Apology

This sermon was delivered at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville Arkansas on Sunday September 23, 2007, the 25th week of Ordinary Time.

Jeremiah 8:18-9:1
Psalm 79:1-9
1Timothy 2:1-7
Luke 16:1-13

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

There is an organization of about 200 New Testament scholars who refer to their studies as the Jesus Seminar. The seminar’s objective is to use historical methods to determine what Jesus may or may not have said and done as a historical figure. Through this, the seminar popularizes research into what is known as the Quest for the Historical Jesus.[1] Theologians speak of Jesus as being fully human and fully divine. The Jesus Seminar is interested in uncovering the words and acts of the fully human Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus Seminar has caused controversy among biblical scholars of all stripes for many reasons. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of these studies is the method they use to make a final determination about the probable authenticity of a “Jesus saying.”

They assign a color to the text based on the probability that it is genuine. They use red for sayings they consider to be indisputably the words of Jesus and black for those they deem almost certainly not. Of course, there are also pink and gray designations awarded because in this life, little is black and red. In the end, the recommendations for the color of a text are tallied like votes, and the winning color determines the seminar’s decision on the authenticity of the saying.

As unusual as this method is for evaluating scholarship, one of the more distressing outcomes of the Jesus Seminar is the swath of black—or at least gray—that their investigations are cutting in some of the most cherished gospel texts. The flash of red appears all too infrequently for the comfort of those who still hope to find glimpses of the human Jesus on the pages of their Bibles.

Today’s gospel reading is unusual in many respects, not the least of which is its glorious red color in the eyes of most of the Jesus Seminar scholars. At least the central core of the so-called “parable of the dishonest manager,” Luke 16:1 through the first half of verse 8, is considered to be authentic to more than 75% of Jesus Seminar members.

But our delight in this assertion quickly dissipates when we realize that we have just declared one of the oddest, most unsatisfying, and consequently, most controversial and ignored parables, to be the genuine thoughts and words of Jesus.[2]

Among scholars, there are nearly as many variant interpretations of the parable of the dishonest manager as there are articles written about it. Here’s my two cents on the debate. I believe that the first part of our reading, verses 1 through 8a is the meat of the parable and the remainder is commentary, an explanation of the parable added to help the listener understand it.

There are two things to note about the comments on the parable, verses 8b through 13. First is that the comments that follow the parable are very important lessons, all four of them.

The first comment is that the children of this age are more shrewd than the children of light in dealing with other children of this age. There is a certain something that those willing to lie, cheat, and steal bring to negotiations with others willing to lie, cheat, and steal that the children of light, the children of God do not bring. And since the children of light choose not to bring lies and so on, this isn’t a bad thing. It’s also not as much a lesson as it is an observation.

The second interpretation tells the listener to make friends by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, others of dishonest wealth will welcome us into the eternal homes. That’s what it says and it makes no better sense in Greek. There is no little nuance missing that makes this any more satisfying. I only hope it is an eternal home for those the prior verse calls the children of this age, not the children of light. Earn ill-gotten gains so that should you ever go broke you will be welcomed into eternal homes built on ill-gotten gains. All right, good to know, I don’t know for what, but it’s good to know.

The third lesson comes in several variations over the next three verses. These explanations deal with being trustworthy. If you are faithful in one thing, you will be faithful in all things and if you are unfaithful in one thing, you will be unfaithful in all things. It doesn’t matter whether you are honest or not, it doesn’t matter whether the gains are ill-gotten or not, and it doesn’t matter whether the things are yours are not. If you are responsible with little, you will be responsible with much and likewise if you are irresponsible with little, you will be irresponsible with much. Good lesson here for both a manager and an employer.

The fourth lesson is that nobody can serve two masters, one will be loved and the other will be hated; so it is impossible to serve both God and wealth. This is so very true.

These four comments are important lessons. But this leads us to the other thing about these explanations of the parable of the dishonest manager: Most of the lessons don’t really apply to the parable and those that do aren’t the ones we want to emulate and teach our children.

The first two lessons, the lessons of the shrewdness of the children of this age and friends of dishonest wealth aren’t really great lessons. As true as they are, in the eternal life they aren’t that valuable. Yes, the master does commend the dishonest manager for his shrewd actions, but that doesn’t really mean we want our children to abandon seeking to be the children of light in favor of becoming the children of this age. And I really hope it doesn’t mean we should encourage anyone to earn dishonest wealth so they will be welcome into eternal homes built by more dishonest wealth.

As for the others, they are wonderful lessons to teach, but they don’t especially flow from the parable. Here the parable is a lesson focused around an unrighteous manager and the lessons that follow here are if you are faithful with little you will be faithful with much. The lesson of the two masters doesn’t really jibe with the parable, especially the master’s commendation of the dishonest manager.

It’s not that I don’t think these lessons don’t belong in the bible. In fact, parallels of these sayings can be found in the Gospels of John and Matthew. The “friends of dishonest wealth” lesson matches the saying in John 12:36-43 where we are warned against loving human glory more than glory that comes from God. The lessons of being trusted with little and much are found in Matthew 25 in the parable of the talents. Finally, Matthew 6:24 contains the saying about serving two masters, but in Matthew’s gospel it stands alone.[3] These are good lessons; it just looks like Luke tacked them somewhere they really don’t belong.

I think Luke was trying to explain this odd parable to later generations of listeners. Being an odd little parable, I know I want some interpretation and so I imagine others did too; so Luke added these. But this is just a little more proof that interpreting a parable is like trying to put a tux on a pig, and this hog isn’t ready for his fraternity formal.

Again, this is my opinion: one of the problems with these interpretations being tacked onto this passage deals with the original intent of the parable and the original intent of the interpretations. Our reading begins, “Then Jesus said to the disciples…” The intent of this parable is to inform the disciples. The commentary that follows was added to inform later readers. This distinction is actually very important. There are two different ways to teach theology, one way is called dogmatics and the other is called apologetics.

Dogmatics are intended for those who all ready believe and seek to learn more. Apologetics are for those who do not believe and those who are new believers to the faith. In a way, the parable which was intended for the disciples was dogmatic and the interpretations that followed were apologetic. I think that this mixing of messages is why this is so confusing.[4]

So what’s the difference? There are some things you would say to disciples who have been following you for a couple of years that you wouldn’t say to people you have just met. There are things you try to teach someone who has an expertise in a subject that you wouldn’t try to teach to a novice. There are things you would teach in a graduate school theology seminar you wouldn’t say in a children’s sermon. So when the dogmatic lesson to the disciples is combined with apologetics meant for the masses, they come together in very poorly. And so it is here. We have an odd parable with even odder interpretation.

Years ago, I heard the story of a grade school student who was rather lazy with his homework.[5] Because of his laziness, he was failing social studies. Come the end of the semester, his teacher was adamant that he turn in his final project, so were his parents for that matter. So he asked the question, “What grade am I getting in this class?” His teacher replied, “An ‘F.’” So he asked another question, “And if I turn in my final project, what will I get in this class?” His teacher replied again, “An ‘F.’” The boy shrugged. After that, there was nothing his teacher or his folks could say to get him to lift a finger on the project.

When I heard this story, I had to give the boy credit. He was not even ten years old and he had figured out the principle of this parable. He doesn’t do the work, he gets an “F,” he does the work; he gets an “F.” What’s the difference? So I give him credit, just like Jesus commended the dishonest servant, but here’s the rub: This boy can explain his actions using commendable earthly wisdom all he wants, but if this boy never changes his ways, I would not trust him with anything of value, nor do I believe Jesus trusts an unfaithful servant of the age with his age to come.

In a theological context, the word apologetics means explanation. And from the same root we get the word apology, an expression of regret or remorse. I do not think that Jesus wants our explanations or remorse, our apologies. The all knowing, living Lord of life sees our actions. An explanation is not in order. Grief and sorrow are not very productive either. Instead, what we are called to do, something the unrighteousness servant in the parable never does, is confess. Only through confession can there be forgiveness. Explanation is not enough. Sorrow is not enough. We are called to confess our sins against God and against each other. And every Sunday, we confess our sins together. And together we are called to change, to repent.

We need what we can never achieve on our own. We need God’s forgiveness through Christ’s intercession. We pray that we will be filled anew with the Holy Spirit so that we may faithfully obey God’s will. Only through confession of our vengeful, resentful, angry, deceitful, selfish desires can we receive the Lord’s forgiveness. And only through this forgiveness can we be reconciled to God and one another. Only through Jesus’ sacrifice is our relationship with God and with one another redeemed.[6]

Give the dishonest manager credit for what he has done. He has proven himself untrustworthy and unrepentant. He is shrewd and he is sly, but he is not wise and he is not among the children of light. Only when he comes to terms with the fact that he needs more than just his wits will he become wise. Only then will he be able to hear the small still voice of God that goads him toward leaving the eternal home of the unrighteous and through confession and repentance lead him into eternal life.

Beware the shrewd manager. He has much to teach that is not worth learning. His teachings take us away from life and toward something that only resembles life. Instead, let us confess our sins against God and against one another, and with that, exchange signs of God’s peace and love with one another. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. And also with you. Amen.

[1] Jesus Seminar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar, accessed September 22, 2007
[2] Much of this section is directly and indirectly taken from HomileticsOnline.com, Commentary Section for “The Truth of Love,” http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/commentary_display.asp?installment_id=2976&item_id=25562, accessed August 20, 2007.
[3] These references were found consulting the column index apparatus in: The United Bible Societies and Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, The Greek New Testament. Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren, editors in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Fourth Edition, Münster: Westphalia, 1966, 1968, 1975 (by the UBS) and 1993, 1994 (by the DBS)
[4] This is my opinion and hypothesis. I found no commentary that forwarded this particular argument. It may be worthless, but it may also begin some discussion.
[5] True story, the names are withheld to protect the guilty.
[6] This paragraph is based on the Confession of Sin found in Kirk, James G., When We Gather. Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2001, page 343.