A trick to “manage” job loss: a reflection for Day 33 of Lent

 

“…his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly, for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” (Luke 16.8) 

     Jesus and the disciples continue to journey towards Jerusalem.  The number of people thronging around Jesus is increasing (Lk. 11.14, 29; 12.1; 13.22; 14.25), and so is the tension between Jesus and the obstinate members of “his generation”.  Besides announcing imminent judgment, Jesus is feasting and telling stories.  Jesus’ “gospel” is bad news for the self-sufficient, smug and vengeful and good news for the poor, desperate and trusting.

     As chapter 16 of Luke’s Gospel begins, Jesus is once again telling a parable – in this instance, an infamously ambiguous and intractable story that has occasioned much spilling of ink.[1]  The Pharisees remain in the picture, if slightly out of frame (Lk. 16.14; cf. 15.1-2).  Indeed, the parable of the “dishonest manager” (16.1-8)[2] has many parallels with that of the “prodigal son” (15.11-32).  Both parables are introduced with Luke’s typical formula “a certain man” (15.11; 16.1); in both, the central character determines the narrative flow and speaks the final verse (the father in 15.11, 32; the master in 16.1, 8); in both, the character who provides the dramatic interest “squanders” the property (15.13; 16.3) and then confronts life-threatening alternatives (15.15-17; 16.3) which begin to be resolved in a soliloquy that reveals his self-centredness (15.17-19; 16.3-4); in both, the hope for a changed fortune is couched in the form of acceptance into a “house”; in both, there is heightened tension through use of literary devices: the journey home of the son and the negotiations of the manager; in both cases the plan is not realized but transcended by the surprising acceptance by the character introduced in the first verse; both parables are open-ended – we are not told if the older brother went into the feast or if the manager was restored to his position. 

     As in the parable of the prodigal, where it is the father who is the focus of attention and the one who conveys God’s costly love, so in the parable of the manager the focus is on the “foolish master” who does not operate according to the normal expectations of one in power.  It reveals God not as one who exacts punishment, but who “gives time and cancels debts in the midst of human machinations.”[3]

     The parable can also be seen as rewriting the “social scripts” of elites and debtors that gives a glimpse of another world order.  It shows how the weapons of the weak may produce a temporary victory for debtors in a world in which they usually come out losers.  The parable begins with the expected scripts: “masters distrust managers; peasants hate managers; managers cheat both tenants and masters”.  The world of the parable is one in which elites exploit and prey on those beneath them.  The manager is just doing his job and the charges brought against him refer to an alleged inefficient use of the master’s property to make more profits, which would indeed be grounds for dismissal.  The crisis in the parable is an episode of backstabbing, to which the steward must respond by developing a new strategy.  An important question for interpretation is whether the accusations against the manager are true or not (16.1).  It is likely that the merchants with whom the manager was accustomed to dealing have invented these charges against him because they believe they are not receiving the volume of goods anticipated since the manager is taking too large a cut.  They accuse the manager of squandering the master’s resources in order to undermine him (he was the one responsible for setting the prices of the commodities produced by the master’s estate) and thereby strengthen their own bargaining position with the master.

     The manager’s action proves his worth to his master.  While the owner may experience a temporary loss in the hidden interest erased from the debts, he will recoup it in other ways, since the manager has now bound the debtors even more deeply to the patron (master) who has shown them beneficence.  The manager has exposed his anonymous enemies and has ensured his position with his master for a while longer by showing his resourcefulness in assuring long-term gains while taking a short-term loss.  The story ends with a reversal of the usual scripts.  “At the close of the parable, peasants are praising the master, the master commends the manager, and the manager has relieved the burden on the peasants and kept his job.”  The result of all the twisted machinations and scheming is a temporary forgiveness for debtors, from which comes rejoicing (cf. Lk. 15.32).[4]

     This parable is part of a sequence of stories – both imagined and real – about “rich men” (Lk. 16.1; 16.19; 18.18, 23; cf. 19.1-2).  In each case, wealth is presented as problematic and as causing those who possess it (are possessed by it?) to act in various dehumanizing ways.  Seen in that light, the story of the shrewd manager can be understood as a lesson in practical wisdom (cf. Mt. 10.16) for those who must navigate a world run by the rich (who are often corrupt and vain: cf. Lk. 14.12-14; 12.15).  Money is a useful tool, but a harsh master (cf. Lk. 16.13-14).  Timely words for today’s world.

---

[1] Cf. Barbara E. Reid, Parables for Preachers: Year C, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000, p. 194.

[2] Cf. ibid. pp. 194-97 for reasons why the parable is believed to end at v. 8a, with various interpretative sayings having been appended to it in vv. 8b-13.

[3] Cf. Ibid. p. 201.

[4] Ibid. pp. 202-204.