Sermon Tone Analysis

For roughly three decades the Chinese government mandated a one-child policy.

Parents were only allowed one kid.

If they wanted to have a second child, they could fill out an application for the government to review.

According to Mei Fong, author of the memoir One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment, the application of the law led to some horrific things: forced abortions, confiscation of children by the government, as well as some unintended consequences (which could have easily been foreseen): there is now an alarming gender imbalance.

Fong writes: “When you create a system where you would shrink the size of a family and people would have to choose, then people would ... choose sons," Fong says.

"Now China has 30 million more men than women, 30 million bachelors who cannot find brides.

... They call them guang guan, 'broken branches,' that's the name in Chinese.

They are the biological dead ends of their family.”

Turns out there are consequences to not valuing children.

As a result of decades enforcing this policy, the fertility rate - the average number of children a woman will have over the course of her life - among Chinese women is 1.54.

Surprisingly, although American women’s fertility rate was around 4 in the 1960s, today it is 1.6 - barely higher than China’s.

Apparently, we’ve invented our very own one-child policy.

Why is it that the birth rate for American families has plummeted?

Is it true, as one article suggested, that “Millennials favor pet ownership over children”?

Could it be that the follow-your-heart, achieve-your-dreams, find yourself lifestyle our culture has been preaching for so many decades doesn’t jive with expensive, time-consuming toddlers?

And if we are valuing children less, what might be the consequences we’ll face in the future?

What is your attitude toward children?

A papyrus discovered from June 1, 1 BC - the year before Jesus was born - contains a letter that a husband wrote to his wife who had just given birth: “if it was a male child, let it live; if it was a female, cast it out.”

That seems barbaric and gruesome, except that it is what was happening in China for decades, and sadly, thousands of abortions are happening every day in America, mainly for reasons of convenience.

Our society does not value children the way it should.

And just as China is facing the consequences of devaluing their children, so will we.

In our text, it seems the disciples did not value children as they should.

And I wonder if we, here in the church, value children the way we should.

It seems obvious to say that we should value our children - the children in our homes, the children in our churches, the children in our neighborhoods.

But do we?

Do you?

Are they an inconvenience?

Are you harsh with them?

Are you investing in them?

If a nation that devalues its children will destroys itself, what would happen to a church?

What would happen to Grace Rancho?

Let’s read the text.

Mark 10:13-16.

In our text, we are encouraged to value and learn from children.

First, we’re going to see the inconvenience of children, second, the value of children, and third, the example of children.

The Inconvenience of Children.

Let’s start with verse 13. “They” is probably referring to the crowd that has followed Jesus around.

They were “bringing children to him that he might touch them.”

The word of “children” here is paidon, which is a general word for child and could refer to an infant all the way up to a 12 year old.

We know they were more on the infant side of things for 2 reasons 1) Luke’s account of the same passage uses the Greek word brephos, which means infant, and 2) Jesus takes them into his arms in verse 16, so we know they were smaller.

So the crowd, having been clamoring around Jesus wherever he goes, now begins to bring children to Jesus.

Is this because the crowd understood that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah?

We don’t know.

That’s not in the text.

All we know is that they were bringing their children to Jesus “that he might touch them.”

We also don’t know why exactly the people wanted Jesus to touch their children.

It’s probably that because of Jesus’ now immense popularity, his many miracles, his well-known instances of healing, that they figured some good would come from Jesus’ touch.

They’re not wrong.

They’re doing what every parent should do: bringing their kids to Jesus.

Now the “disciples rebuked them.”

A rebuke is a strong correction, and the assumption is that these people were doing something wrong in bringing their children to Jesus.

Rebuke is a strong word.

Jesus “rebuked” demons when he cast them out.

Jesus rebuked the storm when he made it stop.

False teachers are supposed to be rebuked.

But here, the disciples are rebuking the parents and their children for coming to Jesus.

Here’s another instance of the disciples’ hearts not lining up with Jesus’ heart.

They did it back in ch 9:38, when John tried to stop the guy from casting out demons in Jesus name.

Back in 9:36-37, Jesus literally “took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Apparently, the disciples did not learn their lesson.

To receive a child, to receive child-like people, is like receiving Christ, which is like receiving and welcoming God himself.

And the disciples were doing to exact opposite of what Jesus had told them to do: they were not receiving children, they were keeping them out.

Now, I don’t think they were rebuking these people because they hated children.

I don’t think they were anti-children.

In fact, I don’t think we should assume that their motives were bad.

If you’ve been with us through Mark you know how frequently Jesus would pause and retreat from the crowds.

Perhaps the disciples were trying to guard Jesus from the onslaught of the demanding mobs.

Maybe they were trying to let him rest.

Whatever the case, they were not letting the children through.

It’s probable that they had imbibed much of their culture’s view regarding children.

We all grow up in a culture and every culture has its values, and not all values line up with biblical values.

The disciples’ culture did not value children.

They had no status.

They were often ignored.

Additionally, in the works-righteousness system that the Pharisees had constructed, children couldn’t understand the law, they couldn’t keep the law, and they didn’t really care for the law, and so they were considered to be mere distractions.

The disciples were probably thinking like most of us would think.

We’ve got our master Jesus.

He’s busy.

There’s a limited number of hours in a day.

We need to maximize his time.

We’ll make sure he’s spending time with people who need him most or who are most important.

And then these children come.

Needy children.

They don’t understand who Jesus is.

They aren’t helpful for our mission.

They can’t pay us back.

They have no influence.

They have no status.

Why invest time in these children?

I wonder if we ever think of children that way.

We think, “Why invest in these children?”

How much can they possibly understand?

How much can they actually contribute?

There’s no ROI with children, no return on investment.

They’re inconvenient.

I wonder if parents aren’t sharing the gospel with their children because they don’t think they’ll understand.

I wonder if there are families who don’t have any form of at home family worship because it’s simply too inconvenient to fit in.

I wonder if there are men here who aspire to leadership, but won’t spend time with the children because they feel that’s below them?

I wonder if any of us are guilty of harshness with the children God has put around us?

I remember as a little boy doing something wrong at church - I can’t even remember what I did, it was probably something foolish - but I have a vivid memory of being scolded by an older man in the church.