Theology of Everyday Life

The NIV shrewdly renders "unjust" or "corrupt" as "shrewd" when it speaks of the manager. According to that translation, his response is clever or innovative from a business viewpoint.

Hmm. I don't think so. The Message, at least, has the honesty to call him a "crooked" manager. Much closer, this.

[More:]

If I had heard this story from Jesus, this character is one I'd be least likely to employ. He's selfish to the core, making his choices based on what he regards to be in his own interest.

Now I don't think there's anything really wrong with that. When I deal with the people on my team at work, I expect them to act in their own interests. They accept work from me because it pays their bills and supports their goals.

Nothing at all wrong with that. And, as a manager, I try to make sure that their interests are well taken care of so they'll continue to perform well in their roles.

But what I want, my interest, is for them to perform well in their roles. I hire them because I have business objectives to meet. I don't hire them because I want to pay their bills and support their goals. I hire them because I need to have some work done and know that the only way I can get that to happen is if I help them pay their bills and support them in their goals.

I presume that the master in the parable followed the same thought process, since it's quite an Ordinary one. He hired the manager because he needed the work done. The manager wasn't a slave; he was an employee. So, presumably, the master was willing for him to profit by his work . . . so long as the master's business objectives were met in the process.

And there was the rub. The master effectively sat down with his manager and said, in modern terms: "Look, you're not performing on this contract. I need my affairs managed properly, and you're not doing it. I'm going to have to let you go and find someone else."

That's not something any master says easily.

Finding employees is very hard. Finding good ones is even harder. And disgruntled employees (those we have to let go) can do significant damage to the business on the way out. We don't fire someone without very serious considerations of the consequences and alternatives. (Donald Trump is, regrettably, not representative of the Ordinaries of being a manager. Hmm; maybe that's not so regrettable.)

Think of the unjust manager's options once the auditors have found him out. He could:
* Plead for forgiveness, and promise he'll do better in the future, or
* Increase the volume of his dealings with his employer's contacts (suddenly turning a large profit for the master, making him more valuable).

He does neither. Instead, he decides he's finished and prepares for his next situation as best he can.

He decides that the best way to deal with his bleak future is to ingratiate himself with his employer's business partners. He writes down their debts, on his own discretion.

Astonishing! When he's discovered for not protecting the master's business interests, his solution is to stay the course, continuing to undermine his employer! This is the very thing that every employer fears from a terminated employee--sabotage.

The master, says Luke 16, praised him. Not likely.

Many commentators recognize this and realize that it was Jesus who was praising the corrupt manager, not his master in the parable.

Hal