The Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8)

Luke 16:1-8 describes a manager caught in a difficult ethical situation. I had previously read this parable dozens of times and never understood why it was in the Bible. It seems to be a story about an embezler getting away with his crime. That, however, was a limitation in my understanding. There finally came a time when this parable made sense to me.

This story is about relationships, not ethics. The thrust of this parable is that resolving the dilemma is achieved by 1) knowing your associates and 2) structuring a solution that meets their needs. The owner is generous and this solution is targeted at that trait. The vendors need profit to survive and this implementation meets their need. Project Managers often find themselves caught in impossible political situations. Compromise is often the only workable technique. None of these stakeholders got what they planned on and yet, in the end, all must be pleased with the results.

If you are caught with a dilemma, ponder this parable. Parables are inductive. They encapsulate a paradigm - a technique. Add this technique to your tool kit and you will learn to appreciate it.

My goal in this paper is to illustrate the use of Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s “Evaporating Cloud” technique in exegesis. Goldratt has been revolutionizing the manufacturing industry for several years now with his techniques grouped under the names the “Theory of Constraints” (1) and the “Thinking Process” (2). Recently these techniques have begun to penetrate the realm of data processing (3, 4). Goldratt claims that these techniques can be used to guide the thought process towards the solution of any problem. This intrigued me and so I put one of his techniques to use in an exegesis of Luke 16: 1-8.

While Goldratt’s books are very readable, they are intentionally inductive. Goldratt wants the reader to find the process through their own efforts. Fortunately other authors have now begun writing about Goldratt’s approach. Most notably, Noreen, Smith and Mackey include an appendix in their book that gives step by step guidance to parts of Goldratt’s thinking process (5). I was especially intrigued that they chose to illustrate one of Goldratt’s techniques using the 1 Kings 3 story of Solomon resolving which woman was the mother to a baby. I had already chosen the parable in Luke 16: 1-8 for inclusion in another work and decided to see what I could do with Goldratt’s technique on that parable. This is the parable of the dishonest manager who is called to account by the owner for mismanaging his estate.

This is my favorite parable primarily because it has utterly baffled me. Not only could I not understand why the story ended with the dishonest manager restored in status, but I also could not understand how this parable fits into Christian theology. I believe that Goldratt’s technique has helped me gain an understanding of this parable. And thus I would like to share that technique with you as it may prove of value to you.

The Evaporating Cloud technique begins with statements about a conflict of interests. It is a graphical technique as drawings provide a concise tool for focusing thought onto a topic. The graphic includes five boxes and five arrows. The basic outline for an evaporating cloud is shown below. The concept is to focus on the assumptions that hold this conflict in place and then find a way to alter one of those assumptions. That change will then dissipate the conflict. In other words, the goal is to find the change that will cause this cloud to evaporate.

The “objective” is a statement on which both parties agree. It should be a realistic statement of their mutual goal. The “requirements” are the actions each party will take to get to the goal. The “prerequisites” are the statements that describe the conflict. There needs to be a logical, consistent progression from prerequisite to requirement to objective. Also, the prerequisites must show a diametric opposition.

The first step in the process is to properly define the objective, requirements and prerequisite. You can start anywhere, but the process only works if what you put down is accurate in all respects. As I read the parable I was confident that I understood the “prerequisites”. The following diagram includes my interpretation of the source of this conflict.

So far this is rather straightforward. The next step, however, is a bit more difficult. I tried the following arrangement and found that I could not substantiate this logic against the text in the parable.

The reason this cannot be an accurate description of the conflict is because this strategy actually amplifies the conflict. The parable tells us that the manager gave away (spent) more of the owner’s (lost) money. Continuing to spend money is not going to resolve this conflict. Thus I concluded that this diagram does not properly describe the nature of the conflict.

If the conflict does not revolve around money, then we need to try replacing that objective with something that can be resolved by the actions described in the parable. We could try power, prestige or authority. But the one that works the best is reputation. My hypothesis is that this conflict revolves around the perception the community has of each of these individuals. Consider the updated diagram shown below.

The next step in this process is to properly state the requirements that will lead from the prerequisites to the objective. The dishonest manager’s point of view is clear from the parable. The manager will loose his income (money). Also, note the phrase “I am ashamed to beg”. Here we see that perception or status is a core element in this conflict. The owner is in a similar predicament. It is not as much a problem that the dishonest manager spent his money as it is that this threatens the reputation of the owner. If the owner of an estate gets a reputation for allowing people to squander his money then the owner will appear incompetent. Gossip might offer various suggestions as to why this wealthy person would allow another to blatantly steal and none of what is suggested is going to enhance this person’s reputation. So the owner of this estate cannot allow the manager to tarnish his reputation by stealing. And thus we get to the diagram shown below.

Now that the conflict has been properly defined the next step in the evaporating cloud process is to search for a way to break one of the linkages that holds this conflict in place. Generally this is the hardest part of the process. In this case, however, we already know the solution. So what we need to do next is to understand how this solution broke this conflict. I suggest the following:

The owner consider’s his reputation to be of more value than money. His reputation would have been damaged if he had allowed the manager to continue to spend his money recklessly. However, once the manager forfeited the owner’s right to collect on certain debts the situation changed. That action not only improved the reputation of the manager among his business associates, it also changed the community’s perception of the owner. Instead of viewing the owner as incompetent, the community now views the owner as beneficent. By allowing the community to think that the manager acted under the instructions of the owner, the owner has gained a reputation as kind and benevolent.

But why not fire the dishonest manager anyway? Because doing that would expose the fact that the owner had not authorized this benevolence. Firing the manager would cause the owner to loose the increased prestige he has gained and again raise questions regarding his competency to govern his affairs. Thus the owner is now tied to this solution and must allow the dishonest manager to continue.

I am quite pleased that this technique allowed me to focus on the true nature of the resolution of this parable. But the reason Jesus used this parable is to teach. And I still did not understand how to apply this to the Christian life. The solution to that problem is to decide who has which role. I think it is clear that the dishonest manager represents us. It would also seem consistent with other parables to consider God as the owner, either as represented by the Father or the Son.

The choice then is whether we are to imitate the actions of the dishonest manager or do the opposite. For example, the parable in Luke 16: 19-31 describes a rich man that did not care for the poor while on earth and now asks for help from one of the poorest of the poor while suffering in Hell. Clearly we are to do the opposite of what that rich man did. While in Luke 15: 11-24 we are called to view ourselves as the prodigal son and turn back to our Father like that son did.

There is a decided conflict with Judaic values if Jesus is asking us to go and spend someone else’s money. Also, this manager is clearly self-serving and dishonest. This does not seem to be a role model for us to imitate. And that, I think is part of why this parable is so hard for people to adopt as a life goal. Rather than seeing ourselves as the dishonest manager we want to condemn him and do the opposite.

But what if Jesus is actually asking us to shrewdly spend His money? If we are benevolent with money that is not really ours will we gain a favorable reputation among the recipients of our benevolence? And, if all wealth is actually the property of our King, then do we not also spread the word of His benevolence by giving away what was never really ours in the first place?

And here is where this parable finally fits into my understanding of Christian theology. We are the trustees for our Lord’s estate. He wants us to shrewdly spend His estate to create benevolence. We will be called to account if we dishonestly take from His estate for our gain. We will be richly rewarded if we give His estate away in order to spread the word of His benevolence. Consider this now as a revised cloud diagram.

And with that I am satisfied. This parable finally makes sense to me and at last I see how it fits perfectly into Christian theology. Goldratt’s evaporating cloud technique worked. Our self-interest is in conflict with God’s goals. We can align ourselves with God’s goals and eliminate the conflict by shrewdly spending God’s wealth to make God’s name known throughout the community.

References

• Eliyahu M. Goldratt and Jeff Cox; The Goal; The North River Press; 2004; ISBN 0-88427-178-1.
• Eliyahu M. Goldratt; It’s Not Luck; The North River Press; 1994; ISBN 0-88427-115-3.
• David J. Anderson; Agile Management for Software Engineering; Prentice Hall; 2004; ISBN 0-13- 142460-2.
• Eliyahu M. Goldratt; Critical Chain; The North River Press; 1997; ISBN 0-88427-153-6..
• Eric Noreen, Debra Smith and James T. Mackey; The Theory of Constraints and Its Implications for Management Accounting; North River Press; 1995; ISBN 0-88427-116-1.
• Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America; The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Edition; 1989; Holman Bible Publishers.