Thread: Sunday School Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027850
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I've dithered over which board to post this on, and am happy if the Hosts decide to move it.
How does your church plan and conduct Sunday School? Do you use a curriculum? If so, what? When does the Sunday School come back into the service, and what does it do when it gets there?
I'm interested in hearing about how different churches conduct the religious education and encourage the spiritual growth of young children, especially on a Sunday morning.
I'm more interested in what you do, and have seen done that works than in nightmare stories--believe me, I've got a massive collection of those!
[ 20. January 2014, 07:51: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm not answering your question directly. But it does seem to me that one is seeking to do two different things with children: one is to give them the basic Bible knowledge they need as a foundation for faith, the other is to foster their spirituality and sense of the numinous. (I suspect that, in some traditions, Sunday School will also seek to enculturate children within their history).
IME the first aim is often fulfilled in churches, albeit the children build up a corpus of knowledge from Bible stories but don't link it together into a coherent whole. But this "didactic" approach is frequently all there is; the sense of the spiritual is hardly cultivated at all.
Approaches such as "Godly Play" are a good way of filling this gap although I personally think that GP would be dull if used all the time!
[ 20. January 2014, 08:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Our Sunday School runs at the same time as the main service. It is held in the church hall which is sufficiently far from the church to make it impossible for the children to dip in and out of the service.
For this reason the Eucharist on the first Sunday of the month is designated a "Family Eucharist" and SS children are expected/encouraged to attend with their parents.
SS is big in our area because the only half-way decent state secondary school is CofE so people want the forms signed; once they have got the school place there are significant numbers who don't darken our doors again.
SS is run according to a curriculum - where from I can't help.
The only parish where I've found families attending in numbers and children being successfully turning into teen and then adult worshippers was VERY high AC and there was no Sunday School.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
We have a Sunday school (known as Junior Church), where the younger ones (primary school age) head out after the second hymn, usually having had some sort of children's talk, and been in for prayers. The "curriculum" is generally the lectionary readings, and they use the materials from Roots (Children and Young People) as a starting point.
The teenagers have a separate meeting, that happens alongside church at a near by location, and they join us after the service. this group is much more discussion based and engaging with ideas. The older group is also in their multiple churches (having acquired the teens from several different churches of late) on the first Sunday of the month.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
Our Sunday School for children is quite small, and runs from 10-1050. The service begins at 11. All but the very smallest children are there for the main service, and all of them are quite well-behaved. I think it helps that I've got the majority of them working as acolytes, which they take very seriously.
We use the curriculum published by The United Methodist Publishing House. Given the small numbers and the volunteer teachers, it was the best option.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I've been looking at the curriculum from the Virginia Theological Seminary--now out of print, but available online. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has experience of it, or of Sarah Lenton's 'Creative Ideas for Children's Worship.'
I'm familiar with Roots and Godly Play.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I was slightly hesitant about posting as I am not an Anglican so a lot of what I say will not be helpful for you but here goes. Our Sunday school also probably isn't very representative as we are a large charismatic church meeting in a small warehouse with about 80-100 children spread between our 2 morning services.
Most young children come to the first service and we often have over 20 2-4 year olds there. The children stay in for 15 mins of informal worship and then go out to separate groups: pre-schoolers and primary, in different places.
I believe the pre-schoolers play then do songs followed by a story, often using puppets to tell the story or acted out by the children dressed up. They have a puppet called Mr Bible whom the children interact with pantomime style (we can hear them shout his name in the main service in the middle of our sermon ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) who says the verses for the day. Afterwards they do a craft activity or games or puzzles. I'm guessing there must be some form of prayer in there too, presumably after the story. So quite a standard format. They have a termly craft party to break with routine. We collect children after the service using a named card system as part of the child safety requirement and we all go back to the main room to socialise over coffee and squash.
Primary school children have small year specific groups for talking over a current topic, join together for their own short worship session followed by the usual story and then smaller groups again for craft activity. There are prizes for remembering their bible regularly and during quizzes. Once a term they have a praise party where they just sing and dance and a craft party, with different craft stations on biblical themes. These are very popular with the children.
Children do sometimes stay in the main service instead and there are usually toddlers wandering around during the sermon. The church has a very relaxed attitude to children being present and is very keen that children are seen as part of an inclusive church; we don't have separate family services. Out of term time all children stay in the service and play quietly on the floor or at the back of church during the sermon, there are usually activity booklets around. Worship is often signed so younger children can join in, children can dance around during worship and are welcome to come forward with a word for the congregation just as an adult would. If we are having communion and children are present we share it with them.
Sunday school is for the under 12s, the youth group have their own meeting during the second service but several of these, like our 12 year old, attend the first service and stay with their parents for the sermon and then attend the second service for youth group. This group is informal discussion based with bible study but they are also meet socially.
I believe the church used to write its own materials but we now use other resources, I'll ask my husband who is one of the pre-school leaders.
As I said, some of this would be impractical/inappropriate for some churches. But I do think the idea of breaking up the usual rhythm of Sunday school with the occasional themed session would be adaptable and enjoyable. In our case we use praise parties and craft parties but you may find other themes more appropriate to your needs. I think that it is important that children feel part of the main church as well, and I guess that is why it is common for children to rejoin a congregation before the end of the service.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As I've said elsewhere, our current church doesn't run a regular Sunday School because we don't have enough children or adults to make it viable. Although 10% of our congregation are primary school age we have a congregation of ~25, the majority of whom are grandparents.
We did try a larger church in the denomination where there are enough children to usually manage two Sunday School classes (I think the split was approximately at P4; so under 8 and older than 8). I regularly accompanied our son to the younger group because he didn't want to go through without mum or dad there (which, because we went there so we could be in the service rather than one of us always taking the boy out to another room was one reason why we didn't stick there), and there was usually some craft activity organised though rarely relating to either the childrens address or the sermon. Our boy never really liked craft things (unlike his younger sister), which was another reason it didn't work for us. The children then returned to church before the last hymn and shared what they'd done with the congregation.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
We don't have a Sunday School since we only have two regular children, and only one of them would be old enough for it. Both will be leaving in September when mum goes off to train for ordination.
In previous churches (evangelical Anglican of various levels of conservatism), the kids went out just before the sermon and joined their parents once the service was over.
*misses children at church*
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
These days, we have two services on a Sunday morning, and our Sunday School takes place in the hour-long gap between them. There's usually some kind of Adult Christian Education in that slot, too.
It does make for a long morning for the little ones, though.
ETA: Our Sunday School classes are grouped according to school grade. There's Godly Play for the preschoolers and kindergartners, then separate classes for each of first through fifth grade.
The middle-school kids also meet in this time-slot, but they do more of a discussion group thing, with the leaders being facilitators.
[ 20. January 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
The kids at our place do a godly play based lesson during the liturgy of the word at the 9:00 service. They come in at the offertory. Most of our kids are primary school aged, but a few are getting to be middle school aged, and they are starting up a middle school program to run at the same time as the godly play class.
When I was growing up at a church with lots of kids, they used to do "children's chapel" during the liturgy of the word AND a Sunday School class between the 9:00 and 11:15 services. I always sat through the entire service with my parents and then went to Sunday School after the service.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Please note:
USA style Sunday School is All Age and at a different time to the Service
UK style Sunday School is a parallel activity for younger children that runs during part of the main service.
Old Style Sunday School UK: Happens on a Sunday Afternoon and is for children to mid-teens. It still existed into the 1990s in at least one place in the UK, but I do not know what has happened since.
Jengie
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Ours tends to follow the lectionary gospel but if our kids ask a question which might lead to future sessions, we suspend the lectionary and explore whatever issue they asked about.
Our kids tend to be clever - children of uni. lecturers and the like, which is in the nature of our uni. chaplaincy church status.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
We have a vestry group to which all children are invited (but not compulsory; there is also a play corner, choir, acolytes, etc, so not all children go to Vestry). They go out after the first hymn and follow a similar theme to the main service, involving lots of craft activities, sometimes small plays. At the end of the service, the vestry group give a small presentation (5 mins. or so) on what they have been doing, what lessons they have learnt, show what they have made, or perform their little play. The older ones help the younger ones, so it is very much all-age. It is a lovely way to end the service, and sometimes the young ones, in their innocence and youth, have managed to capture the essence of the Scripture readings better than the preacher!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
At our church children's religious education tends to be centered around catechism class, when the kids are tweenage and older. Before that, there's a brief all-ages Sunday School for smaller children that begins after a children's time with the whole congregation and right before the reading of the lessons and ends in time for the children to join their parents for Communion. It's obviously not intended to provide a comprehensive religious education -- it uses child-friendly materials from our denomination to convey the theme of the particular Sunday, with activities and movement and take-away activity pages and such.
There is a movement in our circles to "kill Sunday School"; its proponents assert that Sunday School is a fairly modern invention that's outlived its usefulness; for a variety of sociodemographic reasons its traditional formats no longer seem to work in many congregations; it creates a kind of age apartheid that separates children from the rest of the congregation despite the fact that, in our tradition, they're considered a part of that congregation; it uses human and other resources that might better be directed elsewhere. The movement wants to put the responsibility back on parents/families for their children's early religious formation.
At the church we previously attended the education committee created what amounted to a homeschool Sunday School curriculum; parents received monthly packets containing lessons based on the lectionary, prayers, suggestions for whole-family activities and paper activities for the kids to do on their own. Once a month the church had a short children's meetup -- during the service, between the first part of the liturgy and the offering -- with singing and an activity. In addition, the church held a "family worship service" for young families -- think Messy Church -- every month, with a breakout session for the kids and a socializing time for the parents; the two groups did their respective things, then came back for a short worship service.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Old Style Sunday School UK: Happens on a Sunday Afternoon and is for children to mid-teens. It still existed into the 1990s in at least one place in the UK, but I do not know what has happened since.
Since this was as much for non-church as church kids (possibly even more so), one could say that is has transmogrified into midweek "Bible Clubs" and the like.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Old Style Sunday School UK: Happens on a Sunday Afternoon and is for children to mid-teens. It still existed into the 1990s in at least one place in the UK, but I do not know what has happened since.
Since this was as much for non-church as church kids (possibly even more so), one could say that is has transmogrified into midweek "Bible Clubs" and the like.
Yes, church-run after-school clubs seem like the most obvious descendents of old-style Sunday School.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Our Sunday School has 8 to 10 kids, the children leave after the Children's Lesson, which is after the first hymn, and stay out for the rest of the service. That's the near universal pattern in the UCCan.
I think we use the United Church curriculum. They tend to do bible-book themed lessons. There are also movies and such.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ours tends to follow the lectionary gospel but if our kids ask a question which might lead to future sessions, we suspend the lectionary and explore whatever issue they asked about.
Our kids tend to be clever - children of uni. lecturers and the like, which is in the nature of our uni. chaplaincy church status.
Children of dishwashers are thick as mince then? What utter tosh.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Our children's church runs in the hall during school term time. Children are invited to go out immediately after the processional hymn.
They seem to return at about the offertory hymn, though I think I've noticed them arriving during the eucharistic prayer.
The notices take place after the post-communion prayers and before the final hymn, and at that point the children are invited to say and show what they have been doing.
I sometimes wonder about the value of it, but I haven't put my hand up to be involved so I'm not really in a place to criticise!
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
About an hour ago I wrote an enormous post, and then accidentally deleted it. Suffice it to say that my own experience of Religious School is Jewish, and I am wrestling with the question of how best to hand on Scripture, tradition, and a life of prayer to the children of my churches in about an hour a week. I know the history of the Sunday School movement in the 19th c--Owen Chadwick's 2 volume 'The Victorian Church' is on my desk.
When I was a child, my siblings and I had 4 hours of religious school every weekend from the age of 5 onwards until university. This didn't include Hebrew School, which was on weekday evenings. It did include a children's service (with Debbie Friedman as music leader), and a curriculum which included the Scriptures, liturgy, and the Jewish Festivals, ethics, Jewish history, and what people of other religions believe. There were also crafts, plays, a snack and a marvellous magazine which, in true Reform Jewish style had a cartoon strip of Heroes of Judaism on the back--among them, as I recall, Anne Frank, Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, Spinoza, Leo Baeck, and the Baal Shem Tov! The synagogue had been build with classrooms, a library, and an art room. The parents paid tuition (on top of the tithe they were assessed by the synagogue board), and we all brought in something from our pocket-money as tzedakah--a contribution to a charity that the Sunday School had selected as a good one for the children to contribute to. Our teachers were members of the congregation, mostly in their twenties, apart from lovely Mrs Spiegel who taught the first grade and Mr Shepherd, he of the toupée and memorization prizes, who taught the ten year olds. I understand that this is still pretty much the pattern of Reform Jewish religious education in the US--though I think we may have been unique in learning 'There Were Five Constipated Men in the Bible' from Mr Weinblatt.
You gather it was memorable. So how do we, as Christians, make our faith and our religious life and history memorable to our children? How do we hand them on in an hour a week? How do we instill in our baptismal families the desire and the will to pray with their children at bedtime, to say grace over meals, to read bible stories?
For me, Messy Church and Godly Play aren't the answer: the first seems too eager and gimmicky, the second irritates the hell out of me with its smarmy interjection of 'I wonder...'--not to mention the way it fillets out the Scriptures. But what is? How do we do it? Where I am now, the Sunday School is, and has been, growing for the last three years. But how do we keep building on it? How do we make it better?
That's my background and these are my questions, and why I'm interested in what you're doing where you are--what works and what doesn't.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Francophile quote:
Our kids tend to be clever - children of uni. lecturers and the like, which is in the nature of our uni. chaplaincy church status.
(hit tit by mistake, should have added...)
According to that "logic" uni lectureships should be handed down on a hereditary basis or similar; all children of musicians are automatically musical; only the children of RAs should paint, etc, etc, etc.
I have to ask, do you apply this type of Marie-Antoinette reasoning to your students?
[ 21. January 2014, 11:35: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
I didn't post the comment about children of uni lecturers tending to be clever. I took issue with it.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Please note:
USA style Sunday School is All Age and at a different time to the Service
UK style Sunday School is a parallel activity for younger children that runs during part of the main service.
Ah, I didn't quite catch that before. Thanks.
Around here (US), the UK Sunday School is referred to as "Children's Church" or "Kids' Church", and there are a certain number of children who will attend both Sunday School (of the US variety) and kids church. My wife was the assistant children's director at a medium-sized UMC church in a nearby city for a while. Because the church ran several services on Sunday morning (a couple of which were concurrent), she would do two or three sessions throughout the morning for the two or three groups of kids that would come through. One or two might be Sunday School, and one or two might be kids' church. I'm not remembering now which was which.
Anyway, thanks for the distinction, Jengie.
(ETA: All the apostrophes look wrong to me, but they look more wrong the other way. My apologies to the grammar nuts out there.)
[ 21. January 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Please note:
USA style Sunday School is All Age and at a different time to the Service
UK style Sunday School is a parallel activity for younger children that runs during part of the main service.
Hm well then my (United Church of Christ, USA) church has "UK style Sunday School", apparently. The kids arrive with their parents, stay with them for the first few minutes of the service, go to the altar for a brief mini-sermon, and then depart for their classrooms for the next 45 minutes or so.
I think it's kind of a shame, since Sunday School Teacher becomes a job incompatible with ordinary worship attendance.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
A lot of American churches use the Sunday school-at-the-same-time model, and it does stink if you're a teacher and can't get to worship. Some of us have to trade off Sundays or else worship on Saturday night, etc. to make it work. But the alternative--having Sunday school when regular worship is not occurring--means in our experience that parents attend worship, gather up the kids, and go home. The kids are sleepy beforehand and cranky and hungry afterward--you've got built-in reasons for not staying (or arriving) early. The alternative--that both parents and children spend an hour in study--is a nice idea, but it can be hard to get that commitment.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
What my childhood church did, and what it appears the local protestant churches in my area do now, is to have their early service (8ish), Sunday School (usually starting at 9:30 or 10), followed by the later service (at 11AM). As I understand it, this both allows teachers and older children to attend both SS and a service, but also allows for "adult Sunday School" to be held.
[ 21. January 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Please note:
USA style Sunday School is All Age and at a different time to the Service
UK style Sunday School is a parallel activity for younger children that runs during part of the main service.
Old Style Sunday School UK: Happens on a Sunday Afternoon and is for children to mid-teens. It still existed into the 1990s in at least one place in the UK, but I do not know what has happened since.
Jengie
I don't recognize this as a US/UK difference, I think it's rather a church-to-church or denomination-to-denomination one.
The church I attended as a child (US Restorationist) had Sunday School running simultaneously to the main service for children 11 and younger. From 12 up they attended the main service and had youth group on a weeknight.
What you describe as "USA style" sounds like what my Roman Catholic friends participated in - they called it CCD (no idea what is stands for) which was both all age and at a different time to the main services.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What the British Afro-Caribbean (and perhaps also the African churches) tend to do is either have Sunday School just before the worship service, or just afterwards. This Sunday School will be for everyone, with children going off for their own lessons but also expected to attend the worship service. Churchgoers who don't want to attend Sunday School can time their arrival or departure accordingly.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
Changing a parish's education routine is a major challenge. In my previous parish it was decided at one point to have an education hour for all ages rather than during-a-service Sunday School. Couldn't be done due to uproar from parents for whom the obstacles were too great: getting kids up and ready and to church an hour earlier; spending two hours in church instead of one.
I've always admired Lutheran churches that have a longstanding pattern of two services with an education hour between them, and not squeezed in but buffered with time to socialize and get where one needs to be, so something like 8:30 a.m. Service, 9:40 a.m. Education Hour, and 11 a.m. Service. Getting from another pattern to that one, though, is much harder than just declaring the new schedule, unless you have so many members with kids that you can offer two patterns (maybe two Sunday School times) to fit more families' possible routines.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ours tends to follow the lectionary gospel but if our kids ask a question which might lead to future sessions, we suspend the lectionary and explore whatever issue they asked about.
Our kids tend to be clever - children of uni. lecturers and the like, which is in the nature of our uni. chaplaincy church status.
Children of dishwashers are thick as mince then? What utter tosh.
Not necessarily. I don't think you'd run the same curriculum in a working class parish that you would in a middle class parish.
I was all in favour of mixed ability teaching in my day but most day schools go in for setting these days.
You can't set in a Sunday School unless you have a lot of kids and a lot of staff.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Seekingsister
Just read the post above yours and see it is an American from a mainline American Poster.
That is highly unusual in the UK among historic denominations. Not nowhere but very rare.
Jengie
[ 21. January 2014, 17:51: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
In my experience Sunday School is usually a during the service thing in everywhere I've been except the conservative church where I grew up. However, the Sunday morning church I attend is now trying a new thing where there are two services with Sunday school in between. My daughter (5) is definitely having some frustrations with suddenly being expected to pay attention during church. So harder to focus for me these days. But the alternative was much worse, because basically all the children played in the back of the service together until Children's Time in which they were corralled to the front and put on exhibit for a couple minutes until they are allowed to flee to Sunday School. Hopefully as sitting still becomes easier and as the rest of the service becomes easier to understand (as she grows) this will become less frustrating for her. As it is, I think church is neutral at best for her except for Sunday School, and I worry about that.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
My experience has always been age appropriate classes right before the main Sunday service and a weekly age appropriate class on Wednesday nights. The expectation for children was that they would sit with their parents during the main worship service.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
However, the Sunday morning church I attend is now trying a new thing where there are two services with Sunday school in between. My daughter (5) is definitely having some frustrations with suddenly being expected to pay attention during church.
My elder ones had trouble sitting through an hour and a half of church immediately after an hour of Sunday School at that age. Our solution was to skip the Sunday School for a couple of years. By the time ours were in second grade, they were keen to go to the Sunday School as well as church.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
My church uses many different approaches to the religious education of children.
Sunday School occurs between the early and late services. For children 3-9, we use Catechesis of the Good Shepherd (therefore, we have a level I and a level II atrium). For children 10+ we use the Episcopal Children and Youth curriculum. So Amos I do know it (and have taught it to younger children YEARS ago when it first came out....)
We also have Children's Chapel for ages 3-6 which occurs during the late service. That one uses a combination of Morehouse's Celebrate the Good News curriculum, Godly Play, and well...what ever the storyteller/leader wishes to use that fits the lectionary for that day.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Where do you lot get these children who actually want to be there and will sit through hours of churchy stuff? I know I don't have any of that kind.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you lot get these children who actually want to be there and will sit through hours of churchy stuff? I know I don't have any of that kind.
I think this might be a cultural thing. IMO the average British mainstream MOTR church expects to maintain a very calm, quiet atmosphere during services. However, British children aren't known for their calm, quiet demeanour in public. So there's a mismatch right there!
Pentecostal and charismatic worship - especially in the black churches - tends to be noisier, a bit more chaotic, less concerned about punctuality. Fidgeting children are less of a disruption in this environment. But I also suspect that the parents in some of those churches are also stricter than the average British parent, so the kids know they can't just play up with impunity. They just get used to the long hours in service, and because other kids are there, they won't feel alone.
I understand that American congregations are normally bigger, have more children, and are less dominated by the elderly than British ones. These factors may make church less alienating for young children.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
One rural congregation I was involved with had a churchwarden with very boisterous grandchildren which was paydirt because you can't criticise the churchwardens grandchildren, which meant that, if they were off limits, so were the other kids. One Christmas morning I was celebrating the Holy Eucharist, as one does, and during the final carol my daughter, who was three at the time, decided that it would be a good move to hide under the skirts of daddy's cassock. Naturally, I looked behind me and caught the expression of the servers who were clearly trying to keep it together and not quite succeeding before turning round to discover that my congregation were also trying to keep it together and not quite succeeding. There was a wide consensus that it was the best Christmas morning service since the Old Queen's reign (and possibly the best attended). Afterwards the churchwarden came up to me and confided: "I do feel relieved when your little girl is being mischievous because I feel less self-conscious about my lot".
Incidentally, that PCC took a decision not to have a Sunday School because the parents preferred to worship with their children. This meant that we had an awful lot of All Age Worship which, I suspect, would not have been the cup of tea of many of the posters on this board but we did have a steady trickle of people coming to faith so we were obviously doing something right although I must confess I was not always sure what!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
That doesn't surprise me at all, Gildas.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I've posted about our church (USA) and its "in-between" service for toddlers (1-5) AND their families. But it has worked so well for four years that I must recommend it again.
This is a full Eucharist celebration held in the church at the front altar. It is short and edited for understanding and participation by both children and their parents. It is also short, 45 minutes, which has appeal for young families.
We have had about 35 new familes added to th regular congregation as the children grew older.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you lot get these children who actually want to be there and will sit through hours of churchy stuff? I know I don't have any of that kind.
I visit a lot of (historic) churches as it is an interest of mine. So get to see inside a lot of them (the ones that are open or give details of a keyholder, anyway). And in almost all of them now, even deeply rural ones, there is an activity corner with all sorts of books, play equipment, crayons, pens, paper, activity sheets, etc. So that children and families can go somewhere and do something, yet be able to hear what is going on in the main service.
This provision has improved hugely since my own children were small. Perhaps your part of the country is unusual and doesn't provide this facility?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you lot get these children who actually want to be there and will sit through hours of churchy stuff? I know I don't have any of that kind.
I know this isn't quite what Karl is talking about, but I know a toddler who chose a visit to the cathedral over a visit to the zoo the other day and he frequents other local churches too. It's partly that hw loves bells and organs, but there's no guarantee that he'll hear them being played. Not sure Hesse good at sitting through a service though...
Carys
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
My 12 year old will often read his kindle during the first service, though he usually likes to listen to the sermon. The 9 year old sits and listens to the songs and watches the musicians if he doesn't want to join in with singing before Sunday school, when he was smaller he had a few cars to play with on the floor. He often brings a book during the holidays and lies on the floor with it and church provides activity books too. We expect our own children to behave reasonably well but they aren't required to sit stock still and silent.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The choir at my church is very large, as the organist/choir director is extremely good. One of the grandkids of a man in the tenor section who had Down's Syndrome used to run up to his Grandpa during to service to visit. Nobody minded. Now it's quite usual for the grandkids to visit members of the choir during the service. The entrances to the choir loft are at the sides of the chancel near the steps (the choir sits behind the chancel) so nobody minds.
Everybody here likes kids running through the place, it gives it a life and vitality, and everybody wants to see Grandma and Grandpa. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you lot get these children who actually want to be there and will sit through hours of churchy stuff? I know I don't have any of that kind.
I visit a lot of (historic) churches as it is an interest of mine. So get to see inside a lot of them (the ones that are open or give details of a keyholder, anyway). And in almost all of them now, even deeply rural ones, there is an activity corner with all sorts of books, play equipment, crayons, pens, paper, activity sheets, etc. So that children and families can go somewhere and do something, yet be able to hear what is going on in the main service.
This provision has improved hugely since my own children were small. Perhaps your part of the country is unusual and doesn't provide this facility?
Activity corners are still deeply boring to most modern children, particularly older ones who are really too old for that, but are bored witless by the service.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What you describe as "USA style" sounds like what my Roman Catholic friends participated in - they called it CCD (no idea what is stands for) which was both all age and at a different time to the main services.
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. A 16th century institution which was aimed, at least when I was a child in pre-vatican II days, at students attending public schools and therefore not able to enjoy religious training in their regular classroom situation.
As I recall, the curriculum was essentially on memorizing answer to questions on such topics as the Apostle's Creed. I can still see the green paperback cover (Baltimore Catechism?) and the gold stars applied to the workbook page when one wrote the correct answer.
I learned very little of spiritual value during these catechism classes except:
(a) the nuns could be quite severe about parents who did not send send their children to Catholic schools; and
(b) my mother, a completely secular soul from a vaguely Protestant background who nevertheless spent hours helping me prepare my memorized answers, was and is a saint.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Activity corners are still deeply boring to most modern children, particularly older ones who are really too old for that, but are bored witless by the service.
When I used to take my sons to concerts, I used to let them take books of their choice, and don't see why they can't do that in church services as well. Hand held games, with earphones, might also be appropriate at times, but I personally would limit their use only to non-participatory parts of the service!
I asked our vestry group leader about the materials she used and this is her reply:
I use a variety of different resources actually, it keeps it varied and interesting then.
I have my own set format of: a bag with words and objects in, the children find and read the reading in the Bible, talky bit, craft or play, prepare feedback, prayer.
I have a set of books called Living Stones which are useful, particularly as I usually follow the set Gospel readings.
I have a few favourite websites, American mostly: Sermons4Kids, DLTK, Calvary Kids. They often lead on to other sites with good craft ideas.
I also have a good book called Telling the Bible by Bob Hartman.
Plus, surprisingly, some ideas just pop into my head!!
Hope this information is useful.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Activity corners are still deeply boring to most modern children, particularly older ones who are really too old for that, but are bored witless by the service.
When I used to take my sons to concerts, I used to let them take books of their choice, and don't see why they can't do that in church services as well. Hand held games, with earphones, might also be appropriate at times, but I personally would limit their use only to non-participatory parts of the service!
I asked our vestry group leader about the materials she used and this is her reply:
I use a variety of different resources actually, it keeps it varied and interesting then.
I have my own set format of: a bag with words and objects in, the children find and read the reading in the Bible, talky bit, craft or play, prepare feedback, prayer.
I have a set of books called Living Stones which are useful, particularly as I usually follow the set Gospel readings.
I have a few favourite websites, American mostly: Sermons4Kids, DLTK, Calvary Kids. They often lead on to other sites with good craft ideas.
I also have a good book called Telling the Bible by Bob Hartman.
Plus, surprisingly, some ideas just pop into my head!!
Hope this information is useful.
It's very introvert-orientated, I think. Fine for introvert kids, less good for extroverts. It's not that they are bad activities - they're not at all - but it does not take different kinds of children into account. I think there is a problem with seeing adults as individuals but children as a homogenous group (not saying you are doing this at all). At my church we only have two regular children, one junior school aged and one preschool aged (they are siblings). The junior school aged one is a natural introvert and is quite happy to sit and draw or read and just absorb what is happening, but the preschooler wants to run and play and....can't.
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
We have only 2-5 children on a Sunday. They start out with a lesson based on scripture assigned for that Sunday. then they do some kind of craft activity and return to the church at the Peace and share communion with their families.
Age range of children is 4 to 13 years this means older children help younger children. We also say that the children have a choice to stay in church with parents or go out to Sunday School. All go out.
There is a very close bond that has developed between the adults and children in our church.
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
Last few churches I have belonged to have Sunday school under various names during the service. The church I grew up in had Junior Sunday School during the service, and Senior Sunday School beforehand as the Minor Halls were too small to handle seven classes (of 5-8 kids) at once (the main halls were at the opposite end of the village!) Ah, those were the days!
I think the point is that if we have an ALL IN service as it's called in my current church's shorthand, the sermon has to be carefully written to bore neither the children nor the adults. If the children are out at Sunday School, the preacher can preach differently.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's very introvert-orientated, I think. Fine for introvert kids, less good for extroverts.
It might be relevant to note that my church mostly appeals to the more introvert families, so this sort of group is in keeping with the overall ethos of the church. There are other churches in the town which are very lively and appeal more to the extrovert families. The ones who come to us make a deliberate choice to come to a quieter church.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's very introvert-orientated, I think. Fine for introvert kids, less good for extroverts.
It might be relevant to note that my church mostly appeals to the more introvert families, so this sort of group is in keeping with the overall ethos of the church. There are other churches in the town which are very lively and appeal more to the extrovert families. The ones who come to us make a deliberate choice to come to a quieter church.
That's fair enough in areas with a variety of churches - but round here the CoE churches are limited to nosebleed high or snakebelly low. If you're a liberal introverted parent with extrovert kids, you are in a tricky situation. It must be even more frustrating in the middle of nowhere where the parish church is your only CoE church at all.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
... though, there would also be Methodist, URC, Baptist, etc churches. locally. You're not limited to CofE.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
We used to have a number of children (6 or so) between the ages of 5-10 who largely made up our (fairly) regular Sunday School. Alas, they all belong to one extended family, which has (for reasons which seem cogent to them) decided to stop coming to Church. A sad loss, and one which we are working on, but for the time being at least the number of children who come to our place is reduced........
..... though we still have several under-16s who attend from time to time (albeit not all of them every week - which applies to many of our adult congregation), not to mention the occasional babe-in-arms (or pushchair).
It's very hard to plan any sort of coherent children's work, and I know many other churches have the same problem. Thankfully, we have a growing number of older children, together with some students (a confirmation class is scheduled for the Spring), but we are now praying for a number of new young families to join us!
Meanwhile, our Sunday School is, sadly, in abeyance.......
Ian J.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
....where would Goldilocks go to church?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
....where would Goldilocks go to church?
I don't think wanting one's spiritual needs met is being fussy, and I find that a bit offensive - why is it impossible to imagine that some people live in areas where no churches are really suitable? That's why Fresh Expressions get set up. Shipmates like Karl LB (hope he doesn't mind me bringing his name up) have spoken at length about their struggles in this area.
I should clarify that I have no children so Sunday School provision isn't an issue for me personally - however, if I did have children I would have a real dilemma. Not receiving the Eucharist weekly is not an option for me, so that's lower CoE churches and Nonconformists out, as are RC churches since I could not receive there (I could lie but IMO that would invalidate my reception of the Eucharist anyway). Given that where I live has a distinct lack of MOTR churches, I then have to choose between A-C churches with no Sunday School whatsoever and A-C churches with poor Sunday School. I don't think being unhappy with that choice is fussy in the slightest, that's a really crap choice to have to make. That is also making the sacrifice of considering churches whose stance on DH I am uncomfortable with.
Not everyone has as much choice as you as to what churches are available. Sometimes there really are no reasonable options. That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Yes, LC, and for nine years we did the provision. Unfortunately it wasn't sustainable, and when we reluctantly had to drop it, no-one gave a sufficient shit to take the job on. And that was that. The individual can do very little if the rest of the church doesn't recognise the problem.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Given my disabilities, it's not a challenge I can reasonably accomplish. And as Karl says, when the rest of the church sees no problem with how things are, there is only so much one person can do.
It is not the only reason for the lack of young families and possibly not even the main one.
[ 27. January 2014, 09:30: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I am concerned at how many churches consider Sunday School is desirable and a necessary experience. As a child I hated Sunday School and eventually refused to attend, but I loved the church service with its hymns and liturgy. I think if I hadn't been allowed to attend adult church I would never have developed any interest in religion. Maybe kids should be given a choice of either Sunday School or church. However, don't offer a dumbed down service as kids can see through such demeaning occurrences.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I am concerned at how many churches consider Sunday School is desirable and a necessary experience. As a child I hated Sunday School and eventually refused to attend, but I loved the church service with its hymns and liturgy. I think if I hadn't been allowed to attend adult church I would never have developed any interest in religion. Maybe kids should be given a choice of either Sunday School or church. However, don't offer a dumbed down service as kids can see through such demeaning occurrences.
Many children would prefer neither. I've got three; I was one.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Should add. I keep reading on here about how people wanted to be in the main service as children. It's not something I identify with.
Can I float an idea. Let's put some facts together:
1. Church attendance dropping;
2. Majority of children within the church do not become adult attenders.
Can I suggest that churchgoer have become a highly self-selecting group, and the reason that there are so many people on here who actually enjoyed church services as children is not that this is particularly common, or normal, but all the others - the majority - are not in the pews? Naturally enough, the children of Churchophiles are more likely to like church themselves temperamentally; I'm something of a Churchophobe despite attending anyway (I've fortunately found quite a good place for Churchophobes; most Eccles denizens would hate it...) so perhaps it's not surprising my kids don't like it much.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
And then wonder why, the moment the kids hit an age where they can be left behind, that's what they opt to do. If Sunday Morning football hasn't hit first.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
My son wants to be in the service because when there was a Sunday School option he hated that more than the service. That doesn't mean he likes being in the service.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My son wants to be in the service because when there was a Sunday School option he hated that more than the service. That doesn't mean he likes being in the service.
You'd like to think we could do better than this, wouldn't you?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
And then wonder why, the moment the kids hit an age where they can be left behind, that's what they opt to do. If Sunday Morning football hasn't hit first.
The best I can do is demonstrate the importance church has for me. At the end of the day when the kids are old enough to do something on their own and they choose not to come to church I have to respect that. At present I can't leave them alone in the flat, so they come.
At this point in my life I need the stability and support of the congregation I am a member of. So, I'm not going church shopping to find one better for the children. If life had turned out differently then maybe that would have happened (with the blessing of our current church because they recognise the inadequacy of provision for children - though they would be sad to lose young people in the service).
The least worse option ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think we need better options. Or we will end up with even emptier churches.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course we do. But, we also need fuller churches first ... it's catch-22. Our church would love to be able to provide Sunday School for those who want it, and let those who want to stay in the service do so. But, first we need probably at least two more young families attending every week to provide the critical number of children, and with the existing adults form a rota to lead Sunday School so it isn't always on one persons shoulders. Then we can look at material suitable to the children we have (or, rather at present don't have) and be a church more attractive to other young families.
Of course, we'd also need to adjust our services to better suit those young families without alienating the existing congregation. We'd need to look at other provision as well, especially for teenagers when the young families get a bit older. But, how does any church start such a process? It can't be left to the parents, we're already run off our feet looking after the bairns during the week and frazzled by the time we get to church because of the effort of getting reluctant children dressed and out the door.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church. ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I don't think we can ever legitimately say 'somebody ought to have a vision for .... '
Nor, for that matter, 'I have a vision for what you ought to do'.
[ 27. January 2014, 12:28: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course we do. But, we also need fuller churches first ... it's catch-22. Our church would love to be able to provide Sunday School for those who want it, and let those who want to stay in the service do so. But, first we need probably at least two more young families attending every week to provide the critical number of children, and with the existing adults form a rota to lead Sunday School so it isn't always on one persons shoulders. Then we can look at material suitable to the children we have (or, rather at present don't have) and be a church more attractive to other young families.
Of course, we'd also need to adjust our services to better suit those young families without alienating the existing congregation. We'd need to look at other provision as well, especially for teenagers when the young families get a bit older. But, how does any church start such a process? It can't be left to the parents, we're already run off our feet looking after the bairns during the week and frazzled by the time we get to church because of the effort of getting reluctant children dressed and out the door.
Aye, which is why we need the rest of the church to help, like they promised in the Baptism, if they cast their minds back, at least in the CofE. I may be being unfair to LC and Enoch, but I'm reading their contribution as "your problem, you deal with it."
[ 27. January 2014, 12:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Some of the missing children I mentioned in my earlier post actually (*gasp*) like coming to Church! They're not the problem - it's their parents...... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Ian J.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
How many adults refuse point blank to eat broccoli because they were made to as a child? How many musicians wish their parents had in fact let them just drop it when they whined about it as children? Why does it follow that being made to go to Church as a child means you hate it and stop going when you are an adult?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
How many adults refuse point blank to eat broccoli because they were made to as a child? How many musicians wish their parents had in fact let them just drop it when they whined about it as children? Why does it follow that being made to go to Church as a child means you hate it and stop going when you are an adult?
Being made to go doesn't. It being incredibly dull, boring and uninspiring does. It certainly did for my mother, who refused to take us to church as children because she'd been bored out of her skull as a child and hated it and wouldn't inflict it on any child of hers.
Adults who eventually come to like broccoli or playing an instrument keep it up. Those who don't, don't. Making church dull and boring makes it far more likely that folk will not eventually come to like it, and will therefore not continue to do it once they have a choice.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add, btw., that we were seriously considering giving up church ourselves at one point because we couldn't very easily leave the kids at home and it was painfully obvious that the experience was killing what nascent faith they had. That was looking like our "least worst option."
[ 27. January 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
"a bit tough" will not fill the empty pews that that policy guarantees in the future. Of course as parents we can tell them they're going anyway, but that doesn't make disciples; it makes resentful children who want nothing to do with it as soon as they have grown up.
And have you ever endured an hour's service with three bored children? I suppose we could threaten to beat them within an inch of their lives if they dare move or speak, but otherwise it's a trial for the parents as well.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
Does this mean you think it's better that children get switched off from church, faith, Jesus etc. (and potentially, depending on one's theology here, run the grave risk of entering eternity without God) than for some thinking and adapting to happen so that church services are more enticing / attractive / amenable to children?
Unless our tradition dictates in detail the nature and style of our church services (and I know some traditions do so), surely it's incumbent on all of us to do some serious thinking about how we can make the whole church service 'thing' more engaging and more effective at introducing people to Jesus and to the idea of being his followers. If children are growing up with the idea that church services (and presumably, by extension, faith in Jesus) are boring and irrelevant to real life, well that's a big problem.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Aye. Thing is, children are part of the church. Not a potential part. Not a part in the future. Part now. We do them a massive disservice if our response to their spiritual needs is to bore them rigid.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I'm dropping in here to remark that Karl's children's experience is not necessarily common to all - as I have said, we have a number of children who like coming to church, and who are happy to be involved in Sunday Club or the liturgy......their current absence is down to problems with their parents, not them.
Just saying...whatever Karl's experience may be, not all kids (or churches, come to that) are the same. I don't for one minute deny, however, that this is a most challenging subject for churches of whatever denomination or style!
Ian J.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I never said it was common to all. But what I want to point out is that neither is the experience of children liking the service, or, for that matter the normal Sunday School offerings. Moreover, I refer back to my earlier post about a self-selecting sample; I have a distinct hunch that once in mission you move beyond the churched and largely churchophilic current punterage, you'll find this problem more and more.
Of course, it also depends on the church. Perhaps my kids would have been engaged by Bishop's Finger's church's offering; I only know they weren't by any of the parish churches in our area.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
Is Church and her worship a "response to people's spiritual needs"? Are children saved by some other Gospel?
I agree that provision for children is piss-poor in many (most?) places. Having said that, I deplore the (fairly modern) idea that you go to church to be vended a service suitable to your spiritual requirements: this is not (generally) a wise approach to take with adults, who have enormously varied spiritual 'needs', so why would it work better with children?
Admittedly, my ecclesiology is wildly at variance with that of people like SCK (and probably KLB), so I don't view services in the same light. I wonder, though, whether anyone thinks the spiritual life of a child (or an adult) stops at the church porch? Why do all of their spiritual needs have to be met in a church service?
Also: I don't understand what's so awful about children being bored (KLB's case seems to be an extreme example which I'm not necessarily talking about). Boredom is useful. Children do not have an human right to stimulation.
Also Also: what Bishop's Finger said.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be being unfair to LC and Enoch, but I'm reading their contribution as "your problem, you deal with it."
Not my intent - I would rather say that it it our problem, and we should deal with it. But it is definitely "we need to fix..." rather than "they need to fix..." because the church is us.
And I agree, of course, that one couple being the Sunday School provision isn't sustainable. Part of the problem, certainly, is the point of view that Sunday School is only an issue for the parents of small children, so that the rest of the church leaves the young families to sort it out between themselves. That point of view is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
All my kids like music lessons, and the majority like broccoli, but that's not really your point. At some level, you're right - I make my children try unfamiliar foods, and the assertion that this green thing that they haven't tried for months is "yucky" doesn't get them out of trying it again - but I don't hold them down for an hour or so every week and force-feed them green vegetables in the hope that they will acquire a deep and abiding love for Brussels sprouts in the process.
I think I mentioned upthread that my five-year-old isn't going to Sunday School at the moment. He gave it a decent try, he didn't enjoy it much, and it spoiled the church service for him. I see no sense at all in forcing him to go - he might be ready in September, and I'm pretty sure he'll want to go in 18 months time. Waiting until then to go back to Sunday School isn't going to do any damage to his spiritual development.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No-one is saying that all of everyone's spiritual needs ought to be met in every service. However, a situation where the church's provision is clearly antithetical to spiritual needs is a big problem. And I could see my children being alienated further from the church every service I dragged them to. When we got to our current gaff (which some on here would probably want closed down) the eldest made a point of spending the entire service with his fingers in his ears, so strongly did he no longer want to know anything about it. Fortunately their engaging approach means he is now engaged and participates in the service. I can hardly think how it'd be better if we didn't do that and instead served him up boredom.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Is Church and her worship a "response to people's spiritual needs"? Are children saved by some other Gospel?
I agree that provision for children is piss-poor in many (most?) places. Having said that, I deplore the (fairly modern) idea that you go to church to be vended a service suitable to your spiritual requirements: this is not (generally) a wise approach to take with adults, who have enormously varied spiritual 'needs', so why would it work better with children?
I certainly don't think church services are about being provided with 'a service suitable to your spiritual requirements', so my apologies if I've given that impression. For me, a church service (I prefer the words 'meeting' or 'gathering', but never mind that) is where Christians gather together to encourage and strengthen one another in their faith and their efforts to be disciples of Jesus. It's all about mutuality and 'one another-ing' IMO.
Like K:LB has just said, if children (or anyone really) are going to a church service / gathering and repeatedly finding it irrelevant and dull, then what impression are they getting of what it's like to be a Christian? Aren't they're learning that being a follower, an apprentice of the creator and sustainer of the universe is a tedious waste of their time? Woe to us if we're contributing to the sending of that message!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Like K:LB has just said, if children (or anyone really) are going to a church service / gathering and repeatedly finding it irrelevant and dull, then what impression are they getting of what it's like to be a Christian?
I suspect that there's probably a correlation between children finding church dull/irrelevant and most adults finding the same service dull/irrelevant. If we can find ways to make our services interesting and relevant for the adults who don't darken our doors then we'll probably be taking a big step towards doing the same for the children we already have.
The difficulty is that the adults already there choose to come, and almost by definition therefore come for what we currently do. Often there is a reluctance to change, because people like it the way it is. If a minister forces change on a congregation to make the service relevant to people who don't come then they risk alienating the current regulars, and if they aren't driven away they sit there resentful that what they valued before isn't there. And, if you do then get new people in they see a lot of people unhappy with the service, and even if they then get something from the service they still go away feeling unwelcome and resented and probably never come back.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You've put it in a nutshell, Alan ... so do you (or others) have any ideas about how one might proceed?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Church services don't need to be relevant, but they should be constructed and carried out in such a way that no one, adult or child, gets bored.
That means music that is attractive, well-rehearsed by the music group/choir (if there is one) and relatively easy to pick-up if there are visitors. It means intercessions that are structured and not full of shorthand/local references that are meaningless to someone not "in the loop"; it means a sermon or homily that is to the point, well-constructed and delivered.
Notices and announcements should be kept to a minimum; if you have a pew sheet that is where they should be.
Church should be as warm as it can be made, well-lit, with a loop for people who use hearing aids, have decent seating, cushions for those who need them, play-bags for the very small, etc.
Sunday School (if separate) should be similarly well-organised and thought through.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
In my case, I liked Sunday School and pretty much stayed there until I left for university at eighteen. In the last year or so it's occurred to me that my interest in small group church probably goes back to that time in my life.
There are many problems facing the whole concept of Sunday School, though. Here are just a few examples, as I see it:
- It's difficult to get decent staff to run them. Training is now available, but commitment is low, so children end up with an unsatisfying or age-inappropriate experience.
- I was mostly sent to SS by myself, and before my time this was quite normal; this practice seems almost obsolete now. Even if only a small number of such children ever stayed on, that was better than nothing.
- Parents who want good SS provision for their children are likely to defect to those churches that already have good SSs. This makes the situation at other churches worse. Like attracts like.
- Sunday isn't always a free day for kids. Sports activities are often on Sunday mornings, and for non-resident parents the weekend may be the only time they have with their kids.
- Churches need a strategy for holding on to children beyond SS and even beyond the youth group. If the general culture and environment of the church is very different from the youth provision then the young people won't stay on anyway. This means the whole character of a church might have to change. I've seen this happen at a local Baptist church but how it would work in churches whose identity is embedded in worshipping in a 'traditional' style?
- One argument I've read is that the way to attract children to church is to attract the parents. Especially the dads! Easy, or what?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
It was called 'offensive' when I mentioned Goldilocks in relation to attitudes towards children's provision. But I think it's fair comment to say that - in an age where the consumer is always right - there is a danger that 33 different parents clamour for 33 different styles of provision. Obviously that is just not possible. A reasonable sized church could probably offer 3 options, any more is unrealistic. So 30 of those parents have to be prepared to compromise (or expect their children to compromise) a little.
The options at my church currently are: play/activity corner at the front and to the side of the church; children's group meeting in the vestry; acolytes and choir taking part in the service. Of course, parents are also free to do their own thing with their own children in their pew, or take them to run around outside for part of the service (as my father used to do with me during the sermon when I was young - apparently that was normal back then). To me, that sounds an entirely reasonable number of options. But if anyone wanted to suggest and organise further options, I'm sure they'd be made most welcome.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Church services don't need to be relevant...
Wow! Now they tell us! That will make our lives much easier in future. All that effort we spent on planning sermons and music to be relevant to e congregation was just unnecessary.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If church is relevant then I think most people would put up with all sorts of stuff they don't actually like (though, with limits).
If it's irrelevant then basically you're just there for entertainment. And, if it isn't as entertaining as the omnibus edition of your favourite soap opera or watching the kids play football then why are you at church at all?
It's probably difficult to say what children are less tolerant of, boring or irrelevant. But, if the service isn't saying anything to them as they are, then why are children (or anyone else) enduring it?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Church services don't need to be relevant...
Wow! Now they tell us! That will make our lives much easier in future. All that effort we spent on planning sermons and music to be relevant to e congregation was just unnecessary.
And, to think I've just written a sermon for Sunday. I could have just used the one I wrote on the same passages for a different church 3 years ago. No need to worry about the old sermon being written specifically in the context of a church in vacancy and drawing applications from and into the immediate worries of the church. My current congregation wouldn't notice, and if they did so what? Not like I need to speak to them when I get behind the lectern (we don't have a pulpit). And, as I stand behind the Table to break bread and raise the cup I don't need to say words that make those actions something special. How many hours have I wasted this week trying to craft a service that says something for the people who will be in front of me (including at least two children), prayers that address needs I know they have, hymns that they can sing well and offer praise to God.
"Church services don't need to be relevant"? Bollocks to that. When we stop trying to be relevant we might as well give up the faith. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us", but we can't be bothered let him into our services and live there? "The light shines in the darkness", but we don't want illumination on the path we walk?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It was called 'offensive' when I mentioned Goldilocks in relation to attitudes towards children's provision. But I think it's fair comment to say that - in an age where the consumer is always right - there is a danger that 33 different parents clamour for 33 different styles of provision. Obviously that is just not possible. A reasonable sized church could probably offer 3 options, any more is unrealistic. So 30 of those parents have to be prepared to compromise (or expect their children to compromise) a little.
The options at my church currently are: play/activity corner at the front and to the side of the church; children's group meeting in the vestry; acolytes and choir taking part in the service. Of course, parents are also free to do their own thing with their own children in their pew, or take them to run around outside for part of the service (as my father used to do with me during the sermon when I was young - apparently that was normal back then). To me, that sounds an entirely reasonable number of options. But if anyone wanted to suggest and organise further options, I'm sure they'd be made most welcome.
But that isn't even close to what I was suggesting and that's fairly obvious. It's not about the consumer being always right, it's about church being for everyone, including children, and right now that is not the case.
Wanting ONE reasonable Sunday School provision is surely not unreasonable and is not at all the same as a classroom size group of parents all wanting different things. This is the case of churches having no parents at all because children are either unimportant to the church, or the church has no idea how to get parents into the church and it's not seen as a priority....because actual living children are ultimately not as important as tat and serving bad coffee, apparently.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
What about the shocking idea that children are part of the Body of Christ and as such should be treated as being as important as the adults? Why is church so exclusive of children that it makes them have no faith an acceptable prospect?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church. ...
I don't think we can ever legitimately say 'somebody ought to have a vision for .... '
Nor, for that matter, 'I have a vision for what you ought to do'.
Perhaps you should actually read my comment where I explained that my fucking disabilities mean I am NOT ABLE to do this. Getting to church is hard enough for myself. Being the sole Sunday School leader every single week of the year (because there is nobody else) would put me in hospital. Is that a good enough reason for you?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also, I am seeing an attitude of children being expected to keep themselves occupied with colouring in etc until they can join in with 'real' church, or that they are supposed to put up and shut up with a church that doesn't want them other than to fill up pews and doesn't see them as important, and then apparently are supposed to want to be part of such a church as an adult. Imagine if any other group of people in the church was treated like this! Although saying that, on some DH issues some people still are...
What about, I don't know, church that values children as full members of the Body of Christ and as such all church is 'real church', not just church for adults - and that this church welcomes, spiritually nourishes and provides a real and meaningful role for children in the community of the church. But that would be a bit too close to the Gospel, I fear. It also boggles the mind that someone who is childfree by choice has to point this out.
[ 27. January 2014, 23:45: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Or maybe everyone, like you, has their individual reasons for not being able to pull it off alone. What you are describing is an ideal most of us fail to live up to.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
This is such a complex and often painful area of discussion, especially if you are the parent of a child who chooses to opt out and you are then judged for your lack of spiritual nurture!
I agree that the promises made at Baptism (or at non-conformist dedications) mean that there is a corporate aspect to all of this. But sometimes there just aren't the human resources to deliver anything meaningful.
There are also issues of style and personality. As said above in the thread, even when there is provision for children, not all children enjoy it.
One thing I've noticed is that in churches where there is considerable emphasis on the preaching and the sermons last for half an hour plus there is a very practical reason for keeping the children meaningfully employed.
Having grown up and now being back in a liturgical tradition I can see that the rhythm and flow of such a service could be used creatively. I know one Anglo- Catholic priest who invites the children to come and sit in front of the altar at the start of the Eucharistic prayer so that they feel part of it.
There could be quite a number of things we could do in this vein, simple versions of the lectionary for them to read. There is a priest called Father Simon Rundell who has done a lot of work on this.
I know of children who have requested that their parents take them to church because they have been affected by a visit to a school assembly from a member of the clergy/ pastor and want to know more.
I also know lots of children who have stopped attending church as soon as they could. My own four have had various seasons.
But, as parents we decided that faith and spirituality could be experienced at home as well as at church. We read the Bible, prayed, sang songs and talked about matters of faith and hot topics when they were growing up. They are all now in their 30s. They are all different with varying theological perspectives and church attendance (or lack thereof!). We were far from perfect as parents but despite the pain of our mistakes the fruit of those early days is there, recognised by all of them in themselves.
So in answer to the original question: do we want to carry out Christian education or do we want to enable our children to experience the wonder of God and the joy of spiritual discovery? Or both? When we know what we are aiming for, then perhaps we can take small manageable steps towards it.
And we will never get it completely right!
[ 28. January 2014, 06:36: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Or maybe everyone, like you, has their individual reasons for not being able to pull it off alone. What you are describing is an ideal most of us fail to live up to.
But it's not - it's the attitude problem at the heart of it that needs changing. Many many people just don't see a problem because children are not 'real' members of the Body to them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
What do people think of Messy Church and holiday camps? I've always seen those as evangelism to children. I don't have of my own so not sure how they are received by parents.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Limited experience of Messy Church, but our daughter loved it and our son was indifferent (OK for a change, but he's unlikely to be happier with that regularly than what we currently do). Holiday camps would be an option for older children, but I think ours (preschool and early primary) are possibly too young. But, I'd like to know the camp first ... having recently had incidents in town with a church running youth activities and school chaplaincy distribute Creationist and homophobic propoganda in school assemblies I wouldn't want to find a camp run by people with similar beliefs.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What do people think of Messy Church and holiday camps? I've always seen those as evangelism to children.
Of course, Sunday School is 'evangelism to children' too - even more so, since it occurs all year round.
The world of Christian holiday 'camps' is alien to me, but in my area some of the churches run holiday clubs for local children. These clubs and camps are almost inevitably going to be run by evangelical churches, since they're the ones who hire or train youth workers or 'youth pastors'. This concept doesn't seem to be so prevalent in other kinds of churches.
'Youth work' will increase in importance, but I don't think SS as we know it has much of a future in most of our mainstream churches. Maybe we need to consider investing in ecumenical children's work. Also, if churches want to reach unchurched children they'll have to offer more than Bible stories on Sunday mornings, because most parents aren't impressed by that. Holiday camps/clubs for the children of busy parents, or access to 'good' state-run church schools - that's the sort of things that parents want.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I know our (very liberal) church runs a summer camp for kids. It's always way oversubscribed, even if we don't advertise it. This is partially because we are in a very poor area though, and constructive things for children to do while their parents are working are VERY popular. It doesn't hurt that the program is very good, but honestly, I bet we'd fill it if the program were bad. (Though we might need to advertise a bit perhaps.)
It's definitely a form of evangelism, but I think for us it's at least as much about being there for the neighborhood. Teaching about constructive ways to have emotions, giving inner city children a chance to work in a garden and grow their own vegetables, making sure kids get at least one square meal... It's all important.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
Our parish church, now under a new vicar, runs regular holiday clubs, fortnightly after school clubs (at the primary school), a very small and new youth group and the vicar regularly leads assembly at the school. This has meant that the church had been able to integrate far more in the local community than it did previously and the vicar is a recognisable person to many more people. There is an appointed youth worker shared between a couple of churches, and they alternate where the holiday clubs are held.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Heavenly Anarchist
That sounds very good. I suppose being in the right area with the right combination of churches helps too.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I know our (very liberal) church runs a summer camp for kids. [...]
It's definitely a form of evangelism, but I think for us it's at least as much about being there for the neighborhood. Teaching about constructive ways to have emotions, giving inner city children a chance to work in a garden and grow their own vegetables, making sure kids get at least one square meal... It's all important.
I should apologise to you, because I was thinking particularly of the UK situation, which is probably a bit different from the American one.
Your comments are a reminder that the SS actually started as a working class phenomenon and served many young people well. But in the UK declining resources and members particularly in working class areas has affected the ability of churches in many places to offer effective assistance to children. Fortunately, some mainstream churches (like Heavenly Anarchist's) are developing strategies that work for them.
BTW, I've been googling Sunday School in the UK, and although much of the focus is historical I've found two links for anyone who's interested in the contemporary situation:
http://www.krishk.com/2012/02/takes-church/
http://www.eauk.org/church/campaigns/whole-church/
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Jade Constable, I can see from your further explanations that you and I are talking at cross purposes. You are saying that just providing colouring in activities for children is not good enough. And I am saying that my own church, and - I suspect - other similar larger churches, are providing several different activities for children already. I can see now that your beef is not with me, but with those who do not see the need to bother to do that. I did think, originally, that you were just having a petulant whinge. But I now see that is not the case. Pax.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm. What a difficult problem SS (or whatever you like to call it) is in these post-Christian times!
On reflection, I think we're doing as much as we can at our place, given our limited human resources. We have a safe carpeted area for the youngest ones, a willing helper who is happy to organise a children's group as required during Mass, and the opportunity for older children to assist as acolytes/servers (we have just the one 13-year old at the moment). A confirmation class for 3 or 4 older children is to start soon, we hope.
Outwith the church, we have good rapport with our Beavers/Cubs/Scouts, though they can only manage 4 or 5 Parade Services per year - again, their resources in terms of leaders are limited. A new pre-school Nursery is about to start in our Hall, catering for the poorest families in our parish (the most deprived in the town in terms of child poverty), so who knows what pastoral contacts may come from that?
Ian J.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Heavenly Anarchist
That sounds very good. I suppose being in the right area with the right combination of churches helps too.
The Sunday school in the village church is small but growing I believe, many families left during the problems discussed earlier, including ourselves. When the new vicar came I think a lot of investment was made into rebuilding the church community and some resources are shared with another parish. This demonstrates how a troubled parish can be turned around but it does take time and resources, as well as the right personalities. We would be tempted to return to the church if we were not so happy at our NFI one.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
We have a good variety of ages of children at our parish in North London - about 30 kids come each week, from age 2 to 16.
We try to provide some variety for all the childen and teens both at Sunday Schools and in integration in the services. So there is a play and comfort area at the back of the church where very young children can happily play. There is also a separate Sunday school with 2 groups - younger and older - and on occasion the older children lead the younger children in presenting their work after the distribution of communion.
A number of the older children just come to the main service, and several act as servers. Also once a month the children will lead certain aspects of the services by handing out the books, joining in the procession, singing with the choir, leading the scripture readings and prayers, and bringing up the communion elements. Also once every few weeks they will sing a communion hymn that they have practiced. It is great to see how the children develop a bond and affection as their confidence grows. WE don't have a church school so most look forward to seeing each other on Sundays.
This is all done within the context of a fairly high mid-morning parish communion. Last year, the Vicar experimentally began an additional less formal family service but so few came that it was soon knocked on the head. But I think local context, even in a city like London with so many churches, is really important. A nearby parish whose parish communion is probably slightly longer and definately more formal than ours (they have a Sunday School for this service) has introduced a bi-monthly Eucharist, about 40 mins with simple songs and the children sitting together at the front. This started with 10 but now attracts around 50 adults and children
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Aye. There's no one answer. It's about what you can do that's authentically you. If there are enough people who really "get" the informal approach, then it can be done well, and attracts punters. If you're a dyed in the wool liturgist and despite best intentions are doing informality through gritted teeth, then it's going to be obvious, and the undercurrent of "hopefully we'll get this congregation to 'real church' one day", even if the leadership doesn't admit that even to themselves, will nevertheless make things seem forced.
Our church is a bunch of weirdos and misfits, so it's not surprising that we do weird misfitting church. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Liturgylover
It's very good to hear that yours and other local churches are able to share the gospel in this way. That's encouraging news.
It should be said that London's religious life overall is very different from what's happening in the rest of the country, even though there are surely lessons that churches elsewhere can learn from London.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Liturgylover
It's very good to hear that yours and other local churches are able to share the gospel in this way. That's encouraging news.
It should be said that London's religious life overall is very different from what's happening in the rest of the country, even though there are surely lessons that churches elsewhere can learn from London.
Thanks Svitlana, it is always rather baffling to hear some contnually talk of empty churches. I think the overall point in our case was to try to remove the divide between Sunday School and church and for both church and school try and include a mixture of choice, some continuity, and some diversity week by week.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If it doesn't detract too much from Amos's brief, I'd like to introduce a different approach from one of our benefice churches, a small church in a deeply rural community. They have decided to do something completely different once a month and have a service centred much more around families and children (although obviously others are welcome too) - these services involve worship but intermingled with a particular outdoor activity and some food. For example, they have done stargazing from the churchyard with an astronomer, searching as the Wise Men would have done; also activities in the graveyard, looking for information about those who used to worship in the church long ago; making model boats to sail on the river linking with stories of the fishermen chosen to be disciples.
Another church in the area has a monthly indoor service based around everyone having breakfast together.
For families who find it difficult to attend conventional worship, these once a month alternative services might be more manageable.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
It is always rather baffling to hear some continually talk of empty churches.
As I say, London's experience of church growth is exceptional; English Christians from outside London or certain fortunate suburban areas elsewhere will generally have far more experiences of church decline than church growth. I certainly do. This is probably hard for many churchgoing Londoners to visualise.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I have been in churches absolutely heaving with children, popular Sunday School and after-school/holiday clubs. Said churches are evangelical, usually con-evo though - so not sure how to get similar results in non-evangelical places. Maybe evangelical places will always have more energy, although that's a depressing thought.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What lessons do you think those 'heaving' churches might teach the majority of smaller congregations that have few if any children?
BTW, I've found this link with results from a survey about why churches grow. Interestingly, it dens't suggest that lots of youth activities are the answer, and nor does it say that being evangelical is essential. Perhaps evangelical churches are more likely to have the qualities required, though.
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/research.php/271/03-2006?pg=all
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What lessons do you think those 'heaving' churches might teach the majority of smaller congregations that have few if any children?
BTW, I've found this link with results from a survey about why churches grow. Interestingly, it dens't suggest that lots of youth activities are the answer, and nor does it say that being evangelical is essential. Perhaps evangelical churches are more likely to have the qualities required, though.
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/research.php/271/03-2006?pg=all
I can only speak from my own experience, and in that experience the churches with most families are evangelical.
As for lessons other churches can learn, well I'm not sure and parents would be better-qualified to answer I'm sure - but certainly the whole church being involved in providing for and being interested in children and their theological growth helps a great deal. I can see why this would be more likely in an evangelical church since evangelism even to the congregation is seen as important. The question for me is how to transfer the skills of engaging children and families, without evangelical/conservative theology.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
In a way, we do it in our little backstreet A-C congo by just accepting (and welcoming) people where they are, as opposed to where we wish they might be!
For the rest, over to the Holy Spirit, coz She knows best......something perhaps we ought all to bear in mind......
Ian J.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0