Essential Q&A

In the form of a story, each parable addreses a specific problem/issue, and then offers a solution to the problem. Meet as a group and articulate what the problem/issue is that Jesus is addressing in the form of a question. Now describe what Jesus' answer is to the question (example: since everyone is my neighbor I need to see with the eyes of compassion, and one's inability to act with compassion is often socially constructed, i/e., one power and privilege in society often determines ones' ability to act humanely). Enter both Q&A in your DP.

1)How do hierarchies within a system effect social roles of the people involved and how do people react to each other when subject to their social statuses in the system?

2) The Kingdom of God would opt to promote a synchronized society in which social orders do not conflict with each other. However, in the system of first century Palestine, was obviously not structured that way.

3) Topics applicable to this parable are the healthcare system as portrayed in Sicko and the drug dealing system in the movie American Gangster

Parables Draft 1

The Parable of the Unjust Steward is an in-depth interpretation and commentary of the socioeconomic times. The steward was in a position to collect on the profits and payments owed to the master, record them, and adequately manage a portion of the master's estate. The master trusted the steward with this responsibility, but also understood that the steward also gained his above substantial recognition and pay by negotiating the contracts off the books to where he was making a profit as well. The master overlooked this as long as the steward didn't undercut the master's profit, and left him free to scam either the peasants or merchants from whom he collected money. As the parable goes, the master somehow found out or arbitrarily accused the steward of swindling his money so that he could remove him from his position (stewards were placed in a class of retainers who made money for the masters and profited for themselves but simultaneously were quite expendable). There is no dispute that by purely looking at the master's implied estate, the amount of money other's owed him, and the expendability of those who served him that he was a wealthy elitist whose main preoccupation was competition with other elites and a constant struggle to become a ruler. The master's ousting of the steward would mean for the steward destitution and eventual death from malnutrition and poverty, something he was staunchly unaccustomed to with his current position. The steward thusly set out to bargain with those who were indebted to his master by reducing their debts. He deals with each of them separately so they cannot negotiate or speak with each other while the deals are being made. In doing this, the true goal of the steward is not to establish favor with the debtors so he will have somewhere to reside after his expulsion from the stewardship. He hopes to keep his job. If the master still fires him after his deal, he will have to suffer possible mobs of debtors and lose their trust. If he keeps the steward, he will suffer temporary losses, but the debtors will be more likely to comply with him in the future. Therefore, he commends the steward who scams both he and the debtors. The steward most likely keeps his job. If he had lost his job, he wouldn't have likely been accepted by the debtors, as they would hear of his expulsion and owe him nothing. Merchants wouldn't have compassion for him because they competed with him for goods, prestige and wealth. Peasants couldn't sustain him long because they lived a subsistence existnece. Therefore, the steward was at the mercy of his own shrewdness.

The problem with the unjust steward is that the main objective of his actions (and the prudence that he is commended for) is centered on wealth and economic stability. This is the motivation for all of his actions, both stealing or mis-managing the money, and acting deceitfully towards the peasants and the master. According to the article from the Westminster Theological Journal, the purpose for Jesus telling this parable serves to juxtapose the beliefs and social order exemplified in the steward’s actions to the values of the kingdom of God. Jesus says that his actions were logical in that in the world ingenuity is disguised in a need to sin and cheat others for your own benefit, to succeed in the oppressive ways of the system, but the way the kingdom of God is set up is the exact opposite. In the backwards way of thinking in the world, the steward is commended for acting unjustly. The master, however, is equally, if not more guilty than the servant. He plays along and encourages the deeds of the steward by commending him. The master is seeking to save his own face in the community so as not to make himself look foolish. He allows the steward to rip off the debtors to make any amount of money he feels is necessary. He perpetuates the system by holding power to dispose of the steward, or anyone else to works for him. If they are disposed from such a job, the result will most likely be a death sentence for them. In a fair reality, no one would be able to hold so much power that a simple decision on their part could cause such a dramatic effect on the life of another. The parable of the unjust steward points out the flaws of ancient and modern society and in human behavior, in the ever present power struggle for the socioeconomic system.

Herzog

The Herzog document explained in detail how the Parable of the Unjust Steward was an in-depth interpretation and commentary of the socioeconomic times. The steward was in a position to collect on the profits and payments owed to the master, record them, and adequately manage a portion of the master's estate. The master trusted the steward with this responsibility, but also understood that the steward also gained his above substantial recognition and pay by negotiating the contracts off the books to where he was making a profit as well. The master overlooked this as long as the steward didn't undercut the master's profit, and left him free to scam either the peasants or merchants from whom he collected money. As the parable goes, the master somehow found out or arbitrarily accused the steward of swindling his money so that he could remove him from his position (stewards were placed in a class of retainers who made money for the masters and profited for themselves but simultaneously were quite expendable). There is no dispute that by purely looking at the master's implied estate, the amount of money other's owed him, and the expendability of those who served him that he was a wealthy elitist whose main preoccupation was competition with other elites and a constant struggle to become a ruler. The master's ousting of the steward would mean for the steward destitution and eventual death from malnutrition and poverty, something he was staunchly unaccustomed to with his current position. The steward thusly set out to bargain with those who were indebted to his master by reducing their debts. He deals with each of them separately so they cannot negotiate or speak with each other while the deals are being made. In doing this, the true goal of the steward is not to establish favor with the debtors so he will have somewhere to reside after his expulsion from the stewardship. He hopes to keep his job. If the master still fires him after his deal, he will have to suffer possible mobs of debtors and lose their trust. If he keeps the steward, he will suffer temporary losses, but the debtors will be more likely to comply with him in the future. Therefore, he commends the steward who scams both he and the debtors. The steward most likely keeps his job. If he had lost his job, he wouldn't have likely been accepted by the debtors, as they would hear of his expulsion and owe him nothing. Merchants wouldn't have compassion for him because they competed with him for goods, prestige and wealth. Peasants couldn't sustain him long because they lived a subsistence existnece. Therefore, the steward was at the mercy of his own shrewdness.

Homework for friday, nov. 16
The problem with the unjust steward is that the main objective of his actions (and the prudence that he is commended for) is centered on wealth and economic stability. This is the motivation for all of his actions, both stealing or mis-managing the money, and acting deceitfully towards the peasants and the master. According to the article from the Westminster Theological Journal, the purpose for Jesus telling this parable serves to juxtapose the beliefs and social order exemplified in the steward’s actions to the values of the kingdom of God. Jesus says that his actions were logical in that in the world ingenuity is disguised in a need to sin and cheat others for your own benefit, to succeed in the oppressive ways of the system, but the way the kingdom of God is set up is the exact opposite. In the backwards way of thinking in the world, the steward is commended for acting unjustly. The master, however, is equally, if not more guilty than the servant. He plays along and encourages the deeds of the steward by commending him. The master is seeking to save his own face in the community so as not to make himself look foolish. He allows the steward to rip off the debtors to make any amount of money he feels is necessary. He perpetuates the system by holding power to dispose of the steward, or anyone else to works for him. If they are disposed from such a job, the result will most likely be a death sentence for them. In a fair reality, no one would be able to hold so much power that a simple decision on their part could cause such a dramatic effect on the life of another. The parable of the unjust steward points out the flaws of ancient and modern society and in human behavior, in the ever present power struggle for the socioeconomic system.

Credible Article Information

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/WTJ-NT/Ireland-UnjustStewardLk16-WTJ.pdf

Final Reading Strategy

Step 1: Read carefully, annotate. Look for details, main characters, and important facts.

Step 2: Understand how characters relate. Identify the problem. Think about how the characters are used to relay a message.

Step 3: Think about the context/ background of the story. What's going on? Why? How do the characters affect the situation? Specific immediate context and the bigger picture. Look or clues before and after?

Step 4: Try to answer the problem based on the the information you found out. Why?

Step 5: Relate the background to a current situation. Make it applicable to something happening now. Why is it the way it it?