More on buying yourself friends

This post won't specifically be about "buying friends", but more of an explanation as to the logic behind the overall concepts, the building blocks of the parable .

Luke 16:1-9  He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions.  (2)  And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’  (3)  And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.  (4)  I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’  (5)  So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’  (6)  He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’  (7)  Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’  (8)  The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.  (9)  And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

"There was a rich man..." that is how the parable of the "Unrighteous Manager" begins.

"There was once a rich man"

This, in Jesus' worldview, already carries a message. This is hard for people in our western world to understand due to our overall "wealthy" lifestyle compared to most of the world. The teachings of Jesus make this clear: being rich is the result of wrong actions, there is no way around this point. Being rich, in the worldview of Jesus, is wrong. In the beatitudes it says: "Blessed are the poor... woe to you who are rich" (Lk 6:20,24), it doesn't say anything about how the rich or poor behave themselves. The same goes for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16:19). Lazarus did nothing good, and the rich man did not do anything bad. After death Lazarus went to the place of comfort and the rich man went to the place of torment. The story says nothing about the moral character of either man, it simply states that there was a reversal of fortunes after death, a levelling out of an imbalance that took place in their earthly lives. Being rich, as Jesus would say, makes it "more difficult for a person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" (Lk 18:25). This is also the point of the parable of the sower in which the seed "sown among thorns" cannot bring forth fruit unto maturity due to being "choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life" (Lk 8:14). The teachings of Jesus require introspection on the part of the hearer. A person must be able to honestly look inside themselves for the truth. When Jesus says you "cannot serve two masters" because you will be "devoted to one and despise the other" he concludes the point with, "You cannot serve God and money/worldly advantage" (Lk 16:13).

If a person cannot accept this as the clear point of view that Jesus presents, there is really no point in continuing to read this post. It is essential to see this in order to understand that in the parable of the Unrighteous Manager above, that the "rich man" by virtue of being rich, is understood by the original hearers as being a corrupt individual. Thus it is a corrupt individual (rich man) who has a corrupt manager. When we understand this at the outset, some clarity can be gained. Personally, I think the rich/poor issue is not as simply black and white as all that. I think there is a grey area, but I find the general rule indisputable: the seeking and obtaining excessive wealth is hazardous to one's spiritual progress in life.

Another important point is the concept of "this world" in the parable. Specifically here it is the "children of this world". They are placed in opposition to the "Children of Light". Thus the "children of this world" are equivalent to "children of darkness". They are ungodly. They are lost. Jesus throws the rich man in this camp, why? Because he is rich, and for no other reason. The manager we see behaving badly, but the rich man is simply understood as automatically in this camp as well.

We hear that the unrighteous manager is "wasting/squandering" the wealth of the rich man, which essentially means he is stealing. But, how did the rich man get rich? By stealing. That is always how rich people get rich. True, it usually isn't blatant outright robbery, but a more subtle kind of theft. A teaching from the Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu can help to illustrate the subtle form of theft employed by the rich and powerful, and those who seek to be such:

"For security against robbers who snatch purses, rifle luggage, and crack safes, one must fasten all property with ropes, lock it up with locks, bolt it with bolts. This (for property owners) is elementary good sense. But when a strong thief comes along he picks up the whole lot, puts it on his back, and goes on his way with only one fear: that ropes, locks, and bolts may give way. Thus what the world calls good business is only a way to gather up the loot, pack it, make it secure in one convenient load for the more enterprising thieves. Who is there, among those called smart, who does not spend his time amassing loot for a bigger robber than himself? In the land of Khi, from village to village, you could hear cocks crowing, dogs barking. Fishermen cast their nets, ploughmen ploughed the wide fields, everything was neatly marked out by boundary lines. For five hundred square miles there were temples for ancestors, altars for field-gods and corn-spirits. Every canton, county, and district was run according to the laws and statutes— until one morning the Attorney General, Tien Khang Tzu, did away with the king and took over the whole state. Was he content to steal the land? No, he also took over the laws and statutes at the same time, and all the lawyers with them, not to mention the police. They all formed part of the same package. Of course, people called Khang Tzu a robber, but they left him alone to live as happy as the patriarchs. No small state would say a word against him, no large state would make a move in his direction, so for twelve generations the state of Khi belonged to his family. No one interfered with his inalienable rights. The invention of weights and measures makes robbery easier. Signing contracts, settings seals, makes robbery more sure. Teaching love and duty provides a fitting language with which to prove that robbery is really for the general good. A poor man must hang for stealing a belt buckle but if a rich man steals a whole state he is acclaimed as statesman of the year."

-Merton, Thomas. The Way of Chuang Tzu (Second Edition) (pp. 67-68). New Directions. Kindle Edition.

Thus, in the parable of the Unrighteous Manager, we see that this is a story that starts out with the "tea kettle calling the pot black", a greedy man condemning the greed of another man. That is how the non-rich, blue collar, original audience would have understood the opening words of the parable.

Christianity has a hard time understanding this parable because it cannot understand the master's praise of the unrighteous manager in further "wasting" the master's possessions. The underlying concept is the admiration of the skill of another even when it carries a personal cost to the admirer. Is that really so difficult to understand? The "world" doesn't seem to have a hard time understanding it, or depicting it.

In the clip below from the movie Jurassic Park, this hunter was hired to help catch or kill escaped dinosaurs. In the scene he is trying to catch a pack of velociraptors that are known to be very intelligent hunters themselves. They are excellent hunters just like the man in the video:

What is the point being made? The hunter admires the skill of another hunter. Is he benefitting from the other hunter's skills? No, in fact these skills cost him his life, and yet what are his final words? Words of admiration for a fellow hunter... "clever girl". Credit is given where credit is due, even when it comes with a personal cost.

Here below is another clip, this one is from Superman III. The same idea is presented. Richard Pryor (August "Gus" Gorman), has been called into the big boss's office because he found a clever way to collect half cents from the millions of transactions of the corporation he works for and the boss has found out. This scene closely parallels the Biblical parable in question:

The boss is a snake, a weasel, a manipulative and greedy man. He loves being rich and he loves stepping on others to get even richer (the movie makes this clear). Now he meets someone like himself; an up and coming greedy manipulator. He sees himself in this man and he likes what he sees. True, the up-and-comer has cost him thousands of dollars, but he has plenty more and it is a small price to pay to find a "true friend", one who shares the same values/goals and has unique skills to achieve them.

Now to the sports world. On March 12, 1985, the Boston Celtics played against the Atlanta Hawks. In this game Larry Bird (of the green jersey Celtics) scored 60 points. Truly amazing. But not for the opposition, the Atlanta Hawks, right? Wrong. Watch the players on the Atlanta bench at the top of the screen with every shot he makes:

Greatness is greatness, they can't help celebrating. It must also be added that Larry Bird was the undefeated master of trash-talk on the court. All those Atlanta Hawks that were celebrating his baskets had also endured extensive verbal abuse from Larry. So what if they thought he was an arrogant jerk? That has nothing to do with the exquisite taste of tea in China. Larry is serving it up and they are loving it, all to the detriment of their chances of making it to the championship finals.

To slice it a different way, we can look at some of the amazing physical and mental abilities of little children, like this guy:

As his British mum states while he is in the act, "naughty". Yes indeed he is naughty, but also brave, strong, flexible, and persistent. It is funny and it is admirable and also incredibly dangerous. What is on the other side of that gate... steep concrete stairs, speeding traffic, a red-hot wood stove? The risks/costs involved do not negate the impressive nature of the feat. The mother is impressed and she records it so others might admire the qualities of the child and get a laugh out of it too. Is it funny? Yes and no, but overall yes. Otherwise mum wouldn't have shared it and we wouldn't watch it.

Or let's say your toddler loves yogurt and has already had more than enough and you tell him "no more". A few minutes later you come into the kitchen and witness this:

Not funny right? Yeah right! You'd be rolling on the floor in laughter! But your child is being disobedient and sneaky! ...but also very very clever in a way that is rare. You are proud of this cleverness even though the child is being defiant. The defiance, in the long run will cause you suffering, but in the moment the wonder and the humor of the situation overtake you. It is funny, and clever, and amazing, and admirable. You will try to scold the child for their own benefit, but it will be hard to do without smiling or laughing.

Whether we look at it through the facet of the clips from Jurassic Park and Superman III, or of Larry Bird's 60 point game, or from the facet of amazing yet naughty children, the point is made. We do admire the skills of others even when those skills carry a personal cost to our own well-being.

So what did the Unrighteous Manager really do that was so impressive to his boss? When the heat got turned up on him, he did not change his tune, he did not pretend to be something other than he was. He took an honest look at himself in the mirror, "Physically, I am a weakling, and mentally, I am too proud to humble myself". He was being fired, he didn't dwell on that, he accepted it and moved forward. Why waste his breath apologizing and promising to change his ways? He would not stop his scheming ways, so why try to pretend that he would? This scheme failed, time to move on. Those were the facts. Hard times came upon him and he embraced his true nature, he was realistic and he doubled down on his innate talent for sneakiness. His sneaky nature got him in trouble and he dug deeper into his bag of sneaky tricks to find a solution. He didn't try to change the rules in the middle of the game. These kind of clear calculations are what get things done in this world, for better or for worse. That is the point that the "children of Light" can take away from the story: Don't try to pretend and promise to become something you are not capable of becoming. Don't dwell in the past. What is done is done. Look inside yourself and be honest with yourself about your shortcomings. Do not pretend to change, or try to change yourself to suit your circumstances. Look for, or create circumstances in which you can use your talents to good effect.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

If you are a "Child of Light", if your origin is in the light, screening or dimming that inner light is not the path forward when adversity strikes. Instead, that is the time to double down, to seek, find, and radiate even clearer light. As Jesus said: "while you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become children of light" (Jhn 12:36). That is how the inner light becomes a true and tested guide, a refined and pure motivator.