For years now, I’ve wondered if parable of the talents (Matt 25:13-30; Luke 19:11-27) was incomplete. A familiar story, a master goes away entrusting three servants with different sums of money. (Luke uses a different term for the money, and different amounts). The first two servants invest the master’s money and are praised when the master returns. The last servant buried his master’s money in the ground because he was afraid to lose the money (also he was afraid of his master, calling him a hard man).
What I want to know, what would the master have done if the servant’s investments hadn’t succeeded? I'd add another servant, between number two and number three. Like number two, he was given two talents. When the master comes back, he comes forward reluctantly. “Master, you entrusted me with two talents. One talent I used to buy goods for a caravan, but the caravan was taken by robbers and your money was lost. With the second talent I bought goods to trade by ship. This began well, your one talent of goods bought two talents worth of gold and spices. But when the ship was returning, a great storm came up, and the sailors had to throw out the gold or the ship would have sunk. Your spices survived and sold for one talent, so here is what is left of your money.”
What would the master say to this servant? Would he have been angry about the lost money? Or would the master have appreciated that the servant made an effort?
I’m coming more and more to the opinion that the master in Jesus’ parable would have honored the servants intention and not punished him for failure. The master might have asked a few more questions about why the servant had chosen those two investment options, but if the servant had good reasons for believing in them, I think the master would have approved. Surely it is not just in our time that investing is risky.
The Biblical passage that I think speaks most clearly to this is in Hebrews 11. The writer gives a list of the great heroes of the faith. Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and several other heroes of the Old Testament are named and their faithfulness praised. But the chapter ends with heroes who aren’t even named. “Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-- the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.” Their faithfulness in adversity is challenging for us to remember, but what was the great victory they gained? They courageously faced suffering and death for their faith, but to what good? Aren’t they like the servant I added to the parable, who tried to be faithful but didn’t succeed?
But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear. “These were all commended for their faith,” the ones whose faith didn’t succeed just like the ones whose faith did succeed. He goes on “none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” Even Moses and David, who won perhaps the greatest outward victories in the pages of the Old Testament, didn’t receive all they trusted God to do. Even their greatest victories were imperfect and incomplete. But all faith is seen and rewarded by God, if there is visible success or not.
A question about the Lord's Prayer
As familiar as the Lord's Prayer passages are (Matt 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-4) I was surprised by them last week.
I was thinking of Luke's version, where the disciples ask Jesus to teach them how to pray.
Teachings I have heard about prayer emphasize that it is a relationship with our heavenly Father, we shouldn't think there is a magic set of words or an approved vocabulary, but we should feel free to open our hearts to God.
But Jesus doesn't say this (at least not in so many words) when asked to teach them how to pray. He teaches them a prayer that can be learned by rote. Why?
It is true that if you think about the words, they lead into an awareness of relationship. But why did Jesus give a set of words rather than talk about relationship?
I was thinking of Luke's version, where the disciples ask Jesus to teach them how to pray.
Teachings I have heard about prayer emphasize that it is a relationship with our heavenly Father, we shouldn't think there is a magic set of words or an approved vocabulary, but we should feel free to open our hearts to God.
But Jesus doesn't say this (at least not in so many words) when asked to teach them how to pray. He teaches them a prayer that can be learned by rote. Why?
It is true that if you think about the words, they lead into an awareness of relationship. But why did Jesus give a set of words rather than talk about relationship?
Is there a missing part of Romans 13?
No, I'm not starting a conspiracy theory about a secret manuscript of Romans that has been zealously guarded by generations of fanatical monks. It just seems to me that logically something is missing in Romans 13. The other times that Paul makes an exhortation to part of society, he balances it with exhortations to the corresponding part of society. Children, obey your parents; and parents, don't exasperate your children. Husbands, love your wives; and wives, obey your husbands. Slaves, obey your masters; and masters, don't forget you have the same master in heaven. So why does Romans 13 exhort people to obey the government, without an exhortation to the government to govern well?
I'm guessing Paul felt he had to leave that implicit, Christianity was already being suspected of subverting the Roman Empire. But he does give us a challenging picture of what government ought to do, right there in the exhortation for citizens to obey the government. Verse 4 says the ruler "is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So the exhortation to the government would be "act against those who do wrong, not against those who do right." He might also have added that rulers ought to be humble. God placed them in authority to be instruments of His wrath. They should not think they are irreplaceable. God can remove them and put in other authorities if they don't do what is right.
On this day before election day, I'm thinking we citizens ought to understand both sides of Paul's exhortation. We are ordinary people, who ought to obey the government in our daily lives. But in our representative democracy, we are also the sovereigns, who get to choose who will be the authority for the next four years. May we choose wisely. May God show us the truth about the two candidate, and may we be wise enough that the truth matters to us.
I'm guessing Paul felt he had to leave that implicit, Christianity was already being suspected of subverting the Roman Empire. But he does give us a challenging picture of what government ought to do, right there in the exhortation for citizens to obey the government. Verse 4 says the ruler "is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So the exhortation to the government would be "act against those who do wrong, not against those who do right." He might also have added that rulers ought to be humble. God placed them in authority to be instruments of His wrath. They should not think they are irreplaceable. God can remove them and put in other authorities if they don't do what is right.
On this day before election day, I'm thinking we citizens ought to understand both sides of Paul's exhortation. We are ordinary people, who ought to obey the government in our daily lives. But in our representative democracy, we are also the sovereigns, who get to choose who will be the authority for the next four years. May we choose wisely. May God show us the truth about the two candidate, and may we be wise enough that the truth matters to us.
All Saints Day
Chatting with a Facebook friend reminded me that today is All Saints Day on the traditional Christian calendar. This reminded me of a hymn I loved in my college years that haven't heard for a while, For All The Saints.
For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
Who Thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy Name, O Jesus, be forever blessed.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
For more lyrics and the music, see the Cyberhymnal page
For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
Who Thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy Name, O Jesus, be forever blessed.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
For more lyrics and the music, see the Cyberhymnal page
A surprising discovery
I just spent the last 9 days in England. One morning I took a walk and saw something that compelled me to go back to the house and get the camera. A car in Stockport, England with an Obama sticker. (Click picture for larger view).
We never saw a car with a McCain sticker on our trip, and we never saw another car with an Obama sticker. So I suppose the significance of this electorally is that Obama enjoys a slight lead in the county of Cheshire (1 supporter vs 0 for McCain, out of a total population of ?)
We never saw a car with a McCain sticker on our trip, and we never saw another car with an Obama sticker. So I suppose the significance of this electorally is that Obama enjoys a slight lead in the county of Cheshire (1 supporter vs 0 for McCain, out of a total population of ?)
Sarah Palin and Internet Security
The recent news about a hacker getting into Gov. Sarah Palin's Yahoo mailbox shows at least one lesson about Internet security. When you have a login account to a website, make sure that if it has a "security question" to recover your password, you make it a question that someone can't look up or guess the answer from knowing your basic biography. Gov. Palin's secret question apparently was "Where did you meet your husband?", and the answer was on her Wikipedia page.
It did take some guessing though, because the answer was not just "Wasilla", but "Wasilla High". The account I've read says the hacker was at the "I've forgotten my password" page for 45 minutes until he guessed the right answer. This also seems like a lapse on Yahoo's part, that someone could submit several wrong answers to the secret security question without their system locking the account or locking the password recovery option.
PS. The above should not be construed as a defense of what the hacker did. If someone steals my car, he is a car thief. I may conclude it would be more prudent to get better locks on my next car, but it doesn't mean I 'deserved' to have the car stolen because I didn't have good locks on it.
It did take some guessing though, because the answer was not just "Wasilla", but "Wasilla High". The account I've read says the hacker was at the "I've forgotten my password" page for 45 minutes until he guessed the right answer. This also seems like a lapse on Yahoo's part, that someone could submit several wrong answers to the secret security question without their system locking the account or locking the password recovery option.
PS. The above should not be construed as a defense of what the hacker did. If someone steals my car, he is a car thief. I may conclude it would be more prudent to get better locks on my next car, but it doesn't mean I 'deserved' to have the car stolen because I didn't have good locks on it.
This commercial deserves an award
If the annual award show for commercials has a category for best unintended use of irony this one would be a clear winner.
Young boy aware of market risks
The little boy comes in to his mom and dad's room worrying about the family's financial future. "Dad, does your retirement plan provide predictability of income and protection against market risks?" I bet the AIG company wishes they'd signed up with a plan that provided those things.
But wait, the commercial is for AIG! We can see how well the coverage must work, AIG isn't worried at all about market risks right now, is it?
Young boy aware of market risks
The little boy comes in to his mom and dad's room worrying about the family's financial future. "Dad, does your retirement plan provide predictability of income and protection against market risks?" I bet the AIG company wishes they'd signed up with a plan that provided those things.
But wait, the commercial is for AIG! We can see how well the coverage must work, AIG isn't worried at all about market risks right now, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)