A Time To Be Shrewd

Sixty some years ago, I sat in a sixth period class my senior year in high school. The course was called simply “Bible.” The teacher, Miss Snider, was one of the very best I ever had. The topic that day was the parables of Jesus. She focused on the parable usually referred to as “the Parable of the Dishonest Steward.” I’ve been wrestling with its implications ever since.

The parable [Luke 16] is confusing. The dishonest steward—or manager— found by his wealthy employer to be playing fast and loose with the property he was managing, is confronted by his boss who orders him to account for his management, his last act before being fired. The guy wonders what he’ll do without his job. He knows he doesn’t have the stamina to get into some line of manual work (which might have been the only choice available—the parable doesn’t address that), and he admits that begging is not an option because of his pride and self-respect. So, he wastes no time in calling in some of his boss’s clients and giving each one a generous discount. He bets that when he’s out of work, he can appeal to those debtors who will then owe him a favor. It isn’t clear what the favor might be, but he’s reasonably certain that they’ll at least be his ticket to avoid starvation and homelessness. Scoundrel though he is, the boss commends him for his shrewdness.

The tag line of the story is “for the children of this age are shrewder in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” Luke wraps up that passage by saying that Jesus commented to his disciples, “Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.” Bracket off that last phrase because its meaning is far from obvious.

The rest of the parable, however, is clear. The good guys just don’t get how the world really works. They want to take the high road. They’re about being good, if not holy. What they need to be is shrewd. Not dishonest, but shrewd.

Miss Snider illustrated that point saying that the business community—she might have said “capitalists” but that would have drawn gasps from her students in the day when the bugbear most dreaded was communism—the business community was a lot more persistent in investing energy to reach their goals than the timid and reticent would-be paragons of religion. In a day before internet, emails, and incessant texts, she referred to the number of mailings she got from advertisers offering constant reasons to buy, buy, buy. If anything, you and I have tons more examples. Just the time I spend daily deleting texts and emails asking for contributions or selling something is staggeringly exhausting.

That parable was read as the gospel last Sunday. I’ve been mulling it over as I’ve read about the saga of Jimmy Kimmel and the reinstatement of his comedy show by Disney. It is widely, and I think correctly, believed that Disney reconsidered Kimmel’s return to ABC because of the sudden overwhelming number of cancellations and general pushback generated by the public. No figures have been released, but we know the following from news reports.

• Following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, there were widespread calls for boycotts of Disney and its services (including Disney+ and Hulu) from fans who were angry about the decision.

• News reports state that search queries on Google for "how to cancel Disney+ subscription" increased dramatically during the period of the show's suspension. Some reports have said that Disney’s stock began to tank.

• The suspension drew intense backlash from the Hollywood community, free speech advocates, and the public. An open letter condemning the decision, signed by over 400 celebrities, was released.[1]

Although it is speculative to conclude all this had a hand in Disney’s decision to reinstate the show, clearly Kimmel’s suspension was answered in a massive act of shrewdness. I learned the contact information for the CEO of Disney and sent a text essentially saying, “Follow the Disney tradition and do the right thing: support Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, not authoritarian squelching of it.” That message alone, even if sent by thousands, would have done little good by itself. It was the concerted, immediate, unequivocal, and resolute action on the part of hosts of people having the guts to cancel their accounts with Disney+ and Hulu that tipped the scales.

That’s because the God this culture worships is money. “Mammon”—wealth—is what Jesus called it. “In God We Trust” is not accidentally written on US currency. We might think it refers to the Sunday school God, but the money on which it’s written is what talks. That’s what our society bows the knee to.

Thus has it ever been. The paragraph that follows the parable in Luke ends with Jesus’ pronouncement, “No one can serve two masters...You cannot serve God and wealth.” The Pharisees, “lovers of wealth,” ridiculed Jesus, says Luke. Jesus tells them that their hearts are not aligned with God. Incidentally, the only time that the word “abomination” appears in the English New Testament is in this verse [Luke 16:15]: “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.” Odd, don’t you think, that the only “abomination” some Bible-thumpers appear to know is that business about men lying with each other in the Book of Leviticus. That situation seems not to have bothered Jesus, but greed and the adoration of wealth certainly did.

What the present time demands is cleverness, hardheadedness, nimbleness, and tenacity. There have been times when high-mindedness was laudable and appropriate. There are clearly situations that call for conciliatory measures. Being shrewd does not entail denouncing such things. Rather, shrewdness employs tactics that are effective. One thing that isn’t effective is making peace with oppression and conceding ground to bullies.

When I first heard of “Tesla Takedowns” I thought two contradictory things: “Right on! Go for it!” and “Really? You think you’re going to make a difference against a giant corporation that even lots of progressives applaud for being ecologically conscious?” But look what happened. Reacting to the high handed political behavior and public statements of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, protestors have had a huge impact, not only in the United States but in Europe and elsewhere. Tesla's stock has plummeted, losing a significant portion of its market value. Customers and investors, alienated by Musk’s behavior and statements, have taken it out where it hurts even the world’s richest man: his money. Does he feel it personally? I don’t know but I doubt it. But onlookers more vulnerable than he can hardly escape noticing.[1]

Furthermore, Tesla, once seen as a symbol of a "green" and progressive future, has seen its brand damaged. While Its sales have tumbled, particularly in key markets like Europe and China, overall the electric vehicle market has grown. The other day I saw another Tesla in the Trader Joe’s parking lot bearing the sticker, “We bought it before Elon went crazy.”

Unfortunately, the backlash has gone beyond shrewdness and into dangerous nastiness, with vehicles being vandalized. It is easy for protests to get out of hand. My wonder is that with as many protests as we’ve seen lately, relatively few have been anything other than peaceful. When peace is broken and the law violated, we only feed the maw of authoritarians waiting for an excuse to vilify and punish those who oppose them.

When Target, once a retail leader openly celebrating diversity, equity, and inclusion, announced its retrenchment, I joined with many other Target fans and customers saying they could do without my business. I had no idea how big a hit Target would take. Reports show that the company has suffered significant financial losses. Target's market capitalization dropped, and its sales failed to meet expected levels. Groups who once praised Target have soured on it. The boycott has had a tangible effect on consumer behavior. Target has reported a sustained decline in foot traffic for several consecutive months. This is particularly notable among certain demographics, such as Black and Latino shoppers, who feel the company's reversal on its DEI commitments is a betrayal of its stated values. The financial fallout has been so severe that it has led to shareholder lawsuits. A class-action lawsuit has been filed, alleging that Target misled investors about the financial risks associated with its decision to roll back DEI programs. The company's CEO has also announced his transition to a new role, a move that some sources attribute to the ongoing challenges.[1]

I recall how, during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s, what began to make a difference was business communities across the United States coming to see that trying to keep racial integration of lunch counters, for example, at bay was having a negative impact on their bottom line. Capitulating to the bullies might work for a while, but sooner or later it doesn’t.

I’m not unaware that the casualties of such measures as boycotts result in the loss of jobs and income. The question may fairly be asked if it’s worth it. That’s tough. And that’s where community comes in. Going after the decision makers like those at Target and Tesla creates a need and an opportunity to be mindful of and, if possible, helpful to those whose lives and incomes are negatively affected.

Like many of you, I’ve been an Amazon customer for decades. Now I give them very little business and that only when I have no practical alternative. I’m not unmindful of the hundreds of small businesses marketing their goods through Amazon. They are vulnerable. I choose not to capitulate to the powerful wealth of Jeff Bezos because of the collateral damage that boycotting Amazon might have.

Am I being shrewd? You decide. I can certainly see plenty of holes in anything I’m suggesting. My aim, however, is not to make and promote a template for how everyone else ought to decide. Rather, my objective is to say, “Wise up!” Recognize that the way out of the present mess is not coat-and-tie negotiation but by being strategic.

In some ways this goes against my grain. I sat on the sidelines through much of the Viet Nam War unable to loosen myself from wanting to deal calmly and rationally, staying above the rabble of sit-ins and noisy demonstrations. Sure, I’d like to deal in high-minded ways with thorny problems, counting on Reason to prevail and warmheartedness to persuade. When sirens are screaming, blood flowing in the gutters, Gazan children’s flesh draping loosely on their skeletons, sorry. It’s time to leave the pulpit and turn over some tables.

Don’t fool yourself into believing there’s nothing you can do. Conversations I’ve had just this week in at least four different contexts have all been thick with confessions that people are just so sick of the news they’ve disconnected. I admit it: I’m sick of it too. For what it’s worth, I can say that I ration myself to a certain amount of news and noise each day, choosing carefully my sources, trying to make sure I listen to more than the stuff I want to hear and believe. Even if you’re sick and tired to the point you feel enervated, be aware: there’s plenty you can do.

The trick is doing what you can, not what you can’t. I am no good at organizing boycotts, demonstrations, protests, voter education drives, postcard writing. But I am good at participating in boycotts, showing up at demonstrations, protesting inequality and injustice when I can, supporting voter education drives, and writing postcards. I’m writing this article to stir up thought and action in you, making a space where you can think through and respond to the brushfires and larger conflagrations that erupt on the frontier of faith and politics.

In one conversation last week with some close friends, one of us was saying that he believed the only productive thing to do was to work for political change. My response? If that’s what you feel called to do, go right ahead. I don’t disagree. It’s important. But I’ve been around long enough to know that, while elections are enormously important, only rarely do they produce sea changes in the way people perceive and behave. And sometimes (we’re seeing daily evidence of this), those sea changes recede and disappear in the course of time.

The dishonest manager in Jesus’ parable was motivated by self-interest, and his project was saving his own hide. What I want to do is use the same kind of acumen (mine, not his) with a different goal: making the world more just and peaceable, its environment sustainable, and its inhabitants better cared for than they are now. The challenge for many of us is not to have a better vision. It is to look for more pragmatic ways of translating our vision into reality.

[1] Information gathered from internet sources with the aid of Google Gemini.