quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Any time you like! Holy Trinity Leicester. Come with a skinhead haircut and stub your rollie out as you come in. Because if you come as a nice middle-class spy, you won't notice anything.

---

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that Mystery Worship!
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Come with a skinhead haircut and stub your rollie out as you come in. Because if you come as a nice middle-class spy, you won't notice anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WhateverTheySay:
I recently decided to leave a church where the others are too social and don't allow me to sit quietly and pray before the service. They were always more interested in knowing how my week was or talking about the weather. I know they are only trying to be nice, but I really hate it so I decided my best option was to leave and find another church.

I would also be excluded from any church that does not offer an evening service, as getting to a Sunday morning service is pretty much impossible for me. Not only am I a night owl, but the buses don't start running until much later and by time the first bus has arrived I would have missed part of the service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm colourblind. Therefore I think all liturgical churches exclude me; they are institutionally insensitive to my needs and entirely irrelevant to my way of worshipping because of all the different colours for the seasons - I can't tell if its Lent or Christmas.

They need to stop using colours so I can worship properly and feel welcome....

...either that or I have to get over myself and remind myself that I can be too sensitive and see offence and exclusion where there is none. And also remind myself that worship is not about me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
This is my congregation's welcoming statement

At Trinity Lutheran Church we are:

Called: People of every nationality, language, education, ability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, marital status and income.

Gathered: To worship, learn, and nurture.

Sent: All people, servants together, out into the world as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

As your heart beats within you, you are welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm colourblind. Therefore I think all liturgical churches exclude me; they are institutionally insensitive to my needs and entirely irrelevant to my way of worshipping because of all the different colours for the seasons - I can't tell if its Lent or Christmas.

They need to stop using colours so I can worship properly and feel welcome....

...either that or I have to get over myself and remind myself that I can be too sensitive and see offence and exclusion where there is none. And also remind myself that worship is not about me.

---

I don't agree.

If you were in my class I would make reasonable adjustments for your colourblindness. I would make sure other teachers and TAs understood that your whacky colouring-in of maps wasn't due to you not listening. I would use pattern instead of colour to help you. I'd check if you could see the board and that I wasn't using combinations which blend into each other for you.

The same with childen/adults on tha ASD spectrum - many things can be done (and are in some Churches) to improve accessibility for them.

Why can't we accommodate individuals in corporate activities? It takes sensitivity to the possible problems people may have - and some effort of course.

---

First of all, although I am colour blind - I've never yet passed any of those dot test things in circles - I was being a little facetious and was suggesting that sometimes the 'minority' can be just a little precious about it's 'special needs'. To expect that the majority must bend over backwards to change everything just to suit them is neither realistic nor respectful of the needs of the majority.
we're not talking about ramps for wheelchairs or the provision of signing or perhaps using an inclusive language Bible here, of course; we're saying 'don't have a picture of a married couple in your brochure because it'll upset a single, don't have a picture of a young man because it'll upset the old women, don't have a picture of a child because it'll upset a childless couple, and don't have mixed-sex people in your picture wearing wedding rings because it'll upset a gay couple who can't have a marriage ceremony!

This is just nonsense - hence the stuff about colour blindness.

And to address your 'serious' solution to colour blindness in a classroom (why have we shifted the venue?), that's fine. Making allowances on a personal level for the colour blind person to get the colours wrong in a map is one thing, but changing everything so the rest of the children can't use regular colours for the maps is totally unrealistic. In churches therefore, what do you suggest for colour blind worshippers in the seasons?
Polka dot patterns for lent, tartan for Christmas and black and white stripes for Advent?

If the season of Pentecost demands red altar coverings and vestments, then fine, the colour blind person will just have to get used to it - it will hardly stop him from praying to God now, will it!? Just tell him it's red and announce the next hymn!

It all smacks of overreaction and pandering to rather spineless thinking that makes people demand that the world and the church owes them a living and should change everything just for them.

In important disability access issues - which are governed by law - that's fine and should be applauded and supported where reasonable; but to avoid offending aquaphobics and non-swimmers by never reading the stilling of the storm or Peter walking on the water is going too far!
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
I think that we all have our own biases, largely unconscious ones.

One fairly lower-middle class/upper-working class I know contained many highly educated people, in fact it contained many teachers. If a woman or man in smartish dress came in, especially if they came with children they'd get attention.

Once during choir practice a man came into the church, acting socially awkward and showing, well, less intelligence than the first example. The lads in the choir turned and stared at him, and he was given the cold shoulder by the older ones.

A Quaker Meeting I attended was pretty welcoming to young women, or women with children. Men got less attention (by which I mean, people going up to them to talk to them after Meeting).

In the NGO world I know most workers and volunteers are female, and therefore most promotional materials made show women, thus, in my view, strengthening the view that such work is for women.

In each case I believe that people were identifying with people like them, and wanted to make the place welcoming to people like them, in order to meet some need about welcoming themselves. They want to feel welcome themselves, and therefore welcome people similar to them.

While the cathedral I worked in contained plenty people who wore suits/best frocks to the services, and that includes the sidespeople, I honestly believe that people were generally welcoming to most people, including homeless people.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I said faced, I do not mean necessarily faced well but these are the cases that have brought home to me the real cost of being a genuinely welcoming congregation. The failures as much as anything are what prompted this blog post.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
In our church a paedophile would only be allowed to worship if the social worker referred him to us, if we agreed to have him, if he agreed to sign an undertaking, if he agreed to sit in a certain place with an assigned escort and never to go alone to any part of the building and certainly nowhere near the children.

If he didn't agree to this he would not be welcome in the church.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
This is ALL good stuff. Chorister it would be CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT not to be open about this.

We had a brilliantly chaotic Friday night Triangle session. We've been out of the way, across the road in a rented building and our easily 80 patrons are out of sight and mind of the mainstream. But we had a fire. So we moved all the guys in to the church, sealed the doors further in to where the kids were: Friday night youth stuff.

This caused multiple outrage and offense, for which I'm glad, as surreptitious drinking and dope smoking was going on outside. Heyyyyyy, welcome to the world. Not that ANY child was exposed to such a subversive sight. One dad was outraged to be interrogated by us for trying an inner door, that we should DARE to assume he was a homeless mentally ill addict ... and try to protect his kid ... you've got to laff.

We will still be criticized, judged and condemned as irresponsible do-gooders I'm sure. Ah! Blessed are the persecuted.

We got it wrong with an Asperger's woman too, I was told to clear the building by the boss (me missus) and our muscle helped in that. She didn't like that. Him. Sorry. Tough. We'll get it better. I was ever-so apologetic. Outside. Get ALL the muscle you can. EVERYONE feels more secure that way. ESPECIALLY the BPDs.

One guy was busted 50 yards down the street by six cops in two unmarked cars. Taken away in a paddy wagon. He's a sweet guy. Loves us. Loves to be unconditionally welcomed in our sanctuary. We'll be there when he comes out. Thank GOD for the police! Even though a couple of them were well up for it, especially when he started kicking the cage door ... I shook hands all round.

A couple of the helpers - INCLUDING the muscle! - were horrified at the police ... I'll be having words about the social ecology.

One 21 year old was sobbing because his 16 year old girlfriend had been banged up for 24 hours in police cells for stealing two Snickers bars. Of course it seems excessive, but like EVERYTHING to do with those we will always have with us, it's the tip of the iceberg.

The Kingdom HAS come.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
OK, hypothetical situation (cough): if you have welcomed in someone on the sex offenders register and put in place an agreement along the lines described by Mudfrog, how do you deal with confidentiality?

So if the sex offender then breaks the agreement and makes contact with young families and children, and is unwilling to comply with the terms of the agreement, how do you then deal with them, bearing in mind that everyone who knows is bound by confidentiality?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Confidentiality can never be absolute. If a child is at risk then the safety of the child comes above confidentiality.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What Boogie says. 110% And I'd NEVER consent in the first place.

[ 24. June 2012, 12:36: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary LA:
I live in a small South African farming village with large informal settlements all around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
At Trinity Lutheran Church we are:

Called: People of every nationality, language, education, ability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, marital status and income.

Gathered: To worship, learn, and nurture.

Sent: All people, servants together, out into the world as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

As your heart beats within you, you are welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
OK, hypothetical situation (cough): if you have welcomed in someone on the sex offenders register and put in place an agreement along the lines described by Mudfrog, how do you deal with confidentiality?

So if the sex offender then breaks the agreement and makes contact with young families and children, and is unwilling to comply with the terms of the agreement, how do you then deal with them, bearing in mind that everyone who knows is bound by confidentiality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
It's a hard line to draw, trying to be welcoming ot all while trying to keep people safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


I mentioned deaf people at coffee today and a man looked thoughtful, he said we need a list of what churches in the area have signing at their services so if a deaf person comes we can tell them where they might be better able to participate.

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
And actually the percentage of deaf people who use sign language is really quite small.

Many people who go deaf later life will instead need a decent loop system for their hearing aid, or to be able to lip read any speakers. This will have implications for lighting and positions of readers etc if a church is to be inclusive. So to assume that any deaf person needs directing to a church with sign language is not welcoming either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...

In USA how does a homeless person get a social worker, or is that a UK thing? I have a homeless friend (1000 miles away), gets pretty much rejected by churches she walks into asking for help. A social worker who could vouch "she's OK, just one of those decent people who lost it all in bankruptcy" could be a huge help! If any homeless person can get a social worker that would help churches be able to adopt one or two at a time without undue risk.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sex offenders register does not necessarily mean actual paedophilia, there are a range of other offences that would place someone on the register.

Knowledge does not necessarily mean in a position to enforce anything either.

---

And in some cases, the law has been expanded to the point where it loses its meaning. There have been cases in the U.S. where people have been convicted and put on the Sex Offender Registry for life for sending sexually explicit Instant Messages or texts to a single underage kid who, it was acknowledged by the court, misrepresented their age. Other times it may be a case of 18 year guy caught having consensual sex with a 15 year old high school girlfriend and convicted of statutory rape. Both cases of bad judgment yes, but not much of a threat to society. I'm all for protecting kids from true paedophiles but think Sex Offender Registries are unconstitutional and a perversion of the concept of serving time.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Re Belle Ringer's question about social workers: Rules about social services vary from state to state, but generally speaking if you apply for social services you get assigned an agency social worker who follows the case and supposedly coordinates services. Which doesn't necessarily mean a lot of assistance, since these public employees are notoriously overworked and underpaid (some of us suspect by design, by politicians who underfund social services, then turn around and say, "See? The 'welfare state' doesn't work!" and then try to defund/privatize the entire program). Oftentimes clients won't receive help in a specific area unless they specifically ask for it -- in other words, they have to know how to work the system -- which is often a lot to expect of someone reeling from a sudden, unforeseen life reversal, or someone who is cognitively impaired for one reason or another. (This is also true of people who try to advocate on the behalf of a needy person. When I was trying to get Medicaid for a disabled elderly relative, I found that I never got unsolicited, proactive information from her social worker; I always had to ask the right question, or ask a question the right way, to learn anything useful. It was like the bridge scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, without anything funny about it.

If the individual in question has another life issue other than poverty -- if s/he's an elder or handicapped, for instance -- then s/he might get more individualized care and attention from social workers in agencies that deal primarily with that issue.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I think one perennial inclusivity issue, at least in our church, is meeting young parents' needs while also accomodating the rest of the congregation. At our church the emphasis is often tipped in the young parents' direction (simple wham-bam worship that keeps the kiddos from being bored; group-participation-with-hand-motions kid camp songs every single Sunday). I know I'm going to hell for saying anything negative about children participating in church; but there are some Sundays when I have been so sorrowful or anxious about major issues in my or my partner's or our children's lives...I wanted to experience reflective, thoughtful worship that addressed the concerns of those of us in the middle part of life, and instead I was being asked to clap and gyrate to some silly ditty...one Sunday I found myself in tears, and they were tears of frustration.
 

---

Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on :
 
Our parish has an inclusive policy - all are welcome - and I think that we do a pretty good job of it, not perfect, but pretty good. We do have a wide cross-section of people in our congregation. I came from a parish that I left because along with my family, I was made to feel completely unwelcome, I'm in a good position to say they do it well (although there was a parishioner that said to me once that we needed more "PLU" in a certain fellowship group. I questioned what "PLU" was? It meant "People Like Us". I resisted the urge to smack said parishioner in the gob.)

There are some folk that will feel unwelcome because of the type of parish we are, and what we do, that shouldn't really be seen as unwelcoming - just that you can't be all things to all people. It will be seen by some as unwelcoming, but it really isn't.

The sex offender issue is a tricky one. Our diocese has clear and strict guidelines for these situations, basically the parish has to set the rules of engagement in writing, and once the conditions are accepted the offender is welcome to attend church. The parish needs to regularly review and monitor the situation, it cannot be completely confidential, but is handled with discretion on a need-to-know basis to avoid a parish lynch mob. Any deviation from the agreement on the part of the offender can lead to reporting to police, parole officer etc. Some parishes hound these people out, which is a nasty way to handle it as you are effectively telling the offender that they are beyond redemption (or at least, "this parish is not interested in trying to help you find redemption"), and in a more practical sense it just pushes the problem on to another parish.
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
Our bulletin says much as was quoted earlier up the thread, welcoming all.
We seek to share God's unconditional love and acceptance of all people, regardless of age, gender, race, marital or family status, sexual orientation, disability or wealth.

I think we do a reasonable job of this although I'm sure there's always room for improvement. We are an inner city parish, run along fairly similar churchmanship to Cryptic's church which is based in the city. We are in a very mixed parish where there is a very high number who class themselves as artist, according to census returns. Lots of greens, anarchist, goths and fairly left side of politics. And lots of young couples moving up the social ladder as well as families with young children. It's an older area of Sydney with old houses that once were rented cheaply, but no longer. There is also a large number of people with mental illnesses who once would have been cared for but are now in group houses or similar. I've seen people sleeping in our grounds even in winter and there are often such people at the services, particularly midweek Eucharist. Some will come to that, won't come in but welcome a cup of tea and snack. All such are welcomed at the Eucharist and if they ask for prayer at the end, receive prayer treating them and their request with dignity and compassion and the prayer is fresh each week, no matter how many times the request may have been made.

One of the dirtiest, smelliest men I've seen for a while elegantly kissed my hand during the Peace last Christmas Day, although I haven't seen him around since then. We ran for some time a programme offering meals, a place to meet, legal and medical aid, help with housing etc. Unfortunately this no longer operates.

I've had pedophiles in my home at meals and studies in the past. This is undoubtedly one of the hardest areas to show inclusion but I think Cryptic has described it fairly well. I've also regularly had AIDS sufferers at home for meals, especially lunch on Sundays. That was awkward too in terms of who knew what, as some were against it. That was when I attended another church some time ago.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think one perennial inclusivity issue, at least in our church, is meeting young parents' needs while also accomodating the rest of the congregation...I know I'm going to hell for saying anything negative about children participating in church; but there are some Sundays when ...I wanted to experience reflective, thoughtful worship that addressed the concerns of those of us in the middle part of life, and instead I was being asked to clap and gyrate to some silly ditty...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Years ago my family once attended a church in a rich neighbourhood near Boston where the sidesmen would quietly say to some people, 'We think you might feel more comfortable worshipping elsewhere.'

---

Jesus. Christ.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Years ago my family once attended a church in a rich neighbourhood near Boston where the sidesmen would quietly say to some people, 'We think you might feel more comfortable worshipping elsewhere.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In USA how does a homeless person get a social worker, or is that a UK thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Years ago my family once attended a church in a rich neighbourhood near Boston where the sidesmen would quietly say to some people, 'We think you might feel more comfortable worshipping elsewhere.'

---

Jesus. Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think one perennial inclusivity issue, at least in our church, is meeting young parents' needs while also accomodating the rest of the congregation. At our church the emphasis is often tipped in the young parents' direction (simple wham-bam worship that keeps the kiddos from being bored; group-participation-with-hand-motions kid camp songs every single Sunday). I know I'm going to hell for saying anything negative about children participating in church; but there are some Sundays when I have been so sorrowful or anxious about major issues in my or my partner's or our children's lives...I wanted to experience reflective, thoughtful worship that addressed the concerns of those of us in the middle part of life, and instead I was being asked to clap and gyrate to some silly ditty...one Sunday I found myself in tears, and they were tears of frustration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think one perennial inclusivity issue, at least in our church, is meeting young parents' needs while also accomodating the rest of the congregation. At our church the emphasis is often tipped in the young parents' direction (simple wham-bam worship that keeps the kiddos from being bored; group-participation-with-hand-motions kid camp songs every single Sunday). I know I'm going to hell for saying anything negative about children participating in church; but there are some Sundays when I have been so sorrowful or anxious about major issues in my or my partner's or our children's lives...I wanted to experience reflective, thoughtful worship that addressed the concerns of those of us in the middle part of life, and instead I was being asked to clap and gyrate to some silly ditty...one Sunday I found myself in tears, and they were tears of frustration.

---

That's a very interesting post. I think it points to the need for churches to work out exactly what the Sunday service is there for; most tend to let it happen much as it has because it always had. The major insight offered by the Willow Creek Seeker Friendly model is to see the Sunday morning services as the 'shop window' for the church, whilst real fellowship happens in small groups during the week. This, of course, is in severe tension with the understanding of the Sunday Service as being the gathering of the people of God to worship Him. The result on the ground seems to be confusion, with, in most churches, neither side being satisfied.

The reality is that having children is the second major event (after leaving home for university) that causes people to be open to spiritual life. The parents need the support of other parents of young children, whilst the whole 'having children' experience means they are liable to start ask questions like 'what's it all about'. As a result Sunday services oriented to that demographic can be very effective in reaching new people: my church grew from being near closure to substantial life as a result of pursuing that group aggressively. But this means that the rest of the community will tend to be less welcome - a cost that needs to understood. For me, as a single guy, that means going to the evening service which is not overrun by children - but if the church only has one service a week, that's not an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary LA:
Mudfrog, over the years I've known some workers involved with the Salvation Army in Cape Town involved in disaster relief, campaigns to end child trafficking, the missions to seamen, caring for the homeless, campaigns to end violence against women and children, caring for the aged and health education and welfare. No other faith community is more practical or inclusive. Amazing people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
This is such an issue in our groups of churches - each church has one service on a sunday and how do you make it attractive to all? The answer to that, I think, is you can't, so at the moment we struggle along doing what we always have - which keeps the regular 'oldies' happy but does nothing for anybody under 50.

We are a village church and we talk about how are we going to attract new people, but the worship is dry and boring - only attractive to those who are used to it. But if we change it we drive away those we have already - what can we do.........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
This is such an issue in our groups of churches - each church has one service on a sunday and how do you make it attractive to all? The answer to that, I think, is you can't, so at the moment we struggle along doing what we always have - which keeps the regular 'oldies' happy but does nothing for anybody under 50.

We are a village church and we talk about how are we going to attract new people, but the worship is dry and boring - only attractive to those who are used to it. But if we change it we drive away those we have already - what can we do.........

---

The answer surely lies in the clergyperson starting a serious conversation with a group from all the churches asking them what they want to happen with their churches, making it clear that if nothing changes they aren't going to be around a lot longer. The problem of course is that this is going to upset people, and if their religion is merely social custom, they're going to sulk. IF however they are serious about providing for their communities long term, then this may be the start of change. But it requires a VERY hard hat, and support from a bishop might be useful. And of course rural ministry is rather different from urban; there is an attachment to 'the village church' in a way that is less significant in towns. But ultimately questions must be raised about how far dioceses can be expected to provide chaplaincy services to micro congregations when there is vast need for ministry elsewhere. The cut rapid decline in the number of CofE clergy provides the opportunity for dioceses to do some serious strategic thinking, but so far all I've seen is a continuation of the cheese paring approach of the past 50 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
We should be careful, though, to distinguish whether a church is being welcoming/inclusive or not and whether individuals are removing themselves from it. For example, if you welcome the homeless into your church and some long-time members make a bee-line from the door, I don't think it's fair to say that you've become unwelcoming to those older members. Some people are unwilling to be a part of the church's welcome to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
These villages and congregations are not that small, they do manage to maintain a church. However they are still too small to have a vicar of their own. So they can only have one service each on a Sunday. Unless of course lay people take charge whisch so far tehy are showing no inclination to do so, despite the vicar's trying to involve them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aravis:
It's not that straightforward. Not all clergy are happy with the laity encroaching on their territory.
This could become a tangent so I'll stop there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary LA:
...
Most racially inclusive churches here have a high percentage of members with Aids or TB, so communion is taken to them and seating arrangements are made for those who need to sit throughout the services or use wheelchairs. Because of the prevalence of sexual violence, there are men's groups (both church-based and secular) such as the One Man Can Campaign and Men Against Violence workshops held in most churches after the service on Sundays. There are also intensive youth and church-based educational workshops and talks given during services about addiction, since a crude form of crystal meths called 'tik' is widely used out in the countryside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then too, just recently during one of the children's sermons, the pastor gave the kids some poster paper to draw on. They all stayed there by the altar through the adult sermon, working on that poster.

Kids really are not a bother.

---

I wasn't saying well mannered kids are a bother, I'm saying specifically those kids who run fast while looking backwards and collide into people are a problem for people who need to not be collided with.

I'm just saying some populations don't mix well. Sometimes we can find ways to integrate everyone safely and cheerfully, but sometimes we can't. Some needs are mutually exclusive. Don't be caught by surprise at the side-effects of decisions.

No church can meet the needs of ALL simultaneously. I think a church that knows who they are and who they are NOT a good fit for, functions better, which attracts more newcomers.

YMMV.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The issue of children running around during church isn't about whether they'll knock over little old ladies. Most of the time the little old ladies are sitting in their pews, or standing with pews and other people around where they can't be bumped into. There is an issue about running around during coffee time after the service - but that creates a potential hot drink hazard for everyone and simply requires some additional space elsewhere for running.

The issue is one of whether the sanctuary is a "sacred space" and worship shouldn't be interupted by boisterous kids. And, people with that attitude span all age groups. You'll struggle to welcome families who let their kids sit under the Table and those who think the Table is so sacred that it should never be touched by anyone but the priest.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
What Alan said - I have seen a church where one of the little ones went exploring, very quietly, to see what the vicar was doing up at the altar.

They were no problem and the vicar didn't mind but it caused hell in the congregation because 'CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE IN THEH SANCTUARY.' Though the adults are fine, for some reason it is only children who desecrate the sacred space.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
Its interesting that this discussion has made its way around to children in the 'main' Sunday service - this is an issue I've been thinking about a lot lately. I don't mind (which sounds quite negative, but isn't meant that way) the children in the service on a Sunday - they go off to Sunday school come back (with varying levels of noise and giddiness, depending on the activity they've done) in time for communion and to show us what they've been up to - nice. We're thinking how to deal with the children running round the church issue - but more from the safety of the children point of view, rather than safety of others (Church has quite a few corners...)

For me, the problem is the all-age worship. This invariably means children's worship. Songs rather than hymns (we're high-ish MOR), patronising sermon etc. These all age services are held at Christmas, Easter, harvest etc which I (as a married woman of 30, no kids and sadness about that) find quite difficult as I feel quite excluded from those services. There is already family Praise once a month (which I don't attend as I know I'd hate it) which caters exclusively for children (which, as another topic, interests me - are my husband and I not a family?) but then at 'important' times the main service becomes for children too.

Where is the (communion) service which caters for grumpy women who want quiet and peace, some time for reflection and no songs with invitations to clap, dance or do any other hand movements? Does anyone have any ideas how I discuss this with the priest without coming across as the bitter old hag that I am?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Some churches offer an earlier said service for people who want to opt out of children's worship. Here it's partly because those services are also without communion. So 8am on Mothering Sunday is busy, quite a lot of people hate it. Midnight Mass at Christmas is not meant to be child friendly - the morning service is. Easter tends to be formal - but then again a lot of the children have a sleep over and go to the dawn service and the children's group run on Easter morning.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I recently came across a blog from someone who is the more conservative sort of American Presbyterian. They are so conservative that the kids have never gone out to Sunday School (actually quite common up to the early twentieth century even in English Protestant circles, Sunday School was an afternoon activity). The result is the congregation think it is normally for kids to be there, slightly noisy and disruptive and the worship is the standard adult fare.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
(actually quite common up to the early twentieth century even in English Protestant circles, Sunday School was an afternoon activity). The result is the congregation think it is normally for kids to be there, slightly noisy and disruptive and the worship is the standard adult fare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I recently came across a blog from someone who is the more conservative sort of American Presbyterian. They are so conservative that the kids have never gone out to Sunday School (actually quite common up to the early twentieth century even in English Protestant circles, Sunday School was an afternoon activity). The result is the congregation think it is normally for kids to be there, slightly noisy and disruptive and the worship is the standard adult fare.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
A Romanian Orthodox family recorded for The Long Search was strongly opposed to the idea of Sunday School: 'how will our children learn how to worship if they aren't with us in church.' It's my prejudice - as a childless person - that the willingness to indulge children rather than expect them to take services seriously is a reflection of our modern failure to take God seriously. YMMV...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There was no expectation that there should be any special provision for children ...'how will our children learn how to worship if they aren't with us in church.' It's my prejudice - as a childless person - that the willingness to indulge children rather than expect them to take services seriously is a reflection of our modern failure to take God seriously. YMMV...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The issue of children running around during church isn't about whether they'll knock over little old ladies. Most of the time the little old ladies are sitting in their pews, or standing with pews and other people around where they can't be bumped into. There is an issue about running around during coffee time after the service - but that creates a potential hot drink hazard for everyone and simply requires some additional space elsewhere for running.

---

quote:

---

The issue is one of whether the sanctuary is a "sacred space" and worship shouldn't be interupted by boisterous kids. And, people with that attitude span all age groups. You'll struggle to welcome families who let their kids sit under the Table and those who think the Table is so sacred that it should never be touched by anyone but the priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm not seeing kids at coffee at either of the churches I sing at. I wonder why. I should ask some questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm intrigued none of you have old ladies (or men) walking unsteadily with a cane, moving slowly towards the door after most of the crowd have left so they are less likely to be jostled by the crowd and lose balance.

---

quote:

---

That's when I've seen kids start running in the aisles, after most of the crowd is gone.

---

quote:

---

I've been run into, 50 pounds at full speed head on knocked me into the pew wood, bad bruise.

---

quote:

---

Toddling oldsters can LOVE kids but simultaneously fear being bumped into, losing balance, falling, landing in a nursing home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
At my place (Alan can, of course, talk about customs at his), the kids have shot out the door at the very first opportunity and are busy with the coffee hour treats.

---

At our current church there is no regular coffee hour (the 11.30 start means people are needing to get home for lunch). But, the kids are out in Sunday School and don't come down until someone goes up and says the service is finished (by which time people are already heading out) and they've cleared up. There is then a time to show mum & dad what they've done before running around starts. And, the chairs will have been tidied away by then anyway, leaving a lot of running room, and ours want to help push the Communion Table back into the vestry, take the numbers out of the hymn board etc before they run too.

At our previous church there were two halls, one was used for coffee. So after the kids had had their tea or milk and biscuits they went to the other hall to run. Again, although there wasn't a Sunday School the kids were in the lounge playing until after the service finished and people had started to move.
 

---

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
And now we're back to why do kids act like kids?

I know that people are concerned when the church becomes all about the kids, and I am no where near a proponent of that.

What I am for is for a space and time for kids to be kids. One thinks about how to help out the ones who need special assistance, but the kids, well, they should just grow up.

They are, but unfortunately, it takes them 18-20 years to do so.

The rule of thumb for small children is that they will pay attention for about one minute per year. (If you wonder how they can play video games or watch TV for a long time, time how long each segment is before it switches...). After asking children to be quiet for an hour or so, for them to want to be physically active is normal.

So what to do? (1) Structure the environment so they can't. Which can be very problematic for others or (2) give them an alternative place to do it.

I guess in the end you could have (3) a place that isn't welcoming to kids, but then you have this funny thing of the young adults deciding that the church is for OLD people and not for them.

Yes, it's difficult.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
'Young people' covers such a wide age range as well. I remember in the church I used to go to at the time, which had a family service, that the parents of the toddlers said, 'We don't like it, but it's really for the older children and teenagers' and the teenagers said, 'We don't like it but it's really for the young children'. It must be so hard to plan something suitable for all ages between 0-18, let alone anyone older!

I guess the important thing is to try, plus also regularly asking for feedback from the ages concerned, not just assume.
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
In the old days in the Catholic Church we had "children's mass" at 9:00 in the upper church (church proper), while parents heard mass in the lower church (basement). Children's mass was supervised by the nuns, who had us recite prayers and sing hymns especially geared toward children while the priest celebrated the Tridentine mass in Latin. The sermon was also especially geared toward children.

After mass, the children were whisked off to Sunday school while the parents went home (my parents would retire to Grandma's house up the street) for coffee and pastries, and would come back an hour later to pick the children up from Sunday school.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We advertise ourselves as part of 'Inclusive church' so we get some LGBTs from several miles away commuting to us because, they say, they don't feel welcome or comfortable in their parish churches.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And now we're back to why do kids act like kids?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the historic patterns of child labour, as for example here, it seems clear that it used to be expected that children would concentrate quietly for extended periods... whether the church should conclude that it's going to have to reshape its entire program to reflect this pathological generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And now we're back to why do kids act like kids?

---

Given the historic patterns of child labour, as for example here, it seems clear that it used to be expected that children would concentrate quietly for extended periods. That this no longer happens seems to suggest our modern Western kids are defective compared to their working peers in other countries or in previous centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

And, in some churches at least, it's not the spoiled brats (of which there are actually very few IME) who are unwelcome. It's any child who might dare to fidget, talk, cry, or otherwise be noticed who are unwelcome. And, I don't think any amount of discipline is going to stop a two year old from making some noise during an hour or so. Jesus said we need to become like little children, often we seem convinced that what he really meant was that little children should become adults.

---

In the church I was raised in babies through teens were expected in the church service, but adults were expected to take out a crying or disruptive child and there was a room provided where they could watch the service either until the child was quiet again or the end of the service, whichever came first. I do know my siblings and I learned from a very early age what behavior was expected in church. I was the perfect child who enjoyed watching the older brothers on the few occasions they got caught misbehaving.


This does bring up the question of whether families should be in the service as a whole or whether there should be an age limit with child care or Sunday School provided during the service. I'm kind of partial to the family as a whole with being responsible for taking out noisy, crying or fidgety kids. Learning how to behave in church early on served me well in other social circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :
 
But then you get into the whole question of how noisy/fidgety/upset does the child need to be to be taken out. I know that I personally tend to be painfully aware of my own children's noise and fidgeting, to the extent that I can be very unhappy about their behaviour and yet have other people who were sitting nearby tell me they've been well behaved. If I took them out every time they were any potential distraction, a) I'd never be in a service for more than a few seconds, and b) the noise & distraction of me going out would surely be more distracting in and of itself...

I really, really don't like crying babies, or noisy toddlers in church - but I'm fully aware that this is my problem, not the parents'. I know that they will likely be going through in their heads the evaluation of 'how soon will he/she settle down, do I need to leave, when can I slip out without being even more conspicuous than I already am, what can I find to distract him/her...' etc. and they last thing they need is me looking over at them. My task is to focus on praying/listening/worshipping, not on judging others.

[ETA: I always assumed my children would be brought up knowing how to behave in church. I've been trying for 10 and 8 years, and still they don't seem to get it more than one week in three. Clearly this is a failing on my part, but I'm at a loss as to how to solve it.]

[ 02. July 2012, 09:36: Message edited by: Beethoven ]
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beethoven:

[ETA: I always assumed my children would be brought up knowing how to behave in church. I've been trying for 10 and 8 years, and still they don't seem to get it more than one week in three. Clearly this is a failing on my part, but I'm at a loss as to how to solve it.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
...or the church can provide clear guidelines of when they expect a disruptive child to be taken out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought that was Pata's point. I didn't see him advocating physical punishment to enforce "good behaviour" in church.

And, in some churches at least, it's not the spoiled brats (of which there are actually very few IME) who are unwelcome. It's any child who might dare to fidget, talk, cry, or otherwise be noticed who are unwelcome. And, I don't think any amount of discipline is going to stop a two year old from making some noise during an hour or so. Jesus said we need to become like little children, often we seem convinced that what he really meant was that little children should become adults.

---

Exactly! I was agreeing with him and not Ender's Shadow.

All you can do with fidgety, bored or crying kids is to take them out to relieve them of what ails them.

I think expecting deep, personal "involvement" of a young kid in a long liturgy, or during a long sermon, is quite silly.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aravis:
It's not that straightforward. Not all clergy are happy with the laity encroaching on their territory.
This could become a tangent so I'll stop there.

---

But if they are OLMs, or even just Readers, they're not just laity. But I accept there are some parties that do struggle to go down this route; it's not a view I have a lot of sympathy with!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
[QUOTE] Exactly! I was agreeing with him and not Ender's Shadow.

All you can do with fidgety, bored or crying kids is to take them out to relieve them of what ails them.

I think expecting deep, personal "involvement" of a young kid in a long liturgy, or during a long sermon, is quite silly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

I think expecting deep, personal "involvement" of a young kid in a long liturgy, or during a long sermon, is quite silly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

I think expecting deep, personal "involvement" of a young kid in a long liturgy, or during a long sermon, is quite silly.

---

Equally true with some adults, I'm afraid IME. {snip}

What about the old ladies (known as stalwarts of the church)who sit in the front row and aubibly chunter at well behaved children? Who is the less welcome there? Who should be excluded for bad behaviour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then too, just recently during one of the children's sermons, the pastor gave the kids some poster paper to draw on. They all stayed there by the altar through the adult sermon, working on that poster.

Kids really are not a bother.

---

I wasn't saying well mannered kids are a bother, I'm saying specifically those kids who run fast while looking backwards and collide into people are a problem for people who need to not be collided with.

I'm just saying some populations don't mix well. Sometimes we can find ways to integrate everyone safely and cheerfully, but sometimes we can't. Some needs are mutually exclusive. Don't be caught by surprise at the side-effects of decisions.

No church can meet the needs of ALL simultaneously. I think a church that knows who they are and who they are NOT a good fit for, functions better, which attracts more newcomers.

YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
Much better for a church to acknowledge that they can't cater to everyone, since that's a logical impossibility, and therefore to declare which groups they are aiming to please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

Much better for a church to declare that they are not trying to please any groups but rather want all groups to look out for the needs of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
Much better for a church to acknowledge that they can't cater to everyone, since that's a logical impossibility, and therefore to declare which groups they are aiming to please.

---

I think you've got that back to front.

Much better for a church to declare that they are not trying to please any groups but rather want all groups to look out for the needs of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
With the best will in the world, contradictory needs/requirements/preferences can't be reconciled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This! I was just trying to think of a way to express this and you've done it admirably.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
This! I was just trying to think of a way to express this and you've done it admirably.

---

I wasn't being original. A guy called Paul said it to a bunch of misfits in Philippi roughly 2000 years ago.

(Right. I'm off to bed.)

---

Ah, but he didn't put it in quite those words, though the message is stated pretty much throughout scripture. And I don't do well finding the right wording in the middle of the night.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...When you stop seeing (or distinguishing) "clergy" and "laity and see them all as people, that's when things start happening. That's when the (all too common) implicit assumption that clergy are, in some way, different or better, than laity - is overcome. It's not a question of status but of talent and gifting: when it's recognised as such IME you get a much healthier community with more significant impact on itself and those around it.

A lot of the solutions offered to the "crises" of contemporary church are, IMHO, not much more than window dressing. What is needed (again IMHO) is a fundamental re-engineering of our understanding of what whole life discipleship is all about: its foundation in the life and sacrificial example oif Jesus, its joys and benefits certainly, but also its challenges, sacrifices and opportunities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Much of what people are attempting to preserve of the fast vanishing full mainstream churches of the 1960s and 1970s could only be preserved as a sort of dated cultural theme park.

The real essence of Christianity is somewhere else.

The mainstream Western churches urgently need to rediscover it. Otherwise they will be merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

It may be necessary to lose the wealth, power and prestige they have had to do this.

Orthodoxy was forced to do this under Communism. Some of its emigre writers, like the late Anthony Bloom, attested to this rediscovery after almost total loss.

It is something modern Western church leaders find inconceivable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When you stop seeing (or distinguishing) "clergy" and "laity and see them all as people, that's when things start happening. That's when the (all too common) implicit assumption that clergy are, in some way, different or better, than laity - is overcome. It's not a question of status but of talent and gifting: when it's recognised as such IME you get a much healthier community with more significant impact on itself and those around it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
we've reached a point in the historical churches where the clergy are often from a different class than their congregations. This must add to the sense that the clergy are somehow superior to, or at least separate from, the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Much of what people are attempting to preserve of the fast vanishing full mainstream churches of the 1960s and 1970s could only be preserved as a sort of dated cultural theme park.

The real essence of Christianity is somewhere else.

The mainstream Western churches urgently need to rediscover it. Otherwise they will be merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

It may be necessary to lose the wealth, power and prestige they have had to do this.

Orthodoxy was forced to do this under Communism. Some of its emigre writers, like the late Anthony Bloom, attested to this rediscovery after almost total loss.

It is something modern Western church leaders find inconceivable.

---

Hmm - the problem with this analysis is that it ignores the massive growth in areas with which you are obviously uncomfortable, i.e. the megachurches of America, and the UK's own pale shadows of them, though we do have some. It's easy to argue that these don't reflect Christianity - but only if you are prepared to also dismiss the whole 'cathedral' tradition of the church. As the massive growth experienced by the diocese of London indicates, it is possible to see our present structures bring numerical growth, though it does require a willingness to invest what resources that are available in the growing churches...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
we've reached a point in the historical churches where the clergy are often from a different class than their congregations. This must add to the sense that the clergy are somehow superior to, or at least separate from, the rest.

---

I would have thought quite the reverse.

There was a time when clergy were the only people who could read and write.

Now, many in our congregations have higher degrees than their clergy.

---

I suppose that's the case in many middle class areas, yes. But the cultural divide has certainly made churches less welcoming to working class people, and has done so for a very long time.
 

---

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
Interestingly enough, I know of one young family which attends the early morning said service at my church. They do so because they have an Anglican and sacramental theology, so attending the Vineyard is right out, but they dislike traditional and classical music. Therefore, since none of the local Episcopal churches offers a fully contemporary service, and none of the Lutheran churches offer a service which is both liturgical and contemporary, so attending the early morning Holy Communion is a good compromise. The old dears who are the mainstay of the early service are just happy that there's someone younger attending so that the Rite I service can keep going. It helps that the family's kids are all teenagers and well behaved. A family with noisy young kids would not be welcome at the early service, but then, truly disruptive behavior would not be tolerated at the late service either. Incidents like the kid who sat under the altar which Gramps described would not happen at my parish. Children who can't sit still during the Liturgy of the Word are required to go to children's church and will be escorted there by the ushers if their parents do not send them on the opening processsion. If the parents do not make sure their kids behave (a little whispering and squirming is fine, loud noise and leaving the pews isn't) after they have returned for the Liturgy of the Sacrament, others will intervene, and our priest will take the parents aside and make the church's expectations about how children will behave clear. After the service is over, children are allowed to high-tail it to the coffee hour, where they can run freely and shake the boredom of sitting still for 30 minutes out of their systems. Frail elderly people are escorted by more robust adults during the coffee hour. This system seems to work well for us, and quite a few families with young children come to our church. Part of this is that we are in a traditional, rural area, so having relatively strict expectations about how children should behave is not uncommon.

I know of one UMC which prided itself on being inclusive, but which excluded any one who liked contemporary music. It wasn't just that the services were all traditional, it was also that they were snobs about it, and didn't hesitate to pour scorn on other musical traditions during coffee hour.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Try,

Most church services of the staid variety I've seen do allow children to run free. And even able bodied young adults need to watch out. The Lutheran church I grew up in interestingly has a contemporary service now. My mother still attends there and is one of the few elderly that prefers it. Most of her friends won't go near contemporary.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
I'm visiting Finland at the moment; it's generally held that sauna is their religion... for the most part sauna is about sitting quietly. Having been visiting a public sauna today, it was striking to note how even quite young kids 3/4 yo, were sitting quietly in it. Now it may be that the temperature doesn't encourage talking, but it still seemed striking how calm those kids were. To me it's a reminder that kids CAN sit quietly if that's what they're taught... as I've argued above!
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I think it situations like that, there is an element of self selection. Children are like adults every one is different, parents with children who can sit still will go. While parents of more active children just won't go to places, where children have to sit still.

Years ago I asked an elderly lady in church how she used to get her children to stay still - her answer was 'we just didn't go to church until they were older'
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I've read that in previous centuries, young children weren't expected to attend church. It was their parents' job to 'christianise' them, and they didn't go to church until they were older and could understand what was going on. This must have worked in different ways in different places, but in some parts of England one parent would go in the morning while the other would stay and look after the children, and they would swop roles in the evening. Maybe this is why in some places evening congregations would be bigger than morning ones. Nowadays in England evening services are usually poorly attended, and many churches have abandoned them.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
At my cathedral parish, the only choices that need to be made are Spanish or English mass and teenagers or adult lectors and ushers.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
My kids can sit quietly - but they hate having to do so with a passion and I do not want them to hate church with a passion.

It's not just about how kids can/should be expected to behave - it's what will most enable and encourage them to continue as committed worshipping members of the church.

Far too often churches' attitudes to having children are like children wanting a rabbit for Christmas - they like the idea, but aren't willing to muck it out, feed it and put up with it when it shits on the carpet. It's this very factor - that Sunday attendance is making my kids hate church - that has set us off church shopping again - something I hate.

[ 08. October 2012, 15:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think one perennial inclusivity issue, at least in our church, is meeting young parents' needs while also accomodating the rest of the congregation. At our church the emphasis is often tipped in the young parents' direction (simple wham-bam worship that keeps the kiddos from being bored; group-participation-with-hand-motions kid camp songs every single Sunday). I know I'm going to hell for saying anything negative about children participating in church; but there are some Sundays when I have been so sorrowful or anxious about major issues in my or my partner's or our children's lives...I wanted to experience reflective, thoughtful worship that addressed the concerns of those of us in the middle part of life, and instead I was being asked to clap and gyrate to some silly ditty...one Sunday I found myself in tears, and they were tears of frustration.

---

That's a very interesting post. I think it points to the need for churches to work out exactly what the Sunday service is there for; most tend to let it happen much as it has because it always had. The major insight offered by the Willow Creek Seeker Friendly model is to see the Sunday morning services as the 'shop window' for the church, whilst real fellowship happens in small groups during the week. This, of course, is in severe tension with the understanding of the Sunday Service as being the gathering of the people of God to worship Him. The result on the ground seems to be confusion, with, in most churches, neither side being satisfied.

The reality is that having children is the second major event (after leaving home for university) that causes people to be open to spiritual life. The parents need the support of other parents of young children, whilst the whole 'having children' experience means they are liable to start ask questions like 'what's it all about'. As a result Sunday services oriented to that demographic can be very effective in reaching new people: my church grew from being near closure to substantial life as a result of pursuing that group aggressively. But this means that the rest of the community will tend to be less welcome - a cost that needs to understood. For me, as a single guy, that means going to the evening service which is not overrun by children - but if the church only has one service a week, that's not an option.

---

This is such an issue in our groups of churches - each church has one service on a sunday and how do you make it attractive to all? The answer to that, I think, is you can't, so at the moment we struggle along doing what we always have - which keeps the regular 'oldies' happy but does nothing for anybody under 50.

We are a village church and we talk about how are we going to attract new people, but the worship is dry and boring - only attractive to those who are used to it. But if we change it we drive away those we have already - what can we do.........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Far too often churches' attitudes to having children are like children wanting a rabbit for Christmas - they like the idea, but aren't willing to muck it out, feed it and put up with it when it shits on the carpet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
May I extend the metaphor then?

So they stick it in a hutch in the back of the garden, feed it when there's a danger the RSPCA will prosecute, shout at it when it gets fractious, then wonder why, when they open the hutch, it leaps out, makes for the gate and is never seen again.

Too many of 'em think it'll mysteriously come back in later life when it fancies a carrot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
We're the weird ones - what's wrong with us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The question raised by the experience of other cultures is WTF is wrong with our western culture that this is what is happening? The reality of the rest of the world - as I was reminded on a recent visit to an Orthodox Christian service in Israel, and as we see with Muslim children, is that they grow up attending the adult services, don't drop out in their teenage years and bring up their children doing likewise. So how come our kids have got the idea that it's OK to 'leap out, make for the gate and never be seen again.' We're the weird ones - what's wrong with us?

---

Excellent point.

But then, our culture has never been great at being Christian anyway.

Fortunately we have other talents. We did manage to spread the church to all these faithful places...
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
Much better for a church to acknowledge that they can't cater to everyone, since that's a logical impossibility, and therefore to declare which groups they are aiming to please.

---

I think you've got that back to front.

Much better for a church to declare that they are not trying to please any groups but rather want all groups to look out for the needs of others.

---

I disagree that it's better. Politer maybe, but that sounds like a wishy-washy way of saying "We're not going to tell you up front, you'll have to come along to find out which groups' preferences and needs are accommodated". With the best will in the world, contradictory needs/requirements/preferences can't be reconciled.

Taking the music example from my post above: surely it's better for separate churches to exist with different approaches to music, so that both sides can find a service style they really approve of, rather than every church tries to reconcile the two and you end up with negative sentiment on both sides?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


Far too often churches' attitudes to having children are like children wanting a rabbit for Christmas - they like the idea, but aren't willing to muck it out, feed it and put up with it when it shits on the carpet. It's this very factor - that Sunday attendance is making my kids hate church - that has set us off church shopping again - something I hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
One problem in some of the churches of my acquaintance is that they expect way too little from the children and youth. Everything is dumbed down, omitted, or put off until adulthood--with the result that the younger people, who aren't stupid, feel like fifth wheels and ooze out the door.

The one place where I did NOT see this dynamic at work was a congregation whose existence was so precarious that everybody was called upon to lend a hand, in every area--regardless of age. The youth didn't leave there. They were too busy being treasurers, trustees, visitors, caregivers ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Possibly that 90% odd of the culture isn't going to church, mosque, synagogue or temple? There may only be one or two other people in your life - school, work, university - outside church who attend any religious ceremonies. Normality is not attending church.

Teenagers like fitting in - however rebellious they seem it's all about fitting in with their peers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. Our church has been part of a study group re:
this book about recent research on what creates "sticky faith" (faith that continues into adulthood). Their findings were very much in line with that. While most of their research was on large congregations, as I read through the research and related recommendations, I realized most would actually be far easier to implement in a smaller church for precisely the reasons you cite. Those sorts of factors were actually more strongly associated with "sticky faith" than other things like music styles or even mission trips.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. Our church has been part of a study group re:
this book about recent research on what creates "sticky faith" (faith that continues into adulthood). Their findings were very much in line with that. While most of their research was on large congregations, as I read through the research and related recommendations, I realized most would actually be far easier to implement in a smaller church for precisely the reasons you cite. Those sorts of factors were actually more strongly associated with "sticky faith" than other things like music styles or even mission trips.

---

Hmmm - is it 'faith' that is sticking, or merely the creation of a strong enough culture that the default behaviour of the young person is to continue in their parents' footsteps? It's interesting to note that the Mormons with their system of Levitical priesthood take exactly the approach recommended - give the teenagers an active role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:


I just long for the day when the tattooed, beer drinking, dope smoking, effing every other effing word sorry for swearing guys we're allowed to serve in a side room once a month now fortnight now see you next week for a greater depth Sunday follow-up to the Friday night post-prandial God-slot have to swap with the worshippers in the main hall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's interesting to note that the Mormons with their system of Levitical priesthood take exactly the approach recommended - give the teenagers an active role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A reasonable question, and one that can be as validly asked of the examples you gave earlier.

---

Indeed I am trying to play both sides of this argument. Personally I am more and more convinced that the real answer is in Jesus' words about the ministry of the Holy Spirit:

quote:

---

7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

---

Jn 16:7-11. When people merely end up in the church without a significant personal encounter with God, then we get the sorts of sociologically driven growth we do see, but there's no reality. But it keeps a lot of people happy
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's interesting to note that the Mormons with their system of Levitical priesthood take exactly the approach recommended - give the teenagers an active role.

---

I have heard that the Mormons do not actually expect to win many converts with their door-to-door missionaries. The main purpose is to bind the young men to the church.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard that the Mormons do not actually expect to win many converts with their door-to-door missionaries. The main purpose is to bind the young men to the church.

Moo

---

I have heard this from one of their bishops (NB their stake president is the equivalent of a Xn bishop).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. Our church has been part of a study group re:
this book about recent research on what creates "sticky faith" (faith that continues into adulthood). Their findings were very much in line with that. While most of their research was on large congregations, as I read through the research and related recommendations, I realized most would actually be far easier to implement in a smaller church for precisely the reasons you cite. Those sorts of factors were actually more strongly associated with "sticky faith" than other things like music styles or even mission trips.

---

Hmmm - is it 'faith' that is sticking, or merely the creation of a strong enough culture that the default behaviour of the young person is to continue in their parents' footsteps? It's interesting to note that the Mormons with their system of Levitical priesthood take exactly the approach recommended - give the teenagers an active role.

---

A reasonable question, and one that can be as validly asked of the examples you gave earlier.

---

Indeed. But I think probably the answer will be it can be either-- depending on how it is approached and explained and taught-- and what the believer attends to. I'm also not convinced that everything Mormons do is a bad example. Obviously there are huge theological issues from an orthodox pov, and some praxis issues as well. But I'm willing to accept that there might be some things worth learning there. The mainstream Christians I know who have converted to LDS (including, regrettably my daughter) often site as a reason the sense of belonging-- the sense that everyone has an important place and purpose, we're all pulling together (there's even a famous Mormon hymn about that) to accomplish a common good. (Not to deny, otoh, the concerns that have been raised re: Mormon missions, which IMHO and reasonably close observation, have, yes, some disturbingly controlling elements mixed in among the more positive elements of investing in education, global awareness, and a sense of purpose)

[ 09. October 2012, 22:51: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
One thing the Mormons do very well is organize recreation for their young people.

When I was a child there were a group of Mormons living near us. (My first boyfriend, aged 7, was Mormon. He used to pick roses in the neighbor's yard and bring them to me. )

When I was in junior high school, there were square dances every Friday night in a neighbor's basement. There weren't enough Mormon girls, so I was invited to join them. We all had a wonderful time.

There are various things that Mormons are not supposed to do, and the adults have sense enough to realize that they need to provide attractive alternatives for the young people.

Another thing I like about the Mormons is that every family has Family Night once a week. The entire family engages in interactive recreation. This may take the form of playing board games, making music together, or doing anything else that all can enjoy. There is no TV watching. I think non-Mormon families could benefit from such an evening.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
One thing the Mormons do very well is organize recreation for their young people... Another thing I like about the Mormons is that every family has Family Night once a week. The entire family engages in interactive recreation. This may take the form of playing board games, making music together, or doing anything else that all can enjoy. There is no TV watching. I think non-Mormon families could benefit from such an evening.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godric:
'Homosexualist' parishes do exist where gay men can give a lifetime of work, service and devotion. In such parishes gay men are accepted right to the point where they decide to discuss ordination. Then just watch the world fall in on them! The sheer hyposcrisy of the Anglican Church is staggering in that it accepts gay men and their time and then excludes them from public ministry at the altar. At least the Romans are 'out' as homophobes and officially proud of that status especially when discussing equal marriage.

Exclusion in the Church is more than who we accept in the congregation it is about who we accept at the altar and the Bishops Palace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard that the Mormons do not actually expect to win many converts with their door-to-door missionaries. The main purpose is to bind the young men to the church.

Moo

---

I have heard this from one of their bishops (NB their stake president is the equivalent of a Xn bishop).

---

Nasty; clear evidence that it is a brainwashing organisation, not a freely chosen religion. I remember going to Salt Lake City many years ago, and that was the conclusion I came to: the whole system is an example of the Big Lie, which is deeply scary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Godric:
'Homosexualist' parishes do exist where gay men can give a lifetime of work, service and devotion. In such parishes gay men are accepted right to the point where they decide to discuss ordination. Then just watch the world fall in on them! The sheer hyposcrisy of the Anglican Church is staggering in that it accepts gay men and their time and then excludes them from public ministry at the altar. At least the Romans are 'out' as homophobes and officially proud of that status especially when discussing equal marriage.

Exclusion in the Church is more than who we accept in the congregation it is about who we accept at the altar and the Bishops Palace.

---

Given that "Issues", which is the policy statement from the bishops in the matter, is over 20 years old, it should not come as a surprise to members of the CofE to find that they are being treated in accordance with those rules. But let's not lose this thread to DH, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Don't wish to prolong a tangent but i cannot let this pass without comment. 'Issues' was NOT a 'policy' statement but was written by four bishops as a discussion document for synod. It has never been voted on so isn't official policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Don't wish to prolong a tangent but i cannot let this pass without comment. 'Issues' was NOT a 'policy' statement but was written by four bishops as a discussion document for synod. It has never been voted on so isn't official policy.

---

Hmm - news to me; thank you. I guess in that case the official position of the CofE is the Lambeth 1998 motion which the vast majority of CofE bishops voted for. Which results in the same conclusion - that a gay person in a relationship can't expect to be ordained 'to the altar'...

---

quote:

---

it was a conservative document which failed to reflect our wisdom and experience. However, the Archbishop turned it into a policy document without the authority of General Synod and it continues to be cited as the policy of the Church of England together with the Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Lambeth has no authority over the C of E, nor any other province of the Anglican Communion.

As for the C of E website, it is wrong! - an example of how Carey railroaded a guidance document, upon which nobody voted, into policy.

If you read Issues', you will see that it was written as part of an educational process (‘to promote an educational process as a result of which Christians may become both more informed about and understanding of certain human realities.’), not 'the last word'(para 1.9)

Ac cording to Changing Attitudes,

quote:

---

it was a conservative document which failed to reflect our wisdom and experience. However, the Archbishop turned it into a policy document without the authority of General Synod and it continues to be cited as the policy of the Church of England together with the Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10.

---

---

quote:

---

That this Synod

(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;

(b) recognize that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978: 10; 1988: 64; 1998: 1.10);

(c) welcome the opportunities offered by these Lambeth resolutions, including for the Church of England to engage in an open, full and godly dialogue about human sexuality; and

(d) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church and acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the Church.'

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0