The Dishonest Manager

In a parable Jesus spoke of a manager who had was not managing the company to the satisfaction of the owner. The owner let him know that he should give full account of his affairs, because he was about to be let go.

The manager realizes his predicament and, in order to save himself from unemployment and marginalization, turns the company into part charity: He writes down the major debitors in order to buy goodwill, when he is no longer protected by his managerial position.

Debt cancellation nothing new
Christian ministers routinely state it is a parable "very difficult to understand." I suspect it is because they live insular lives, where they are somewhat protected from both the harsh realities of life and particularly out of touch with simple business reality.

Business thrives only in an essentially pragmatic environment based on reasonably balanced quid pro quo agreements, and the virtue of compromise is exercised on a daily basis - half of something is better than all of nothing.

In business you cut deals, and you look for the solution that profits you the most. You hire people who have a firm sense of business. The manager in question may have mismanaged before, but what he does to save face is not difficult to justify.

The manager in question, sometimes referred to as a steward, was not some phone salesman calling up phone company customers reducing their debts because he heard he would soon be fired. He has the authority to do this on behalf of the owner.

Basic principles of reading

The parable is interpreted in many ways, most often correctly that it is about money and charity, sometimes read allegorically as if it was about a broader, abstract principle of forgiveness. The context clearly indicates it is about distribution of wealth.

The second contextual factor is the history of ancient Israel, which in the Bible is interpreted as a kind of manifestation of divine karma:

When Jews behave, they are rewarded with peace and prosperity, and when they misbehave they lose battles, experience famines and become victims of conquest and exile.

From the story of Cain and Able, the second psycho-drama in the Bible, and onward to the end, the Bible establishes a somewhat dubious principle of just reward, interpreted in increasing complexity.

The concept is expanded to also involve divine retribution throughout generations and blaming moral decadence as a sort of fifth column activity, undermining the national defenses.

The heavenly mandate

It is not long ago in Europe and most of the rest of the world monarchs would claim the legitimicy of their power from the same or a similar principle, which is called divine or heavenly mandate.

The basis of it is that the ruler of any nation or empire of nations was empowered and authorized by God, or it would not be possible form him to achieve it. Following from this only God could remove a monarch from power.

This also lead to the theory that rival powers and foreign enemies were created by God to challenge and to chastise the Jews and, later, the Christian dynasties.

The thesis that moral integrity is the first and primary line of defense - one which is, unfortunately, negated by history - is investigated in detail in the Book of Samuel I-II, and by prophets like Ezekiel and Jeremiah.

Much later Martin Luther, the reformist, coined the term "the scourge of God" about the Ottoman Empire, offering in the polemic essay "Against the Jew and the Turk" a metaphysical explanation to why such a magnificent rival had emerged.

In contrast to the concept of divine mandate in feudal society our modern society is founded on the principle of public mandate, with political power deriving its mandate from blow rather from above.

The loss of autonomy as a sanction

In other words, the heavenly mandate could be lost. When Jesus spoke of a manager who had been threatened with expulsion, he spoke directly into the political situation in Israel.

In line with the Torah (Old Testament), it was easy to interpret the Roman hegemony as a way for God to punish the Jews for not following his prescripts, his commandments, at least not closely enough.

Jews still enjoyed some autonomy under the Roman governor: They were free to legislate about religious affairs, when it did not conflict with Roman law, and they were allowed to pass verdicts in civil strives and trivial criminal matters.

So, they were essentially free for the convenience of the pragmatic Roman. They did not feel free, so Jews were rebelling all the time, calling down harsh measures of retribution, not unlike the way modern day Israel deals with rebellious Palestinians in the conquered or occupied territories.

There is a political edge to the parable: It is about losing the heavenly mandate. It is understood that the manager represents man, first and foremost the Jew, and the owner represents God. He is the major share holder. The Devil may own shares, but in the end God decides who gets to have what level of autonomy.

Mosaic Law predicts and describes in detail a series of divine sanctions for collective disobiedience, ranging from failed crops to exile and genocide. Loss of autonomy is a crucial step away from YHWH's good graces.

Imperialism and the rise of BRIC

While not manifestly true in the historical perspective, the parable does touch on a recognizable social mechanism. As people often say:


Today the West is challenged, counting its future of global supremacy in less than decades. The principle reason is the rise of BRIC - with the economic growth in Brazil, Russia, India and China combined the West will not automatically remain the dominant force.

How has the West treated the rest of the world, the debtors, when it was on its way up? Not very well. The history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery and oil wars still scars every inhabited continent.

Without being superstitious about it or religiously condemning, it is fair to say that the position of the West is similar to that of the manager prior to his contract being effectively cancelled.

With the recent invasions causing fatal destabilization of countries in the Middle East and the even more recent financial crisis destabilizing even Western economies it is tempting to draw a parallel to the warnings of the rich man in the parable.

When people are calling for debt cancellation to the most feeble economies in the developing world it may be more than charity; there may also be some sound ecomomic wisdom to it, as well as understanding of the psychological element to national security.

Beyond moral jeopardy concerns

In the parable the manager did not offer absolute debt cancellation, because he still had two priorities to take into account, and three interests to joggle:

Playing two horses at the same time he figured he could remain in the managerial seat, if he did secure the owner some increased value by collecting from difficult debitors. The loss would be relative to the gain from actually improving cash-flow.

On the other hand, he had to make the debt cancellation large enough to buy significant goodwill in the case he was laid off.

In the public debate about debt cancellation and other systems of development aid the phrase "moral jeopardy" often comes up. It is perceived, by some, as a high risk policy to cancel debts, because it encourages misspending and corruption.

Taken to its limit the parable, which may - like other parables attributed to Jesus - have been an educational fable common in Israel at the time, the remaining debt is equal to a financial or political demand.

Debt cancellation may be absolute, but conditional to specific reform policies, or it may be limited and connected to an accelerated schedule of payments.

How does it work in practice?

In the West we do not really need the money back. They will just add to our reserves or the total amount of mony in circulation, without any guarantee it stimulates growth.

We want to stimulate increased productivity in developing regions, partly out of humanitarian concerns, partly due to long term security interests, and partly because it is beneficial to the world economy.

In the West we have moved away from production economy and increasingly serve as managers of value through an elaborate system of symbolic transfers represented by but not limited to the stock market exchange.

Value without productivity constitutes a bubble, an assumption of representation: When the values traded do not reflect on the real value, and this is realized, investors incur loss and the general or specific interest is lowered.

Taking out God from the equasion, taking the parable for what it is - an educational fable about the relativity of position and sound business practice - the dual strategy of encouraging reforms and stimulating economic growth may serve to keep the West in a dominant position, capable of influencing the rest of the world in a positive way.

Keeping people and nations hopelessly endebted, forcing them to target their investments for specific and vulnerable markets, rather than diversifying, is a recipe for disaster. It breeds disillusion and anti-Western sentiments.

In a sense the question is simple: We want peace and stability, but what are we willing to pay?

Are we willing to lift our own trade barriers, which is preferable to limited fair trade agreements?

Are we even willing to cut interest rates, or accept reduced profits in order to serve poorer communities with vital needs such as food, clothes and medicine?

The current threat to our so far unrivalled hegemony prompts us to look for options on how to buy the goodwill and cooperation of other nations with what we have in abundance, not to look inward and protect what we may not have for long no matter what we do.

The gap is more than disparity: It's Trust

Jesus ended his parable with a rhetorical question:

Let's say the true riches is Trust among people, the ability to win the battle for the hearts and minds on a global scale, in the UN and in the world press. As long as the Doha Rounds are obstructed by unfair regulations, nobody will accept any claim about free market as less than the freedom offered by the gangster.

And for as long as people are kept pregnant and barefoot to secure gross disparity as the basis of economic growth in the West, everybody will compete by any mean available - even with terrorism and by employing revolutionary ideals.

This is why my second topic in the secular sermon series is about debt cancellation.

01-02-2009