Bruno Dyck > Quotes

“Two thousand years ago management was seen as having three basic dimensions: (1) managing relationships within organizations (oikonomia); (2) managing money (chrematistics); and (3) managing relationships between organizations (benefaction/patron-client relationships).”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Jesus responds by essentially saying: “Woe to you who give into peer pressure and justify yourself in the sight of other members of the social elite: what is highly valued by conventional social norms is an abomination in the sight of God” (paraphrase of Luke 16:15).”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Moreover, the usual rates of return at that time were 4–12 percent, and anything greater was considered to be oppressive.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“In short, this is a parable about acquisitive economics, and thus of particular interest from a twenty-first-century understanding of management that is steeped in the ideas of profit-maximization and financial value-creation. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that many modern commentators are quick to conclude that the parable seems to provide support for profit-maximization:”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“In the first century most managers were slaves, and while being slaves was obviously not highly desirable, it often offered more security than being poor peasants who were unable to feed themselves.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Commentators note that elements of this parable are strikingly similar to the history of the ruling family in that region as described by the historian Josephus (writing in the first century). After Herod the Great died in 4 BCE his then 19-year-old son Archelaus (brother to Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee) went to Rome to confirm his kingship of Judea (as specified in his father’s will). Archelaus was followed by a delegation of 50 people protesting his appointment. He received the kingship, and went on to kill about 3,000 Pharisees who opposed his rule.11 Taken together, it seems unlikely that first-century listeners would assume that the nobleman in the parable represents Jesus.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“1.  The master in the parable represents Jesus.7 2.  The managers who increase the financial assets entrusted to them by their master are commended by Jesus. 3.  The manager who refuses to use his money to make money acted irresponsibly. Put differently, in most common twenty-first-century interpretations, the first two managers are heroes, while the third is vilified.8”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Third, and perhaps most surprisingly, just as the shrewd manager was praised by his boss, so also the religious managers in Senger’s study received the highest competency rating from their superiors. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to replicate Senger’s study. Moreover, his counterintuitive findings are rarely cited or acknowledged in the literature. Perhaps, just like the first-century interpretation of the parable of the shrewd manager, the findings are ignored because they seem too countercultural and thus difficult to believe.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“First, with regard to managing relationships within an oikos, both parables point to exemplary managers as independent moral agents, enacting values that challenge conventional oikos relationships. The parable of the shrewd manager affirms the manager who acts as a countercultural moral agent by unilaterally redistributing his master’s wealth, and the parable of the ten pounds affirms the manager who counters his master’s wishes by refusing to exploitatively use money to make more money.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“First-century listeners would recognize the financial returns described in the parable as inherently dubious instances of acquisitive economic activity (i.e., using money to make money). Moreover, the usual rates of return at that time were 4–12 percent, and anything greater was considered to be oppressive.12 Recall also that in the first century the economy was seen as a “fixed pie” meaning that in order for one person to gain ten pounds (equivalent of three years’ labor), someone else would have to lose ten pounds. In other words, in order for the rich nobleman to get richer, someone else would have to get poorer.13 And finally, note that collecting interest on money went against the usury laws of Hebrew Scriptures, and that elsewhere Jesus is clearly opposed to the exploitive practices of money-changers.14 In sum, although the social elite may have found it commendable to amass riches via five- and tenfold returns on money, it seems likely that the vast majority of people in the first century would have found this to be morally and ethically reprehensible. Is it Responsible”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“It is the only parable in the New Testament that has an explicit oikonomos (“oikos manager”) as a central character. Nevertheless, this parable is rarely discussed by scholars who attempt to apply biblical passages to management theory and practice. For example, this parable is not among the more than fifteen hundred biblical passages cited in the first ten years of The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business. This oversight may be because this has been described as one of the “most difficult,” and “puzzling,” of Jesus’ parables to understand via a modern lens.2”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Aristotle described two approaches to chrematistics. Aristotle used the term “natural chrematistics” to describe using money to facilitate trade in a way that maintains holistic ongoing relationships within and between oikoi. This is called “sustenance economics.” And he used the term “unnatural chrematistics” to describe using money to make money, which he found to be morally repugnant. This is called “acquisitive economics.” There was an ongoing debate since the time of Aristotle through to the first century about the relative merits of acquisitive economics, which by then had become widespread among the Romans and among the Jewish elite.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“With regard to earning interest from a bank, recall in that time there were no “banks” as there are today. The reference literally means to place the money “on a (moneylenders’) table” (compare Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45; John 2:15). Recall also that charging interest was permissible only when Jews lent to non-Jews (e.g., Deut. 23:19–21) (Fitzmyer, 1985: 1237). At a more fundamental level, earning interest also seems to go against the Creation story, where God desires work to be inherently meaningful and for people to work as God worked. Does the desire to use money to make money reflect an attempt to avoid working by the sweat of our brow (Gen. 3:19)? In this light, perhaps it is no coincidence that the third manager had wrapped his pound inside in a soudarion (literally, “a cloth for perspiration”), which refers to a sweat cloth used for face or neck for protection from the sun (Fitzmyer, 1985: 1236; Marshall, 1978: 706). By using “money to make money” the managers in the parable were likely increasing the amount of literal and metaphorical sweat on the brows of the relatively poor.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“The master had priorities other than maximizing the financial return on his possessions. One of those priorities, to gain honor, could be met by deemphasizing conventional patron-client relationships and instead practicing benefaction: While some modern people see it as unbelievable that a rich man would praise an employee for giving away his money, almost every scholar who employs the [ancient] honor-shame paradigm would dispute this. Many sociologically oriented critics have pointed to the frequency with which the rich engaged in benefactions and the spectacular amounts often involved as proof of their claim that honor is more important than money.12 Thus, from a first-century perspective it is entirely reasonable that the rich owner would commend the manager for his shrewd handling of the oikos resources.”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries

“Does the Master Represent Jesus? It seems that a first-century reader would be hard-pressed to think that the master in the parable represents Jesus, when the description of the master so clearly points to a different direction.9 The parable describes the master as a power-hungry, despised, and exploitive man who takes what he did not deposit, reaps what he did not sow, and promotes violating the biblical prohibition of charging interest. Moreover, the master explicitly agrees that this is an accurate description of himself, perhaps because for him (and among his peers) successfully exploiting opportunities to maximize one’s profits is considered to be a badge of honor.10 And indeed, this sort of behavior and oppression was commonplace in first-century Palestine for many people who were living under the thumb of absentee landholders and foreign rule. This is why the Jews were longing for a savior. Moreover, the story of the parable would have sounded painfully familiar to them. Commentators note that elements of this parable are strikingly similar to the history of the ruling family in that region as described by the historian Josephus (writing in the first century). After Herod the Great died in 4 BCE his then 19-year-old son Archelaus (brother to Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee) went to Rome to confirm his kingship of Judea (as specified in his father’s will). Archelaus was followed by a delegation of 50 people protesting his appointment. He received the kingship, and went on to kill about 3,000 Pharisees who opposed his rule.11”
― Bruno Dyck, Management and the Gospel: Luke’s Radical Message for the First and Twenty-First Centuries