The Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19 are two of the clearest texts for those exploring a Christian model of stewardship. They are particularly relevant for those interested in the compatibility of Christianity and effective altruism because they seem to provide evidence for a maximising mindset when it comes to stewarding resources.

Rather than recount the passages, the tables below capture the features of the stories most relevant for this post.

The Parable of the Talents - Matt 25:14-30

Context: This section of Scripture, including the Parable of the Talents, constitutes final warnings, prophecies, and encouragements to His people Israel prior to His departure. He, who is their Lord, is leaving for an undisclosed period of time. He is delegating to them the responsibility, as stewards, to care for His kingdom. The Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14-30, impresses on them the weight of that responsibility and the serious consequences of neglecting to understand and apply His instructions.

[Pasted from: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-talents.html]

The Parable of the Minas - Luke 19:11-27

Context: Christ uses the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:11–27 to teach about the coming kingdom of God on earth. The occasion of the parable is Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem. Many people in the crowd along the road believed that He was going to Jerusalem in order to establish His earthly kingdom immediately. (Of course, He was going to Jerusalem in order to die, as He had stated in Luke 18:33.) Jesus used this parable to dispel any hopeful rumors that the time of the kingdom had arrived.

[Pasted from: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-ten-minas.html]

Note that some believe that the parables are actually an admonishment to not behave like the Master in the passages, rather than an encouragement to careful stewardship. I won’t explore this possibility here, but instead will focus on the traditional interpretation of the passage.

I will look at three points which emerge from the passages:

(1) People should pursue positive yields on the resources they steward

The two passages clearly indicate that Christians should not be idle with the resources God has given us. Instead, they suggest that Christians ought to put the resources God has given them to work in search of positive returns. In both accounts, the third servant is strongly rebuked for burying the endowment and the other servants receive rewards for gaining positive returns.

(2) People with positive yields will be entrusted and rewarded with more

In both versions, those who get yields are given further responsibility by the ruler. Notably, in the Luke version the servant who had the higher yield was rewarded with more responsibility than the one with the lower positive yield.

(3) People should seek to maximise the yield on the resources they are stewarding

In the Matthew version, both of the non-lazy servants get the same return on investment. So this version doesn’t tell us whether what matters is just getting a positive return, or instead maximizing the return on investment.

However, in the Luke version, the two non-lazy servants achieve different returns. The first servant achieves a ten-times multiplier whilst the second servant only achieves five-times. Interestingly whilst the first servant gets a hearty encouragement, none is recorded for the second servant. The first is also put in charge of more cities than the latter. This might be viewed as a greater reward due to better action, although it may also just be viewed as the Master shrewdly allocating additional work to the more competent administrator.

Whilst we should be careful about reading too much into this difference, it does provide some evidence that it’s better to maximize the return on investment.

Conclusion

These parables provide strong evidence that Christians ought to put their resources to work for God’s kingdom, and that idleness isn’t acceptable. It is more controversial whether the parables provide strong evidence that Christians ought to maximize the return on their resources. The second argument is naturally harder to defend than the first because it is attempting to defend a stronger claim.

Overall, it does seem that the wording of the Luke version implies that it is better to get a higher return, as the first servant receives a hearty commendation whilst the second servant does not and the higher-yield servant is rewarded more by being put in charge of more cities than the other. This view also chimes with common sense, as the reason that the lazy-servants are condemned is because it was important to the Master that his assets grow whilst he was away. If growth is important then this means that Christians should be trying to maximize the returns on that which they steward.

An additional point to note is that Jesus uses numerical values in the passages where he could have just referred to non-numerical ‘more’ or ‘less’ language. This also provides evidence that the size of the returns matter to God in addition to the importance placed on the servants not being idle with the resources given.

We should not build an entire ethic from two passages in isolation from the rest of Scripture, and we must also be conscious of reading a parable more deeply than its author intended. However, it is still worth noting that the passage in Luke does seem to provide at least some biblical support for the maximising/optimising nature of effective altruism.