The Widow's Might

Mark 12:38-44 (Proper 27, Year B)

Right now, I can’t speak to the elephant in the room. All I will say is I’m heartbroken, and to quote Lorraine Hansberry, “Tomorrow we shall make something strong of this sorrow.”

There are generally three contexts one should consider when handling a scripture passage. The first is the broader textual context—what comes before and after the passage. The second is the social context—what we think we know about the original author and audience, the world they found themselves in and how that shapes the message. Finally, there is our own context—what does the passage mean for us today? How is God speaking to us through the text?

Context is important, because without it, we might plunge headfirst into some dangerous waters. Consider what Jesus says about the poor widow: “She has contributed more than all those contributing to the treasury. They have given out of their abundance; she has given out of her poverty, all that she had to live on.”

And we may read this as high praise! The last shall be first, and great must her reward be in heaven! Are we not told that the poor in Spirit are blessed, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:3)? And isn’t it wonderful that we have such an exemplary show of faith appear in the Revised Common Lectionary, just in time for our stewardship campaign?

Unlike the rich man, Jesus didn’t encourage her to give away everything she had to live on. Something moved her to make that contribution. I believe that something to be her faith. However, we must not rush to cut this passage from its context. This happens after Jesus cleanses the temple of the money changers. “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people, but you have turned it into a den of robbers!” The widow’s contribution immediately follows Jesus’ warning about the scribes, who like to make a show of their faith with long robes and longer prayers. According to Jesus, they like the places of honor, and they devour the houses of widows. Jesus watches many rich people make large contributions, and the poor widow gives two coins. Immediately after this passage, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple.

The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written around the year 70 CE, shortly before or after the temple was destroyed. The first hearers of this Gospel, which may have been dramatically read or performed at early church gatherings, because literacy wasn’t as widespread as it is today, would have been aware of the setting, and the collective trauma of Rome’s destruction of their holy place. This poor woman gave everything she had for what? A “den of robbers” and the “devourers of widows’ houses?” Collective trauma can leave people struggling to make sense of it all. We may look for the fault we can name, so we or future generations will learn, and hopefully avoid. Perhaps the temple’s money changers serve as a scapegoating explanation of how God would allow Rome to destroy the holy city.

We may read this as a social commentary on the greed and egotism of self-righteous, corrupt religious leaders. We may look to examples of corrupt religious leaders of our day. Perhaps we may think of some televangelists or megachurch pastors who live lives of luxury and convince the elderly to follow this poor widow’s example. There certainly may be corrupt religious leaders who prey on the poor and vulnerable; there are those who are rightly subject to critique, and Jesus says to his followers that they are like sheep among wolves, so they must be as cunning as serpents and gentle as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

And so we must be careful not to be swindled, and not to let our loved ones get swindled by those who have turned salvation into a commercial product. This might seem like a reasonable reading of the passage, but there are two problems with that framing.

The first is that it patronizes our elders by calling into question their judgment with their own money. In some cases of cognitive decline it may be justified, but oftentimes it’s just an excuse for ageism and a form of elder abuse. The second problem is that it fails to recognize the need, or perceived need, that is being met. Like our poor widow, there is something that compels them to give. There is something they receive or experience from the act of giving. Perhaps it is peace of mind. Perhaps it is an offering of gratitude. Perhaps we may feel the giving is misinformed and misdirected, that it could be better used by a local charity, or invested in their childrens’ future. And yet, their money is not ours, and we have no right to judge or to dictate. Instead, we should humbly ask, what is the benefit? Why do you give?

Why do you give? Or why don’t you give? In my own case, fear and anxiety around money are fairly ingrained, and I am working on unlearning that way of thinking. In my own case, tithing 10% feels frightening, whether it’s to the church or any charity. I’ve lived in different income brackets in my life, and I’ve noticed that it’s easy to live just beyond my own means. Many people live paycheck to paycheck. We may have a hard time believing that we could live on 10% less than we currently do.

If we were wealthy, and if we could afford to give as the wealthy do in this passage, would we only give from our surplus, or would we give everything we have, or something in between? Is our giving helping to foster real change of those unjust socioeconomic systems, or does it only serve to perpetuate them? Is it an expression of love, or of fear? Is it possible to give from our need, as the widow does, or is that just foolhardiness?

I have some thoughts on these questions, which I will share in a subscriber-only post.