Luke Chapter 18

vs 11-12

I don't know if you've ever prayed like this before. I have. I have been thankful for my pleasant situation, for my lack of attraction to certain sins, and that sort of thing. I don't think that's the problem with the Pharisee. I think his two problems are more specifically the beginning of his prayer "I am not like other men" - which of course he is, because he's human; and the end of his prayer in verse 12, which seeks to make himself look good because of what he does. Note that giving a 'tenth of all you get' is not something to boast about - that's just keeping the law. He get's a cookie for that one. I don't know the rules of fasting enough to go into that one.

vs 13

Anyone can pray this prayer. Even that Pharisee could have. He's not a sinner because he's a tax collector, in the same way that the Pharisee isn't a righteous man because he's a Pharisee.

vs 14

Prayer isn't about exaltation of ourselves. We don't need to defend ourselves, or build ourselves up, or sell ourselves to God. God knows us, he knows what he's getting for the purchase price (of Jesus' blood). He knows we suck. So we can just admit it.

Not only that, though, but God is Master, is in authority, and it doesn't do to go poncing yourself up and down in front of authority. You say, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir".

vs 15

I mean, who wants to touch babies?

vs 16-17

OH the number of times this verse gets bandied about! I swear, children are the Baal of the modern world. Yes, children are idols, you heard me right. People fawn over then and cuddle them and say "Will somebody think of the children!" If you want someone to take your point of view seriously, you point out the effect it's having on children (because starving adults are boring - that's not it actually: it's because people callously think that starving adults should get a job). If you mention children in a political address or any sort of argument, then if you argue against that point you are heartless and hate babies. Witness aboriginal protection legislation.

"Children are in danger, so we need to take away Aboriginal land and rights."
"But, don't they need those rights?"
"See? You hate children!"

(I know the issue is larger than that, but I've heard this argument in parliament all the time this week and last week as the legislation gets debated.)

Anyway, there is one good thing about this baby&child-idolatry - it proves my point about the misapplication of this verse! Why are babies and children idolised and given first priority? Is it because they're cute? Perhaps a little (that's why we save the whales and the dolphins, but not the rare mosquitos). Is it because they are innocent? It shouldn't be (babies and children are sinful - ask their parents). Is it because of maternal/paternal instinct? If we write legislation according to instinct, then shouldn't there be some legislation forcing women with nice legs to wear miniskirts?

It's because they are helpless, isn't it? The main reason we worry about children, seek to protect children, and cry "Won't someone think of the children!?" is because they are helpless. They can't protect themselves. They can't think for themselves. They can't be trusted to do what is best for themselves. Sounds fine for babies, but we treat children like this right up until they are 18. Kids are such a danger to themselves, apparently, that we must legislate about when they can get married, have sex, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy porn, live on their own, work full time, choose what they want to study, travel on their own, and more - and we make sure they can't vote in elections to change it either.

(I know I'm going off topic, but if we protect children because they are unable to look after themselves, then why do adults suddenly get freedom? Two thirds of alcohol consumption in Australia is 'high risk' and causes 3300 deaths per year. People spend (lose) $7 million per day on poker machines in Victoria. Apparently 50% of that is lost by problem-gamblers. Should we prevent their right to breed and vote? I know what Hitler would say.)

Back on topic - the point that Jesus is making is that children, especially babies (which are what is being brought to him) are helpless. The kingdom of God belongs not to those who accept it with a simple, child-like faith. Not to those who innocently accept God without putting their brain in gear. I'm sorry, but those things are wrong. I think the Jesus who said "Love the Lord your God with all your mind" would be shocked to hear someone say that. Besides, are you saying that sceptics cannot become Christians? There's a kind of processed meat which describes this situation well.

No, it is because of helplessness. We come to God like children - utterly unable to look after ourselves. Completely in need of his help, care, love and attention.

Feel free to take me on over this one, baby-lovers - I can just delete your comments if I feel like it :P

vs 18

The simple answer being "be born into the Eternal Life family? How else to you inherit something? Get adopted?"

vs 19

First of all, Jesus wants to make sure that this guy is going to take his answer seriously. He wants the ruler to make sure that he realises what's on the line here. You have asked for the words of God on this question. And that's what you'll get. Will you treat them that way?

vs 20

Thankfully, Jesus is a lot more loving than I am, and gives him this answer. If you love God, follow his commandments. Jesus is pretty clear on that throughout his ministry.

vs 21

Liar! But in a surface sense, it is entirely possible that he believes he's pretty much got these covered.