Matthew 25:14-30
Proper 28 (33) - Year A
In a capitalistic society it is very easy to see how a conversation about money can get transferred into character traits (thus the shift in meaning of the word "talent"). We are our money. If you double your money you are doubly good, doubly blessed.
If we leave this in the realm of a story about how this world works and cold, hard, heavy cash, the focus of the story changes.
No longer is it G*D who is the slave-owner, but the Economic System owns the slaves and expects them to have the same obsession about money.
We usually expect G*D to be in the power position - in this story the source of money. But if we can cast our memories back far enough to where usury was limited and the focus is not on the individual bottom-line, we might be able to catch a glimpse of Jesus' rejection of wealth as the measuring-line of life. He shows this in giving to Caesar what is Caesar's (here is your money back, no more and no less).
The result is what we know happened to Jesus - what little he had was taken from him and he was cast into Gehenna (descended into hell), worthless.
So, fellow slave, are you playing the game of the world or are you revealing the world to itself?
- - -
[Gordon (Reader)
I'm troubled by the interpretation of the parable that "turns it on its head," making it a story not about the KG, but about the world and its evil systems. It seems to me to be classic example of eisegesis, an anachronistic interpretation, where present realities are read back into the text to justify current positions regarding those present realities.
The use of "use value" versus "exchange value" is an example. Concepts drawn from 19th century economic theory are put into the minds of 1st Century city dwellers in Palestine.
Another problem is the simplistic reading of the text. On one hand, the authors seem to accept the research of contemporary Biblical scholarship. But, on the other hand, they write as if such scholarship did not exist. The sequence of the parables in the Gospels hardly comes from Jesus, yet the authors tell us that the preceding parable about the maidens told to be alert is the tip-off for the parable following. So the parable about the maidens and the oil lamps was really a nod and a wink to those in on the subversive teaching that a real critique of the capitalist system coming up next.
I'll say no more for now in the interests of brevity, other than to say that the rich and powerful are not the only ones who are uncomfortable with the teachings of Jesus. They are not the only ones who reshape the text to justify their own political positions and ideological stands.
- - -
Wesley (Author)
Gordon - Thanks for raising your concerns. It is a classic example of eisegesis. In fact classic eisegetic examples abound even in the classic examples of exegesis. There is no getting away from ourselves.
Is there any value in looking at these sorts of stories from several perspectives (even those that one might like to place outside the bounds of thought)?
That is part of the questions I wrestle with. Where were the bounds of yesterday (based on the limits of our ancestors in the faith), where are the bounds of today's limiting vision, and where might we stretch to begin approaching the bounds of tomorrow's expanded, but still limited, perspective?
It sounds as if this is clearer for you.
Thanks for your cautionary words as we are all in this together and truly need one another as we move along.]
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2002/november2002.html
I appreciate a note in The New Interpreter's Study Bible, "Regrettably the parable again co-opts imperial structures. The 'rich get richer' pattern encourages disciples to be faithful and ready, But the Gospel has criticized this imperial practice (19:16-22). The parable focuses so much on its message that it overlooks these larger concerns."
For some there is no larger concern than so focusing one's life, in religious terms and modalities, that more disciples are made from investing our gifts in their lives. This emphasizes the doing part of our faith structures over the contemplative, maturing aspects. There is a certain frenetic activity that is encouraged here over, also important, "work" that can only be done in withdrawal for prayer and preparation.
Sometimes I see the worthless, third servant, thrown into the outer darkness as following the creedal Christ into hell to be a witness there, a disciple to the outcast reminding them of G*D's continued presence even here. Can you envision Job as this third servant? How about yourself (or is this a special charism you hope someone else will receive)?
As important as these troublesome parables or allegories have been for many down through the years, there is a place for revisioning them from a post-resurrectional view, a pentecostal experience, or in ordinary terms among the already left out and the already left behind.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/november2005.html
Do you know that G*D scatters salvation, willy-nilly, and gathers all that is saved from even the most inauspicious and lost and dark places?
If so, what risky investment will you not make in life in general and any life in particular?
If not, what rule will you not make up to justify hanging on to what you think you have?
If so, you are always on tip-toe to notice this amazing and miraculous process and to participate by being an early adapter to the latest demonstration of mercy.
If not, you are always on guard to find the rule that will allow things to go on as they have, even if the good of some has to be sacrificed for the good of the many (naturally including the one on guard).
If so, we will cut others in on the deal.
If not, we will go it alone.
Do you know G*D's journey turns loose of control?
Do you know G*D's salvation is available even in deep dark wailing and gnashing places?
Whether you prosper or hoard -- salvation is yours. Why not participate in letting loose of resources, entrusting it to the community? This is where the fun of life is, so why hide it away?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/november2005.html
Life has been given into our hands. Some have received one gift; some another.
What to do with gifts is a perennial issue. The way we use a gift this year may be different than the way we were called to use it last year. It is difficult to keep up with a Living G*D.
The doing of evil may be as simple as continuing to use a gift in a manner no longer called for. Persistence of evil might be seen as a persistence of behavior beyond its time with no new listening, learning, or living.
It is this persistence of past talents that can be the same as burying them in the past and protecting them from being invested in the present and future. Thank goodness for communities that continue to challenge and support us in our use of gifts - for challenging us when we keep repeating ourselves past usefulness and for stimulating and encouraging us to new uses of given gifts.
- - -
a thousand years
swept away like a dream
and we complain
we bewail
we are at wit's endthe pull of habit
is strong
persistent
insistent
desiredeven if there is new grass
growing through cement
we cling to our cement
claiming it to be life
in the presence of real lifemay the light of day
keep us from SAD
cast a beam upon our path
warm our waning days
and lead us to one anothera thousand days
pfftt
gone
no regret
today's enough
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html
This passage hinges on the word "afraid". The third "slave" (which is an important starting context) is claimed to be afraid. It is this quality that is then used as a reason for their behavior and eventual dismissal to an outer region.
I'm not in a research place right now to look at alternatives, but suspect that when one has the power to banish, any resistance is going to be claimed as coming from a place of fear. Masters use fear to control and then blame those who stand up to them as fearful. It's a destructive self-referential circle.
Here are three questions that provide an opening through which we can poke at the judgmental character of these end-of-the-year stories:
1) By what means might a slave be expected to double their money?
2) Is not an advantaged slave still a slave?
3) Is not a slave already in a place of darkness?
See this passage through the lens of a fairy-tale with the third telling bringing a needed breakthrough. The benevolent, giving master is now revealed as greedy and demanding. Surely there is a better place to end the year than with the gnashing of teeth.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html
Ahh, sweet investment. Out in the world one person’s gain seems to be another’s loss. It is good to know that a person with wealth is willing to commit it into another’s care. Even further, it is so sweet that 2 out of 3 double their original holding. Wise beyond belief? Willing to risk a charge of usury? Lucky? Predestined?
Depending on a time frame for return, the un-regulated derivatives of that day may not have crashed yet, but did so right after the story. Whatever economic bubble or larger debt may have come between their eventual effects and not turn 5 or 2 units of wealth into 0 or some other negative return, did not so come.
More to the point than again pointing out the consequences of not following the prescribed way, is a vision of G*D as “harsh”. If you are going to get it in the neck anyway, why put yourself out? There may be a correlation between an envisioning of a harsh G*D and following a restricted life.
There are those who see a harsh G*D and claim that it motivates them to find ways to not be cast out. They, of course, see themselves ending up with 11 units of economic wealth where they began with zero. That may work for them in the short-run. However, to claim that one is protected and will always win because they have backed the right G*D, will eventually be shown for the forced and failed joy it claims. Eventually we lose our early edge and begin to err.
A basic question here is whether property is only good for leveraging more property or if it has a relational component that does not pit one person or group against another. It may even be that we need to bring some other parts of the Bible to bear to find even the two exemplars here failed to redistribute the wealth available to them.
This is all leading up to the story of sheep and goats and another division between people. How does this story play out in light of the one coming two weeks hence?
After another church year, is this harsh casting into outer darkness the best we can do? Is the goal of acquisition the best we can do? Is this the image of G*D that we are to imitate?
If this is the culmination of year’s worth of work, it is no wonder we need another Advent. Start now and avoid the rush!
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2011/11/matthew-2514-30.html
loyalty good - unmerciful loyalty not so good
gifts have comeout of the blue and unbidden
identified in time and space
as to their origin
and where thanks and loyalty
is to be directed
loyalty demands loyalty
even when it should
bring forth justice
or mercy
and so best intentions
fall before strict loyalty
gifts intended for expansion
brought self-constriction
lest past and future gifts
be diminished
great care is given
to securing gifts
and eventually a gift
intended to lift all boats
puts a hole in the hull
with a mere bit-o-mass
of heaviest density
an empty spot sinks
blind loyalty
conditional mercy
cheap commitment
comes around to bite
lions as strong as nittany’s
to cause cain’s self-exile
surprising gifts
turn to expected perks
privileged position
never ready for
a next surprise
or humble response
therefore encourage
a wider application
of building up
a reservoir of common good
against punctured entitlement
of ballooned loyalty
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2011/11/loyalty-good-unmerciful-loyalty-not-so.html
At home or on a journey we are always entrusting our self and stuff to others. Here it sounds as if the owner of people did not do due diligence regarding those specifically and intentionally entrusted with a few coins. The behaviors of the "servants" probably followed their usual patterns of behavior. So was this a set-up or a morality play? Are playing with fate or a legitimate choice?
If you were a judge here how would you assign responsibility? In today's fascination with austerity in an abundant world, not losing may be the best deal going. Overall, a return of +7 on an investment in a mixed portfolio is pretty good. Why the anger at one that broke even?