This parable has confused Christians for centuries. Luke himself offers four different conclusions to be drawn from the parable, none of which really fit the details of the story. But maybe the point of the story is simply to get us thinking. So let’s think:
Jesus frequently tells stories about managers or stewards who serve by taking care of wealth that is not theirs until their (usually absent) employer returns. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that we are the stewards, trying to faithfully take care of what God has given us. Stewardship includes our management of God’s creation, of our financial resources, and even our time. It has been said that stewardship is everything that follows once we say, “I believe.” What do you think it means to be a good steward? Can you think of a decision or priority you have embraced because of this understanding of your life?
What makes it so difficult to talk about money in church? How have you been able to make the connection between the Gospel and money?
What is your stewardship experience? Have you reached a place of peace with your decisions regarding money and faith, or are there areas of concern or struggle?
2 Responses
Operating the church is a business, and requires money. Time and service as well as money can be given after saying, I BELIEVE. There are many ways to tithe.
Good to have enough faith to give properly, and not rationalize for not giving effectively.
As with most if not all parables this has only one lesson or point to make., in my opinion and I think it just may be this:
The “manager” has been accuse and convicted in one stroke apparently has not the opportunity to defend himself or at least assumes a defense would be fruitless. Accordingly, as one equal of shrewdness equal to the “peopleof this world” he acts to provide for himself for his future. It is for this shrewdness that he is commended. That’s the point. Followers of the Christ, the Way, need to be shrewd too. They ought be “childlike” in their innocence but not “childish” in their expectations. This is the same as the point of the “parableof the talents”. In thah case the “master” rewards the stewards who wisely took “the risk” of loss for the possible gain while the steward who took the ‘no risk” approach and burried his “talent” so as to not lose it. was scolded, lost his job or whatever. That’s what I think; what do you think?
Matt P.
Matt P.