by Sheryl Anderson.
If, like me, you follow the Lectionary Sunday by Sunday then I wonder if you found the 25th Chapter of Mathew’s Gospel a bit of a challenge. For three Sundays in a row we were presented with a series of parables that were laced with retribution, punishment and damnation. The parables of the Ten Bridesmaids, the Talents, and the Judgement of the Nations each end badly for the poor individuals who do not quite come up to scratch; respectively resulting in exclusion from the wedding feast, being thrown into the outer darkness, or sent away to eternal punishment. On this account, individuals who fail to be properly prepared for Christ’s coming, or misuse God’s gifts, or neglect to meet the practical needs of the poor get what is coming to them, and many commentaries and sermons are based on emphasising what God requires of us to ensure we do not meet the same fate.
But… this interpretation relies on the assumption that the character with the power (the bridegroom, the slave owner, the king) in each parable is God, which leads me to ask, what image of God are we using here?
There is a South African philosophical theologian of whom I am rather fond. Vincent Brümmer worked for most of his career in the Netherlands and from 1967 to 1997 was the Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Among other things he was very interested in the nature of the relationship between God and human beings and developed a way of thinking about this that I have found very helpful. Brümmer[1] suggests that there are three basic types of relationship between people: manipulative relations, contractual relations, and fellowship relations.
Manipulative relations occur when humans try to gain control over each other, such relations are inherently unequal.
‘…only A is a personal agent, whereas B has become an object of A’s manipulative power.’[1]
Furthermore, as A has power over B only A has the power to bring about, change, or end the relationship; B cannot do these things. In this sense the relationship becomes impersonal, for only one of the partners is a personal agent: the other has become an object. This describes abusive relationships, or the master / slave relationship.
Personal relationships, on the other hand are much more symmetrical: either party is able to end the relationship by withdrawing from it, but neither is able to establish or maintain the relationship alone. This applies to both the remaining models, contractual and mutual fellowship relationships. In contractual relationships two parties agree certain rights and duties toward each other, for example between an employer and an employee where wages are agreed to be given for work and work agreed to be undertaken for wages. Brümmer points out that:
‘…in contractual agreements my partner as well as the relationship have an instrumental value for me as means for furthering my own interests.’[3]
However, in relationships of mutual fellowship each party chooses to serve the interests of the other and not primarily their own: or rather, each party identifies with the partner to the extent of treating the partner’s interests as if they were their own. This distinction is crucial, as Brümmer explains:
‘…where I identify with you and your interests, your value and the value of our relationship become intrinsic for me. As such neither you nor our relationship can be replaced by another.’[4]
Other relationships may be as important or as rewarding but they are not the same relationship. Brümmer argues that relations of fellowship play a vital part in human existence, since personal value and identity are conferred on an individual by virtue of the fact that others consider them irreplaceable. He then states:
‘For religious believers this applies especially to fellowship with God. The ultimate value of my existence is bestowed on it by the fact that God loves me and not merely my services apart from me.’[5]
In the parables, if we consider the character with the power (the bridegroom, the slave owner, the king) as God then we have an image of God that is vengeful and punishing. That is, God’s relationship to human beings must be on either a manipulative or a contractual basis. However, could it not be the case that God seeks a fellowship relationship with human beings? In fact, that God identifies so strongly with humanity and humanity’s interests that they are God’s own interests? Which would make the incarnation not only reasonable, but necessary.
[1] Brümmer, Vincent, Atonement and Reconciliation, in Religious Studies, vol 28. 1992, pp435-452
[2] Brümmer, ibid. p436
[3] Brümmer, ibid. p437
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid. p438
Theology Everywhere 
Having spent a long time dealing with the effects of abusive, loveless, judgmental, condemnatory attitudes in churches, I find your words here deeply encouraging. Why not go even further, along with Rohr, Levinas, Purcell, Rahner and many others, who say that God IS the actual fellowship relationship – the unconditional love in which we live, move and have our being?
LikeLike
Thank you. Wise and helpful.
LikeLike
What a relief to have seen off Matthew for another two years! One can imagine the debates when Matthew first shared his version of Jesus’ parables!
LikeLike
Thanks for that – I too have great difficulty with the allegorising of these parables so that they represent God; Jesus told stories, not allegories as far as I can make out. For a very different reading of these and some other parables I’ve been interested in William Herzog: Parables as subversive speech: Jesus as pedagogue of the oppressed, which turns them upside down completely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did use Herzog in preparing my sermons over those weeks.
LikeLike
I found the parables difficult too, but then began to ask where is God here, what if God, who comes to us vulnerably incarnate is not the king, the land owner, or the bridegroom, what if God is the outcast, the marginalised, the abused? Reading the parables with a hermeneutic of suspicion reveals a whole other story and shows us the cross.
This world, and its systems and powers is in the business of casting out, rejecting and dismissing, consigning others to outer darkness- sending refugees to Rwanda? God comes in Jesus showing us another way, challenging the system by refusing to participate in it, and the ultimate punishment of death is subverted, life comes by not colluding with power.
Relationships are as you say mutual, and should lead to mutual flourishing, and yes incarnation becomes necessary and reasonable. We are not alone.
LikeLike
Our minister, unpacking the parable of the talents on the appropriate Sunday, threw cold water on the interpretation which sees the ‘master’ as a representation of God. She gave us the picture of the servant with one talent as a whistleblower, exposing the whole corrupt capitalist system, who refuses to accept the way things are habitually done.
How did it ever occur to anybody that the harsh master reaping where he didn’t sow could possibly stand in for a just and above all LOVING God?
Thinks: And wasn’t ‘usury’ a rude word anyway???
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was also my interpretation
LikeLike
Yes indeed! By refusing to make more money for the Master he was breaking the chain of the Master’s exploitative behaviour of those in his power.
LikeLike
Encouraging to read your words – Rosie and Sally. It is also my interpretation. What do you make of Matthew putting the words in Jesus’ mouth about the “sheep and the goats? This is not the totally inclusive, unjudgemental loving Jesus I recognise.
LikeLike
Tricky one isn’t it, we have to have the ability to ask the question ” did Jesus really say that?”, and if we decide yes, then we have the issue of figuring out what is meant. Sheep and goats are both pretty hardy, goats if anything are tougher, I rather like Robert Lentz interpretation of The Good Shepherd Icon, where he a goat rather than a sheep. You can hear him here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=560974540737541 … wat do we make of this? Do I believe Jesus embraces all, yes I do, maybe Jesus separates out the sheep and goats because the sheep have a tendency to be judgmental, and don’t make room for the goats to flourish, maybe we do need to face up to our goatishness ( our shadow side) to be confronted with the love that breaks down all barriers. Many thoughtful theologians today think that Jesus used the image of hell because it was a popular image, but that he didn’t preach eternal damnation. Matthew was writing to the Jews and not the Gentiles, it might explain his imagery. In all honesty we don’t know, and we won’t know, maybe the best we can do is to recognise that Jesus did go to the unclean outcast and include them, if so then surely he found a way of including the goats, for which I am very thankful.
LikeLike
Sheep and Goats..
I’ve taken it to mean the shepherd separated the goats and treated them differently as they were more vulnerable than the sheep (who were more hardy). This would link with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger etc being blessed by the Father.
LikeLike
Not sure about that Carrie. Are sheep more “hardy” than goats? And even if they were both are blessed by the Father because the love of God for all humanity, creatures and creation is freely given without conditions.
LikeLike