Christianity and children

I’ve been working on a new post for 3 Quarks Daily, which will be out next week some time. Working title: “Is The World A Movie God Created to Entertain the Baby Jesus?” That got me wondering: Does Christianity place a special emphasis on children? I put the question to Claude 4.6 Sonata. Our conversation is below the asterisks.

* * * * *

I have the impression that Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on children. Is that true, or just a reflection of the fact that my most sustained contact with explicit Christian ideation came in Sunday school?

Both things are probably true simultaneously — Sunday school did shape your sense of it, and Christianity does have a genuine and deep emphasis on children, though it's more complicated and multifaceted than the Sunday school version suggests.

The textual basis is real and striking. The Synoptic Gospels all contain the moment where Jesus rebukes his disciples for turning children away — "Let the little children come to me" — and then makes the extraordinary claim that one must become like a child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That's not just sentiment about children's innocence; it's a theological inversion. The child is the model for the adult, not the other way around. Spiritual maturity means recovering something prior to socialization, prior to worldliness.

There's also the Incarnation itself — God entering the world specifically as a baby, helpless, in a manger. The Baby Jesus isn't incidental to Christian theology; the vulnerability and particularity of infancy is theologically loaded. God chose that.

But — and this is worth noting — the heavy institutional emphasis on children's religious education, Sunday schools, confirmation classes, is actually a relatively modern development, largely 19th century Protestant. The Sunday school movement was partly a response to industrialization and child labor, as much a social reform project as a theological one.

So your childhood cosmology — the universe as a movie for the Baby Jesus — was formed in that particular modern institutional context, but it reached back and touched something genuinely ancient and theologically serious. Which is perhaps another instance of the process you're describing: becoming what you were always going to become.

Is this more the case with Christianity than with other world religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism?

It's a genuinely interesting comparative question, and the short answer is: yes, Christianity is somewhat unusual in making a child — and specifically an infant — theologically central in a way the others don't.

Judaism centers children in practice and transmission — the Passover Seder is explicitly structured around children asking questions, and circumcision marks male children at eight days old. Children are crucial as the carriers of the covenant forward in time. But no child figure is theologically central the way the Baby Jesus is. The emphasis is on children as the future of the people, not as a spiritual model or divine incarnation.

Islam similarly emphasizes children as trust from God, and there are strong ethical obligations around their care and education. But again, no child is theologically central. Muhammad was a prophet who matters as an adult. The religion's founding moment is a grown man receiving revelation.

Hinduism is interesting because Krishna is worshipped as a child — the infant Krishna, the mischievous boy Krishna stealing butter — and there's genuine theological weight to that child figure, not entirely unlike the Baby Jesus. This may be the closest parallel. But Hinduism's theological diversity is so vast that it's hard to generalize.

Buddhism places essentially no theological emphasis on children or childhood. The Buddha's story begins with his renunciation of family life. Children appear ethically — as beings deserving compassion — but not theologically.

So Christianity's specific move — God becoming a helpless infant as the central salvific act — is fairly distinctive. The vulnerability of the Baby Jesus, his need for Mary's care, his arrival among the poor and marginal, carries theological freight that the other traditions don't quite replicate. Which makes your childhood cosmology — the universe staged for that specific infant — a more theologically precise intuition than it might first appear.

Christianity and linear history

And then there’s the idea that Christianity places a unique emphasis on linear history, from the birth of Christ in the past to his return in the future. To be sure, that’s derived from the Jewish concept of the messiah, but Judaism never had an historical messiah, nor did Islam, though I believe it accepts Jesus as a prophet.

Yes, that's right on all counts. Islam does accept Jesus — Isa — as a prophet, one of the greatest, but not divine and not the final prophet, that being Muhammad. Islam also has its own eschatology, including the return of Jesus at the end of times, which is interesting — he returns in the Islamic framework too, but as a sign of the Last Day rather than as the returning Lord.

But your larger point about linear history is important and well-taken. Christianity inherits the Jewish sense of history as purposive — moving somewhere, meaning something — but then anchors it with an actual historical event at the center. The Incarnation is the hinge of history. Everything before points toward it, everything after flows from it. That's what gave Western civilization its peculiarly intense relationship with historical time, with progress, with the idea that things are going somewhere.

This is actually Karl Löwith's argument in Meaning in History — that modern secular ideologies like Marxism and liberalism are essentially secularized versions of Christian eschatology. The proletarian revolution or the end of history replace the Second Coming, but the narrative structure — fallen past, redemptive event, fulfilled future — is the same skeleton.

Which brings your cosmology full circle in an interesting way. Your secular mysticism, coupled with Prigogine and Tyson, preserves the directionality of Christian historical consciousness — the universe moving toward complexity, toward mind, toward something — while dissolving the supernatural scaffolding.

The movie has a plot. It just doesn't need a projectionist.

Centuries of Childhood

Oh, and I just remembered what got me thinking about Christianity and children. One book that influenced me a great deal as an undergraduate was Philippe Aries’s Centuries of Childhood. The idea that childhood is conceived of as a specific stage in human maturation, that children aren’t conceived of as little adults but with reduced capacities, that was invented in early modern Europe. That’s one of the books that got me thinking about the ranks idea. In roughly the same two centuries or so we had, 1) a revolution in art, 2) the scientific revolution, 3) the invention of childhood, and 4) the emergence of the novel.

That's a remarkable constellation, and the fact that they cluster in the same two or three centuries is itself a datum that demands explanation. It's not obvious that they're connected, but once you see them together you can't unsee it.

Ariès's argument is that before early modern Europe, children were treated as small adults — integrated into adult life, adult work, adult space — as soon as they were physically capable. The emergence of childhood as a protected, distinct developmental stage, with its own spaces, its own literature, its own pedagogy, required a new conception of the human person as something that unfolds through time, that passes through qualitatively distinct stages, that requires cultivation rather than just initiation.

And then you notice that the novel emerges at roughly the same moment, and the novel is precisely the literary form organized around development through time — the bildungsroman most explicitly, but really all novels to some degree. The novel is interested in how people become who they are. It's the literary form of developmental consciousness.

The scientific revolution similarly involves a new relationship with time — experiment as a way of watching nature unfold, history of the earth as something that can be read, causes preceding effects in lawful sequence.

And the revolution in art — perspective, realism, the organization of visual space around a particular situated viewer — is also a new conception of the subject as located in time and space, not hovering above it.

So what you have is a sudden, multi-domain crystallization of something like developmental consciousness — the sense that things, people, nature, history, unfold through time in intelligible ways that can be tracked, represented, understood.

Which is exactly what Rank 3 cognition is, isn't it? The capacity to model processes unfolding through time, to stand outside the flow and represent it. And Christianity's linear history — from Incarnation to Parousia — may have been the long slow preparation of that cognitive and cultural soil.

The invention of childhood and the emergence of the novel might be the moment when that preparation bore fruit across multiple domains simultaneously.

The “discovery “of adolescence

And then, late in the 19th century, adolescence becomes differentiated from both childhood and adulthood. Thus while we tend to think of Tom Sawyer as a book for tweens while Huck Finn is a book for adults, Mark Twain himself didn’t make that distinction.

[See my post, Kiddie Lit, for some elaboration]

That's a wonderful illustration of the point. Twain wrote both books as books about boys — the distinction we now make between them, that one is for children and one is for adults, is something we've retrospectively imposed using categories Twain didn't have available to him. Huck's moral journey, his agonizing over Jim, his famous decision to "go to hell" rather than turn Jim in — we read that as adult moral complexity. Twain just wrote a boy having adventures and making choices.

The concept of adolescence as a distinct stage is usually traced to G. Stanley Hall's 1904 work, literally titled Adolescence, which is almost exactly contemporaneous with the recognition that Huck Finn was somehow a different kind of book than Tom Sawyer, even though they were written barely a decade apart.

What's interesting developmentally is that each new stage, once named and institutionalized, generates its own literature, its own spaces, its own crises. The novel of adolescence — the coming of age story in the modern sense — becomes a distinct genre only once adolescence exists as a recognized category. Salinger, Golding, the whole tradition.

And there's a recursive quality to it that connects to your larger argument. Each time a new developmental stage gets named and bounded, it changes what comes before and after. Inventing adolescence retroactively changed what childhood meant, and what adulthood required. The stages are not discovered so much as constructed — and then they become real.

Which is perhaps another instance of shared knowledge becoming common knowledge, crystallizing into new forms that then generate new possibilities.