In the 25th Chapter of Matthew, Jesus tells the parable of the talents. It's a doozy. Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is like a rich man heading "into a far country." So he calls his servants. He gives one servant five talents. (A "talent" is a large sum of money.) He gives another two talents, and another one. According to Jesus, the talents were handed out "to every man according to his several ability."
And the rich guy knew what he was doing. Because the guy with five talents goes out and makes five more talents. The guy with two talents makes two more talents. And the guy with one talent just buries it in the ground.
When the rich guy returns, the first servant gives him ten talents and he is pleased ("Well done, thou good and faithful servant.") The second servant gives him four talents. ("Well done, thou good and faithful servant.") And the third servant comes in and says, "Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine." This goes very badly. The rich guy lets him have it ("thou wicked and unprofitable servant"). He takes the one talent and gives it to the ten-talent guy. And then he says, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Now remember, this is what the kingdom of God is like.
It is not easy to reconcile this parable with the populist instinct. When I was a kid -- and even now -- my instinct is to feel sorry for the guy with one talent. He was certain that if he tried anything, he would certainly lose the talent, and then where would he be? What is so terrifying about this parable is that God will not let you play it safe. Staying on the sidelines is not an option. You have to win. That is a very tough message. God likes winners. For me, that's an even tougher message.
But watching Josh Harrellson this year, I'm beginning to see the point. We can argue over how much talent Harrellson really has (I know Eric thinks he's very talented) but it is clear that after three years of college, he had made almost no mark at all. And yet would any UK fan suggest that Coach Cal simply ignore Harrellson, and focus his coaching efforts entirely on five-talent guys like Brandon Knight? Of course not. When it comes to basketball, we know that it's not enough to make the good players better -- a good coach (like a Good Shepherd) insists that everybody gets better. This is not simply a moral issue; it's also very practical. There are some jobs (like guarding Jared Sullinger) that can only be done by Harrellson. If he's not up to the job, the whole team will fail -- no matter how well Knight and Jones play.
Viewed from this perspective, the parable of the talents not only makes sense, it actually comes across as common sense. No matter how poor your abilities may be, you owe it to everyone to do your best with what you have. If Harrellson had spent the whole year hiding his abilities on the grounds that he wasn't any good, all of us fans would have let him have it -- just like the rich guy goes after the man with one talent.
So I've decided to apply this lesson in my own life. I know a lot of brilliant and successful people, and it's easy to excuse my shortcomings on the grounds that I just can't do things that others can. But imagine poor old Harrellson getting dunked on day after day by Cousins last year. He had the same excuse, and Coach Cal wouldn't let him make it. So I'm going to try to give up that excuse as well. Instead of comparing myself to others, I will compare myself to my best self.
I thank Josh for the sermon.
"We have only a few facts from which to sketch this man's portrait. He was rich: he had a large upper room, and he had slaves (see Luke's parallel account with its reference to a slave bearing a pitcher of water). He was unassuming, content to be host without being included in the inner group. He was brave: the man who entertained Jesus might well bring on himself the vengeance of Jesus' foes. Was the slave also a secret friend of Jesus? It is good to remember that at the moment of betrayal Jesus had the loyalty of such as 'the goodman of the house.' He and the slave were perhaps one-talent men. They were not apostles or martyrs. Their names are on no Christian shrine. But they were Jesus' friends. Was the 'goodman' the father of John Mark? Did the disciples flee to that same house after the Crucifixion? Was that upper room the scene of Pentecost? In any event the 'goodman' had his reward. What of us in what seems to us our lowly post? Are we faithful and brave and modest? The kingdom is not a drab collection of equal digits, but a symphony. The music is poor if any man's instrument is silent or out of tune."
ReplyDeleteThe Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VII. George Arthur Buttrick, ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1955) 573.