A look at the gaps in the lectionary.
This week: the gap between Proper 14C and Proper 15C.
I’ll be honest. The lectionary skipping over this text is a pretty solid move. It is bleak. And not just a little bit ripe for confusion.
Through the twelfth chapter, Luke has been committed to keeping it real with his disciples. Beware of the Pharisees. Your fates are sealed. Keep alert. Do the junk you’re supposed to do.
This, of course, is the central purpose of this section, too.
Peter tries to get some clarification about these expectations. He asks if this stuff is for the crowds following along, or just the disciples. And I think this is a pretty astounding question from Peter. Far deeper than I expect from the guy. Precisely because he isn’t arguing with it.
He’s asking if this is a leader thing or a universal thing. And I think that is a question Christians keep asking each other. Especially in 21st Century North America. This hard work is for clergy, right? Right?
And in the usual form, Jesus kind of ignores the question. His response is like a riddle compared with the question’s intention for clarity. Jesus jumps into an analogy of “the faithful and prudent manager”.
That’s when this encounter gets weird. Jesus starts talking about the manager being appointed while the master is away. Then the manager exploits the people. And when the master comes back, gets a beating.
Let’s be honest, the level of this-therefore-that here gets us going.
Then Jesus digresses to split the difference between the slave who exploits on purpose (who gets a serious beating) and the one who does it without intention (who gets a light beating).
And he wraps it up with a proverb about responsibility and trust.
At first glance
This passage feels pretty straight forward. And when we read it carefully, we can see that it does deal with Peter’s question. Though very indirectly. And, I think we need to acknowledge how many dots must be connected before we can actually say that it does.
If the question is “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?” Then we have to make a good number of givens. He sees disciples as leaders. They have a responsibility to the “everyone”. There will be a time when the master leaves them in charge. And they will understand what exploiting looks like.
Given all that, then it is an analogy that speaks like an answer to Peter saying this is for you.
I think, however, that there’s a lot here that is directed at the everyone, as well. Two stand out more than anything else. The picture of exploitation is one. And the recognition that intention plays a big part in sin is the second. Specifically, intending to hurt someone is worse. AND unintentionally hurting someone is still sin.
However, the beatings stand out.
Despite what these nuances about the intention of this story reveal, they aren’t what dominates this passage. Jesus talking about people getting a severe beating is what really stands out.
And I wonder if this itself reveals the natural bias of the modern reader.
The link between the violence of the slave to his people and the violence of the master toward the slave is out of proportion to us—which says far more about us than it does Jesus.
Consider that this slave’s exploitation of the community is severe and intentional. He abuses people. He uses the master’s money to make himself rich. This slave is literally responsible for the health of his neighbors.
It, therefore, isn’t a stretch to suggest that all of us are therefore somewhat responsible for the lives of our neighbors. Particularly when we take advantage of generous systems of government and our neighbors who fall through the cracks, end up on the street.
Now, do we consider the master’s beating of that slave just? Or more importantly, do we hold the master to a standard we (unintentionally) forgive in the slave?
If the root of our disproportionate response to this relationship is that we want God to be better than us, then perhaps Jesus is asking us why aren’t we striving to be as good as God?
Checking in on sin.
I’ll confess that I find this passage philosophically troubling because it seems to engender violence to God which seems incompatible with the love and generosity of God.
But I also think that I get to that conclusion by completely divorcing myself from my responsibility to my neighbor. As if I turn around from my responsibility to my neighbor so I can wag my finger at God. I desire God to be generous to everyone while I remain stingy with my resources.
Jesus seems to couple a sense of responsibility to the human and the divine. And that certainly makes my head uncomfortable about the divine, but only if I’m avoiding my part in that relationship.
And this becomes even truer when we see where Jesus goes next. He talks about division. Jesus says in the passage for Sunday, “I came to bring fire to the earth”. So clearly this division is intentional!
As we are willing to divide our ideologies into good and bad, we should admit that some division we like. We like calling selfish people bad, for instance. If for no other reason than it makes us feel good about ourselves.
We want God to be good–another division. So are we for or against division?
If that thought makes you uncomfortable, perhaps there’s yet an unexamined reason.