“When the Son of Man comes in glory, with all the angels, he will sit on a glorious throne. All the nations will gather before him; he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on the right, goats on the left.
“Then the King will say to those on the right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by God; take your inheritance, the realm prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you gave them to me, I was sick and you cared for me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will ask him, ‘When did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Then he will say to those on the left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
They also will ask, ‘When did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
*************************************************************************
Here we go again, with Jesus throwing out an incredibly hard and harsh saying, which by its nature would seem to negate the grace of God. Somewhere back in Sunday school, we learned that separating sheep from goats means division - the good from the bad, the wrong from the right, the insiders from the outsiders. In our human tendency to arrogance we hold that all wrongs - perceived or otherwise - must be judged by our system and our sense; those who do the wrong thing must pay; all rip-offs must be brought to justice. We have told ourselves that this is how God does it, so we can as well. - and we tell ourselves that God reserves a special day on the calendar to do the same thing as we do here. We believe God goes to court to determine who’s innocent and who’s guilty.
That’s where we are this morning- in a courtroom with the gavel pounding, the doors opening and the Judge of all creation enters the courtroom. All humanity--like a flock of animals are herded into God’s huge Hall of Justice. There all humanity is separated into two camps based not on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age, but on the basis of what we’ve done in this present life. Judgment begins.
Theologians are all over the map when it comes to this gospel lesson. One says faith plays no role whatsoever in this vision, it isn’t even mentioned. Another says that all the nations --the word “ethnoi” in Greek, refers not to Jews or Christians only but to all the others. In the biblical stories, it didn’t take long for devout Jews to discover some genuinely good people among the gentiles, those they considered unclean. Or for Christians to discover some genuinely good and spiritual people among non-Christians who, though not converting to Christianity, offered a warm meal, the shirt off their back, and even visits in prison.
As I was researching this sermon, I came across website after website which claimed that God will take all the Christians, and those who have not found Jesus will be left behind. Who’s going to make it and who’s not. Harold Camping and his crew, who predicted the rapture, were sure all of them would go and those of us who don’t agree with his vision will be left. I remember commenting that I prefer to sit on my deck with some popcorn and watch, and stay down here with real people struggling with real life.
This whole issue bugged the daylights out of Paul the Apostle. He knew just too many good people who were not Christians. In Romans 2 Paul says that Gentiles with no connection to God through the Law can still fulfill the law. During the holocaust, there were an incredible number of non-Jewish in Holland and elsewhere, who were called "Righteous Gentiles" by the Jews, because they were the ‘ethnoi’, the ‘other nations’ who protected Israel’s little ones in the time of trial.
Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner calls such people "anonymous Christians" - people whose actions are more faithful than baptized, proclaiming Christians. The prophets spoke of those who do the right thing because the law of God is already written on their hearts. They do what is right not because they learned it in Sunday School or read it somewhere in the Bible, but because it is a part of their very being, and they could not be any other way.
In this visionary story, we hear that the one on the throne will separate sheep from goats. Sheep will be on the right and goats on the left. Matthew is clear that the shepherd will know which is which.
This is good, because Middle Eastern sheep and goats in Jesus’ time didn’t look anything like the sheep and goats we know now. We have to remember that over 2000 years, animals have been bred for particular characteristics. Swiss Saanen goats are large, big-boned and have been bred for milk production with high butterfat content; the Swiss Toggenberg is smaller, has lower milk production and a lower butterfat content. The Welsh Llanwenog sheep, and the Sussex sheep, have been bred for different kas well. These are modern animals - larger and more inbred than the kind of sheep and goats of biblical times. Sheep and goats in Asia and Africa are often similar in appearance; sheep and goats are related animals, coming from the same origins and family of animals..
Those who are not shepherds would find it difficult to distinguish such sheep and goats, but the shepherd knows the difference and easily separates them. It has often been believed that sheep are good followers, and goats go their own way. Well, that’s true to some extent. But then we have biblical passages about sheep going astray. Anyone who has bred sheep and goats will know that there are some really pig-headed sheep, and some really docile goats.
The key, I think, to this “sheep and goats” thing is contained in Jesus’ distinction between those who care about others, and those who don’t. And it is this story which prompted Paul, and others, to look closely at the realisation of what Jesus had said all along - that those who say “Lord, Lord”, but do not care for their neighbour will be the ones who may find themselves at the end of the line rather than the front. Notice that Jesus keeps talking about the “least of these”. There is no distinction of race, colour, belief or anything else. Jesus talks about how people treat each other, about their acceptance and care for strangers, for those who are not like them.
There’s an old southern spiritual called “Judgment Day’s a- Rollin’ Around”.
Judgment, Judgment day is a-rollin’ around
Judgment, Judgment, Oh, how I long to go.
I’ve a good ole mudder in de heaven, my Lord, Oh, how I long to go there too.
I’ve a good ole fadder in de heaven, my Lord, Oh, how I long to go there too.
Dur’s a long white robe in de heaven for me, Oh, how I long to go there too
Dur’s a starry crown in de heaven for me, Oh, how I long to go there too
My name is written in de book ob life, Oh, how I long to go there too
Ef you look in de book you’ll fin’ em dar, Oh, how I long to go there too.
Brudder Moses gone to de kingdom, Lord…
Sister Mary gone to de kingdom, Lord …
Dar’s no more slave in de kingdom, Lord …
All is glory in de kingdom, Lord …
My brudder build a house in Paradise …
He built it by dat ribber of life …
Dar’s a big camp-meetin’ in de kingdom, Lord …
Come, let us jine dat-a heavenly crew …
King Jesus sittin’ in de kingdom, Lord
De angels singin’ all around de trone …
De trumpet sound de Jubilo…
I hope dat trump will blow me home …
This is a spiritual sung by a people in slavery - the “least of these” Jesus talked about - and if you listen, there is an absolute conviction that they will be vindicated in the next life. *They* will be the ones going.....
In fact, most of us are kind of sheep, and kind of goats, aren’t we? So what is God going to do with us???? Earlier in Matthew, Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment; He answers with the “Sh’ma”. “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one. You shall love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And the second of these is likewise, you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two hang ALL of the law and ALL of the prophets.” So here is Jesus demonstrating to the listeners again what it means to obey the greatest commandment. Maybe the vision of Matthew is that God will judge us by how we have treated others - which may mean that a lot of people who call themselves Christian may be left out; and those who are not Christian but follow the WAY, will be included.
Jesus doesn’t ask a whole lot here, just a natural kindness and compassion shown to others in need. Maybe Jesus is saying we need to work on the side of ourselves which doesn’t come so naturally. Maybe Jesus hopes that we half sheep, half goats, will bear the kind of fruit that often comes naturally for the “least of these”.
Sources:
1. Judgment Day’s a Comin’ a sermon based on Mathew 25:31-46 by Rev. Thomas Hall
2. http://creation.com/separating-the-sheep-from-the-goats
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Talents A sermon based on Matthew 25:14-30 Humber United Church, Corner Brook, Newfoundland November 13, 2011
“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five talents went at once, put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two talents gained two more. The man who had received one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “The man with two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents, and I have gained two more.’
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
Then the man who had received one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Then you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. So take the talent and give it to the one who has ten. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. Throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
*************************************************************************
Today’s Gospel is one of those ‘hard sayings of Jesus’ which we often avoid preaching. If God is loving and forgiving, if Jesus taught that all people had worth in the eyes of God, then how do we explain this one? It sounds like a vengeful, hard God rather than a loving God. But it’s my contention that Jesus was turning everything around, and the listeners would have known exactly what he was doing.
Looking at Matthew’s original audience provides some clues. Most of Matthew’s congregation were Jewish Christians, steeped in the laws, customs, and justice traditions of the Jewish faith. Even the ‘talent’ itself would be a problem according to this traditionally Jewish audience. A talent was one of the largest values of money in the Hellenistic world. It was a silver coinage weighing between fifty-seven and seventy-four pounds, equal to 6,000 denarii. One denarius was an average subsistence wage for a day's labor, so one talent was worth more than fifteen years wages. In the modern era, we might roughly translate the assets made available for investment at about 2.5 million dollars.
The Old Testament prophet Amos sternly warned against the practice of wealth accumulation. Israel is indicted for the sinful accumulation of wealth on the backs of others - at the expense of slaves - and without honest, ethical labor. In Exodus 16 and Leviticus 25 God strictly prohibits the lending of money at interest. Although there was some interest-based investment and lending, the highest legal - or at least ethical - interest rate was believed to be at 12 percent. Clearly, the heart of Jewish scripture tradition - as revealed in the Old Testament - is for equality and justice, and is opposed to vast concentrations of wealth.
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, in their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, tell us that the Greco-Roman world operated according to a principle of "limited good." The Greeks and Romans believed that the amount of capital in the world was finite, and that it was ethically suspect to invest money to earn a profit. To make money on investment - to loan it out at interest - was ultimately to take wealth from someone else. So, what the wealthy did instead was to use knowledgeable slaves to invest the money. "Such behavior could be condoned in slaves," Malina and Rohrbaugh write, "since slaves were without honor anyway".
The original audience would have seen in this parable a portrait of a great household – in our terms, a modern trans-national corporation. The powerful patriarch or CEO would frequently be away on economic or political business. His affairs would be handled by slaves, who in Roman society often rose to prominent positions in the household hierarchy.
To entrust money to slaves sounds strange to our ears, but in fact it was a common enough practice in the first-century Mediterranean world. Many slaves were educated, and demonstrated better management abilities than their masters. For Jesus to tell of slaves who were serving their master as investment counselors would not have sounded strange to his listeners. The sums, however, are staggering and border on hyperbole.
Later rabbinic law declared that burying money was the preferred method of safe-keeping. So safe was this method considered to be, that a person who had buried money could not be held accountable for the loss, if the money should be dug up and stolen.
An article by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, "Towering Trees and 'Talented' Slaves," offers insight into the parable of the talents. They argue that the parable suggests that we should *resist* the economic system that makes such doubling possible in the first place.
On the surface, this story promotes ruthless business practices and the cynical view that the rich will only get richer while the poor become destitute. It is a severe portrait of a hardhearted, ruthless absentee landlord who cares only for profit.
Might it be that we have imposed upon the parable our capitalist presumptions about the glories of a system that rewards "venture capital," and thus read the story exactly backwards? So we have traditionally read it as a story about ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ stewardship. Myers and Bode argue that it actually isn’t about that at all.
The first two slaves double their master's investment. In fact, this feat would have elicited disgust from the first-century audience. The ideal was stability, not self- advancement. Anyone trying to accumulate inordinate wealth imperiled the equilibrium of society and was understood to be dishonorable. Greed characterized the rich, who extorted and defrauded other members of the community through lucrative trading, tax collecting, and lending money at interest. In fact, usury was understood to be responsible for the destructive cycle of indebtedness and poverty; profiting from commodity trading was explicitly condemned by none other than Aristotle.
The scripturally literate among first-century Christians would recall the warning against stored surplus in Exodus 16, the prohibition against profiteering in Leviticus 25, or Isaiah's condemnation of those who "join house to house and field to field" in their real-estate dealings. Yet the slaves’ doubling of the amounts was likely based in precisely such condemned practices. Large landowners made loans to peasant small holders based on speculations of future crop production. With high interest rates and vulnerability to lean years and famine, farmers often were unable to make their payments, and faced foreclosure. After gaining control of the land, the new owner could continue to make a killing by hiring laborers to farm cash crops.
In fact, this is a process of economic exploitation and wealth accumulation that is still all too characteristic of our own global economy today - and we don’t have to go far to find examples, in the tied-aid programmes of many governments, or the practices of large trans-national corporations.
In the story the master commends the first two slaves: "Well done, good and trustworthy slave--enter into the joy of your master." At the plain level of the parable it is a promotion, but also a reminder that these are still slaves, still dependent on the master’s good mood, and by their actions even more enslaved than ever to the world controlled by their lord.
That the third slave buried the money may seem strange to us at first glance, till we remember the context. And perhaps Jesus is employing some wry peasant humor, since many of his audience were farmers. Those who work the land know that all true wealth comes from God, the source of rain, sunshine, seed, and soil. Remember too, that it was the acceptable practice to bury money. The silver talent, when "sown" in the ground produced no fruit!
Here is the clash between two economic worldviews: the traditional agrarian notion of "use - value" and the elite's currency-based system of "exchange - value." Money cannot grow the natural way like seed - it only grows unnaturally. Is this symbolic act of "planting" the talent a way of revealing that money is not fertile?
The third slave clearly speaks truth to power. "I knew you were a harsh man. You reap where you did not sow, and gather where you did not scatter seed". The third slave unmasks the fact that the master's wealth is derived entirely from the toil of others, profiting from the backbreaking labor of those who work the land. Unwilling to participate in this exploitation, the third slave takes the money out of circulation, where it can no longer be used to dispossess another family farmer. His repudiation of the master is simple and curt: "Here, take back what is rightfully yours". But he admits that through it all "I was afraid." It is instructive that the master does not refute the whistle-blower's analysis of his world, but castigates him as "evil and lazy" (and isn’t this the favorite slur of the rich toward those who don't play their way). He wonders rhetorically why the slave didn't at least seek market-rate return. He then dispossesses him and gives the single talent to the obedient slave, to illustrate how the real world works: "For to those who have, more will be given – but for those who have not, even what they have will be taken away".
To those who buy into the accepted ways of doing things, they will be rewarded. To those who speak the truth to the powerful, even what they have will be taken from them.
This parable reads coherently as a cautionary tale about the world controlled by corporations. To read in it a divine endorsement of mercenary economics and the inevitable polarization of wealth is to miss the point completely – and to perpetuate both dysfunctional theology and complicit economics in our churches. The consequence of the third slave's non-cooperation is banishment to the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
Perhaps this is the hell on earth experienced by those rejected by the dominant culture: in the shadows where the light of the royal courts never shine, on the mean streets outside the great households, the dwelling place of the outcast poor like Lazarus sitting by the gate, hand outstretched. But is that not where we claim Christ is met - in places of pain and marginality; the "outer darkness."? The whistle- blower's punishment kicks him out of the rich man's system, but brings him closer to God, who dwells with the poor and oppressed.
Jesus used "folksy" stories like these to expose the most entrenched arrangements of power and privilege, whether Roman militarism or Judean elitism. He challenged the "tall trees" of imperial domination with his "mustard seed" movement of Jubilee justice - a tiny seed growing into a great tree which would displace the powerful and dishonest. As we move toward Reign of Christ Sunday next week, it is useful to see how Jesus provoked anger by insisting on naming the truth, speaking to the powerful religious leaders who pretended to uphold the law.
The third slave lost everything - yet the good news of Jesus was that the one willing to lose his life would find it. I don’t claim that there is much good news in this parable, but if there is, it is that the one who risks speaking truth to power will find the realm of God. The one who focuses on saving himself will, in the end, lose the realm of God. Jesus said that himself - the one who would save his life will, in the end lose it; the one who would lose his life will find it.
Sources:
1. Sermon “The Day of God”, by Fran Ota November 13, 2005, Glen Ayr United Church.
2. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Malina, Bruce and Rohrbaugh, Richard.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; p. 124
3. Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves. Ched Myers with Eric DeBode. “The Other Side”, May 1999, article.
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
Then the man who had received one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Then you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. So take the talent and give it to the one who has ten. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. Throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
*************************************************************************
Today’s Gospel is one of those ‘hard sayings of Jesus’ which we often avoid preaching. If God is loving and forgiving, if Jesus taught that all people had worth in the eyes of God, then how do we explain this one? It sounds like a vengeful, hard God rather than a loving God. But it’s my contention that Jesus was turning everything around, and the listeners would have known exactly what he was doing.
Looking at Matthew’s original audience provides some clues. Most of Matthew’s congregation were Jewish Christians, steeped in the laws, customs, and justice traditions of the Jewish faith. Even the ‘talent’ itself would be a problem according to this traditionally Jewish audience. A talent was one of the largest values of money in the Hellenistic world. It was a silver coinage weighing between fifty-seven and seventy-four pounds, equal to 6,000 denarii. One denarius was an average subsistence wage for a day's labor, so one talent was worth more than fifteen years wages. In the modern era, we might roughly translate the assets made available for investment at about 2.5 million dollars.
The Old Testament prophet Amos sternly warned against the practice of wealth accumulation. Israel is indicted for the sinful accumulation of wealth on the backs of others - at the expense of slaves - and without honest, ethical labor. In Exodus 16 and Leviticus 25 God strictly prohibits the lending of money at interest. Although there was some interest-based investment and lending, the highest legal - or at least ethical - interest rate was believed to be at 12 percent. Clearly, the heart of Jewish scripture tradition - as revealed in the Old Testament - is for equality and justice, and is opposed to vast concentrations of wealth.
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, in their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, tell us that the Greco-Roman world operated according to a principle of "limited good." The Greeks and Romans believed that the amount of capital in the world was finite, and that it was ethically suspect to invest money to earn a profit. To make money on investment - to loan it out at interest - was ultimately to take wealth from someone else. So, what the wealthy did instead was to use knowledgeable slaves to invest the money. "Such behavior could be condoned in slaves," Malina and Rohrbaugh write, "since slaves were without honor anyway".
The original audience would have seen in this parable a portrait of a great household – in our terms, a modern trans-national corporation. The powerful patriarch or CEO would frequently be away on economic or political business. His affairs would be handled by slaves, who in Roman society often rose to prominent positions in the household hierarchy.
To entrust money to slaves sounds strange to our ears, but in fact it was a common enough practice in the first-century Mediterranean world. Many slaves were educated, and demonstrated better management abilities than their masters. For Jesus to tell of slaves who were serving their master as investment counselors would not have sounded strange to his listeners. The sums, however, are staggering and border on hyperbole.
Later rabbinic law declared that burying money was the preferred method of safe-keeping. So safe was this method considered to be, that a person who had buried money could not be held accountable for the loss, if the money should be dug up and stolen.
An article by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, "Towering Trees and 'Talented' Slaves," offers insight into the parable of the talents. They argue that the parable suggests that we should *resist* the economic system that makes such doubling possible in the first place.
On the surface, this story promotes ruthless business practices and the cynical view that the rich will only get richer while the poor become destitute. It is a severe portrait of a hardhearted, ruthless absentee landlord who cares only for profit.
Might it be that we have imposed upon the parable our capitalist presumptions about the glories of a system that rewards "venture capital," and thus read the story exactly backwards? So we have traditionally read it as a story about ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ stewardship. Myers and Bode argue that it actually isn’t about that at all.
The first two slaves double their master's investment. In fact, this feat would have elicited disgust from the first-century audience. The ideal was stability, not self- advancement. Anyone trying to accumulate inordinate wealth imperiled the equilibrium of society and was understood to be dishonorable. Greed characterized the rich, who extorted and defrauded other members of the community through lucrative trading, tax collecting, and lending money at interest. In fact, usury was understood to be responsible for the destructive cycle of indebtedness and poverty; profiting from commodity trading was explicitly condemned by none other than Aristotle.
The scripturally literate among first-century Christians would recall the warning against stored surplus in Exodus 16, the prohibition against profiteering in Leviticus 25, or Isaiah's condemnation of those who "join house to house and field to field" in their real-estate dealings. Yet the slaves’ doubling of the amounts was likely based in precisely such condemned practices. Large landowners made loans to peasant small holders based on speculations of future crop production. With high interest rates and vulnerability to lean years and famine, farmers often were unable to make their payments, and faced foreclosure. After gaining control of the land, the new owner could continue to make a killing by hiring laborers to farm cash crops.
In fact, this is a process of economic exploitation and wealth accumulation that is still all too characteristic of our own global economy today - and we don’t have to go far to find examples, in the tied-aid programmes of many governments, or the practices of large trans-national corporations.
In the story the master commends the first two slaves: "Well done, good and trustworthy slave--enter into the joy of your master." At the plain level of the parable it is a promotion, but also a reminder that these are still slaves, still dependent on the master’s good mood, and by their actions even more enslaved than ever to the world controlled by their lord.
That the third slave buried the money may seem strange to us at first glance, till we remember the context. And perhaps Jesus is employing some wry peasant humor, since many of his audience were farmers. Those who work the land know that all true wealth comes from God, the source of rain, sunshine, seed, and soil. Remember too, that it was the acceptable practice to bury money. The silver talent, when "sown" in the ground produced no fruit!
Here is the clash between two economic worldviews: the traditional agrarian notion of "use - value" and the elite's currency-based system of "exchange - value." Money cannot grow the natural way like seed - it only grows unnaturally. Is this symbolic act of "planting" the talent a way of revealing that money is not fertile?
The third slave clearly speaks truth to power. "I knew you were a harsh man. You reap where you did not sow, and gather where you did not scatter seed". The third slave unmasks the fact that the master's wealth is derived entirely from the toil of others, profiting from the backbreaking labor of those who work the land. Unwilling to participate in this exploitation, the third slave takes the money out of circulation, where it can no longer be used to dispossess another family farmer. His repudiation of the master is simple and curt: "Here, take back what is rightfully yours". But he admits that through it all "I was afraid." It is instructive that the master does not refute the whistle-blower's analysis of his world, but castigates him as "evil and lazy" (and isn’t this the favorite slur of the rich toward those who don't play their way). He wonders rhetorically why the slave didn't at least seek market-rate return. He then dispossesses him and gives the single talent to the obedient slave, to illustrate how the real world works: "For to those who have, more will be given – but for those who have not, even what they have will be taken away".
To those who buy into the accepted ways of doing things, they will be rewarded. To those who speak the truth to the powerful, even what they have will be taken from them.
This parable reads coherently as a cautionary tale about the world controlled by corporations. To read in it a divine endorsement of mercenary economics and the inevitable polarization of wealth is to miss the point completely – and to perpetuate both dysfunctional theology and complicit economics in our churches. The consequence of the third slave's non-cooperation is banishment to the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
Perhaps this is the hell on earth experienced by those rejected by the dominant culture: in the shadows where the light of the royal courts never shine, on the mean streets outside the great households, the dwelling place of the outcast poor like Lazarus sitting by the gate, hand outstretched. But is that not where we claim Christ is met - in places of pain and marginality; the "outer darkness."? The whistle- blower's punishment kicks him out of the rich man's system, but brings him closer to God, who dwells with the poor and oppressed.
Jesus used "folksy" stories like these to expose the most entrenched arrangements of power and privilege, whether Roman militarism or Judean elitism. He challenged the "tall trees" of imperial domination with his "mustard seed" movement of Jubilee justice - a tiny seed growing into a great tree which would displace the powerful and dishonest. As we move toward Reign of Christ Sunday next week, it is useful to see how Jesus provoked anger by insisting on naming the truth, speaking to the powerful religious leaders who pretended to uphold the law.
The third slave lost everything - yet the good news of Jesus was that the one willing to lose his life would find it. I don’t claim that there is much good news in this parable, but if there is, it is that the one who risks speaking truth to power will find the realm of God. The one who focuses on saving himself will, in the end, lose the realm of God. Jesus said that himself - the one who would save his life will, in the end lose it; the one who would lose his life will find it.
Sources:
1. Sermon “The Day of God”, by Fran Ota November 13, 2005, Glen Ayr United Church.
2. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Malina, Bruce and Rohrbaugh, Richard.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; p. 124
3. Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves. Ched Myers with Eric DeBode. “The Other Side”, May 1999, article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)