There is complexity here, I think, between asking the questions "why is this widow so poor?" and "what is it that compels here to give everything she has?" The connections you have made (a through-line, if you will) between the rich man, Bartimaeus, and this widow are compelling. The last will indeed be first, and that is the heart of the matter. Yet we can wrestle, then as now, with the question of crushing poverty amidst astonishing wealth and who perpetuates it and who benefits from it. And of course, writing this as we ponder the presidential election (today) is challenging. Thanks, as always, for provoking me to considering the mise-en-scène.
As always, I'm grateful for your commentary and insights, Andrew! I am a bit skeptical, however, about your dismissal of the figure of the widow as one of economic or social oppression. I don't think absolutely every story of encounter has to be read in the same way--just because some are told to sell everything doesn't mean everyone must, especially when they are already not in any position of privilege. Moreover, Mark himself seems to give us a clue here by noting how the scribes "devour" the widows' houses. I think there is more to make of this concerning economic systems of injustice, especially when they are supported by religious institutions, than you appear to suggest here..... That's what I'm sitting with this week, anyway. Again, MANY thanks for your weekly, faithful work!
I suspect we will agree to disagree Jay, but you gather I felt the issue worth mentioning, indeed. I just find the concern anachronistic (as far as "religious institutions" go too - I don't see any reference to such abstractions in ancient writings, only to specific institutions) and maybe (not you, to be clear but some of the commentary) patronizing of her. I am a bit puzzled - you might have ideas to share on this - of why her voluntary poverty isn't to be lauded like that of the disciples or other cases?
But warm thanks for reading and responding. We can agree I suspect that her appropriation to head the stewardship campaign isn't on target!
Thank you so much for responding, Andrew. That's very kind. And I'm totally with you on rejecting the widow as a poster child for stewardship campaigns (creepy, to say the least). And I hear you about anachronistic readings--I'm probably particularly prone to that problem. I'm definitely still thinking and reflecting, and will all week. Many thanks!
There is complexity here, I think, between asking the questions "why is this widow so poor?" and "what is it that compels here to give everything she has?" The connections you have made (a through-line, if you will) between the rich man, Bartimaeus, and this widow are compelling. The last will indeed be first, and that is the heart of the matter. Yet we can wrestle, then as now, with the question of crushing poverty amidst astonishing wealth and who perpetuates it and who benefits from it. And of course, writing this as we ponder the presidential election (today) is challenging. Thanks, as always, for provoking me to considering the mise-en-scène.
Nicely put, yes. I may have underplayed the specifics of her poverty which is certainly not neutral or natural for Mark. Thanks.
As always, I'm grateful for your commentary and insights, Andrew! I am a bit skeptical, however, about your dismissal of the figure of the widow as one of economic or social oppression. I don't think absolutely every story of encounter has to be read in the same way--just because some are told to sell everything doesn't mean everyone must, especially when they are already not in any position of privilege. Moreover, Mark himself seems to give us a clue here by noting how the scribes "devour" the widows' houses. I think there is more to make of this concerning economic systems of injustice, especially when they are supported by religious institutions, than you appear to suggest here..... That's what I'm sitting with this week, anyway. Again, MANY thanks for your weekly, faithful work!
I suspect we will agree to disagree Jay, but you gather I felt the issue worth mentioning, indeed. I just find the concern anachronistic (as far as "religious institutions" go too - I don't see any reference to such abstractions in ancient writings, only to specific institutions) and maybe (not you, to be clear but some of the commentary) patronizing of her. I am a bit puzzled - you might have ideas to share on this - of why her voluntary poverty isn't to be lauded like that of the disciples or other cases?
But warm thanks for reading and responding. We can agree I suspect that her appropriation to head the stewardship campaign isn't on target!
Thank you so much for responding, Andrew. That's very kind. And I'm totally with you on rejecting the widow as a poster child for stewardship campaigns (creepy, to say the least). And I hear you about anachronistic readings--I'm probably particularly prone to that problem. I'm definitely still thinking and reflecting, and will all week. Many thanks!