25th Sunday in Ordinary Time – Year C
Luke 16: 1-13
This Sunday’s Readings
First Reading
Amos 8:4-7
Unfair business practices and injustice to the poor will be judged by God.
Responsorial Psalm
Psalm 113: 1-2,4-6,7-8
Praise be to God, who raises up the poor.
Second Reading
1 Timothy 2:1-8
Paul tells Timothy that prayer for those in authority is pleasing to God because God wills the salvation of all.
Gospel Reading
Luke 16:1-13 (shorter form, Luke 16:10-13)
Jesus tells a parable about a dishonest steward who is commended for his prudence; one cannot serve both God and money.
Background on the Gospel Reading
Today’s Gospel sounds puzzling to contemporary readers, but it can be made less so by considering the economic system which stands behind the parable. A steward is dismissed because he is squandering his master’s property. He is called dishonest because he is not serving the interests of the rich man, his employer. In response the steward, in an attempt to ensure favor for himself among the rich man’s debtors, brokers repayment of the rich man’s loans by foregoing the interest and fees that had been levied to line the steward’s pockets. It is this action, in which the steward puts aside his greed and takes the longer perspective in order to enhance his security, which is commended by the rich man.
The passage concludes with three morals for the listeners. The first exhorts the listener to be prudent about the use of wealth. Like the steward in the parable, those who would follow Jesus must put transitory affairs in proper perspective. Christians should handle the affairs of temporal life with an eye toward eternal life.
The second concerns trustworthiness. Those who can be trusted in small things can also be trusted in great things. If Christians handle money and other passing things responsibly, then they can also be trusted with the affairs of the Kingdom of God.
Finally, Jesus tells his listeners that no one can serve two masters simultaneously. God must be put ahead of money.
Administrators only, not owners
Gospel reflection – Luke 16: 1-13
Fernando Armellini
This parable has always aroused a certain embarrassment because, apparently, the dishonest administrator is praised and cannot be recommended to Christians to imitate. To understand its significance and to give meaning to all the details, the how and when this administrator fooled his master should be established.
The traditional interpretation supports that the scam happened when, to ingratiate himself to the debtors, he falsified the figures in the bills of exchange. Other biblical scholars sustain instead that he committed some irregularities before being discharged. This second hypothesis seems to us more coherent and logical and we follow it.
More than telling a story, Jesus seems to make reference to a news report of his time. A steward is accused before the big landowner on whom depends his being incompetent, one who devours and squanders his wealth. The master has him called and tells him what he heard about him. The facts are so clear and beyond doubt that the administrator does not try to justify himself or mutter an explanation. He was immediately fired of his responsibility (vv. 1-2). What to do now? He is in trouble, remains without salary and must find as soon as possible a way to guarantee his future.
What to do?—Here is the question that, in the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostles, many persons put to themselves. The crowd, the publicans, and the soldiers address John the Baptist asking: “What must we do?” The rich farmer of the parable puts to himself, in his long soliloquy the same question: “What must I do because I do not know where to place my harvest?” (Lk 12:17). The listeners of Peter’s discourse on Pentecost day put it to themselves: “Brothers, what must we do?” It is a question of anyone who finds himself/herself in front of a decisive choice in life.
The dishonest administrator knows of having little time at his disposition. Like what the foolish farmer did, he starts to reflect. He knows only how to supervise; he is neither able to hoe nor to humble himself to beg for alms. “It’s better to die than to beg”—says Sirach (Sir 40:28). Before leaving the job he must put the accounts in order; many debtors have still to deliver the products. He thinks deeply, calculates the pros and cons, and after much thinking, here comes the flash of genius. I understand!—he exclaims happily—I know what I must do (v. 4). He did not ask the opinion of anybody because he already knows all the tricks of the trade. He understood by himself what is the right choice and immediately goes into action.
He calls all the debtors and asks the first one: “How much do you owe my master?” “A hundred barrels of oil”—the person concerned answers. The administrator smiles, taps his shoulders and says: “Scrap the bill, sit down and write immediately, fifty.” The debt that was 4,500 liters of oil (the product of 175 olive trees) is reduced to 2,250. A saving of almost two years of work by a worker! Then the second debtor enters the scene: he has to deliver a hundred measure of grain (550 quintals [1 quintal = 100 kilos], the product of 42 hectares of land). The same scenario! He is made to sit and the discount accorded to is 20 percent. 110 quintals (11,000 kilos) are discounted. Not bad. In the future, these benefitted debtors will certainly not forget the much generosity and they will feel obliged to offer him hospitality in their houses. The story concludes with the master, as well as Jesus, praising the administrator. He acted with cunning. He’ll be imitated!
We are expecting a different conclusion. Jesus should have said to his disciples: “Do not act like this villain; be honest!” Instead he approves of what he did. The difficulty lies here: how could a dishonest person be offered as a model? Before explaining it, I’d note that praising the shrewdness of a person does not mean to agree with what he did. They told me of a thief who was able to escape from prison opening all doors with a simple lighter. He deserves a praise …. He was a villain, but he was clever (vv. 5-8a).
This difficulty does not exist if the parable is interpreted in a different way. We depart from the consideration that if the owner had felt cheated again (2,250 liters of oil and 110 quintals of grain are not small stuff) he would be outraged. If he praises his former administrator it means, in this process, he has not lost anything. We have to presume that the administrator this time has put back his own, giving up what he used to grab for himself as commission.
Let me explain: the administrators must deliver a certain amount to their owner; what more they could get goes into their pockets and the figures could be higher. It was the technique used by the publicans to enrich themselves when they collected taxes.
What did the administrator of the parable do? Instead of behaving like a loan shark with the debtors, he left them the profit he expected to have. If things would be in these terms, then all things will be clear. The admiration of the owner and the praise of Jesus have a logical explanation.
The administrator was shrewd—says the Lord—because he understood on which to bet on: not on goods, products that he was entitled to, that could rot or be stolen, but on friends. He knew how to renounce the first in order to conquer for himself the second. This is the point. We will shortly retake it.
Some sayings of Jesus linked to the use of riches follow the parable. These should be applications, teachings taken from the parable. The first: “The people of this world are more astute, in dealing with their own kind, than are the people of light” (v. 8).
After having appreciated the ability of the administrator, Jesus makes an observation: with regard to managing money, doing business, making trades; his disciples (the children of light) are less shrewd than those who commit their whole lives in hoarding goods (the children of this world).
It is normal and it must be so: while “the children of the world” can act without scruples (they only have to worry not to go against the law of the State or at least not to be caught red handed), the Christian believers must follow other principles and maintain a transparent and right behavior. They are prohibited from subterfuge and deceit.
Does this really happen? Perhaps there are Christians competing with “the children of darkness” in economic affairs, cut a poor figure. And this is worrisome!
“Use filthy money to make friends for yourselves so that when it fails, these people may welcome you into the eternal homes” (v. 9). This is the most important saying of today’s passage. It synthesizes the whole teaching of the parable.
We note above all the hard judgment the Teacher gives on riches. It is called “unfair,” “acquired in a dishonest way.” The reason was already indicated by Amos in the First Reading. We have heard his explanation on the origin of riches. After him, a wise person of the Old Testament affirmed: “Just as the stake is settled between two stones, so sin wedges itself between buying and selling” (Sir 27:2).
This is not a condemnation of goods of this world; it is neither an invitation to destroy them, to be freed of them as if they are impure objects. It is an observation: in the hoarded money there is always present some forms of injustice, exploitation, and misappropriation. Jesus teaches the method to purify the unfair riches.
The administrator is a model of ability because he has a brilliant idea. If he would consult with his colleagues, they would exhort him to take advantage until the very end of his position besides increasing the income (nest’s eggs).
He will take all the counterattacks: he understands that money can devalue and then he decides to stake all on his friends. This is the wise choice that Jesus encourages to do, and he ensures the success of the operation: the benefitted persons in this life will always remain by our side and they will bear witness in our favor on the day in which money will have no value.
It is not a question of favoring the giving of all that one possesses. That would be a senseless gesture, not virtuous. It would not help the poor, but would increase their misery and would favor the lazy ones. What Jesus would like us to understand is that the only shrewd way of using the goods of this world is to use them to help others, to make them friends. They will be the ones to welcome us in life.
The last part of the passage (vv. 10-13) contains some sayings of the Lord. To understand them it is enough to clarify the significance of the terms. The “little” (v. 10) “dishonest riches” (v. 11) “the riches of others” (v. 12) indicate the goods of this world that could not be brought with oneself. St. Ambrose used to say: “We must not consider riches that which we cannot carry with us. Because that which we should leave behind in this world does not belong to us. It belongs to others.”
The goods of the future world, the reign of God are instead called: “the many” (v.10), “the true riches” (v. 11) “our riches” (v. 12). These could be obtained only by renouncing, as the administrator of the parable paradoxically did, to all goods that do not count (cf. Lk 14:33).
Jesus concludes his teaching affirming that no servant can serve two masters…God or money. We would like to please both: we will give to the first the Sunday and to the other the ordinary days. It is not possible because both are demanding masters. They don’t tolerate that there is a place for another in the heart of a person and above all, they give opposing orders. One says “Share your goods, help the brothers/sisters, forgive the debt of the poor …” the other repeats: Think of your own interests, study well all the ways to profit, to hoard money, have all for yourself ….” It is impossible to please them: It’s either that one challenges us or to blindly believe the other.
Fernando Armellini
Italian missionary and biblical scholar
https://sundaycommentaries.wordpress.com
The journey of life involves a choice between two roads:
between honesty and dishonesty
Pope Francis
Today, Jesus invites us to reflect on two opposing ways of life: the way of the world and that of the Gospel — the worldly spirit is not the spirit of Jesus — and He does so by recounting the parable of the unfaithful and corrupt steward, who is praised by Jesus, despite his dishonesty (cf. Lk 16:1-13). We must point out immediately that this administrator is not presented as a model to follow, but as an example of deceitfulness. This man is accused of mismanaging his master’s affairs, and before being removed, astutely he tries to ingratiate himself with the debtors, condoning part of their debt so as to ensure himself a future. Commenting on this behaviour, Jesus observes: “For the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light” (v. 8).
We are called to respond to this worldly astuteness with Christian astuteness, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. This is a matter of departing from the worldly spirit and values, which the devil really favours, in order to live according to the Gospel. How is worldliness manifested? Worldliness is manifested by attitudes of corruption, deception, subjugation, and it constitutes the most ill-chosen road, the road of sin, because one leads you to the other! It’s like a chain, even if — it’s true — it is generally the easiest road to travel. Instead, the spirit of the Gospel requires a serious lifestyle — serious but joyful, full of joy! — serious and challenging, marked by honesty, fairness, respect for others and their dignity, and a sense of duty. And this is Christian astuteness!
The journey of life necessarily involves a choice between two roads: between honesty and dishonesty, between fidelity and infidelity, between selfishness and altruism, between good and evil. You can not waver between one and the other, because they move on different and conflicting forms of logic. The prophet Elijah said to the people of Israel that went on these two roads: “You are limping with both feet!” (cf. 1 Kings 18:21). It’s a fine image. It is important to decide which direction to take and then, once you have chosen the right one, to walk it with enthusiasm and determination, trusting in God’s grace and the support of His Spirit. The conclusion of the Gospel passage is powerful and categorical: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Lk 16:13).
With this teaching, Jesus today urges us to make a clear choice between Him and the worldly spirit, between the logic of corruption, of the abuse of power and greed, and that of righteousness, meekness and sharing. Some people conduct themselves with corruption as they do with drugs: they think they can use it and stop when they want. It starts out small: a tip here, a bribe over there…. And between this and that, one’s freedom is slowly lost. Corruption is also habit-forming, and generates poverty, exploitation, and suffering. How many victims there are in the world today! How many victims of this widespread corruption. But when we try to follow the Gospel logic of integrity, clarity in intentions and in behaviour, of fraternity, we become artisans of justice and we open horizons of hope for humanity. In gratuitousness and by giving of ourselves to our brothers and sisters, we serve the right master: God.
May the Virgin Mary help us to choose at every opportunity and at all costs, the right way, even finding the courage to go against the tide, in order to follow Jesus and his Gospel.
Angelus 2016
From Stewardship to Integral Ecology
Luke 16:1-13
Kathleen Rushton
Disreputable characters feature in the parables of Jesus and among the company he kept. But the unjust steward of Luke 16:1-13 is in a class of his own. This parable begins: “Jesus said to the disciples, ‘There was a rich person (anthrōpos) who had a steward (oikonomos)…’”
Stewardship in the Gospels
Greek words related to stewardship are found only on two occasions in the Gospels. In the Parable of the Unjust Steward are three related words: oikonomos (the noun for a household administrator, or steward), oikonomia (the noun for the role of administrator), and oiknomēo (the verb “to administer”).
Oikonomos, the noun for the person, is found in Lk 16:1 and 3. Oikonomia, the noun for the role, is found in Lk 16:2, 3, 4. The verb oiknomēo is found in Lk 16:2. The NRSSV, however, translates these words as “manager” and “management.”
The other occasion these Greek words are found is when Jesus asks a question about watchfulness and faithfulness: “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager (oikonomos) whom his master (kyrios) will put in charge of his slaves (doulos), to give them their allowance of food at the proper time?” (Lk 12:42, NRSV). The Jerusalem Bible has “steward” rather than “manager.”
In some Gospel stories, it is assumed stewardship is there. In the Parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30), for example, where a man hands over talents to his slaves (doulos), none of the Greek stewardship words are used. Some translations of Jn 2:8-9 have Jesus giving directions about the wine to “the chief steward.” The Greek word here is “master of the feast” (architriklinos).
Christian Use of Stewardship Today
Today, Christian institutions use stewardship in various ways.
Some employ this ambiguous paradigm to name their ministry for the administration of property and finance. Others use it to inspire church members to value and use their gifts and talents in God’s mission.
Care for our common home is becoming a central dimension of Christian faith. Consequently, it is worrying that Churches still draw on the decades-old paradigm of stewardship which has since been critiqued from theological, scriptural, ethical, environmental, evolutionary and secular perspectives.
Origins in Christian Biblical Interpretation
In 1967 historian of science Lynn White argued that Christianity was responsible for the ecological crisis because it promoted humankind’s unlimited mastery over nature. According to White, Genesis 1:26 allowed Christians to claim that humans are mandated by God to use Earth as their possession. He asserted that Christianity was the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen (see “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”).
Christian theologians, and especially biblical scholars, set out to defend their tradition. Many argued that the term “dominion” (Gen 1:26) had been misinterpreted. God gives to humanity the responsibility to care for Earth. Humanity does not have unlimited mastery over creation, they are not owners.
This led to confusion: the Hebrew imperative, “subdue” (kabash) often translated as “dominion,” became interpreted as meaning “stewardship” even though that word is not found in Genesis or anywhere in the Old Testament.
According to environmental ethicist Willis Jenkins stewardship “emerged as a discrete theological discourse in the 1980s, supporting a public Christian environmentalism especially associated with evangelical Protestants.”
Stewardship in the Ancient World
Stewardship is assumed to have the authority of Jesus. In the ancient world, it was associated with three components: the master, the steward and the master’s possessions or household for which a steward was responsible. The steward was usually a slave whose responsibilities were over the household on behalf of the master. They involved the oversight of all labour including its products, maintaining a household (both production and consumption) and application of the craft of household management.
This idea of stewardship comes from a society based on human slavery — a human relationship which is now officially condemned even though it is still practised today.
Theologian Clare Palmer writes that the “political message encoded in stewardship is one of power and oppression; of server and served.” An added problem is the idea of an absent owner.
Jesus says many things about money and wealth and about the dangers of wealth that we do not encounter in the theological and cultural discussions of the Parable of the Unjust Steward. Stewardship is generally about the management and the opportunities of wealth, not about the problems of wealth itself.
Theological Problems
There are theological problems related to God’s presence and action in the world because stewardship infers that God is absent. The notion oof stewardship presents the relationship of humans to creation in a purely vertical way without a related horizontal dimension:
- God
- Humans
- Other than humans
This hierarchy obscures the fact that humans are also creatures in Earth — the common home of all creatures. Stewardship places humans in authority over rather than in community alongside and with creation. This model is a one-way relationship. Humans rule over and care for creation. Creation is a passive receiver of our care.
Politically, the problem encoded in stewardship is one of power and oppression, server and served.
In the light of evolutionary science, the notion that Earth is to be managed by humans does not make sense. Stewardship in its Christian and secular usage is anthropocentric rather than ecological and can tend to support and legitimate the use and exploitation of the natural world.
Beyond Stewardship to Integral Ecology
Four terms in Laudato Si’ identify a significant shift from understanding humanity’s role in creation as stewardship. They are our common home, interconnectedness, love language and, in particular, integral ecology, to which Pope Francis devotes a whole chapter.
Integral ecology affirms the deep connections in the biblical creation accounts which suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with Earth.
This resonates with the Māori concept of whakawhanaungatanga (making right relationship happen). In this understanding, right relationship is a verb, an action. The causative prefix whaka suggests “making” and turns the noun, whanaungatanga (right relationship) into the verb, whakawhanaungatanga — “making right relationship” in a series of interconnected relationships with Atua (God), tangata (people) and whenua (land).
By developing a spirituality of integral ecology we become more aware of how all creation is interconnected and learn to listen to and respond to the cry of Earth and the cry of the all life — human and other-than-human — impoverished by misguided ideas of stewardship.
