The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.
Jesus of Nazareth
The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (or Unjust Steward) is probably the most misunderstood of all Jesus’ parables because our attitudes to money, our assumptions about what it can do for us, and our beliefs about how business should be conducted are very different today. In this Reflection we begin to explore what it means to be shrewd in the ways of the Kingdom of God, rather than wise - worldly wise - in the ways of contemporary society.
People have always traded in order to earn money to live and, although there have always been greedy people, on the whole most people in history were satisfied to earn enough for their families to live in a degree of comfort. From time to time, a businessman would devote himself to commerce with the intention of maximising his own profit, and his competitors had to respond in kind in order to stay in business. But when the catalyst, the greedy businessman, was removed business gradually returned to its normal pace. That is, until Benjamin Franklin: although people deplored his approach as ‘gaining wealth, forgetting all but self’, gradually Franklin’s way became the only way to do business. Today we call it capitalism.
It’s a mistake to think that capitalism is synonymous with free trade. I suspect that idea crystallised during the Cold War, when the great rival to capitalism was thought to be communism. But a business can have more important goals than profit, such as serving and sustaining communities and adding value to people’s lives.
We tend to make three mistakes about the dishonest manager: (i) that Jesus called him dishonest because he wasted his master’s goods, (ii) that Jesus called him dishonest for reducing the debts owed to his master and (iii) that Jesus commended his dishonesty as shrewdness.
The manager was certainly underhand in wasting his master’s goods, and it was a sign of what was to happen later, but I don't think this's why Jesus called him dishonest. Crucially, the manager is not accused of theft, fraud or any ‘serious’ dishonesty: if he had been, his master would not have told him to make up the accounts but immediately put him in prison until everything was repaid! As the accusation can also be translated as ‘squandering’, I expect the manager was at fault for commonplace slacking and pilfering – the sort of behaviour that employees in every generation expect to get away with. In the UK, we acknowledge that expectation with the old saying, ‘Every Englishman has his fiddle’!
The manager was not dishonest for reducing the debts owed to his master because it was within his delegated authority to do it. In those days, a manager (or steward) had dual responsibility towards his master and those his master was responsible for: a relationship that was much more balanced than is usual today. (We see Jesus relating this to his disciples future behaviour this in the passage beginning Luke 12:35.)
The debtors were probably the master’s tenants who owed rent, although they may have been customers who owed payment for goods. The manager was responsible for the master’s business and, consequently, he was responsible for the welfare of not just the tenants and others who did business with his master but also their families. Making the reductions was therefore both morally right and the responsible social action: the rich creditor who didn't need the money reduced the amounts owed by poor people who did.
The debtors were probably the master’s tenants who owed rent, although they may have been customers who owed payment for goods. The manager was responsible for the master’s business and, consequently, he was responsible for the welfare of not just the tenants and others who did business with his master but also their families. Making the reductions was therefore both morally right and the responsible social action: the rich creditor who didn't need the money reduced the amounts owed by poor people who did.
The manager was dishonest because he reduced the debts for his own selfish ends. He did it in order to secure his own future.
The manager did not care about his master’s reputation or the welfare of the debtors. Today, if a bank executive wrote off a debt on compassionate grounds, we would think it a legitimate use of the executive’s discretion. If, however, we later learn that the executive expected a personal favour in return, we would quickly change our minds and question his or her integrity.
The manager did not care about his master’s reputation or the welfare of the debtors. Today, if a bank executive wrote off a debt on compassionate grounds, we would think it a legitimate use of the executive’s discretion. If, however, we later learn that the executive expected a personal favour in return, we would quickly change our minds and question his or her integrity.
Crucially, Jesus did not commend the manager’s shrewdness, he said only that the master commended it. The reason, Jesus went on to explain, was that the ‘sons of this world’ – that is, people who live by the standards of contemporary society – are more shrewd than the ‘sons of light’ – that is, God’s people. Jesus therefore acknowledged that the master, who lived by society’s standards, recognised in his manager the sort of shrewdness - the sort of dishonesty - that society applauded!
Did Jesus intend his followers to imitate the manager’s shrewdness? In his parables, Jesus always pointed out when a character behaved badly and, in this one, he called the manager dishonest for good reason. So the answer must be, No!
This is an important point. In fact, this entire series of Reflections turns on it. Jesus did not want his followers to be shrewd like everyone else; he did not want them to be shrewd in the ways of society. He wanted them to be shrewd in the ways of the Kingdom of God. He wanted them to be 'Kingdom shrewd'.
© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.
Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.
