Luke 2.22-52 Subject: What is a good childhood?

Predicate: Dependence on the Father Before I get into this, I want to talk about a few things: one of the biggest ironies of this sermon is that I do not have experience being a parent, unlike Christian who, being an adoptive parent does, but now being a parent by birth gets to experience it on a new level, which is why you unfortunately get to listen to me. I may have wiped my share of bottoms in my time, but that does not a parent make. The second point is something I wish to state with the utmost stress: we are all children of God, through Jesus Christ, as all things through him, as Paul says in Galatians. What I want to point us to is not how to raise kids because you're all nearing that age (God Forbid that the pitter-patter of the feet of little Reid's happens soon), but to point us in a general path to being children of God, and understanding what, at least, I think that means. And finally, something that I must say: I am but a man made of the same dust as the rest of mankind and suffer from the same things: my understanding is limited and flawed, and I can only trust that God has spoken through me in this matter. Now, looking at the gospel, I have been pointed to and see three things present in this which I wish to discuss. For me, the first leads to the second, and the third is really the only response which truly brings promise. We are, as it is said in the Bible, children of promise or the promise. 1. Genius: as humans we look to youth for hope and renewal (25-32) Old Simeon looking to Jesus as the messiah, but he's all about the beacon of hope that the baby is, without necessarily knowing who the baby is and just what hope he brings. (36-38) Anna giving thanks for the child Jesus and speaking to all of Him, yet as a most likely Jewish prophetess in a time when Jews weren't necessarily treated well, she may have seen the redemption of Israel as a completely different thing. Now I'm not saying that this makes what they did wrong - in fact, quite opposite, as it shows us our own fault: We look more to those who come after, in a way to relieve ourselves that we don't have to do anything now. It's our fallen reason telling us that it's okay to hang up responsibility so that we can do that things that we want to do, or to continue in our own habits, which may consist of sin, because those that follow will fix everything. Or, alternatively, we are putting our faith in this fellow human being, that that person, in all the same traps as us original sin, fallen reason/fallenness, broken is going to be a hinge upon which all change is going to be contingent on. Do we or do we not look at the people after us and expect them to do better than us? Of course, we HOPE that they do and will, and that they will be the change, but then at least for myself see everything going on in the world and question whether or not that will actually be the case? Honestly, do the continually sagging pants and more prominence of buttocks however fanciful and pretty the artwork may be, really inspire you? How can we make sure that those after us are better than us? This leads me to my second point: innocence. 2. Innocence: as humans we try to protect children from corruption

(43-48) Joseph and Mary have, Great distress when they realize the child Jesus has been alone in Jerusalem for three to four days. Who wouldnt be worried if their 12 year old was alone for several days. I'd be worried that my kid set up all sorts of traps like in Home Alone. One of the answers is protect the children: keep them closeted from experience of hardship, or things which may be viewed as a corrupting influence. This is, I think, a step in the right direction But protection leads to the difficult decision of what needs to be kept behind walls and what can be allowed within the protective barrier. This is where things become hazardous. Do you allow your child to play in the dirt, drink soda, be free to do what they want - boys will be boys mentality, or do you protect the child from every threatening aspect of life. On one hand, this sounds great the child grows up safe, without any corrupting influence, and can be that hope which was seen in it by those older than it. However, this denies that child experience, exposure and connection. It harms rather than nurtures: psychology has shown that the child locked away is not as developed as those in social areas. The child is already set up to fail, psychologically and experientially. This could also be retroactive: just by the act of denying it the creation, the child wants it and lusts for it even more, and may act out to attain it. The opposite can also be done: open the child up to all the world: let it have all experiences it wants to have, all the exposure: let it become a hedonist, and only pull it back from the brink. The question is, can you pull something back from the brink completely? Once it has gone there, does it not become as jaded and cynical as the rest? Can it truly become that hope which it is given? Or, you could do both. I will get into that momentarily. Example: My parents thought that they could keep hidden/protect me from the lack of love in their relationship, but it only cut deeper 3. Dependence: Jesus was perfectly childlike in his dependence on the Father to satisfy all his needs: Children depend on the parents. (49) Did you not know that I must be in my Fathers house? (51) He was submissive (52) He increased in wisdom and stature before God and men. Jesus, as in all things, is the prime example. If you really want to imagine it, as if it matters, Jesus' human parents have both of the things I've talk about hope and protection. Their protection failed. THEY FORGOT THEIR CHILD. But Jesus, rather than being corrupted or anything, goes to the temple, and DEPENDS ON GOD, WHO DID NOT BY ANY MEANS FORGET HIM. This is the example we need to follow, because these things I've been talking about are not for us to do for our children, but a story of what GOD HAS DONE FOR US. Please ignore what I'm about to do and anthropomorphize the Being of God: God is the parent which sees in us a hope and renewal - also, that being through His Holy Spirit, and by philosophical necessity is in our lives, but that we also come to glorify him. However, we are creation living with other creation and have things that inevitably cloud our vision of the perfect heavenly father. So we must contend with creation, and everything that comes with it; both good and horrible. Simply put: God, rather than being that
parent who protects us from all experience and trial, does the opposite and opens the rawness of life to us, in, I think, the hope that we see how unfulfilling, broken and

tumultuous life is, and turn to depend on Him. This is, I think, a greater simulacra of how a parent treats a rebellious child, which is, in essence, the very thing that we as humans are since the Fall. That isn't to say that God isn't there protecting us, as that gets into the omnipotence of God He is there and protecting us, but allowing us to pursue what we, due to our fallen reason, want to. What we should do, as any good christian attempts to do, is follow Jesus don't depend on the parents, and depend on God. Faith is parents is good, but TRUST is key. Trust that God is there. Application: how we do this? Prayer. In my own life, I have come to see that if I take a breather in my day several is better to just offer up whatever I'm doing to God, a little prayer, a little time with the Good Book, I feel comforted and not as scared of the world and the happenings going on.