Posts Tagged ‘honour/shame’

Dishonesty or forward planning?

September 21, 2025

Pentecost 15 – 2022

Luke 16:1-13

Marian Free

In the name of God who asks us to attend to the future with as much care as we attend to the present. Amen.

Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property.  2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’  3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.  4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’  5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’  6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’  7Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’  8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.  9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. (NRSV)

“Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth.” Surely Jesus is not saying that the entrance into eternity is through making others indebted to us by the dishonest use of funds. This is one of, if not the most, difficult parables to understand. In order to begin to unpack it we have to understand both the context in which it was told and the editorial process that has brought it to us. 

We are so familiar with the gospels and their use in our current context that we tend to forget that Jesus was speaking to a culture far removed in time and place from our own. Those who lived in first century Palestine were seriously impacted by the fact that they had existed under foreign occupation for generations. The rural economy in which land had passed from father to son for generations had been disrupted by the Emperors’ practice of giving grants of land to returning soldiers or to others whom they wanted to reward. The new landowners rarely took up residence on their land, choosing instead to live somewhere more attractive and to appoint managers or stewards to administer their estates. Such managers (many of whom were slaves) were empowered to act on the owner’s behalf. A manager would make decisions about the day-to-day running of the property and was able to make decisions about the expenditure of money, the offering loans and the incurring and forgiveness of debts. Much as is the case in large landholdings in Australia today – the manager had the same authority as the owner.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the principles of honour and shame were a central feature of the ordering of society and a guide to interpersonal relationships in the first century Mediterranean world. A person’s honour determined their place in society, was easily lost and was more valuable than money, land or possessions. Also, in a world where life was precarious, there was not the luxury of planning for distant events. People in Jesus’ time were more likely to act out of current desires than in pursuit of a long-term goal.

So, we need to grasp that most of the land was in the hands of managers on behalf of absentee owners, everyone knew their place in a culture governed by principles of honour and shame and the focus was on the present reality rather than an unimaginable, perhaps unrealisable future.

If we are to fully grasp the meaning of the parable we also have to have a basic understanding of biblical criticism. The gospels were not compiled until some 40-50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning they were not written by eyewitnesses. Until that time Jesus’ teachings had circulated as oral tradition. They were retold from memory and told in ways appropriate to the situation of those who are listening. Finally, when the gospels were written, the authors took the material available to them and shaped it in ways which suited their particular emphasis. In order for the sayings and parable to make sense, the editors would add linking sentences and even their own commentary. 

It is also helpful to note that the divisions into chapters did not occur until the 13th century and the addition of verses in the 17th century. Our task is try to discern how the authors compiled the material and not to rely on arbitrary divisions.

All this brings us to the parable of the Unjust Steward (a parable recorded only by Luke). 

Scholars agree that the parable proper consists of verses 1-8a and that v8b introduces a sermonising commentary – not the language of master to servant. This means that the parable proper ends with the master commending the steward for acting shrewdly.  Shrewdness not dishonesty is the point.

The parable concerns a rich man and his steward. We are told nothing about the steward’s character or his previous behaviour, only that a report has been brought to the landowner alleging that he is squandering his master’s property. A first century audience would immediately know that whether or not the steward was innocent the reputation (honour) of the landowner had already been compromised and his reputation damaged. They would also know that the steward would have had no means of self-defence – no external party to appeal to – his fate is sealed.

Interestingly, though the landowner asks the steward for an accounting of his management, he tells him he is fired without any reference to the financial record. Also important is that though he fires the steward, he doesn’t ask the steward to repay any debt, nor does he threaten to punish him by beating or imprisonment. (This tells us something about the generosity of the landowner which will make more sense of the conclusion). 

In verses 2 and 3 we hear the steward’s internal dialogue as he considers what to do[1]. Once again honour (as well as age) is a contributing factor in his decision. Finally, the manager announces that he has made a decision. He will place other people in his debt by reducing the value of their debts (v4, which he does in verses 5-7)! This means that though the master (who is already rich) might lose some income, the master’s honour – the far more important commodity – will not only have been restored it will have been enhanced! The landowner commends the steward for his shrewdness because the steward’s actions have increased the landowner’s status in the eyes of the community thus ensuring that his honour has not been compromised and the steward has secured his own future. (Again we are surprised by the generosity of the landowner, who commends rather than condemns.)

Jeffrey Durkin whose article has informed my research, summarises the situation in this way: “a master has a steward who has wasted his possessions and dishonoured him. The master dismisses the steward, creating a crisis for the steward, but he does not punish him. The steward hatches a risky plan to take advantage of his master’s forgiving nature and to secure his own future. By reducing the amounts of the debts owed to his master, he creates goodwill in the community for both himself and his master. The master praises the steward for his purposeful action in the securing of his own future.” [2]

The parable then is not about management, honesty or dishonestly, rather it is about futureproofing, it is about living in the present while focussing firmly on the future – on eternity.

It begs the question – where does our focus lie. Are we shrewd enough to recognise that eternal life is not simply a matter of chance but might take some forward planning? If so how are we going about it?

[1] This is a characteristic of Luke’s writing – see Luke 12:13-21.

[2] “A Cultural Reading of Luke 16:1-9.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa. January 1, 2007, 7-18.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Dishonesty or forward planning?

A son who brings shame and dishonour and a father who couldn’t care less

March 29, 2025

Lent 4 – 2025

Luke 15:11-32

Marian Free

In the name of God who, on our part endures humiliation and shame in order to show love to and to welcome home the worst of us. Amen.

(You might like to watch the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane’s one minute reflection on today’s gospel.)

There are two parables (only found in Luke) that have become part of common parlance.  These are known as the parable of the Good Samaritan and the parable of the Prodigal Son. Unfortunately, our over familiarisation with these parables (and with parables in general) is that they have lost their capacity to shock, to pull us up short. In the first instance, Jesus’ parable about the Samaritan is not a call to do good works, but a critique of those – good Christians all– who think that in some way superior to those whom they consider as somehow lesser than themselves. In the second instance, Jesus is challenging the view of those who thought that Jesus should only eat with/associate with those who kept the law and those who observed the niceties of social expectations (Luke 15:1).

In the case of the Prodigal son, as the name suggests, the focus tends to be on the son. When we read the parable, we put ourselves in the place of the son and feel immense gratitude that God overlooks our faults when and if we repent. What we fail to see, is what the parable tells us about the Father – by implication what it tells us about God and Jesus. In fact, scholars today call the parable the forgiving father, because that more accurately represents Jesus’ meaning.

The focus in this parable is not the repentance (if it was repentance) of the son, but on the father, who, ignoring ridicule and having no regard to his position in society, not only indulges the son, but who watches day and night for the son’s return and who runs to greet him on the road. In this parable, Jesus turns the honour/shame culture of the Middle East on its head. 

At that time (and in some places today) the concept of honour/shame was central to all relationships in the Middle East. There were complex protocols governing all human behaviour because honour was a finite resource and if you wanted to increase your own honour you could only do it at the expense of someone else’s honour. In an interaction between people of differing status, there were quite specific codes to follow so that each person, whether of higher or lower status, was not in danger of threatening the honour of the other.  

A loss of honour was equally the loss of respect and status in the community. This is the reason why Herod felt that he had to honour the request of his step daughter to behead John the Baptist. To have failed to do so would have meant that he would have lost face (respect, status) before his guests.  If a person lost their honour, it was lost for good. Had Herod not fulfilled his promise, he might have been able to maintain his power by force, but not through his status in the community. (He would have become an object of ridicule, someone who could not be expected to keep his word.)

In a collective (not individualistic) society, honour was collective. A man’s honour was dependent on the behaviour of his family – so much so that homes were often open to the street to demonstrate that the head of the household had nothing to fear. In this case the actions of the son reflect badly on and diminish the father’s honour.

This is what makes Jesus’ parable of the forgiving father all the more surprising, even shocking to his audience. From beginning to end the story is about a father whose honour is challenged and diminished and about a father who doesn’t care less about honour, his dignity or the regard in which he is held by his neighbours.  He cares only for the well-being of the son.

According to the parable the younger son asks for his share of the inheritance. Not only is this son greedy, selfish and impatient he is, by asking for his inheritance, implying that wished his father dead. Jesus’ audience would have understood that the son’s request was in clear violation of the fourth commandment to honour your father and mother. Further, anyone dependent on making a living from the land would be well aware of the financial burden that paying out the son would put on the father (and the remaining brother). The son has brought shame on the family, possibly impoverished the family and has thought only of himself and his short-term pleasure.

You might say, “yes, but he did come to his senses’. But did he? Was he really repentant or was he still putting his own needs first. Peter Hawkins (among others) observes that there is something quite calculating in the son’s thought process[1]. His speech is even rehearsed: “I will say to him.” There is no mention in the account that he is sorry, only that returning home would be a solution to his state of starvation. 

If anyone has/had any doubt that God was not a God of judgement and condemnation, but a God of compassion and second chances, this parable (and the two that precede it) puts paid to any questions on that score.

The father (probably representing God) has asked nothing of the son but has freely given him what he wanted, released him from all responsibility and let him go. Then, day after day, it appears, he has kept a lookout for this lost boy – forgoing pride and any sense of social respectability (the son has made it clear that he doesn’t want to be part of the family and has brought dishonour on his family name). 

Finally, the father sees the son and, without thought for his personal dignity and paying no regard to the diminished esteem in which he will be held by his neighbours, he runs (runs not walks) to take his son in his arms before son has any opportunity to give his well-thought out and well-rehearsed speech. If that were not enough to indicate to his neighbours his lack of self-respect, he then calls for the best robe, a ring for the finger, sandals for his feet AND a feast with the fatted calf, any one of which would be shocking and incomprehensible to his community.  A member of the family who had brought them into such disrepute and brought such shame upon them, should at the very least be shunned if not severely punished.

By turning upside down the social conventions of the time, Jesus wants his audience to let go of an idea that God only welcomes those self-righteous people who keep the law and set themselves apart from the sinner and tax-collector. Just the opposite, God’s primary concern is for the sheep who has wandered from the fold, the coin that has found its way into a hidden corner, and the son or daughter who has cut themselves off from God’s love. 

God of the lost, giver of second chances – is not a God who wants to condemn and exclude, but a God whose open embrace welcomes all who would turn to him – without question, without recrimination and certainly without judgement.

[1] Christian Century. Sunday’s Coming. 25/3/25

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Lent, Luke's gospel, Parables | Comments Off on A son who brings shame and dishonour and a father who couldn’t care less

Commending shrewdness

September 15, 2022

Pentecost 15 – 2022
Luke 16:1-13
Marian Free

In the name of God who asks us to attend to the future with as much care as we attend to the present. Amen.

Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. 2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ 5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7 Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ 8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. (NRSV)

I think that it was six years ago that a friend and parishioner developed a drama based on the gospel of the shrewd manager and an article by a student Jeffrey Durkin . The drama made such good sense of what many find to be a difficult parable that there was an audible intake of breath from the congregation and a sermon on the topic was really unnecessary. For those who are interested I have reproduced the drama below.

Durkin’s article was so compelling that I am going to have another attempt to help you to make sense of a parable in which Jesus appears to be commending dishonest and which to be fair, most reasonable people take offense at – wondering what it is doing in scriptures.

Before we begin there are a number of important principles that we have to accept.

Jesus was speaking to a culture removed in time and place from our own. People in first century Palestine operated according to different values and their lives were seriously impacted by the fact that they had existed under foreign occupation. The rural economy in which land had passed from father to son for generations had been disrupted by Caesar’s practice of giving grants of land to returning soldiers. Not only were farmers displaced but the landowners rarely took up residence on their land, choosing to live somewhere more attractive and to appoint managers/stewards to administer their estates. Such managers (some of whom were slaves) acted on the owner’s behalf. A manager made decisions about the day-to-day running of the property and was able to make decisions about the expenditure of money and the offering loans as well as about the incurring and forgiveness of debts. Much as is the case in large landholdings today – the manager had the same authority as the owner.

A central cultural value of the time (and still in parts of the Middle East today) was that of honour/shame. A person’s honour determined their place in society, was easily lost and was more valuable than money, land or possessions. Unlike those who today have the luxury of planning for distant events, those in Jesus’ time were more likely to act out of current desires than in pursuit of a long-term goal.

Both of these issues come into play when trying to come to grips with today’s parable.
An understanding of biblical criticism is also essential in making sense of today’s parable. Jesus’ teachings circulated as oral tradition for some 40-50 years after Jesus’ death. During that time they were applied to new situations and retold from memory. The gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE at a time when first generation of Jesus’ followers had died and it was felt that it was important to record what he said before there was too much variation. The gospels that made it into what we know as the New Testament were not written dispassionately, with an emphasis on accuracy. They were written with a specific intent (which explains the differences between them). There is evidence of editorial content – especially when it comes to the arrangement of material.

It is important to take all these things into consideration particularly when we are trying to come to terms with teaching that doesn’t immediately make sense. It is also essential to let go of our preconceived ideas and our inherited ways of understanding so that we can see the scriptures with new eyes.

With regard to the parable of the Unjust Steward (only recorded by Luke) the first thing to do is to try to determine what might be original to Jesus and what might be attributed to the editor. Scholars agree that the parable proper consists of verses 1-8a and that v8b introduces a sermon on what might be an unrelated topic, “the sons of this world” and the “sons of light” . Furthermore, the relevance of verses 10-13 in relation to the parable is obscure at best. In considering the parable then, we will look only at 1-8a.

That is a lot of background but given the difficulty that most people have with this parable, it does give us some context against which to understand it.

In the first verse Jesus introduces the characters – a rich man and a steward. It is important to note that we are told nothing about the steward’s character or previous behaviour, only that a report has been brought to the landowner alleging that he is squandering his master’s property. A first century audience would immediately know that whether or not the steward was innocent the reputation (honour) of the landowner would have already been compromised – at least one person believed that he had allowed himself to be defrauded and may already have insinuated as much to other members of the community. They would also know that in that situation the steward would have no means of self-defence – no third party to make a decision on the matter.

Interestingly, though the landowner asks the steward for an accounting of his management, it appears that he fires him without any reference to the financial record. Also important is that though he fires the steward, he inflicts no punishment (something which may be intended to tell us something about the generosity of the landowner and which will make more sense of the conclusion).

What follows (v2,3) is an interior dialogue as the steward considers what to do . Once again honour (as well as age) is a contributing factor in his decision. Then the manager announces that he has made a decision – he will place other people in his debt by reducing the value of their debts (v4, which he does in verses 5-7)! Though his master (who is already rich) might lose some income, his honour – the far more important commodity – will not only have been restored it will have been enhanced! So, we see that it is for this reason that the landowner commends the steward for his shrewdness – the steward’s actions have increased the landowner’s status in the eyes of the community. At this point the generous and forgiving nature of the landowner are called to mind – the steward is not reinstated but is praised for taking action to secure his future (contrary to the cultural norm of being concerned only with the present.)

Durkin summarises the situation in this way: “a master has a steward who has wasted his possessions and dishonored him. The master dismisses the steward, creating a crisis for the steward, but he does not punish him. The steward hatches a risky plan to take advantage of his master’s forgiving nature and to secure his own future. By reducing the amounts of the debts owed his master, he creates goodwill in the community for both himself and his master. The master praises the steward for his purposeful action in the securing of his own future.”

Jesus tells parables to upend our way of thinking and to challenge well-held views. Of all the parables this is perhaps the most confronting, which means that if it does its job, it shakes us into reconsidering our lives. The parable is not about management, honesty dishonestly, rather it is about futureproofing.

We are challenged to consider whether we spend so much time securing our comfort in this life that we pay no attention to preparing for the next? Are we so concerned with the present that we have taken our eyes off the future, or like the steward, are we shrewd enough to recognise that securing our comfort for eternity might take some forward planning?

Drama for Luke 16 by Juliet Quinlan

The characters: Mr/Mrs Rich (R), owner of a chain of stores; (K) Kath/Kevin, supervisor of one of R’s stores.

Part 1

R: Good morning K. Please sit down.

K: Good morning.

(Both sit down – two chairs facing each other.)

R: I’ll get straight to the point, K. This is the third time in three months I’ve had to call you in to my office to tell you that your performance isn’t what I’d expect from one of my store supervisors. There have been complaints from customers that you’re offhand with them, you’ve closed early on several occasions, the takings from your store are down…

K: (Shrugs) I’m sorry, I promise I’ll do better.

R: No, K, that’s not good enough. I’m very reluctant to do this, but I’m going to have to let you go. I’m losing money, and even worse, my reputation is being squandered. I’m willing to give you a month’s notice, but please try to leave the store in good shape. (Both stand up. R shakes K’s hand, looks sympathetic).

(K and R both exit.)

Part two

(K sits alone OR addresses the congregation.)

K: What am I going to do? I know I haven’t been efficient like I used to be. I’ve just got so bored with this place, that’s the problem. My heart hasn’t been in it. But how can I live now? I don’t want to be on the dole for the rest of my life. I need some inspiration…(Frowns, shakes head, looks anguished. Then straightens up, eyes wide open): OK, I’m beginning to get an idea…

Part three

(R beckons K into the office again. They remain standing.)

R: So this is your last day, K. I wonder why you’re looking so happy.

K: Oh well…

R: I think I know why you’re pleased with yourself. The accountant picked up an anomaly for this store. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

(K shrugs shoulders)

R: For the last month the cash you’ve banked has been around half the amount the cash register says it should be. Can you explain how this could have happened?

K: I took the money.

R: So you thought it’d be smart to give yourself a bonus, did you?

K: No, I gave it all to charity.

R: Why? What was the point of that?

K: I told the Coordinator of my favourite charity that you wanted to make a large donation, and made an appointment to hand it over. We got talking and I told her how I’d love to help, and some ideas I have, and now they’ve agreed for me to work for them as a volunteer. Perhaps I might get paid work there eventually. And it’s something I’ll really like doing, something fulfilling for the rest of my life…

R: But it was my money.

K: Well you’ve sometimes said money isn’t everything, that your main goal is to make your customers happy. I know how concerned you are about the company’s public image and I’ve heard you give quite a lot away yourself.

R (stops, thinks, then starts to laugh): Well, I must say I’m amazed. You’ve been really clever. You’ve made me look good in the eyes of your charity, and made a positive plan for your future. Good luck to you! (Smiles, claps K on the shoulder, shakes hands). Off you go. And I hope the future gives you all that you hope for.

(Both exit)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Commending shrewdness

Saying “yes” is all it takes

October 10, 2020

Pentecost 18 – 2020

Matthew 22:1-14

Marian Free

In the name of God who invites us all to the heavenly banquet. Amen.

Some of you will know the Jane Austen novel Emma. Emma is the daughter of a gentleman, and a member of a family of property and status in her small society. Emma takes her position seriously and believes she should lead by example and maintain the distinction of rank. There are people in the village with whom she is very happy to mingle, but she has very clear ideas as to who would and would not be suitable acquaintances. Emma takes a shine to Harriet, an orphan whose origins are unknown. She is certain that Harriet is the daughter of a gentleman and is determined that Harriet learn the niceties of mixing in society and that she should marry someone who is equal to the person Emma believes her to be. 

When Harriet receives a proposal of marriage from a tenant farmer, Emma not so subtly suggests that Harriet should decline the offer – such a match would necessarily end their friendship. In a such stratified society to mix socially with someone of another (lower) class, would be to be seen to be lowering one’s standards. While such an action might not directly affect a person’s position or rank, it would cause others to look askance and to question their respect for the values and mores of the time.  While Emma could almost certainly afford to break the rules – she might be considered eccentric – her family’s position and wealth would be secure. 

Such was not the case in the equally stratified society of Jesus’ time. People, especially those of rank, were very aware of their position and very anxious to retain the respect and honour that came with it. The difference between society in the Roman Empire and that of Jane Austen’s England was that position and rank were much more tenuous – based not on a person’s birth or wealth, but on their ability to gain and to maintain honour in the eyes of their peers. Nearly every interaction was determined by notions of honour and shame and there existed strict rules of engagement to ensure that no one unintentionally challenged the honour of another.  There was only so much honour to go around. If someone wished to enhance their own place in society, they would have to do so at the expense of another.

Honour and shame lie behind the exchanges between Jesus and the chief priests and scribes in this section of Matthew’s gospel. Jesus’ opponents felt diminished by Jesus’ actions and wanted to regain their position of influence with, and power over, the people. In order to achieve this, they tried to confound Jesus by asking a difficult question. Jesus answered a question with a question and, when the chief priests and scribes were unable to answer, he pressed his advantage by telling not one, but three parables aimed squarely at them. 

In this, the last of the three parables, honour and shame are a central theme. It was not unusual for two invitations to be issued for a meal. The first invitation allowed the invitees to determine who else had been invited and to decide whether or not their honour would be enhanced or compromised by their attendance. Invitees would only attend if other guests were of equal or higher status than themselves. For unknown reasons, the guests in this parable make light of the invitation and simply go about their business.  The host is furious, he has been seriously humiliated and his honour gravely damaged by the reaction of the “invitees”. Worse, to add insult to injury, the intended guests further slight the host by seizing, beating and killing his slaves.

It is interesting and important to note the differences between the ways in Matthew and Luke record this parable. In Matthew the invitations are issued by a king. The king restores his position by violently destroying the proposed guest list. In their place he invited people of no consequence at all – good and bad alike  – a further injury if the intended guests had been alive to see it. In contrast, Luke’s host is just “someone”, the guests make flimsy excuses for not attending, the slaves are not killed, and the guests are not destroyed. Those invited instead are, first of all, the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame – again an insult to the original guest list but consistent with Luke’s emphasis on God’s preference for the poor.

The differences between the two evangelists are significant. They reveal the agendas of Luke and Matthew. While both suggest that outsiders, not the invited, will be the guests at the banquet, Luke sets the parable in the context of a dinner at which Jesus is encouraging humility. Matthew includes the parable in the debate between Jesus and his opponents in Jerusalem. The violence in Matthew’s account (absent in Luke) fits with the earlier parable of the vineyard and suggests that Matthew is providing a short history lesson about Israel’s rejection of God’s agents and is looking ahead to the destruction of Jerusalem. 

In this, the third parable directed against the chief priests and scribes, Matthew’s Jesus makes it clear that in refusing to accept him the chief priests and scribes are refusing God’s invitation to be a part of the kingdom. That being the case, God will give the vineyard to others and welcome outsiders to the banquet. 

Put together, the three parables in this section are a warning that we should not become complacent or to take for granted our place in the kingdom. Taking the vineyard for ourselves or being too proud to accept the invitation to the banquet demonstrate a failure to understand that our salvation depends – not on what we do bu on what God does for us. They remind us that it is God (not us) who will determine who does and does not belong and tell us that if we rely on ourselves and on what we do and do not do, we demonstrate our independence from God and are in grave danger of being oblivious to or ungracious in regard to God’s invitation. 

Our salvation relies not on anything that we (or anyone else) has done, but rather on what God has done for all humankind. Our primary responsibility is not to come to our own conclusions (about ourselves or others) but to humbly and gratefully accept the invitation to be a part of the kingdom – that the rest will take care of itself.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Saying “yes” is all it takes

In God’s image

October 21, 2017

 

Pentecost 20 – 2017

Matthew 22:15-end

Marian Free

In the name of God who is and was and ever more shall be. Amen.

According to Cambridge University: “Competitive debating is a fun activity akin to a game in which we examine ideas and policies with the aim of persuading people within an organised structure. It allows us to consider the world around us by thinking about different arguments, engaging with opposing views and speaking strategically[1].” The same website states that judges measure a good debater according to three criteria:

Content: What a person says and the arguments and examples he or she uses.
Style: How the debate is presented – that is the language and voice that is used.
Strategy: How well someone engages with the topic, responds to other people’s arguments and structure what they say.

At its best good debate is like a piece of theatre – full of drama, repartee, humor and a clever turn of phrase. Good debaters know how to put their point convincingly and how to expose the weaknesses of their opponent’s arguments. If they are particularly clever and astute, they may be able to throw the other team off course and force them team to put a foot wrong and thereby lose the debate.

Jesus often engaged in debate with those who opposed him. These debates were not for fun, but were serious affairs in which one or more persons tried to bring Jesus into disrepute in order to enhance their own status and honour. In today’s gospel three groups of people try to discredit Jesus through questions about politics, faith and the Jewish law.

First the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, come up with a question that they think will force Jesus into a corner. If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he will alienate the majority of his audience who resent the taxes exacted by Rome. On the other hand, if he states that the taxes should not be paid his challengers will have grounds to report him for sedition. Jesus appears to be in a lose-lose situation. Not so. Jesus refuses to fall for their trap. His response not only fails to give them what they want, but it also exposes their hypocrisy and their faithlessness.

Jesus then asks for a coin and one is readily produced. In a sense, by being in possession of a coin, his adversaries have answered their own question. The coin signifies identification with the Empire. The Herodians had publicly aligned themselves with the Romans, but the Pharisees, who prided themselves on keeping the law, should have refused to carry a coin engraved with an image of “Tiberius Caesar, August, son of the divine Augustus, high priest” – a graven image forbidden by the 10 Commandments. (Even if the coin belonged to an Herodian, the Pharisees would tainted by association.)

Jesus goes further and asks them a question: “Whose image[2] is this, and whose title?” (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. )Too often, Jesus’ response here has been used to justify a separation of church and state which, at its extreme, allowed Christians to go along with or to ignore the policies of the Nazi state. What is at stake is more than an issue of earthly authority vs the authority of heaven[3].  The power of the Emperor is not a separate power from that of God. All heaven and earth are under God’s dominion; all powers and principalities are subordinate to the overarching authority and power that belongs to God. The image on the coin implies authority, power and divinity in this case for the Emperor. Paying taxes returns the coin to the Emperor whom it represents. If we give the coin to the Emperor, what do we give to God? What is it that bears God’s image. Humanity is made in the image of God and it is ourselves, our whole selves that we must return to God.

Jesus’ diversion with the coin was more than just a clever response to what was meant to be a difficult question. Jesus’ was confronting the Pharisees’ failure to live out their role as the image of God and to give to God what was God’s.

When the Sadducees saw that the Pharisees had failed to score a point against Jesus, they came up with a question of their own – one that related to a matter of belief. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They hoped to confuse Jesus with a complicated question about the resurrection. Jesus’ response showed that they were approaching the question from completely the wrong point of view. He reminded them that it was foolish to think of the resurrection in purely human terms.

In a final attempt to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees sent a lawyer with a question about a matter of the law. The Pharisees wanted to expose Jesus’ ignorance with regard to matters of the Jewish law. Which law was the greatest – that would be something only those who were students of the law might know. Jesus was not just some yokel from Galilee. He was politically astute; he knew the tenets of his faith and was well versed in the law. None of his opponents were able to trap or outsmart him.

Having proven himself Jesus turns the tables on his adversaries. He has a question. How can the Christ be both David’s son and David’s lord? They cannot of course and Jesus’ opponents slink away – defeated.

When we listen to accounts such as these that we allow ourselves a certain amount of smugness – the Pharisees and Sadducees were definitely in the wrong and on the wrong track, we think. We wouldn’t make that mistake. But I wonder about that: how often do we call God into question, try to pin God down or force God into a corner? How often do we pit our wills against God – seeking answers to questions that may be well beyond our ability to comprehend? How often do we enter into competition with God, trying to get God to prove Godself? In the final analysis perhaps that is the point of today’s gospel. It reminds us that contending with God is futile. The truth is that no matter how smart or how educated we are we simply cannot plumb the depths of God. There is so much that is beyond our comprehension. God is mysterious and complex and awe-inspiring. God cannot be contained or captured by slogans or simple formulas.

Jesus’ response to his challengers reveals two possible actions – we can accept and submit to God’s dominion and be a part of the kingdom or we can challenge or defy God’s sovereignty and thereby demonstrate that we want no part of the kingdom. We need to choose a side – do we stand with the Pharisees and with all who contest with God? or do we acknowledge God as our Lord and Jesus as our Saviour. There is always a choice let us be sure to make the right one.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] cus.org

[2] Note the Greek word “icon” is often translated as “head” which makes it more difficult to grasp Jesus’ meaning.

[3] Dennis Hamm and others

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on In God’s image

Fighting is not the solution

September 9, 2017

Pentecost 14 – 2017

Matthew 18:10-20

Marian Free

In the name of God who, through Jesus shows us a way to confront wrongdoing without causing embarrassment or shame. Amen.

I would not be surprised to discover that more than a few of us have been made quite anxious not only by North Korea’s testing of a hydrogen bomb but also in relation to the world’s response to that test. An escalation of threats on one side has led to an escalation of activity on the other and so it goes on – a never-ending cycle in which each side tries to cow the other. It is difficult to see how the situation can end well. North Korea fires a bomb, the United States and others urge more punitive sanctions. North Korea threatens to bomb the United States, the United States threatens a massive military response and so on. Neither party wants to back down. Backing down would be a source of embarrassment and would be seen as a sign of weakness[1].

A willingness not to use force to solve a conflict and not put down the other party not only leads to a different outcome, but provides a solution in which neither party is made to look weak or is exposed to embarrassment or shame. On Friday, Richard Filder interviewed Jonesy – a single mother, truck-driver, trainer and company director. Heather Jones drives enormous B-double, or B-triple trucks in Western Australia. A few years ago, Jonesy was called in to mediate in a situation that looked as though it was going to get out of hand. A woman from Ballina had taken it on herself to expose truck drivers whom, she had concluded were all dangerous and irresponsible drivers. “Bothersome Belinda” as she became known, set up a website asking for people to dob in a truck driver. Her campaign caused distress among all the truck drivers who drove responsibly and carefully and who often put their own lives at risk to avoid accidents. Jonesy was called in by her fellow truckies to see if she could help – single mother to single mother.

At the first meeting, Belinda’s body language said it all. Her views were fixed: truckies were the enemy and she was not ready to give an inch. Jonesy was not deterred. Over a number of meetings she continued to reach out to Belinda until the point that they became good friends. The eventual outcome was that the offending website was taken down and, to Jonesy’s surprise, Belinda got her truck license and came to work for her.

Two quite different ways of dealing with offense and two quite different results!

In a culture governed by notions of honour and shame and in which aggression and tit for tat was a way of life, Jesus showed that there was another way.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made the stunning claim that: “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Blessed are the meek”. He not only counselled against aggression, he also gave practical examples of ways in which his listeners could end disputes without exposing the other person or oneself to shame or dishonour. He said: “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.”

This is a theme that runs throughout Matthew’s gospel. Jesus refused to meet violence with violence, he refused to grandstand, to promote himself at the expense of others, and finally he submitted to violence and death rather than respond to hostility with aggression.

In today’s gospel Jesus provides a practical example of how conflict or sin within the Christian community might be dealt with without exposing the offender to embarrassment and without creating a situation that would lead to an escalation of the problem. Jesus does not appear to think that conflict is something to be avoided at all costs. It will occur in the Christian community as in any other. When it does, the matter should be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way that does not expose the offender or cause the offender to lose honour in the sight of the community. Jesus suggests three strategies that can be used if tensions arise, or if someone hurts someone else or behaves in a way that is contrary to the values of the community.

In the first instance the one who is sinned against is to speak quietly to the offender – thus causing no embarrassment. Only if this doesn’t work are others to be involved. The second stage involves witnesses, which suggests that it is more of a legal process. Again, the problem is dealt with privately so that the offender does not lose honour. Only as a last resort is the offender brought before the entire community. If the offender still refuses to acknowledge his or her fault, they have demonstrated that they do not really belong and, at least in the short-term, must be designated as an outsider – in the same class as a tax-collector or a Gentile.

I am not naïve. History has demonstrated that sometimes the only way to confront and to stop evil behaviour has been to react with force. What Jesus is suggesting is that this should not be a way of life. Confrontation and violence should never be the starting point, but rather dialogue and an attempt at mutual understanding. Only when these fail should we begin to seek out other means of resolving the tension.

Within the Christian community relationships are likely to be tested, people are going to rub up against each other in the church as in other situation and people are going to fail to live up to everyone’s expectations. What is important, is not that conflict is avoided, but that when it does occur it is dealt with in such a way as to avoid exposing people to embarrassment and shame and that it follows an orderly process to try to resolve the issue and, as we shall see as the chapter progresses, the Christian community should be more ready than other communities to forgive – not once but over and over and over again.

[1] To be fair, imposing sanctions has been used as a way of avoiding conflict and war, and it may be difficult to have conversations with the leadership of North Korea.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Fighting is not the solution

A win/win situation

September 17, 2016

Pentecost 18 – 2016

Luke 16:1-8

Marian Free

Dramatisation of the parable (Written by Juliet Quinlan)

The characters: Mr/Mrs Rich (R), owner of a chain of stores; (K) Kath/Kevin, supervisor of one of R’s stores.

 Part 1

R: Good morning K. Please sit down.

K: Good morning.

(Both sit down – two chairs facing each other at the front of the sanctuary.)

R: I’ll get straight to the point, K. This is the third time in three months I’ve had to call you in to my office to tell you that your performance isn’t what I’d expect from one of my store supervisors. There have been complaints from customers that you’re offhand with them, you’ve closed early on several occasions, the takings from your store are down…

K: (Shrugs) I’m sorry, I promise I’ll do better.

R: No, K, that’s not good enough. I’m very reluctant to do this, but I’m going to have to let you go. I’m losing money, and even worse, my reputation is being squandered. I’m willing to give you a month’s notice, but please try to leave the store in good shape. (Both stand up. R shakes K’s hand, looks sympathetic).

(K and R both exit.)

Part two

(K sits alone OR addresses the congregation.)

K: What am I going to do? I know I haven’t been efficient like I used to be. I’ve just got so bored with this place, that’s the problem. My heart hasn’t been in it. But how can I live now? I don’t want to be on the dole for the rest of my life. I need some inspiration…(Frowns, shakes head, looks anguished. Then straightens up, eyes wide open): OK, I’m beginning to get an idea…

Part three

(R beckons K into the office again. They remain standing. Would it be better if K presents herself to the office as it’s her last day?)

R: So this is your last day, K. I wonder why you’re looking so happy.

K: Oh well…

R: I know why you’re pleased with yourself. The accountant picked up an anomaly for this store. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

(K shrugs shoulders)

R: For the last month the cash you’ve banked has been around half the amount the cash register says it should be. Can you explain how this could have happened?

K: I took the money.

R: So you thought it’d be smart to give yourself a bonus, did you?

K: No, I gave it all to charity.

R: Why? What was the point of that?

K: I told the Coordinator of my favourite charity that you wanted to make a large donation, and made an appointment to hand it over. We got talking and I told her how I’d love to help, and some ideas I have, and now they’ve agreed for me to work for them as a volunteer. Perhaps I might get paid work there eventually. And it’s something I’ll really like doing, something fulfilling for the rest of my life…

R: But it was my money.

K: Well you’ve sometimes said money isn’t everything, that your main goal is to make your customers happy. I know how concerned you are about the company’s public image and I’ve heard you give quite a lot away yourself.

R (stops, thinks, then starts to laugh): Well, I must say I’m amazed. You’ve been really clever. You’ve made me look good in the eyes of your charity, and made a positive plan for your future. Good luck to you! (Smiles, claps K on the shoulder, shakes hands). Off you go. And I hope the future gives you all that you hope for.

(Both exit)

 

Reading of Gospel: Luke 16:1-8

Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. 2 So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3 Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ 5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7 Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ 8 And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly;

 ***********************

 

 

God of love, give us an openness to your word and a willingness to understand those things that challenge and confront us. Amen.

Today’s parable is one of (if not the) hardest of Jesus’ parables to come to grips with. We are able to accept most of Jesus’ eccentricities and teaching that demands us to welcome the marginalised and love the unlovable and even to forgive the unforgiveable – but for Jesus to commend dishonesty or injustice – that goes beyond the pale of good, respectable Christians.

The problem is that it is almost impossible for us to make sense of today’s parable unless we take ourselves back to the first century and to the culture of the time. In particular, we have to understand that honour and shame determined how society functioned and how people related to each other. Having honour took precedence over the desire for wealth, or love of friend and family. Everyone knew their place and everyone was concerned to maintain their position within the community. One way to retain or to increase honour was through generosity.

In previous stories Jesus subverted these values of honour and shame– “take the lower seat”, “invite those who can’t pay you back”, “welcome home the son who has shamed and disgraced you”. Now he tells a story that plays right into the hands of those who hold those values he uses the concepts of honour and shame to his advantage.

Another characteristic of first century society was a failure to plan for the future. Most people lived day-by-day, not considering how they might fare either in the earthly future and certainly not thinking about their eternal future.

A steward had a great deal of authority. Very often the landowner lived elsewhere, so the steward had the responsibility for the day-to-day running of the property. Whether a slave or a free man, a steward could make decision about loans and interest rates, make sales, forgive or pay off debts. He earned his living by commission and had a relatively high status in the community.

As well as trying to understand the first century Mediterranean culture, we have to remember that this is a story, a parable. It did not happen in real life. It is a story pure and simple. That means that it doesn’t have to be entirely logical, or that it has to provide all the detail[1]. Jesus is using this parable to make a point or to shock his hearers into a new way of understand. It is more important to look for the meaning behind the story rather than try to force the story make absolute sense.

We also have to determine where the parable begins and ends. Unless we are clear about this we will not know whether it is Jesus who commends the steward for his shrewd behaviour or the master who praises him. Does Jesus commend dishonesty or is it the master in the story who commends the steward?

Lastly we have to ignore the heading that bible translators have added to the in order to let the parable speak for itself. Most bibles give this section a title like “the unjust or dishonest steward” which leads to the assumption that the character of the steward is dishonest, whereas that label is only applied to the steward at the conclusion of the story. There is no evidence to suggest that the steward is inherently dishonest or that he has behaved dishonestly in the past.

So with all that in mind, let’s look at the parable in detail, beginning with the problem as to where the story begins and ends. Most scholars agree that the actual parable concludes at the beginning of verse 8a that means that the person who commends the steward’s behaviour is the steward’s master – not Jesus[2]. The structure of the parable looks like this:

Introduction 1a Jesus’ introduction, 1b Introduction to parable

Scene 1 v 2

Scene 2 v 3,4

Scene 3 v 5, 6 (in symmetry with 4)

Scene 4 v 7

Conclusion v 8a (symmetry with the beginning 1b)

The first thing to note is that we are not told why the steward is being dismissed. All that we know is that rumours have reached his master (that the steward is squandering the master’s property – not that he is dishonest). Rumours alone are sufficient to have caused embarrassment or shame to the landowner, so in his mind there is no choice but to dismiss the steward. The steward has no recourse. If he takes action against his master he will cause the landowner even more shame and therefore possibly find himself in a worse position. Verses three and four tell us two things: one is that the steward is not a slave. If he were he might lose his position, but he would not lose his home. They also remind us that the cultural norms of honour and shame affected all levels of society.

In the next verses, Luke uses the technique to interior dialogue to let us know what the steward is thinking. Scene four lets us see where the steward’s thinking has taken him, and his solution to the problem – he will gain himself both honour and friends if he reduces the amounts due to his master. At the same time he will be increasing his master’s honour, because those on the receiving end will understand that the generosity has been extended by the landowner.

Finally the landowner commends the actions of the steward – he has not only secured his own future, but at the same time he has restored and enhanced the honour of his master. It is a win/win situation.

In summary:

  • A steward is mismanaging the estate
  • Rumours of this reach his master
  • He is told he can’t manage any more
  • He comes up with a solution
  • He is praised for his wise (shrewd) action
  • Action/vs no action

In short we will all be called to account, but rather than thinking that there is no solution we are challenged to think about our eternal future and to take action which might be risky, but which has the potential to result in a good outcome all around[3].

 

 

 

 

[1] We don’t know for example the nature of the loans or to whom they were made. Both the items loaned and the quantities are unusual and we only hear of two whereas there were probably several others.

[2] Verses 8b and 9 are a commentary on the parable that suggests that embarrassment at the commendation of dishonesty was early.

 

[3] I am heavily indebted to Jeffrey Durkin whose insightful article has given me an appreciation of the parable that I would otherwise not have had.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on A win/win situation

Not one but two sons

March 5, 2016

Lent 4 – 2016

Luke 15:11-32

Marian Free

In the name of God who longs for us to lower our guard, let go of our pride and allow ourselves to be completely and unconditionally love. Amen.

When many of us were growing up, we knew today’s parable as “The Prodigal Son” – the story of the wastrel who took his share of his inheritance before his father had even died, spent it all, and yet was welcomed home in a show of extravagant love. Over the past few years I have become used to calling the parable “The Forgiving Father” because it has been argued that the point being made was more about the reaction of the father than it was about the action of the returning son. My reading this time around has opened my eyes to another, and to my mind, more applicable title – “The parable of two sons”.

This much loved parable is so popular that the story has passed into popular culture and the expression, “prodigal son” is almost as well known as a “Good Samaritan”. Popular usage and interpretation often makes us blind to the role of the older son, who gets mentioned as an example of poor sportsmanship or else is ignored altogether. A close examination, or even a re-reading of the parable without the blinkers of past experience and pre-conceptions makes it very clear that this is the “parable of two sons”. The clue, as we might expect is the first sentence: “There was a man who had two sons.” There is no need for Jesus to mention the older brother unless he is essential to the story. As we will discover, the older brother is not simply an addition at the end to be taken or left, he is an integral part of the point that Jesus is making.

A fundamental aspect of first century culture is that of honour and shame. A person’s (read man’s) position in society was entirely dependent on what others thought of him and there was a strict code that governed the interaction of equals and that between those who were not of equal status. Honour was ascribed (a matter of birth) or acquired (bestowed by virtue of some act such as service to the Emperor that a person performed.) Whether ascribed or acquired, honour had to be carefully guarded if a person was to maintain their position in the court of public opinion.

The beheading of John the Baptist fits into this picture of honour and shame. Having made a promise in front of his guests, Herod would have been publically shamed if he hadn’t given his stepdaughter what she requested. Being deposed from the best place at a dinner party (Luke 14:7) would be equally embarrassing for a person who had taken the higher place. When Jesus argued with and confronted the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus was in effect, challenging their honour. When he bested them in debate they were publically humiliated – unable to maintain their position of authority in the eyes of the crowds. In order to restore their honour, they had to find ways to expose and humiliate Jesus.

Associated with the culture of honour and shame is that of the collective personality. In our individualistic world, it is difficult for us to understand that a person in the first century did not see themselves apart from their family and the community in which they lived. The action of one member of the family impacted positively or negatively on the family as a whole, which was why it was so important for the head of a household to have firm control over his family and their public and private behaviour[1].

All of which brings us back to the two sons. By asking for his inheritance, the younger son brings the family into disrepute by, in effect, wishing that his father were dead. Then, having taken his share of the inheritance, he brings further shame on the family by squandering the money, and by working not only for a Gentile, but as a swineherd. Despite all this and against all cultural norms and expectations, the father longs for his son’s return, watching and waiting for him to come home. When he sees the son, he casts all dignity to the wind as he does the unthinkable and runs to embrace him. Jesus’ listeners would have been astounded, that the father could endure so much shame and then further humiliate himself by doing the unimaginable – running down the road in full view of everyone.

During the absence of the younger son, the respectable, rule-abiding son has remained at home, doing what was expected and creating no waves. It seems however that his motivation has been, to some extent, self-seeking. He is not doing the right thing out of love and respect for his father, but because he expects to be noticed and to have his efforts rewarded. He has failed to see and understand that he already has his father’s love and attention. Instead he has got it into his head that he has to work for it. As long as our focus is on the younger son, we fail to see that the older son dishonours his father as much as his brother has. We fail to see that the father endures a similar amount of public shame in his attempt to convince the elder son of his love. The older son’s refusal to go into the house and join the party shows a lack of respect for his father and exposes the father to disgrace in front of the servants and neighbours.

We are not told whether the older son, like the younger comes to his senses. The story is left up in the air for the listener to answer. To understand this we have to go back to the beginning of the chapter and the statement that introduces Jesus’ three parables of the lost – the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost sons. Luke tells us that: the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” The parable is left up in the air to allow Jesus’ listeners to form their own opinion, to allow them to consider whether or not, they will allow themselves to be gathered into God’s love alongside the tax collectors and sinners.

The gospels demonstrate what to many is an unpalatable truth – that God loves everyone unconditionally and that salvation is dependent more on what God does for us than on what we do for God. The failure of the older son, is that he is unable to accept and to value the love that his father offers. As a consequence locks himself out of the benefits that are his for the asking. He cannot rejoice in his brother’s return, because he has not allowed himself to be loved.

God loves us. It remains for us to accept that we are loved. When we know that we are loved, we cannot help but allow others to share in that love.

(See last weeks sermon to see how much God agonises over our refusal to be loved.)

[1] We see a form of this in the honour killings that so horrify us in the Western world. A father or brother feels that the only way to restore the family honour is to kill the daughter who by falling in love with the wrong person has brought shame on the family as a whole.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Not one but two sons