Mark 12:41-44
He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”
Yesterday I suggested that this passage is primarily about trust. Jesus commends the widow because her gift of all that she has reflects absolute trust in the God the Temple was erected to honor. (After all, having two coins, she could certainly have kept one and still boasted of having given 50% of all she had!)
But what if Jesus is not holding her up as an example of piety but rather as an example of someone who is being exploited by her religion?
Why might I wonder about this? Three reasons: First, in the previous scene Jesus has warned the crowds to beware those scribes who, among other things, “devour widow’s houses” (12:40) – that is, take everything the widow has. And now is in this scene the woman gives all she has to the temple.
Second, immediately after this scene, Jesus leaves the Temple for the last time. Perhaps after seeing a widow give all that she has to live on – and witnessing the Temple accept such gifts – he finally forsakes the Temple for good. Indeed, Jesus then predicts the destruction of the Temple (13:1-2). All of which leaves me wondering whether there is a connection between the Temple’s willingness, even eagerness, to accept the leftovers of the rich and simultaneously all a widow had to live on, on the one hand, and its impending destruction, on the other.
Third, just after Jesus’ triumphal entrance into the city days earlier he drove out the money changers, accusing them of exploiting the poor. Is this a continued critique and another example of how the Temple has become “a den of robbers” (11:17)?
Don’t get me wrong, none of this diminishes the significance of the widow’s gift. But it does shift our attention from personal piety to the larger issue of right stewardship. Stewardship is not, ultimately, about what we give to the church. Rather, stewardship reflects a conviction that everything we have has been entrusted to us by God. Therefore, stewardship is concerned with helping us use all that we have wisely – that is, as God would have us use it.
Read this way, Jesus words about the widow push us to expect more of ourselves and our congregations and take seriously that everything we have – gifts, abilities, challenges, wealth, assets, time, opportunities – all of this comes from God with an expectation to use it in accord with the ethics and patterns of the “anti-kingdom” Jesus has been proclaiming.
So what might happen if our churches stopped focusing on the 10% they believed we should give and instead helped us think faithfully about the other 90% God has entrusted to us so that we may live well and care for the needs of our neighbors that they may also live well? What might happen if our churches invited its poorest members to give less and its wealthier ones to give more? What might happen if stewardship sermons focused less on what we should give and instead provided counsel and encouragement to consider all of our economic decisions in light of the Christ who, like this widow, gave all that he had?
Prayer: Dear God, grant us the vision to see all we have as a gift from you, the wisdom to use it well, and the courage to trust in your for all things. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
You had me going until you suggested the rich should give more and the poor should give less. Now I know that you are not talking Jesus. You are talking liberal politics. They are the ones who want to soak the rich humans as if the government humans were better at managing money than the rich people who earned it.
You are quite right that everything we have belongs to God, and I agree that the church needs to teach 100% stewardship. But you can’t show me even one place in the Bible where God asked for less than 100%. All the stories about the tithe were people who chose to give at least that much to God, not anything about God saying that was enough.
As for the rich and the poor, I don’t actually believe that God keeps an accounting of money. It is all his. The widow who gave all she had was saying that she believed God would always provide for her, and she also said that whatever God provided would always be enough. That’s the way God is.
If the church succeeds in teaching anyone that everything belongs to God and our stewardship consists of being accountable to God for everything, then God’s kingdom will grow in ways we can’t even imagine. But the local church may not see more money, because the local church may already be receiving what God intends for it. The local church may need to pratice stewardship of 100% of what God provides, too.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Katherine.
I hadn’t thought about this in terms of liberal politics (progressive taxation, or something like that, I imagine), but I can see what you’re saying. For brevity’s sake, I left out a paragraph on all the research of late that has shown that persons in higher income brackets tend to give less (as a percentage of income) than those in the lowest brackets. Hence, while poor people give “less” in terms of dollar amount, they give substantially more in terms of the percentage of income and of course have less left over. And given this particular reading – Jesus indicting the Temple for being willing to take all this widow had – I wondered if churches out more responsibly to challenge all of their members to be stewards, but not always assume that means giving it to the church. In this sense, I wondered – and “wondered” is key – whether there’s ever a time when a church should say to its poorest members – take some of that money you were going to give and get some job training, or save to put your child through college, etc. Would that be more faithful – as in, what God would want done with it – than giving it to the church. At the same time, should we sometimes be saying to those in our congregations who have so much and give as an afterthought – you know, you really can and should give more. I don’t know the answer to these questions, but if Jesus is rebuking the Temple for receiving all that this widow has, what might he say to us.
Again, just some thoughts. Thanks for engaging the post.
*********************************
from a comment by Pastor Will Osman on your October 3 post on Mark 12:41-44 – “Our ministerium started a Mobile Food Bank in an attempt to reach and bring food to outer lying pockets of the elderly and hungry in our county — folks who don’t have the means or the money to drive to the more centrally located food pantries… The response was incredible… But what’s more incredible was the response of the people — at one stop, an elderly woman approached our Director and stuck a folded five dollar bill in his hand. She told him – I don’t receive very much each month but this is what it would have cost me to drive to the nearest food pantry. You saved me from having to do that — but I want you to have this so that more people like me might be fed.”
*********************************
Should this woman have been asked to give less or more?
Half of giving is in the receiving… as we plead…
“we offer with joy and thanksgiving what you have first given us; our selves, our time, and our possessions, signs of your gracious love. Receive them for the sake of him who offered himself for us”
It is a Joy to give and have any gift, which we chose to give, gratefully received.
I think that is true with all the things we offer. If “our selves, our time, and our possessions” were not fully given to us along with the ability to chose what to do with them then giving back would be just a cosmic loan program and the church it’s debt collector.
The above woman’s example is more of a gift than the actual monetary value. Does her example not “push us to expect more of ourselves and our congregations and take seriously that everything we have.” The church should accept, use, and be such an example.
Let the church graciously receive all that is given and being God’s hands grow all those gifts into good fruit. What would that fruit look like thru stewardship colored lenses?
What fruit might we chose not to cultivate if we wore stewardship colored lenses while we gardened. Would the fruit we nurture show the world that the church is a steward of the whole world by taking care of our neighbors or would the church only be seen as taking care of itself?
As the one whose example we follow answered …
“And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Fabulous story and great questions to boot. Thanks for sharing it.