follow Jesus as Lord and Master ought to come together, not separate.

Jesus is not impressed by this man’s attitude. Jesus’ addressing of him as “Man” is just short of rude.[2]

Jesus continues with a statement of a general principle. “Take heed, and beware of every kind of insatiable desire. For life for a person does not consist in the surpluses of his possessions.” (Bailey)

A couple of things to note here. First, “insatiable desire” implies much more than acquisition and hoarding of possessions. It hints to more intangible things such as power, honor, respect, ambition, and even independence. Second, Jesus is addressing what one does with a surplus. In other words, possessions, tangible and intangible, inherently are not bad or evil. Humans need various things to meet our basic physical, emotional, and social needs. But there comes a point where some can end up with more than is needed. How we respond to a surplus is an indicator of what we truly desire.

The parable Jesus tells lays out one option. When we pause to see its reflection, we can infer the second option, the option that leads to authentic life.

In the parable, the man is already wealthy. He is not condemned for being wealthy. What happens next is that his lands simply produce a bumper crop. Those who farm and garden are quite aware that many things out of their control can affect the harvest. You can work hard and do all the right things to influence the harvest, but the outcome is also determined by things like weather and pests.

This rich man happens to experience a bumper crop for nothing related to his actual work or effort. It is a gift from God. What will he do with it?

He enters a monologue, speaking to himself. The crops, the surplus, everything is his. In his mind he owns it, deserves it, and can do what he wants with it. He has no one to discuss this fortune with. He has no one who celebrates with him. It does not cross his mind that those who worked in the fields might share in it. It is his – all of it.

He decides to tear down his current barns, build larger ones, store up the harvest, and then live an easy life for many years to come. “Relax, eat, drink, and enjoy yourself,” (Bailey) he muses to himself. This might be a reference to Ecclesiastes 8:15, “¹⁵ So I commend enjoyment because there’s nothing better for people to do under the sun but to eat, drink, and be glad. This is what will accompany them in their hard work, during the lifetime that God gives under the sun.” (CEB) What the rich man forgot or fails to realize is that life itself is a gift and a loan from God.

The parable next has God collecting the loan due on the rich man’s life. The man had no time to relax and enjoy what he thought were his possessions. Similarly to the lament of the writer of Ecclesiastes, God asks, “Fool! Who is going to inherit all the things you stored away?”

Jesus ends the parable with a warning. “This is the way it will be for those who hoard things for themselves and aren’t rich toward God.” (Luke 12:21 CEB) Bailey translates this as follows: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not gathering riches for God.” Two choices are laid out. Each person can live for themselves, pursuing their own glory; or, they can use what they are loaned to build up God’s community.

In our modern society, where ownership is such an entrenched and highly prized principle, it might be difficult for us to let go of it. But for those who follow Christ, everything we have is on loan from God; even our time here on earth. If we take to heart the truth that all God has given to us doesn’t belong to us; if we take to heart that God desires community above all else; and if we take to heart that what God gives is intended to build up his community, would we live differently?

I think that the problem of the man demanding his portion of the inheritance wasn’t primarily about the inheritance, but about him wanting to distance himself from community and live independently from family. The parable could be seen as a warning of what unchecked independence without communal accountability will eventually lead to: a life that becomes completely self-consuming and self-indulgent, uncaring of others and their needs.

Living in community, with people that are different from us, don’t always think alike, are sometimes disagreeable and even unlikeable, can be difficult. But that is how and where we practice unconditional love, forgiveness, and mercy. As we contribute our tangible and intangible possessions in building up God’s community, we are “gathering riches for God” and bringing the kingdom of God as we pray each week, in community, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Gathers,

And in the name of God who discomforts us through imperfect community, amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 3. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] Most translations use “arbitrator” or similar instead of “divider”, softening the intent of Jesus’ words.

[2][2] Some translations use “Friend” or similar instead of “Man”, softening the intent of Jesus’ words.

Sermon: An Uncomfortable Gospel

Lectionary 6(C)

Texts: Jeremiah 17:5-10; Psalm 1; Luke 6:17-26

Beatitudes, Gospel Differences

Poverty and Wealth, William Powell Frith, 1888

When we encounter the beatitudes, the version we usually hear or think about is the one found in Matthew. As we just heard, the version in Luke is different from the one in Matthew. Luke’s version is placed in a different setting, there are fewer blessings, and each blessing is paired with a woe. The differences speak to the different purposes each gospel writer had in including the beatitudes into their gospel account.

Matthew has Jesus going up a mountain and immediately begins speaking. For Matthew, Jesus is the new Moses and the new lawgiver, who ascends a new Sinai to proclaim a new set of laws that the new community that is being inaugurated are to follow.

Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus coming down from a mountain, to level ground. He is surrounded by people from all around the region. He met their healing needs first.[1] And then, not even standing up, he looks up to his disciples and begins to speak to them.

For Luke, Jesus is one with humanity. He is the one who came down from God’s presence, giving up all its privileges and power, and became human. Jesus is not just human, but he is one who places himself as a servant and a slave to everyone else. He is one who identifies with the lowest of the low, the most outcast and reviled, the poorest of the poor, the most abused and desperate. Ninety-percent of the people in the Roman empire lived in poverty. Two-thirds were barely surviving or worse.[2] Luke’s gospel reveals a God whose preference is for these kinds of people.[3]

The Gospel is Uncomfortable

Luke’s version of the beatitudes is very uncomfortable to read, especially for many modern Christians who do not experiencing the privations, possible persecution, and powerlessness that many first century Christians experienced. We prefer Matthew’s version that omits the woes and spiritualizes references to the poor and to the hungry. We prefer a more comfortable, domesticated, and defanged gospel.[4] But Luke challenges us to sit with the discomfort.

One commentary suggests a scenario in which Luke’s gospel might have been read.

Luke’s churches listened to this sermon read aloud as the wealthy believers reclined in the dining room (triclinium) of a Roman house and the poor sat out in the peristyle garden (Osiek and Balch: chs. 1 and 8), the setting in which Luke places Jesus’ last supper (22:14, 24–30). The sermon is specifically addressed to “disciples” (6:20) divided by economic class.[5]

This demands that we ask of ourselves: Does this scenario in any way have resonance with our own present-day circumstances? Do we sit in comfortable spaces with plenty to eat while many others remain outside and hungry?

Poor Doesn’t Just Mean Poor

We also need to better understand what the term poor meant to Jesus and to Luke. What layers of meaning are encoded in this word?

Here I quote from Dr. Jennifer Garcia Bashaw’s book Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and prophets defend “the poor” and show them to be of special concern to God. The poor are not only economically disadvantaged but also victims of the unjust structures of society… The concept involves the forces that act upon people to further marginalize them. The poor are the powerless, the vulnerable, the insignificant, the exploited, and the oppressed…

The law, the prophets, and the Psalms make the claim the Yahweh takes the side of the poor and oppressed and vindicates their rights against their rich and powerful oppressors. When Jesus states that the Spirit anointed him to bring good news to the poor, we must take his meaning in its context. The good news to the poor must at the very least be about fighting the powers and systems that keep people poor.[6]

This is all in mind when Luke has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor, the hungry, and the weeping.” In a world where the rich and powerful control everything and they continue to amass more and more, there is nothing left for the ninety-percent. For many, there is not even a crumb.

For Luke, the community of Jesus-followers is supposed to be bringing the blessings declared by Jesus to the poor. We see this in Luke’s second volume, known to us as the Acts of the Apostles, where he describes the very first Christ-followers working together. Those with means donated money and food so that the poor would experience the blessings that Jesus taught.

Woes of Wealth

However, as the record of Acts reveals and with what we read about in the Corinthian church, the cultural tradition and human nature associated with wealth and privilege corrupted the equitable treatment of people in the church. And that is perhaps one reason why unlike Matthew, Luke is explicit and includes woes to pair with the blessings.

The wealthy would like everyone else to believe that the availability of wealth is infinite, and therefore anyone could become wealthy with enough hard work or luck. But this is a lie. Throughout history, the wealthy became wealthy through exploitation of others.

For Luke who pairs the blessings and woes, he intends to make his audience understand that,

As soon as the rich no longer exploit the poor, the poor will experience comfort. The two fates are interrelated; Jesus is calling out and convicting the oppressor so that the suffering of the oppressed might end.[7]

For those who claim to follow the way of Jesus Christ, this must be doubly true, otherwise we are not following Christ.

Hated for Being Generous Like Christ

But what about the last pair of blessings and woe? This is the one where the blessing reads, “Happy are you when people hate you, reject you, insult you, and condemn your name as evil because of the Human One?” And the corresponding woe, “How terrible for you when all speak well of you?”

It is suggested that at least some of Luke’s audience did take Jesus’ message to heart. Referring back to a commentary read earlier,

Patrons in the Lukan house churches [invited] their poor brothers and sisters to dinner (14:12–14), which generated ostracism from their wealthy, disapproving peers. This relates the fourth beatitude directly to the first, since the disciples were acting and eating according to Jesus’ teaching.[8]

Larycia Hawkins, a biblical scholar said in a podcast interview I listened to,

… What does it mean to have a perspective of the oppressed? And this is what I believe Jesus did. I believe Jesus saw people—Jesus saw people created in God’s image. Jesus dared to be touched and moved by them. He saw that they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd…

How do you heal lepers if lepers live in leper colonies? You go where the lepers are. So I think the impulse to be at the center, centers of power as opposed to clamoring to be last, not first, is anathema to embodied solidarity. So I think there’s something about proximity to suffering that we need to relearn and reclaim. I think the desert is, and the wilderness is, where a lot of us need to be to be rejuvenated, to have our faith challenged. And we could also talk about that as the margins, right? And so where are these marginal places?

And when we are in places of power, are we willing to do risky things?[9]

A Challenge to Live Out the Gospel of Liberation

And I think that is the question we need to wrestle with at this time in history. When so much of what passes for Christianity seems enamored with power, privilege, and comfort, are we willing to risk our reputations and our livelihoods to stand up for the true gospel of liberation that Christ announced and lived out? Are we prepared to do more than just see the poor and oppressed as subjects of theology and our charity? Are we ready to speak out against the systems, institutions, policies, and governance that create and perpetuate poverty? Are we willing to risk our own comfort and security to actively work to dismantle systems of injustice and oppression, wherever they occur?

A few chapters later in Luke, Jesus says to all who seek to follow him, “All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow me. All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me will save them.” (Luke 9:23-24 CEB)

This week, I invite you to meditate on the discomfort of the gospel of liberation and the cruciform life demanded by it.

In the name of God who lifts the poor,

In the name of God who comforts the oppressed,

And in the name of God who calls us to join with our suffering siblings, Amen.

Works Cited

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible for Normal People. (2025, February 10). Episode 52: Larycia Hawkins – Embodied Solidarity. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-52-larycia-hawkins-embodied-solidarity/

 

---

[1] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[2] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[3] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[4] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[5] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[6] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[7] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[8] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[9] (The Bible for Normal People, 2025)

Sermon: Blind Spots

 
Texts: Luke16:19-31, 1 Timothy 6:6-19

Lectionary: Proper 21(C)

Introduction

This last August when we traveled to Portland, we rented a car. The car happened to be a Kia Soul. And for some reason we kept seeing others of this car model driving around a lot more than we normally notice. One afternoon we were parked at a coffee shop. Upon coming out later we noticed that there was another Kia Soul parked right next to us. Just moments after we came out, a woman came out of the store and quickly walked over to the other Soul, opened the door, rummaged around, and showed us a laminated sign that read, “Soulmate!” It took us a few moments, but we realized that the sign was meant to convey a common bond with other Kia Soul owners and drivers.

It’s common for new car owners to suddenly start seeing more of the car model driving around that match what they now drive. The same might be also true for clothing and accessories, pets, and other lifestyle elements that are externally visible.

Speaking of pets, since both Elise and I are cat people, if we’re traveling and encounter a cat we are immediately drawn to it, and if the cat happens to be sociable, then we might end up spending quite a bit of time with it. I recently saw a meme on Facebook of a cat on cobblestones with the caption, “Spent a day in Paris. Took 32 photos. 29 were of this cat.”

“Don’t think about pink elephants for the rest of the day.” Are you thinking about pink elephants? Don’t. There are no pink elephants here, or anywhere. Pink elephants are fictional. Stop thinking about them. Can you now?

Similarly to how our brains can fixate on familiar things or on thoughts that are repeated, our brains can also learn to ignore things that might be uncomfortable and inconvenient. That is not always a negative function, because it may be a way that the brain works to protect us, and it can be a coping mechanism that allows us to function. But sometimes, it may not be so good and may even be bad.

Blind Spots

Again, going back to our travels to Portland this past year, it is impossible to ignore the homeless and their encampments that dot the cityscape. Or in the suburbs, there are people at freeway on and off ramps asking for money. We learn to walk past and around them, drive past them, ignore them. We see them, but they don’t really exist to us. Is that good or bad? We don’t know them. They are nameless. Just someone who probably has fallen on hard times, but who knows for certain? We tell ourselves that there are too many for us to start helping, and that a handout might just be used for something other than food. Or we might even think that some of them are actually frauds.

But how about here at home, in Petersburg? We know that there are homeless and those whose housing situation is precarious. We know that there are those who struggle to feed themselves and any family they might have.

Do we see them? Do we know them?

Based on several different conversations around this topic that I’ve participated in over the years, as a generalization, we would rather not acknowledge that there are those in this town that are homeless and struggling to meet their basic needs. We want to believe that this town only contains those attributes that are culturally and socially acceptable as belonging to a good, hard-working, American small town.

Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

At first glance, today’s reading and the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus might not seem to offer much to say to us. The rich man is so obscenely rich and narcissistic that although a few, current, prominent individuals might come to mind that fit the description, none of us here can come close to identifying with the rich man.

Neither can we really identify with Lazarus. Lazarus is so destitute, sick, and hungry that he longs for even just some crumbs. He is physically immobile (the text uses a verb that implies he is carried to the rich man’s gate). He is relying solely on the generosity of the community around him. Of all the members of the community, the rich man should be the best chance to receive meaningful help.

Thus, we end up staring at this strange parable about a reversal of fortunes and a strange underworld. We might be troubled that although the rich man, through his lack of compassion, might deserve Hades, Lazarus is not seen as righteous. Lazarus is just poor and sick. Why is Lazarus “saved”? And what about “Father Abraham”? Is he a kind of “St. Peter at the pearly gates” figure in Judaic stories, one that can grant entry and transport into and between metaphysical places?

Expected Elements of the Parable

First, this parable follows a form that was already well established.[1]^,[2] Jesus’ hearers would have expected this development of two characters and a reversal.

Second, as is the case throughout in Luke, rich people and wealth are thought of negatively. While some Christian interpretations traditionally taught that Jews believed the rich were blessed by God and the poor somehow deserved to be poor, that was not and is not the case. Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish scholar of the New Testament, describes a number of ways in which Christianity has misinterpreted the parable and in regards to wealth and poverty writes:

On both popular and scholarly levels, we find other, more pernicious readings. Over and over again we are told, “At the time of Christ, impoverished beggars were regarded as sinners being punished for their sins,” and, “Judaism of that period would likely conclude that the miserable condition of Lazarus was the result of God’s punishment for sin, and wealth, such as enjoyed by the rich man, indicated God’s blessings.”[3]

… Anytime a parable begins, “There was a rich man who…,” we know that the rich man is a poor role model. The scriptures of Israel, Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, rabbinic sources, and numerous quotes attributed to Jesus of Nazareth all agree that wealth is a snare, that the rich should but usually do not care for the poor, and that God has a special concern for the disadvantaged.[4]

This is an important corrective for us to take to heart when we read about riches and wealth in the New Testament.

Third, the depiction of the afterlife and Father Abraham present in it and the ability for both sides to see one another also reflect ideas of that time, so there is nothing about this that would have surprised Jesus’ audience.[5]

A fourth point that may raise questions in our (Christian) minds is that where a person ends up in the afterlife appears to be based on their actions and place in this life. But that is a Christian concern (and whether one is Calvinist or Wesleyan/Arminian or predates both might have an influence on how one sees the relationship between what seems like “works” and the respective destinations as told in this parable). For the original hearers/readers and Jesus, the speaker, the idea that one’s behavior in this life would affect the afterlife would have been unsurprising.[6]

These broad strokes contain nothing that would have been heard as unusual. So, it must be in the details where we might find one or more of Jesus’ intents in telling his version of the “reversal of fortune in afterlife” parable.

Lesson of Community and Responsibility

There are many lessons that could be drawn from this parable, but I would like to focus on one: the context of community that informs how we might understand relationships.

The rich man was aware of not only the presence of Lazarus, but as he spoke to Father Abraham from across the chasm, he knew Lazarus. He asked for Lazarus by name. This was not simply a case of the rich man failing to notice one particular destitute and sick individual in front of his gate, but he knew exactly which one and by implication we are to understand that the rich man intentionally ignored caring for Lazarus.

By the mention that Lazarus was laid at the gate, we are to also understand that the rich man was a patron or a “father” to the community, that he had communal responsibilities that were expected from someone of his position and wealth. The Torah commands that those who are able take care of the less fortunate within their community:

⁷ “If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor… ¹⁰ Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. ¹¹ Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’ (Deuteronomy 15:7, 10-11 NRSVue)

The reading from 1 Timothy echoes Deuteronomy:

¹⁷ As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches but rather on God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. ¹⁸ They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, ¹⁹ thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19 NRSVue)

The rich man never belonged to the community. He didn’t want to be a part of the “ordinary folk” outside the gates. So, he dressed like a royalty and feasted like it was a high holy day every single day. He thought himself better than everyone else. He had walls and a gate to keep everyone else out.

When he finds himself in Hades, we see that he has learned nothing from this turn of events. He still will not address Lazarus directly. He expects Lazarus to be his servant. He may “ask mercy” from Father Abraham, but he still expects everyone, including Abraham to acquiesce and fulfill his demands. When he entreats Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, it is not because he has finally figured out what landed him in Hades. Rather, he just wants to save his brother from landing in the same place. There is no recognition that the lack of concern and concrete ways of caring for the community is the primary issue.[7]

What “Love” Means in the Bible

Before I get to the wrap-up portion of this sermon in which I will try to bring what we’ve discussed all together, there is one other related idea that I think will be helpful. I was listening to a podcast this week and Pete Enns, the podcaster, related the concept that the word “love” in the Hebrew scriptural context is covenant and treaty language.

… Love is a treaty word in the Hebrew Bible that refers to total devotion, not really [sic about] warm, fuzzy feelings. So to love the Lord with all your heart, in the Hebrew Bible, is treaty language, it’s covenant language, it means to be utterly obedient to Yahweh no matter what. And I know that sort of takes the buzz out of some worship songs, but there you have it. Love is a contractual, almost technical piece of vocabulary not only in the Bible, but even outside of the Bible. So to love God really just means to be obedient.[8]

When Jesus talks about “love”, this is what he probably meant and what we should understand. The introductory narrative to the parable of the Good Samaritan reads as follows:

²⁵ An expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” ²⁷ He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁸ And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28 NRSVue)

Reading “love” as obedience and loyalty gives this text a new twist, doesn’t it? As mentioned a few minutes ago, for the Jews it was assumed that loyalty and obedience to God were the necessary human responses to being saved. To do or not do anything else was to place oneself outside the community of the saved and of life itself. It could be said this way: all are saved by God’s grace, but because some refuse to join and participate in the community of life, to accept the responsibilities of that life, as a result they receive the natural consequences of their choice.

The failure of the rich man in today’s parable was that he did not love the neighbor as he did himself, and by failing to do so, he failed to be loyal and obedient to God, and as a result placed himself outside the boundaries of life. The rich man, through the wealth that was given to him, could have been a source of life to Lazarus. But because he chose not to, he forfeited life for himself.

So How Are We to Live?

As a community of faith that desires to follow Jesus, do we see our community? Do we really see what is happening in Petersburg? It is easy to get wrapped up in our work, our families, and our routines that we stop noticing. Or some issues might seem so big that we would rather hope someone else tackles it.

What need has God placed in front of your doorstep? Who might the Lazarus, sitting outside our door, be for each of us? What might it mean to truly love – to be loyal and life-giving to – our neighbor that has been laid in front of us?

I don’t for a moment expect that any one of us alone will be able to change the entire community. But individual efforts, collectively supported, could be that mustard seed that is needed to effect change that improves life and the quality of life for many who are in need. We do this not because we will gain points with God, nor do we do it because it might somehow gain a church member. We don’t do it for any ulterior motives. We do it because they are a part of our community, because they are fellow human beings, and because God is a God of community.

---

[1] Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 4. Kindle location approximately 4531. “The parable begins in a familiar formula of its time, borrowed from what scholars think is an Egyptian tale.”

[2] Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus, p. 263. “Cautionary tales of postmortem reversals of fortune are part of global storytelling.”

[3] Levine, p. 249.

[4] Levine, p. 251.

[5] Levine, p. 264-265. “Folkloric though the parable may be, it speaks to early Jewish views of the afterlife…”

[6] Levine, p. 270. “The concern in Jewish scripture, broadly defined, is not what we have, but what we do… The parables emphasis on the importance of the Torah disturbs those readers who want to set up a law-versus-grace dichotomy… or are worried about works-righteousness. But this commendation of the Law and the Prophets would not have disturbed Jesus’ initial audience, and it makes good sense on the lips of Jesus the rabbi.”

[7] Levine, p. 268-269.

[8] The Bible for Normal People, episode 218, “Pete Ruins Deuteronomy”. Transcript text.

Sermon: Complicity

Text: Luke16:1-13

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.