Talk:Stewardship (theology)

Stewardship in Judaism

At the moment the article is focussed entirely on Christian thought and Christian responses.

There's also a well-developed theology of stewardship in Judaism, with its own distinctive connections to Jewish tradition.

I've added a couple of links at the bottom, as it would be good to expand the article to reflect this (and more in keeping with WP's aim to inclusivity, surveying all relevant different perspectives) Jheald (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

More direct mention in Genesis

The phrase in Genesis that is often translated in English as human "dominion" over other life forms is more accurately translated as stewardship. I'm not finding this in the Article as of yet, but it deserves mention. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction of Parable Interpretation

There was a short interpretation of the Matthew 25.14-30 parable. There are two main ways modern Christians interpret it, one way in favor of the master, the other in favor of the third servant. The original version was a perfectly valid interpretation of the parable, it is the interpretation favored by those who think money and profit are desirable at any expense. However, in the context of this article on stewardship, I think the other interpretation, of stewardship at the expense of profit, is more appropriate. I think it should be noted that most people assume the "master" in the parable represents God, but Jesus is simply telling a story about a master and servants, the interpretation is left to the reader. If the master is to be praised and seen as a good God or Lord character, some defense or explanation for his "harvesting where he had not sown" sinful behavior needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant781 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To the user MacDoggald

You made a thorough edit to an edit I had made on the Stewardship (theology) page. I would like to say I don't think it is appropriate for the article though. I'm not that familiar with wikipedia things, so please give me a little slack while I read more. As a little justification for your changes you noted in a couple places that the interpretation of the parable of the 3 talents you put up is the one "generally accepted by scholars" as well as "traditionally interpreted". I do not dispute that at all, that is a great reason to have the interpretation on any other mainstream theology topic. I do not think that just because the interpretation is more traditionally and generally accepted by mainstream scholars (who may or may not be stewards) it is the right one for the stewardship article. Plainly, I still do not understand how that traditional interpretation encourages stewardship specifically in contrast to unfettered exploitation (i.e. reaping where you do not sow). I understand that stewardship means more than preservation, i.e. cultivation, so in that sense the 3rd servant was surely lazy. But I have always had trouble with seeing the master in that parable as anything other than an example of evil and power (you specifically noted the "lazy" servant was afraid of his power... I would say "evil power").

I think that old interpretation was fine for perhaps the 1950s when cultivation was encouraged at all costs, but the modern movement of stewardship is focused far more on sustainability in light of limited resources and the damage caused by pollution etc. from over-zealous cultivation. You seem to have a greater knowledge of bible passages than I do, perhaps together we could find an entirely different parable that makes these ideas more clear? Or you could recommend some reading on the topic that has brought you insight?

Giant781 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not Mark 12?

Pardon me but your "word" means nothing here, Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. Where is your wp:RS? 99.181.140.141 (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Christianity_and_environmentalism. 99.181.140.141 (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense there, either. As for Mark 12, the article is a commentary about an interpretation of Mark 12, not an actual comment. The redirect might make sense, but it should only be used in comments about the entire chapter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How is "commentary" not a comment? 99.181.148.240 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. It's a commentary about an interpretation of Mark 12, not about Mark 12 as a whole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)