Embracing a gift economy –Ā Tom Mundahl reflects on Luke 16:1-13.
Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ
Readings for September 18-24, Year C (2013, 2016, 2019, 2022)
Amos 8:4-7
Psalm 113
1 Timothy 2:1-7
Luke 16:1-13
A recent steamy August afternoon found my son and me in a movie theater eager to see Neil Blomkampās dystopian film, āElysium.āĀ Ā Set in the year 2154, when, despite the efforts of websites like this one, life on planet earth has been degraded to utter bleakness. Nevertheless, there is still a wealthy minority living on the satellite Elysium, who enjoy clean water, air, and ease just nineteen minutes by space freighter away from āplantation earth.ā Not only was this film a good escape from the summer heat, it reminded me of the āproblem of wealthā offered by this Sundayās readings.
The theme is first heard from Amos, āthe herdsman and dresser of sycamore treesā (Amos 7:14), who brings Godās word to those āwho trample on the needy, and bring ruin to the poor of the land . . . .ā (Amos 8:4). It is echoed by the music of Psalm 113 that praises the LORD āwho raises the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes . . . .ā (Psalm 113:7-8).Ā Ā But it is our Gospel text, the parable of āthe Rich Man and the Managerā (Luke 16:1-13) that provides the drama and depth to focus our discussion.
Unlike most traditional interpretations, we begin with the rich man. The problem of wealth is central to this section of Luke. From the āsolid citizensā who turn down the invitation to the banquet and are replaced by the āpoor and outcastā (Luke 14:18-22), to the parables in Luke 15 that confront the religious establishmentās criticism of Jesusā habit of dining with these folks (15:1-2), to the parable of āthe Rich Man and Lazarusā following todayās passage (Luke 16:19-31), the warning against centering oneās life on wealth is clear (cf. Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol 1. Fortress, 1991 pp. 185-186.) Before there is a problem with a shifty manager, the sheer fact of wealth must be confronted.
The problem of wealth is unveiled by the introduction to the parable. Just as the introduction to the previous parable, āthere was a man who had two sonsā (15:11), suggests tension, so the simple sentence āthere was a rich man who had a managerā(16:1) suggests conflict to come. The fuel for these conflicts is money and property. And, not surprisingly, both the younger son and the manager engage in the same activity of āsquandering propertyā (Luke 15:13, Luke 16:1). If the reaction of the ārunning fatherā to the āprodigalā surprises, the ultimate commendation of the manager by the rich master (Luke 16:8) nearly takes our breath away!
What prompts this unexpected response? As the first charges against the manager surface, it is natural that the owner asks for an accounting. At first, according to Luke Timothy Johnson, this āauditā is not necessarily punitive.Ā Ā It may be more a simple matter of āletās go over the books and see how things stand.āĀ Ā (The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991, p. 244)
But this is no simple matter for the manager. Since he knows the difficulty he is in, there is desperation in his mind as he imagines alternatives, until the crisis forces a decision. āI have decided what to do so that when I am dismissed as manager, people will welcome me into their homesā (Luke 16:4). Without delay, he summons his masterās debtors and settles their accounts with deep discounts (Luke 16:6-7).
Amazingly, the master commends him for (what NRSV translates as) his āshrewdnessā (phronimus), a word that may also be translated as āprudence.ā Whether it is āshrewd clevernessā or āworldly prudence,ā it is a quality that āthe Parablerā wishes that the new community, āthe children of light,ā would learn from (Luke 16:8b). Perhaps the reasoning underlying this advice is the importance of using ādishonest wealthā (lit. āunjust mammonā) to make friends who will welcome them. Certainly, in keeping with the Hellenistic notion of āreciprocity of benefit,ā the former manager has now formed bonds of obligation with those receiving discounts, who will now be expected to open their homes to him.Ā Ā (Johnson, p. 244)
But the rich masterās commendation suggests a move beyond reciprocity, simple ādeal making.ā Perhaps an alternative translation to āshrewdnessā is āappropriateness.ā This sudden burst of discounting unveils the structure of economic activity and its basis in real human relationships. It discloses to the rich man the interdependence of the flow of economic activity and gives him a way out from the idolatrous weight of endlessly seeking wealth,Ā mammon, a Semitic word meaning āthat in which one fully trusts.ā (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, III. Oxford: 2001, New Testament, p. 128, n. 9)
No wonder this parable is completed with words suggesting the authority of a ādominical saying:ā āAnd I tell you, makeĀ friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes [perhaps better: āa community that lastsā]ā (Luke 16:9). Suddenly the realm of economics is ānormedā by friendship (āmake friends for yourselfā). What kind of an economics might that be?
Clearly, Luke believes that possessions can be used for good, especially when, instead of being kept out of circulation by wealthy greed (lit. mammon) they flow into a pattern of bargaining kept in check by friendship, a force even more powerful than the reciprocity sought by the manager.
Johnson is partially right in holding that āThe crisis character of the story is essential. It is the managerās ability to respond to the crisis, literally a āvisitation of his Lord,ā which is the point of the story, the reason for the masterās admiration, and the example for the disciples. His cleverness consists inĀ continuing to disperse possessionsĀ . . . . (authorās emphasis, Johnson, 247). By reducing the amounts owed, a new kind of economic activity is foreshadowed. But the rich master also learns from the managerās action, for he is the one who ācommendsā the shifty steward.Ā Ā And it is this master who begins to see it as a way beyond the shackles of āmammon,ā a new way of being.
This new vision of economic relations as a dispersal of possessions or a circulation of gifts surely fits into Lukeās ānew exodusā theme. It is a process that will ālift up the lowlyā (cf. Luke 1:52) and characterize the new community (cf. Acts 2:44-47, 4:32-35). In his important work, The GiftĀ (New York: Vintage, 1983), Lewis Hyde describes what can happen when trade relations are re-imagined.Ā Ā Hyde describes anthropologist Lorna Marshallās work with a band of Bushmen in South Africa in the early 1950ās. Upon leaving after several years of work, she gave each woman in the band enough cowrie shells for a short necklace, one large brown shell and twenty smaller gray ones. When Marshall returned a year later, there were very few cowrie shells to be seen among the women in the band where they had been given. Marshall was dumfounded to notice that because of the flow of gift-giving āthey appeared, not as whole necklaces, but in ones and twos in peopleās ornaments to the edges of the regionā (quoted in Hyde, p. 74).
Certainly this moves beyond economy as we understand it. Yet this notion of living generously with possessions is clearly in harmony with the teachings following the parable (Luke 16:10-13)Ā Ā Perhaps most importantāif not chillingāfor North Americans is the final pronouncement: āYou cannot serve God and wealth [āmammonā] (Luke 16:13). Johnson puts an exclamation point on this saying in his translation by retaining āmammonā and capitalizing it to remind us that Mammon certainly retains godlike power—especially in our culture.
Transforming culture is, of course, what this parable is about. It is crucial that the parable itself ends with the notion of being welcomed into āeternal homesā (lit. ātentsā,Ā skene, another reference to the New Exodus experience (Luke 16: 9). Because of what has happened in Jerusalem with cross and resurrection, Godās people are secure in their pilgrim existence and free to live by gift.Ā Ā This cultural change toward a āgift economyā has enormous implications for earth care. Seeing what we use in our lives not as possessions to control but as gifts to be shared could not be more important.
Blomkampās āElysiumā affirms this. While oppressed Earth dwellers long for the āgood lifeā enjoyed by the 1% on Elysium, the filmās hero, Max, (Matt Damon) still carries a medallionĀ givenĀ to him by a Roman Catholic sister, his former teacher. As the film reaches its climax with Max expending his life to find a way to use Elysiumās medical technology to heal the leukemia of the daughter of a childhood friend and, as a result, opening access to the 99% who have been excluded, the dying Max opens the medallion. What he sees is no iconic image of a saint; it is a photo of the beautiful Earth taken from Elysium.
Tom MundahlĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā St. Paul, MNĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā tmundahl@gmail.com
For additional care for creation reflections on the overall themes of the lectionary lessons for the monthĀ by Trisha K Tull, Professor Emerita of Old Testament, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and columnist for TheĀ Working Preacher, visit:Ā http://www.workingpreacher.org/columnist_home.aspx?author_id=288