 |
|
‘Anyone want the dog as well?’
|
And then he turned to the servant to whom he had given two valuable coins
and said, ‘I have given you two valuable coins, but I only want you to use one.’
And finally he turned to the servant to whom he had given one valuable coin
and said, ‘I have given you one valuable coin, and you may use it however you
wish.’
After the man left, the servant who had five valuable coins took one of
them and went to work doing business with them. He gained three more.
In the same way, the one who had two valuable coins took one of them and gained
two more.
And the servant who had received the one valuable coin went out and gained
one more.
Now after a long time the master of those servants returned and settled
accounts with them. The one who had received five valuable coins came forward
with three additional coins. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five valuable coins.
Look, I’ve gained three more.’
His master replied, ‘Excellent! You are a good and faithful servant! You’ve
been faith—’
But the servant interrupted him, saying, ‘Master, I did a good job. But if
you had let me take all five of the valuable coins you gave me according to my
ability, I could have doubled, even tripled, the amount.’
The master smiled at him and nodded, but moved to the second servant, who
said, ‘Master, you gave me two valuable coins. Look, I’ve gained two more.’
His master replied, ‘Well done! You are a good and faithful servant. You’ve
been faith—’
But the second servant interrupted him, saying, ‘Master, I did a good job.
But if you had let me take both of the valuable coins you gave me according to
my ability, I could have doubled, even tripled, the amount.’
The master smiled at him and nodded, but moved to the third servant, who
said, ‘Master, you gave me one valuable coin. Look, I’ve gained another.’
His master replied, ‘Fantastic! Well done! You are a good and faithful
servant! You’ve been faithful over a little. I’ll put you in charge of much.
Come, celebrate with me.’
The master and the third servant moved to leave the room. But the first and
second servants called out to their master. The master stopped and turned
round.
‘Master, forgive our boldness,’ said the first servant, ‘but we must ask
why you gave us so many valuable coins to use according to our ability when you
intended for us to use only the one coin each. I could have earned you five,
even ten, extra valuable coins. And my fellow servant here could have earned
you another four. Master, forgive me for asking, but why did you give us so
many valuable coins but permit us only to use one?’
The master smiled at him. ‘I am fully aware of the abilities of all my
servants. I knew you could have earned me five, even ten, extra valuable coins.
And I knew that my second servant here could have earned me another four
valuable coins. But my third servant here is not as able as either of you. He
does not have the business nous to do other than earn more than a single
valuable coin. And between you and me, it wouldn’t have surprised me if I
returned to find all he had done was bury his valuable coin in the ground. But
he didn’t. He went out and earned another valuable coin, and I am very pleased
with him.’
‘But that still doesn’t explain why you didn’t let us use all the valuable
coins you gave us according to our abilities,’ the first servant responded.
His master looked at him and said, ‘I know that you and my second servant
could have gained more valuable coins had I allowed you to use all of the ones
I gave you. But I had to consider all three of you and wanted to treat you all
equally. I did not want my less able third servant to feel dejected about
earning only one valuable coin, so I thought it best to allow each of you to
use the same amount so that no one of you is more or less privileged than the
other.’
I can't decide if this is a parable about humbly accepting what is asked of us and trusting that God knows what He's doing or a parody of the 'dumbing down' we (frequently) see within the Church. I also wonder if my response exposes more about me and my own struggles than anything else.
ReplyDeleteDo you find yourself, Mr. Wright, wanting to use your talents more and feeling strangled by the status quo? If yes, does this apply both within the Church and without or is it solely a Christian thing?
Also, consider this: how many have numerous, awe-inspiring talents but because of poverty or disability or even gender can never even begin to explore the range of said talent? How do we reconcile with these people? Are they destined to live a life unfulfilled?
The last bit was a general wondering, not a direct question. Unless you do have some answers, of course!
DeleteNo specific answers, Sandy! But I do think that people who are graced with specific gifts should be allowed to exercise them in the Church. So if a person's gift is, say, prophecy but not evangelism, then I don't think that person should be pushed towards evangelism. I appreciate this looks mechanical, and the discernment of a person's gift(s) will surely involve trial and error. But what I tend to see is churches adopting a vision and then trying to squeeze everyone towards a particular realisation of that vision. So:
Delete'We want to be a welcoming church! Let's focus on hospitality by inviting people we don't know from the congregation round for Sunday lunch!' - despite the fact that many in the congregation will dread such a thing.
'We want to be an educated church! So let's run a series of in-depth studies on the genealogies in Genesis 1-11 for everyone to attend!' - despite the fact that many won't really give a darn about the genealogies and are too knackered from work to attend, anyway.
'We must become a more prayerful church! So let's have a fortnight of prayer where we can plead and petition God out loud for revival!' - despite the fact that prayer is far more nuanced than a simple petitioning (though arguably at its heart prayer is simple petitioning) and that prayer is a silent thing for many people who can't form their own prayeful thoughts when they're compelled to count the number of 'justs' and 'Lords' coming from their neighbouring pray-er.
And so on . . .
And all this probably extends to the inclusion of people with disabilities or disadvantaged backgrounds, and even with such fairly important things as gender. I'm sure we both know churches or people within churches who would balk at the idea of letting a woman lead a church or preach. But if God has given a woman gifts of leadership, then she should lead. Similarly (and I speak with fear and trembling now, as I know next to nothing about this), if someone on the autistic spectrum has gifts in, say, art, then that person should be allowed to build up the church by contributing his/her art in some way.
This isn't to say that there's no differentiation within all this. Three people may have the gift of preaching, for example, but one may be better at it than the other two - or they just might all preach differently, making it difficult to make direct comparisons.
This is all off the top of my head. These are the kinds of things that need at least a book-length treatment rather than a reply to a blog post.
Yes, I see where you're coming from. That's why I have refused to do Sunday School. There is an assumption that if you're female you must be good with children and catering. No one assumes you'll be a good preacher. I think I'm good at speaking (though I have not had much opportunity). But I am not good at pushing myself forward and I am struggling with ill health. I have approached the church leadership (it's a lovely, friendly church) but until my health improves there's no point even considering it. Que sera sera.
DeleteHow do we try to ensure everyone can use their talents for the benefit of the Church and for the glory of God? Is the (supposed) theocracy of the Baptist or free church better at this than the older churches?
I do believe it's the responsibility of the church's leadership team(s) to work on your first question. And my simple answer to your second is: 'No, not in my experience.'
DeleteInteresting and slightly uncomfortable parable which I need to think through some more!
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm generally in favour of inclusivity, including simplifying certain element for people who struggle with more complex/abstruse versins. But at the same time I'm not in favour of 'dumbing down' where it removes the more challenging/rigorous options for those who would benefit from that. Genuine inclusivity must surely cater for both and all kinds of person, yes including the weakest and poorest and least academic but certainly not limited to them...
PS oh dear, I seem to have lost the ability to type correctly... what's a 'versin' when it's at home?
ReplyDeleteI think 'versin' must be connected to writing songs for worship, Harvey.
DeleteAnd if you want more revisiony goodness: http://www.sacredwrightings.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/inclusivity-and-church-3-another.html
ReplyDelete