Use entrepreneurial ‘talents’ — faithfully and productively

There is an abundance of professionals available who can provide sound and strategic ethical investment advice. I would like to offer a contemplation on investment and ethics of a different kind by looking at the Parable of the Talents.

Did Jesus really provide investment advice? It is a fair question, because reflections on the parables are often not considered from an economic perspective at all.

So, how can we begin to think about one of the most well-known parables, which should be of great interest to Legatus members? I am referring to the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30). Interestingly, the word “talent” was used in Jesus’ time as an economic unit, signifying something of great value.

The story holds many layers of meaning, but at its core, it revolves around the question of how we should utilize the resources entrusted to us by God. On a temporal level, this parable explores concepts of capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the appropriate utilization of scarce economic resources. It also delves into the risks involved in their deployment. The use of business as a simile for the Kingdom of God directly challenges the notion that there is an inherent contradiction between business success and the Christian life, even though that may not be the ultimate point of the parable.

In this parable, the master makes an investment in his three servants during his absence. We observe his meticulous attention to detail, demonstrating that this investment is not arbitrary but carefully evaluated. He distributes the resources “according to their ability,” a crucial phrase to comprehend the profound depths of the parable. As the servants begin to employ this investment, they themselves become investors, and their faithfulness comes to the forefront.

The last servant, out of fear, buries the one talent he has been given. While safeguarding valuables in such a manner was an acceptable practice in that era, his motivation reveals something deeper here.

The problem lies in this servant’s fundamental perception of his benefactor. As he presents his defense, he argues that he kept the property safe, implying that he thinks not losing what was entrusted to him somehow fulfills his obligation. The master sees things differently.

This servant displays contempt for his benefactor, betraying the trust shown him. He further offers a derogatory and inaccurate assessment of the master: “I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear, I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back” (v. 25). 

This antagonistic envy and defensiveness resembles a Marxist view of entrepreneurs. Many individuals in our society point accusatory fingers at the most productive and free economic experiment in human history, condemning it for extracting rather than creating wealth. Essentially, they accuse it of reaping where it has not sown, all while enjoying the benefits of its bountiful harvest.

Ownership and investment are intrinsic aspects of life. They are dynamic. If we hold contempt for the master’s intentions and character, how can we consider collaboration with him a worthwhile endeavor? The fact that this servant makes no attempt to be productive is, in itself, a failure to acknowledge the initial gift received.

Our calling is to be faithful with the trust that God places in us and to be productive with it. We should become a community of entrepreneurs in moral, spiritual, and material dimensions, employing prudent risk borne out of trust in the goodness of the Grand Benefactor. When the master returns, our faithfulness will be evaluated, and we shall be deemed proven faithful.