Parable of the Talents

[Telos]

How come I never hear Protestants preaching the parable of talents? You know, the one that says you can't be in heaven unless you increase your abilities and utilize resources to build wealth?

Matthew 25: 14-30

That's the King James version, just for you, Soma. However, The New American version has voluminous footnotes for those interested.

Edit: I might as well copy and paste the whole story, since it is relatively short.

The talent was a unit of coinage of high but varying value depending on its metal (gold, silver, copper) and its place of origin.

14 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.

15 To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately

16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.

17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two.

18 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money.

19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.

20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.'

21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'

22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.'

23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'

24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;

25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.'

26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?

27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?

28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.

29 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

30 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'

[Logic]

Isnt one of the key points of christianity (and pretty much most religions religion) to move way from materialism?

[Telos]

Logic, if that were the case, then we should be killing ourselves.

It's attachment to materialism that I think world religions discourage. And that is very sensible. All materials eventually decay and die.

[Manix]

I'm sure this parable is interpreted differently by others, but I've always thought it meant you should use those gifts given to you or you lose them. Not necessarily meaning material gifts but literal talents. Whether that talent be Art, music, etc... If you don't make use of your talents or talents and attempt to get better at them (jn essence doubling them) then you lose them. Much like if you do not use your muscles they atrophy. You've always heard you can't take it with you. This is True and False. You can't take material things with you, but you can take what you've learned and an account of what you've done.

Back to your origional question Telos. I'm not sure I understand. Why wouldn't they teach this parable? What groups are defined as protestant and why would they not wish to teach it? I've always been taught that Babtists are generalized as protestants...and I learned about the parable at a very early age. Granted, I haven't heard this tought for many years, but this is becuase my pasture has his favorite sermons that he tends to go over again and again. Perhaps it's not so much that it's avoided entirely but more like it's simply not mentioned as often as other subjects are.

[Telos]

Perhaps it's not so much that it's avoided entirely but more like it's simply not mentioned as often as other subjects are.

That's mostly what I meant.

Manix, in your opinion, why do you think this parable is not mentioned as often? It seems like it would be more applicable to people, and it seems like the story would be more readily accepted.

For instance, imagine a preacher on a street corner. Which do you think people would respond to more?

"Repent! Accept Jesus Christ as your one true God, lord and savior, and enter the halls of righteousness!"

- or -

"Use your talents for the wealth and advancement of all! Invest resources into worthy enterprises! Go to work! Learn! Use your mind and your soul, and explore its capabilities!"

[Manix]

Perhaps it's not so much that it's avoided entirely but more like it's simply not mentioned as often as other subjects are.

That's mostly what I meant.

Manix, in your opinion, why do you think this parable is not mentioned as often? It seems like it would be more applicable to people, and it seems like the story would be more readily accepted.

For instance, imagine a preacher on a street corner. Which do you think people would respond to more?

"Repent! Accept Jesus Christ as your one true God, lord and savior, and enter the halls of righteousness!"

- or -

"Use your talents for the wealth and advancement of all! Invest resources into worthy enterprises! Go to work! Learn! Use your mind and your soul, and explore its capabilities!"

Honestly, I have no idea why it's not mentioned more often. But I can only speak for the one preacher I can ever remember hearing, he doesn't bring it up becuase he has his favorite sermons and obviously it's not one of them. He's preached his favorites so often my family has dubbed them with titles. The only time I ever learn anything new is when I go to Sunday school. We actually look at the books as a whole and not individual verses.

Your absolutely right though. Looking at it logically, it's a less frightening message than the "Die and go to hell" message you normally hear. The parable is common sense that anyone can use. Who can argue that if you work hard enough at something your already good at that you won't get better or learn something new? This also applies for things that aren't natural talents. If your determined to learn something, you will. If you give up you won't.

However, if you put yourself in that guy standing on the street corner's shoes, you think about it from a less logical view point. That guy is there for one of two reasons. One, he wants to help people, or two, he wants credit for looking like he wants to help people. If he's there to truely help people (save them from hell) he's not worrying about their talents, he's worried about their souls. So in the brief moments he has to make an impression on people passing, he shouts out the most important part of his message. The most shocking and hard to believe portion of the story. A few might listen, but for the most part he's passed off as the crazy evangelist shouting about end times. The real question is, if he did start off with the easier to except stories. The principles that both believers and non-believers can apply to their everyday lives, would people be any more inclined to listen in those brief moments they hear him as they pass?

The same might be said of church sermons. The only chance you have to witness to someone is when they are listening. The preacher has maybe 30 minutes to explain why Christ is important, only a brief amount of time to effectively make someone question thier previous beliefs and convince them to at least give it some thought. Which sermon is going to get the point across, the common sense sermon or the sermon about Christ dying for our sins? That might explain why all those wonderful stories like the parable of talents are so rarely heard, there's a more important message that must be recieved first. That's the only explanation I can think of.

[Telos]

Manix, what do you think of the supposed moral of the story - the verse the concludes the parable of the talents?

For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

[Manix]

I think it means that if you've made an effort to grow and learn your efforts will be rewarded (presumably in heaven). But if you've sat idle and not done anything with your life when you were fully capable of doing so, what you had is forfeited.

I guess you could think of it this way. If God gives two people unique talents; one person has a skill with Music and one person has a knack for Mathematics but the two people use their skills differently in life. Let's say for whatever reason the person who's talent is music decides he can't make a living from it and doesn't even try to utilize his natural talents even as a hobby BUT the person who is a whiz for Math and numbers goes off to learn some trade that can use his skill to his best advantage and becomes even better with it. Both the people die and now face God and have to show him what they did. God looks at the successful man who used his talent and got the most out of it he could. This would show God that he appreciated the gift he had been given and, according to the verse, he is rewarded with even more. However, the other man (who may or may not have been successful in life) shows he has done nothing with his gift. This shows God that the gift he gave the man was wasted and not appreciated at all. What would be the point of letting him keep the talent he wasted, let alone give him more?

I've been wondering why this thread has caught my attention and now I think know. My talent is art. Sure I'm not the best, but if I had went to school for it I would be that much better. I did not go to school for my art, I learned Drafting instead. Yes, there is some design aspect involved but it does not utilize a natural talent if you are expressing someone else's ideas. Six months into my first job I've found my self becoming restless and bored. I hadn't touched an easel since my interview. I'm not bored with my job, I love it, but it doesn't USE what I've been given nor has it allowed an opportunity to do so. I started painting again over the weekend out of shear frustration and though what I did was minute, I felt a huge difference. I felt like I was taking a step in right direction. It was relief to simply pick up the brushes again. I know I have to use this talent for SOMETHING. I may never use it as a means of income, but it shouldn't left forgotten simply because of it. Thank you Telos, for reminding me of this.

[Telos]

That's great, Manix! Thank you, as well, for engaging me in this discussion. I look forward to seeing your work someday.