The enemies of Jesus don’t like it when children get involved, because God has designed them as a weapon and as a reminder of God’s strength. If children are increasing, and if they are present amongst the worshipers, then they spell the coming doom of God’s enemies. They display the faith of his people, both in being faithful hearts themselves, and in showing off the trust their parents have in God. They are a tangible threat to godlessness. This is attested in multiple instances in scripture.
Let’s look together at a short Psalm (Ps 8) that helps us to see down into the inner workings of the war to build God’s kingdom – we will find out that one of the largest gears in the mechanism, one of the most powerful and necessary components in the wheels of the church, is the presence of children in God’s service of worship.
I expect this Psalm to be a good tool for talking to your children about their special job in the church service – and that job is: “to silence the enemy and the avenger.”
Before we can get a hold of this Psalm, we need a moment’s look at how God instructed rulership and kingdom expansion to come about in the first place – so turn to page one of the Bible and look down at verse 28.
God’s first command for his King, Adam, on how to rule was through a process of childbearing, and working with your children to bring the world under God’s reign.
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth,” (Gen 1.28).
See this list of five:
- be fruitful
- multiply
- fill the earth/land
- subdue
- rule
PSALM 8 – The Weapons of Our Warfare
Psalm 8 is a worship song which is all about this very passage. Psalm 8 is about Genesis 1.27-28. Psalm 8 is about creation (“the work of your fingers,” v.3). It specifically mentions the principalities made on day 4, the moon and the stars, which Genesis 1 says are made over the earth to “rule over the day and night.” This is no coincidence: they are symbols of dominion, and the theme is all about dominion and ruling over the earth in this Psalm. Verse 6 says, “You have given [man] dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet…” And then it lists land, sky, and sea creatures. Just like Gen 1.28 does! This is a Psalm about taking God’s majesty and the glory of his name and his rule outward to the whole earth!
But remember, in Genesis 1.28, in order to rule, you have to be fruitful and multiply. In order to take dominion, the church has to have babies. And Psalm 8 dives right into baby-having as the first related action to the bringing of the kingdom of God’s majestic name:
“O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.”
God gets the war for his glory underway this way – when the doctor spanks the newborn covenant member, that first gasp for air and the subsequent screaming – that is holy music. It shuts the devil up.
He can hear the majesty of God’s covenant name displayed over another life, and he is dumbfounded.
And we, like David, who sang to shut the mouth of the demons of the king of Israel, we sing. We sing David’s words to shut the mouths of the demons. We sing David’s words in Psalm 8 about the dominion of Genesis 1. And when we sing in church to make his name glorious with Psalm 8, then we confess in music that our babies are made as the work horses of the front line.
Tell your kids they have a job. That God has chosen them for glorious array in battle. That he has spectacles to make of enemies, and mouths of devouring adversaries that need to be shut. Tell them that they are needed in the Lord’s service of worship, and that no one else can take their place, and tell them that this we know for the Bible tells us so.
And if your toddlers are too young to follow the words of the Psalms in church, then have them make a joyful noise and hum. And if your babies are too young to hum along to the tune, just bring them to show them off. Show off your faith, and show off God’s promise. And don’t worry, they’ll make plenty of noise. You won’t have to manufacture that part.
Oh church! Oh holy dominion takers – open your ears for battle, listen as the kingdom comes at the noise of covenantal invaders, born to take up seating space in the sanctuary with car seats and diaper bags. Born to take up space in the worship of the King, edging out darkness with the chosen praise, ordained for your Sunday morning brush with the power of God saving the world.
And if you are unable to have children, or more children. If you are older, or widowed. If you are caught lonely and wondering what to do – then pray that the Lord would bring the kingdom, and that he would send a blessing of childbearing to your church. Help the parents of children to feel comfortable with the hard process of teaching babies to get a little more mature each Sunday. Help them not to fear the noise their children make.
Oh church, the noise of children in the sanctuary has at times been treated as a little lower than the angels. But let’s make it our job instead to crown it with glory and honor, as we hear the kingdom come.
—-
Luke Welch has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>
Awesome Luke!
Succinct and well-written.
I saw this article posted in a public forum, and as a human being who believes that all human beings were created with God-given dignity and freedom, and as a mother of three young children, I can’t stay silent. My rational mind and maternal heart revolts against the destructive ideology presented in this article.
The title of this article alone should send warning flags to rational minds: “The Weapons of Our Warfare: Children…” So the article starts with the idea that children are products, mere tools; and apparently it’s ok and even Biblical for parents and the church to use children for their own purposes (which are cleverly labeled “God’s purposes,” which are actually man’s purposes, claimed to be God’s, with no other claim to authority than the author’s own interpretation of the Bible).
“In order to rule, you have to be fruitful and multiply. In order to take dominion, the church has to have babies.” In other words, in order to survive, the church has to outbreed everyone else.
“One of the largest gears in the mechanism, one of the most powerful and necessary components in the wheels of the church, is the presence of children in God’s service of worship.” So the church is a giant machine that adults need to power by forcing their own innocent children into “God’s” service? Please explain how this statement can be rationalized into something that is not cultish.
“Tell your kids they have a job. That God has chosen them for glorious array in battle. That he has spectacles to make of enemies, and mouths of devouring adversaries that need to be shut.” How is this different from the way extremist terrorists use children for their agenda? The only difference is that instead of weapons being put into the hands of children for Allah, children themselves are used as weapons for the Christian god. True, there is not the murder and physical enslaving of people for the sake of the terrorist agenda, but there is the murder of individual freedom and the enslaving of the mind for the sake of the church. Is this an accurate representation of the Christian God?
“God’s first command for his King, Adam, on how to rule was through a process of childbearing…” King Adam isn’t going to get pregnant by himself, but a female partner to accomplish this childbearing is not even recognized. Perhaps a woman is not worthy of recognition, being only a tool, a uterus, to bear children, which apparently are not human beings either but weapons to silence the enemies of God, because the grown-ups can’t do it themselves.
And if a woman IS recognized and glorified only for her role as helpmeet and child bearer for her husband and the church, that is just as objectifying and demeaning, because it is acknowledging only what she can offer, rather than respecting who she is as an equal human being.
“God’s first command…on how to rule was through a process of childbearing and working with your children to bring the world under God’s reign.” Let me ask: did Jesus produce children in order for the church to “bring the world under God’s reign”? Jesus was concerned with people and their needs, not a system of rules taken from a text. He was not here to force women into childbearing, he did not tell children to further the goals of the religious leaders. And if you want to get into Bible quotes, let’s go, I am the product of what you desire, a child immersed in the Scriptures from birth! Jesus’ mission on earth is described in the Bible as God “reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them.” Does that sound like dominionism and warfare? Ironically, the ideology this author is promoting as “biblical” is an arrogant affront to the freedom of the Gospel.
This author makes so many claims that what he is saying is God’s commands for the church and its members, but on what does he base his claim? He uses heavy, distracting rhetoric; but when stripped down to the basics, the author is basing his “facts” on his own interpretation of the Bible (or interpretations of the Bible that he’s taken from other people).
Now let’s refer to our freshman year in college and dig out our Psychology 101 books, please. Someone here has a textbook classic abusive mindset. The underlying premise of this mindset is that it is ok to use a child for one’s own purposes, even without that child’s consent, or with coerced consent forced from an impressionable young mind. There is the inflated, assumed sense of the “rights” of the abuser, and the assumption that the abused must submit to the “rights” of the abuser. This mindset is no different from the mindset of child sexual abusers, except that it is spiritually abusive toward children rather than sexually abusive. But whether you are violating a mind or a body, abuse is abuse.
And God gets blamed for it, because this is his “command,” his “instructed rulership and kingdom expansion,” the “war for his glory.”
Furthermore, the way this article objectifies women is no different from the way our culture often objectifies women: where culture objectifies them as tools for sexual gratification, this author objectifies women as tools for uterine gratification. And there IS a sexual connotation here: using the bodies and sexuality of women for one’s own purpose, and calling it God’s. No wonder the rape culture is alive and well if both the church and society are working round the clock to objectify women.
I would not allow myself, let alone my children, to be subjugated in this manner to further the interests of an individual or an authoritarian religious organization. I can’t imagine that any free person would. It is a violation of the innocence of children to use and indoctrinate them in this way, especially because children do not have the developed brains, the frame of reference, and the ability to understand rhetoric and nuance as an adult can.
But clearly the author isn’t interested in the freedom, dignity, or rights of anyone except for himself and other males (i.e., “God’s King Adam”). And I cannot support this destructive ideology with my silence, when I see articles like this shared with the public, unashamedly glorifying the abuse of women and children.
Rachel, thanks for your comments. They are the fruit of the diversity of our readership at Kuyperian. However, I noticed that instead of discussing the biblical connections the author made, you descended into some pretty absurd accusations. Can you please 1) engage the text of Psalm 8 (instead of simply accusing someone’s interpretation of being flawed) 2) answer how the author is advocating demeaning the role of women in the Church, and 3) the most absurd, that training children to be faithful worshipers –yes, spiritual indoctrination; one of the clearest commands in the Bible joined with the Shema in Deuteronomy 6–from their earliest years is to be connected with child abuse?
I appreciate your boldness and your cause. As someone who speaks continually on the issue of child abuse and the indifference shown towards that matter in the Christian world, however, I can clearly assert you have wildly misinterpreted this article and by your words have trivialized the difficult, but yet beautiful task of nurturing little ones in the Covenant faith.
Thank you! As a pastor with several of these invaders in our church, I am so thankful for the reminder to me, to their parents, and to the rest of the congregation that they are not only welcome, but deemed necessary by God to complete His task.
Thanks, Shane.
Thank you for your response, and thank you for the opportunity to engage on subjects such as these. The ideology and language presented in this article struck a strong chord with me; however, I hope I made it understood that I take issue with the ideology itself, rather than the person behind it. Although I question the author’s claim to authority in his interpretation of the Scripture, I intend no personal attack on the author himself.
I did intend a head-on examination of the practical implications of the ideology, however. And I understand why you view my comment as “trivializing” the article, because I intentionally used simpler, prosaic language in contrast to the article’s poetic and sometimes obscure terminology. I intentionally shied away from arguing based on Biblical text, because I wanted to examine the ideology from a practical mindset. The author ties Biblical text into practical living, and that is where I engaged. I decline your request to argue from Biblical text because I cannot find it logical to take an idea that is abusive in application, but somehow becomes non-abusive “because Bible.” Another big reason for me not to argue from the Bible is that, where the author upholds the inerrancy of Scripture, I do not. This is why the author and I will always be divided in our ideologies. But I once held Scripture to the inerrancy standard, and though I do not now, I can identify with and therefore respect the author’s feelings and reasons for doing so.
At the very least, I must challenge the author’s claims of his interpretation of the Bible being “right.” This is crucial, because theologians have widely differed in their interpretations for centuries, with no way to decide exactly who got it right. More importantly, this author’s interpretation of Scripture, and his emphasis on how to tie that interpretation into practical application, has a ripple effect: his interpretation of Scriptures results in a mindset; which results into a practical application to life and relationships, which, carried to its logical conclusion, results in abusive treatment by pressuring and using others (especially innocent children who do not have the benefits of adult autonomy) to gain an end.
I don’t see how it is a “wild misinterpretation” to view statements like those in the article as abusive in their view of children, because they talk of using children, who are very easy to use because of how impressionable they are, for their own purposes (but it’s ok because it’s really God’s purpose, right?). And if they are your own children, apparently you own them and can do whatever you want with them. It’s one thing to have the responsibility to teach a child, it’s another to act as if you or an organization owns them and therefore can use them to your benefit. The difference is subtle but important.
Look at these sentences again: “One of the largest gears in the mechanism, one of the most powerful and necessary components in the wheels of the church, is the presence of children in God’s service of worship…God’s first command to his King, Adam, on how to rule was through a process of childbearing…In order to rule, you have to be fruitful and multiply. In order to take dominion, the church has to have babies.” This mindset, when practically applied, ignores the inherent freedom and dignity of women and children. It states that God is commanding a man to use their wife’s body and sexuality to breed as many babies as possible to turn them into weapons for God.
I think it is vital to note that consent is not addressed here, only command. The language used is so strong as to give the impression that consent has nothing to do with it. At the very least, the omission of the idea of consent is a bright red flag.
This is where proponents of the ideology try to avoid trigger words, and use the “right” rhetoric to cover their tracks, and say that women and children DO have a choice: they don’t HAVE to choose this lifestyle! But they invoke “Scriptural mandate,” (again, their interpretation of it) often along with phobia-based teachings, community pressure, and indoctrination to coerce agreement. So if a woman or child sincerely longs to follow God, they are told the only choice for real obedience is to get on board and start living this way and accepting these principles. Otherwise they’re not really doing it right. They’re not obeying God to the fullest, and here come the fears of damnation at worst, and lack of contentment in life at best.
Now imagine the impact on a woman who has been raised in this mindset and lifestyle from birth. She is taught that she is under the God-given authority of her father, then her husband (which opens another topic of abusive treatment, the creation of dependencies). She must submit to God by submitting to her husband when he leads her to follow these biblical commands. She must submit to having as many babies as possible, regardless of her health. She must be the example of “biblical” womanhood. She must do her part to bring in the kingdom of God, and this is how it’s done. She may be “agreeing” do it, and think it is what she wants, but realize that she knows nothing else because of how heavily she has been indoctrinated. There is no other way to live. And if she tries to leave this organization, she risks losing her family, her support system, she is afraid of losing God, and she is facing a world with which she has no skills to function alone, no frame of reference to understand. Can you see the overwhelming amount of pressure, coercion, and entrapment this ideology creates? And unfortunately, it happens. I speak up because I’ve witnessed it far too often.
This is not to say that I believe that every church is one step away from a cult; nor does everyone who practices the Patriarchal/Quiverfull lifestyle practice abuse (though many do, unfortunately); but I do believe the underlying mindset of the ideology is abusive in itself, to believe one has the right to pressure and use others to gain one’s end, whether it is an individual or an organization.
If you wish, take a moment to peruse the many websites, survivor blogs, and other resources available for those who are trying to recover from the trauma of being abused by Christianity. There are enough testimonies out there to convince me that they are not just the “bitter few,” the exceptions to the rule.
I don’t believe I can turn the mind anyone who espouses the theology presented in the article. That’s not why I spent so much time responding to the article. At the very least, I hope I can offer a different perspective that will not just be dismissed, but will help people who espouse this belief structure to be aware of the abuses that can occur, and take steps to protect their families and their church community. I don’t wish for the destruction of Christianity, I hope for responsible use of it.
Rachel,
Thanks for all your effort that has gone into conversing here.
I would like to cover three things in response.
The first – I must certainly deny that our normal Christian practices of including our children in worship is anything remotely like child abuse. All people, everywhere teach their children what they believe is the truth. They bring their children to what they think is a table, and give them what they think is food, and even, if necessary, coax them to eat – but this is loving and is done in a loving way. The basic point of the article was that Christian children should be singing during church instead of sitting the service out. I don’t think this comes from deviant psycho-manipulation.
Second – Reading the lack of mentioning Eve as a malicious desire to exclude the woman or make her only some tool is wishful reading. Maybe you have encountered Christians, as they do exist, who have wicked ways of treating women and children. That is not what you find here. My point was specifically about Adam in his political role, as is outlined here:
“23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ….(31)…the son of David, …(33)…the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, …the son of Shem, the son of Noah, ….38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
As you see at the end, we are saying that Jesus’ ministerial role as a priest and King came through David and Judah and explicitly through Adam as “son of God,” which means “king” (As you can see in Psalm 2). That’s all I meant.
Third – I think you are confusing us here with the “quiver-full” movement, with a so-called fundamentalist, “patriarchal” movement. I can assure you that I am opposed to those movements as they have done damage to the church and God’s individual saints, men and women alike.
I hope this brings some clarity.
May the Lord bless you,
Luke Welch
To Rachel, and any other readers: I am retracting my flat statement that I am opposed to “the Quiverfull movement” because it seems that it is amorphous, and is a movement that has no actual head or specific definition, and so I am probably attacking some people with whom I may not disagree.
What I should say I am opposed to is definitely NOT the desire to have many children. I am very much for the general desire for the church to be fruitful and multiply. This should not be made an idol, and not everyone is in a position for this to be a reality. Some are in a position where it cannot be healthy. I actually hope to write more soon about what I think is a good general philosophy for Christians – one coming out of scripture, but one which avoids the pitfalls of legalism, and of antinomianism.
I also oppose a version of the word “patriarchy” where the father is treated as a priest in the home, and the wife and children are made to think that God’s work in the family flows through the father. I am opposed to fathers/husbands misusing their position in the home in the same way that I am opposed to churches misusing spiritual authority. Governments, churches, and fathers can all usurp authority from another sphere of authority that they do not have. All can be abusers and all have to live under the proper authority of the Lord. So if you want to know further what I think about the situation, I will expect to be getting further into it in coming posts.
I do hope that anyone reading this exchange will gain some benefit from it.
Thanks,
Luke Welch
Luke, I can appreciate that you used symbolic language to illustrate a spiritual concept. I understand that not everything you said was meant to be taken literally.
However, there are certain ways of expressing a concept that do reveal underlying principles behind the concept. If the point was merely, “Children should sing in church,” why not simply say so? Sentences such as this: “In order to take dominion, the church has to have babies” written within such a context of children being described as the “weapons of the church,” or “babies are made as the work horses of the front line,” and stating that the church cannot “take dominion” without breeding more children to do so, etc., are clearly not speaking of children merely participating in a worship service.
And why does a church need to breed more children in order to “take dominion”? Are there not enough consenting adults to carry on the beliefs and practices of the church? This is where I brought in abuse comparisons, because this concept presents the basic mindset that is at the root of abuse in general, whatever kind it may be: the idea that the church can and must use children to further itself and keep itself going. Not only use them, but breed more for the purpose of its own survival and to stamp out its opponents.
Also, I was not reading the omission of mentioning a woman in “the process of childbearing” as malicious; rather I read it as a natural outflow of this ideology, the result of carrying this ideology to it’s logical conclusion: that it overlooks people and their needs in favor of an organization and its goals. To state that women are commanded by God to further the goals of the church by breeding is objectifying to women (and children) because in all harsh reality, that concept reduces them to a product. It does not matter what language you use to dress up the concept. I realize you hold an entirely different perspective of this topic, and did not intend for it to sound like some terrible manipulation, but sincerely view it through spiritual lenses as a good command from a holy God. But I would urge you to examine this ideology carefully and think through the implications of its message and the practical application of it.
I will say that some of my language was very strong; and I hope to retract any personal attack I may have implied upon you. I meant for the blows to fall upon the ideology that I view as threatening to women and children; but I do not perceive that you personally meant it in a threatening way.
I think I’ve said quite enough now, thank you again for the discussion and for allowing my voice to be heard in this forum!
Our children should be included in our worship, but Exodus 24 shows that this does not necessarily include the Lord’s Table, which was for the Lord’s representatives among His people.