As we gather around the scriptures each week in church and
listen for Jesus word to us I sometimes wonder how we actually perceive what we
are doing.
What are you expecting as you listen? Are you possibly hoping that what the scriptures
and sermon do is become a mirror reflecting our already established world views
and spiritual ideas back on ourselves?
Or are you hoping that instead of a pane of glass in the frame, a window
which helps us look into the real world of God’s love and the promise of a
coming kingdom?
This is a fundamental and important question for each one of
you and me to grapple with. What is that
we are doing as we listen? I think if we
take seriously the idea that when Christ is present he is inviting us to look
through a window and not into a mirror serious questions arise around the
nature of the real world.
It seems somehow a little more weighty to make such claims as
this today whilst the G20 meets in Brisbane.
I saw a comment in response to some of the alternative G20 activities,
protests and meetings and so on, that at least the world leaders meeting at the
G20 live in the real world like the rest
of us. But what is the real world and
what is Christ calling us to?
So as look at the story that Jesus told this morning I believe
we need to remember the basic convictions of the Christian faith and use that
as our frame around that mirror.
God created all things. Human beings were given a special
place and relationship with God, and the creation. Human beings have not responded faithfully in
that relationship. Jesus came into the
world and lived as God among us. Through
Jesus’ life death and resurrection God has renewed the relationship and shown
us mercy. In all of this the frame
through which we look is the framework of grace, which is ultimately embodied
in the person and work of Jesus.
All of this is rather a long introduction to talking about
the parable that we heard today. Clearly
this is a difficult parable. And from my
research around it this week I have found it is one which has caused much
debate in the church, particularly in the last few years.
The traditional interpretation of this parable is to think
of the Master who goes away as God and then to spiritualise the talents as some
kind of ‘gifts’. I will come back to
that issue because first I want to share with you one of the commentaries I
found about this passage during the week.
Not from a spiritual website but a business one called “Early
to Rise”. I assume it is echoing the old saying, ‘early to bed, early to rise,
makes you healthy, wealthy and wise.’ It
said this:
Why do some people retire rich and most people retire poor? This
question has fascinated philosophers, mystics, and teachers throughout the
ages. There have been so many men and women – hundreds or thousands, maybe even
millions – who started with nothing and became financially independent that
people are naturally curious to know why it happened and if there are common rules
or principles that others can apply to become wealthy as well.
The Parable of the Talents is one of the stories told by Jesus to
illustrate a moral lesson. The message in this case (from the Gospel of
Matthew): “To him that hath, shall more be given, and he shall have abundance.
But from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.”
What does it mean?
In the modern world, we say it this way: “The rich get richer and the
poor get poorer.” The fact is that people who accumulate money tend to
accumulate more and more. People who don’t accumulate money seem to lose even
that little bit that they have.
What the author of this website has done is taken the parable
at face value to affirm capitalism, the growth of wealth and dare I say –
greed!
It reminds me of a time when a congregation member asked me
where the passage “God helps those who helps themselves” is found in the
scriptures. To which I answered
truthfully it is not. But at face value
this parable interpreted as an affirmation of using our gifts to amass wealth
seems to echo such a sentiment.
In this situation, especially in our capitalistic and
individualistic society, the parable is being used as a mirror to make us feel
comfortable, worth and even self-righteous.
I have seen this kind of thinking to justify the idea that
the poor are poor because they have not used their gifts appropriately or even
worse done something to deserve their fate.
On the other hand, those who have wealth are using their gifts
appropriately and are being rewarded with more.
If Jesus is understood in any way to be affirming this system then Jesus
is actually patting us who ‘have’ on the back and deriding the poor.
I have to confess that this kind of reading of the parable
is questionable if not downright destructive as it could be used to justify
ignore those who are poor because the have not used their gifts.
Now of course there is the argument that the talents are not
to be understood as money but as spiritual gifts. But even this kind of
interpretation can lead to a spiritual elitism and self-righteousness. I found this reflected in some of the comments
made on blogs on this parable. One
person suggesting that one of the commentators obviously had not been given the
spiritual gifts to understand the parable and so would be excluded and judged
for their interpretation.
It seems to me that holding the notion that the focus is on
how we use our talents leads us towards the dangerous area of works
righteousness and elitism, in other words looking narcissistically into a
mirror.
But how can we retain the frame of grace and smash the
mirror and so look through the window into God’s future and promise.
As we look again at the parable despite the error of some
English translations this parable does not begin with the words the kingdom of heaven is like in fact at
the end of the parable the opening sentence following the story is ‘but’. “But
when the son of Man comes.” In other
words the parable is not representative of the kingdom, of anything it is quite
the opposite!
As a helpful corrective I went back and read the story of the
rich young man who came to Jesus found in Matthew 19.
The young man said to him, ‘I have kept all these; what do I still
lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions,
and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then
come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving,
for he had many possessions.
Then Jesus said to his
disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the
kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ When
the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, ‘Then who can
be saved?’ But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible,
but for God all things are possible.’
Given this story I suspect that Jesus would be reticent to
affirm wealth and those who pursued wealth as the master in the parable
does. This made think more about Jesus
audience and I was thankful to Richard Rhorbaugh for his insights on the
passage who argues that most of Jesus audience would have been poor, probably
farmers and fishermen living hand to mouth.
The daily economy of their lives was not lived within a capitalistic
culture but an agrarian one where labour was not about building a portfolio. It
was about simply living day to day.
In fact the culture and philosophy of the era leading up to
Jesus parable had raised some significant questions around the generation of
wealth.
Aristotle in his Politics
saw retail trade as unnatural and was critical of making money or wealth as if
it were an end in itself. Trading goods, which first two servants engaged, was
thought of inherently evil. Plutarch similarly attacked those who amassed
wealth in his writing On the Love of
wealth. Much later in the fourth
century, the Christian scholar Jerome wrote, “every rich person is a thief or
the heir of a thief.” (In Hieremiam,
II, V, 2: CCL LXXIV 61) For we who are wealthy and live a market
based consumerist culture can only hear all of this as a critique of how we
live.
This takes us back to Jesus audience. To a peasant, the poor person listening to
this parable, the Master in the tale would have been a terrifying figure. It is not surprising that the servant who
buried his talents in the ground describes the master as harsh, the Greek word
here could actually be translated as cruel.
He was perceived as harsh and his judgement appears consistent with
this. And might I say inconsistent with
Jesus teachings about God’s mercy and forgiveness earlier in Matthew.
To help fill in some context for us who not part of the
Jewish tradition in the book of Exodus we read that if someone entrusted with
an amount of money loses any of it they will be held to account over the loss
and taken before a judge. In response to
this passage the Rabbis agreed that a person burying the money was not
responsible for any loss. It was thus viewed
as a wise course of action to bury the wealth.
In addition to these problems the Master suggests that
servant with one talent could have invested it, which means the Master is
encouraging usury. The lending of money
to gain interest was once again at best questionable and at worst an outright
sin. Jesus himself is recorded as saying
in Luke 6:35 Love your enemies, do good,
and lend, expecting nothing in return.
Finally, the servant also says of the master reaping where you did not sow, and gathering
where you did not scatter seed. The master has a reputation for taking what
is not his and the master does not deny it.
Even when we spiritualise the talents the notion we are left
with is one that appears contradictory to the story of Jesus life lived for us
to draw us back into the relationship with God.
Where does this all this leave us? With an image of an unmerciful, judge that
will punish those who don’t make more for someone who is already wealthy beyond
measure. This vision has little room for
the concept of God’s concern for the poor.
The Master is a still a tyrant and it has been suggested by some that Jesus
is being quite specific about which tyrant he is attacking: Herod’s Son
Archelaus who had gone off to Rome to seek the support of the Emperor.
Is it not more likely that as we look at this parable it is setting
us up to hear what Jesus will say next to present a different view of God’s
reality and God’s concern for the world: to look through the window of grace
and hope.
We will be reading the passage which follows next week but
let us have a sneak preview now. It has
an edge of judgement to it but centred within that judgement is where God’s
true concerns lie:
for I was hungry and
you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a
stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick
and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.
Jesus audience including the poor would have heard the
contrast as a sign of why Jesus was there with them and what God’s invitation was
about: restoration of community, relief to those who suffer; compassion and
care. Good news for the poor, blessing
and hope. A window not a mirror of how
we already live and what we already believe.
Excellent,
ReplyDeleteThank you!