“A rather curious ‘coincidence’?”
By Rev. Michael Stonhouse
Meditation – Friday, December 2, 2022
Luke 20:41 - 21:4 (Forward, p. 34) CEV p. 1090
One really has to wonder whether this is more than mere coincidence. Here, in today’s passage, we find two contrasts laid out rather vividly. One has to do with prestige and public recognition, and one has to do with widows.
Two groups are singled out as wanting prestige for prestige’s sake, for wanting, and flaunting, their public recognition. On the one hand, it was the teachers of the Laws, the scribes. They made a show of wearing long, encumbering robes, which marked them as men of leisure for no one could engage in manual labour when so clad. Furthermore, they liked to be greeted with honour, and much flattery and flowery phrases when out in the public and claimed the very best seats at banquets and in the synagogue. And even their prayers, long and flowery as well, were also meant to impress, to remind people of their supposed piety.
The other group that sought acclaim and prestige were the heavy hitters when it came to giving to the Temple treasury. They made a big production of throwing their many coins into the metallic trumpet shaped vessels meant to receive the offerings. How they loved the way that their coins clanged noisily as they descended to the bottom; it drew everyone’s attention to their seeming generosity. But, alas, it was all calculated, and was entirely drawn from the abundance of what they had. For all its largeness, there was no sacrifice, no going without, in their giving.
Now, when it comes to the matter of widows, we find them mentioned twice in this present account. Firstly, we hear of them in the context of the teachers of the Law and the scribes. Jesus says that these two groups are guilty of cheating widows out of their homes. (Other translations say that they ‘devour widow’s houses’, which gives a rather nasty, abusive and calculating sense to their behaviour). So, how could this be? Well, teachers of the Law and scribes were supposed to learn a living by other means and simply give their teaching and instruction to people free of charge. But seeing as they were often so clothed as to make much work impossible, they sometimes avoided that duty and simply sponged off of people’s good graces and generosity. And, it would appear that they especially preyed upon the unsuspecting and the vulnerable, those who might especially feel compelled to give sacrificially to their cause—people like widows, who might not know better, and who had no one to protect their interests and counsel them not to give to this or that.
And, whether it was out of a sense of duty and compulsion, or simply out of the abundance of her heart, that was exactly what one particular widow did. She gave, not out of her abundance—as did so many others—but everything that she had. Her pittance might not seem like much in the larger scheme of things, much less in comparison to the large gifts, but it amounted to a real sacrifice on her part. Probably unwisely, her generous gift was all that she had to live on.
So, I don’t think that there was any coincidence here. Jesus wanted to expose our desire for acclaim and recognition and our motives for giving. He wanted us to learn some lessons thereby. For me, there are two lessons here. The first concerns the church and the way it puts across its needs. Far too easily we can evoke the feelings of guilt and obligation in people. We can make comparisons and play the ‘pity party’ song to compel people into giving. We can far too easily prey upon those who are least able to give, but who would feel that they ‘had to’, people who don’t have someone to protect them from giving that might be unwise, unhealthy or impractical. I’m afraid that parachurch organizations and mega-churches have sometimes been guilty of this, but so too can local churches, denominations and church agencies.
The second lesson concerns our motive for giving, and our practice in giving. Far too often our motive is shame or guilt or a sense of obligation, as if somehow we have been ‘forced’ to do so. Here I cannot help but think of the handful of ladies from my Arthurvale congregation. When the Ethiopian famine appeal came around a number of years ago, they gave sacrificially, something like $3-5,000. When I asked them why they gave so much, they reminded me of something I had said earlier. Almost unknowingly—or, at very least, not understanding the import of what I said—I had said, “They have been reduced to eating their seed grain.” What one of my local ladies said is this: “That means that they have no future and no hope; they are eating the only future and the only hope they could ever have. And we, having lived through the Depression, know what that is like. We have lived with that. And so, we just had to give.” So, their giving was from the heart, which is what God really wants, wants from each of us. Amen.
Forward notes: “[Jesus] said, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on’” (verses 3-4).
“Our small rural congregation had to demolish our ancient parish house before it collapsed. It was a painful experience for many. We decided to rebuild, but the soil composition was poor, and a new building equal to the old was out of our price range. We prayed, discussed, and prayed some more. As one member said, ‘We can’t build what we want, but we can build what we can afford.’
“We’re not a wealthy congregation, but we committed to rebuilding. The day after we made the decision, the treasurer called to say an anonymous donor had contributed $25,000. I was stunned and tearful. We could do this!
“Later, the donor approached me, and I was shocked. This person literally gave out of their poverty like the widow Jesus describes. Our new building opened in June. We’ve learned a lot over these past few years about intentional giving from that first example.”
Moving Forward: “How can you be more intentional in giving to the church?”