“Truth & Its Consequences”

Matthew 25:14-30

November 16, 2008
Twenty-seventh Sunday After Pentecost

Preached at Kingston Road United Church by the Rev. Richard C. Choe

* * *

Truth and its consequences.

Every community has commonly held beliefs or interpretations of stories that are accepted as truths. These commonly held beliefs are time honoured truths that inform individuals about what is considered good, as in what is acceptable for the well being of the community, and what is deemed evil, meaning what is unacceptable since it harms the community. Whichever qualities a community chooses as good or evil are derived from their common experiences as community. And the kind of choices each community makes as truth lead to consequences that the community has to bear together. Yes, every truth held by a community has its consequences.

Some of those truths are as innocuous as a stable boy becoming a king after taking a sword out of a stone like the legend of King Arthur. The legend of Arthur reveals the community’s commonly held belief that anyone could be chosen by the divine to do good, find honour in search of the holy and fight against evil. The legend portrays the ideals and the “realities” of life of the British way – pursuit of truth, finding and losing love, and the transitory nature of power as part of human realities.

Then, there are beliefs about attributes that “qualify” some folks to be “better” or “worse” than their contemporaries in the community. Every community has systems of social hierarchy as a consequence of the truths they hold about “values” and “qualities” of being a member of the community.

The commonly held beliefs in community, those “truths,” undergird and influence the community’s social conscience.

Watching the Presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain in the United States helped me to see not only what each political party holds as truths but also what the United States as a nation considers as truths in their country.

As a Canadian and a Christian, I found it fascinating that the word “liberal” was considered a dirty word in the US politics. Arguing about “spreading the wealth” as a “Socialist” concept was not a surprise; however, seeing socialism as something very negative by both political parties and by many of the US citizens was a surprise.

What I found most fascinating about the US Presidential campaign was that neither political party really talked about the poor. They talked about the “middle class” extensively – although the definition of the middles class was not as clear to me – but none of the candidates really spent much time to talk about the poor in the US. It was as though the poor did not exist in the US. Being a Muslim seemed to be a damaging factor, if not damning, for the political candidates in the US.

I remember a conversation I had with Frances, my eldest daughter, during the US election. One of the things we talked about was the fact that “spreading the wealth” and “taking care of the needy” were essential Christian values. We talked about the fact that before socialism or communism became a distinct political notion, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and most, if not all, of the religions of the global communities held “spreading the wealth” and “taking care of the downtrodden” as essential parts of their religious beliefs and practices. And we still do hold those values as essential in our faith.

Canadian politics are not much different than those of our neighbours in the South. Remember, we also had a federal election in the midst of the US Presidential campaign? A similar criticism was also raised about the poor being forgotten by the political parties in Canada.

It seems like the US and Canadian societies are deeply immersed in “the rich get richer and the poor get what little they have taken away” version of market economy.

If it is a commonly held belief in our society that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to get things taken away from them, the consequence of that belief will be that our society will find ways to make it a reality. One of the consequences in such a society will be that the rich will continue to find ways to worship the market economy which benefits them as God. Even most of the poor would have internalized those values that marginalize them as truth in such a society. Every truth has its consequences.

The parable of the Talents is one of the most familiar stories from the Bible. The story is so popular and influential that the word “talent,” originally one of the largest currencies in the Mediterranean in Jesus’ time – an amount worth more than 15 years of wages for a daily labourer – came to mean one’s gift or ability in our society. By the way, if you were to consider a person working at a job that pays $10/hour working full-time for 50 weeks a year, the annual salary will be $20,000. One talent in our time, thus, will be $300,000. Five talents is a modern day equivalent of $1.5 million!

We hear and interpret others’ stories by our own world view. Our own experiences of life inform the way we read, hear and interpret stories and experiences of others. Reading, hearing and understanding the stories in the Bible are no exception. As the Parable of the Talents was read this morning, each of us heard it according to our world view and the commonly held beliefs informed by years of sermons and Bible studies.

The first two slaves were faithful because they worked hard to double the money entrusted to them by their master. One turned $600,000 into 1.2 million dollars and the other amassed $3 million dollars out of 1.5 million dollars. The outcome of their faithfulness was a reward for more things and more responsibility given to them. Thus, being faithful means taking a risk and doubling the gifts you are given by God.

The third slave was unfaithful because he did nothing with the money entrusted to him. Hiding the talent entrusted to him by his master represents his laziness and irresponsibility. The end result for him was to be condemned by his master as wicked and lazy, to have everything taken away and be thrown out from his master’s household. Thus, being unfaithful will result in banishment from God’s love.

The story ends with a punch line, “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” [Matthew 25:29-30]

It seems like a straight forward story. Those who risk and work hard for a higher return will be rewarded for their effort and those who do not risk and are lazy will be punished for their non-effort. “God is generous and rewards those who have been faithful to God” was and is one of the underlying points for interpreting the parable. “So, be faithful like the first two slaves!” preachers would proclaim in his or her sermon.

How many of you heard this in the Bible studies or sermons or interpreted it this way yourselves? Varying versions of the interpretation of the parable I just summarized continue to be common. And like any other commonly held beliefs as truth in community, Christian churches and the societies that churches are part of have been influenced by and have experienced the consequences of such truth.

But there is a nagging feeling about the way story is told.

The way the third slave described the master is particularly bothersome. This is what he said, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’” [Matthew 25:24-25]

The master does not dispute the way he was described by the third slave. And he replied to the slave, “You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.” [Matthew 25:26-28]

Jesus proclaimed and preached God as loving Daddy. Then, why does the master in the story come across as such hard headed and hard hearted? According to the third slave, the master seems more like a greedy thief who will do anything to get what he wants. He sounds like Conrad Black and other criminals who swindled millions of dollars from their clients because they could. “If you didn’t have guts to take a risk to get a 100% profit by unscrupulous means, at least you could have legally got 10% from the bank” is what the master seems to be saying to the third slave.

I am not sure whether such characteristics are the kind of characteristics of God that Jesus was portraying. And even if the master does not portray God, I am not sure whether relationships based on the extreme profit margin as the bottom line is the kind of household Jesus envisioned as God’s kingdom. There is something that does not make sense in the interpretations we have been holding as truth.

I came across an article by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode which offers very different interpretations of the Parable of Talents. One of the things they invite readers is to examine the socio-economic contexts of the first century Mediterranean world during which Jesus lived and shared the Parable of Talents.

Here are some facts:

· Most of the listeners of the parable and the followers of Jesus were poor. They were like the slaves in the parable.

· The highest legal interest rate was about 12 percent. Anything higher was considered as rapacious.[i] Those who were the original hearers and the contemporaries of Jesus would have been disgusted at the 100 percent return. They would have heard the high return rate as extortions like those they have experienced.

· The ideal in traditional Mediterranean society was stability of the community, not self-advancement of individuals. Anyone trying to accumulate inordinate wealth risked upsetting the equilibrium of society and was thus understood to be dishonourable. Usury, lending at exorbitant rates of interest, was understood by people in Jesus’ time to be responsible for the destructive cycle of indebtedness and poverty. Profiting from commodity trading was explicitly condemned by people like Aristotle.[ii]

· There are various warning about the prohibition against usury and profiteering off the poor in Torah (Leviticus 25:36).

Myers and DeBode assert that the parable is not about a stewardship where we are called to double the return but about critiquing the economic system that makes such doubling possible in the first place.[iii]

The parable is about exposing the cruelty of the market economy of Jesus’ time that was promoting “rich get richer and poor get what little they have taken away” scheme. The parable is about denouncing such inhumane market economy and those who benefit from it. The parable was told by Jesus to invite the hearers of the story to resist and dissent such an inhumane economic system that was promoting the unbridled greed and rewarding its perpetrators as “good and trustworthy” while punishing the poor by marginalizing them and labelling them as “wicked and lazy.”

Understanding the contexts of the parable brings a different perspective to the story. Hearing and interpreting the parable without being aware of the original contexts of the parable, while immersed in our Capitalist socio-economic contexts, may lead us to not fully appreciate the intent of Jesus’ telling of the parable.

Truth and its consequences. Which interpretation we choose and accept as truth or hold as common belief will shape our faith and life practices. Our commonly held belief will eventually shape and influence the way we live out our faith in life.

“Here, you have what is yours.” This may conjure up a scene where a slave is cowering and trembling with fear as he is handing over the large sum of money to his master, if you believe in “the rich get richer and poor get what little they have taken away” version of the interpretation. But if you were to interpret the parable as the social critique of Jesus on the market economy of his time, you may be able to imagine a scene where a defiant slave chooses to dissent and opt out of the economic system that enslaves people. “Here, take back what is yours!” would be what you would hear from the “whistle-blower,” who unmasked the fact that the master’s wealth is derived entirely from the toil of others.[iv]

Every truth has its consequences.

If our faith community is one that also believes that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to have their possessions taken away from them, then that is going to be the consequence for each and every one of us. Our life and faith will be about getting ahead of others and accumulating wealth by any means necessary. If our community believes that the well being of the whole is the priority of our community, then the consequence of such a belief is that we will be committed to building such a society. Such an interpretation would require us to fundamentally change the way we relate with one another here in the church as well as in our neighbourhood and work place. The poor and the weak will be a priority in our church and our faith practices. Those who cannot take care of themselves will be our focus in our political and economic practices. Well being of everyone in our society will be one of the truths we hold as an underlying social and religious consciousness in our community.

We have committed ourselves to receive Mayei Kojo Anite as part of our faith community today. Our interpretation of the parable and our holding of the interpretation as truth in our community will also inform and shape the way we raise her along with her family.

The concept of King Arthur’s Round Table where no one is above or beneath another is a concept many around the unequal globe still struggle to realize. The Parable of the Talents is also about the Round Table of God’s kingdom where all are cherished and valued as equals. The parable is a reminder and a challenge to each one of us to opt out of and actively dissent the systems of power that reward the powerful while neglecting and abandoning the weak. May we be enabled by God to struggle to build a society where all are cared for and everyone can share their wealth for the well being of one’s community.

Amen.

--
[i] Richard Rohrbaugh cited in Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, http://lists.joinhands.com/pipermail/midrash/2005-November/001925.html. In his article "A Peasant Reading of the Parable of the Talents," Richard Rohrbaugh notes that in antiquity the highest legal interest rate was about 12 percent; anything higher was considered rapacious.
[ii] Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology cited in Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, http://lists.joinhands.com/pipermail/midrash/2005-November/001925.html.
[iii] Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology cited in Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves, http://lists.joinhands.com/pipermail/midrash/2005-November/001925.html.
[iv] William Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, cited in Towering Trees and ‘Talented’ Slaves by Ched Myers and Eric DeBode, http://lists.joinhands.com/pipermail/midrash/2005-November/001925.html & in David B. Gowler, What Are They Saying About Parables? http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dgowler/chapter6.htm.