The Scripture Reading this week is Matthew 25:14-30
The Sermon title is Take a Risk
Early Thoughts: What did he do wrong? By all appearances the third servant was the most prudent of the three. He had a logical rationale for what he did. And yet he is clearly punished for his choice (to be fair, Matthew seems to have a liking for harsh punishments as he passes on Jesus' parables). What's up with that?
Then again, maybe he was already the least competent or least trusted of the three. After all we are told that each is given according to their ability and he is given the least (though even one talent was a very substantial amount of money -- if the master had 8 talents to divide among these servants he was a fabulously wealthy man). Still, maybe that makes the servant's response even more predictable. Why punish someone for being who you know them to be?
This is one of the parables that I find particularly difficult. Many people read a parable and if there is a Master/Lord/King in it they want that to be an allegory for God/Jesus. But the Master in this parable is not like the God I meet in Scripture. This Master is a bit capricious, is described as being unjust, and is more like the villain in the story than anything else. What do we do with this story?
This section of Matthew's Gospel has a focus on the End Times, on what we might call the Second Coming, what theologians might call the eschaton. It pushes us to ask if we are ready for the time when, as the next part of chapter 25 puts it, "the Son of Man comes in his glory". It pushes us to ask if we will measure up when we are called to account for how we have lived our lives, how we have used the gifts that have been entrusted to us.
I think that one way to read this particular story is to highlight the importance of taking risks. Not being profligate but taking reasonable, thought out risks. Sometimes playing it safe is the wrong answer. The third slave plays it safe and is not rewarded for it. [Though I wonder, given how the master is described, what might have happened had one of the three lost money in the exchange. If one slave is punished for staying even, what punishment would have followed a loss?]
I am not sure the church is always great at taking risks, even well-thought out, well measured risks. I find that often the church, like many other organizations, is better at sticking to the tried and true. This may be especially true when we try to determine how best to take care of the gifts which have been entrusted to us by others. We don't want to appear to be acting imprudently, even wasting those resources. That might be a problem. When we don't risk, when we need a guarantee of success before taking on a new project, when we want to avoid wasting resources or offending some group, it makes it harder to grow as people of faith. It makes it harder to find new ways of being the Body of Christ in a changing world. It makes it harder to be agents of transformation (or to be transformed ourselves) as we live into the Reign of God.
What do we, as individuals or as communities, do with the resources entrusted to our care? Do we play it too safe or are we too risky? It is a question of balance after all. Too much risk (however we define that) is not being a good steward. Too much safety (which is not always defined in the same way by all people) is also not being a good steward.
What risks do we need to take so that growth can happen?
--Gord
No comments:
Post a Comment