Like many of you, I’ve been dismayed by the SEC scandal and trying to grapple with the fallout. [1] What does it say about our leaders? Why can’t we have a better accounting of our donations? Should I be a better steward of my donations and send them elsewhere? These are the types of questions I have when I consider this situation as a businessperson.
But as a Christian studying the New Testament, I can’t help but consider several of the parables as potentially illustrative. The first parable that came to mind when the huge quantity of money at Ensign Peak came to light was the parable of the talents. Talents are, as I hope we all know, units of money, not personal skills. It’s a parable about stewardship. In the parable, the Lord has given different quantities of money to his servants before he leaves on a trip: one receives 5 talents, another 2 talents, and the last one receives 1 talent. While their master is gone, the first two servants, knowing their master likes to make money from his money, invest their money and return double the value to their Lord. The third servant, whom the master wisely gave the least amount to, was afraid of the risk and hid the money, returning just the same amount back to the master. He was punished severely (outer darkness!) for being an unwise steward. The two who took risks and doubled their money by investing it were rewarded.
There have been many interesting essays on this parable and its lessons. As a business leader, I often think of it in terms of employee contribution. If your contribution to the company is only equal to (or worse, less than) what you are paid, your job should be eliminated. If you contribute more, you should be praised and promoted in accordance.
Another reason to see this as a parallel for the Church’s amassing of wealth is that at a certain level of wealth, the interest on your wealth will continue to increase exponentially, creating substantial returns. This view of the Church’s “rainy day fund” paints Church leaders in a very positive light, the wise stewards who made a fortune out of a smaller pool of donations. This interpretation is reminscent of those in the GOP who extol leaders who paid minimal taxes, claiming that makes you smart. Mitt Romney has also accurately said that he only pays the taxes he is required by law to pay, even if those tax codes are unfair or regressive (and as a legislator he’s in a position to change them).
The Lord in the parable is kind of problematic. He is described as reaping where he doesn’t sow, and “an hard man.” He isn’t merciful or even necessarily just. He is portrayed as only caring about the return on his investment, not developing his employees, not building something beneficial for a community, not his family or people at all. It’s all about the Benajmins.
Seeing this parable as a parallel for the SEC incident requires a very literalistic interpretation of the parable. Alternate interpretations of the parable include considering it as a diatribe against the scribes for hoarding access to the scriptures, keeping the word of God out of the hands of the masses. In this interpretation, the scribes were not “investing” the word of God (talents) into the community of believers, instead maintaining their own power and control over them.
In another interpretation that is potentially salient, William Herzog sees a liberation theology lesson. The absentee landlord is exposed by the third servant who acts as a whistle-blower, revealing that the master has been exploiting others. The third servant is punished for being a sole whistle-blower, not for failing to make a profit. It is his criticism of the absentee landlord that has brought punishment, his failure to get in line. In order to confront social, political, and economic injustice, one must band together with others against the unjust system, not attack as an individual without sufficient power. In systems of accumulated advantage, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The SEC scandal adds a new component to this search for a salient parable, though. Now we are confronted with the fact that the Church’s company acted in deliberate deception to avoid disclosure of the amount of money so that church members would not stop paying tithing. Assuming generously that Church leaders wanted members to continue to pay tithing as a spiritual principle, for the salvation of their souls (rather than the enrichment of church coffers), the problem still remains that individual members who do not pay tithing are barred from the temple, and the Church is the arbiter of worthiness. One of the most frequent complaints I’ve heard since this information came to light is that the Church expects strict honesty and integrity from its members (or it applies social and salvational consequences), but it does not exhibit these same characteristics, and has declared the matter closed without further discussion.
Any way you slice it, tithing (like all flat taxes) is a regressive tax. If you are wealthy, tithing is less of a burden because you have excess resources. If you are poor, you can find yourself in a bind between paying the mortgage, buying groceries, and paying tithing. This is why we use another story to illustrate the importance of paying tithing in faith that all will work out according to your righteousness. In the story, the prophet Elijah visits the widow of Zarephath and asks her for bread. She uses her last bit of flour and oil to bake for him; in return, he blesses her that her stores of oil and flour will never diminish.
This is one reason that D&C 119’s explanation that tithing should be paid on one’s “increase” or “interest” sounds more like social justice: if you have no increase (excess above your needs), you have nothing to pay on. But that isn’t how we talk about tithing in the Church anymore. We expect members to pay on their “income” whether it be defined as net income or gross income. This makes it regressive.
The next parable that this tension between a Church that demands integrity while using shell corporations to flout SEC regulations (resulting in wrist-slapping fines, one pointedly requiring the Church itself to pay) brings to mind is the parable of the unforgiving debtor. In this parable, a man owed the king ten thousand talents. He begged for mercy, and the king was moved by compassion and agreed to cancel the debt outright. Then the man went to a fellow servant who owed him a hudred denarii (a talent was 6,000 denarii, so this debt was literally nothing compared to the one for which he was forgiven), and when his fellow servant begged for mercy, he had him thrown into debtor’s prison.
Jesus often spoke in parables like these, not because they offered clearcut black and white answers to problems, but because they pointed out the complexities of human behavior and sparked discussions and self-reflection about human interactions. The parables are equally good at providing a critique of individuals, leaders, and systems. The path of the disciple is always to ask “Lord, is it I?”
- Do these parables speak to your experience as you think through these events?
- Are there other parables you find more relevant?
Discuss.
[1] In fairness, I am more dismayed by the Church’s financial and leadership support for anti-LGBT hate groups which haven’t violated the law, but definitely violate my own principles.