Dishonest Steward

peakpilgrim

Hi

I am R.C. Christian.

A question that has perplexed me over the years is the
parable of the 'Dishonest Steward' which comes up in Mass every few years.
I think it is from St.John's gospel.

In this parable the steward is given Notice by his employer and then goes about doing deals with his employers' clients to secure his future.

I always found this parable to be somewhat 'Un-Christian'; I have never heard a satisfactory explanation in the Priest's Homily and have always been reluctant to broach the subject with any Priest.

Does anyone have an opinion on this topic.

Kind Regards

PDN

The point of a parable is usually that they are conveying one or two important points. We are not supposed to see some deep hidden meaning in every detail of the parable (that would turn them into an allegory) nor does the teller of the Parable necessarily agree with every action of the participants in the Bible.
Unlike most Western stories they do not always contain 'goodies and baddies'.

This parable is teaching 2 important points:
a) If we are unfaithful in small things (ie money) then we cannot be trusted in big things (spiritual authority).
b) We cannot serve both God and money. If our worship of money (materialism) causes us to act unrighteously we may gain a reputation as a financial whizz kid, but be as effective in the Kingdom as a chocolate teapot.

Hope this helps.

JimiTime

Firstly, thanks for raising the question. Its a parable I don't really recall. After reading it, I was, like yourself, a bit baffled. So, like all good internet nerds do, I googled it:) Below is a link to an explaination which I thought was more than reasonble.

http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/teachings/dishonestmanager.html

hivizman

This parable is in Luke's Gospel, Chapter 16 (verses 1 to 8 or 9 -there is some disagreement where the parable itself actually ends as there are various statements about money that could be the "punch-line" of the parable or could just be general comments).

In the New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized Edition, the parable is headed "The Parable of the Dishonest Manager", while Tom Wright, in Luke for Everyone, gives the heading "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager". This nicely reflects the ambivalence of the parable - is Jesus condemning or actually praising the steward's behaviour?

Here's Tom Wright's translation:

Jesus said to his disciples, 'Once there was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were laid against him that he was squandering his property. So he called him and said to him, "What's all this I hear about you? Present an account of your stewardship; I'm not going to have you as my steward any more!"
'At this, the steward said to himself, "What shall I do? My master is taking away my stewardship from me! I can't do manual work, and I'd be ashamed to beg . . .
' "I have an idea what to do! - so that people will welcome me into their households when I am fired from being steward."
So he called his master's debtors to him, one by one. "How much," he asked the first, "do you owe my master?"
' "A hundred measures of olive oil," he replied.
' "Take your bill," he said to him, "sit down quickly, and make it fifty."
'To another he said, "And how much do you owe?"
' "A hundred measures of wheat," he replied.
' "Take your bill," he said, "and make it eighty."
'And the master praised the dishonest steward because he had acted wisely. The children of this world, you see, are wiser than the children of light when it comes to dealing with their own generation.
'So let me tell you this: use that dishonest stuff money to make yourself friends! Then, when it gives out, they will welcome you into homes that will last.'

Tom Wright gives several interpretations of this parable. First, he points out that the use of obligations to deliver commodities was often a way around the prohibition of charging interest on loans - for example, the master may have loaned the money equivalent of eighty measures of wheat and agreed to take one hundred measures at a future date as settlement for the loan. So the steward wasn't really stealing from the master but rather reinstating the debtors to the position that they would have been in had the master not been exploiting them. In the ancient world, debt was almost always regarded as evidence of the exploitation of the weak by the strong, so the steward was changing sides and supporting the weak debtors when previously he had been the agent of the powerful master.

Wright goes beyond this to suggest that the allegorical meaning of the parable sees the master as God and the steward as Israel. In serving God, Israel has lost sight of the need to support the weak. Rather than rigidly enforcing the letter of the law, then, Israel is being encouraged to apply its spirit. Wright suggests that Jesus is advising us not to hoard wealth but rather to use it to make new friends, particularly among the poor, weak and oppressed, so that, when the last days come, we will find "homes" among them at a time when money will not avail.

I'm particularly interested in the ideas contained in this parable, particularly the idea of accountability for stewardship, so I'd encourage you all to share your views and interpretations.

Soul Winner

This is the parable I take it?

Luke 16 1-15

Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' "The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg— I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.' "So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'

" 'Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'

"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels[ of wheat,' he replied.

"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'

"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own? "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."

The core message of it seems to be that worldly people concerned only with the cares of this world without any eternal perspective are wiser than the children of light in relation to the things of this world, so if you want to have a comfortable life down here then be more like them in their dealings. Not sure what else to make of it other than that.

EDIT: Except of course for what PDN said

hivizman

One aspect of this parable that seems to divide opinion is what actually makes the steward dishonest. Is it behaviour that is hinted at in verse 1 ("charges were brought to [the rich man] that this man [the steward or manager] was squandering his property" - NRSV), or is it the encouragement to the debtors to mark down what they are stated as owing the master?

The relationship between master and steward is a classic example of what economists call a "principal-agent" relationship, and there is a vast literature analysing the problems that arise when a principal (for example an investor) entrusts resources to an agent (for example a manager). The problem is that the principal's interests and those of the agent may be different - the principal may, for example, want the value of the resources to be maximised while the agent prefers to be lazy and/or to cream off a generous salary and benefits. This sort of situation crops up in other parts of the Gospel, most notably in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30; Luke 19: 11-27), the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves (Matthew 24: 45-51; Luke 12: 41-48) and the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18: 23-35).

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, writes of stewards managing the estates of aristocratic landowners in the 18th century who claimed that it would damage the dignity of their masters if they were tight with their masters' money - thus rationalising extravagant behaviour that would benefit the stewards at their masters' expense. Possibly the steward of the parable was behaving in this way, and went too far.

prinz

Agency Theory? Goes to show Jesus was waaaaaay ahead of his time :pac:;)

hivizman

prinz wrote: »

Agency Theory? Goes to show Jesus was waaaaaay ahead of his time :pac:;)

Well, the economists who developed agency theory would claim that they were simply theorising a fact of human nature that has always been the case. So they wouldn't be surprised at Jesus referring to the problems of agency relationships in his parables.

One of the central ideas informing agency theory is "information asymmetry" - the idea that one party to a contract, typically the agent, has more or better information than the other party, typically the principal. For example, the principal may not be able to observe the agent's behaviour directly, and hence relies on information provided mainly by the agent - if the agent is able to manipulate or distort that information to give a misleading impression of the agent's activities, then the principal may be none the wiser. In the parable of the dishonest steward, it is significant that "charges were brought to" the rich man that the steward was "squandering his property" - the rich man becomes aware of the steward's questionable behaviour only through obtaining information from a third party.

In the classic paper by Michael Jensen and William Meckling "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure" (Journal of Financial Economics, 3:4, 1976), the authors argue that, in a situation of information asymmetry, an untrusting principal will suspect that the agent will exploit his or her position and serve his or her own interests, even if these conflict with those of the principal. Hence the principal will build the expected loss into the remuneration offered to the agent. There are various ways of mitigating this agency problem. One of these is to provide incentives to align the interests of the agent with those of the principal (for example, profit-related pay and bonuses, share option schemes), the other is to monitor the behaviour of the agent. This may include having the agent's actions examined by an independent third party (such as an auditor) to ensure that any account rendered by the agent to the principal is reliable.

Why should this have any relevance in the Christianity forum? My particular interest arises when people interpret the "master" in parables such as the parable of the dishonest steward as God. If God is omniscient, then there can be no information asymmetry. Indeed, if God is one to whom, in the words of the prayer, "all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hidden", God knows us better than we know ourselves. So why should God expect us to "render an account", if God already knows what we have done, and left undone? [As an aside, this issue is even more significant in Islam, as the Qur'an has several passages that describe in some detail the way in which Allah in effect carries out an audit of all of us on the Day of Reckoning - the arabic word for Reckoning (hisab) is also the word for account.]

I'm leaving this dangling, because I'm interested in what other people think. What does it mean to say that we are accountable to God? Is the parable of the dishonest steward, and comparable parables such as the parable of the talents, an allegory of the Last Judgement? Is a belief that God is always watching over us something that provides comfort or does it make people feel uneasy?

wolfsbane

Seems to me the moral is clear enough. The Pharisees saw it, and were incensed. You cannot love God and money.

The crooked steward, and the children of this world, are very clever in their dealings with the object of their love. Even the embezzled owner can admire the sharp business of the steward.

But the children of God have a different love, and it is their calling to put their wealth into His service. We should be 'shrewd' is to do good, not to pile up riches in this life.

Unlike the worldly-wise, we are called to be always faithful in earthly matters, if we are to be counted worthy of being given heavenly duties: 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

wolfsbane

hivizman said:

Why should this have any relevance in the Christianity forum? My particular interest arises when people interpret the "master" in parables such as the parable of the dishonest steward as God. If God is omniscient, then there can be no information asymmetry. Indeed, if God is one to whom, in the words of the prayer, "all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hidden", God knows us better than we know ourselves. So why should God expect us to "render an account", if God already knows what we have done, and left undone? [As an aside, this issue is even more significant in Islam, as the Qur'an has several passages that describe in some detail the way in which Allah in effect carries out an audit of all of us on the Day of Reckoning - the arabic word for Reckoning (hisab) is also the word for account.]

The giving of an account is not so God will find out what we have been up to, but to make that plain before heaven and earth: Luke 12:1b."Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops."

Hebrews 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

I'm leaving this dangling, because I'm interested in what other people think. What does it mean to say that we are accountable to God?

It means God is the Judge before whom we all must stand and answer for all we have thought and done.

Is the parable of the dishonest steward, and comparable parables such as the parable of the talents, an allegory of the Last Judgement?

Yes, in that that Judgement will be based on our life here.

Is a belief that God is always watching over us something that provides comfort or does it make people feel uneasy?

It is a great comfort to those who are living to please Him - but those who are not should be more than 'uneasy'.

peakpilgrim

hivizman wrote: »

One aspect of this parable that seems to divide opinion is what actually makes the steward dishonest. Is it behaviour that is hinted at in verse 1 ("charges were brought to [the rich man] that this man [the steward or manager] was squandering his property" - NRSV), or is it the encouragement to the debtors to mark down what they are stated as owing the master?

The relationship between master and steward is a classic example of what economists call a "principal-agent" relationship, and there is a vast literature analysing the problems that arise when a principal (for example an investor) entrusts resources to an agent (for example a manager). The problem is that the principal's interests and those of the agent may be different - the principal may, for example, want the value of the resources to be maximised while the agent prefers to be lazy and/or to cream off a generous salary and benefits. This sort of situation crops up in other parts of the Gospel, most notably in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30; Luke 19: 11-27), the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves (Matthew 24: 45-51; Luke 12: 41-48) and the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18: 23-35).

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, writes of stewards managing the estates of aristocratic landowners in the 18th century who claimed that it would damage the dignity of their masters if they were tight with their masters' money - thus rationalising extravagant behaviour that would benefit the stewards at their masters' expense. Possibly the steward of the parable was behaving in this way, and went too far.

Hi

Sorry for quoting the wrong Gospel.

the parable of the talents makes perfect sense to me.

This parable, however, is still a mystery. One cannot get away from the fact that the Steward used his employers assets, immorally, to feather his own nest and is not castigated for doing so. On the contrary: he is praised for doing so.

It is different from the eighteenth century landowners Agent who is, all the time, acting in his employer' s interest.

I take your point that reducing the debt might have a different meaning today but that still does not make sense.

It is the last paragraph that is confusing: ' ... use that dishonest stuff money...' .

This parable must be in the Gospel for a reason but I still cannot grasp what it is.

Kind Regards.

hivizman

There are, I think, two separate ideas underpinning this parable. The first is the idea of accountability of a steward to his or her master, which crops up in several places in the Gospels, and can be interpreted as an image of the accountability of humans to God. In this case, the steward is charged with wasting or squandering the master's possessions (think of this in terms of current debates over the environment - is humanity squandering the resources of the world over which we are merely God's stewards?). There is the implication that the steward will be punished for his misdeeds.

The steward could presumably beg the master's forgiveness (compare the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35), and promise to make good his misappropriations. But the only way of doing this would be to exploit the master's debtors even more fiercely (Tom Wright sees the parable as an allegory for the Pharisees responding to criticisms that they are falling short of keeping the Torah by being even more nitpicking and punctilious in following the Law). Instead, the second idea of the parable, the steward behaves a bit like a "Robin Hood", telling the debtors to write down their debts. Possibly in doing so, he is cancelling out hidden interest charges that were unlawful in the first place. He's not taking money directly from the debtors, but rather putting them on-side for when he loses his job. The master, possibly with a guilty conscience, praises the steward for finally doing the right thing, in a way that means the steward comes out of the mess with a good reputation.

This parable was quoted a lot around the time of the millennium by the Jubilee movement, who were trying to persuade international bankers to write off the debt of many third-world countries. The movement argued that the unpayable debt was the fault of the bankers in the first place, and they would gain more kudos from writing off debt that was in practice uncollectable than from trying to enforce it. (What's happened instead is that we see "vulture funds" buying up third world debt at deep discounts on face value and then trying to enforce the debt through the courts.)

The last bit of the parable, about using "worldly wealth" (or, as Tom Wright translates it, "that dishonest stuff money") to gain friends, is a bit obscure. One interpretation I like, although I don't know whether it is particularly sound, sees a parallel with the Muslim obligatory charity zakat, which obliges Muslims to contribute 2.5% of their surplus wealth each year for specific charitable purposes. The rationalisation for zakat is that it discourages hoarding, since zakat is not levied on wealth actively invested in productive activities but rather on unproductive wealth like money in savings accounts and gold jewellery. Similarly, the recommendation to use "worldly wealth" could imply an encouragement to use resources, while they are still available, in a productive manner rather than in a way that is more likely to create enemies rather than friends (such as lending money at usurious rates of interest).

Fanny Cradock

Interesting thoughts, Hivisman

hivizman wrote: »

I'm leaving this dangling, because I'm interested in what other people think. What does it mean to say that we are accountable to God? Is the parable of the dishonest steward, and comparable parables such as the parable of the talents, an allegory of the Last Judgement? Is a belief that God is always watching over us something that provides comfort or does it make people feel uneasy?

To provide a brief reply, I think that you have answered your own question regarding the overall meaning of the passage - at least to my satisifaction. Though I would also be interested in exploring other proposals.

I personally don't find the belief that God is omniscient to cause me any nagging discomfort. Why would it? God isn't some score keeper looking on from the sidelines. In fact, the notion that he knows what you're up to helps me think twice about my actions (I often should think more than than twice about things) lest I slip into hypocrisy, it also provides comfort in the knowledge that he is bothered enough to take an intrest in our lives.

Such a thing is necessary for judgement (fair judgement, of course) and redemption.

peakpilgrim

hivizman wrote: »

There are, I think, two separate ideas underpinning this parable. The first is the idea of accountability of a steward to his or her master, which crops up in several places in the Gospels, and can be interpreted as an image of the accountability of humans to God. In this case, the steward is charged with wasting or squandering the master's possessions (think of this in terms of current debates over the environment - is humanity squandering the resources of the world over which we are merely God's stewards?). There is the implication that the steward will be punished for his misdeeds.

The steward could presumably beg the master's forgiveness (compare the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35), and promise to make good his misappropriations. But the only way of doing this would be to exploit the master's debtors even more fiercely (Tom Wright sees the parable as an allegory for the Pharisees responding to criticisms that they are falling short of keeping the Torah by being even more nitpicking and punctilious in following the Law). Instead, the second idea of the parable, the steward behaves a bit like a "Robin Hood", telling the debtors to write down their debts. Possibly in doing so, he is cancelling out hidden interest charges that were unlawful in the first place. He's not taking money directly from the debtors, but rather putting them on-side for when he loses his job. The master, possibly with a guilty conscience, praises the steward for finally doing the right thing, in a way that means the steward comes out of the mess with a good reputation.

This parable was quoted a lot around the time of the millennium by the Jubilee movement, who were trying to persuade international bankers to write off the debt of many third-world countries. The movement argued that the unpayable debt was the fault of the bankers in the first place, and they would gain more kudos from writing off debt that was in practice uncollectable than from trying to enforce it. (What's happened instead is that we see "vulture funds" buying up third world debt at deep discounts on face value and then trying to enforce the debt through the courts.)

The last bit of the parable, about using "worldly wealth" (or, as Tom Wright translates it, "that dishonest stuff money") to gain friends, is a bit obscure. One interpretation I like, although I don't know whether it is particularly sound, sees a parallel with the Muslim obligatory charity zakat, which obliges Muslims to contribute 2.5% of their surplus wealth each year for specific charitable purposes. The rationalisation for zakat is that it discourages hoarding, since zakat is not levied on wealth actively invested in productive activities but rather on unproductive wealth like money in savings accounts and gold jewellery. Similarly, the recommendation to use "worldly wealth" could imply an encouragement to use resources, while they are still available, in a productive manner rather than in a way that is more likely to create enemies rather than friends (such as lending money at usurious rates of interest).

What you say makes sense, however, the fundamental problem here is one of ownership of the assets that need to be managed wisely.

Many of the proposed explanations of the parable put forward that we should manage OUR assets in a humanitarian manner and will be accountable to God
for our actions; which makes perfect sense.

With regard to Third World Debt and the Banks, which are not the most popular institutions in the world at the present time. It is perfectly acceptable to put up a strong case for writing off these debts but would it be right for a 'hacker' to break into the Banks' computers and erase all record of them; assumimg that such were possible.

Christianity is not, necessarily, an extreme left-wing philosophy.

The problem with this parable is that the assets did not belong to the steward at all.

postcynical

I still find this passage confusing. I agree with the conclusions of others above but cannot see the reasoning directly from this piece.
First of all, this steward/manager is clearly incompetent or negligent in his work and hence is called to account. He then feathers his own nest buying favour with his master's resources.

gospel via Soul Winner wrote: »

"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.

Surely the dishonest manager's guile is to be condemned rather than commended?

For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.

Fair enough, but does this suggest that a Christian of means could legitimately employ a cunning nonChristian to better manage his means, without compromising the Christian's morals? Why is this statement here?

I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

To whom does Jesus address this advice? His listeners, I guess from the context. But to whose wealth is He referring? Is He condoning the actions of the dishonest manager, or condemning the master who hordes or who employs a miscreant to manage his wealth?

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

So it would seem, yet would this apply in the case of a potential statesman who was unfaithful to his wife? On-topic, surely Jesus is condemning the dishonest practice of the steward here?

So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?

Does this mean that Christians, who build up our treasures in heaven, should also be attentive to the responsible creation and use of wealth down here too? Or is Jesus switching from material wealth to wealth as we would understand it (spiritual wealth, faith, health, happiness)?

And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?

The rest of it is pretty clear. I'd appreciate any wisdom (worldly or otherwise;)) on offer to help me understand this.