If you grew up going to Sunday School, you're probably at least passingly familiar with the following passage from Luke 18 (NIV):15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”I must have heard an estimated bazillion lessons on this particular verse, and I remember a lot of coloring book pages showing a compassionate-looking Jesus laying hands on schoolchildren of assorted ethnicities. (Sunday School teachers may not give a lot of lesson time to the many rape and incest stories of the Bible, but this passage was plenty safe to discuss.) So I was a little surprised at my reaction when I stumbled across the verse again this morning.
You see, there was kind of a standard issue Sunday School commentary that typically accompanied this passage in my experience, and it went a little something like this:
"Back in the olden days of the New Testament, children were looked down upon, shunted to the side, and treated as somehow less than human, unlike today, where we rightly understand that children are the future and consequently schedule our entire lives around them. So it may seem weird to us that the disciples would rebuke people bringing their children to Jesus, but it was just the culture of the time. So when Jesus says things like 'The kingdom of God belongs to such as these,' he's being remarkably counter-cultural and shocking!"I'm not entirely sure what the evidence is for this, and it may be right as far as I know (I wasn't there), but part of me kind of doubts this is true. I mean, did people suddenly start sentimentalizing childhood sometime after World War II? I think the reason that this explanation appeals to people, though, comes from the mysteriousness of the disciples' reaction in verse 15. Why on earth would the disciples rebuke people for bringing kids to Jesus? Did they think Jesus would be bothered by such trifling and unimportant matters as young human beings? It's not out of the question, I suppose, but that explanation still feels weird to me.
But even weirder than that was the reaction that I personally felt this morning when I stumbled upon verse 15. You see, here's what verse 15 did not say, that I nonetheless kind of expected it to say:
"And lo, the many school-age children of various ethnicities approached Jesus of their own accord, in eager expectation of learning at his feet with their pure, innocent, humble hearts."Rather, it says that people (meaning, presumably, the parents) were bringing their babies to Jesus so that he could place his hands on them. (As a quick note, the same account in Matthew and Mark uses a different Greek word, translated "little children" in the NIV, which explains why the word "babies" surprised me.)
The instant image that popped into my head was decidedly un-Biblical. I remember back when I was really into the Beatles in college, I read a story of a lady in Australia who threw her mentally-handicapped child onto a passing truck in which the Beatles were sitting, hoping that the Beatles would cure him by touching him. And there were many other stories like it. People ascribed literal godlike power to four human beings (including Ringo Starr) for no other reason than that they were extremely famous and liked, and that meant people wanted the Beatles to touch their babies.
Now, how would you react to that story? I found it tremendously sad. I imagined that the lady could not have been terribly bright, and the poor kid getting thrown around was certainly an innocent in all this. She clearly was longing for something to worship, but instead of directing that worship at Actual God (TM), she directed it at Silly Rock Stars, with potentially tragic consequences.
But imagine a less extreme example - say, people lining up to let famous politicians, actors, or whatever kiss their babies, without throwing them into traffic. To me, there's both something kind of superstitious, and even something kind of self-centered about the practice. "I'm gonna get my baby blessed!" I honestly feel a little bit of... what's the right word... contempt for such people.
So when I read in Luke 18:15 that "people were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them," my mind immediately went to those silly people mobbing the Beatles. Was Jesus the equivalent rock star of the day? Were they just hoping to get a little positive mojo on their babies? Didn't it matter to them that Jesus's blessings weren't supposed to be like a rabbit's foot or a good luck charm? That the babies may have been too young to understand what was going on? Didn't they know that it was Jesus's identity, his word, and the power he had from his Father that was important, not the literal laying on of his hands? That Jesus really wanted obedience, mercy, forgiveness, and justice - things of the heart?
So I wasn't in the least bit surprised that the disciples rebuked these people. During that split second emotional reaction, I wanted to rebuke them, too.
So when Jesus turned to rebuke his disciples, as it happened, he was also rebuking me, hundreds of years later.
"Let the little children come to me."Implicit in that, though, I feel, is also:
"Let the little children's parents who you think are superstitious yahoos come to me."Jesus did not turn away the "people" bringing their "babies" for him to lay his hands on. And in Mark, the account even adds an extra verse:
"And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them."He gave the parents what they wanted.
Now Jesus was frequently highly critical of people, particularly people who thought they were the moral stuff. But for people whose hearts were turned to him, he only encouraged them. He only showed mercy. Even if the particular way they were turning to him might seem inappropriate to someone else.
There's another account from Jesus's life that is highly similar to this, I think - the story of the woman who poured perfume on Jesus shortly before his crucifixion - perfume valued at a year's wages. Mark describes the disciples as "indignant" because the money could've been given to the poor. Here's Jesus response in Mark 14:
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”Performing crazy acts of worship toward Liverpudlian guitarists is crazy. Performing crazy acts of worship for the actual Son of God is not - it's what those feelings are for.
How many times do we look with contempt upon people worshiping God in a way that's different than ours? Are those people over there too superstitious or too simple-minded for you? Are those people over there too emotional, too sentimental, too weepy-and-waily for you? Are those people over there too traditional, too straight-laced, too button-down for you? Does that man who thinks that he's worshiping God by dressing in his "Sunday best" and showing respect and being quiet bother you? Does that woman who thinks she's worshiping God by dancing (rather poorly) with ribbons and soft rock music bother you? Does that other lady who thinks she's worshiping God by sitting quietly in a room full of candles and incense with her head bowed bother you? Does that king of Israel bother you when he worships God by stripping down to his linen ephod and dancing around the streets? Do you feel contempt for people showing their love for their creator in the best and most sincere way they know?
Then Jesus's rebuke to his disciples may be for you too.
No comments:
Post a Comment