Joel Garver blogs: My 4 year old daughter has found herself in several Sunday School contexts where she’s been led in singing:
I may never march in the infantry / Ride in the cavalry / Shoot the artillery. / I may never fly o’er the enemy / But I’m in the Lord’s army.
Sometimes this has been accompanied by marching and shouts of “Yes, sir!”
What I find somewhat off-putting about the song is, first, it seems to present being “in the Lord’s army” as a kind of second best. Really, it would be better if we could all join the military forces of our respective nations but, ding dang it, since we’re not all really qualified, I guess we’ll have to settle for the next best by being in the Lord’s army. That seems to me to send the wrong message to kids, subtlely prioritizing their national citizenship or nascent patriotism over loyalty to King Jesus and his reign. (KEEP READING)
Loading ...
December 15, 2006 at 15:19
This is a children’s song, meant to identify them with the Lord, and it does a good job of it. It’s catchy, and it has a good message. Never have I ever gotten the idea that kids are being taught one way or the other about our national military, or about war in general. What four-year-old has ever heard the word “artillery”?
I think we might all do better to stop and think before coming to such quick judgment on a song that had its roots in Christian worship and the instruction of children instead of trying to accomodate every possible offense.
December 15, 2006 at 16:17
I can see the author’s point, but I really think he’s reading way too much into the song. It’s just a kid’s song, not intended to stand up to intense scrutiny. If it were a serious song meant to be song by adult believers in worship, I’d be more concerned about the possible messages it could be misinterpreted as sending. But it being a simple kid’s tune, it seems a bit overboard to analyze it at quite that level. I sang this song a fair amount while growing up, and until reading that post, I was not aware of anybody interpreting it that way.
December 15, 2006 at 16:47
Well, I was just casting about for something to blog and that song had been bothering me for awhile, especially in our current political context. I agree (and admit at the end) that it’s a bit silly to get overly worked up over a kids’ song.
Still, in defense of what I wrote, wouldn’t the fact that it’s a child’s song perhaps give us greater reason for seriousness and scrutiny in evaluating its content, precisely because children are not capable of analyzing and discerning as adults are?
That’s the persective at work when I choose films, toys, and activities for my daughter. Shouldn’t that be all the more the case with prayers, songs, catechisms, and so on, which are forming her in her faith in ways that she can’t, at present, even be self-conscious about?
Yet, the attitude that “it’s just a kid’s song and doesn’t really matter,” seems to shape a lot of ministry with kids and is, to my mind, troubling and an abdication of our obligations to these weakest members of Christ’s body.
Whatever you might think about my comments on the song, I think the larger point is an important one.
December 15, 2006 at 16:54
Yet, the attitude that “it’s just a kid’s song and doesn’t really matter,” seems to shape a lot of ministry with kids and is, to my mind, troubling and an abdication of our obligations to these weakest members of Christ’s body.
That’s a good point, garver. Kid’s songs do matter, because they’re meant to stick in the minds of young people with an understandable message, and so I suppose we ought to be sure that the messages in the songs are airtight.
Anyway, I hope I didn’t come across as overly critical of your post. It’s an interesting interpretation, to be sure. But it’s not something I personally would worry too much about unless I saw a definite negative effect in the kids who sang it.
December 15, 2006 at 17:20
Hmm. I’m guessing the version of the chorus in the OP is a regional variant. Over here in Scotland, I recall singing (or possibly shouting) “I’m to young to march with the Infantry,”.
Still, there is a valid point of not letting familiar “church songs” away with ropey doctrine just because they’ve been around for aeons.
December 15, 2006 at 18:26
Ok, so I understand everyones points, and they all makes sense. However, I grew up singing that song, and I never thought about it that way until I read this blog. Don’t worry, I don’t think most kids really don’t even think about the words. They just know that they are making a joyful noise unto the Lord. Isn’t that what really matters?
December 16, 2006 at 04:43
I wouldn’t want to make a big deal with my child over this, but I think that the visuals created by these songs are important. Granted each child is going to absorb songs like this differently, but there is an emotional picture formed with songs. Particularly if they are repeated over and over.
I, personally, had a greater problem with, “Onward Christian Soldiers”, “Marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before.”...etc. I pictured hordes of Christians marching in line to inspirational songs.
I suspect that most children take the song in the article as a fun way to dance around with the motions.
I don’t remember Jesus using large scale war as a representation of the kingdom of heaven. The lost coin, and the prodigal’s son seem to be more dominant themes.
I guess the biggest problem that I have, as an adult, is the emphasis on group think. We check in with the sergeant and follow orders. I believe that this permeates Christianity far too much.
I would rather have my child view their spiritual journey as a search for the pearl of great price than the violence of war. And I’m not saying that children’s songs need to be all serious and philosophical, but I think we can come up with some fun songs that paint pictures that use more compassionate themes, rather than defending and attacking.
Anyway, that’s my take on it.
December 16, 2006 at 06:52
OK on points two and three but I remember singing the song myself as a kid and I never understood it in terms of “the Lord’s army” being inferior. To me it was the place to be. But that may just be personal. Others may well interpret these words differently.
December 16, 2006 at 07:18
I think that the song is saying that we are in some thing better and that is “I’m in the lords army”. Not in a man made army but a army made by God.
December 16, 2006 at 07:43
I think it’s important to evaluate ALL the ideas we and our children are presented with—even when they come in the form of children’s songs. After all, even if children don’t understand what they are singing now, the songs stay with them when they’re grown up and able to understand. I’m sure that after reading this blog, most of you now hear a song in your head that you might not have sung since you were children! I believe our adult beliefs about God are often formed by what we experience and what we’re taught as children, so it’s important to think about how we present our faith to children.
On another (somewhat related) note, I’m still trying to figure out exactly why my Sunday school teachers wasted valuable instruction time teaching me the song “Deep and Wide”—after 30+ years of sermons and Bible study, I’m still not sure what the deep and wide fountain represents!
December 16, 2006 at 11:13
I’m another who sang the song as a child (mumble-mumble) years ago.
First, I don’t understand the claim that the song makes the Lord’s army “second best.” If anything, the context in which I learned it made it seem that the Lord’s army was more important than any geo-political force.
Second, I absolutely respect those who take a pacifist position based on biblical principle. However, the Bible makes it clear that we are in battle with spiritual foes (including those which may be in us).
One cannot be a pacifist in this battle.
I will agree with what has already been stated re: the importance of kids’ songs. They should not be considered throw-away time fillers, and they must be taught in a biblical context.
December 16, 2006 at 12:00
...i remember this as ‘i DON’T WANT to march in the infantry etc.’
December 16, 2006 at 16:55
What a thought provoking post…of course what we teach kids in songs matters because they carry it with them and build their adult faith from these foundations.
For me the most serious point is this idea that ‘God’s Army’ is fighting against everyone else. i know what it is trying to say, but it can so easily be misunderstood. If Christmas is about anything its about God coming to indentify with us, so show he is for us, not against us. The touble is we (the Church) are so much better known for what we are against.
Words matter because they convay things to our culture. Thanks for making me think!
December 16, 2006 at 16:59
I too believe that the author is reading way too much into the song. I grew up singing this song and I think that it is a great song for kids to learn. A soldier is one of many illustrations that Paul used to describe being a Christian. Among others he used were runners and fighters.
December 17, 2006 at 01:41
[i]most kids really don’t even think about the words. They just know that they are making a joyful noise unto the Lord. Isn’t that what really matters?[/i]
But with that logic, we could “get” children to singing joyfully about [i]anything[/i], seeings as they don’t think about what the words may actually mean or indirectly imply.
How do we know if the kids are or aren’t thinking about the words? How do we know how much they are taking in, even on a subconscious level? Why do we think their need and capacity for spiritual experiences is somehow inferior to our “adult” understanding of God – i.e. “it doesn’t really matter for them, yet”?
December 17, 2006 at 17:02
Well,
I did serve in the (New Zealand) military.
And I remember singing that song as a kid thinking how it would be pretty fun to shoot the artillery and all that. It would be nice if someone taight the kids to salute properly when they sing that song though. . .
December 18, 2006 at 09:58
I guess if you want to get upset about something, you can read just about anything into, well, just about anything.
I’ve been around this song for years, and this is the first time I heard anyone think that it was exalting the military over the church. The idea of the song is: “I may not do these things that the world thinks is cool, but I get to do something even cooler! I’m not just in some country’s army… I’m in the Lord’s army.”
But if you want to pick at the song, go ahead… I doubt whoever made it up is around to care any more.
December 18, 2006 at 22:04
I can’t remember any Scripture which refers to “The Lord’s Army.” There have been many professed Christians who have raised armies IN THE NAME of God, or of Jesus. There obviously have been many Christians in many generations who have been inspired to write hymns about “The Lord’s Army”—not necessarily meaning a military force but a spiritual force. Still, if it has no Scriptural foundation, is it the right way to teach faith?
Today, there is an outfit called The Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. It is one of the most vicious, violent, cultic armies in the world, responsible for horrible atrocities, kidnapping children both to become soldiers and sex slaves. That is not what the familiar hymns are meant to inspire Christians to, but, is the “army” metaphor misplaced? It seems nothing makes the practice of Christianity less Christian than trying to fight the Lord’s battles with an army.
December 19, 2006 at 16:56
Songs like this aren’t to blame for (self-professed) Christians misusing that Name and faith to commit atrocities any more than are the actual Bible references to our spiritual war(Ephesians 6, 2Corinthians 10:3-4, etc.). Abuse of truth doesn’t negate its truthfulness.
I see nothing wrong with songs and other varied means of teaching kids the truth that they’ll inevitably learn in life anyway – that there are indeed spiritual battles to fight. However, that of course is provided that such teaching is coupled with the necessary complementary truths that our war is not of this world, our battle is not against flesh and blood (except perhaps our own), our weapons are weapons of love, peace, forgiveness, righteousness, etc. It’s up to teachers, pastors, and (mostly) parents to help spiritually impressionable children grow into that balanced understanding.
December 31, 2006 at 04:28
I agree that the song is not a good one for children. Now I do have a caveat. If your child is on their way to the military, then it might be a good one to get them started. Some say that it is obvious that what is being said here is metaphorical, as if children have any concept of such a thing. And that you may have sung it in your own childhood and turned out so ‘well’ means nothing at all. Look at the ideas in the foundation of the song. It hearkens back to Old Testament Judgement where God enjoys smiting millions, and it does not focus on Christ’s love. George Bush’s recent old testament Crusade should make us look long and hard at how we treat our children, how we correct (sic) them, hit them and shame them verbally. Look at the site for Bethel Baptist Church in Columbus, Ga. for the ten commandments of child-rearing and you will get an idea of how loco things can get… To the author of the question, thanks for questioning.
January 9, 2007 at 13:38
My four-year old daughter also came home singing this song. I never heard it before, and it’s not a great song, but it does embody a kind of Ignatian or Pauline battle-readiness that is apt even for children. Now, Onward Christian Soldiers is simply a dirge…