Toddlers in worship

[Healed_IHS]

What you (ProdigalSeeker) are referring to is mostly extreme scenarios, and no one here who has argued for the expectation of giving toddlers leeway and freedom in the service has suggested these extreme scenarios as part of their argument. It has been stated explicitly that toddlers running on, damaging, displacing or defiling the altar (let alone in a funeral) is beyond reasonable behaviour. So you may can-it with the exaggerated scenarios.

Read the OP again... the poster was speaking of a child who was wandering around the sanctuary while a service was going on.

 

[Healed_IHS]

However, and this has been mentioned before in the thread, it is absolutely childish for annoyed adults to make faces, grumble, or shoot the look of death at parents of a crying child. Adults who act in this fashion should also remove themselves until they can act like an adult.

So if someone was snoring at church (loudly) and wasn't doing anything to correct their behavior, it shouldn't be brought to their attention?

----------------------------
Seriously, this topic has taken a turn for the stupid if we can't agree that children should not be wandering around the sanctuary during the service as stated in the OP and that parents shouldn't have to remove their child. It's called "common courtesy" but if there are people who can't understand this concept -- I have no time for this conversation.

 

[Timothy]

Seriously, this topic has taken a turn for the stupid if we can't agree that children should not be wandering around the sanctuary during the service

Nope, we can't agree on that. Because I think children SHOULD be wandering round the sanctuary. I've watched priests celebrating holding hands with children or holding children, I've seen worship leaders leading worship with a child in their arms, directors of music having a circle of kids with various percussion instruments around them and 'directing them'...

I contend that the promises we as the church make at the baptism of infants REQUIRE us to allow children to wander around the sanctuary because they have as much right as we do to be there, and that to insist children leave worship is in fact dishonesty with the promises we make at bapstism.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Nope, we can't agree on that. Because I think children SHOULD be wandering round the sanctuary. I've watched priests celebrating holding hands with children or holding children, I've seen worship leaders leading worship with a child in their arms, directors of music having a circle of kids with various percussion instruments around them and 'directing them'...

I contend that the promises we as the church make at the baptism of infants REQUIRE us to allow children to wander around the sanctuary because they have as much right as we do to be there, and that to insist children leave worship is in fact dishonesty with the promises we make at bapstism.

 

[Finella]

ProdigalSkeeker -- I think what everyone agrees upon is that children should not be screaming, damaging persons or property, and rather are generally respecting the area they are in and the situation of worship. A toddler quietly and inquisitively wandering the sanctuary during a service is doing none of these destructive and disruptive things. So, again, the OP scenario has nothing to do with the extreme examples you have cited.

Gosh, rocking chairs in the sanctuary, playmats with good view of the altar, people helping tired parents with their babies... it sounds absolutely wonderful. If such a church existed near me I would be there in a heartbeat. I know of none, however. And so here's one family that isn't attending church because I am not comfortable bringing my daughter into a scenario where neither of us would be welcomed because we might :gasp: make a noise. Once. Or something.

 

[higgs2]

I have to be honest, I have mostly gotten over worrying about the glarers and frowners when I attend parishes other than my own (or in my own, should there be any). I usually find one of two things, there are already young children there and so we are not out of the ordinary, or there are few to none and the poor people are so desperately glad to see us that I feel bad telling them afterwards that we are just visiting and we don't live in the area.

I am grounded in the knowledge that my children are part of the body of Christ, and it really helps my confidence. So I normally don't get that hot flush creeping over my face anymore if my children peep, I just smile serenely.

 

[higgs2]

This just gave me an idea. In our congregation we have greeters and ushers, and they are all supposed to be welcoming and helpful. But I am going to look into the possibility of developing a group of welcomers who have a specific passion for welcoming families with children.

How our hearts can change, if only we would allow them to melt! Thanks higgsie

This is a great idea and could make all of the difference in the world in families feeling welcome! Tell them to bend down and greet the children at their eye level, most adults don't do that an act like the kids aren't there, just talking to the parents.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

However, and this has been mentioned before in the thread, it is absolutely childish for annoyed adults to make faces, grumble, or shoot the look of death at parents of a crying child. Adults who act in this fashion should also remove themselves until they can act like an adult.

So if someone was snoring at church (loudly) and wasn't doing anything to correct their behavior, it shouldn't be brought to their attention?

----------------------------
Seriously, this topic has taken a turn for the stupid if we can't agree that children should not be wandering around the sanctuary during the service as stated in the OP and that parents shouldn't have to remove their child. It's called "common courtesy" but if there are people who can't understand this concept -- I have no time for this conversation.

I disagree.

The more children are free to explore their liturgical environment, the more they will find it a safe and stimulating space. They will know they belong, just as they are.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

ProdigalSkeeker -- I think what everyone agrees upon is that children should not be screaming, damaging persons or property, and rather are generally respecting the area they are in and the situation of worship. A toddler quietly and inquisitively wandering the sanctuary during a service is doing none of these destructive and disruptive things. So, again, the OP scenario has nothing to do with the extreme examples you have cited.

Gosh, rocking chairs in the sanctuary, playmats with good view of the altar, people helping tired parents with their babies... it sounds absolutely wonderful. If such a church existed near me I would be there in a heartbeat. I know of none, however. And so here's one family that isn't attending church because I am not comfortable bringing my daughter into a scenario where neither of us would be welcomed because we might :gasp: make a noise. Once. Or something.

***wishes Finella was in the suburbs of Seattle, where she would find a warm welcome in my parish, or any number of other surrounding parishes!

 

[Tenebrae]

I disagree.

The more children are free to explore their liturgical environment, the more they will find it a safe and stimulating space. They will know they belong, just as they are.

And actually start seeing the liturgy as relevant for them, rather than some antiquated tradition their parents make them endure.


Perhaps if we had this more in our minds, anglicanism/ would be one of the fastest growing churches rather than a declining one. When I was looking for a church, in a city of 1.4 million, I rang many anglican parishes and was told the same thing "there is very little or nothing avaliable for young people, or families with young people.

 

[Inside Edge]

Not really. Let us be fair. Here is a visitor to our church saying "the manner in which this congregation engaged their children didn't really work." He's not saying "Children shouldn't be engaged in the service SO THAT their engagement doesn't cause the engagement of others to be disturbed." He specifically affirmed the first point, that children SHOULD be engaged in the service. So the question is how.

Sorry, pmcleanj, I'm not with you on this one. It seemed pretty clear to me that he said children should be allowed and engaged in the service so long as they do not disrupt it for others. Based on his example, I maintain this is an impossibility: if children are permitted and engaged, then there will be disruption from time to time. The only way for children to be non-disruptive os for the adults in the congregation to loosen up a little and learn to hear, see, and think past some of the inconveniences that the presence of children cause, at least from time to time.

I clearly stated that I agreed with the point about the parents who didn't handle the situation well; however, no matter how well and tactfully a parent acts or reacts, the kids will -eventually - always have moments of disturbance, at least by the standards some are putting forward here.

 

[Timothy]

If you can't pray/preach/sing over perfectly normal child noise then there's something wrong with you, not with the noise. Frequently I find that baby noise in church will get me back on track with what I'm supposed to be doing rather than letting my mind wander.

Tim

 

[Inside Edge]

This is a great idea and could make all of the difference in the world in families feeling welcome! Tell them to bend down and greet the children at their eye level, most adults don't do that an act like the kids aren't there, just talking to the parents

This was done at my last parish, and several of the greeters/congregation do it at my current one. It makes a world of difference.

I have seen the things pmcleanj, higgs, chalice, timothy, etc, have mentioned in this thread applied in two churches. My former parish started out a dying parish (actualy 2 dying parishes that were combined into one, and that one's fate was uncertain). These changes were made and the congregation became intentional about them. The church is now a growing, thriving, spirit-filled place where even some of the most staunch older members of the 'old ways' now agree that it is a good thing. My current parish is in a transition, somewhat divided, with a little over half making these kinds of efforts. The under-half portion that chooses to "glare" at mothers with babies and shush children and parents out of church over minor disruptions have successfully done so. None (other than ourselves) have returned after being exposed to that sort of treatment. It seems we need 3 welcoming, supportive people for every 1 crotchity old bag, or we lose the would-be parishioner.

And -- what happens next:
Someone turns and glares at you and maybe even pointedly informs you that there is a nursery
~or~
Someone leans over and whispers how wonderful it is to hear children's voices in church and smiles at you?
Which scenario would cause you to leave the service in tears and forget about going to church at all?

Oh, the memories! I remember when we first moved to our current town, and started attending our current church. My daughter was 19 months and my wife was almost 8 months pregnant. Our first visit, we got a look of fright as we brought our daughter into church - during the summer, when there was no sunday school! How dare we! The second visit (the following week), we were told that it was nice to see children in the church, unfortunately they make it harder to hear the sermon. On that particular day my daughter had been rather silent and still, the only noise she made was flipping through the prayerbooks, pretending to read and follow along like the adults. Aparently, the sound of pages turning was just too much. On the way out I was walking a little ahead of my wife in the parking lot, turned around and saw her crying, and she said she just really missed our old church. That day sucked.
I've always wondered what these people would say if you could actually show them the numbers - the actual people - that have not returned because this kind of treatment. If you told me, "that person over there did not come back to church because you scowled at them," I would be mortified. I might be extremely annoyed with that hyperactive, undisciplined, wild child and the parents that don't appear to care; or that baby sitting behind me that whines and cries whevever its mother sits down; however, what a horrible thing it would be to chase them out of church with glares, scowls, or directions to the nursery/hall/outside. I know from experience that MOST of those mothers, parents, and sometimes even the children, are there in the sanctuary - disturbances and all - because they're looking for support, and/or for a supportive worship community.

 

[pmcleanj]

Sorry, pmcleanj, I'm not with you on this one. It seemed pretty clear to me that he said children should be allowed and engaged in the service so long as they do not disrupt it for others.

We parents are very vulnerable to any comments that seem to say "your children should GET OUT", because we receive so many such messages both overt and covert. And it does make us, quite legitimately, defensive. It's very hard to be generous about someone else's possible intent, when he has trodden heavily upon one's very sore toe.
Our creative, courageous refusal to become defensive, may be the only way we can keep from turning our options into a zero-sum game. It should never boil down to an argument of "put up" versus "get out".

Adammi said two things:

[Children] should be as involved in the church as possible, but several families didn't even seem to attempt to quieten their children.
The clear implication here is that the children SHOULD have been quieted, and that the FAMILIES had the responsibility to do so. And that, I would say, is a simplistic and knee-jerk response. Maybe (certainly!?) the liturgy should have been structured to accomodate the transition that had been planned into it -- then the natural noise and movement of a transition wouldn't have been disruptive, and there wouldn't have been any quieting to be done. Maybe (certainly!?) the congregation and the shape of the liturgy should have played the role of doing the quieting if it was necessary, since we are all in this together.

But we parents are part of the church as a whole, too, and if we the church don't at least listen to a visitor who is bringing in his honest impressions, no matter how burdened with assumptions those impressions are, we aren't being very welcoming to him, either. It's not realistic to expect a visitor to say "the liturgy was structured badly and the congregation didn't do their part". I can say that and just did, but Adammi couldn't and shouldn't.

He also said
Children should be engaged in the service:...:their engagement should not cause the engagement of others to be disturbed.
I think we, both as parents and as Church, can agree with this tuple. If we put "and" in between the two clauses, there would be no problem. We're NOT claiming the right to run roughshod over the experience of other church-members to the degree that they cannot engage in worship. In fact, I am arguing very strongly that without the engagement of children (or of any ostracized subset of the Body) everyone's engagement IS disturbed -- each member's engagement in worship facilitates the engagement of every other member.

It's that one little word "but" that cuts so deeply. Because it implies that the two ideas of "own" and "other" are in opposition. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how Church operates. Within the Body, "own" and "other" are united rather than opposed. That truth can be obscured if we allow Satan to "hook" us into reacting oppositionally instead of collaboratively. As this conversation progresses, I am trying to broaden it from "should non-silent children get out: yes/no" to the bigger question of "How do we worship together as the whole people of God?"

But I'll affirm that most of the creativity and accomodation needs to be made for the young children and their parents, not by young children and their parents. That's not just because young children are the disempowered minoritiy (though they are) or because frankly there's no such thing as a "quiet toy" (although there's not). It's because we whose children are essentially grown or who don't have children yet are the ones who have the life-experience and or excess energy with which to address the problem. The parents are, for the most part, doing their full share already.

 

[ebia]

If you can't pray/preach/sing over perfectly normal child noise then there's something wrong with you, not with the noise. Frequently I find that baby noise in church will get me back on track with what I'm supposed to be doing rather than letting my mind wander.

Tim

I think to some extent it depends on having realistic expections about the background noise level. There are parts of the service where it does matter because you need to be able to hear, say, the sermon. But if you go in expecting to have a really quiet, reflective, time during (say) the preparation of the Eucharist and that doesn't happen you are bound to be annoyed.

We have a church building with a really loud, long, echo. Any noice will be noticable, whether it's a young person dropping a toy or an elderly person dropping a walking cane. We also have children making up around a third of the congregation on average, some of whom come from challenging backgrounds, some of whom have parents who either are absent or who's parenting skills are pushed beyond the limits, others have parents who are leading the service (including the minister) and therefore aren't necessarly in a position to go running after them without increasing the disruption.

If you drive all those families away you will have a closed church within 3 years without doubt.

We do have a sunday school for the children during part of the service, but even then it is taking some of our congregation quite a while to become realistic about how the children will behave when they come back in at the start of communion.

 

[Tawny]

Did not Jesus say in Luke 18 V 16,

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

I don't recall there being an addendum in there saying only if they are quiet and make no noise and don't disturb me.

Most churches over here advertise their 11 ish service on a Sunday morning as a family service or family Communion, if you don't like any disturbance then why not change slightly and go to the 8am or the 6pm service.

I would rather go to a church where kids are involved and making a noise rather than one where everyone is cold to one another and sit staring straight ahead with no interraction at all.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Did not Jesus say in Luke 18 V 16, I don't recall there being an addendum in there saying only if they are quiet and make no noise and don't disturb me.

Most churches over here advertise their 11 ish service on a Sunday morning as a family service or family Communion, if you don't like any disturbance then why not change slightly and go to the 8am or the 6pm service.

I would rather go to a church where kids are involved and making a noise rather than one where everyone is cold to one another and sit staring straight ahead with no interraction at all.

QFT to the tenth power.

 

[higgs2]

Did not Jesus say in Luke 18 V 16, I don't recall there being an addendum in there saying only if they are quiet and make no noise and don't disturb me.

Most churches over here advertise their 11 ish service on a Sunday morning as a family service or family Communion, if you don't like any disturbance then why not change slightly and go to the 8am or the 6pm service.

I would rather go to a church where kids are involved and making a noise rather than one where everyone is cold to one another and sit staring straight ahead with no interraction at all.

Yes, I feel the same way.