Today’s text is a difficult
one. It is one that would be easier to skip over. On first reading it seems to
be affirming dishonesty. So long as the end result is good it doesn’t matter
what means are used to get there.
The story is usually
entitled “The Shrewd Manager” or “The Dishonest Manager” (Luke 6:1-13)
The tale tells of a rich man
whose manager was accused by a third party of squandering his resources. The
manager was being sacked. He was worried. He knew he did not have the ability
to compete in the market place for a job doing manual labour nor did he want to have to
beg for sustenance. So he schemed! He went to all the people who owed the rich
man money and reduced their bills. His rational being that when he was
destitute they would remember his kindness and welcome him into their homes.
Here the story twists,
instead of the rich man being angry he commends the manager for being shrewd
and praises him for ensuring his future. The story ends with a discourse about
faithfulness in serving.
Very complex!
Firstly, I want to make the
point I have made many previous times about understanding parables. Don’t
assign roles. Don’t assume that the central character is representing God. If
one does that it often ends up with a significant problem in seeing undesirable
characteristics for God. Read parables simply as stories to illustrate a point.
Next I want to glance at the
context. This story is the fourth in a series of parables told by the author of
the Gospel of Luke to a mixed audience of “tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees
and scribes”. The prior ones are the story of the sheep who was found, the coin
which was found, and the son who squandered his inheritance but was lovingly
received back into his family. This seems to continue the theme of riches with comments on a just way to use them and administer them. Time doesn’t allow but a
parallel study of the manager who squandered his employer’s wealth and the son
who squandered his father’s wealth could prove very fruitful.
It is hard to read this
story and understand it. (I’m sure there will be as many interpretations as
readers) One of the reasons it is hard is because we live in a capitalist
economic system where what the manager did would be criminal if it happened
today. So our minds don't get beyond the thought that what he did was wrong.
The story starts with no
detail of what the manager actually did to get dismissed. All it says is that
he “squandered” the rich man’s property. Then after hearing he would be fired,
he reduced the bills of those owing the rich man. Note that he reduced the amounts he did not cancel the debt.
So questions must be asked (and
I have no answers only, I hope, some thought-provoking ideas).
Who was really the dishonest
one?
Often people described as
“rich” in the parables are seen as those who are unjust. Their riches are
gained at the expense of others. Certainly, worth remembering that the first
group of people named as the audience for this story were the tax collectors.
Those who were renowned for getting rich at the expense of others. The latter
verses of this story certainly hint at the money being dishonestly gained. That later reference can’t refer to the
manager because he gained nothing monetary from adjusting the bills. His effort was
all a hope for a future home.
How was the rich man’s wealth/property/oil
squandered by the manager?
Was it to help the poor? Was
it to ease the suffering of the sick? Was it his own way of bringing a more
equitable economic system? Or was he simply greedy?
Why did the rich man commend
him?
Did the manager provide a challenge
to the rich man about his own overpricing system? Was the rich man’s conscience
bothering him?
Was it acceptable for the
manager to try to find a way to assure a future for himself without resorting
to begging?
The text certainly indicates
that looking for economic stability in the future is a good thing. It is
certainly something that contemporary society does both collectively and
individually.
Was the reference to being “faithful
with dishonest wealth” a commendation of the manager?
The underlying message of riches,
service to the poor, redistribution of wealth was obviously in the mind of
those who compiled the lectionary. This week there were two alternative texts
for the Old Testament reading, both offered concern for poor and advocated sharing
wealth (Amos 8, Jeremiah 8). Although I don’t want to jump ahead next week’s
story continues the theme as it moves to another tale which talks about the rich
and the poor (Luke 6:19-31). It is an important story in helping us to
understand this one in context.
So ultimately, what do we do
with a text like this one? Often it seems contradictory. At the very least it
is confusing and hard to understand. We can’t really comprehend the impact on
the first century readers as we can’t fully know how the relationship between
owners and managers worked.
I think we can only try to
let it challenge us. . .
about our handling of
riches,
about our relationship with
those we work for and with
about our response it we
feel others are being harmed by those we work for
about our relationship and
care for those who work for us
about our own planning for
the future
