What was the problem with the "wicked, lazy slave" of Matthew 25?
Well, duh. He was "wicked" and "lazy."
Ok. But . . .
What's so wicked about him? He is given fifteen years' wages to hang onto while his master is out of town--about $300,000 give or take. And he doesn't steal a penny of it! What is so lazy about him? He is entrusted with $300,00, and he doesn't lose any of it; he gives his master $300,000 upon his return. It could have been a lot worse, right?
Well, not according to the master. "Cast into outer darkness" to spend his days in "weeping and gnashing of teeth" does not sound like acceptance or even toleration of that safe deposit box servant. So what's the big deal? Is this an overreaction?
No.
Here's why: He's called a slave (NASB) or servant (ESV), but he's treated as a steward. That's the most exalted position for a servant. That gives him discretion and some degree of authority with a great deal of responsibility. It also portends a great reward if he is a "good and faithful steward."
Now notice: the first two slaves both do the exact same thing with the master's money. And they both do it "immediately." As if they don't even think about it. How is that? Well, ironically, the wicked slave offers us an explanation. He claims, "Master, I knew you . . ." to which the master replies in confirmation, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I . . ." The point here is that the slaves "know" their master, and their master expects them to act according to their knowledge of him. That is, they are expected to do what he would do.
That's what makes a "good and faithful" steward.
The first two slaves act immediately because they know their master intimately; they know his heart. They do the exact same thing (although they are two different people) because they are acting according to their master's desires, not their own.The wicked slave seems to know his master only in part. He has observed his practices, but not his heart. He believes his master to be "a hard man" (although the master proves otherwise in the way he rewards his good slaves) and acts accordingly--in fear.
Unfortunately, we as the modern, American Church often read this parable and can't get past the principles of western finacial practices we see modeled by the first two slaves. We seem to think the money, the bank is the point of the parable.
Or, if we do apply it more broadly, as in using our "talents" (we always intend a pun here, too) for God's glory instead of just sitting on the couch (or the pew), we don't go deep enough. We usually throw out suggestions like singing in the choir, being willing to usher and take the offering, help your church with accounting or teach Sunday School (all good things, by the way). But is that what this parable is all about? The master's wrath poured out if we sit in the pew on Sundays instead of the choir loft?
I realize I'm oversimplifying this, but I want to jar us out of a sleepy, false view of "church" and "the Kingdom" that we've dozed into. Church is not the event we put on for a few hours every Sunday. And if we think the kingdom looks like merely a bunch of people standing around Jesus' throne all saying the same creed, we're wrong there too.
Confession of Christ with the tongue (or some kind of sign language?) is an essential part of the Gospel, and the New Testament pattern of Sunday worship celebrations gives us a joyous time together each week. But if those two items are the sum of our faith, of our vision of the Kingdom, of Church, then it may be that we don't really know our Master's heart as we should.
In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus is teaching us what a true steward looks like. Then, in verses 31-46, our Master shows us his heart:
Well, duh. He was "wicked" and "lazy."
Ok. But . . .
What's so wicked about him? He is given fifteen years' wages to hang onto while his master is out of town--about $300,000 give or take. And he doesn't steal a penny of it! What is so lazy about him? He is entrusted with $300,00, and he doesn't lose any of it; he gives his master $300,000 upon his return. It could have been a lot worse, right?
Well, not according to the master. "Cast into outer darkness" to spend his days in "weeping and gnashing of teeth" does not sound like acceptance or even toleration of that safe deposit box servant. So what's the big deal? Is this an overreaction?
No.
Here's why: He's called a slave (NASB) or servant (ESV), but he's treated as a steward. That's the most exalted position for a servant. That gives him discretion and some degree of authority with a great deal of responsibility. It also portends a great reward if he is a "good and faithful steward."
Now notice: the first two slaves both do the exact same thing with the master's money. And they both do it "immediately." As if they don't even think about it. How is that? Well, ironically, the wicked slave offers us an explanation. He claims, "Master, I knew you . . ." to which the master replies in confirmation, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I . . ." The point here is that the slaves "know" their master, and their master expects them to act according to their knowledge of him. That is, they are expected to do what he would do.
That's what makes a "good and faithful" steward.
The first two slaves act immediately because they know their master intimately; they know his heart. They do the exact same thing (although they are two different people) because they are acting according to their master's desires, not their own.The wicked slave seems to know his master only in part. He has observed his practices, but not his heart. He believes his master to be "a hard man" (although the master proves otherwise in the way he rewards his good slaves) and acts accordingly--in fear.
Unfortunately, we as the modern, American Church often read this parable and can't get past the principles of western finacial practices we see modeled by the first two slaves. We seem to think the money, the bank is the point of the parable.
Or, if we do apply it more broadly, as in using our "talents" (we always intend a pun here, too) for God's glory instead of just sitting on the couch (or the pew), we don't go deep enough. We usually throw out suggestions like singing in the choir, being willing to usher and take the offering, help your church with accounting or teach Sunday School (all good things, by the way). But is that what this parable is all about? The master's wrath poured out if we sit in the pew on Sundays instead of the choir loft?
I realize I'm oversimplifying this, but I want to jar us out of a sleepy, false view of "church" and "the Kingdom" that we've dozed into. Church is not the event we put on for a few hours every Sunday. And if we think the kingdom looks like merely a bunch of people standing around Jesus' throne all saying the same creed, we're wrong there too.
Confession of Christ with the tongue (or some kind of sign language?) is an essential part of the Gospel, and the New Testament pattern of Sunday worship celebrations gives us a joyous time together each week. But if those two items are the sum of our faith, of our vision of the Kingdom, of Church, then it may be that we don't really know our Master's heart as we should.
In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus is teaching us what a true steward looks like. Then, in verses 31-46, our Master shows us his heart:
'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
So my question is: Knowing the Master's heart above, how are we spending the resources he's put into our hands? Are we pouring our money and time and "talents" into giving food and drink, welcoming and visiting and clothing the destitute? Or are we driven by Fear as the "wicked, lazy" servant? So driven by fear that we have poured all of our time and our money into "providing" for our family's American lifestyle that we don't have time or money "left over" to fulfill our Master's deepest desires? It is HIS money after all. It is HIS time. Your life is HIS life after all.
I guess how we want to answer that question depends on if we believe truly good stewardship, as defined by Christ, is optional or not. And I guess we have to figure out if it's optional by deciding whether we should allow "cast into outer darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as a legitimate option.
No comments:
Post a Comment