I remember my dad preaching on this passage in Amos. It caught my attention. Buying (and selling) the poor for a pair of sandals! REALLY?! I was at a point when my awareness of global poverty was growing. Could anyone actually be so calloused as to buy or sell poor people for a pair of sandals?!!

Several years later, while living in Latin America, I saw deals negotiated that kept those in poverty extremely poor. Was it intentional? Could this be the modern-day equivalent?

In the Dominican Republic, the Haitians I worked with were the sugarcane cutters. They were virtual slaves who had been tricked or lied to, kidnapped, and/or sold for work on sugarcane plantations in the D.R. Their own Haitian government was often complicit in the process, particularly under previous dictators. When the labor supply slowed with the demise of dictators, Dominican soldiers would kidnap people along the porous frontier, sometimes in the D.R., but also on the Haitian side of the border.

Meanwhile, trade deals would ensure that sugar remained very cheap in my own country. I had read that just 3-4 cents more for each bag of sugar sold in the U.S. could pull all the Haitian canecutters and Dominican refinery workers out of poverty – that is, if the money could make it past 1) the lobbyists of the big company buying the sugar and pulling lots of strings, and 2) those controlling both the  Dominican plantations and the government. Could this be “buying or selling the poor for a pair of sandals?” Was my own country part of a system that kept people poor?

Silvais, a canecutter living in Batay Amistad, had been kidnapped for labor in another region where workers were needed. He was rescued by the quick action and negotiations of our literacy promoter, but only after soldiers beat Silvais nearly to death out of anger that they wouldn’t get the $230-$260 (US) for selling him to a general with a plantation farther south. I saw Silvais a lot. He was partially crippled from the beatings so couldn’t work in the fields, and limped around with the help of a hand-made stick-crutch. Like most Haitians I knew, he wore plastic chanklas (sandals). These weren’t Crocs or “nice shoes” like that. They were a harder plastic that cracked easily, and after breaking (an inevitability) would be held together with pieces of wire or string. The words from Amos 8 reverberated in my mind daily. Silvais and his chanklas were a regular reminder.

Each of our readings this week has a focus on economics which help us understand the justice and righteousness to which God calls us today. Our English word comes from the Greek ‘oikonomia,’ meaning management of the household, management of resources, or stewardship. While it can refer to personal household economics, our passages seem to say more about systems that aren’t working. They point to structural injustice designed for the benefit of some at the expense of those most vulnerable –

• vulnerable people like Silvais;

• vulnerable children like the Nicaraguan kids who dug through my garbage twice weekly looking for things to eat or to sell because the chickens imported from Arkansas were priced too low (initially) for local small producers like their family to compete;

• vulnerable populations like those stuck working in Latin American maquiladoras (foreign companies, often from the U.S.) which got tax/duty-free status because they would “provide jobs” but that also ignored local minimum wage laws;

• vulnerable earth systems, like air and water, polluted by some of those same maquilas (factories) because, “It doesn’t matter – these people should just be grateful for work”; and

• our vulnerable planet, which we too frequently exploit for short-term resources and gain, while ignoring stewardship responsibilities and what it means to future generations of people and creation.

In Amos, it seems there are people whose whole goal is to make more & more money at any cost. (Hmm! That sounds familiar!!) They can’t wait for the sabbath to be over because it’s getting in the way of their profits. They don’t think twice about using weighted scales to tip profits in their favor and are willing to pad their product with chaff so that the greater weight will cost the buyers more, meaning they certainly are not getting their money’s worth.

Amos doesn’t mince words as he brings God’s message to the powerful in the land of Israel. They are doing wrong by God’s measures of justice and righteousness, which refer to right relationship. You “trample on the needy,” he admonishes, and bring those who are already vulnerable “to ruin.” In other words, the very same vulnerable people and land that God has consistently called upon the community and its leaders to protect are those they are exploiting. They prey on the defenseless for their own selfish gain, trying to wring every last penny (or rather shekel and piece of silver) from powerless buyers, and every ounce (or ephah) of produce possible from the land regardless of the short and long-term impacts, so that they may live extravagant lives.

The message is clear! This is not the sabbath economy that God had taught them through laws and commands, as described in Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15, and elsewhere. It’s not the economy in which gleanings are to be left in the fields, honest measures and scales are to be used, where kinsman-redeemers are something of a safety-net (like Ruth & Naomi had with Boaz). Where are the seven-year sabbaths, when debtor-slaves are to be freed, and everyone gets rest and renewal, even the land and animals? What happened to the supersized sabbath, the Year of Jubilee, following seven-times-seven years in which there is to be a major economic restructuring, when people get their livelihoods back and inequality is addressed in significant ways? This is precisely the disobedience related to justice and righteousness, right-relationship with God, with others, and with all of creation, that God through Amos is confronting.

In the alternate reading, Jeremiah laments and describes with deep sorrow the impending doom of Judah. In earlier verses, prior to his vision of destruction, we learn that the people have rejected the word of the Lord, are engaging in corrupt practices, “don’t speak honestly” and “turn to their own course.” Everyone from the least to the greatest “is greedy for unjust gain.” Jeremiah even seems to suggest that their sin has resulted in destruction of vineyards and fig trees. “There are no grapes on the vine and no figs on the trees,” he states. Have they possibly been exploiting these gifts from God for the sake of unjust profit in the same way they are trying to exploit one another?

Like Amos, Jeremiah has been trying to call them back into right relationship with God, with one another, and with the creation around them. But they spread falsehoods and claim that God and the law are on their side, when in fact, they are disobeying God’s commands for justice and righteousness. Most of the verses chosen for this reading are about impending doom. However, it is their disobedience which directly leads to that doom and destruction. There is an army marching toward them, but their own actions and false confidence in their own might have already been their undoing.

The Gospel lesson in Luke is a challenging parable. What is Jesus getting at with this rich man and his manager (steward). Initially, it seems as though the manager has been corrupt and for that reason the rich man is firing him. However, in looking back at the Greek and ways that it is translated, it can lead to different conclusions. Is the manager corrupt? Is he squandering what has been entrusted to his care? Or did it somehow disappear? The accusation was made, and the manager is summarily discharged by the rich man. But it would have been likely that the rich man was exploiting people and land for his own gain.

In reading material by theologian, Ched Meyers, and seeing what he pulls from other biblical scholars, I tend to think Jesus is describing how a rich man is exploitive and primarily interested in accumulating as much wealth as he can. That would also fit with the other readings.

The economic and social system in Jesus’ day had changed considerably. Some sources emphasize it was that it was a time of expansion, trade, and economic growth across the empire. However, it was also a period when land was being accumulated in fewer and fewer hands. With concentration of agricultural land, wealth was also more concentrated. How many parables can you name that start with “a rich man”? Jesus also engages with “a rich young ruler” who was clearly very attached to his wealth. It makes sense that inequality was likely rampant, and several parables address wealth in some way.

In this Luke 16 parable, the rich man would likely be an absentee landlord. He has at least one overseer or manager to run day-to-day operations. Given the types of debts owed to him, the debtors could have been tenant farmers. What they owe are huge amounts. Might that mean that the rich man is squeezing them for larger portions of their crops than they can manage to pay? If so, they would be stuck in perpetual servitude.

That puts the manager in a difficult spot. He represents the landlord to the debtor farmers and is supposed to collect. At the same time, he may be uncomfortable exploiting them for so much, and he is the person who would need to take the farmer concerns to the landlord. If he is guilty of something, it might be that he isn’t putting the screws to the farmers tight enough, which could explain the accusation and why accounts wouldn’t add up adequately. The word for what was happening can be translated as squander or waste, but it could also mean disperse, or scatter abroad. If the manager is not collecting what he’s supposed to because the debtors can’t pay, that could fit.

Does our socialization and acceptance of capitalism predispose us to see the situation from the landlord perspective, but not that of the manager or debtor tenant farmers? Since he is being dismissed, rather than beg the landlord for reprieve which would keep him captive to the landlord’s greed, he instead ingratiates himself with the tenant farmers, which helps ensure a place in the community for him. Then what Jesus says makes more sense because it acknowledges that, if it’s not an economy reflective of God’s kingdom values, sometimes there is no completely right option. So, you do the best you can in the midst of an exploitive situation and you try to be faithful to those in need rather than those whose greed causes a voracious appetite for more and more wealth at the expense of others and  at the expense of creation. Apparently, vs. 9 can also be interpreted as tents rather than homes, which Ched suggests harkens back to the Israelites in the desert living in an economy that is more community-oriented. I like thinking that instead of siding with greed, to be faithful in a situation of dishonest wealth you side with those who are struggling and work for community.

Psalm 113 is rather beautiful, as we get an image of God stooping to view heaven and earth, not as a distant observer, but as a caring creator who wants the best for all of that creation. It says, “He raises the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes.”

Finally, in the 1 Timothy reading, Paul urges that supplications, prayers, intersessions and thanksgivings be made for everyone, including for leaders and those in high positions that “we might lead peaceable lives.” That seems like good advice at all times, regardless of whether the government is the Roman Empire, our state leaders, or all three branches of the U.S. government (legislative, executive, judiciary). I don’t read this as a blind following of those leaders, but rather something more like the Psalmist in Psalm 72 prays – “Give the king your justice, O God,…May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.”

My reaction is, of course we must pray for them! Leaders need so much prayer as there are so many pressures on them. May God lead them in paths of righteousness and justice (right relationship). May God help leaders resist the temptation to act out of greed, self-interest, or the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the defenseless and the voiceless. Then we might lead peaceable lives. But I would be remiss if I didn’t also say that our prayer must include action like that of the prophets, calling on leaders to act justly.  

God cares for the vulnerable, the disenfranchised, the people and parts of creation that others may try to manipulate and abuse for their self-interest and greed. That gives me hope, and strength as a servant of Christ to “go and do likewise!”