One the most well known stories of Jesus is the parable of the talents. In brief the story tells of a very wealthy man who goes on a journey. He entrusts large sums of money to his three servants. Two of the servants invest the money and get a one hundred percent return. The third servant does nothing with the money and returns the original amount to the master. In the course of the story we discover that the master is very harsh and "reaps where he does not sow." The punchline of the story is "For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." The servant who did not get a good return on the money entrusted to him suffers at the hand of the harsh master.
The story has been used as a Sunday school moral tale: don't waste your talents. Use them to the best of your abilities and you will do well. That's okay as "the moral of the story," so far as it goes. But, historically it has often been associated with rewards in the great by and by. The poor knew from experience that however hard they worked, they did not get more. The working class knew that working hard every day for low wages helped you get by—just get by, with nothing to spare. So, the reward for hard work was put off into the indefinite future. Heaven is the place of reward. The cynicism of the mill or mine owner, "Listen to the Bible story. Work hard for me now and you will be rewarded in heaven" allowed him to reap where he did not sow. No wonder Karl Marx spoke of religion as the opiate of the people, and supporter of the rich.
In recent years, in right wing religion the parable of the talents has taken on a new meaning. The story is used as a justification for the capitalist system and the wealth of the few. It is used by the "health and wealth" preachers to encourage moving up the social ladder. Getting rich is a virtue. Getting rich is God's blessing. The servant who did not get rich deserved all he got.
So, was Jesus telling a simple moral tale urging us to use our skills and talents; or was Jesus giving a first century endorsement of proto-capitalism?
I'm thinking neither. I take the story to be a simple description of the way of the world. The rich seem often to get more, while the poor often suffer. In the context of the message Jesus brought to the world, I think the story was told in the via negativa. What is God's realm like? Well it's not like this! The way of the world is that the rich get richer and the poor have even what they have taken away. The way of God is different. Those who don't have will begin to have; the first will be last and the last first; blessed are the poor for their's is the realm of God.
This "upside-down" way has always been a challenge.
In ancient times, in all the world's religions "reaping where you do not sow" was a vice and not a virtue. In ancient India, in Judaism, in medieval Christianity, in Islam, charging interest—making a profit for doing nothing at all—was considered morally wrong. To lend somebody money, then charge them interest on that money, is to take advantage of those who do not have, and enriches those who have already, making them richer.
In the modern world we tend not to think like that. We have so taken for granted advanced capitalism that all of us have imbibed its simple truth: if you have lots of stuff, you are likely to get lot's more stuff. Probably, if you don't have stuff it's your own fault. Lack of stuff is an indicator that you have not used your talents.
In the middle of the twentieth century Christians were at the forefront in Britain and America in a movement to try to militate the harshness of capitalism. Capitalism could not run free. The working class deserved more: better conditions at work, better housing, free education through university level, free health care at the point of service, security for retirement, and security from unemployment. For a brief window in western history, movement was on the side of the poorer members of society. "To those who have not, more will be given ..." It began to unravel in the 1970s. The subsequent Thatcher and Reagan administrations dismantled too much of the structure. The British miners were among the victims.
Hence Billy Elliot.
If you want to watch and think:
Billy Elliot (2000) director Stephen Daldry
Billy Elliot the Musical, music by Elton John, Victoria Palace Theatre, London; also in some cinemas.
Brassed Off (1996) director Mark Herman, another British miners movie with the incomparable Pete Posslethwaite. (On Netflix streaming)
+Ab. Andy