Towards the end of the week someone in the office said to me "I'm looking forward to hearing this sermon" - a comment that worried me a bit. Mind you, between choosing the sermon passage for what was going to be the last in my series on Luke's parables and getting some words down about it I'd realised why she was so intrigued. It is a notoriously difficult passage - not one I've preached on before and not one I remember hearing a sermon on. It's almost embarrassing to admit that this might have been a story Jesus told - but admit it we must. It has a good textual history with only a few minor variants so we can't pass it off as a corrupted version of the original, and the very difficulty of it makes it more likely rather than less likely that Jesus actually told it. Even so, biblical scholars of the stature of Rudolph Bultmann have thrown their hands up trying to understand it - a story of a crooked manager who gets out of his difficulties by doing some more swindling - but he's praised for it! Jesus even seems to be saying we should be like that! One of the commentators says "this seems to bring before us a new Jesus, one who seems inclined to compromise with evil. he bases the teaching on the story of a shrewd scoundrel who feathered his own nest at the expense of the man who had trusted him, then appears to say to his disciples, 'let this be your model!'" (CC Torrey)

Even Luke seems to struggle with the application of the story - he keeps adding verses to give three different endings to try to explain the moral lesson in the story:

8b Children of the light should be as shrewd as the worldly

9 As long as we use crooked cash faithfully we'll build eternal houses

10-12 We must be faithful with what we are given to be trusted with more.

Some have suggested the different endings reflect different concerns in the community over time. The first telling of the parable was to do with how to live your life in a time when judgment is imminent, a second level reflects more long term concerns of how to use wealth wisely. Others say the story is an illustration of how God's laws had become corrupted - everyone knew that it was against the Levitical Law to charge interest, so maybe the manager was merely subtracting the illegal interest he had charged. In this interpretation everyone ends up in a good light - the law is upheld so the manager is inadvertently acting in a righteous way, and the master who is still owed debts ends up with all that he was owed originally.

So there are some attempts at neat explanations but I lean towards that given by Kenneth Bailey, a New Testament scholar who has lived and worked in Palestine and has looked at many of the parables in a book entitled "Through Peasant Eyes". Let's recall again what actually happens in this parable.

There are two main characters in the story: A rich man, the owner of the estate, referred to as the Master, and the steward whose role is that of estate manager.

Everyone knew that the manager was crooked, and word got back to the Master who called him in and confronted him. Probably quite wisely the man doesn't incriminate himself any further by saying something, but his silence is a tacit admission of guilt.

The master sacks him on the spot, effectively saying, "Go and clear out your office and hand over the books for a full audit."

Note that he is dismissed, not jailed: the master reacts justly but still mercifully towards the steward.

On his way to get the books the steward speaks for the first time, but to himself, like a number of characters in parables - he is not asking himself how he can get his job back but asking how he can survive in the future. For him it has become a matter of life and death - he has lost his livelihood and in such a time and place where word gets around small communities quickly, he will have lost his reputation also. Finding another job would be difficult, even if he turned to manual labour we know from other stories that this sort of work was unreliable and precarious - it wouldn't be long before he might end up like Lazarus, begging at the gate even though the idea abhorred him.

But he comes up with a plan - he is not known as the shrewd steward for nothing. He carries out his plan quickly, before his dismissal becomes known in the community. He calls in the debtors at once, urging them to change the bill of debt, the implication being that he has negotiated a reduction of debt with the master. It's a clever scheme, he will get the credit for the debtors' good fortune - a bit like a union official who negotiates better conditions for the workers. But it's a risky scheme: if it works he will have secured his future, but if it fails he very likely will end up in jail or worse.

We realise how ingenious the plan is when the master is faced with the done deed. The community are already out there celebrating the master's generosity: if he were to tell the debtors it was a mistake and have them revert to their original debts, he would be seen as mean and stingy (even if grudgingly they admit it was his right); if he keeps quiet, accepts the gratitude of the debtors and allows the steward to ride high on the wave of popular acclaim he will continue to be seen as a generous man -a quality highly valued in the middle east.

So he commends the steward for his shrewdness, his wisdom as the word might be translated. And that is where the original story probably ended.

To find the point that Bailey draws out we need to remember that while the master had dismissed the steward on hearing of his earlier mismanagement, he had even then dealt mercifully with him. The steward knew his master was generous and merciful, and risked his subsequent actions on that knowledge. The generosity would spill over so that others who had benefited would be allowed to enjoy the benefits, and the good name of the master would be maintained. The steward correctly understood the extent of his master's mercy. In losing out financially, the master paid the price for the steward's future.

We know that parables were giving a snapshot of the Kingdom of God. It occurred to me that maybe Jesus is trying to correct a common image of God that wasn't the God he knew - was God a severe judge, demanding retribution when humankind fails? Or was God indeed a master who, though expecting honesty, had arms open enough to welcome the scoundrel with grace? Remember the parable of the Prodigal Son comes just before this parable in Luke's Gospel.

Some of the difficulty of this story is that it seems to reflect badly on Jesus. Not that this should be a surprise to us - remember the number of times Jesus was accused of keeping bad company, or accepting the attentions of suspect characters. And although such criticism came from the leaders of society, in general Jesus' listeners were at the bottom of the economic ladder, and they would have enjoyed the twist in the tale. In the shrewd steward getting the better of his master they would have seen another David slaying a Goliath. To be honest, we don't mind this sort of tale either. Earlier this year I watched a DVD of the movie "Getting' Square". You couldn't help but feel sympathetic with the ex-cons - even druggie Spitieri played by David Wenham at his least attractive, and cheer them on when they were able to outsmart corrupt cops and the rich crim boss. Don't we love a Ned Kelly, ripping off the rich to provide for the poor, or the story of Robin Hood which in at least some versions may have another parallel with our parable - in the end King Richard overlooks the outlaw's unlawful behaviour because he was acting in the spirit of the king's generosity as opposed to the selfish and exploitative reign of his brother aided and abetted by the Sheriff of Nottingham.

And many of Jesus parables feature unsavoury characters. Often the message is a favourite rabbinic device: "how much more". If the widow gets what she wants from an unjust judge, how much more will God grant your request? If a man got bread in the middle of the night from a reluctant neighbour, how much more will God give you what you need? If this dishonest steward solved his problem by relying on the mercy of his master, how much more will God's mercy be available to you in your time of crisis?

One of Luke's explanatory additions seems to pick up this idea. If the children of this age are shrewd in their dealings, how much more could the children of light practice astuteness? They manage their affairs for selfish gain. Could we use our financial resources and creativity to build the kingdom of God? Can we pursue economic justice for those who are disadvantaged? Shouldn't we welcome shrewd business managers if there is a financial advantage to ministries of compassion? I think it was John Wesley who said "earn all you can and save all you can in order to give all you can."

I've come across several references to the Riverside Church in New York recently. There is an interesting alliance of corporate business and spirituality in its history.

In the 1920s John D Rockefeller Jnr donated millions of dollars to build an inclusive new church on one of Manhattan's highest hills, modelled after France's 13th-century Gothic cathedral at Chartres. Rockefeller was on the pastoral search committee when the pacifist Harry Emerson Fosdick's name was proposed and the corporate giant asked to meet him over lunch. I've come across two exchanges between these significant men: Fosdick was apparently reluctant to consider becoming known as the pastor of the richest man in the world and made this clear to Rockefeller, who said "do you think that more people will criticise you on account of my wealth, than will criticize me on account of your theology?" It may have been at the same lunch that Fosdick said to Rockefeller, "Do you realize how much I have to explain you to my friends?" to which Rockefeller replied, "Not nearly as much as I have to explain you to mine!"" And yet from this alliance a church of worldwide significance flowered and continues to be influential.

And while we are on the subject of money, let's find a side to this parable that isn't quite so spiritual as the embracing grace of God, even though I believe that is its overarching message. You may remember that many of the characters in Luke's parables have trouble with money. The prodigal wastes it, the rich man refuses to share, a woman goes searching for a lost coin, a widow presses a case involving money. And throughout Luke's parables there is a special concern for the poor, the social outcasts. The stories are about shepherds, women, tax collectors. Lazarus the scaly beggar is elevated to the bosom of Abraham, the servants preparing for the Great Banquet are sent out to bring in the blind, the lame, the crippled. The Greek word for the manager in our parable is oikonomos - the root of our word economy.

The issue at the end of the parable was cancellation or reduction of debts. The scheming of the steward led to a lowering of debt to which the master (for whatever reason) consented. Economic concerns aren't removed even in the light of God's grace and mercy. And as one writer has put it, "The result was a glimpse for the debtors of another order, one in which forgiveness of debt would be more than a petition in a prayer." (William Herzog)

In our society where we live by the dollar and admire and reward those who are good business managers, this parable may have particular power. In our society which thrives on consumerism and the credit card with its spin off of debt with interest repayments, this parable might have a word to say. In our society where the shares index blinds our eyes to downsizing and human sacrifice for the sake of the profit margin, this parable may have a challenge. It could even be a resource alongside the great Jubilee chapter of Leviticus 25 for the worldwide "Drop the Debt" campaign which is still active - encouraging the nations of our world to reduce or drop the crippling debt of third world nations.

The manager, whatever his motives, changes his focus from making money to making friends. In the desperation of his own need he turns to human beings ahead of profit. He puts relationships above cash - something we all should be doing. This isn't a parable about morality. It's not a parable about being good managers of wealth either. It's a parable reminding us of the grace of God, lived out in the life of Jesus, and therefore a model for us to follow. And what was Jesus' mission according to the beginning of Luke's gospel? "To bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captive and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free." Our first responsibility is not to our hip pocket, but to our neighbours. What will we give to them? Would we go so far as to lay down our lives?

Week by week as we gather here to worship God will address us through the stories of our faith, and through their intersection with our real life situations, and through the signs of Jesus' own life of love and sacrifice. As "children of the light", how much more should we be doing business God's way - the business of living our lives in such a way as we love God with our souls, hearts and minds and love our neighbours as ourselves.

Jeanette Mathews
08/08/04