Luke 12 v 16-21

I have been enjoying the wonders of half term this week, and have been preparing for school, and the other day I had to sort a BIG PILE of paper which had gradually accumulated in a variety of places. So I sought some entertainment during this time, and so watched Deal or No Deal, a good natured study of the effects of greed on everyday people.

When that finished, I sought alternative entertainment and came across a programme called 'DIVIDED' on ITV presented by former Tennis star Andrew Castle. The premise seemed simple enough, 3 strangers work together to answer simple questions that get progressively harder.

Let me explain the contestants.

1) Youngish woman, quite ambitious but intelligent too.

2) Middle aged woman, a little bit non-commital, not too sure, happy to follow others.

3) Middle aged man. Very annoying, shouts over people and always 'knows the answer'.

I will refer to them by number from now on.

The rules were: Each round had a set amount and they had 100m seconds to agree on an answer, during which time the amount they won trickled slowly down. If they answered wrongly, their amount was halved. 3 wrong answers=game over.

After each round they had to agree unanimously whether to carry on or 'bank' (Anne Robinson's lawyers be alerted) what they had won. After round three, annoying bloke 3) wanted out, but the other two, having only lost one life, wanted to carry on. He was furious about carrying on, but slightly less annoyed when they cleared round 4 and 5 and ended up with winnings of £115,000 to be shared equally.

Or so I thought.

No, the clever twist to this game was that they assigned 3 vastly differing amounts of money and each had to agree what they each would take.
I think the money was roughly split £69,000, 34,000, 11,000 or something similar. Each person had 15 seconds to declare what they wanted and why they deserved it.

Unsurprisingly, they all wanted the largest figure. I say unsurprisingly, but I actually thought that annoying twit 3) might say 'well yes I wanted out at £48,000, so you take the most, but no he insisted he had been the best player and deserved the money.

So what followed was... you guessed it... 100 seconds to decide allocation of funds during which time the money they had so brilliantly earned was whittered down.

Such a display of greed, pride and human desperation I haven't seen for a long time. A full blown shouting match, with annoying bloke 3) eventually pleading. In the end, worthy winner 1) said 'I'll take the smallest amount as long as he (3) doesn't get the most.

However, by the time they had agreed this (over a minute it took them), the combined winnings had gone from £115,000 to about £28,000.

I would have said: Let's all keep in touch and write cheques to each other making sure we all get the same eventually' and quickly agreed whatever to keep the money high, but maybe this isn't allowed, or they are just plain dumb.

The whole thing deflated the whole point of the show, seeing all their hard work destroyed by their personal greed. It reminded me of this story Jesus told:

The land of a rich man produced plentifully and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?'

And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'

But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'

So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God.