A Defence of an Article by Kevin DeYoung on Christian Families

Kevin DeYoung has gotten himself in trouble with the broad swathe of respectable evangelicalism by proposing a “New Culture War Strategy” based on conservative Christians having lots of kids and raising them in the faith (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/its-time-for-a-new-culture-war-strategy/).

In one sense I’m tempted to say that upsetting the wets is usually a good sign. Alas, sometimes the wets are upset for good reason, and sometimes I'm wrong about who's a wet, and so it’s worth a little more attention. Let me quote a specimen paragraph which sums up much of the argument of the article (an article, incidentally, which does not claim to be an exhaustive discussion of the matters concerned):

“Do you want to rebel against the status quo? Do you want people to ask you for a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15)? Tote your brood of children through Target. There is almost nothing more counter-cultural than having more children. And once we have those children, there is almost nothing more important than catechizing them in the faith, developing their moral framework, and preparing them to be deeply compassionate lovers of God and lovers of people and relentlessly biblical lovers of truth.”

The point DeYoung has been developing over the previous couple of paragraphs is that Western culture considers children a liability – but, he says, Christians know this is the opposite of the truth. He does not – in the course of a short article – rigorously cite every Biblical text which refers to the idea that children are a natural good and blessing, because he has foolishly assumed his Christian readers will both know such touchstones, and exercise charity regarding his intent.

What does the Bible say about children? Three brief examples will suffice. Psalm 127.3: “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.” Proverbs 17.6: “Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of children is their fathers.” John 16.21: “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (Note the parallel to Romans 8 on the Creation groaning in labour pains.)

The first call from DeYoung – to be “fecund”, fertile – is a simple call to Christians to reject a cultural assumption against children. Children are a heritage. Grandchildren are a crown. The birth of a child is joy. The very objections raised against this challenge from DeYoung – that he is not sympathetic enough to those who cannot have biological children (and the line of sympathy he does give is condescending, allegedly), that some very minor corners of church culture overemphasize having large broods – give the game away. There is no a priori impulse on the part of many to simply agree to the basic point he makes, which is a fundamental Scriptural principle of human existence. It is enough for some to wear conservative evangelical garb without really adopting the most basic conservative evangelical belief: submission to the text.

(Of course some brethren may have misunderstood this point quite innocently – but how?)

DeYoung’s second point is to enjoin a parental duty to raise children in the faith. There is often a peculiar response to this idea – I’ve heard it formulated dozens of times. You can’t make children Christians, so you shouldn’t try, or at least, you should try only in offering your Christian faith in the same way you tell your children about the other things you enjoy. Sometimes this is framed more “conservatively” – yes, we should tell our kids about God, but that’s not what will bring them to faith, so don't press it too hard – or more “liberally” – we want them to make a free choice, because it'd be bad for them to have an unreflective faith.

A problem with any version of this objection is that it finds no ground in Scripture. Two texts will frame the issue for us: Proverbs 22.6: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” Ephesians 6.1-4: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honour your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Parents should train children in the right way, the way that leads to goodness and joy – if not towards the Lord, where else? Children of Christian parents are commanded to obey the Fifth Commandment, sealed with the promise of blessing from the Lord. Christian parents are told to raise their children in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord”. This is simple stuff.

Now it might be truly objected that parents do not save their children, God does (and DeYoung acknowledges the point). The development of this argument is that, therefore, parental behaviour over "catechizing" is at best a duty, not a method. But if parental habits have nothing to do with the faith of children – as instruments of God’s grace, not sources – then the evidence we have is very puzzling. Why are you much more likely to be a Christian if your parents are Christian than not? Why, amongst children raised in Christian homes, is a child more likely to retain a strong, conservative faith later in life if they are sent to a conservative Christian school than to a government or less stringent religious school? (See the ACCS/Notre Dame study on this latter: https://www.classicaldifference.com/good-soil/.) Environment matters. God uses means. He does make roses grow in concrete, yes, but rarely. His ordinary means for growing plants are for rain to fall upon them in good soil (you may recall the stories told by Jesus comparing spiritual and botanical growth).

What, then, is the objection to DeYoung’s article? It cannot honestly be that God does not think children are a blessing to parents – exceptions and deprivations do not make the general rule untrue. Nor can the objection be that Christian parents have no responsibility to catechise their children, or that they cannot hope for good results in doing so – Scripture and hard evidence says otherwise.

The objection, in part, is over the explosive phrase “culture war”. I don’t love it. But given the context of his writing – how ought evangelicals in the USA cope with their Judicial Strategy seeming to fail? – it’s fairly pertinent. He says “we should engage with politics, yes, but we should realize the long game is in building households that love the Lord”. The objection to this is twofold, I think: (1) that it “weaponises” children; and (2) that it ignores the family of faith and evangelism to non-Christians. The second is simply unjust, and commits the same sin of uncharitable reading that DeYoung mentions re those who read The Benedict Option and accuse Rod Dreher of advocating cultural surrender. DeYoung is writing about one topic, not often spoken about seriously in respectable evangelical circles; he does not need to write about another at the same time. (That said, the hearers a Christian parent most often has are their children; their first field of evangelism surely ought to be the home. Indeed, having children is a very good way to create a mission field.)

The first accusation seems more weighty. None of us would want to reduce the dignity of children. But of course DeYoung nowhere says that we are not to love our children, or only have children to own the libs. He is commending a historic, proven practice of changing the world based on God’s explicit declaration. To attack DeYoung for degrading children – when he does not do so – is to agree with the logic that evangelism for the purpose of spreading the Kingdom degrades and instrumentalizes non-Christians. Of course someone might degrade children or non-Christians in such a way, but ordinarily we understand that saying “do this to glorify God” does not automatically cancel out the requirement for other subsidiary motives and duties.

Why, then, the herds of rearing stallions in response to the article? For some, it is honest misunderstanding; for some, I suspect it is a paranoic (if quite comprehensible!) worry about the difficulty of raising children in faith; for others, a lack of desire to transform culture; for yet others, it is straight infidelity to the text. None of these are good things, but the first is innocent enough. Let me close by addressing my brothers who have hared off in misunderstanding (I have done it often enough).

A significant cause of petty controversy amongst Christians on the Internet is how easily we are distracted by ancillary issues. The speed of possible response, the multiplying signals on your Twitter feed which indicate the importance of the discussion, the crossed wires of different issues being discussed at the same time – all tend to dilute clarity. We cannot read a DeYoung article about having big families without, for instance: (a) seeing a snarky comment underneath about Quiverfull, which reminds us the principle involved can go too far; (b) be turned off by a single phrase (say, “Culture War”) because of our other associations, strengthened by the 24/7 Twitter feed, and thereby miss the actual point of the phrase in the essay; (c) be halfway through reading the article before getting dragged into a debate about BLM, thereby causing us to think “DeYoung isn’t even talking about the big issues of today!”; and (d) suffering a dozen other distractions. (There is no certain guarantee I am not guilty of the same in writing this! It's partly why I try not to write response pieces except when the issue seems exceptionally pressing to me.)

It is vital we find space and calm both in reading and before responding. The tongue is the guide of the whole soul, and needs careful control (James 3.1-12); “A man of quick temper acts foolishly” (Proverbs 14.17) is a generally useful warning when reading something. It is vital, also, that we distinguish things carefully, and identify the central points of an argument. Kevin DeYoung was not bragging about fertility, and so any alleged insensitivity to the barren is not germane to a serious person’s response (though of course one might raise the issue as an aside). He is articulating one response to the disappointment of American conservative evangelicals in the Judicial Strategy; it is absurd for British conservative evangelicals to reprove him for not talking enough about evangelism to non-Christians.

With all that said, and cleared up – what do you think of the issue itself? How does having and raising children in the Lord connect to the spread of the Kingdom?