A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return.
And so begins one of Jesus’ parables. This is the one where the nobleman leaves and gives ten slaves ten pounds to do business with, while he’s away. One increases his money ten-fold and one five-fold. The third slave gives him back the single pound, having buried it because he was afraid of the man. This third slave said the man was harsh, taking what he didn’t deposit, and reaping what he didn’t sow. The man is angry, saying the slave should have at least invested it in a bank, where it could earn interest. So the man takes the single, cloth-wrapped pound and gives it to the slave who increased the pound 10-fold. To those who have, more will be given, and to those have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. Hmm. The man concludes with a command that for the slaves who didn’t want him to be king over them at all, they were to be brought to the king, and slaughtered in his presence.
I’m not sure what to make of this parable. I cannot fathom a God who would slaughter someone in his presence and think it’s a good thing, or who would take from those who have nothing. Or who would head off to get royal power for himself. So maybe we’re reading it wrong.
I was in a workshop with a theologian who warned against assuming these parables are allegories, with God being the master or father. Sometimes that’s true, but allegories, as a normal way of describing or teaching things didn’t happen until the middle ages. I’m not sure this is necessarily helpful, as it’s so much easier to hear a parable, and presume that Jesus is likening the main character to God. But if we don’t jump to that conclusion, maybe the parables are even richer.
In this morning’s reading, the master who’s deemed harsh by his slaves, is angry because the third slave didn’t give his money to a bank to earn interest. But in ancient times, I think charging interest was considered a bad thing; charging interest was likened to extortion. So maybe that’s a clue that the man isn’t the good guy in the story. Or the fact that he wants people to be brought and slaughtered in front of him.
Maybe we are to hear in this story about the risks of power, about being harsh, of taking from the poor. I genuinely don’t know. What I do know is that the simple assumption about God being the king in this story is risky, and doesn’t sound like good news.
Which leads me to assumptions. It is so stinking easy to assume we know things. We know how to interpret these parables. We know the intent of our loved ones’ actions. We know the intent of our political leaders. We know the facts behind the actions of anyone else.
When we read the parables and assume we know who plays what part, we get to a place where God is taking from the poor, giving to the wealthy, and ordering the slaughter of people. That interpretation makes no sense, and yet that’s where I jumped when reading this parable – because of my assumptions. If that is true when reading stories from thousands of years ago, of course it is true in modern day. I can absolutely reach the wrong conclusion, if I read into a situation anything – because of my assumptions.
Today, I want to be aware of those places where my assumptions are filling in the holes between facts, and the story I’m telling myself about those facts. Everywhere I presume to know anything. This world is complicated enough, without me jumping to conclusions that leave me with a parable about a harsh god.
No comments:
Post a Comment