If there's a useful distinction between "childlike" and "childish," it has to be conceptual and not just verbal. "Childlike" can't just refer to the undefined set of things one admires about children, while "childish" refers to an undefined set of things we don't admire about children. The lack of explicit definition wouldn't matter so much if there were obviously a consensus of usage. But I'm not sure there is.
In the gospel, the qualities associated with childhood that Christ recommends are innocence, humility, and what we might call trustingness. We are to approach God with trust, and with awareness of our need for him, as children approach their parents. In modern secular terms, the value of being childlike isn't so clear. If there is no God, whom should we as adults approach as children approach their parents. Probably no on. As for trustingness, it is largely a function of experiences over which we may have little control. To say that adults should trust God or anyone else the way a child trusts his or her parents is really to say that adults should trust, or be able to trust, the way children trust their parents as long as their parents haven't abused that trust. We naturally assume that most parents won't betray their children, just as we assume that most adults do have some experience of betrayal, from which they need to recover -- hence the call to become like a child.
There are two things to say in response to that call. The first is that it isn't obvious, in secular terms, that adults are really better off trusting as easily as children do. I think most of us would regard an adult who seemed as trusting as a child as a kind of holy fool, and whether we admired that adult would depend mainly on what we thought of holiness -- everyone, secular or religious, being in agreement that foolishness is not generally to be recommended. The second response is that, whereas a Christian can say that we can become like children not by our own efforts, but rather by accepting the grace that will allow us to trust God entirely, those who don't believe in divine grace may have no account of how someone whose trust has often been abused could choose to become as trusting as he or she had been to begin with (quite apart from whether that is a good thing to be).
As for the "childish" qualities we disapprove of, the most obvious are impatience and selfishness. But there is no general agreement in our society today about the meaning of those words either.
If impatience is still regarded as a vice, it's become a very minor vice. And everyday we hear the adjectival form of the word used as if it referred to a virtue: "He was impatient with the nonsense he saw on FOX News," etc. In common usage the word means a willingness to wait; etymologically, it also suggests a willingness to suffer -- and what could be more contrary to our culture as Adam Phillips describes it?
Selfishness presents us with a slightly different case. It's true that most of us still agree it's a bad thing. But many actions and habits that we might once have considered selfish have been rehabilitated as healthy expressions of prudence or self-esteem or sexual liberation. Selfishness used to be a richer concept, one that referred to anything that indicated a person did not think others were as important -- or even as real -- as himself. Of course, this idea of selfishness hasn't disappeared altogether; it's what we have in mind when we tell someone behaving childishly, "You're not the center of the world." But for the most part, we now talk as if selfishness were just another word for greed: a matter of wanting more than one's share of some finite good.
In short, I actually think the commonly invoked distinction between "childish" and "childlike," which English seems to make so easy, is not at all clear. Indeed, I think most of our culture's shared ideas about childhood and its relation to adulthood are confused, unreflective, and sentimental.
In an earlier thread about this video interview with the writer and psychotherapist Adam Phillips, Carolyn writes:
I think Phillips may be thinking more in terms of childish than childlike; coming to Jesus like a child is different from putting away childish thinking a la 1 Corinthians.
If there's a useful distinction between "childlike" and "childish," it has to be conceptual and not just verbal. "Childlike" can't just refer to the undefined set of things we admire about children, while "childish" is left to refer to an undefined set of things we don't like about them. A lack of well-formulated definitions wouldn't matter so much if there were obviously a consensus of usage. But I'm not sure there still is. [As Fr. Joseph Komonchak points out in his comment below, you can still find serviceable definitions of both words in any dictionary, but these are no longer as definitive as they might once have been, for reasons I try to make clear in the rest of this post.]
In the gospel, the qualities associated with childhood that Christ recommends are innocence, humility, and what we might call trustingness. We are to approach God with trust, and with awareness of our need for him, as children approach their parents. In modern secular terms, the value of being childlike isn't so clear. If there is no God, whom should we as adults approach as children approach their parents? Probably no one. As for trustingness, it is largely a function of experiences over which we may have little control. To say that adults should trust God or anyone else the way a child trusts her parents is really to say that adults should trust, or be able to trust, the way a child trusts her parents as long as her parents haven't abused that trust. We naturally assume that most parents won't betray their children, just as we assume that most adults do have some experience of betrayal, from which they need to recover -- hence the call to become again like a child.
There are at least two things to say in response to that call. The first is that it isn't obvious, in secular terms, that adults are really better off trusting as easily as children do. I think most of us would regard an adult who seemed as trusting as a child as a kind of holy fool. Whether or not we admired that adult would depend mainly on what we thought of holiness -- everyone, secular or religious, being in agreement that foolishness is not generally to be recommended.
The second response is that, whereas Christians can say that one becomes like a child not by his own efforts, but rather by accepting the grace that will allow him to trust God entirely, those who don't believe in divine grace may have no account of how someone whose trust has often been abused could choose to become as trusting as she had been to begin with (quite apart from whether that is really a good thing for her to be).
As for the "childish" qualities we disapprove of, the most obvious are impatience and selfishness. But there is no general agreement in our society today about the meaning of those words either. If impatience is still regarded as a vice at all, it's become a very minor vice. (Every day we hear the adjectival form of the word used approvingly: "He was impatient with the nonsense he saw on FOX News," etc.) In common usage the word means a willingness to wait; etymologically, it also suggests a willingness to suffer -- and what could be more contrary to our culture as Adam Phillips describes it?
Selfishness presents us with a slightly different problem. It's true that most of us still agree that selfishness is a bad thing, but many actions and habits that we might once have considered selfish have been rehabilitated as healthy expressions of prudence or self-esteem or sexual liberation. Selfishness used to be a rich concept, one that referred to anything indicating that a person does not think others are as important -- or even as real -- as he himself is. Of course, this idea of selfishness hasn't disappeared altogether; it's what we have in mind when we tell someone who's behaving childishly, "You're not the center of the world." But for the most part, we now talk as if selfishness were just another word for greed: a matter of wanting more than one's share of some finite good.
In short, I think the commonly invoked distinction between "childish" and "childlike," which English seems to make so easy, is not at all clear. I also think many of our culture's shared ideas about childhood and its relation to adulthood are confused, unreflective, and sentimental.
