Support the Café
Search our site

Is the Kingdom of Heaven a Ponzi Scheme?

Is the Kingdom of Heaven a Ponzi Scheme?

by Deirdre Good and Julian Sheffield

After Sunday’s Gospel, the parable of the talents, we were having a discussion with the preacher about the text. I complimented her on the way her sermon engaged the complications of the text. She had encouraged parishioners to exercise even the smallest of their talent(s). What if, she said, your ability to make a meal fed the next Gandhi? Or your talent helped the next Dr Martin Luther King Jr.? Not all of us are given five or even two talents. But we all have some talent and the parable challenges us to do something with our gifts not just bury them. As we were talking, other parishioners went by in the background and complimented her on her sermon.

Our discussion moved to the fearful servant, the one who categorized his master as hard and opportunistic, an issue the preacher identified as being too difficult to address in this sermon. The master reproaches the servant for not acting even on the basis of what the servant knew about the master’s nature. The servant could at least have banked the money and gotten some interest (even at a time when banking is in its infancy and usury is condemned).

My wife Julian then observed that Jesus never addresses the issue that is on all of our minds in the current economic climate, what if one of the bold servants, the one who had five or the one who had two talents, had actually lost money on his investment? Jesus doesn’t seem to have much grasp on the uncertain nature of financial markets. Would this “hard” and opportunistic master have forgiven bad timing, weather that sank the ship invested in, a blight on the cotton crop, an epidemic of hoof and mouth disease in the herds? Would he have commended the servant that took the risk, even if the investment was diminished or lost entirely as a result?

Or look at the parable from another angle. The parable assumes 100% return on investment. But even in the best of markets, investors are ecstatic with 10%. So should we take it that these enterprising servants are phenomenally lucky? Insider traders? Or does Jesus just not have a clue about market forces and realistic expectations? Or is he assuming that these servants should become venture capitalists?

Julian’s mentor of blessed memory Canon Edward N. West once related how a business man had come to him and said, “I keep praying and praying to St. Francis for guidance in my investments, and they keep failing! What am I doing wrong?” “And why would you imagine,” Canon West responded, “that St. Francis would know anything at all about making money?”

But imagine that Jesus did have a better grasp of market forces than St. Francis. Perhaps unrealistic expectations was what Jesus was driving at. Venture capitalists take huge risks, for potential huge returns or huge losses. At the beginning of the parable the first slave went off “immediately,” without hesitation, to trade. And at the end of the parable, the buried talent is taken from the timid slave and given to the slave who already has ten talents, and is now sharing in the master’s joy. Is this parable more about having the faith to take huge risks for the sake of the kingdom, than it is about the need to make the best of what we have? Does God have unrealistic expectations of us? Or are we, perhaps, being encouraged to have unrealistic expectations of God?

Consider this: if we set out just to make the best of our talents, we are already limiting expectations, because we have a conception that there is an achievable “best.” But if we decide to take the risk of being in partnership with God, to invest in God’s venture with everything we have, then the returns will be beyond our wildest imaginings. And the long-term risk of failure? Nil.

Better than a savings account, isn’t it?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Murdoch Matthew

It’s hard to read the Bible with fresh eyes — we know from years of hearing conventional teaching what it’s supposed to mean.

Gary and I attended a vestry meeting at which the rector announced that they would open with “Bible study” — he then read the story of the Good Shepherd and asked for comments. (I wondered why the vestry didn’t go to Evening Prayer that was being read in the chapel at the time.) They went around the table and everyone said something about the story that they’d heard in Sunday school or otherwise. Everyone knew what it was supposed to mean; the story was only a reminder. (I was thinking, If the shepherd gives his life, what happens to the sheep? I was happy later when Canon Richard Norris made the same wry aside in a sermon at the Church of St. Ignatius of Antioch, NYC.)

It’s like the fundamentalists, who don’t read the Bible, they cite it to support the Truth as they’ve received it. Crossan and Herzog are very useful for suggesting different ways to approach the text.

Economic issues were critical in the first century — the exploitation of colonies to support the empire, the collusion of religious leaders and property owners in oppressing workers. Evocative stuff in these latter days of the US empire . . . Look beyond the narrative to the issues in the text . . .

Basic question: Why suppose that “the rich landowner” is God? Not actually obvious.

Kris Lewis

To me, the problem with the last servant is exactly that he did NOTHING. He let his fear of failure and negative consequences govern his behavior, as we are often wont to do, rather than taking a risk.

if we decide to take the risk of being in partnership with God, to invest in God’s venture with everything we have, then the returns will be beyond our wildest imaginings. And the long-term risk of failure? Nil. says it all for me. God entrusts much to us and we are called to use “it” (whatever “it” is) to do God’s work in the world.

Bob Scott

I love the observation that Jesus doesn’t seem to worry about investments losing money. Very bullish! James Alsion’s comment on this parable feels on target: he reads it as being all about the the attitude of the fearful servant. If that’s what you expect, that’s what you’ll find. But as you point out, perhaps unrealistically positive expectation lead to bold action, and that’s the point. Another version of Pascal’s Wager?

garydasein

I like Walter Herzog’s reading, in his book Parables as Subversive Speech, that the servant may be right after all. He could be read as a whistle blower who refuses to make money by exploiting the poor. The traditional way of reading the master as a cipher for God has its limitations and misses how the author of this gospel was also reading a parable which had been passed down. The gospel writer may have misunderstood the parable.

The parable is a dynamic genre in which meaning changes depending on the point of view adopted by the hearer/listener/reader. The point ought to be not to find a meaning but rather to grapple with issues.

Yes, indeed what would have happened if the investments had failed? Failure might have meant a poorer master but fewer exploited people.

Gary Paul Gilbert

RN312

What a wonderful reflection. I really appreciate the reminder that we should not be bounded by human conceptions, even of our “best”.

RN312 –thanks for commenting – please sign your name next time. ~ed.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A
2020_011

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café