It would be completely understandable if some people found Luke’s Gospel to be quite confusing, especially in light of the recent selections in the Sunday Lectionary.  In the parable we read last Sunday, the rich man was a hero and an example to emulate but in the parable this Sunday, the rich man is a villain. 

You’ll recall that the rich man in the parable last Sunday had a dishonest manager who squandered rich man’s wealth.  When the dishonest steward devised a dishonest way to assure himself of a comfortable unemployment, the rich man commended him for his cleverness.  Further, the rich man allowed the debtors to benefit from the reductions in their debts, and he allowed the dishonest steward to benefit from his final act of dishonesty. 

The rich man was the hero of the story because he was generous and forgiving in difficult and conflicted circumstances. Jesus instructed his disciples to imitate the rich man’s equanimity and forbearance.  In this Sunday’s Gospel, however, the rich man is a sinner.  The rich man in the parable in today’s Gospel reading found himself eternally in torment and flames. (Lk 16:24) 

It’s interesting to note that it was the actions of the characters in last Sunday’s parable that led one to condemnation and the other to praise.  In this Sunday’s parable, however, it was the inaction of the two characters that determined their separate fates.  This Sunday, the rich man did nothing about a poor beggar at his doorstep, and the poor beggar did nothing but lie down near the rich man’s door. 

I’d like to offer a few observations that might clear up any confusion about the meaning of these parables. 

The parable of the rich man and the dishonest steward compares the sinful actions of the dishonest steward with the virtuous actions of the wealthy employer.  We can surmise from the structure of the parable that sins of commission have complementary virtues of commission, that is, some actions are inherently evil while other actions are inherently good.  That distinction between evil and good remains unchanged by individual circumstances. 

The parable of the rich man and the poor beggar compares the sinful passivity of the rich man with the virtuous passivity of the poor man.  The structure of this parable indicates that sins of omission have contrasting virtues of omission.  That is to say, doing nothing can be sinful in some circumstances but virtuous in others. 

Fortunately for readers, Luke’s Gospel is very clear about what constitutes sin and virtue.  Sin, whether by commission or omission, arises from selfish motives.  Virtue, both of commission and omission, arises from imitation of God’s mercy toward the world. 

In these two parables, the socio-economic status of the characters is not a predictor of their eternal fates; rather, the choices they made about their individual circumstances led them either toward or away from God.  The lessons taught by these parables are directly applicable to the lives of readers today. 

We live in a culture that encourages us to protect our wealth and comfort at any cost, including the cost of oppressing others when necessary.  Our culture teaches a similar lesson about poverty, namely, that it is to be escaped at any cost, including the cost of doing violence to others if it gains us status, wealth, or power.  Luke’s Gospel has a very clear and easily understandable position on these cultural values. 

In the parable of the rich man and the dishonest steward, the rich man acted with justice because he showed mercy to both his debtors and his dishonest steward.  The dishonest steward, on the other hand, was unjust because he took what he wanted for himself. 

In the parable of the rich man and the poor beggar, the rich man was unjust because he withheld mercy from the poor man, but the poor man acted justly by accepting without complaint the burdensome and unfair circumstances of his life. 

In Luke’s Gospel, and throughout the Scriptures, justice requires that one gives to God what God deserves and that one gives to others what others deserve.  God deserves one’s complete trust and obedience; other people deserve one’s mercy and compassion.  In our culture, by comparison, justice is defined as getting or taking for oneself what one feels entitled to have.  For some, it also entails belief in a god who validates their sense of entitlement. 

It might be difficult, perhaps impossible, for people today to accept the Scriptural definition of justice and reject the cultural definition of justice.  That is, unless one looks honestly at the consequences of each definition. 

The Scriptural definition of justice requires that one puts God’s will above one’s own desires and that one treats every individual and group with respect, kindness, and forgiveness.  This requirement remains in force in difficult circumstances such as the difficult circumstances faced by the rich man with the dishonest manager and the poor man whose basic needs were neglected.  Scriptural justice promotes harmony between individuals as well as between society and God. 

The cultural definition of justice leads criminals to steal and commit violence in order to get justice for themselves.  The same definition of justice leads governments to take the lives of capital criminals.  The cultural definition of justice allows those with political power to oppress individuals and classes of people in order to maintain their power and privilege.  The same definition of justice allows the oppressed to commit acts of retributive violence against perceived oppressors. 

Neither of these two definitions of justice is a perfect definition because no degree of perfection can exist in a finite universe.  One definition of justice, however, is far superior to the other.  The Scriptural definition of justice, despite the personal sacrifices it requires, minimizes the many social evils that everyone loves to complain about.  The cultural definition of justice, on the other hand, promotes and multiplies the social evils that everyone judges to be undesirable. 

The real reason that the Scriptural definition of justice is so unpopular isn’t that it’s difficult to put into practice; living in a society in which violence and conflict are minimized doesn’t really seem like a difficult situation to tolerate.  The real reason, I think, that the Scriptural definition of justice is so rarely practiced is that it minimizes the opportunities for attention-getting. 

Our cultural definition of justice affords us nearly endless opportunities to complain that we’ve been mistreated, misjudged, and offended.  We embrace a completely self-destructive notion of justice because it feeds our selfishness, our sense of entitlement, and our infantile egoism.  We relish the opportunities to be like the dishonest manager and the negligent rich man because these are consummate acts of idolatry of self. 

Little effort and no evidence are required to call oneself a Christian.  To live a Christian life, however, requires that one practice both the actions and the renunciations that accomplish God’s will.  The parables we’ve read recently in Luke’s Gospel say that God’s will is for all to avoid selfishness and complacency, and for all to be merciful and uncomplaining.  The consistent message of the Scriptures is that faith in God requires lifelong repentance from idolatry of self, reform of one’s selfishness, and the practice of humility and mercy.  Repentance, reform, and virtue are impossibilities, however, in the absence of honesty with oneself about the nature of one’s definition of justice.