[Uucf-bible] On the parable of the shrewd manager from lectionary

[RevRonRobinson at aol.com]

Here with a perspective on Jesus' parable in this week's lectionary reading I 
bring excerpts from a recent (8-15-04) sermon by the Rev. Dr. Gary Blaine of 
the UU church in Toledo, Ohio. Gary was one of my professors in seminary, and 
he quotes another of my professors, Brandon Scott, in his interpretation of 
this parable. Here are some excerpts from Gary's sermon found on his church 
website where you can read the full sermon (which I also recommend).  
http://www.uutoledo.org/_fileCabinet/BlaineSermons/UnderRogueManagement.htm

One of the things that Brandon taught, that I hadn't picked up on in earlier 
exposure to the parable, is about the dishonesty and bad behavior of the 
master, and the exorbitant fees, etc. As Gary points out, when we see it as a 
parable about corruption all around, and how grace can invade there, especially 
there, it becomes a powerful critique of our social systems but also of our 
lives, and yet full of hope as well. Brandon writes on this parable again in his 
latest book, Reimagining the World, published by Polebridge Press.

Here is a section of Gary's sermon. He has begun by talking about the 
difference between the "church" and "the kingdom". :

"Now I hope that we do not think I am just talking about some other church.  
Unitarian Universalists are just as culpable on the hypocrisy charge as 
anybody else.  Our vision of church and kingdom imagines that we are always 
reasonable people; that our institutions and her leaders are professional and beyond 
ethical reproach; and that our members are the avant-gardes of the arts and 
letters, human rights, and environmentalism.  We believe that people have a 
center of goodness within them that only requires an education to make them 
productive and moral citizens of the world.  We are chagrined to learn that while 
these qualities may be found in our members, we are also capable of making 
decisions based on raw emotions; our leaders are not only professionally fallible 
but morally compromised from one degree to another; the magnetic field of our 
moral compass is often the pull of self interest; and we have made up our minds 
about some things that no amount of information is going to change. 
          With these thoughts in mind I invite you to look with me at the 
parable of the shrewd manager.  The manager is confronted by the patron, or 
landlord.  He is told that his position is being terminated and that an accounting 
of his books will be required.  Note this sequence.  If the actions of the 
manager were in question we would assume that the audit would be conducted first 
and termination would then follow.  But in this story the patron has already 
made up his mind.  We do not know on what basis he is firing the manager.  
There have been rumors of misappropriation of funds or some other fraudulent 
behavior.  He is said to have squandered the money, which suggests more than an 
accounting error.  It suggests recklessness.  We are not told exactly, but we are 
given the impression that the patron is taking action without evidence.  He 
appears as a heartless man, much like the corporate leader who is sending jobs 
overseas with little regard for current employees, or senior management who 
raid pensions funds and leave their retirees destitute.  
          The manager sees that he is in a tenuous situation.  He will be put 
out of work immediately.  There will be no severance package, no pension fund 
to fall back on, and certainly no unemployment income.  Finding a similar 
position is improbable.  He will be thrust onto the streets and face poverty in 
short order.  Luke invites us into his mind as he wonders about his future.  We 
see that he is not above pride as he admits that he could not dig ditches or 
beg for a living.  Brandon Scott points out that digging may refer to work in 
a mine, which would be tantamount to a “death sentence.”[3]  One might 
suspect that he has lived a relatively comfortable lifestyle.  Perhaps he has put on 
a few extra pounds.  His soft hands would easily blister on the handle of a 
shovel or pickax.  And nobody wants to stand in front of the department store 
with a tin cup extended, mumbling about spare change.  Steam grates and the 
Salvation Army are tough places to live, and the manager has enough 
self-knowledge to know he could not bring himself to do it, much less survive.
          The manager turns to the only people he can think of that might 
secure his life.  Modern unemployment counselors would call it “networking.”  He 
appeals to the very people he has often taken advantage of.  He approaches 
the people who are in debt to the patron and invites them to alter their 
accounts to their advantage.  Some scholars think that he was able to do this by 
eliminating the usurious fees or interest that he would have charged to the 
collection of debt.  In the ancient world it would be common for such a manager to 
apply his own fees for services to the patron.  Tenants would be required to 
pay the patron rent for the use of land.  The manager would add on fees for the 
collection and accounting.  Likewise, tax collectors layered on their fees to 
the taxes they collected for the government.  To my knowledge there was no 
hard and fast rule for how high these fees might go, but they all had the 
reputation of being exorbitant.  Tax collectors were considered sinners because they 
abused the rules of usury.  
The manager’s hope is that this gesture will gain their good will and allow 
him to survive his unemployment.  One example was the man who owed the patron 
five hundred barrels of olive oil.  Without the usurious fees the bill is 
reduced to 250 barrels.  Think about that – 50% of the debt was in interest and 
fees.  You can imagine how thankful these debtors would be, and their praises 
would extend to the patron.  It is highly unlikely that he would overturn the “
generosity” of the manager and demand full payment.  The manager trapped the 
patron into the appearance of generosity.  And we are told by Luke, “The master 
praised the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.”  
Aye, and there’s the rub.  We were seduced by this parable into feeling 
sympathy for the manager.  He was in a desperate situation, under the thumb of a 
rich and powerful man.  He was the underdog who displayed Yankee ingenuity to 
outwit the patron.  He played the system and the little guy seemed to come out 
on top.  But then Jesus reminds us that the manager was dishonest.  The 
collection of interest and fees was an evil practice that kept people in poverty, 
regardless of the patron’s bottom line.  Maybe the manager was also cheating the 
patron.  Perhaps the patron had good reason to fire him after all.  
The economic context of this parable reminds us that the entire patronage 
system of the ancient world was corrupt and oppressive.  In such a system both 
the patron and the manager would be at the top of the corruption pyramid.  What 
is more, we do not know whether the actions of the manager saved him or not.  
The parable does not tell us whether he was reinstated.    There is no moral 
certainty and neither character deserves their “Citizenship” merit badge.  
          What is Jesus trying to teach us in this parable?  The parable is 
fraught with difficulty.  Apparently Luke struggled with it.  His solution was 
to edit the parable by putting these words in Jesus’ mouth, “for the children 
of this world exhibit better sense in dealing with their own kind than do the 
children of light.”[4]  Does Luke mean to say that the children of light 
should become dishonest, conniving, and corrupt in managing their own lives or the 
community of faith?  Should we treat each other as rogues with slight of 
hand, fast talking shell games?   Is the kingdom of God about or brinkmanship or 
some kind of spiritual skullduggery?    
          I think there are two aspects of this parable that the faithful can 
take with them.  The first is the caution that economic structures seek moral 
justification or absolution.  They need such absolution because they 
invariably and without exception take advantage of large segments of the economy to 
the advantage of a few.  Economic institutions frequently turn to religious 
institutions for their blessings.  In Jesus’ day it was the system of economic 
dominance that was represented by the patronage system.  The Roman occupation 
stripped landowners of property that had been in their family name for centuries. 
 These properties were seized and consolidated, throwing many people into 
poverty.  In fact, about 98% of the masses of 1st Century Palestine lived in 
abject poverty.  Granted, their family plots would be akin to truck farming today. 
 But it was a sustainable economy that afforded families a livelihood.  The 
patronage system destroyed all of that.  The patron and the manager were agents 
of a debilitating economic system, and neither of them deserves moral 
sympathy.  The system and its agents are morally culpable.  Even the debtors who 
gladly changed their bills participated in perpetuating an oppressive economic 
system.  The whole system was a corrupting system, and the seemingly innocent 
were stained by it.
.......
I am also reminded in this parable that because we are all corrupt, we are 
not in the position to condemn or judge others.  As Gandhi once said, “We are 
all such scoundrels we should leave the judging to God.”  The parable of the 
shrewd manager suggests that God’s kingdom is in the midst of corrupt economic 
systems and the people that are corrupted by them.  The grace of life transpires 
in the crowd of hypocrites."
Ron again: I like Gary's take on it, and to that last sentence just add a big 
Amen.
blessings, 
Ron