“I I should Die Before I Wake….” The Death of Children and the Story of Job

January 15, 2013

Leaven–a theological journal designed for ministers and “lay” leaders–is now available online. This is a significant resource. Various issues focus on biblical texts and theological topics. Every issue includes additional bibliographical and liturgical resources.  The most recent issue focuses on Romans 5-8. I encourage everyone to look into the various issues and use the search function to access different topics.

I have contributed five articles to Leaven over the years and am even now working on my sixth. I will use n occasional post to link this blog to those articles.

In my article, “‘If I Should Die Before I Wake….’ The Death of Children and the Story of Job” I reflect on my own experience with the terminal illness of my son Joshua as I intersect that with the story of Job.


Mark 10:13-16 – Receiving the Kingdom of God

March 15, 2012

This story has some familiar contours. The disciples fail, Jesus rebukes them, and then attempts to transform their thinking. It is like the song, “second verse, same as the first.” This cycle is repeated several times in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in Mark 8-10.

This story functions to center a major theme within the narrative. It falls between the two occasions in Mark when the disciples are arguing about who is the greatest (Mark 9:33-37 and Mark 10:35-45). Both arguments, ironically, follow Jesus’ own prediction of his suffering and death (Mark 9:30-32; 10:32-34). Between these occasions, Jesus advises the disciples on how to receive the kingdom of God.

Of course, the kingdom of God is the fundamental theme of the Gospel of Mark. Jesus has heralded the arrival of the kingdom of God as good news (gospel; Mark 1:14-15). The disciples have anticipated the coming kingdom. Indeed, this is what they argued about—who would be the greatest in the kingdom?

The occasion for this teaching moment is Jesus’ encounter with little children—more “little ones” (cf. Mark 9:33-50). Parents (presumably) were bringing their children to Jesus that he might “touch” them. “Touch” is an important word in Mark. Jesus touched others (like the leper) to heal them (Mark 1:41; 7:33) and others wanted to touch Jesus to be healed (Mark 3:10; 5:27-28, 30-31; 6:56; 8:22). This word is always associated in the Gospel of Mark with healing, just like the laying on of hands which Jesus does as well (Mark 1:31, 41; 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; 16:18). It seems likely that parents were bringing their children to Jesus for healing.

Astoundingly, the disciples rebuke the parents. This is a strong action. Jesus rebuked the demons (Mark 1:25; 3:12; 9:25), the chaotic winds (Mark 4:39) and Peter on one occasion (Mark 8:33). But the disciples were in the habit of rebuking as well—they rebuked a blind man (Mark 10:48) and even Jesus himself (Mark 8:32). The disciples were not immune to a strong rebut and, on this occasion, they rebuked the parents who were bringing their children for healing. The text is silent about their reason though we may suppose that Jesus was tired, busy or presumed to be uninterested. We may presume the best motive, that is, protecting Jesus’ rest, or we may think of their potentially worst motive, that is,  they were focused on themselves and their own greatness.

But Jesus’ response is equally strong. Jesus was displeased and indignant. Mark uses the same word to describe how the other disciples felt about James and John’s request to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in the kingdom (Mark 10:41). Jesus was angry and frustrated with his disciples.

The theology embedded in Jesus’ words to the disciples is significant. The children must have access to Jesus because “the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The kingdom of God is for the little ones; it is for the broken, marginalized and hurting. Children represent the “little ones” for whom the kingdom of God comes. The disciples should not hinder those for whom the kingdom of God was designed.

A further theological point provides the content of the teaching moment for the disciples. Those who would receive (or enter) the kingdom of God must become like little children. Interpreters differs as to what quality children possess that is a means of receiving the kingdom of God. Innocence is a popular one, but this seems extraneous to the context.

Given the location of this story within Mark’s narrative, it seems better to see the quality as one of social location and powerlessness. Children are not “great;” they are usually last rather than first (cf. Mark 9:35). Children are the most powerless group in society and often treated in ancient cultures as the least. They are the “last” of society rather than the “first.”

If the disciples want to “receive” the kingdom of God—if they want to participate in the kingdom of God—then they must become like little children. They must stand with those who are last; they must become servants. The kingdom of God is not populated with the “greatest” but with servants. They must become one of the least of these.

Jesus received the children just as the kingdom of God does. Jesus embodied the kingdom of God by embracing, touching (healing) and blessing these children. The church must do the same. Children are God’s people too.

The kingdom of God receives children, and the kingdom of God is populated by those who become like them—those who assume the last place rather than the first. The greatest are not those who promote themselves but those who place themselves at the end of the line among the last. In this sense they become like little children.


Children and the Kingdom of God

April 22, 2009

What disciple of Jesus would ever want to hinder children from coming to Jesus? I doubt if anyone would want to do that though the disciples, in the circumstance described in the Synoptic Gospels, did. Perhaps they were protecting a fatigued Jesus from the onslaught of the chaos of playful children….maybe that is what they thought. Who really knows? When Jesus rebuked them they must have cowered in their own embarrassment. I know I would have.

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Luke 18:15-17 (cf. Mark 10:13-15; Matthew 19:13-14)

In line with my previous post, I want to suggest that something profoundly relevant to the contemporary church is uttered in this saying of Jesus. He is not talking about baptizing children [his ministry did not baptize children] nor is it simply a pithy morality saying about childlike humility. Rather, it says something about the status of children in the faith community.

Jesus invites children to come to him because (gar) the kingdom of God belongs to them.

I think we need to stew on that sentence for a while and let it sink deep into our theological souls. What does it mean to say that the kingdom of God belongs to children? What does it mean to invite children to experience Jesus because (not “so that”!) the kingdom of God belongs to them?

It seems to me that Jesus recognizes that children are the sons and daughters of God, that is, they belong to the kingdom of God. Jesus touches them, holds them and shares his love with them because children live and breathe the air of the kingdom of God.

Unfortunately many use this text to theologize and moralize about how adults should not hinder their children’s path to Jesus. While there is certainly nothing wrong about that point–and the disciples did hinder children–I don’t think this is the theological substance of the text itself. The reason adults should not hinder children is because children already belong to the kingdom of God and adults need to become like children themselves in order to participate in God’s kingdom.

The theological point is that children are kingdom people too! They do not stand outside the kingdom of God as if they are “heathens” seeking admittance or “sinners” needing conversion. To the contrary, they already belong to the kingdom. Jesus embraces them, loves them and enjoys them.

I think this speaks volumes regarding a “theology of children” within the contemporary church, especially among churches that only practice adult baptism. Just like these parents, we lead our children to Jesus so that they fall in love with him just as he loves (and has already loved) them. But our children do not come to Jesus as outsiders. Our children are not “potential disciples” or “conversion prospects,” but rather they belong to the kingdom. I regard them as “maturing disciples” (see Greg Taylor and I discuss this in Down in the River to Pray, pp. 210-215). They are not “non-members of church,” but members of the kingdom.

Consequently, we invite our children to participate in the faith community as members of the kingdom. We lead them to Jesus in age appropriate ways, and we lead them to the table where they, too, may eat with Jesus. We do not treat them as “non-members,” but as disciples in training for adulthood, as catechumens who already belong to the kingdom of God.

Ultimately, we lead them to Jesus so that they may follow him and become his disciple as they own their own faith. When they are ready to commit to the way of the cross–to take up their own cross and follow Jesus–then they will follow him into the water that they might also take up his mission as their own. Following Jesus into the water they own their own faith and affirm their kingdom allegiance.


Children, Church and Baptism

April 21, 2009

I recently posted a brief statement on “Children at the Table” in which I suggested that the practice of sharing table communion with our children might be a good idea.

One question this raises, among others, is the relationship of children to the kingdom of God. For our paedo-baptist friends, it is obvious. Children are baptized into the community of faith based on the promise of God to the children of the covenant and through the faith of their parents. For those who do not practice infant baptism the question is rather different. Both traditions, however, struggle with the problem of “accountability,” that is, when does a child own their faith as their own (thus “confirmation” or other rituals in paedo-baptist traditions).

Within Churches of Christ we have historically held that children are “safe” (without sin) until they reach the “age of accountability” at which time they own their sin and become sinners (guilty). At that point, as I generally understood the theology, they are not only unsafe but also outside the grace of God. They do not belong to the kingdom. Consequently, children (ranging from ages 9-13 generally) are instructed about baptism, their sin, and their need for Jesus. As a result, Churches of Christ usually reap a baptismal harvest from among their children between the ages of 9-13 (I myself was 11 when I was baptized by my father).

This approach assumes that children move from “safe” to “lost” and then are “saved” when they are baptized. The tricky point, however, is how to identify the exact moment, time and circumstance when they move from “safe” to “lost.” Existentially this is an important question. If one’s child dies at the age of ten unbaptized is the child “safe” or “lost”? What if the child is thirteen or fifteen? It is a harsh question but a living one.

I would hope that we might all have the grace and mercy to say the  deceased child now experiences the embrace of the loving Father covered in the mercy of Jesus. But on what theological or biblical grounds do we say that  if we believe that children within the church move from “safe” to “lost” at some point which we cannot identify.

When I baptized my daughter at the age of eleven, I can say with absolute certainty that if she had died the night before I would have ”preached her into heaven” (as the saying goes). Existentially, in my mind at least, my daughter was not baptized to move her from “lost” to “saved.”

So what do we do with this theological impasse? I suppose one could argue that my love for my daughter blinded me to her “lostness.” I suppose one could suggest that she was not ready for baptism if she was not “lost” and perhaps she was baptized too early. But I question the theological underpinnings of the notion that our children move from “safe” to “lost” to “saved” (once baptized).

My daughter always believed in Jesus. There was never a time when she did not believe. She always believed according to her capacity to believe. Her faith developed through various levels of faith and discipleship but her faith was present throughout. From her first singings of “Jesus loves me” to her confession of faith at her baptism–faith was a constant in her life.

What do I do with that? I believe that through faith she was not merely “safe” but “saved,” that is, living in communion and relationship with God as her faith developed and her discipleship matured. As our children grow up in faith and live within a faith community, they enjoy a relationship with God through family, community and their own childlike faith.

Their growth in faith is marked throughout their family and communal life. Some faith communities have rituals to mark the various moments of faith, even something as simple as reciting the Lord’s prayer or as dramatic as a “graduation into the Youth Group.” The most dramatic, biblical and initiatory ritual is baptism.

When our children who have been nurtured in faith and have expressed their faith in a multitude of ways come to baptism, I do not believe they come as “lost” people. Rather, they come as children of the church, children of the faith community. They come already belonging to the kingdom of God–they are not “lost” nor “safe” but already in communion with God.

They come to baptism to declare their faith. They come to publically embrace their discipleship. They come to become full participants in the life of the faith community through owning their own faith and committing themselves to following Jesus to the cross. They follow Jesus into the water in order to follow him to the cross.

Baptism for our children is a climatic act of faith. It dramatically initiates them into a life of discipleship.

I think the baptism of Jesus is a model for this. Jesus did not come to his baptism as one who was “lost.” He came to his baptism to declare his discipleship–a follower of the Father who intended to do the will of the Father, even to cross. His baptism began his public ministry, his public life as a disciple. But he had been a disciple long before his baptism. He had been nurtured in faith by Joseph and Mary, he had been taught at the synagogue, he had celebrated Israel’s redemption at the Passover, etc.  In effect, he had matured as a disciple through his first thirty years and owned his mission at his baptism in obedience to the Father.

Our children do something similar. They have been nurtured by family and community. They have walked a path of faith and discipleship throughout their years. And when they come to their baptism, they do not come as “lost” little people. They come as believers–people who have lived in relationship with God since their birth–ready to own their discipleship, declare their allegiance to the Father, and commit to the way of the cross as followers of Jesus.

That view of baptism is a bit higher than just moving from “lost” to “saved.” To convince a child they have done bad things and they need forgiveness is much simpler task than to wait for them to own their discipleship and commit to the way of the cross.

Perhaps if we thought that our children lived in communion with God through faith we would not rush them to the water as soon as they become aware of some distinctions about good and evil. Perhaps if we thought our children were saved by God’s grace through faith we could patiently wait for the moment when they are fourteen or sixteen or even eighteen for them to declare their discipleship and take up the mission of Jesus.

I am not suggesting a particular age for baptism. I don’t know what that should be; everyone must decide for themselves. But what I am suggesting is that to pressure our children into baptism in order to soothe our own worries and fears about their salvation is rooted in a misguided theology.

While I do not know if David Lipscomb would agree with what I have written above, I do know that he believed that a child was sufficiently prepared for baptism if she believed that she was acting in obedience to the Father whether she believed she had sin or not. In conclusion, I offer a few selections from David Lipscomb which I think share the principle I applied to this discussion. I offer them for not only historical perspective, but for careful reflection as well.

It is not an accident that those whose hearts and lives were most deeply steeped in sin, like the slayers of Jesus Christ and Saul seeking the death of all Christians, were told how to be freed from sin; while nothing of this is said to Timothy, trained and nurtured in the religion of the Bible to understand and obey its teachings, or Cornelius and Nicodemus, seeking to know the will of God, or Jesus Christ, willing to die to honor his Father’s will. Each was taught as his condition required, and God was well pleased with obedience of all classes. [1]

The spirit in which one should come to Christ is that of a little child, knowing but little, but trusting in God, and glad in his ignorance and helplessness to follow God and do what God desires him to do, and because God desires it. “Ye are my friends, if ye do the things I command you.” A better motive to do than because God commanded it never moved a man. [2]

When one reared in the training and instruction of the Lord like Timothy desires to enter Christ, his case is divine inspiration to guide him. The little girl’s wish to be baptized because Jesus wanted her to be, is as much the direction of the Spirit of God as for the murderers of the Lord to “be baptized into the remission of sins.” Those desirous to learn and do the will of God while children cannot be oppressed with a heavy weight of guilt, but find direction into the body of Christ, where all evils are banished and all blessings abound. Were one as faithful as the Son of God to be found, it would only be necessary that he be baptized to fulfill the will of God. [3]

[1] David Lipscomb, “What Must a Man Know to Fit Him to Enter Christ?” Gospel Advocate 55 (27 November 1913) 1156.

[2] David Lipscomb, “Query Department,” Gospel Advocate 52 (6 October 1910) 1109.

[3] David Lipscomb, “A Summary. No. 2,” Gospel Advocate 56 (1 January 1914) 11.


Children at the Table

March 24, 2009

Given a couple of recent comments on my previous post by Terrell Lee and Johnny Melton, I have interrupted my series on “Breaking Bread” to offer the below piece. This brief–very brief–statement is something I wrote for a children’s minister who requested a theological rationale for children participating in communion. The following is not a full argument or statement of the case, but is suggestive of the themes that shape the inclusion of children at the table. In Come to the Table I suggested but did not emphasize this point. I did not want that point to distract from the main thrust of the book, that is, to revision the Lord’s Supper as table rather than altar.

I recognize that this is a controversial question and my position is a minority one in the history of Christianity except that the Orthodox Church has always included children and some Reformed streams have practiced it as well. I never make this a focus of my teaching on the Lord’s Supper and I do not push the question in any way. But, when asked, I respond with my opinion as I think appropriate.  It is not a “pressing topic” for me, but I do believe parents should not be hindered or rebuked when they invite their children to eat and drink with them at the table.

Here is the piece I have shared with children’s ministers when requested.

 

Children at the Table

The Lord’s Supper is a table event; a meal which the community of faith shares. The community invites all to share the meal with them as a witness to the truth and meaning of the gospel. All are invited; none but the rebellious are barred.

The Supper was originally experienced in the context of a meal—it was a Supper. Neither guests nor children would have been excluded from that meal. It was for everyone as witness to the grace of God, which is for everyone.

Children, in particular, are invited to the table because they belong to the kingdom. They are kingdom people. They are on the journey of faith, and the Supper will shape the growth and development of that faith. The Supper testifies to the faithfulness and love of God, and when children eat, they experience that faithfulness and love at the table.

The table, then, is a learning event for children. They hear the story of the gospel and participate in the elements, which bear witness to the gospel. They experience the gospel through eating and drinking. This prepares their heart for discipleship, encourages the development of their faith, and assures them of God’s love on their journey.

Baptism is where our children commit themselves to the way of the cross as disciples of Jesus. Baptism is an individual act of faith-commitment that the community witnesses and celebrates. The table is where children learn about Jesus and experience his love. The table is family time; it is a communal event. As part of the family—as persons on the journey of faith—they should sit at the table with the rest of the community.

It is generally unwise to send children to bed without their supper, and it is potentially a hindrance to their faith to exclude them from the table in the family of God.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 965 other followers

%d bloggers like this: