The12th-century Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides taught a simple system for evaluating gifts. At this time of gift-giving all over the world, Woden wishes to encourage his readers to think more deeply when giving out their presents.

Let’s start with the ladder of virtue invented by Rambam (his Hebrew name). Each rung on the ladder represents a more perfect motive in giving, and each builds on the last.

• The lowest rung: we give begrudgingly and our attitude causes the recipient of the gift to feel ashamed or embarrassed.
• Rung two: we give cheerfully but actually give too little.
• Rung three: we give cheerfully and adequately but do so only after it has been requested.
• Rung four: we give cheerfully and adequately, and before being asked.
• Rung five: we give without knowing who the beneficiary is, but the recipient knows our identity.
• Rung six: we know who the beneficiary is, but the recipient does not know our identity.
• Getting really virtuous, we come to rung seven: giving takes place, but neither the donor nor the recipient knows the other’s identity.
• The top rung in the ladder is the ultimate in virtue: we give money, or a loan, or our time, or whatever it takes to help the recipient to be self-reliant.

It may be noted that there is no rung low enough for the millions of people who give too much, or give inappropriately. We think of children given an almost overwhelming number of toys each Christmas. As the years go by, we are tempted to scale an escalating mountain of cost in giving to our children. Toddlers’ toys are simple enough and even affordable, but then peer pressure creeps in and we give way to demands for ever more expensive items, mostly electronic or with wheels! That’s rung three, folks!

Most of us get stuck on rungs one to three. Gift giving in some situations intensifies social discord. “I got X but you only got Y!” say the children to each other. And not just children—adults play the “I got” game equally well. But where on the ladder is there mention of the recipient being given an ephemeral social advantage? How can we equate giving $200 running shoes to fourteen-year-olds with adequate education in money management (which is self-reliance)?

WODEN SAYS:

As an Anglo-Saxon god I was nearer in social life style to the 12th century of Maimonides than to folks today. We did not live in a money economy. There were no billion-dollar bonuses for knights. We had to pay with eggs when we asked the village blacksmith to pull out our tooth. Running shoes were bundles of animal hide tied at the ankle, so most people walked barefoot.

I’m not knocking inventiveness, especially when it comes to dentistry, but if it leads young people to tweet on their just-given mobile phone when they should have been driving carefully, it’s time to cry enough!

In Caesar’s Rome they gave bread and circuses to the workers to keep them from rebelling. Today’s society is not run by Caesar’s equivalents, the politicians, but by the manufacturers, the retail giants, the boys who advertise stuff on the telly. They tell us what to crave, and tell our children what to crave, and even tell parents what to give. And everyone goes crazy to get it. But we don’t see the big picture: we don’t see the destruction of our economic system and our environment by our constant demands for things and more things, whatever the cost.

How can you get to the top of the ladder? By saving for your retirement, or the children’s education? By making gifts to charities that are managing micro-loans to people you will never see, for whom $25 is the equivalent of six months’ hard work in the fields? Whatever. You think it up.

Enjoy your gift giving this year. Spread a little love around—now that’s a gift we all can give, and all need to receive. But don’t ask to actually hug Woden. Anglo Saxon deities have very rough chins.