Posts Tagged ‘exploitation’

Talents an investment, or exploitation – is the third slave the one most like Jesus?

November 18, 2023

Pentecost 25 – 2023

Matthew 25:14-30

Marian Free

In the name of God to whom we must one day give an account of our lives. Amen.

When you think of God what images come to mind?  Are you drawn to images of a vengeful, harsh, and unforgiving God, or are the first images that come to you of a baby in a manger or a broken body on a cross? Do you subscribe to a God who condemns the foolish and the timid to an eternity of hellfire or to a God, who on the cross forgives someone who will never be able to make redress for his crimes?

These are important questions when it comes to reading the parables of Matthew 25 – the ten virgins and the landowner who entrusted slaves with his (not insignificant) property. Also, at issue in the interpretation of these two passages is how we try to make sense of parables. If we fall into the trap of making them into allegories, we are faced with the task of trying to work out who the various characters in the stories stand for. That is, who do the foolish virgins represent? Who is the slave who buries money? And perhaps most significantly who is the extremely wealthy man who chooses to entrust over 14 million dollars to three of his slaves –   and why would he do that? And why would the landowner distinguish between the slaves, giving one 5 talents, another two and third only one?

There are other questions. Does the parable of the virgins really condone the selfish behaviour of the wise virgins? If the bridegroom represents Jesus, does the one who forgave a criminal from the cross really lock people out forever? And most disturbingly of all is the temptation to associate the landowner with God. If Jesus means us to understand the landowner as God that would mean that Jesus is comparing God: “to a harsh man, who reaps where he does not sow, and gathers where he does not scatter seed” (which is the accusation that the third slave makes and which the master affirms in his reply.) 

Is God then an exploitative businessman, determined to make a profit at whatever the cost to others?

Trying to come up with a literal interpretation of a parable rarely works, because the intention of a parable is not so much to make sense, as to raise questions and to force us to think differently. 

A traditional interpretation of the parable (which relies on a conflation of both Matthew’s and Luke’s retelling) is that the landowner is God, and that we are the slaves who have been given talents (abilities) to use until Jesus’ return. The expectation is that we will put our talents to good use – so that they increase in value or make a contribution to society or to the church.  If we don’t use them, we can expect to be “justly” punished by a demanding and unforgiving God.

There are a number of problems with this version. One is the assumption that the landowner is God, the second is that “talents” refers to gifts and abilities, when in fact it refers to cold, hard cash (and lots of it) and a third is that the last slave deserved his condemnation because he didn’t make the best use of his money. Finally, this interpretation contradicts what Jesus says and how Jesus behaves. Jesus consistently eats with tax- collectors and prostitutes and he informs the self-righteous that sinners will enter the kingdom of heaven before them. Jesus condemns the rich who do not share their riches and applauds the widow who gives her last penny. Throughout his ministry, Jesus lives out the unconditional love of God and on the cross, demonstrates the extent of that love, even for the undeserving. Never, in the course of his ministry does Jesus take advantage of others or use them for his personal gain.

So, I want to put it to you that there is another way to view the parable, a way that gives back to the parable its intention to confront, to shock and to challenge. 

In the first century, a vast number of the population lived on or below the poverty line and that included people with a trade like Paul. The wealthy 1% of the population had made or increased their wealth at the expense of others. Our landowner (and remember he is fictitious). would almost certainly have been given land – land that belonged to others – in recognition of his military service. Instead of using the land to grow staples like wheat that would have fed the local citizens, he would have planted grapes or another crop that he could sell and make a profit. This would leave the population not only impoverished, but also hungry.  This landowner has done sufficiently well that he has something like $14m lying around to invest. 

He entrusts the money to three of his slaves, who in their turn, are free to take some of the profits for themselves – possibly by lending it to the less fortunate and charging exorbitant interest.

What if, in this scenario, the third slave was not in fact lazy or wicked, but rather the only one of the three who had the courage to resist the corruption and greed that had allowed the landowner to amass such a vast amount of wealth? What if, the third slave was making a stand by refusing to be a party to the landowner’s exploitative, oppressive, grasping desire to enrich himself? What if the third slave, the one who risks his own life so that others might live, is the one whose behaviour we are to model, the one whose behaviour is most like that of Jesus? –  who, need I remind you, was himself cast into the outer darkness because he dared to confront the self-seeking, corrupt officials of his own time.

Now, that really does overturn our past ways of thinking. 

What if, in the time between now and Jesus’ return, we were to challenge the unjust systems that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and which allow 46 million people to live below the poverty line? What if, in the time between now and Jesus’ return, we were to confront the forces that lead to war, persecution, and human rights violations that have led to 108.4 million people being displaced. What if, in the time between now and Jesus’ return, we were to tackle the issue of homelessness and the housing crisis in our own backyard?

What if we, like the third slave, were to resist the temptation to conform, and instead stood against injustice and oppression?

If, just if,  we, and all God’s people, would indeed see what the kingdom of heaven will be like. (Mt. 25:1) 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Talents an investment, or exploitation – is the third slave the one most like Jesus?

No wriggle room – Supporting systemic injustice

September 24, 2022

Pentecost 16 – 2022

Luke 16:19-31

Marian Free

In the name of God who gives some of us more than we deserve or desire.  Amen.

 I am not an economist, but it is clear to me that the world economy has vastly changed over the course of my lifetime. Small, local businesses have been overtaken by huge multi-national companies which, by all accounts, care more about the profit margin than they do about those workers who produce the profits. They are more interested in the return that they can give to their shareholders and the enormous salaries that they can offer their executives than about the workers upon whom they depend for their income.

While huge (even obscene) bonuses are given to those at the top of the corporate ladder, and healthy dividends are given to shareholders, those who generate the income rarely see any benefits from their contribution to the revenue. Global corporations are sometimes so profit-driven that their employees endure terrible (often dangerous) conditions in order that their company might reap the reward and that others might wear cheap clothing and their need for on-line shopping might be satisfied.

Today, few executives – even if they do live in the same country as their employees – would not know them by name, let alone know anything about their families or living conditions. We are far removed from the days of small businesses in which the boss knew those who worked for him (her) and who, when times were good, would share the results with those upon whom the business relied, and who, when labour was in short supply, would offer higher wages to attract staff.

While many of us may lament the current situation of globalisation and the emphasis on profit over care (for the labourer, the environment, or indeed anything beyond the desire to increase the corporation’s income), we find ourselves complicit in a system in which the majority support the lifestyle of a few. We are happy to pay less for consumer goods produced by vulnerable, underpaid people in third world countries and to indirectly support global corporations who meet our need for convenient on-line shopping. Many of us, particularly those of us who are now retired, are dependent on our investments (personal or through superannuation funds) for an income and are therefore reluctant to act in such a way that would result in a lower standard of living for ourselves.

So, if ever there was a parable that hit you straight between the eyes it would be the one retold in this morning’s gospel – the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Nowhere else does Jesus speak so directly about the afterlife or about the consequences of our lifestyle in the present. As we listen/read to the description of the place in which the rich man and Lazarus find themselves, we are filled with a level of dis-ease. We feel ourselves condemned along with the rich man, and realise that if, like the rich man we find ourselves on the wrong side of the chasm, there is no escape, no way to cross to the other side and no means to get any relief from our suffering.

Our discomfort can mean that our immediate reaction to the parable is to distance ourselves, to look for a way out. We reassure ourselves that we are not like the rich man. For starters, we are nowhere near as rich, and we are generous with what we have – donating to charities that support the poor and homeless and paying our taxes so that the government can make social welfare payments and build housing. We comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the image of Hades presented here is unique and does not match other images of the afterlife. (Of course, we expect to be judged, but to be honest most of us are confident that God’s mercy will see us spend eternity in a place of peace and light, where our every need is met and in which we need not even think about there being an alternate destiny (let alone have such a place within our field of vision)).

What is striking, and what causes the best of us to squirm, is the implication in the parable that our eternal fate depends not on whether we are “good” or “bad” in conventional terms but on our relative wealth. Jesus is deliberately sparse on detail. Indeed, we know nothing about the two men except that one is fabulously rich and the other so desperately poor that he would settle for crumbs that fall from the table. It is our imagination that makes the rich man callous and thoughtless, but his crime seems to be only that he is fabulously rich. As far as we know, he may well have been law-abiding and generous – paying the Temple tax, supporting widows and orphans, and insisting that anyone who came to his door be fed and clothed. Likewise, there is no evidence that Lazarus is “good”. The parable leaves open the possibility that he is not, that he brought his poverty on himself – through loose living, being caught out stealing, or by over-imbibing in alcohol.

Our imaginations see the rich man going in and out of his gate and ignoring Lazarus’ suffering, but again there is nothing in the parable to suggest that the rich man even notices Lazarus. (Equally, there is nothing to suggest that he doesn’t see and doesn’t offer some relief – however small.) Whatever the rich man does or doesn’t do or see in regard to Lazarus, what is clear is that he does nothing to address the situation that allows him to be so rich and Lazarus so poor.

According to the parable, what matters is that the rich man had received good things during his life and Lazarus had received evil things (16:25). In Hades the situation is reversed and just as there was a chasm between the two in life, so there is in death. It was not their behaviour (good or bad) in life that determined their fate but their collusion (or not) in the systemic inequities that resulted in some people living in relative comfort while others existed in dire poverty. The situation is possibly exacerbated by the rich man’s inability to recognise that his lifestyle (not to mention his apathy, greed and selfishness) contributed to and reinforced the differences between himself and Lazarus.

In the end, the parable suggests, there is no wriggle room.  We might have worked hard for what we have, lived a good and righteous life and have been generous with this world’s goods, but if, at the end of the day we have failed to recognise that the system has benefitted us and disadvantaged others, and, if we have done nothing to rectify that state of affairs, we will be found wanting.

The solution begins by seeing – seeing the poor at our gate, identifying the ways in which we support a system which puts (and keeps) them there and doing what we can to build a more just and equitable world.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Social justice, Wealth | Comments Off on No wriggle room – Supporting systemic injustice

Besides women and children

August 1, 2020

Pentecost 9 – 2020

Matthew 14:13-21

Marian Free

“And those who ate were about 5,000 men, besides women and children.” Matt 14:21

In the name of God who by becoming one of us affirms the dignity of all humanity. Amen.

Some time ago I watched a rather harrowing movie – The Whistle-blower – starring Rachel Weisz. The movie is based on the real story of Kathryn Bolkovac, a police officer in Nebraska, who was recruited by an American company, DynCorp International. DynCorp had a contract with the United Nations to hire and train police officers for duty in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kathryn had not been in Bosnia long when she came across Raya, a young Ukrainian woman, who had managed to escape from a brothel where she was being sexually exploited and abused. Raya had been trafficked across the border by the uncle of a friend who had persuaded both girls that he had found them a job in a hotel. It was a sophisticated operation. He had brochures of the hotel and job descriptions but in reality, he was preying on their financial vulnerability and their trust in him. When the girls arrived in Bosnia, they discovered that they had been sold into prostitution. If the movie was accurate, the conditions in which the women were kept was appalling and the brutality they experienced at the hands of their “keepers” was horrendous. 

Bolkovac endeavoured to find a place of safety for Raya only to discover that her employer, DynCorp was facilitating the sex trafficking and worse, that the international peacekeepers knew of the operation but chose to turn a blind eye. As a consequence, Raya’s whereabouts was leaked, she was recaptured, violently punished. Within a few weeks was shot dead as an example to others. Kathryn tried to bring the situation to the attention of the United Nations and as a result she received death threats and was fired. She took her employers to court for unfair dismissal and won, but while she reported that the company was involved in prostitution, rape and sex-trafficking, only local employees were prosecuted as UN contractors had immunity from prosecution.

The deliberate, calculating trafficking of people for profit is endemic. Despite the efforts of William Wilberforce and others in the late 18th, early 19th century, slavery is far from dead. At any one time in 2016 there were an estimated 40.3 million people held in slavery. Over 40 million people – that is 5.4 people for every thousand person on the planet! The statistics are horrendous:  

  • 51% of identified victims of trafficking are women, 28% children and 21% men
  • 72% people exploited in the sex industry are women
  • 63% of identified traffickers were men and 37% women
  • 99%  percent of all women and girls who are trafficked are trafficked into the commercial sex industry.[1]

Australia is not immune to this trade in human beings. In 2018, Anti-Slavery Australia helped over 123 people who had been trafficked to or from Australia.[2]  A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology published in February last year estimated that in 2015-16, 2016-7 the number of people trafficked or forced into slavery in Australia was between 1,300 and 1,900 meaning that for every person who is identified as being trafficked or enslaved, there are another four who are not identified.[3]

Trafficking is only the beginning of a lifetime of exploitation, torture and abuse.

There are millions of stories of trafficking, exploitation and abuse – slavery in the 21st century.

The human capacity to denigrate, dehumanise or ignore others is almost beyond comprehension. The ability to be blind to the talents, hopes and dreams of those who are different from ourselves almost defies belief. And yet, as is evidenced by modern day slavery, both are very real human characteristics. 

Whenever we view another person or group of people as lesser than ourselves, we are in danger of dehumanising them – as if there were gradations of being human. When we consider that another person is of less value than ourselves, we free ourselves to disregard their needs, their feelings and their ambitions which in turn frees us to treat them in ways that are cruel, degrading and exploitative. When we take the view that a person or group of people exists primarily as a source of our own comfort or our own enrichment, we become blind to their needs for comfort and security. Whenever people are put to use to improve the lifestyles of others, they are vulnerable to financial exploitation or to physical or sexual abuse. 

Failing to take notice of the gifts, talents and capacities of people whose race, background or economic status are different from our own, impoverishes all of us. We not only lose the contribution they could make to our society; we also allow our own selfishness free rein. At the same time, we also excuse ourselves from taking responsibility for their well-being, and fail to advocate on their behalf. 

In today’s gospel it is the women and children who are unnoticed. Jesus fed 5,000 men we are told by Mark and Luke to which Matthew adds as something of an afterthought: “besides woman and children”. Only John includes everyone in the story.

Throughout history many people have been left out of our story – women and children, the poor, the disenfranchised, the disadvantaged, the prisoner, people of colour, people whose faith is different from our own, people whose sexual orientation or gender identification does not conform – on and on it goes. 

If slavery and exploitation are to end, it has to begin here, with us – with our own attitudes, beliefs and values. 

Who are the people whom we leave out of the story and whom are we abandoning to potential abuse and exploitation by our ignorance, our blindness, our selfishness and our desire to pay less than a product is truly worth?

In other words, who are the “besides” in our story and what will it take from us to ensure that they are included?

[1] https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/human-trafficking/

[2] https://theconversation.com/human-trafficking-and-slavery-still-happen-in-australia-this-comic-explains-how-112294

[3] https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sb/sb16

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Feeding of the five thousand, Matthew | Comments Off on Besides women and children

Will the real king stand up?

November 23, 2019

The Reign of Christ – 2019

Luke 23:33-43

Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

 I imagine that even the royalists among you have been disturbed by the recent BBC interview with Prince Andrew who, in the process, revealed himself as self-centered, thoughtless and completely out of touch with the values of today’s world. This is not the first time that members of the Royal family have demonstrated that at times they are completely removed from the real world. Remember when Princess Diana died. The Queen it seems believed that as an ex-mother-in-law that it was inappropriate for her to have a part in the public outpouring of grief, but in fact, she (or her advisors) had completely misjudged public expectation and by keeping her distance, appeared as unfeeling and aloof. News media and social media as well as a growing distrust in our institutions, mean that in our times members of the Royal family can be scrutinized by all and sundry. Whereas there may have been a time when they could be protected by their position, the palace walls and by their minders, today their behavior – good and bad – is on display and open to critique.

We live in a time in which the public awareness of the damage caused by abusive sexual and other relationships has risen. The public are less inclined to turn a blind eye to the inappropriate behaviour of the rich and famous – particularly when that behaviour is exploitative or abusive. Our attitudes have changed dramatically in the last few decades and our expectations of public figures has risen. In today’s world even sporting stars are not only held to account for their behaviour off the field, but also to be a model of behaviour that their fans can emulate. Likewise the once powerful figures in the film industry have been called to account and those who once turned a blind eye to exploitative behaviour and the misuse of power are now more likely to call them to account.

Whether it is a consequence of his wealth, his position or his privilege, the BBC interview exposed Prince Andrew as having at best a lack of awareness and at worst a lack of regard for the well-being of those who do not share his social status. He may “regret his friendship with Epstein”, but his continued association with that man after he had been convicted of sex-trafficking shows a blatant disregard and a failure to grasp the suffering of people who are exploited and abused.

How different from Jesus who, as Son of God, could have made many demands on his contemporaries – rich and poor alike – but who took no advantage of the power that was his, but instead put himself at the service of others. This, despite the fact that Herod was keen to know him and I am sure that many others among the rich and powerful would have been delighted to count him among their friends. Jesus, however, chose to relinquish any privilege or influence that he could have exercised. Jesus did not live in isolation from the harsh realities of the world, but immersed himself fully in the lives of the poor and the vulnerable, the exploited and the abused. What is more rather than associate himself with the rich and powerful, of with those who took advantage of or turned a blind eye to the suffering of the weak and friendless, he confronted their heartlessness and alienated himself from those who had the power to protect him.

Jesus’ first century followers did not attach themselves to Jesus because he had power and privilege and they did not follow him because he could in some way advantage them or improve their status. He had none of the external indications of authority. He did not live in a palace. He did not have command of servants or soldiers and nor did he have wealth with which to buy allegiance from those less powerful than himself. Jesus had no obvious external authority. All that he had was himself and his confidence that he was doing God’s will. Despite this people were drawn to him – not through any use (or abuse) or power but through his wisdom, his compassion and his understanding. It was his own personal characteristics that made him a leader of people, that led them to recognize him as king.

It was not Jesus’ given authority that disturbed the Jewish and Roman leaders but his innate authority that drew the crowds to him and that therefore threatened their own hold on power and their ability to control and manipulate the crowds. This man – by all accounts a peasant from Galilee – presented a real and immediate danger to the powers and authorities. When the religious leaders failed to unseat his influence or to expose his ignorance through argument they were reduced to the use of force. If they could not discredit him in debate, they would make a public spectacle of him in the religious and civic courts and ultimately, through the degrading and painful death by crucifixion. By debasing and disarming Jesus, they would, they thought demonstrate their own power and reclaim their influence over the people.

The taunts and mockery by the soldiers, by the religious leaders and even by one of the criminals were intended to humiliate Jesus and to expose his presumption before the people: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself” “let him save himself if he is the anointed one”! The sign over the cross completed the picture – The King of the Jews would not be hanging on the cross dying like a common criminal. By all accounts Jesus’ power has been neutralized.

Rome, assisted by Jerusalem, had done all that they could to strip Jesus of his own power and influence. Yet their attempts to shame and embarrass Jesus backfired. Their taunts, rather than diminish Jesus unwittingly revealed the truth and reinforced the power and authority that came from no external force – King – but not of this world. One of the criminals crucified with him articulates this when he says: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus, whose kingdom is not of this world, demonstrated that true leadership is that which aligns itself with those whom one is called to lead, that lifts up and does not crush the vulnerable and which wins the loyalty and allegiance of the people, through wisdom, compassion and understanding.

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Christ the King, Luke's gospel, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Will the real king stand up?

Our life to live

April 25, 2015

Easter 4 – 2015

John 10:(1-10) 11-18

Marian Free

 

In the name of God, Shepherd, protector, liberator. Amen.

Most of us would, I think, agree that the Internet is a marvelous tool. That said, we cannot ignore the darker side of this form of mass communication. Just week I heard about a social media site on which Year 8 girls can post pictures of themselves wearing bikinis. Innocent enough you might think until you learn that the photo only stays on the site if enough other girls vote for it to stay. It makes you wonder what sort of arrogance would lead to someone setting up the site and what sort of insecurities would lead to twelve and thirteen year old girls exposing themselves to the sort of large-scale rejection that might follow. That, of course is only one of many sites. There is, in the United States at least, a site called “Revenge”. Men, who have persuaded girlfriends to send photos of themselves in various stages of undress, upload those photos on to the site when the relationship goes sour. The young women discover that they are recognised wherever they go and are mortified to realise that they whole world has seen them naked. Then there are those who use the internet to prey on young people with promises of love, but whose real intention is to use and abuse them.

The Internet is wonderful, but it can be a minefield for the vulnerable, the inexperienced and the naive. It offers fame and fortune but can be sordid and soul-destroying. It can provide a sense of belonging yet also be the source of the most awful social exclusion. People, like sheep, are not always discerning about whom they follow whether it be fellow teens, an over-bearing boyfriend, an employer who plays fast and loose with the law, a Hitler, or an Idi Amin. The human need for affirmation and approval is sufficiently strong that it is possible for some to ignore the small twinges of disquiet that alert them to the fact that all is not well – that they are being used, bullied or taken advantage of. When people are desperate to fit in, they do not always notice the warning signs. They take risks that may have disastrous consequences and they place their trust in those who are only interested in exploiting or taking advantage of them, of using them for their own gain or gratification. They follow people who in the end are not interested in the personal, emotional or social needs of those whom they ensnare but come – as do the thieves in today’s gospel, to steal, kill and destroy.

Sadly, some people are so deafened by the din of the world around them and so anxious to belong to that world that they are either unable or unwilling to listen to their own hearts. Instead of being true to themselves they follow those who offer false hopes and a false sense security. Instead of finding freedom and wholeness they discover that they are constrained and they remain unsatisfied, unfulfilled.

It is in contrast to the thieves, and robbers, (the hired hands, those who exploit), that Jesus describes himself as the “good shepherd.’ The good shepherd does not seek followers to use for his own nefarious means and he does not want to exploit those who follow him in order to achieve his own purposes. The good shepherd has no regard for his own needs, In fact, rather than demand anything of those who choose to follow, the good shepherd wants only what is the best for the sheep to the extent that the shepherd would lay down his life to ensure the well-being of the sheep. In the context of the verse that precedes today’s passage, the good shepherd has come so that the sheep may have life and have it abundantly. This is not a half-life in the shadow of the shepherd, but a life that is rich and full, in which every opportunity is provided for the sheep to achieve their own potential. In other words, the good shepherd does not entrap or limit, but liberates and encourages those who follow to be confident in themselves and to live their own lives.

The good shepherd is selfless – the sheep always come first. The good shepherd is also inclusive. No one has to behave or dress in a certain way to belong. To be part of this flock does not require compromise or a willingness to bend the rules in order to fit in. In fact, so far from being selective, the good shepherd is clear that there are other sheep who do not yet belong – those who live in fear, those who are lost and defenseless, those who are trapped in unhealthy ways of perceiving themselves, those who are enslaved to fads and fashions, those who are struggling to fit in and in so doing become what they are not. The good shepherd wants to bring these into the flock so that they too might “have life and have it abundantly”.

Hearing and responding to Jesus’ voice does not mean being bound by rigid rules or being forced to behave in particular ways. It does mean means hearing the shepherd above the cacophony and demands of the world, it means understanding that we can rise above the need or desire to conform to trends and fashions and it means having the courage to be our own selves knowing that we are so precious, that Jesus would rather give up his life than see us put upon or used,or be what we are not.

The good shepherd wants us to hear his voice, to draw us into his fold, not because he wants us to conform to certain ways of behaving, not because he wants full churches, not because he afraid that we will be condemned at the judgement, but purely and simply because he loves us. Jesus loves us unreservedly and unconditionally and longs for us to make decisions that will lead to our wholeness. Jesus wants all people to know that there is no need to conform to external, worldly measures. It doesn’t matter whether a person is beautiful or plain, clever or not so clever in the eyes of the world, in Jesus’ eyes they are unique and valued.

Thirteen year olds who know that they are precious and loved will not need to expose themselves to rejection, young women will know that their bodies are their own will not be coerced to share them in ways that make them uncomfortable, young men will not need to boast of their conquests in order to impress their mates. Those who follow the good shepherd will discover that the world and it values will lose its hold on them and they will know that their life is their own to live. They will know as Jesus knew that their life is theirs to give and to take up and that no one can take it from them.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel | Comments Off on Our life to live