quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
is it not the right thing to do?

---

• Financially subsidize public education and various social welfare programs benefiting children;
• Support financially and in other ways services for children whose parents aren't able to care for them properly;
• Behave graciously when I deal with youngsters personally;
• Work longer hours because my co-worker needs to slip out by 5:30 to pick the kid up at day care;
• Leave on a week-long business trip with three hours' notice because all hell broke lose in Parsippany, but X can't clean up the mess because he has children and therefore isn't expected to travel; and
• Do the work of two with no additional compensation because Y is on her third six-month maternity leave in five years.

• Kindly step out of the room if the screaming reaches banshee level in church, at the theater, or in another public place; and
• Remember that you knowingly and voluntarily chose to take on the very difficult job of raising a child, so don't expect me to shoulder your responsibilities for you or -- absent serious illness or other calamity -- reorder my life for your convenience or the convenience of your children.

Some brainiac at my church recently suggested that the people without kids take over the responsibility for running the nursery during church services. Yeah, when people with kids return the favor by coming over to my house to wash my car and do my laundry. I'm glad we have that all cleared up.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Presleyterian: you go, girl.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I'm glad we have that all cleared up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, how do you judge the parents as responsible or irresponsible? In a loving considerate manner, I hope?

---

By riding on the Clapham omnibus.
 

---

Posted by day_thomas (# 3630) on :
 
Im all for having kids in church, it's great and they can make it more fun
However, when they start constantly screaming, and putting people of worship, prayers, sermons etc then there is a conflict of interest.

The best churches i have found transmit the service into the creche through the sound system, meaning that the parent / friend who takes the child out does not miss out on anything.
We should not have a go at people whose kids make a noise, at least they are brining them along to church - would you rather they stayed at home??

quote:

---

I have a problem with people who will judge parents as irresponsible but fail to try to help out when it is obvious what they need is some help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I have a problem with people who will judge parents as irresponsible but fail to try to help out when it is obvious what they need is some help.

---

Well, thank you, and I don't think that view really deserves the good cuffing you seem to be getting. As someone who doesn't attend a church as I find it impossible to listen or take part in the worship with 2 pre-school children in tow, I would definitely appreciate some help (my spouse is not a Christian before anyone suggests it should be him). I think Ottawa might be a teensy bit too far for us to travel to come to your church though .
 

---

Posted by troy (# 2516) on :
 
Unless you REALLY knew the family well, I could imagine several parents being pretty nervous about handing over their child to someone who offered to take him/her because "Well, we are in church after all."

Just stepping in and offering to help is great when moving furniture.....handling a child though is a much more delicate emotional minefield.

Then again, I spend half of my time being paranoid, and the after half imagining how everyone else is as paranoid as I am.

-troy
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
ChristinaMarie & Presleyterian both said it better than I could.

As an overly doting Aunt of 4 kidlets, I expect everyone in the world to handle kids the way my brother & his wife do.

1. Restaurant-one kidlet acts up and does not behave? Out to the car with dad, mom or an aunt or uncle.
2. Church-screaming child taken out ASAP of church service
3. Parents want together time at fancy restaurant? One of us babysits 4 kids (only 3 people in there area who are willing to do this, my mom, other brother and me)
4. A kid acts up in mall/store? Threatened to leave or taken out to car.

I took my niece (8 year old) to a little girl's tea. She started making firing ranges out the little bears on top of drinking cups and getting another little girl involved. It was darn funny but I had to make her behave (this is a tea party for pete's sake) and she would not obey me...so I told her "if you do not stop this instant, I am taking you home RIGHT NOW!" she stopped! She knows I mean business since I do follow through.

When the kids were babies, they were just removed.

Another thing is at my church, we have a nursery and Sunday School made up of members of the church. We all rotate and get about one Sunday every month and a half. We get to pick the age too. We have a pretty small church but still this works out pretty good. If a baby will not calm down, someone discreetly goes into church and yanks away a parent.

I think singles' getting stuff piled on them since "you are single and have no life" blows. It is unfortunately a very ingrained prejudice. Unorganized managers who are lazy just don't want to find better ways to accomodate people's schedules. As an aunt and being sucked into a lot of activity with my brother's kids (since I am in love with the little guys even though half the time I want to tear my hair out), I still find it repelent when the world wants people to put up with their screaming child. Sometimes the child is so overtired, all he/she wants is to sleep and the dang parent refuses to put the kid down but keep him/her up, giving everyone in the place a migraine.

 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
If a baby is really acting up in church then surely it is more helpful to the parent to go up and offer some help than to just glare at them and hope they will go away. I've gone up to parents with screaming babies and it turned out that they were worried about feeding their babies in church and all it needed to get the noise levels down was an 'it's ok to feed them' or 'would you like me to go and warm up a bottle.'

There is a hard core in my church who resent any noise made by children and babies. You have to be pretty tough minded to take small children into some services. That's tough when you feel a need to be connected to God yet have to run the gauntlet of tutting and glaring from the congregation.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy:
If a baby is really acting up in church then surely it is more helpful to the parent to go up and offer some help than to just glare at them and hope they will go away.

---

And the parent can't get up off their butt and take the kid outside because...?
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
for that matter, the kids screaming cause it hungry, and the parent can't give it a bottle? talk about irresponsible parenting!
 

---

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
I don't often feel smug about my own church (though it's a very good church) but I do think we have worked this issue out pretty well.

Babies are welcome in the service and tiny babies usually stay in. But if people want they can be taken into the side vestry, which has the service piped through. There is also a creche except on family service days for older babies and toddlers and this is run on a rota basis. At a family service anything goes and the congregation expects and tolerates quite a bit of noise from the little ones. But at other times, it seems to be the case that if the babes start to make a noise, then they get taken out for a while.

As someone who has been through the experience of coping with a very difficult toddler in church in the past and is now starting out again with baby 2-ply, I actually agree with the "Take them out" camp. In theory at least. In practice, it can be very difficult to accept that this is the best thing to do when you are chronically tired and desparate for some worship and teaching. In my case, having a non church-going husband only adds to the stress here.

When you are in the middle of that phase of parenting, it can feel like you will never escape it. So while it might not be practical to physically help with someone's children during a service, people should at least offer sympathy, understanding (and some decent toys in the vestry )

BK
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ok, something else i don't understand, busyknitter, not singling you out, because other people have said similar... where only one parent is church going, why bring the baby at all? the other parent can keep the kid happy at home!
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
As a parent of a confirmed screamer (not hungry, not tired, not wet, "just colic") I know how hard it can be. We are presuming in this discussion there is an outside one can go to, for one thing - not just a freezing car park in the rain?

I am all for parents taking children outside if they're noisy. But sometimes you just can't. You have to be on the bus because you're picking up another child, for example. Or child one is reading a prayer and will cry his heart out if you're not watching...

And anyone who has not had a screamer has no idea how truly soul-destroying it can be, especially when those who look after nieces and nephews for the odd day tell you it's all in how you handle them. Yeah, right. Have one of your own, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week THEN come back and tell me that...
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Still don't see how having to take care of a screamer 24/7 exempts one from the common courtesy of removing a screaming child.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I'm not sure the answer to screaming babies in the congregation during worship is expecting the single/and/or childless people to deal with it, while the parents sit back and enjoy child-free bliss. So many Sunday schools I know are inundated by kiddies dropped off by parents who are very happy to utilize the free hour and a half baby-sitting service, with no reciprocal 'what can we do' for the church who provides it.

Though having said that I love babies and children and if I had the chance I'd be happy to spend my 'worship' time colouring in and chatting away to a three-year old, tucked away in a creche area, or the Sunday school room!

My initial response is guided by my college experience of where the student common room was often used as an unsupervised creche and playroom by some parents, who spotting a student taking a cup of java or a newspaper to have a quiet read would send their offspring over to the common room, while they had a quiet two hours at home.

Apart from the obvious Child Protection Act difficulties, this was probably a little unfair on the unsuspecting - and not always single - student who suddenly found themselves 'responsible' for someone else's children.

It's good that parents have a break from their kids (so my mother tells me!) but it probably needs to be well organized, beyond the 'let the single people cope with it' approach.

As a minister, I mind the noise that kids make in church much less than the congregation, generally. Even when I'm sermonizing or praying etc. And we're fortunate to have a big enough building for parents to go walkabout with noisy kids, without being too much of a distraction.

I do feel very sad when I see the disapproving scowls, and hear the tuts and complaints of some people towards parents and their babies. We are meant to be some kind of a family after all. But it does happen sometimes that some parents or guardians really don't know what they can and can't do once they're through the church doors, and the thought of moving to the back of church, or going to another room or outside is equally as embarrassing as sitting there while the storm rages. We need to make sure our provision for kiddies is
a) actually there in place and accessibly so and
b) we're just that little bit more friendly and accepting than we might otherwise choose to be if it were a perfect world!
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
for that matter, the kids screaming cause it hungry, and the parent can't give it a bottle? talk about irresponsible parenting!

---

quote:

---

ok, something else i don't understand, busyknitter, not singling you out, because other people have said similar... where only one parent is church going, why bring the baby at all? the other parent can keep the kid happy at home!

---

quote:

---

Babies cry. It is part of life in a society that includes children. If you are lucky enough that you don't have to deal with it in real life, spend your service thanking God for that fact. Get over yourselves. Worship is part of real life. It is not a concert!

---

Chukovsky

However, people have to display a degree of common courtesy and be sensitive to the occasion. Couldn't agree more with Duchess about weddings and other special services. The very worst experience that I had with my older son was when he was 18months old and we had moved to a new town. We turned up at our new church for the very first time not knowing anyone, to find that it was the dedication service for their new curate who had just been ordained deacon. I was so desperate to be part of the service (the previous 6 months had been very unsettling) but the little guy would have none of it. No choice but to take him out and i ended up in tears in the vestry

BK
ps note Wool Basket is in UK. Note also that this post is written at 03.15GMT. aah, the joys of sleep training!
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I do recall that when Moses came down with the commandments the babies all just hushed immediately in recognition of the importance of the occasion. Why can't modern children be more like that?

I recall an embarrassed mother feeling relieved after several of the dear Swedish ladies came up to her after service, saying "This was a dying church. We haven't had a baby crying in here for seventeen years."
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Actually, logician, those babies hushed because of the time-honoured Jewish custom of stuffing a wine-soaked gauze into their infant mooshesat important moments (like how else does the mohel do his dastardly work without anaesthesia?)

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
My sympathies to those with difficult babies and toddlers. That phase of childhood is one reason I'm thank God I'm single (even though for many years I desparately wanted to be married).

Nevertheless, I'm with Presleyterian, Erin, and others: having children does not give one the right to inflict them on others who came to church to worship, not to listen to crying babies and incessant noise makers. Crying babies and noisy toddlers should be taken out.

At the same time, there needs to be a nursery and/or a "crying room" with the service piped in. I'm glad to say my church has both. And I'm glad to say that from time to time the church bulletin makes it clear noisy children are to taken out of the service, a rule both well complied with and well accomodated.

There needs to be consideration both for people with small children and those without.
 

---

Posted by aig (# 429) on :
 
This could only be hell. I am astounded by the lack of understanding and support for those of us who had/have difficult children.
Having somewhere to go with them is good - I spent years arriving late to church, sitting in the creche with assorted droolers (and their children), taking communion and leaving. I kept going but it was a scarey and marginalising time. The worst experience of all was going to a special family service where my son started running around and screaming - there was nowhere to go and sit quietly so I could only take him home. Miserable and alienating.
Be more tolerant.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Aig wrote:

quote:

---

I am astounded by the lack of understanding and support for those of us who had/have difficult children.

---

In the immortal words of SuperChicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

My problem is that the tolerance only seems to go in one direction. When a child's screams fill the sanctuary -- and as Nicole pointed out, we're not talking about kids who talk quietly or snack or color or fidget around in the pew -- the thought process of the parent who refuses to step outside even for a moment goes something like this:

Yes, I know that my child's screams are breaking the concentration of 500 people trying to worship in the sanctuary, drowning out the words of a pastor who spent days crafting a sermon, and destroying the hard work of a choir that practiced for hours. But I've gotten used to it by now, don't feel like taking responsibility for the care of my colicky child, and can't to be bothered to step outside on the rare occasion when the kid gets out of control. So the rest of you can just go to hell because my personal worship experience is more important than yours.

So who's intolerant and unchristian?
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Actually, the thought process of a parent with a colicky child goes "Fire bad, tree pretty", to quote Buffy! One is incapable of rational thought after constant noise and sleep deprivation, as torturers the world over know!

I am absolutely with those who don't like crying children. Nor do I. If they are in restaurants, private services/occasions etc., they should be removed. If they are running around in supermarkets and shopping malls, they should be restrained.

They are, however, part of the body of Christ. So far as I recall, Christ himself reprimanded those who tried to stop children approaching him - 'The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these'.

I certainly stuck to 'child-friendly' services whilst mine were small. I still do now, to be honest, though they are well-behaved and sing in the choir. All I'm saying is: sometimes there is nothing you can do. You just have to be somewhere unsuitable, and the child is playing up. After all, the child holds all the aces - it doesn't care how much noise it makes, you do. It knows you daren't smack it in a public place, or half the child-haters will instantly turn into child-defenders and phone social services! Oh, and if you don't smack the child the other half will tell you it's all down to modern child rearing methods...!

There are some bloody stupid adults out there who invite you to weddings, funerals etc., get all offended when you say you can't come because you have a horrible, screamy child (who won't feed for anyone else) and then when you do bring it (at their insistance) glare at you the whole time!

There, that's done me the world of good - back to the season of goodwill.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

So once again: church is for the families. Single people can piss off.

---

Church is for EVERYONE. Including screaming babies, and their parents.

I am single and don't have kids. If or when I do, I really hope that I and they are not relegated to a "soundproof room"... I do some of my work in one and there are few things more claustrophobic and alienating than knowing no-one can hear you. How on earth is that being part of a service? I go to church to worship and participate, not listen. I might as well stay at home and listen to a tape if I'm not going to be allowed to participate.
 

---

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :
 
Time to add my tuppen'orth. I will start by stating my credentials (for anyone who doesn't know!) - I am the mother of a 1-year old. She attends church every Sunday (although not normally with me any more for totally unconnected reasons!), and although generally well-behaved, like all small children she can have her moments

My tolerance level for her noise varies according to which church we're in (i.e. whether it's the local church where she's a regular and people are used to her occasional bits of 'chatting', singing etc., or whether it's one that she doesn't often attend) and whereabouts in the service we are. Personally I try to keep her as silent as possible through the Eucharistic Prayer, Intercessions and Sermon, and reasonably quiet for the rest. However, the uncontrollable screaming referred to in the OP is always the cue to take her out. We're very fortunate though - that doesn't happen too often. Strangely, I don't find other babies crying too distracting, as long as I can still hear the service. Once it drowns out the service, then yes, I have a problem with it.

I suppose, IMHO the guideline should be - if the child is distrubing the rest of the congregation, it's time to leave. I know that can mean the parents have to leave the service, too, but it seems to me that it just is not fair on everyone else to stay. For all that it may be the parents' only chance in the week to attend a church service, it may be for other people in the congregation too.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

So once again: church is for the families. Single people can piss off.

---

Church is for EVERYONE. Including screaming babies, and their parents.

I am single and don't have kids. If or when I do, I really hope that I and they are not relegated to a "soundproof room"... I do some of my work in one and there are few things more claustrophobic and alienating than knowing no-one can hear you. How on earth is that being part of a service? I go to church to worship and participate, not listen. I might as well stay at home and listen to a tape if I'm not going to be allowed to participate.

---

quote:

---

I really hope that I and they are not relegated to a "soundproof room"... I do some of my work in one and there are few things more claustrophobic and alienating than knowing no-one can hear you. How on earth is that being part of a service? I go to church to worship and participate, not listen. I might as well stay at home and listen to a tape if I'm not going to be allowed to participate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Sheesh, I'm glad you people weren't my parents.

---

Erin, my angel, I don't think that many people on this board would want to take on THAT particular challenge!

Hugs,
AngRasc
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
This is Hell so my fathers attitude as a retired minister is

Well if the child is going to make that sort of noise I better preach a bit louder than usual.

Boy can those old time (i.e. trained before amplification was standard) preachers belt it if they have an excuse to. (Tangent, to cope with amplification they normally have had to adjust their standard preaching style otherwise it is too loud so it is just a case of returning to the familiar). This is all of course without shouting .

Nah in our church its the ones who decided to suck the fairy lights when they are on that are the problem. We have few enough as it is.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Nah in our church its the ones who decided to suck the fairy lights when they are on that are the problem. We have few enough as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
I go to church to worship and participate, not listen.

---

But how is that possible with a screaming child nearby?

Consider:
1. The child doesn't care: all on its mind is whatever is causing its present distress
2. The parent can't concentrate: through worry about the child or simply from the noise
3. Others in the vicinity can't concentrate owing to the distraction of the child

A lot depends on the location. I wouldn't cast screaming kids & their into the street. But there's nothing wrong in my view in setting aside a side room. Most parents in my church are too embarrassed to stay in the services in such circumstances anyway!

[Strike 1 ]

[ 18. December 2002, 12:49: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
It’s all academic, we are not (I hope in the business) of making anybody leave.

Though it does beg the question of what does your church do with other types of uncontrollable behavior, drunkenness, mental and physical disabilities?

There is no simple answer. We in our church employ the : Preaching louder: family service and Sunday Fun Club: room with piped service: toys at the back: very tolerant of most things, tactics BUT when we get the odd inconsolable screamer because ( I hope) we are trying to be deeply prayerful the parent often just takes them out. Often the church wardens go out to offer support.

It is the worst sound in the world. It has evolved to make everybody (especially the parent) very uncomfortable until the cause has been remedied.

It is not to much to ask that the greater good (after every reasonable precaution has been taken) be followed. And if the parent will not take the baby out then hey we have to turn the other cheek. Maybe in this one instance the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

P King of the UnHoly Compromise.
 

---

Posted by Qestia (# 717) on :
 
Well, this thread has opened my eyes. I really thought we had an OP everyone could agree with. Apparently not. I hope that it's just a misunderstanding, that Sharkshooter et al don't really think 200-decibel screamers should be allowed to disrupt worship of the entire congregation. But sheesh, if, as it appears, they really think it's okay, well, that certainly explains a lot.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, help out rather than complaining. But then, perhaps you already do. In that case, I take my hat off to you.

---

Sharkshooter: Actually, I have offered in the past to take a child out. Only once was it accepted. All other occasions have been met with looks of horror, incredulity, or offense. I do appreciate that those with colicy (sp?) children need a hand. However, after a point, I simply feel a child who won't or can't settle ought to be taken somewhere other than the primary worship space.

Riv.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
As moth and others have said, sometimes it's NOT possible to take the child out, either because there's nowhere to go, or because there are other circumstances such as another child needing the parent in the room.

I know some people go to church to listen, and for them being in a side room and able to hear the worship would be sufficient. I go to church to participate, and being in a side room and hearing what was going on would not be anything like church for me. You say you want to worship in quiet and reverence - well I want to worship in person, not listen to other people worshipping while not being present. I don't see why a parent of an inconsolable child should be able to participate any less than anyone else. Maybe they need more than you to be present.

If you take the child out, it may well still cry - I doubt any parent wishes the crying to be prolonged - they have probably tried everything. Occasionally just being held by another person - not a parent - will stop a child from crying, but generally the parents know what will and won't work and will have tried them all. So going out of the service will not stop the child from crying (unless it's the preaching that is making them cry? ). So basically you are just moving the problem.

The crying child is part of your church community, and part of your community in general. If you don't want children in your church, go to a different church. Most evening services, and some early morning services, are quite child-free - may I suggest you try them instead. If you don't want children in your community, you may have to try a different planet.

Actually, I have a better idea. How about a quiet, video-linked room for people who don't like noise? They could have the words of the sermon and the hymns as subtitles, then they wouldn't have to listen to anything at all, or acknowledge that their are children in the world?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, something else i don't understand, busyknitter, not singling you out, because other people have said similar... where only one parent is church going, why bring the baby at all? the other parent can keep the kid happy at home!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If your child is screaming uncontrollably, how on earth can you NOT take the kid out of the situation? God, that is not only rude as hell to everyone else, but cruel to the child, too. Obviously the child is unhappy/tired/ill/whatever, so your solution is to hell with it, I'm here and I'm staying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Church is for EVERYONE. Including screaming babies, and their parents.

I am single and don't have kids. If or when I do, I really hope that I and they are not relegated to a "soundproof room"... I do some of my work in one and there are few things more claustrophobic and alienating than knowing no-one can hear you. How on earth is that being part of a service? I go to church to worship and participate, not listen. I might as well stay at home and listen to a tape if I'm not going to be allowed to participate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I simply cannot imagine Christ sending someone away because their baby was crying.

---

quote:

---

You can do that as well in the church as out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So the attitude here, ken, is that "if I have to listen to the screaming brat cry, so does everyone else"? Could you possibly be ANY more self-centered and inconsiderate?

---

I don't think I've ever called a crying child as a "screaming brat". Or even thought it.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I notice you didn't deny the rest of it.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
Erin - I put up with you in my world, much as I'd like not to hear you scream you are part of the community. Sorry if you don't like the fact that babies are part of your community - but they are.

A church without babies is going to be a non-existent church pretty soon. Funny how the Shakers aren't very numerous, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I'm sure Erin was a delightful child.

There's some comments on "participating" in worship. Disrupting worship with a noisy child is a sorry way of participating in my view.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Chukovsky, having consideration and accomodation for both those with small children and those who don't want to listen to their outbursts during the service is a far far cry (no pun intended) from having "a church without babies."

You seem to feel it's o.k. to willfully inflict one's difficult children on those who simply want to worship in peace. Your arrogance to those in the latter catagory is breathtaking.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
Well, if you disrupt worship by wearing a loud jumper, singing off-key, mispronouncing names in the Bible, or having a seizure during the service, I promise not to complain about those either, if you feel that participating in the service is still what you want to do.

Not everyone, adults or children, behaves perfectly. We are still their brothers and sisters.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Erin - I put up with you in my world, much as I'd like not to hear you scream you are part of the community. Sorry if you don't like the fact that babies are part of your community - but they are.

A church without babies is going to be a non-existent church pretty soon. Funny how the Shakers aren't very numerous, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
<snip!>

Actually, I have a better idea. How about a quiet, video-linked room for people who don't like noise? They could have the words of the sermon and the hymns as subtitles, then they wouldn't have to listen to anything at all, or acknowledge that their are children in the world?

---

Funny you should say that...my church family rents from a synagogue. The elders asked the Jewish elders if we could build a sort of mobile for the pastor and staff, which they graciously allowed. In that very mobile, the breast-feeding mothers go and watch the service on the tv there. The pastor own wife has used this on more than one occasion.

So at my church, we have

a) mobile room with tv for viewing
b) nursery set up with rotating volunteers (including me)

STILL, we get some screamers. Fortunately, being a rather uptight church once in a while has advantages...people always seem to get up after awhile with screaming baby and take him/her out for awhile since you can feel the "your baby is being disruptive vibes".

As much as I love these babies and their parents, their is simply no excuse for dragging an over-tired/sick/colicky baby into church. The baby needs more attention too and the parent is refusing to acknowledge that when they ignore the cries of a baby crying out.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
I'm not talking exclusion of those with children. I'm not talking about minor disturbances, or even calm-one-minute/upset-one-minute (child) cycles. I'm not endorsing nasty looks toward struggling parents, and would just as soon confront a parishoner who would send them as one who'd walk over and knock a parent upside the head. I'm not talking about drunks, the mentally ill, or disabled, or gum-chewers, or nose-pickers, or off-key singers (though I'm tempted to start a thread on that one; it may not be what you'd expect). I think churches have an obligation to accommodate children and their families in terms of facilities. I think that worship services do not exist in a vacuum, and that inclusion is a principle of all Christian bodies. I think more church men (in Ken's example) should spend time in nurseries and 'crying rooms.' And, when whimpering turns to crying turns to wailing turns to screaming, I think parents ought to recognize the sanctity of worship and even temporarily remove their troubled child for whatever reason, be it hunger, fatigue, filth in the diaper, tummy trouble, etc.

Sharkshooter: Your kid(s) may well become the nurses, doctors, police officers, government workers, piano player(s), and/or clergymen who impact our lives for the better/longer because of their respect/love for the health, safety, freedom, enjoyment, and souls of the rest of us. And if they should in turn have children of their own who are crying/screaming uncontrollably during a worship service, I hope that in the spirit of that same respect/love they'll remove them until they're settled down.

Ken said:

quote:

---

Do you send the parents of a crying child out of their home?

---

s - t - r - e - t - c - h.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
I forgot.

Presleyterian, thanks for your post.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
So, the Riv, what would you endorse where the parent is at church on their own, and there is nowhere else to take the child, or some other reason why the parent cannot take the child out?

And why is is worse to have a disruptive child than a disruptive adult? An adult who is having a loud seizure is no more or less in control of their disruptiveness than a parent who has tried everything is necessarily in control of their offspring.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Explain this "nowhere else to take the child" thing. Are they being held at gunpoint?
 

---

Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on :
 
Of course, the best answer is found in a pentecostal church. There, you can stand imposingly over the mother, and declare in a loud voice "This child has a demon in it." Then attempt to perform an exorcism. I guarentee the mother will remove the child from the room very quickly.



Paul
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Personally, I have never remained in a church service of any kind while my children cried, no matter how loudly.

We rarely attended church for 4 years because both of our kids were, for a time, rather difficult. Not once did anyone call, or come visit to find out what was wrong, or why we did not attend any more. It was the worst 4 years of my life. No church. No friends. No community.

However, I will support those parents who remain in church even with a crying child. If it is too disturbing for you, pray for strength for the parents, that they can deal with the kids, the crying, and the unkind looks they inevitably get. Pray for the kids, something is obviously bothering them. Pray for yourself, and everybody else who has to listen to it. But, do not turn them away. Worship can take many forms. If you cannot hear the sermon, there are alternatives.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Explain this "nowhere else to take the child" thing. Are they being held at gunpoint?

---

See Moth's posts - not all churches consist of more than one room. The choice, as she says, can be "church with intermittently crying child" or "no church (or about five minutes of church per week) for a year".

The choice might also temporarily be "leave church with all offspring including the one that's supposed to be in the nativity play" or "church with crying child", whereas on other occasions it may be "no church alternate weeks because child cries five minutes into service alternate weeks".

The latter may be supportable, even over the course of a year, but the former choice might just have to come out as "church with crying child so other offspring can be in nativity play".
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Very good advice, Paul.

As for adults with loud seizures , I've never seen that in church. If it's a medical emergency, then goodness, get a docter to the poor guy. Who cares about quiet then. If it's something else and he or she can walk, certainly he can go out until it's over. Heck, I've done that before if my allergies or coughs are too much for me to keep quiet.

The arguments in favor of making a worship service a wailing romper room are getting rather flimsy, are they not?

In any case, I can't think of any adult worship service behavior more distracting than a screaming child -- except perhaps an adult who doesn't have enough sense to remove a screaming child.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
There really is a difference, you know, between normal children's behavior -- which no one here has objected to -- and screaming like a Banshee. I don't care how much you would like to participate -- if your child is screeching at the top of his/her lungs, you cannot participate in anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So once again: church is for the families. Single people can piss off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
So, the Riv, what would you endorse where the parent is at church on their own, and there is nowhere else to take the child, or some other reason why the parent cannot take the child out?

And why is is worse to have a disruptive child than a disruptive adult? An adult who is having a loud seizure is no more or less in control of their disruptiveness than a parent who has tried everything is necessarily in control of their offspring.

---

quote:

---

The trouble is that what one person considers acceptable behaviour another will tut at, and what one considers an unhappy child, but maybe it'll calm down in a minute or two, another will describe as a brat screaming like a banshee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:

But, it's not unrealistic to assert that after a couple of minutes of incessant bawling that a parent ought to excuse him/herself w/kid in tow. We could go on splitting hairs all day re: one person's party as another's purgatory. C'mon, two or three minutes of nonstop crying is enough for anyone, including the child.

---

quote:

---

a couple of minutes of incessant bawling

---

If a couple of minutes is incessant in your book, and if I as a parent hear you express this view I will be put off bringing my child anywhere near you. I will think you have a very low tolerance and I will expect your disapproval as soon as my child becomes audible.

In order for people with children to feel welcome, they need to be told that their child and the noise it may make is our problem, everyone's problem. The welcome must be inclusive of parent and child and the practical problem of a child in a place of worship.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Presleyterian:

hatless said:

quote:

---

If a couple of minutes is incessant in your book, and if I as a parent hear you express this view I will be put off bringing my child anywhere near you. I will think you have a very low tolerance and I will expect your disapproval as soon as my child becomes audible.

---

You make the mistake of anticipating some kind of wrath from the likes of me. I'm already on record for 1. Offering assistance in said situations, and 2. Disapproving of meanness of any kind toward parents in this particular bind. I don't disapprove of children crying. But two to three minutes is enough, IMHO. I used incessant b/c as a parent, I can usually tell when it's going to take a bit for my kid to cry it out. Sometimes kids cry harder b/c THEY'RE CRYING. Change to relentless if it helps you understand. No visible disapproval from me, but internal aggravation? Yes, and it will certainly remain non esspressivo. If I reach out to offer help, it will be (are you listening Sharkshooter?) in love, friendliness, and consideration of the child, parent, and congregation.

If you need a sitter for Friday I may be available...

Oh yeah, Presleyterian?

And just to cover my bases, hey Erin? Uh, wait, this is Hell:
 

---

Posted by Qestia (# 717) on :
 
I hate to be childish, but

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WHAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAWHAAAAAAAAAAA WAWAWAWAWA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely we agree that this is annoying and disruptive, and if, as an adult, I have some power to stop it or stop it from happening in the context of this thread, where it will detract in a meaningless way from the discussion at hand, I should do so.

And for those who have suggested praying for strength and tolerance when people who have the power to do something about whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa don't, believe me, I beat you to it.

[You broke the scroll lock with your screaming. Get out. Now.]

[ 18. December 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Fair enough, Riv. And Qestia,

I still say, though, that we haven't become properly inclusive of people until we have 'adopted' their limitations and sensitivities as our own. Crying babies are a problem, but whose problem? Who should find the solution?
 

---

Posted by Nell (# 3380) on :
 
Hmm - lots of interesting views on this thread. Perhaps some of you can help me sort out my confused feelings re kiddies in my church. Screaming babies seem to bug me less than toddlers and young children.
In our services we usually send the kids of all ages out for most of the service, to their various fun activity groups. They are allowed back in for the last 10-15 mins.Such a short time, and yet I do get profoundly distracted and irritated by a few 'antics'
e.g
running up and down the aisles
crawling under the chairs
giggling
playing with noisy toys
fighting with each other
(older kids) texting each other on mobiles

Now what I don't understand in why, with all this going on, there are still quite a few kids who are able to sit quietly with their parents for 10 minutes! Is this really so long to sit quietly??? Knowing the problems I have with some teenagers at school sitting in seats for an hour, I wonder if children need to be trained from a young age to do this.

So - am I an unreasonable grumpy young fogey, or is it just that I can't get out of 'teacher mode'. I do seem to have developed an irrational dislike of baseball caps worn in church , (in spite of my own determination as a teen to wear what I liked to church!)

The scary thing is that I'm thinking of having kids myself soon - am I too intolerant?! I'm worried about becoming one of the 'my child will be well behaved' brigade, and then having to eat my words!
 

---

Posted by seadog (# 2931) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
nicolemrw, you ask why busyknitter's non-churchgoing partner cannot babysit. It may be that he WILL NOT oblige for church. Seadog has made a similar comment in an earlier post and in my past experince the atheistical Sponsa Amabilis flatly refused to mind an unweaned, untoilet-trained infant while I went off to what he descibed as "your Popish fripperies".

---

Thank you Multipara for making this point and thereby preventing me from starting a long, ranting post of my own. Suffice to say you lot on the ship are the closest I get to a church, and I know that if half of you could hear my kids I wouldn't be welcome here either. Bummer .
 

---

Posted by Hull Hound (# 2140) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nell:
Now what I don't understand in why, with all this going on, there are still quite a few kids who are able to sit quietly with their parents for 10 minutes!

---

quote:

---

Crying babies are a problem, but whose problem? Who should find the solution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seadog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
nicolemrw, you ask why busyknitter's non-churchgoing partner cannot babysit. It may be that he WILL NOT oblige for church. Seadog has made a similar comment in an earlier post and in my past experince the atheistical Sponsa Amabilis flatly refused to mind an unweaned, untoilet-trained infant while I went off to what he descibed as "your Popish fripperies".

---

Thank you Multipara for making this point and thereby preventing me from starting a long, ranting post of my own. Suffice to say you lot on the ship are the closest I get to a church, and I know that if half of you could hear my kids I wouldn't be welcome here either. Bummer .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I'm not even talking about foyers or halls. I'm talking about inside/outside. I have never been in a church where there was no door to the exterior of the building, where parents with their screaming kids were trapped inside it against their will. If your child is shrieking, get up off your butt and take the kid outside.

It's not rocket science, for fuck's sake. I mean, I'm one of the clueless ones who doesn't have a kid and even I could figure that one out. It's kinda frightening that those of you who haven't are actually raising children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:

And hatless, re your question:

quote:

---

Crying babies are a problem, but whose problem? Who should find the solution?

---

Isn't the logical choice the person responsible for the crying baby?

---

quote:

---

Consider, though, whose problem it is, and who might try to find a solution, if there are people who want to come to your church who are deaf, or hearing-impaired. What about people who cannot climb all those stone steps up to the front door? Or what about someone who uses a wheelchair and can't sit in one of the wooden pews which are the only form of seating and occupy all the suitable space? Or the person with failing eyesight who can't read the screen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Consider, though, whose problem it is, and who might try to find a solution, if there are people who want to come to your church who are deaf, or hearing-impaired. What about people who cannot climb all those stone steps up to the front door? Or what about someone who uses a wheelchair and can't sit in one of the wooden pews which are the only form of seating and occupy all the suitable space? Or the person with failing eyesight who can't read the screen?

---

And in what universe does this have anything to do with the discussion of screaming children in church?

[ 19. December 2002, 02:10: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
and how do blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound people disrupt the service for anyone else anyway?
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Rogue,

May God bless you and your kids.

(He already has blessed your kids by giving them a parent with sacrificial love and some common sense to boot.)
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Well there you go, Erin.

In fairness to seadog I should add that babies do grow up and turn into heathens then one can start enjoying unaccompanied church again.

I should also add that I quite enjoyed stirring up dear old Sponsa by marching off to Mass with one, two and finally three of the little blighters in tow-in the end he was worn down by my recalcitrant papistry, saw the funny side of it and stopped whingeing.

tangent- BTW in my book there are only 2 grounds for booting the old man onto the street and they are physical cruelty and public adultery. Otherwise it's for better or for worse-end of tangent. Horses for courses, say I.

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 

quote:

---

public adultery

---

He's got to do it in the street ?
That's setting the bar pretty bloody high isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 


oh shit I needed that laugh
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If someone has made a special effort to make things easier, then yes, I'm greatly appreciative. But I don't go in with the attitude of entitlement.

---

quote:

---

Erin asked:
And in what universe does this have anything to do with the discussion of screaming children in church?

---

quote:

---

and nicole asked:
and how do blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound people disrupt the service for anyone else anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I took my daughter to church, on my own, from the age of 1 week old, because that's where I wanted her to be. Church is the place for small children, just as it is the place for all of us.

---

You had a daughter when you were one week old?!!

Me x
 

---

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :
 
To go back to the issue of 'what if there's nowhere to go'... It's not all that uncommon for old C of E churches to have no extra rooms etc - none of the 4 churches in our 3 parishes, and in fact 9 of the other 10 churches in the team have no other rooms to go to. Even the vestry is no help, as in our churches it's not a 'proper' room, but a side area curtained off. There really is nowhere else indoors to go. So we take B outside. It really is that simple. If the weather's really foul, I try to lurk in the porch, but heck, if she's screaming that loud, then yes, I have ended up walking her around outside in the cold & rain in order not to disturb everyone else more than necessary.
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beethoven:
To go back to the issue of 'what if there's nowhere to go'... It's not all that uncommon for old C of E churches to have no extra rooms etc - none of the 4 churches in our 3 parishes, and in fact 9 of the other 10 churches in the team have no other rooms to go to. Even the vestry is no help, as in our churches it's not a 'proper' room, but a side area curtained off. There really is nowhere else indoors to go. So we take B outside. It really is that simple. If the weather's really foul, I try to lurk in the porch, but heck, if she's screaming that loud, then yes, I have ended up walking her around outside in the cold & rain in order not to disturb everyone else more than necessary.

---

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!) 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? ) 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...
 

---

Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Chukovsky said:

quote:

---

One thing that a lot of the "take them away, take them far away" advocates...

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
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.

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?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

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?

---

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!

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

 

---

Posted by Hull Hound (# 2140) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

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.

---

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...).
 

---

Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

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...).

---

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
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.

---

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"?

---

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).

---

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

---

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.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
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 )
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Markthe Punk said:

quote:

---

Arrietty, thanks for your post.

---

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.
(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"
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 

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?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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'!
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 

quote:

---

the cringe-making 'don't feel embarrassed if the baby makes a noise - it is their way of worshipping'!

---

I, too, am cringing at that line.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
You beat me to it, Ptarmigan!
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
[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...

---

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
 

---

Posted by Bagpuss (# 2925) on :
 
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!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

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!

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))))
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well, you know what they say about making assumptions...
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
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.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0