|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Screaming babies during worship
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
If I disappeared outside for too long, one of the 'grannies' in the congregation would often pop out to see how I was doing, and the known 'baby-wranglers' in the congregation would often hold him after the service so we poor parents could drink our coffee in peace!
We've never yet had a congregational granny pop out to see us (as far as I know!), but oh yes, the wonderful baby wranglers (love the phrase!) ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Those few minutes after the service in which our arms got a few minutes' rest, and the would-be grannies got to indulge their grand-maternal (is there such a word? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ) instincts - wonderful! And of course, it's now that we're really reaping the benefit. B is so comfortable with several of them that they can look after her in services while Mr B is preaching, or whatever - even though last time that meant the baby-wrangler concerned had to miss the sermon... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Hatless wrote:
quote:
Seeing as this is Hell, I will ask why it is that Americans are so sensitively tribal that they take criticism of their mustard recipes to heart, yet are so atomistically individualistic that they haven't a clue what belonging to a community is all about?
I'm sorry, but where did that come from?
None of the posters on this thread – British or American – has said that church isn’t the place for children. Or that they aren’t welcome in church. Everyone has said that “normal” child behaviour – giggling in the wrong place; running up and down; crying for a bit – is okay and something that you expect to see in a church family. The kind of behaviour that is easily dealt with by a “look”.
The only thing that has been suggested is that sometimes, if a child will not stop crying (or misbehaving) then they should be taken out of the service by either a parent or a trusted adult. And once the child has calmed down, both can return to the service. And I would guess that trying to calm a child down can be a lot easier away from the service and a large number of people than in the midst of it. And the reason for this suggestion – so the rest of that community can continue to worship without being distracted.
Everyone has said that part of the churches ministry to parents is to provide things to help “doing church” easier – children’s and young people’s teaching; a crying room; additional services in the evening that parents can take it in turns to attend; a baby sitting rota; toys in the pews; love and acceptance for those times when a child just won’t behave etc.
I really don’t see the problem …
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Chukovsky said:
quote:
One thing that a lot of the "take them away, take them far away" advocates...
In general, what I've read in this thread from those who prefer that screaming children be removed from worship spaces is that if/when the child calms down, both parent and baby should return. I think that 'far away' is a bit severe. Out of earshot? Preferrably, but at least 'away' to the point where the service is once again the obvious and dominant focal point.
hatless: Don't derail this thread with sorry, unfounded, ridiculously ignorant and, I might add, frightenly overgeneralized (at least for the intellignent) anti-American hash. It's cheap, base, and beneath you. Argue your point and save your sanctimony for the next great Pond War.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
hatless: Don't derail this thread with sorry, unfounded, ridiculously ignorant and, I might add, frightenly overgeneralized (at least for the intellignent) anti-American hash. It's cheap, base, and beneath you. Argue your point and save your sanctimony for the next great Pond War.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of frightening overgeneralisation every now and then. But you're right, that's what it was. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I am childless, of course, but have noticed quite a difficult situation in the "bring biscuits" approach. Though I have served in parishes where there were kids everywhere, and certainly no raised eyebrows at their being in church, the trouble with the 3-year-old who is munching a snack is that 5 other little ones, deprived of this solace, will begin wailing when they see the other eating.
My problem, and this for the child's sake, is with those who bring babies to lengthy services. I have seen babies who were two months old or less brought to Easter vigil and Christmas Midnight Mass. Of course they are fretful and uncomfortable! All the more if the mother is so afraid the child will get a chill that s/he's bundled up as if for an excursion to the top of Mount Everest, and the church is both heated and crowded.
I have no problem with parents walking (unobtrusively, perhaps in the back) with little ones, and think it a fine idea to have a creche, or at least a separate room where a parent may retire with a child who needs to be changed, fed, or comforted.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) Question for the ages: When I was a child, many people had much larger families than they do now, and it was usual to see the entire brood at Sunday services. Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
Nintendo.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
My problem, and this for the child's sake, is with those who bring babies to lengthy services. I have seen babies who were two months old or less brought to Easter vigil and Christmas Midnight Mass. Of course they are fretful and uncomfortable!
Well, baby B has been to both, and will be attending Midnight Mass this year. The timing of these services means she slept straight through them last year. Hopefully she will this year, too, but it's likely to be much harder work for me if she's awake this time round than it would have been when she was just a couple of months!
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question for the ages: When I was a child, many people had much larger families than they do now, and it was usual to see the entire brood at Sunday services. Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
Parents got paranoid about other people looking after their children?
Children got less used to other people in church looking after them?
You presumably are also referring to "broods" with two churchgoing parents...
If/when I have children I'm going to let them scream their little lungs out in church. In fact, I am going to poke them so they scream more. You all need not come to my church though.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
I make a point of not going to Pram Services.
Sometimes we have children just wandering around services not making any noise but with an air of inquisitive innocence.
Very occassionally the preacher will stop and smile at them. Almost God-like I feel.
Then again recently a beautiful butterfly decided to come out of the flowers on the Communion table and fly around the Church during the service, making everyone focus on it rather than what was being said.
A complete and total disruption to the service.
Ban Beautiful Butterflies as well I say.
(Why can't preachers stop what they are saying and incorporate the butterfly/children into their sermon ?)
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky said:
quote:
If/when I have children I'm going to let them scream their little lungs out in church. In fact, I am going to poke them so they scream more. You all need not come to my church though.
Charming. Those other contestants for Future Parent Of The Year don't have a snowball's chance... You would antagonize your own, innocent child for the intentional annoyance of those around you? Wow. That's an application of "the needs of the many (to learn your 'lesson,' chukovsky) outweigh the needs of the few" I hadn't considered. No doubt hatless would disapprove of your "atomistic individualism and ignorance of your community." I would say you'll earn every scowl and tut coming your way, then.
Garden Hermit: I heard a tale (was it abour Charles Spurgeon?) about a service from the days before air conditioning in which a song bird entered the open window of a church, perched on a rafter and sang for three minutes staight, and then abruptly flew back out of the sanctuary. The speaker approached the pulpit and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the sermon has been given," and then returned to his seat whereupon the service continued.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
An aside on the question of small children and long services (and this may not be very applicable to small babies):
I have awful childhood memories of sitting through boorrrrrinnng (to me at the time, of course) services without anything to entertain me. (Yes, this was pre-nintendo.) They just about drove me crazy with boredom. Such experiences were one of the factors behind me acquiring a very negative attitude toward the church in general. When I did became a Christian, it was almost in spite of the church.
My point being is that if you bring a child into a service that is beyond his ability to enjoy or at least endure with contentment, please be sure he has something to entertain himself. If he likes a childrens' Bible, so much the better.
God forbid that we inadvertantly teach children that church is boring. It's been said it's a sin to bore a child in church. From expericence, I heartedly agree.
(This is a bit of an aside, but would surely help with noise issues with some smaller children as well.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
God forbid that we inadvertantly teach children that church is boring.
Inadvertently? You mean it isn't supposed to be?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Not about crying children but loud aggressive adult behaviour.
Tonight is my school’s carol service at the local church. Every year the same salty fellow greets our guests at the door. I responded to his meths fuelled conversation once after I noticed a medal on his duffle coat. He charmingly turned the exchange into a racist 100 decibel rant. He patrols the aisle and sings loudly whilst conducting the congregation and lurching at young women. Luckily he is most vocal during the readings about seeing Christ incarnate in the needy.
Last year we gave him a tenner and asked him where he wanted to be driven to. He seemed quite happy to miss the second half of the service.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hull Hound:
Tonight is my school’s carol service at the local church. Every year the same salty fellow greets our guests at the door. I responded to his meths fuelled conversation once after I noticed a medal on his duffle coat. He charmingly turned the exchange into a racist 100 decibel rant. He patrols the aisle and sings loudly whilst conducting the congregation and lurching at young women. Luckily he is most vocal during the readings about seeing Christ incarnate in the needy.
Last year we gave him a tenner and asked him where he wanted to be driven to. He seemed quite happy to miss the second half of the service.
We had a vicar like that, once.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seadog
Shipmate
# 2931
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
In fairness to seadog I should add that babies do grow up and turn into heathens then one can start enjoying unaccompanied church again.
Indeed, and this bit I look forward to immensely, along with the few months between them being legally allowed to drive and legally allowed to drink in a British pub. I plan that they should take their driving tests early and spend 6 months ferrying me to and from the pub every night.
Erin - good on you . But with Mr Seadog flat on his face in the street every time I get a bit pissed off, bugger all will be achieved in this house. I prefer to try to focus more on his redeeming features, as I hope he does with me (otherwise we are in deep trouble...).
--------------------
A good landing is a succession of errors rapidly corrected.
Posts: 433 | From: Isle of Wight, UK | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seadog:
[<snip>
Erin - good on you . But with Mr Seadog flat on his face in the street every time I get a bit pissed off, bugger all will be achieved in this house. I prefer to try to focus more on his redeeming features, as I hope he does with me (otherwise we are in deep trouble...).
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
hatless wrote: quote:
Presleyterian, I thought we had agreed. My children have always been taken out if they start to cry wholeheartedly and, though I know others have different thresholds so I try to be patient, I basically expect others to do the same. However, that's not quite the same as asking them to do this, or putting pressure on them. That says the solution is down to them.
hatless, if the sermon gets boring, I like to place long, loud personal calls on my cell phone from the middle of the sanctuary. You -- and everyone else -- find that this disturbs your ability to concentrate on the servie. Based on what you've said, you wouldn't engage in such boorish behavior and you wish that I would follow your lead. But I don't. I just chatter a way.
Following your line of reasoning, I assume that you wouldn't dream of suggesting in a gracious tone that I might want to step out of the sanctuary if I need to place a call because you'd want to "accommodate and enable and include" my telephone habits and it would be very non-inclusive of you to do otherwise. Furthermore, it might damage our sense of community were you to suggest that the solution to the problem of my disruptive behavior "was down to [me]."
Mrs. Tubbs, The Riv, and others have spoken much sense on this thread. There will always be extentuating circumstances, such as Moth's one-room church in a blinding snowstorm or Chukovsky's interesting strategy of intentionally provoking her own child to cry in discomfort. It seems to me, however, that the truly selfless thing to do -- the thing that shows the most sensitivity to one's community -- is to put the needs of others ahead of one's own desires and step to the back for the one or two minutes that it might take to calm an upset child. That, from what you said, is the sensible and generous course of conduct that you undertake.
And in the spirit of catching more flies with honey and vinegar, I'm not suggesting that the parent of the crying baby be met with dirty looks or curse-laden harangues. Just last month, I saw an usher at my church handle the situation with much aplomb. She leaned over to the mother who was sitting in front of me and said something to the effect of, "Let's step outside and see what we can do to calm her down."
However, if people are so selfish that they aren't willing to subject themselves to that momentary inconvenience for the good of their fellow worshippers, I doubt they were ever much into the community thing in the first place.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
That should have read "...in the spirit of catching more flies with honey than vinegar."
Or maybe I just inadvertantly came up with an American mustard recipe that will satisfy Timtim.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
What precisely is the "silly" part, hatless? The sentence in which I described your course of conduct as "sensible and generous"?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I always thought community worked all ways the person with the screaming child should help build up community by seeing the need of the others to worship. Those without children should realise they don't know the whole situation so shouldn't judge harshly.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
I have no idea how anyone can worship while holding a screaming baby. Early parenthood is full of deprivation, you get used to missing at least half of most things you were looking forward to. It doesn't go on forever though it feels like it at the time. There is usually a pay off.
I hated people telling me 'we do have a creche' as I took that as shorthand for 'get the brat out of here', in general as my 'seeking' period coincided with my early parenting days I left them at home with my other half or sought child-friendly churches. When my OH started going to church as well we took it in turns.
People who can stay in church when their baby is screaming are either totally desensitised to the effect on others,(maybe because they were always lacking in empathy or maybe they have got depressed by the whole early parent thing) or so traumatised by day long screaming that they have become antisocial and don't care what effect it has on others.
I used to go to Quakers for an hour of silence and peace in the week when mine were very little, someone else's baby screaming through the hour would not have done much for my tolerance levels as I had gone to get away from all that. They did have a big commitment to children's work during the hour so those who did accompany their parents had their own version of worship.
Not sure what the solution is!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
What precisely is the "silly" part, hatless? The sentence in which I described your course of conduct as "sensible and generous"?
The silly part is where you compare a parent struggling with an unhappy child with someone behaving deliberately obnoxiously with a mobile phone. These are not alike in any useful way. Nor is a mobile phone much like a baby.
The point you persist in misunderstanding is that parents of small children, being often fraught, overtired, embarrassed and only clinging on to engagement with the rest of the world by their fingernails need the Christlike welcome of the Church, not to hear themselves likened to the worst and most selfish of antisocial boors.
(53 word sentence, a personal record for this month)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I think Presleyterian is equating "having children" with "choosing to have children", and implies this is a choice for the individual.
This may become too tangential for this thread but can I point out the following:
Firstly, which I have already said, you may not have children yourself, but you live in a society and more particularly a church community, which contains children. You will reap the benefit of those children when you are older (unless you want to be old and grey and have no doctors). You therefore have taken a choice to live in community with them now, unless as I say you can find some way round relying on the labour of younger people when you are retired. You aren't relying on it as directly as their parents, but you aren't called to care for them, or live in community with them, as directly as their parents.
Secondly, some people on this thread have equated having children with "a choice to conceive those children". A very large proportion* of children are not planned, but are wanted. Unless you are going to say that no-one who doesn't want children should ever have sex, then you need to be realistic about the rate of failure of contraceptives - high - and say this is "a choice not to terminate the pregnancy". Which is basically what it boils down to. You may be happy with abortion as a method of contraception; although I am not totally opposed to abortion, I am not happy with its use in this way.
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
*this link suggests that for one US state, 40% of births are unintended, and 53% of these are due to contraceptive failure
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't think your remarks are at all tangential, chukovsky. I would like to add that as well as conception and having children being something that happens to people, it is also something that we do. We reproduce, we raise the next generation, we educate and train, nurture and value our infants, children and youth.
I believe that thinking in terms of we rather than I is a habit we need to rediscover. That's why I was asking those questions about whose problem the crying child is.
Of course, there are many things we wish to do that cannot accommodate children's presence - like going to the theatre or running a marathon. The problem the Church has is that its main act of worship often includes activities that are not easily compatible with the presence of children. Everyone should be able to participate in the main act of worship, but it includes a sermon and quiet prayers that require a high order of behaviour. This tension is a problem, we all recognise that. The thing that seems crucial to me is that this problem must not just be dumped on the shoulders of parents. It is our problem.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky amused with:
quote:
You will reap the benefit of those children when you are older (unless you want to be old and grey and have no doctors).
Sharkshooter already said something like this in post #12, and it rang hollow then...
Then continued:
quote:
You therefore have taken a choice to live in community with them now, unless as I say you can find some way round relying on the labour of younger people when you are retired. You aren't relying on it as directly as their parents, but you aren't called to care for them, or live in community with them, as directly as their parents.
Secondly, some people on this thread have equated having children with "a choice to conceive those children". A very large proportion* of children are not planned, but are wanted. Unless you are going to say that no-one who doesn't want children should ever have sex, then you need to be realistic about the rate of failure of contraceptives - high - and say this is "a choice not to terminate the pregnancy". Which is basically what it boils down to. You may be happy with abortion as a method of contraception; although I am not totally opposed to abortion, I am not happy with its use in this way.
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
*this link suggests that for one US state, 40% of births are unintended, and 53% of these are due to contraceptive failure
Here Chukovsky, *holds out a handful of straws*, stop grasping. You were right to think it would become to tangential, and you forgot to mention pathetic. There is no "Big Lie" about contraception failure, and even the "unplanned but wanted" children are a foregone possibility for practically every/anyone who slips between the sheets.
And this:
quote:
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
is asinine and/or convoluted at best. I do agree with you re: abortion as contraception, but it's so far afield from the topic of this thread that I can only drop it at that.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Arrietty, thanks for your post.
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: parents of small children have my sympathy (most of them at least). I wonder how I could maintain what sanity I have during what I call the Baby Trip.
Frankly, this thread makes me even more hesitant about marriage. And I like kids! (after 2 or 3 yrs old at least )
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Markthe Punk said:
quote:
Arrietty, thanks for your post.
ditto.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...the student common room was often used as an unsupervised creche and playroom by some parents, who ... would send their offspring over to the common room, while they had a quiet two hours at home.
This is where a bit of creativity helps. If other people draft you into supervising their kids without your consent, then you have their consent in the same way to teach the children whatever anti-social mythology you can concoct on the spur of the moment. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
(Thanks to Scott Adams and Dilbert for the idea.)
Something relatively harmless yet distinctive, like "coffee is really boiled goat manure" or "smoking causes pregnancy" or "Freemasons rule the Universe"
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
There is no "Big Lie" about contraception failure, and even the "unplanned but wanted" children are a foregone possibility for practically every/anyone who slips between the sheets.
I totally agree. So I take it that those who think "having children is a choice, you took it on voluntarily" actually mean "having children is a natural result of having sex, when you decided to have sex you took on the possibility voluntarily". So I also take it they are not going to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, because they think having children around is A Bad Thing, for them at least.
I could of course be preaching to the converted, and those on this thread who feel childlessness is their only option are gay or celibate. In which case, good for them, because they are being consistent.
And precisely why does the idea that other people's children will look after you when you are old ring hollow? Who are you planning to have look after you when you are old, if not the child of your neighbour?
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Probably because you utterly fail to acknowledge the accommodations the childless make so that their parents can look after them. I'm the one who goes on business trips, I'm the one who stays late and comes in early, I'm the one who works on the weekends, and I'm the one who takes on the time-consuming projects. Why? I don't have children and all of my co workers do, and their parents need to be home to take care of them.
So they're not making a huge sacrifice when the bill comes due.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky:
It rings hollow b/c the thrust of the thread is on parental consideration, or lack thereof, and not the issue of the child, whether planned, uplanned, wanted, resented, easy, or difficult. My issue is not with the child and the fact that he/she may cry, but with their moms and dads who behave poorly (by disregarding the worship of others) in the face of it.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
OK then. Hell notwithstanding here's a serious question from someone who would like to get it right with loudly screaming youngsters and their parents. (I'm not talking about baptisms or one-off children's services where this is taken as de rigeur.)
If a child has just gone into a fit of hysterics, is clearly and loudly unhappy with their situation, but Mum and/or Dad remain rooted to the pew, is it right/wrong for a sidesman to discretely suggest that they might like to move to the creche area/family room to find something fun to entertain hysterical child.
Is it right/wrong to seek to alleviate the possible embarrassment of parents in this way, particularly if they are not aware of the facilities available and are staying in their seats because they don't know what else to do (is it right to move from one's seat after the starter's flag has gone up?).
Or should the sidesman/warden assume that the parent has made a completely calm and reasonable decision that this is the best place to be while their baby has its screaming fit, and steer well clear, in case s/he gives the impression that parent and child are not welcome?
Setting aside the nasty issue of the intolerant who give dirty looks to family folk (shame!), there are usually many folk in a congregation who would genuinelly like to reassure parents caught in the screaming baby situation, and help. So how do we know when it is right to help, and how to help best? Or if they should avoid offering assistance for fear of offending, or in case it isn't seen as assistance but interference?
From the above suggestions, I have to admit, even with the best intentions, I would be very confused about knowing how to help parents in this way. It's easy for special one-off services to point out before the beginning where all the facilities are and to tell people they should feel comfortable about getting up and going where they need to go, or to have a wander round at the back of the building or whatever; but it's not always preferable to preface every Sunday service with this.
Is it possible, in fact, that as individual parents, everyone has their own particular way of 'coping' and that regardless of the best efforts of congregations to include every kind of situation into their worship, we will always get it wrong, in somebody's sight? In other words, it would seem that the weight of responsibility for dealing with the 'problem' (and actually what a lovely problem to have, let's be honest!) really must lie with the legal guardian of the afflicted child; whether in responding to offers of 'help' from congregation members, or in taking the initiative themselves?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Anselmina, I think that a sidesman (if that's the right word - sidesperson??!) or some other church person of experience and capability should indeed offer help to the parent of a screaming child, for the sake of the parent, and of everyone else.
Someone who, like you, realises that this is a difficult situation, that hot-under-the-collar parents might take anything the wrong way, and that misunderstandings, like shit, just happen, is probably the best qualified of all to offer such help. In my opinion.
I would like to add, on a more optimistic note, that screaming children are pretty rare phenomena. Children are disruptive, and parents are forever trying to ameliorate their effect on worship, but it's usually mild stuff and the less starchy church can cope without noticing - most of the time. All anyone needs is a bit of slack. You know, those things Paul was so fond of: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness - all that stuff. I recommend it.
Incidentally, I recently saw a bit of footage of a baptismal service in a Russian Orthodox Church. There were lots of babies, brought forwards one by one, unwrapped, and handed to the priest who lifted them high in the air, then dunked them three times in the water. The soundtrack to the film was muted as there was a voice over, but I would think it was pretty noisy in there. And the priest looked so cheerful!
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The problem of announcing what child-friendly facilities there are every week can be partly relieved by writing it on the front of the notice sheet which is given to everyone as they enter church (assuming toddler hasn't immediately grabbed it and ripped it up!) Our sidesmen are also trained to welcome young families with information about the toy area and creche/Sunday School facilities.
Other approaches I have heard is the priest announcing (when it was obvious there were a lot of very young children present) 'please feel free to walk up and down or come in and out as you need' or even the cringe-making 'don't feel embarrassed if the baby makes a noise - it is their way of worshipping'!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beenster
Shipmate
# 242
|
Posted
To make this discussion a bit seasonal - maybe Herod had the right idea.
Or the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
That should sort the problem.
Posts: 1885 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I've just received the following pertinent / humourous e-card from the Church Times. (Guess others have too).
Church Times ecard
{URL was incorrect.}
[ 21. December 2002, 12:14: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
You beat me to it, Ptarmigan!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
[warning: pre-caffeine tangent]
quote:
I have to say that any husband of mine who refused to watch HIS OWN CHILD, the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS for an hour while I went to church would find his sorry...
For some reason, I keep thinking of fruit of the loom underwear/briefs when I read this.
[/warning: pre-caffeine tangent]
Now, I am going off to get some java...
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
A number of years ago at my church there was a lot of muttering from those not blessed with progeny about the bad behavior of some of the children in the congo. These were not babies or toddlers but in the nine, ten year old range.
One Sunday our priest, who normally preaches from the chancel steps, mounted the pulpit for her sermon. We always know somebody is going to "get it" when she preaches from the pulpit.
She started in about parents needing to control their children, and the non-reproduced among us started exchanging satisfied smiles. However she soon turned to our failings, smugness, and general uncharitableness.
After chastising both the breeders and the non-breeders she wound up by saying "And I want all of you to just GET A GRIP!"
I've never forgotten it, and since then have saved my icy stares for adults who chatter through the closing voluntary.
I've also never forgotten a then childless friend of mine saying "When I have children I'll never allow them to behave like that." She now has two young ones and I delight in reminding her of this comment. The flip side is, I'm the older one's godparent & have had to remove him from the service on more than one occasion when his mother was otherwise occupied in the choir. I hate that fixed, embarrassed smile I wear as we skulk down the aisle and out the door to the narthex.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501
|
Posted
quote:
A number of years ago at my church there was a lot of muttering from those not blessed with progeny about the bad behavior of some of the children in the congo.
visions of a long line of children, dancing through the church in single file "la la la la la la- la la la la la la
BK
Posts: 903 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bagpuss
Magical saggy cloth cat
# 2925
|
Posted
Not read all of the posts so apologies if I'm duplicating but
a) I got my kids baptised and take them to church because what's the point otherwise? I'm not a fan of let them decide their faith for themselves when they're older - how can they decide what they don't know about?
b) The biggest complainers about kids and babies in my experience are the old dears in the Mothers' Union (or should that be the great grandmas' union?)who talk all the way through communion but give you the evils if your child dares speak one wrod.
My response - a note very Christian one of **** off they are at a FAMILY service if they don't like it go to one of the 4 other services that are available that NO kids turn up to.
I was once serving on the altar and the aforemantioned members of the MU who knew my husband extremely well sat back moaning and watched my hubby juggle a 6 month old baby in one arm with a bottle he didn't want (I was feeding him myself) whilst trying to catch a rampant 2 year old who kept flying past him. The vicar was so p*d off with the situation he stopped the service and gave the OAPs a lecture. Hooray!
My new church on the contrary has a great crowd of oldies who are all super stars so it can be achieved!!!!!!
Posts: 473 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I understand that 'sleep-deprived parent/spouse of a non-cooperative non-Christian' types desperately need to be there.
I was the non-cooperative non-Christian for a while years. My husband hobbled faithfully off to services on crutches for months, with a hip-to-ankle cast after knee surgery, carrying Bibles and diaper bags and an infant and leading the toddler. No help from me.
His determination through that time was a factor in my becoming a Christian.
Also, I've felt and functioned like a single parent, when his work kept him away from many church assemblies for months at a time, later on with the next baby.
So, please believe my sympathy/empathy. Having said all that...
Any noise over a certain decibel-level needs to be hushed or removed or adapted for services. Cell phones and watch alarms turned off (oh, God, please make it so...)
The nursery needs to be made comforting and accomodating. It need not be soundproof or even totally enclosed. Ours has sound piped in, windows to the outside, and a half-door, so we can close the bottom and still be aware of the comings and goings in the front foyer.
The only noise problem we've not been faced with in my time there has been a handicapped person with really loud uncontrolled outbursts.
So far, all my handicapped brothers and sisters keep their uncontrolled outbursts quieter than the cell phones and babies.
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I understand that 'sleep-deprived parent/spouse of a non-cooperative non-Christian' types desperately need to be there.
Oh dear, when I'm sleep-deprived (though not in possession of a spouse cooperative or otherwise) I usually feel the last place I want to be is in church! I usually feel more desperately in need of my bed. Oh, Lord have mercy on me a sinner... and a damn lazy one at that! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
On a more serious note, it's been an education hearing parents' views on this thread - I know it's hell but 'hey, thanks for sharing guys!' ((((hugs))))
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Something very nice once happened at a church I belonged to at the time.
A woman with an eight-year-old autistic son started coming. After a few months she told the rector she thought she should stop coming because of the noises and motions her son made. (AFAIK no one had complained, but the mother was afraid her son's behavior was OTT.) The rector had another idea.
The next Sunday at announcement time he went to the pew where the boy was sitting, took him in his arms, and carried him to the front of the church.
He spoke to the congregation, "This is Mike. He is autistic. He makes odd noises and movements. He can't adjust to us, so we have to adjust to him." It was a very moving moment.
The mother stopped worrying about the situation and was free to participate in the service from then on.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
There's currently an essay on the home page here at Ship of Fools about wanting to ignore or deny all messiness in the world. Which I assume would include unhappy babies and clueless parents. Perhaps some of you would like to read it and think about it in terms of this thread. Others will not. Whatever.
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well, you know what they say about making assumptions...
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Of course, there are some members of the set who cannot stand to hear a baby cry who have a far more universal aversion to any 'noise' or other distractions during worship. I have been to churches here and there where it was obvious that, were someone to drop dead during a service, the only concern of some members of the congregation was that his falling over spoilt their concentration.
I mention this only because, while I do think it is wise to have somewhere for parents to take babies who are fretful or need to be changed (and so forth), parents of little ones must know that they are not alone. The people who object to a baby's crying are the same sorts who bluntly ask someone who coughs to leave (notice that they do not care about the other person)... as one example.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
This evening we had our Crib Service. Every family in town whose baby was christened at the church this year got an invitation, and last years' invitees returned, and the various babies in the congregation came, along with parents and grandparents, and the grandchildren of some of our older members. There were about eighty-five babies and toddlers in the church, not to mention the older children, and the adults. And--wonder of wonders--there was no screaming. One little lad (age 2) slammed the toybox lid in the kids' corner a few times, and then went for a walk up and down the aisles. My boss explained and lit the Advent wreath, and told the Christmas story , and the kids helped put the animals, the Holy Family, and the shepherds into the stable at the right moments. We sang three carols and prayed a couple of prayers. Various very cute things were done and said by the littlest ones. I can't explain why nobody screamed--we were prepared for all eventualities--but think it had something to do with a) the service being SHORT b) the parents being prepared to subsume their own worship to their childrens'. This is not generally possible on a Sunday morning, or at any service where the parents have themselves come to worship. c) the hour: babies had just been fed and changed, toddlers were filled with wonder at being out so late, and then amazed by the ancient, candlelit church. d) everyone feeling tolerant and relaxed.
These conditions cannot generally be reproduced at regular Sunday services.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
