Holy Hand Grenade
Every once in awhile, I'll come across something that lobs the proverbial hand grenade into my quaint theology, causing extensive kidney damage and adding to the collection of shrapnel I carry in my left butt cheek. This particular hand grenade came in the form of a book recently given to me by a friend and scholar, Ezra Plank, titled, "The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics," by Ched Myers.If you're ever in a Christian bookstore, you might miss this one, as it wouldn't look out of place wedged inbetween "Let Me Touch Him" and "Joel Osteen's: Follow God, Win a Ferrari." The title isn't "catchy" in the traditional sense, and the fact that it looks like an oversized pamphlet on pesticides or tree pruning doesn't help. However, if you listen to Mother and don't judge a book by its cover, then you're in for a tasty treat.
Ok, so I haven't read the whole thing yet. But the chapter that has kept me thinking is a re-read of the in/famous "Parable of the Talents." You know the story: three slaves are given some 'talents' by their master - one gets five, one gets two, and one gets a single talent. The master takes off for a trip to Vegas or something, and the action heats up when he returns and the slaves have to give an account for what they've done with the cash. If you're like me, you've probably heard two main interpretations of this parable:
The Warren Buffet
The master is God, but this is a story about stewardship - primarily economic stewardship. This interpretation always starts with something like, "One talent, in biblical times, was 6,000 denari - which was the modern day equivalent of a trazillion Japanese yen!" God doles it out freely, but he didn't give you all that cash to blow on iTunes and Starbucks - he wants a return on his "investment." Life is life, and not everyone gets the same amount of money to handle. The important thing is that you use it, and make a return on what is given to you. Specifically, this parable would point to God expecting about a 100% ROI, which you don't need my MBA to tell you is nuttier than a squirrel with elephantitis. The jerk in this story is the humanities major, who slept through econ and buried his money in the ground. The lazy humanities major, not only a financial idiot, also has the audacity to accuse God of being stingy and greedy - a crime for which he is cast into the "outer darkness, where there is weeping, gnashing of teeth, and explosive diarrhea."
The Network Executive
This one is a little more of a stretch - but I've heard it preached boldly in churches. A talent isn't money... it's a talent, silly! You know, like being a gifted speaker, or having pipes like Celine Dion (and I mean vocal, not of the plumbing-variety), or being able to make farting noises with your leg instead of your armpit. These are the same people that might read the Judges account of Sodom, ("So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning") and think: "What's the big deal? I know lots of concubines." Anyway, God is sort of like a network executive in this version: the point is, are you using your talents to glorify God? If you're a gifted speaker, maybe you should preach some Sunday. If you are a gifted musician, maybe you should lead worship, and if you are a gifted artist, maybe you should be on parking lot duty. The guy that gets rebuked? You guessed it, the gifted artist, who shuns parking lot duty.
The Problem...
The problem with these accounts is that they are off at best, and wrong at worst. Aren't there some parables you read, and even though you've heard a hundred sermons on them, you feel deep down that we're missing it? There are two big red flags in this story and the usual interpretations. First is God's espousal of "you have been faithful with a few things, you will be put in charge of many things." I once knew a gal who never drove faster than the posted speed limit, because this was being faithful with a "few" things, and meant God would eventually have to reward her appointing her the princess of Quatar, with absolute power over the lives of its citizens, or something like that. Wacky- but I hear this all the time... and is being faithful with a few things really what God needs to see in order to trust us? (Or the reverse- unfaithfulness with a few things means we're screwed... which, by the way, we would be under this rationale.) The second is the infamous, "everyone who has will be given more, and whoever does not have, I'm also going to kick him in the groin." This verse is the reason I only steal from the homeless and impoverished - God commands it.
The Retelling
I won't spoil the whole kit and caboodle (that is the first time I've typed that word, and boy was it fun). But the short version is this: we're retelling an ancient parable in a very modern capitalist framework. The audience of the story heard it the way we read it still - within their own cultural norm. That norm told them that the usury, the fancy bible-speak for "screwing someone with high interest" was wrong- and the idea of a slave actually getting a 100% return on his investment meant he did not some, but a LOT of dirty dealings. This usually took the form of people with money giving loans with exorbitant interest rates to farmers in bad harvest years; the farmers would default, and the landowners would foreclose on the land or make them indentured servants. The master is exactly as the servant described him - a greedy, controlling, and hard man. The third servant (yes, the one condemned to explosive diarrhea), is the 'hero' of the story- he calls the master for what he is, and his act of burying the talent into the ground was an intentional refusal to participate in a system that expected (and demanded) wrongful gain and exploitation. As Myers puts it:
Unwilling to participate in this exploitation, this third slave took the money out of circulation where it could no longer be used to dispossess another family farmer...He has awakened to the rules of the master's world. His repudiation of it is simple and curt: "Here, take back what is yours" (Matt. 25:25). But he admits that through it all, "I was afraid." For good reason, for he is about to meet the prophet's fate.
It's so easy to read this parable as an endorsement of fiscal responsibility and stewardship... and to miss the boat completely. Dare we consider our other expectations for wealth and success in light of this parable... and the reality that kingdom principles seem to be radically different from capitalist principles? You don't need an MBA to figure that one out... but if you've got one, I hear Apple's stock is a hot buy these days.
8 Comments:
provocative, and you know I enjoy thinking not only outside of, but often without, the box. so, i am thinking what the F*** is the point of the parable except not to fall victim to usury. well, there is more, i.e., refusing to participate in accepted custom that is worldly and ultimately sinful. hmmm...maybe we'll talk about this more in three weeks
I'm a big fan of my "cultural context goggles." I learned that term when I studied Galatains at Calvary Bible College. That said, I always felt like I got a fuller understanding when I look at things through the context in which it was written, AND the context today. Usually you get two stroies for the price of one.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
BTw, initially, I'm very skeptical of this guy's reading. I'm interested to find out if the word used for "traded" (mt. 25:16 NAS) has some connotation in original language that sheds more light on what he was probably doing with his five talents. If the word as the same connotation as "traded" does, I would think he used it to start some kind of business. I'll look into it and see if I find anything else worth posting.
Well here's what I found on the word "Trade" used in Mt 25:16. εργαζομαι
Strong's Number: 2038
Total Occurrences: 39
KJV Word Usage: work (22) , wrought (7) , do (3) , minister about (1) , forbear working (1) + 3361 , labour for (1) , labour (1) , commit (1) , trade by (1) , trade (1)
Definition:
1) to work, labour, do work
2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business"
3) to do, work out
3a) exercise, perform, commit
3b) to cause to exist, produce
4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire
-----------------------------
I don't see much in there relating to interest or lending. It seems to indicate the modern understanding of "trade."
As well, I found an explanation that I think works MUCH better than your guy's, or the other two variations. Especially, when you consider the passage that follows the parable of the talents. Your guy's explanation doesn't really make much sense when you read 25:31-46. The Warren and the Exec do a little better but not much. By picking up on the Warrn and the Exec, and tweaking it a bit, I think we get much closer to an understanding that makes sense in context of the scripture following the parable. Try this one on for size: "Christ keeps no servants to be idle: they have received their all from him, and have nothing they can call their own but sin. Our receiving from Christ is in order to our working for him. The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. The day of account comes at last. We must all be reckoned with as to what good we have got to our own souls, and have done to others, by the advantages we have enjoyed. It is not meant that the improving of natural powers can entitle a man to Divine grace. It is the real Christian's liberty and privilege to be employed as his Redeemer's servant, in promoting his glory, and the good of his people: the love of Christ constrains him to live no longer to himself, but to Him that died for him, and rose again. Those who think it impossible to please God, and in vain to serve him, will do nothing to purpose in religion. They complain that He requires of them more than they are capable of, and punishes them for what they cannot help. Whatever they may pretend, the fact is, they dislike the character and work of the Lord. The slothful servant is sentenced to be deprived of his talent. This may be applied to the blessings of this life; but rather to the means of grace. Those who know not the day of their visitation, shall have the things that belong to their peace hid from their eyes. His doom is, to be cast into outer darkness. It is a usual way of expressing the miseries of the damned in hell. Here, as in what was said to the faithful servants, our Saviour goes out of the parable into the thing intended by it, and this serves as a key to the whole. Let us not envy sinners, or covet any of their perishing possessions." (Matthew Henry's Commentary)
Rick
See though, this still falls short for me- simply because a talent is obviously, clearly money in this parable. Even the greek word used here for 'traded' supports that business - ie financial- transactions are taking place. Although the text certainly doesn't say how the two made their money, the point is by the historical standards, it would have been viewed as ill-gotten gain inherently - because a 100% return would be considered outlandish... his example of the landowners, etc- was to provide some context for how this might have even been possible, or the type of ill-gotten gain that people might have associated this with...
I think it's a parable, so "outlandish" is just good story telling. The audience would say, "Wow." The problem with the convoluted interpretation is that it's so convoluted. I don't think parables were meant to evoke complex mental juggling but just to communicate one simple point. In this case, it seems Jesus is saying we have something precious from God and we should do something with it, rather than taking the cautious way through life. Perhaps, in this case, he's refering to the religious way. That's something his audience would have recognized much more easily, and it's a pattern in other parables as well.
True, true, I suppose. Maybe we should accept parables at face values - stories that are not meant to be picked apart, but taken at a straightforward, even visceral level. But even so- I think the author's basic point is to get to that place, as the original audience would have understood it: it's about clearly about money, and the moral seems to be, "it's not right to participate in this system of profit." If that's the way the basic commoner would have heard it, then how does it take on a new meaning for us, involving "multiplying what we've been given to glorify God?"
Post a Comment
<< Home