Sermon: Less is More

Lectionary: Year C, Proper 13
Text: Luke 12:13-21

Saving: Virtue or Vice

During uncertain economic times, who could be faulted for wanting to and saving more? Personal finance advisors recommend three months, six months, and even a full year’s income to be held as savings and insurance against various kinds of financial troubles and catastrophes that could hit the average person and family.

Not everyone can save, and not everyone has the discipline to save, but saving is generally considered a desirable act and even looked up to as a virtue in most societies. This is true not only of North America and Europe, the stereotypical “West”, but also true of many parts of Asia. There may be other regions, but I’m only familiar with what I mentioned.

Most specifically in the United States, we do have Social Security, but it was never designed to be the sole source of income after our working years. The cornerstone of retirement is saving enough during our working years. The virtue of saving is embedded into the history of America. In Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, the authors write,

“Scholars have noted that Protestant Christianity (especially those of Puritan heritage) puts significant emphasis on hard work, frugality and financial independence. If Roman Catholicism talks about God’s preferential care for the poor, Protestants believe that ‘God helps those that help themselves.’ One way this plays out practically is that most Christians recognize the importance of saving money. Investing and putting money in the bank for the future or a rainy day is good stewardship and requires and reinforces another virtue: delayed gratification.”[1]

Conversely, the authors note that in many ancient and modern Middle Eastern and some Asian cultures, saving is not considered a virtue and could even be regarded as a vice.

Parable of the Rich Fool

Today’s reading includes the parable of the rich fool. There is an introductory narrative that sets the context for Jesus telling this parable. From this introduction, we are to understand that the problem being illustrated is greed. But if we set aside what we are supposed to know about this parable and read it from a 21^st century American context, we might wonder what the problem is.

First, the land produces abundantly. The parable doesn’t say why. It could be luck, or (as often is assumed in interpretations of this parable) God’s blessing. But it could be the result of hard work (or most likely, hard work of his hired hands and servants – which has some rather close parallels to some of today’s business and the relationship of owner to employee vs. relationship of corresponding salary and wages).

From a modern business perspective, proceeds of a highly profitable season belong to the owner. Wealth is a private property, to do with it as they see fit. Why should anyone see a problem with acquiring new and better ways of storing the wealth? (Again, plenty of parallels with modern capitalism.)

Why shouldn’t someone who has risked their capital and life not get to enjoy the fruits of their labor and investing? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to “relax, eat, drink, be merry?”[2]

If we are honest with ourselves, don’t we want at least a little bit of this? Wouldn’t it be nice to have enough stored up so that we don’t have to worry much about current and future economic turbulences? Don’t we feel like we should deserve some security for the hard work that we do or have done?

Insatiable Desires

The problem is that humans tend to want more the more they acquire and save. Arthur Brooks writes in The Atlantic on this topic,

According to evolutionary psychology, our tendency to strive for more is perfectly understandable. Throughout most of human history, starvation loomed closer than it does, for the most part, today. A “rich” caveman had a few extra animal skins and arrowheads, and maybe a few piles of seeds and dried fish to spare. With this plenty, he might survive a bad winter.

Our troglodyte ancestors didn’t just want to make it through the winter, though; they had bigger ambitions. They wanted to find allies and mates too, with the goal (whether conscious or not) of passing on their genes. And what would make that possible? Among other things, the accumulation of animal skins, demonstrating greater competence, prowess, and attractiveness than the hominid in the next cave over.

Surprisingly, little has changed since then. Scholars have shown that our acquisitive tendencies persist amid plenty and regularly exceed our needs. This owes to our vestigial urges—software that still exists in our brains from ancient times. [3]

Desire for fame, attractiveness, success, power – these too, are part of our acquisitive natures. Brooks writes further in the same article,

The insatiable goals to acquire more, succeed conspicuously, and be as attractive as possible lead us to objectify one another, and even ourselves. When people see themselves as little more than their attractive bodies, jobs, or bank accounts, it brings great suffering. Studies show that self-objectification is associated with a sense of invisibility and lack of autonomy, and physical self-objectification has a direct relationship with eating disorders and depression in women. Professional self-objectification is a tyranny every bit as nasty. You become a heartless taskmaster to yourself, seeing yourself as nothing more than Homo economicus. Love and fun are sacrificed for another day of work, in search of a positive internal answer to the question Am I successful yet? We become cardboard cutouts of real people.[4]

When we succumb to the treadmill of more, we stop being fully human. We sacrifice our own true selves and our relationships with other people in the pursuit of more and better.

The Rich Fool, Again

Returning to today’s gospel reading, the introductory narrative was about a brother asking Jesus to tell his (probably) older brother to divide the family inheritance so that he could have his share to do with it how he desired (my paraphrase). Here already, is revealed something that would be understood by those in the immediate audience, but is not explicitly stated and therefore, often overlooked by modern readers like us.

We tend to think of inheritance in monetary terms. Money and other securities can be easily divided. But in the ancient world, wealth was most commonly found in land ownership. To divide up the land to distribute inheritance would mean smaller and smaller plots of land for each generation. Land was generally held in common by the family. The entire family and extended family would work the land and the produce would benefit the entire family.

The brother asking (or even demanding) that Jesus order the other brother to allow the division to happen is an indication that a division has already occurred in their relationship, and the division of real estate is desired to finalize the relational split so that the brother could go his own way, away from the family.[5]

The subsequent parable of the rich fool could be imagined similarly to the vision given by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to Ebeneezer Scrooge (borrowing from Dickens, and really, there seems to be some parallels of this parable with A Christmas Carol).[6] I can easily imagine Jesus saying to the brother that came to him, “This is how things will turn out if you continue on your present path.” The brother has already begun to cut off relationships, and by the time of the parable’s telling, he has no one to speak with, save himself. The brother is already more interested in his own possessions than the family or the community, and yes, that singular pursuit will lead to great wealth, but to what end and for whose benefit?

Slavery to Systems

Modern society, especially what we find ourselves living in, places a high value on independence and individualism. Achieving personal success is a cultural value. Society may speak words about valuing families but in practice, tradition, culture, and social policies prioritize work and money over family. Even those who would rather value family are often helpless because the societal systems in place require them to prioritize work, just so they can survive.

Throughout the gospel of Luke Jesus is described as fighting against the economic systems of that time which kept people slaves to the system. Whatever economic and social status one was, there were expectations and requirements. The poor and slaves obviously had to work for their masters and employers, just to survive. Those with more wealth and the truly wealthy clearly had more options and opportunities, yet they were slaves to status itself. In all cases, people were human-doings and not human-beings.

We live with different economic, political, and social systems today. But are we any freer? Are we any less slaves to circumstances, fulfilling what the systems demand and require of us?

A Different System 

The sequel to the gospel of Luke is the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, at least briefly, a new economic and social system does get implemented.

⁴⁴ All who believed were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵ they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45 NRSVue)

³² Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³ With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵ They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35 NRSVue)

When we read this, we rebel against it. It goes against everything we think about how the economy is supposed to be. It sounds so unAmerican. And so, we tend to explain it away in a number of ways: Perhaps these early believers were overenthusiastic. Perhaps they took Jesus’ teachings about money and wealth too far. Perhaps they did what they did because they really did believe Jesus would be returning very, very soon and they wouldn’t need earthly possessions. Perhaps Acts is an idealized version of what actually happened.

But could we at least think a little bit about the possibility that this is what Jesus actually intended?

Where to Find Satisfaction

Arthur Brooks, in the article I quoted from earlier, continues,

As we grow older in the West, we generally think we should have a lot to show for our lives—a lot of trophies. According to numerous Eastern philosophies, this is backwards. As we age, we shouldn’t accumulate more to represent ourselves, but rather strip things away to find our true selves—and thus, to find happiness and peace…

In truth, our formula, Satisfaction = getting what you want, leaves out one key component. To be more accurate, it should be:

Satisfaction = what you have ÷ what you want

All of our evolutionary and biological imperatives focus us on increasing the numerator—our haves. But the more significant action is in the denominator—our wants…

The secret to satisfaction is not to increase our haves—that will never work (or at least, it will never last). That is the treadmill formula, not the satisfaction formula. The secret is to manage our wants.[7]

In the remaining portion of the article, Brooks lists a number of things a person can do to help manage our wants and thus improve the possibility of finding satisfaction and happiness.

One step is to increase our sharing. This includes material possessions, but also includes things like experience and knowledge. Even experience and knowledge can be hoarded as a way of maintaining status and power. Let them go. Share.

Another step is to continue to build and grow relationships with family and friends, the ones that matter. Reduce and eliminate activities and relationships that exist only or primarily to maintain or enhance status and position. Share time.[8]

A third step is to think smaller. This can be actual downsizing – getting rid of physical stuff, large and small, that weigh us down and distract us. But it also means noticing the small things in life, the things that often get overlooked because we’re too busy doing something else, too busy thinking about the past or future, or too busy going from one place to another. Share moments of wonder.

The question isn’t whether we should save or not. The question isn’t whether the act of saving is a virtue or a vice. What is prudent and necessary varies depending on cultural, social, and economic contexts.

The question should be, are there ways in which we are sacrificing things that matter – being in community with family, friends, and God – for the empty pursuit of trying to satisfy our wants with more money, status, achievements, and the like?

Could it be that by reducing both what we have and what we want, we can become more dependent on one another? And what if that was one of the pillars of the kingdom of heaven – that we are dependent on one another in a mutually sharing community?

Some things to think about, especially whenever we pray, “May your kingdom come.”[9]

 

---

[1] Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, Kindle reader location approximately 2061 to 2065.

[2] Luke 12:19.

[3] How Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/03/why-we-are-never-satisfied-happiness/621304/)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Kindle reader, approximate location 3602.

[6] This observation comes, in part, from Feasting on the Gospels—Luke, Volume 2, Kindle reader, approximate location 776.

[7] How Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction - The Atlantic

[8] Science Says the More of This You Give, the Happier You'll Be (Hint: It's Not Money) | Inc.com (https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/happiness-emotional-intelligence-how-to-be-happy-how-to-spend-time.html)

[9] Luke 11:2b.

Sermon: A Different Economy

Text: Luke 11:1-13
Lectionary: Year C, Proper 12

Five years ago Elise and I took a vacation in Italy, spending about a month there. The first third of the trip was a group tour around the country on a bus. It was at the very end of that trip, the very last evening, as the group’s luggage was being unloaded from the bus, that I discovered that my luggage went missing and probably was stolen.

It was a rather unexpected, nasty surprise. But it could have been worse. I had fortunately carried all important documents and credit cards and such on my person. If the thief was looking for valuables in the luggage, they would have been sorely disappointed, save for a bit of US currency that I had in there since I didn’t need any while in Italy. Probably the most valuable thing was the luggage itself.

I was amazingly Zen about the whole affair. Retrospection wouldn’t change things, and the immediate future was somewhat dictated by having to file police reports and get a couple of changes of clothing. Taking the perspective that this led to some new experiences that I wouldn’t have otherwise had, to invoke curiosity about them, might have been factors that helped get through it without getting too stressed or annoyed.

It was decidedly inconvenient, but the sudden cutting loose from stuff that I had been carrying, albeit not my choice, was surprisingly freeing. Looking back on it now, it seems that I was suddenly forced to be more in-the-moment, to have to work through the new circumstances of the here-and-now.

Mindfulness: Being Present

Mindfulness has become quite the trend and buzz in wellness circles over the past couple of decades. It is most frequently associated with the practice of meditation, but the two are not the same. Meditation, particularly the types focusing on breathing and being aware of one’s own body, is a practice that is used to lead toward mindfulness. But mindfulness is the result of meditation or any other practice that leads to a state where one’s focus is on the present, rather than on retrospection (past oriented) or prospection (future planning).

Social scientists and psychologists have found that people who are happy tend to be focused on the present; i.e., they are mindful. They certainly do look back in history for lessons and make plans for the future, but they have learned to live in the present.[1]

On the other hand, those who ruminate in retrospection or are overly fixated on prospection tend to be less happy. Retrospection might be the result of regrets about the past or the preference for nostalgia, where the mind diminishes or erases the bad parts memories. Prospection might be the preference of an idealized future in which everything goes according to plan. In both cases, there seems to be significant felt dissatisfaction with the present.

Lord's Prayer and Mindfulness

I think the Lord’s Prayer, at least in part, is telling us to be present and to be mindful.

The version found in Luke is quite terse and direct, when compared to the version we most often recite from Matthew. Here it is again to refresh our memories.

^2b “Father, may your name be revered as holy.
May your kingdom come.
³ Give us each day our daily bread.
⁴ And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.” (Luke 11:2b-4 NRSVue)

The prayer begins and ends with what could be seen as future oriented: a desire to see the fulfillment of God’s kingdom on earth and a petition to be spared the time of trial.

But the central portion of the prayer is about the present, one day at a time. This is most clearly seen in the petition for provision of today’s needs, “Give us each day our daily bread.”

Debt Erasure and Not Keeping Records

But notice that the clause about forgiving is stated in the present tense: “And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.” Notice too, how Luke uses sins and debts interchangeably.

I think that there is an important principle here that we often overlook or ignore. Followers of Jesus don’t keep a ledger of debts, either formally or informally.

Keeping a record of debts means always having reminders about something owed to you from the past, and always looking toward a future time when the debt will be repaid in some manner. Relationships become transactional. Our interactions become accounting and mathematical problems. Will what I say or do be a credit or a debit on this relational ledger? Will we be owing someone, or will this be a repayment on some debt owed? Are they doing me a favor because of some past debt, or will they now expect repayment from me in the future? Even if we don’t explicitly think in these terms, I think that there is a part of us that wants to keep this kind of ledger.

Our social and economic structures, the ones we are immersed in from birth, perpetuate and reinforce this kind of thought process. These systems are the very air we breathe. We don’t even think about it. The exchange of goods for other goods and services, meritocracy, lending and borrowing, contracts, expectations of full repayment – these are all not just economic concepts, but they color how we approach community and relationships. Even participation in church can become transactional: am I getting out of church what I am putting into it?

Through the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches us a different economy. One that can free us from being trapped by the past and from limits debt often places onto future possibilities. An economy that is achieved by eliminating ledgers altogether; by forgiving everyone of all debts, where this is done by all for one another.

Could such an economy actually work? Wouldn’t there be some who just take and take without ever giving back, taking advantage of those who give? Perhaps we can’t imagine anything like this working because we are unable to imagine beyond our culture and societal norms. Perhaps we are so steeped in the economy of scarcity and power that we can’t imagine people not taking advantage of one another to acquire more and amass power over others.

Parable of the Friends at Midnight

Immediately after the Lord’s Prayer, Luke records a parable told by Jesus. It does not come through in most English translations, but the first large portion of the parable should be read as a question posed by Jesus.

⁵ And he said to them, “Suppose one of you has [Can you imagine] a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, ⁶ for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ And he answers from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ ⁸

This entire section should be preface as, “Can you imagine a friend doing this with your request?” The expected response from Jesus’ hearers would have been an emphatic, “No, we cannot.”[2]

I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything out of friendship, at least because of his persistence [shamelessness] he will get up and give him whatever he needs. (Luke 11:5-8 NRSVue)

Translation and Interpretation Alternatives

Here we get into one of the very confusing translation and interpretive problems in the New Testament. The word, here, translated as persistence leads to the interpretation that it is because of the persistence of the friend in need that the friend with the means finally acquiesces to the demands. And the frequent application is that we should be just as persistent in prayer to God. But that opens up a whole new can of worms in regard to answers to prayer, which we do not have the time to get into right now.

A better translation is shamelessness. But once more, this is applied to the one asking for bread, leading to the interpretation that one should or must be bold in asking God in prayer.

But other interpreters apply the shamelessness to the friend behind the locked door, the one with means. In this interpretation, the friend finally gives in because to refuse the request would be to bring shame and dishonor not only to himself, but to the entire community, for refusing to be hospitable to the guest who has arrived from outside the community.

A problem with this interpretation is the question about God and shame and honor. Those who object to this interpretation object on the grounds that God isn’t subject to shame and honor, and therefore, this interpretation is unsound. But when we see this and the latter part of today’s reading (which we will not specifically discuss here) as parables of “how much more is God willing” then the interpretation fits. If humans can be motivated by a sense of shame avoidance to do the right thing, how much more is God, who is completely righteous and good, willing to respond to requests from God’s people?

But there is yet another way to look at the parable. In most interpretations we assume that we are the friend asking for bread. But what if we turn it around such that we are the one behind the locked door, with the bread, being asked to get out of bed and get bread for the person outside? We are being asked because we happen to have the resources to fulfill the community’s need at this moment. How will we respond?[3]

Distribution of God's Gifts

It might seem to you like I’m wandering over a lot of territory today that doesn’t seem to connect. I hope that in these last few minutes I can bring it mostly together. First let’s review the final verse from today’s reading.

¹³ If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13 NRSVue)

The specific mention of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask reminds me of the gifts of the Spirit that are found in several of the Epistles. Here is one such list and description from 1 Corinthians:

⁴ Now there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, ⁵ and there are varieties of services but the same Lord, ⁶ and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. ⁷ To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. ⁸ To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, ¹⁰ to another the working of powerful deeds, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NRSVue)

What I notice is that the gifts are distributed among the community for the common good. No one person has all the gifts, and the Spirit determines how the gifts are allocated.

Can We Imagine Better?

What if the answering of prayers to God is most frequently, by God, intended to be answered through God’s community on earth? What if the community of believers, globally, has been given all the resources and gifts necessary to respond to nearly every request that has and will be petitioned through prayer? What if all believers fully believed and trusted in the abundance of God’s provisions? What if we fully trusted that God provides sufficient resources to offer one another with our daily bread? What if we trusted that on some days we would be the ones blessed with abundance, but on other days we would be the ones asking another, but together we could meet one another needs for the day? What if we didn’t keep tallies of who was giving more and who was asking more, but rather, understood that all resources come from God to be used for the common good?

Honestly, I don’t know if this vision is realistic. In all reality, I seriously doubt it could work at all. But maybe just being able to imagine something different is a start.

I think there are briefs moments when each of us has experienced such grace from the community around us. Many of us have probably had opportunities to extend such grace. But then we quickly get back to the ways in which the world actually works.

Letting go of the baggage of living in this world, according to the ways of this world, is a difficult thing. Jesus says to us,

²⁸ “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30 NRSVue)

Jesus won’t take away our baggage without our consent. But he pleads with us to allow him to take them, because he knows it will be so freeing for us.

This sermon does not have answers, only questions. But what I do hope is that it will ignite some small part of our spiritual imaginations to ponder the kind of community that Jesus began to build, and what it will take to continue that work, to create a community that operates from a sense of abundance and cooperation, rather than scarcity and competition.[4] 

---

[1] How to Know That You Know Nothing - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/10/mindfulness-curiosity-arthurbrooks-ellenlanger-howto-2021/620283/). Also the entire “How to Build a Happy Life” podcast series, from which this episode is taken, explorers what happiness is and how to build a life that can experience more of it.

[2] Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant, Chapter 6, “Exegesis of Luke 11:5-13”.

[3] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Volume 1. Commentary on Luke 11:1-13, Pastoral Perspective.

[4] Although I do not specifically reference the New Testament reading for this week, Colossians 2:6-15, in this sermon, I think there are thematic touchpoints. 1) An ongoing, daily, present walk with Christ (v.6-7). 2) The exhortation to not conform to the "elemntal principles of the world" (v.8). 3) God forgiving "all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us" (vv.13-14).