A Lulu From Luke: Dishonesty Commended? (Luke 16: 1-13)

[paradox3]

Maybe we should stick to how Jesus interpreted it. Our success as followers of Jesus demands understanding how the society around us works and taking that into account in planning our own actions. The failure to do this is why most mainline churches decline. We tended to hold a belief about how society's should function and expected the society around us to agree with us. When they left the church, we tended to blame them instead of our own failure to love them enough to understand them and respond appropriately.

Jesus usually used is, not should, in his preaching. At its heart, the parable is not about shrewd or dishonest people. It is about how we need to be to succeed in our mission.

Not sure that Jesus's interpretation of the parable is terribly clear. Especially if we consider verses 10 - 13 to be his explanation.

 

[Luce NDs]

As Fred Nietzsche stated ... "all is chaos" as god may have intended for us to experience the tempest of life ... to see if we would walk softly in off-ending the chore! Some find and chores involving upending and digging distasteful ... and thus resolutions never rise from the depths!

Goes for broad spread reading too ... "it was the greatest mix-up you've ever seen!"

As always someone had to attempt to apply order as schemes to direct in an individual and autonomous direction ... consequence was systemic collapse ... like a temple failure! Psychic destruction ...

 

[revjohn]

A rich man had a manager who is charged with squandering the rich man's property.

I think you are jumping to conclusions.

The text suggests that the manager is being charged with squandering by others. Which others? Is their report honest or malicious? We are never told

He calls the rich man's debtors one by one. The first owes the man a hundred jugs of olive oil and the manager reduces the debt to fifty. The second owes the rich man one hundred containers of wheat. The manager makes it eighty.

Interesting that he doesn't simply cancel every outstanding debt don't you think? If my opinion of somebody is going to change because they halved my debt to them how much more do I like them if all debt is forgiven? And seriously, I don't owe the manager I owe the rich man. If it can be proven that the manager has acted fraudulently, am I not now a conspirator in that fraud?

What does the reduction of debt look like to the rich man? Does it look like he is owed less or, does it look like he is regularly being repaid? New bills are not being issued. Existing bills are being adjusted. If the manager has that authority there is nothing illegal going on and quite possibly the rich man benefits from acts of largesse taken by his manager. We do not know that he doesn't according to the text and certainly, the rich man doesn't find fault in that work.

Jesus explains that his disciples are to make friends for themselves by means of dishonest wealth. When the riches are gone, the friends will welcome them into eternal homes.

Which is the dishonest wealth? Is it the wealth generated by fudging the numbers? Or is the wealth that which is built on debts owed by others?

Unless the manager is pocketing the difference. Saying pay me 25 and we'll consider it 50 and adjust the bills accordingly (which the text doesn't suggest) the manager is not in any way wealthier before the change than afterward. Dishonest? possibly. Wealthier? Absolutely not.

The passage concludes with three verses discussing faithfulness to God and wealth.

Reactions? I look forward to the discussion.

Faithfulness is key to two of the three points.

The manager is supposed to manage the finances. If nobody is repaying their debts to the rich man the manager is not doing his job. The paperwork suggests that the manager and the debtor are agreed that some portion of the debt has been retired. That represents a gift from the rich man to the debtor and if the manager didn't have authority to do that he has just made matters worse for himself by doing what he is initially accused of, squandering the rich man's wealth.

The rich man hears a rumour and acts upon that rumour. He wants to know if it is true.

The manager is concerned about how the rich man will act. The other voices are more trusted than he is and yet, he is not fired on the spot. He is given an opportunity to prove that he is doing his job.

The rich man commends him for his action.

The parable does not tell us if the manager is chastised, fired, or otherwise punished.

The final moral is about not being able to serve two masters. The rich man commends the manager suggests that the rich man is not displeased by the manager's work and an argument can be made that if the manager acted within the parameters of his employment, he has just given his employer some good PR. We might think that a disservice has taken place. We aren't the employer who gets the final say though are we?

Perhaps this text reads us more closely than we read it.

 

[Luce NDs]

I think you are jumping to conclusions.

The text suggests that the manager is being charged with squandering by others. Which others? Is their report honest or malicious? We are never told

Interesting that he doesn't simply cancel every outstanding debt don't you think? If my opinion of somebody is going to change because they halved my debt to them how much more do I like them if all debt is forgiven? And seriously, I don't owe the manager I owe the rich man. If it can be proven that the manager has acted fraudulently, am I not now a conspirator in that fraud?

What does the reduction of debt look like to the rich man? Does it look like he is owed less or, does it look like he is regularly being repaid? New bills are not being issued. Existing bills are being adjusted. If the manager has that authority there is nothing illegal going on and quite possibly the rich man benefits from acts of largesse taken by his manager. We do not know that he doesn't according to the text and certainly, the rich man doesn't find fault in that work.

Which is the dishonest wealth? Is it the wealth generated by fudging the numbers? Or is the wealth that which is built on debts owed by others?

Unless the manager is pocketing the difference. Saying pay me 25 and we'll consider it 50 and adjust the bills accordingly (which the text doesn't suggest) the manager is not in any way wealthier before the change than afterward. Dishonest? possibly. Wealthier? Absolutely not.

Faithfulness is key to two of the three points.

The manager is supposed to manage the finances. If nobody is repaying their debts to the rich man the manager is not doing his job. The paperwork suggests that the manager and the debtor are agreed that some portion of the debt has been retired. That represents a gift from the rich man to the debtor and if the manager didn't have authority to do that he has just made matters worse for himself by doing what he is initially accused of, squandering the rich man's wealth.

The rich man hears a rumour and acts upon that rumour. He wants to know if it is true.

The manager is concerned about how the rich man will act. The other voices are more trusted than he is and yet, he is not fired on the spot. He is given an opportunity to prove that he is doing his job.

The rich man commends him for his action.

The parable does not tell us if the manager is chastised, fired, or otherwise punished.

The final moral is about not being able to serve two masters. The rich man commends the manager suggests that the rich man is not displeased by the manager's work and an argument can be made that if the manager acted within the parameters of his employment, he has just given his employer some good PR. We might think that a disservice has taken place. We aren't the employer who gets the final say though are we?

Perhaps this text reads us more closely than we read it.

1 for 1 is not satisfactory to those with $ in their eyes ... thus the risor goes down ... as to de Ci OH ... maybe as a modern CEO that is used to abusing other peoples monies? Consider what some of them are paid under their gods direction ... a bit swerved? Inequity????

 

[Luce NDs]

It is like the chaos bought on over the confusion about; obtuse, oblivious and other words that really are kept occult as many are in the dark regarding such words ... nothing better in the response that firing back further chaos ... cranked in the other direction from the swastika ... know the word for that opposition that may lead to jousting against it ... an strange Eire?

But one is not to speak of alien things ... scares the crap out of the upper layers as carp err!