Deep Thoughts with Soren Kierkegaard
The Swindler and the Widow’s Mite
Take the story about the woman who placed the two pennies in the temple-treasury, but let us poeticize a little variation. The two pennies were for her a great sum, which she had not quickly accumulated. She had saved for a long time in order to get them saved up, and then she had hidden them wrapped in a little cloth in order to bring them when she herself went up to the temple. But a swindler had detected that she possessed this money, had tricked her out of it, and had exchanged the cloth for an identical piece which was utterly empty—something which the widow did not know. Thereupon she went up to the temple, placed, as she intended, the two pennies, that is, nothing, in the temple-treasury: I wonder if Christ would not still have said what he said of her, that “she gave more than all the rich?”
Works of Love, p. 294 (SV XII 304)
Honestly, I struggle with this one. When it comes right down to it, in God’s eyes, I believe this to be true; but the critic in me cares more about results—and in the business of helping people, results matter.
It all boils down to the question of what we value more: the practical, or the personal; or, in abstract terms, the tangible or the spiritual. And I have to say, I feel like I have a preference for the tangible. It’s kind of hard being torn between both.
In the end, I’m glad that effort counts for something; I’m glad that God is more concerned with the condition of our hearts than I am.
Thoughts?
Tags: charity
April 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
hmm…thought-provoking. I tend to agree with Kierkegaard here (even if I struggle to spell his name every time I type it…geesh). Or at least I’d like to think I agree with him, theoretically speaking. Here’s how I see it, I suppose: the two coins were of substantial value to her, comparative to what earnings she had and what she could have purchased with them had she kept them (assuming they wouldn’t be stolen had she chosen to keep them, that is). She may have been hungry or wanting something like new shoes or clothing for herself or her family, or something else practical like that (such as a plasma TV…just kidding).
However, as much value as those two coins may have represented in her circumstances, her faith in God to provide for her spiritually (and physically, perhaps) was more valuable to her. She truly placed God above all things, and that is why her action held such great faith and esteem. The sacrifice and gesture of pure faith was still there, whether or not the coins actually were.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:21 am
It has to count. The two pennies weren’t going to fix all of the problems in the world. I think that if was soley based on the “what” rather than the “why,” than the rich would give more all the time (if they gave at all).
I got an envelope on my birthday once from a senior when I worked at the senior center. In it was $2. A gift of $2 almost seems silly, but I know that it was a huge sacrifice for her. I guess that like the widow, her gift meant more to me that year than all of the fancy, pricier gifts from friends and family.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I meant to say this, but I just realized that I didn’t actually say it in the post: I fully realize that I’m probably wrong in having a preference for the tangible. But being honest with myself, I have to admit that I still have this subjective belief despite my objective belief that the above is true. It’s just a habit that’s hard for me to break.