Pentecost 22A/27A, 2011

Matthew 25:14-30

A Liturgy is also available





THE ‘TALENT’ OF BEING A WHISTLEBLOWER

The story of ‘The talents’ is a very powerful story.

It is one of those stories that has left its mark

on our language and culture in a big way.

So much has it become part of our everyday vocabulary,

we tend to miss the ‘fang’ or ‘twist’ hidden in its tail.

And that’s a pity.

oo0oo

How can we connect with this story, this parable?

Some scholars suggest we can connect through the story’s ecclesiastical context.

And Matthew’s context is one of the great church debates of his, and our, day.

Should we stay as we are? Or should we change…

Become more of an inclusive community

and let ‘the others’, the Gentiles, people who are different, in?

Supporting this view, West Australian Bill Loader says Matthew's church is probably remembering:

“the controversy over the expansion of the gospel into the Gentile world and the refusal of some… to accept that the doors should be flung open so recklessly... God is misbehaving again and they cannot believe it and refuse to support the adventure” (WLoader/Web Site, 2005).

On the other hand much of our traditional interpretations or thinking

about the parable sees two servants being made heroes.

And they are rewarded by the owner because they have

faithfully engaged in various activities, such as

collecting tolls, interest, and other charges,

that have made the owner a profit.

Such interpretations have, I reckon, turned this parable into an example story.

Go and do likewise. Grow your gifts.

Or even more problematic: God will grow your gifts!

Both blunt the sharp edge of this parable.

But there is yet another way of hearing this parable, which I reckon, is closer to the parable itself...

A story which really upsets our accepted world views.

And it is the view offered by scholars Wm Herzog 11 and Barbara Reid.

That is, the third servant, and not the other two, is the hero.

So let me offer some comments accordingly.

oo0oo

The parable gives the third servant as much space or attention

as the other two servants put together.

And he is the real hero, because he challenges the system

rather than accepting the system (WHerzog 1994:164).

He does not go along with the money-raising, greed, and exploitation

of both the owner and the other two servants.

Now part of our problem is, when we hear this parable,

we tend hear it through ‘capitalist’ ears, which views wealth

as something that can be increased by hard work or investment.

But in the social world of the parable, both in its original oral telling

and in its later written form by storyteller Matthew,

it is thought there is only so much wealth.

And an increase to one person takes away from another.

Let me share some of what Barbara Reid says on this:

“From this perspective, the man who expects his money to be increased is the wicked one, who is unfettered in his greed... The third servant, then, is not wicked (or incompetent), except in the eyes of those who are greedy acquisitors or those who are co-opted by them, as are the first two servants. The third [servant] is the one who acted honorably by blowing the whistle on the wickedness of the (owner)... The parable is a warning to the rich to stop exploiting the poor and is one that encourages poor people to take measures that expose such greed for the sin that it is” (Reid 2001:207-208).

The owner is a tough, ruthless, seemingly all powerful businessman.

He doesn’t care how he gets his profit

so long as he gets it - more often than not

from the poor, the unemployed, the landless.

The other two servants follow in this accepted pattern.

But the third names this as exploitation and will not participate in it.

He is a whistleblower on greed and corruption

against the abuse of power over the powerless - the poor.

But like most, if not all, whistleblowers,

having spoken the truth he is totally vulnerable.

Vilified.

Shamed.

Humiliated.

Remember the political outbursts around WikiLeaks founder,

Australian Julian Assange, last year.

A whistleblower in a big way, he was demonised by what appeared to be

a slanderous propaganda campaign waged at the highest levels

of governments around the world.

• Prime Minister Gillard questioned the 'legality' of his actions

prompting 180 leading academics and others (no clergy though),

to write an 'open letter' to her, demanding she respect Assange's safety and Australian citizenship.

• US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, branded the release

of secret information as 'an attack on the international community',

while right-wing US journalists and politicians demanded to know "why this guy was not already dead!"

• Interpol, of behalf of Sweden, issued an arrest warrant for Assange’s arrest

on account of dubious sex crimes.

He was arrested some days later, in London. Bail was refused.

As Michael Mullins of Eureka Street eZine said:

“Assange's character flaws are being exaggerated in order to shift the burden of shame from governments on to Assange himself. There is a possibility that the messenger will be shot, literally” (Eureka Street 20,24. 6.12.2010) .

Assange... vilified.

Shamed.



Humiliated.



What a way to turn our expectations and interpretations upside down!

From reward to exposing.

From self interest to another’s interest.

Interestingly enough, Matthew’s Jesus seems to be saying in his take on this parable,

it is when we have the courage to name exploitation for what it is,

rather than to seek the reward,

we are re-imaginging the world,

as is the realm of God imagined.

Hearing the story this way can make

the powerful angry and defensive, and

the powerless empowered!

oo0oo

Parables are stories which turn our world views upside down.

But what is the world view the parable wants to turn upside down?

I invite you to ponder that important question some time.

Because which world we view can make all the difference

to how we live in the present

and claim the future.

Will the connection be through the world - church institution?

If so, is the future to be claimed by

preserving, holding on, staying the same?

Or is it claimed in freedom of action, acting boldly, changing?

Will the connection be through the world - global and social?

If so, is the future to be claimed through

a new interconnectedness of all life,

and the sustainability of resources?

Or is it global commercialism, international corporations

and third-world debt?

I invite you to ponder some more.



