Argument

We had a rather heated discussion at ministerial today. I never knew the widdow's mite could bring out such contention.

I guess it should have been expected. It really is a challenging thing. It was then and it is now. The giving up of everything is never comforatable. A cross isn't made to be.

The widdow's actions challenge us to our core. What is our responsibility, our duty, our responce to God's grace? What do we have to do? anything?

Fr. John said that commentators he read stressed that Jesus was pointing out the injustice of a system that failed widows. The widdow gave everything to a temple system that was supposed to take care of her. The fact that her everything was less than a penny shows how that system had been failing. (Some sources I've read say that was 1/100th of a day's wage.) Jesus was then pointing out a sad state of affairs rather than showing the widdow as an example.

Some of the guys were adamate that the widdow gave out of her faith, her love, her gratitude, her devotion, or what have you, not because she was expecting back.

I pointed out that the fact of a sad state of affairs in the temple system made all the more poigniant the widdows faith in God. And just like the widdow of Zaraphath in the Kings reading, God would take care of her with or with out the religious establishment.

But this idea of giving all was still hard to swollow. If it was so hard for us as pastors, how hard will it be for anyone else. Fred warned us about laying false guilt on good people who are honestly trying to make ends meet and be faithful to God.

I agreed, but also wanted to combat a scarcity mentality that our people sometimes get, where they trust in themselves and not God. I have found with a very meager salary that faithfulness in giving, even extravagant giving, always helps ends meet. God will take care of us.

But some of the guys took Fred's thoughts even further, how can God desire something so impossible as to give him everything. We would be perfect then.
I brought up Brother Lawrence and the Practice of the Presence. He says that is doesn't require changing what we do, but doing what we already do for the sake of God. My take, God doesn't want to be the biggest part of our lives, he wants to be all of our lives - integrated into the whole.

Glenn had a hard time with my thought, thinking I was putting the children I taught that to in Spiritual bondage of a works legalism. Ray too, thought Brother Lawrence didn't once mention Jesus, meaning Where is grace in this practice?

So often in the last few weeks in Mark we have been challenged by the cost of discipleship and the giving up of everything, be it status, riches, or begger's coat. This is hard for us, and rightly so. Admitedly the themes of Grace and our own actions in giving up all to follow are in tention. But it shouldn't surprise us that if we were to give up all, it could only happen by God's grace. We could not bring ourselves to do it on our own, or survive on our own after we did.