Last Sunday, I spoke of the internal disposition of a heart preparing for eternal life. This week, the Gospel illustrates, concretely through the parable of the talents, how this preparation may be lived out.With this in mind, I would like to approach the Gospel not so much from the perspective of how we can use the talents but to understand what our response should be when we draw the short straw—like the man who got only one talent. How do we deal with 1 talent?
Our consumer world markets a vision of life whereby the pot is always depicted as brimming and overflowing. In short, we deserve more than 1 talent. So if you do not have it all, you can attain it. It is a false vision of life where utopia is not really utopian at all. St Thomas More, in his book, Utopia described this island in the Atlantic that possesses the perfect socio-politico-legal system. The operative phrase is “an island somewhere in the Atlantic” denoting that it is not real or better put, it remains a goal always one step ahead. It would, therefore, be an illusion to believe that utopia is achievable here on earth. This is confirmed by the etymology of the word itself, which in Greek means “not the place”.
Nevertheless, our consumer world continues to push an idea that life must be nothing but pleasant and suffering must disappear. And by no means is this utopian vision restricted to the consumer world. In fact, every aspect of modern life is gripped by a philosophy that man has the right and duty to construct a new world based on a rational foundation. Take note that rationality here is understood narrowly to be governed by functionality, efficiency and also the quality of life. [1] Sometimes, you hear the phrase “new world order” bandied about; a kind of mantra for a reality no less than heaven itself. This new world believes that the rational application of technology makes possible a world in which suffering and inequality can be wiped out. It is quite mechanical and deterministic and this kind of thinking is reflected in arguments like “You should know it what” as if knowing necessarily equates to doing. We know that is not really the case. Some of the most brilliant minds in history have also been the most evil. But, we constantly run into difficulty on account of this mechanistic, deterministic and linear thinking.
Anyway, in this utopian new world order, possibility becomes the determining criterion for the measure of how life is supposed to be shaped. As long as our technology can achieve it, then it is permissible. In this so-called heaven on earth, what is possible has been coalesced into what is permissible meaning that morality now is defined as it is permissible for man to do anything he is capable of.2 Now you can appreciate why the Church finds it increasingly difficult to argue, for example, against the use of in vitro fertilisation. In vitro fertilisation is not a new technology. But, in any discussions on the morality of life issues, the Church will always be depicted as the voice out of touch with progress.
Now listen to what Pope Benedict said in his first encyclical, “When we consider the immensity of others' needs, we can be driven towards an ideology that would aim at doing what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolving every problem”. Here the Pope may be cautioning us against a utopian attempt to fill the gap where apparently God has failed. Our technological prowess is really an indictment against a God who has failed miserably. For example, childlessness is an indication that God has failed and the cure can be any method that best secures conception. Recently, there was the media hype that the world was marking the birth of its 7th billion inhabitant? It was presented against a backdrop of unprecedented hunger in the world and that mankind was taking a toll on the resources of the world. The unspoken assumption was that God could not have provided enough for the world never mind the fact that hunger could have been the result of uneven distribution rather than of inadequate resources. Have you noticed how people often drink water from bottles and leave them half-full? Not even water or wasteful?
So, has God failed? No. Perhaps a more realistic vision of the world is that we can never realise utopia on earth and that is not because life is unfair. Even the most perfect life you can ever conceive of will be imperfect or flawed. If we banish all hatred or fill every stomach yet we know that that is not enough. Instinctively you know this. Why? Because we all have a part of heaven in us. Here, I am not advocating that we canonise the status quo by resignation. For example, I am not saying that women should accept that their husbands abuse them or vice versa. Nor am I suggesting passivism in accepting the injustice of racial or religious discrimination.
Many young people entering adulthood are also ensnared by a utopian vision that everything good has to be achieved in their lifetime. No wonder life is so stressful. And they may be unwittingly forced to subscribe to what is possible must be permitted because that is the only way to achieve utopia (perfect life) here. The parable of the talents highlights firstly that short straws are an existential given. It is a fact of life that God’s providence does not work according to our sense fairness. Secondly, we will never be able to achieve all that we want here in this world.
Thus, utopia is restored to its rightful place. For Christians, it belongs in the realm of the Eschaton. It means that what we hope to achieve may sometimes come only in the next life. So, if our idea of utopia is confined to this world, then our response in time would probably be cynicism or despair. If we accept that the world will always consist more of short straws than full pots, then it does not matter what we have been given. It matters how we use what we have for what needs to be done. We no longer gripe as if we have been dealt an injustice. Instead we set about doing what we can with what we have instead of thinking of what we can do with what we do not have. For us to achieve that Christian utopia, we need keep our eyes focused on Christ our Lord and we work with every bit of our being to make things right but keeping in mind also that what we do may never be enough. Yet we are at peace because we know and trust that Christ, in the end, will make right what we cannot in this world and He will reward us with what we cannot have in this world.
In conclusion, I am hesitant to say this. I have this lump on my neck. How I wish it would go away but sometimes I do not want to do anything not because I am despairing. Here, I am not advocating that those with cancer should do nothing about chemotherapy or those needing surgery should not consent to it. Rather, I am informed by the Eschaton that beyond what is considered proper and necessary care, I do not need to have a perfect body to enter heaven. I need a healthy soul and therefore my effort is to run the race for which I have entered. What is important is not what I have been given what is important is how I use what I have been given.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The quality of life argument is often used to justify euthanasia. Apart from that, it may be used also to justify eugenics, the science improving life even from the womb.
[2] The philosophy that says if you do not have it you can attain it thrives in this new morality where what is possible becomes permissible. The collapse of the wall between what is possible and what is permissible now renders any means as permitted as long as it helps the impossible becomes possible. As long as what is possible is permitted, then, technology can be co-opted by people who cheat and scam in a massive way. Since our life is premised on what can be done, then all manners of living should be respected. We call it “alternative lifestyle”. But life should be premised not only on “it can be done” but also on “should it be done”. This means we enter the territory of morality and this is where we will be accused of being judgemental if we do not subscribe to all possibilities available.
