quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
You are right. The Church has been shunting out the children and young people for years, sending them out to Sunday school and Youth Groups. Now, unsparingly, there are incidents of these groups growing up and being unable to see itself part of a multigenerational whole.

The older generation hasn't necessarily been a good example. How many congregations have clung on to the "way we have always done things" to the exclusion of others?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think it is sad for this particular church. We should have a wider and more diverse vision for the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
If the church is ageist then they are ignoring the teachings of Jesus and the apostles .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I think church decline, along with postmodern individualism, makes it hard for churches to appeal to everyone in one fell swoop. In particular, the lack of young families and youths gives them a rarity value in some churches; but it's also made many other churches unable or even unwilling to deal with the needs of the young. In addition, the tendency towards formalised, highly structured rituals and the demand for a reverent, hushed atmosphere in church clearly makes all age worship a challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
If the church is ageist then they are ignoring the teachings of Jesus and the apostles .

---

Although, interestingly, it's not immediately obvious from the Bible that old folks spent a lot of time hanging out with Jesus. Has anyone done a study of the ages of the people he interacted with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
In a nearby church, there is a veritable ''Night of the long knives'' going on. Older and experienced people are being air brushed out of the picture. Or to be more precise removed, their jobs not needed anymore and then re-advertised. In addition key younger people are also leaving but the geriatric slaughter is noticeable and clear.

The same establishment is re-positioning itself, it appears, as a hipster 30 or 40 something congo, that is loosely based on the ''Hillsong'' methodology.

This is common place in the secular world, but really in the church? Is it so and should it be so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
In a nearby church, there is a veritable ''Night of the long knives'' going on. Older and experienced people are being air brushed out of the picture. Or to be more precise removed, their jobs not needed anymore and then re-advertised. In addition key younger people are also leaving but the geriatric slaughter is noticeable and clear.

The same establishment is re-positioning itself, it appears, as a hipster 30 or 40 something congo, that is loosely based on the ''Hillsong'' methodology.

This is common place in the secular world, but really in the church? Is it so and should it be so?

---

Sadly a local church at which I was a member went this way some years ago. People with years of experience, service and dedication were quite deliberately sidelined, and most of them - myself and Mrs. Andras included - have ended up in other congregations.

Of course every church needs to foster the talents and skills of each new generation and any sensible older person will welcome them with open arms; but a blanket cull of everyone over 55 is just ludicrous and unChristian as well.

---

Andras,

it is all too common and what you experienced is also tragic. I am not in this particular church, that I mentioned, but it is outwardly ''successful'' but I cannot be too specific; it employs quite a few people, but it seems, longer serving folk are being told that their job is now being re-specified; they no longer have a job - so sad.

Of course as a friend mentioned to me, youth culture has now fragmented, so what sort of niche are they now going for? What constitutes success in their eyes. It's all rather sad as there is a gradual, small but steady exodus (often not just older folk but some younger and more talented folk) from the congo.

The church is crying out for a planned ''split'' so that it can be re-planted, however the leadership won't do that as they had a catastrophic split about 15 years ago and they operate on a leadership knows best basis.

I escaped some time ago and go to a traditional (but quite evangelical) church that welcomes everyone

I'm hoping and praying common sense will prevail at my previous congo and that the youth business model will get the boot. We'll have to see.

Saul
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I went for a brief while to a church which had no youth program because it would have meant heating a room some other night of the week than Sunday, and their pastor's wife worshipped somewhere else, because she was told by some old biddy that her baby was too loud during the service, and it was accompanied with general disapprobation and soft abuse. Not surprisingly, nobody in the pews was younger than about 60. This was 30 years ago so hopefully the old guard has all died out and the church has been paved over for an Arby's.

[ 06. December 2014, 19:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
We are a small and active congo with an age range from newborn (last month; another due next month) to about 93, a small handful of young kids and another small group of teenagers. Our worship is a fairly lively but basically trad Presy, short of happy clappy, and the kids contribute.

There are always people available to do what's needed. I had several three-year stints on Parish Council in my younger days, dropped off the cleaning roster in my sixties and the morning tea roster somewhere in my seventies, but still produce the newsletter and can lead worship if required.

But, over the years, the children who are nurtured in the sunday school mostly drop out somewhere in their teens. In other words, a lively sunday school and youth group doesn't provide for future numbers.

I can see some mistakes in the past. My own daughter, 44 today, went to ss and youth group because it was expected, but won't have bible stories in her own home, put off partly, I suspect, by a conservative leader back in the day. Son brings his family (acquired in their teens) to church at Christmas.

You can think you're doing everything right and still lose them!

GG
 

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I don't know that I can agree that churches should focus on the elderly. The congregation of the church I attend seems to be mostly people of retirement age. There are some children but not a great many. Some of the scheduled activities are
at times when no one still working for a living could attend. If this is a trend and continues, the congregation will dwindle.

Frankly, when I first saw the title of the thread, I thought it would be about biases against the young, not the old.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Like GG, my mum has served faithfully all her life. Until she had a stroke, 3 years ago at the age of 77, she was running her parish's pastoral care, including getting around all the elderly shut ins to take communion to them (she was her diocese's first woman lay reader back in the 60s).

She was also taking funerals regularly, and was requested by a whole range of parishioners for this purpose, not just the elderly.

Since she had her stroke she has become aware that no one has picked up the ball she had been carrying. She still talks regularly on the phone to her shut in elderly and disabled people, but once she left hospital, no one has offered her, or them, communion at home. She has lots of visitors, but they are not church people.

In the last six months, she has been able to get back to Wednesday church, which is at 11am, but there is no way she could get to the 8am service on a Sunday because it takes her too long to get dressed. She feels largely invisible to the parish.

Being the person she is, she has gone on exploring other avenues, and is becoming what most here would regard as post-Christian - quite a feat for someone in their 80s.

I guess this is all to say that while many parishes talk about being there for the community, they aren't even there for their own parishioners if those parishioners become invisible for some reason.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Barely a week goes by without my hearing a variation on the following story from a newly-admitted hospital patient:

• I used to go to church
• But then I got too sick/too frail
• And somebody from church visited for a while
• But then the visits stopped
• And now I haven't been to church / had communion for weeks / months / years

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There is a very real sense in which most churches lust after the "young families" they think for some reason are their lifeblood, while simultaneously catering so to the older members of the congregation as to make the church services and programs completely unappealing if not inaccessible to them. Focusing on either side of the equation to the exclusion of the whole problem only leads to accusations and bitterness. What is needed is to recognize the whole issue of ageism/exclusion and a commitment on everyone's part to nurture a truly inclusive, multi-generational (as well as multi-racial) fellowship-- which is going to mean everyone has to give up something to make that happen. The way you do that is by remembering your mission.

---

Several years ago, MrP and I left a church that was obsessed with attracting young unchurched families. We were a young couple but childless and from church-going families and it was made pretty clear that our services were not wanted. We later heard that they had great difficulty replacing MrP as PCC secretary .
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Speaking from the other side of the barrel (hoping not to be caught over it), I can say it's pretty hard to keep in touch with many elders for some specific reasons. (These do NOT apply to all elders, but to quite a few of them.) The first comes when the children/relatives decide to move Mom into a nursing home and never notify the church. When we try to track her down, we get "oh, her kids came, we don't know where she is now, sorry, no forwarding address" which is bloody frustrating.

Or people get hospitalized and no one tells us (understandable, but still) and the freaking HIPAA privacy act means that even if we've been working with that hospital for years, they still can't tell us if Mr. X has been admitted unless Mr. X specifically requests it (which he probably can't do, being sedated/in ICU/having had a stroke).

Then there are the people who move/get moved to senior communities/nursing homes etc. which are 50 miles away or more (sometimes several states away, because the kids want Mom near, and often omit to even think about transferring her membership). It's the same problem we have with those in jail--the round trip is huge, and cuts down the amount of time a solo pastor can spend--particularly if you have a large number of people in these situations. And when you try to hand them off to sister congregations which are closer, you just know someone's going to drop the ball and stop visiting them, since they've never met them and have no emotional connection (and are probably overstretched themselves), and you have sleepless nights for that reason.

I don't know what to do. It totally sucks, and we certainly can't afford to hire a visitation pastor and give him a big traveling budget. But when the kids are not in church themselves, they tend to take no care at all for Mom and Dad's needs (or Uncle's, or ...).
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
I get that Lamb Chopped. And with my Mum as an example of someone who provided pastoral support without being either ordained or paid, I wonder why it has to boil down to "the pastor." Where are the community connections in the church?

My mum's lucky she has lots of good mates, but most of them are elderly too. They're great company and I love spending time with them because they have so many interesting things to share - practical, emotional, historical, theological, to say nothing of their rich personalities.

Are people just not brave enough to give it a go?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Barely a week goes by without my hearing a variation on the following story from a newly-admitted hospital patient:

• I used to go to church
• But then I got too sick/too frail
• And somebody from church visited for a while
• But then the visits stopped
• And now I haven't been to church / had communion for weeks / months / years

It makes me furious. Intelligent, prayerful people, some of whom have worked hard for their churches for decades, dropped by those churches when they need the support most. On the plus side, at least it's given me advance warning not to rely on a church when I get old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I get that Lamb Chopped. And with my Mum as an example of someone who provided pastoral support without being either ordained or paid, I wonder why it has to boil down to "the pastor." Where are the community connections in the church?

My mum's lucky she has lots of good mates, but most of them are elderly too. They're great company and I love spending time with them because they have so many interesting things to share - practical, emotional, historical, theological, to say nothing of their rich personalities.

Are people just not brave enough to give it a go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My brother-in-law was a pastor in central Texas. There, if a member of the congregation is going into surgery, the pastor is supposed to be there, praying him into the operating room. I have never heard of such a custom -- surely it is only possible in a small congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my more urban area you (or a family member) has to request a hospital visit before you get one. They're not allowed to just show up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Time to offer Mike Yaconelli's "A Better Idea than Youth Ministry" even if it is about ten years old.

If individuals of any age feel that they are part of the whole, then they will become committed members. If they are just "the audience", as in most megachurches, then they are free to move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

On the positive side, I thought it was fairly routine for the clergy to visit housebound church members, particularly to offer communion. Is this dying out? The clergy should encourage church members to visit each other in these situations, but part of the problem is that in many mainstream churches friendships can be fairly superficial. Sunday morning worship doesn't help people to get to know each other properly, yet it's very hard to get people to come to groups and meetings at other times.

---

In my experience, lay people often are doing hospital visits but there are two problems:

1. For the older generation, it "doesn't count" if it's not "the pastor". They appreciate it when their church friends visit. In the Presbyterian church, there may even be deacons who bring them communion, all very much appreciated-- but it still doesn't count. Heck, when I would visit-- a full-fledged, card-carrying, passed-all-the-exams ordained (but female and/or only an associate) pastor they would appreciate it, be very grateful, but still would complain they hadn't received a "pastoral visit."

2. While on the one hand it's nice to encourage people to just spontaneously be caring for one another w/o waiting for someone to ask them to do so, without some sort of organized system (e.g. Deacons or Stephen's Ministers) it tends to fall disproportionately. The well-connected, social, and older (but not too older) tend to get lots of visits, the more introverted, very old/housebound-- and very young tend not to get visits. (No one thinks about visiting younger people who are hospitalized, in part because it so rarely comes up-- but when it does, it's often something quite serious/tragic, so all the more need for care).

otoh, I was touched this week to learn that a very quirky older gentleman, recently bereaved, in our congregation, was invited to Thanksgiving dinner by a young family with some rambunctious preschoolers. Love that this busy family thought of this man totally out of their social circle/ generational group, but very much in need of some care this holiday.
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Our Pastoral Elder knows what's happening and would organise hospital visits if needed.

Or members of the pastoral team would let her or the minister know if a visit was needed.

When the Grandad was in for the Big Op the hospital chaplains were great. He was in the ward that the Anglican chaplain looked after but the Presbyterian man dropped in when he was in ICU – it turned into more of a social chat because we knew him; he'd preached in our church.

I think if one was unexpectedly hospitalised and nobody thought to tell the minister/elder, one could ask the chaplain to contact the parish; that is, of one wanted to and wasn't too ill to ask.

GG
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
If I am admitted to a hospital, it will almost certainly be the one that is five miles from me. (I may be transferred later.)

The hospital has records for my next-of-kin, etc, but they are not allowed to keep on file a request that my pastor be notified. It's illegal. That law needs to be changed.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
I have seen and heard of a lot of churches trying to push the family friendly, children inclusive, all age worship side of things. A friend went for an interview for a vicar and was told they wanted to attract more families which he wisely (IMHO) replied it was good to attract families but not at the expense of making existing, older congregation members feel unwelcome and unwanted.

Saying that I do notice that in my neck of the woods mid weekday services are during the day, which is ideal for the elderly but not so good for those of us who are working.
Finding an evening Eucharist is rare. The only one I found was at the same time as bell ringing practice!
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
JoannaP said:

quote:

---

Several years ago, MrP and I left a church that was obsessed with attracting young unchurched families. We were a young couple but childless and from church-going families and it was made pretty clear that our services were not wanted. We later heard that they had great difficulty replacing MrP as PCC secretary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Church by it's very DNA should be inclusive, childless couples, single people, older people, young families etc etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
If I am admitted to a hospital...The hospital has records for my next-of-kin, etc, but they are not allowed to keep on file a request that my pastor be notified. It's illegal. That law needs to be changed.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No one thinks about visiting younger people who are hospitalized.

---

quote:

---

§ Kids who left the faith report having questions about faith in early adolescence that were ignored by significant adults (parents, pastor, teacher).

§ A factor causing kids to shelve their faith is the segregation of kids and adults in church. Kids who attend church-wide services are more likely to keep their faith.

§ The more kids serve and build relationships with younger children the more likely they are to hang on to their faith.

§ Short-term mission trips seem to have little impact on the lasting faith of young people (they are not more likely to give to the poor or become long-term missionaries).

§ The more students feel prepared for college the more likely their faith is to grow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
You are right. The Church has been shunting out the children and young people for years, sending them out to Sunday school and Youth Groups. Now, unsparingly, there are incidents of these groups growing up and being unable to see itself part of a multigenerational whole.

The older generation hasn't necessarily been a good example. How many congregations have clung on to the "way we have always done things" to the exclusion of others?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think it is sad for this particular church. We should have a wider and more diverse vision for the Church.

---

This.

It really is ageist in both ways. There is a very real sense in which most churches lust after the "young families" they think for some reason are their lifeblood, while simultaneously catering so to the older members of the congregation as to make the church services and programs completely unappealing if not inaccessible to them. Focusing on either side of the equation to the exclusion of the whole problem only leads to accusations and bitterness. What is needed is to recognize the whole issue of ageism/exclusion and a commitment on everyone's part to nurture a truly inclusive, multi-generational (as well as multi-racial) fellowship-- which is going to mean everyone has to give up something to make that happen. The way you do that is by remembering your mission.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No one thinks about visiting younger people who are hospitalized.

---

I think they may get visited if they're in hospital - the real problem comes if they're ill at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Quote from the Customer Review of "Sticky Faith" (linked above): research points:

quote:

---

§ Kids who left the faith report having questions about faith in early adolescence that were ignored by significant adults (parents, pastor, teacher).

§ A factor causing kids to shelve their faith is the segregation of kids and adults in church. Kids who attend church-wide services are more likely to keep their faith.

§ The more kids serve and build relationships with younger children the more likely they are to hang on to their faith.

§ Short-term mission trips seem to have little impact on the lasting faith of young people (they are not more likely to give to the poor or become long-term missionaries).

§ The more students feel prepared for college the more likely their faith is to grow.

---

Exactly.

Develop community, not attendance as audience. It won't be as large, but it will work for those who do come, and it will last.

Yeah, some of those churchy jobs may not get done, but if no-one cares, why do them?

---

We were part of the Sticky Faith research initiative.

Another aspect of the finding is that giving young people real responsibilities in the church-- ushering, Sunday School teachers (NOT "helpers" but teachers), etc. is another key factor. So it's not so much that church jobs won't get done-- they will-- and in fact, quite enthusiastically, just not as elegantly or quietly as maybe we're used to seeing it done. Your usher might be wearing a loud graphic t-shirt and smirking at this friend in the next aisle. That's OK. Part of the very real give-and-take that needs to happen to have a multi-generational church is everyone needs to let go of something. Young people will have to listen to the occasional hymn and/or long-winded sermon. Older people will have to learn a few praise choruses and get used to ushers who don't look like a chorus line of bankers. That's what community is all about.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Reminder that the young are hindered by inaccessible church buildings too! Lack of toilet facilities for example, and having to carry buggies up steps.

CoE church buildings are often listed or protected in some other way, so even if the church wants to improve accessibility they are often legally unable to do so, or have to go through long and expensive planning permission processes. Even installing a toilet can be a real headache in terms of permission. Church held in a community centre starts to look very appealing!
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
To add to something commented on a few times:

There's more to multigenerational churches than seniors and young families. In my 20s when I was going to church I heard a lot about the importance of "the family", something which was painful for me as I didn't have one at the time. The church catered for seniors (or they catered for themselves) through prayer groups (where most people were over 60) and the such, and young people were catered via the Sunday School and creche in the side of church, but the likes of me? Loner males drifted into being servers (this was a church where only men could be servers ), but I didn't.

Saying that, there was once an attempt to start up a men's group, which consisted of the priest, a few servers and me drinking beer in a pub. It can be clearer how to cater for seniors and young families, but for the likes of the then me...(well, in fact being in the choir helped).
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Single women in their 30s and 40s have the same issue.

Personally I am uncomfortable with men's groups and women's groups, partly because I prefer mixed-gender socialising and partly because I feel uncomfortable with the gender norms they tend to (consciously or subconsciously) perpetuate. I'd much rather have a situation where people are encouraged to socialise normally outside of church - in the UK that would often look like going to the pub together, in the US I guess going for breakfast after church in the morning could be an equivalent? (I'm still baffled as to how people go so regularly to church that's early enough to be before breakfast - UK church services normally end around lunchtime rather than breakfast time....)
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Single women in their 30s and 40s have the same issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

A church whose newsletter I still get is asking for families and couples to light the Advent candle.

---

ouch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect the apparent exclusion of singles from the invitation is just blindness to existence of singles even though (according to the directory) over 30% of that church's households are single adults (mostly widows, but also some divorced and a few never marrieds including a gay couple). A previous pastor of that church told me I was the only single, that's when I looked through the directory to see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The Church?

It is our Church. We are all part of the problem or the solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
Some of these remarks make me wonder just who the church is serving well. Is it time to attempt a redesign, taking little for granted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
Some of these remarks make me wonder just who the church is serving well. Is it time to attempt a redesign, taking little for granted?

---

Possibly no one? Partly because people get categorized by superficial externals like old, young, familied, single, etc. I keep pushing for categorization (if there has to be any) by interest. The assumption women have different interests than men so we need separate women's and men's groups - huh?

One friend, an elder in his church, said his church has a motorcycle men's group that do things like go on motorcycle day trips. I asked what about any woman who loves to motorcycle? He said one man brings his wife. I said why not call it a motorcycle group instead of a motorcycle men's group so other interested women could feel welcome? That had never occurred to him, and he said he would suggest it.

People enjoy and value each other when they gather around an interest. When we group people by demographics - youth in a separate building, women and men in separate groups, couples in a separate Bible study from singles, parents of teenagers in their own group - I suspect we serve no one well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I went for a brief while to a church which had no youth program because it would have meant heating a room some other night of the week than Sunday, and their pastor's wife worshipped somewhere else, because she was told by some old biddy that her baby was too loud during the service, and it was accompanied with general disapprobation and soft abuse. Not surprisingly, nobody in the pews was younger than about 60. This was 30 years ago so hopefully the old guard has all died out and the church has been paved over for an Arby's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
it means the church is actually alive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I had a colicky baby myself and I always took him out of restaurants when he started crying and never even tried to take him to church. Why should one baby ruin an experience for all the other people there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
"Too loud during service," didn't sound like the gurgling of a laughing baby to me. I never knew a baby who could laugh loud enough to be considered "too loud." I had a colicky baby myself and I always took him out of restaurants when he started crying and never even tried to take him to church. Why should one baby ruin an experience for all the other people there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

What are these changes that old people simply must tolerate? Why is this change more important than they are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
"Too loud during service," didn't sound like the gurgling of a laughing baby to me. I never knew a baby who could laugh loud enough to be considered "too loud." I had a colicky baby myself and I always took him out of restaurants when he started crying and never even tried to take him to church. Why should one baby ruin an experience for all the other people there?

---

I don't think we-- any of us-- should see it as "ruining the experience". It's part of life-- just like squealing batteries in hearing aids is a part of life. It's what it's like to live in a family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
You have me wrong if you think I don't like children in the church. I love the kids in my church and they seem to like me. I sit, by choice, behind a one year old and his infant brother and I love to watch them play and hear their comments. I also know that some children have problems being quiet in church for many years, although I wouldn't say they were still babies or that wiggling and talking is ever the same thing as a screaming baby.

"Ruining the experience for everyone" doesn't mean a little fussing from the babies or our mentally disabled man who shouts, "Play the trumpet!" from time to time. That's all part of the fun to me.

I guess some of you have never been around a truly loud baby who is screaming continuously from teething pain. Hearing the prepared sermon or the music would be impossible. More importantly it's hard to hear a baby in pain without wanting to do something about it. You can talk about your baby's right to be in church all you want but I think a baby like that needs comfort more than church. He needs to be taken out and walked or driven around the block or put to the breast or pushed in his chair, not made to sit in a pew for an hour. I've seen babies denied any of that because of a stubborn insistence on the mother's part to exert her right to stay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

Even in those cases I would never say a word to the mother, I just don't do that sort of thing, but then I wouldn't tell the old woman who needs a walker that she was holding up the line to communion. I wouldn't tell the older woman who has taught the adult Sunday School class for years that I was going to take it over and if I was the pastor I wouldn't give sermons about how depressing he finds it to look out over the congregation and see so much gray hair. Maybe old people "are grown-ups and should be able to handle it," but some of them still have feelings.

That sermon about welcoming the children was very nice and my present pastor has one just like it. I wonder why that inclusive attitude doesn't extend to the older people? Why is it okay to look forward to them going somewhere else or even dying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I just question whether we all have the right to be not annoyed in church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:



But unless you're willing to retract your statement, it still speaks volumes. "Ruining the experience" is the phrase you used, and that says it all-- far beyond any attempt to explain it away. You simply can't say something like that and then pretend that you are open and welcoming to everyone. Because you're not.

---

quote:

---

I had a colicky baby myself and I always took him out of restaurants when he started crying and never even tried to take him to church. Why should one baby ruin an experience for all the other people there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A single mum with 2 children is befriended by the toddler group meeting in the week: she has been referred to the group by social services. They help her, listen to her and accept her children who like to run around more than the other children.

fast forward. because she likes the people at Toddlers she joins them on Sunday for church. Her children aren't the finished article, nor is she but she finds acceptance, warmth and love. She likes the church, the music the people but she behaves rather differently from most. Her children run around the church: one or two eyebrows are raised, one old lady won't take communion because the children aren't stopped from running around the communion table. They stop naturally after a few minutes.

How would you as Minister/Vicar/Priest deal with said old lady's complaint that the church has become a playground?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Good Gosh. You're the most sanctimonious, judgemental person I know and yet you brag constantly about being the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Here's the sentence that you find so horribly unforgivable and for which you demand a retraction:

quote:

---

I had a colicky baby myself and I always took him out of restaurants when he started crying and never even tried to take him to church. Why should one baby ruin an experience for all the other people there?

---

I was explaining my own personal thoughts when I felt my baby's crying was making it impossible for others to enjoy their meal in the restaurant. I was also, by staying home from church, predicting that we might possibly make church unpleasant for myself and others. I was trying to be considerate of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
In cases of extreme crying, I really don't see the point of mother and child staying in the sanctuary. I doubt if either of them are happy in those circumstances, I know I wouldn't have been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd start by listening and asking a whole bunch of questions. There's most likely something behind this complaint (there's usually a bunch of stuff behind every complaint). I'd want to know what I was dealing with before I made any definite move.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

How would you as Minister/Vicar/Priest deal with said old lady's complaint that the church has become a playground?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Good Gosh. You're the most sanctimonious, judgemental person I know and yet you brag constantly about being the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Twilight - I have certainly experienced parents being told off because their baby is laughing. In the context of my post, I meant 'it means the church is alive' in the sense that the church is full of different ages and experiences, not that I want all elderly churchgoers to die or anything.

---

quote:

---

Maybe you've never experienced it, but I have experienced churches where literally everyone in the church wants xyz change aside from a small clique of older people who act like toddlers whenever the c-word is uttered.

---

quote:

---

Our experiences are going to colour our view. I don't think expecting older people to deal with change as much as churches expect children to deal with change is unreasonable or hate-filled. I'm not sure why old age is some kind of get out of jail free card.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. And this goes to the whole area of pre-planning. Toddlers ARE going to run around. They are going to crawl underfoot. It's no good saying they shouldn't or explaining how much of a risk it is to the elderly, it's like telling a duck not to quack. It's what toddlers do.

And yet, as Belle notes, falls are a very real and important concern. I've seen far too many times when a bad fall can be the prelude to a sharp decline in a formerly active and energetic senior.

Part of being an inclusive, loving, caring community is being aware of both these realities and planning for them. Not by telling the parents of toddlers to require their children to be something that is unnatural for a toddler. And not by telling the seniors to not care about something that is a very real and valid concern about a serious risk. You do it by finding creative and workable solutions. Things like designing our shared spaces (both worship spaces and fellowship spaces) with designated areas for play that are confined in some way. Things like providing some toys or crayons or whatever for kids. Things like providing ramps and easy access for the mobility impaired, and paying attention to ambient noise and other challenges for the hearing impaired. Things like having a comfortable and attractive nursing moms room with a audio or video feed from the service.

Some of these things will cost money, some of them won't. So they all have to be the mix of how we budget and prioritize various things. Again, all part of the conversations that every family everywhere has to have all the time. But it begins by opening our eyes and hearts to notice ALL the people around us and think proactively about how to best care for all their needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Are we getting to the nub of this? Is it our own critical attitudes, that we take into church with us, that are causing us to turn against our brothers and sisters rather than go out of our way to make them feel welcome?

A critical heart will ensure that we're never fully comfortable anywhere except home in our own controlled environment. Is it something we can overcome? I think so, with perseverance.

---

I just read further back, and I have to say, that cuts both ways.

The discussion provoked a memory-- a few years back, I learned a friend if mine shot herself. I spend a day cooped up in my room, shellshocked, but the next day I decided I needed to get my ass out of the house, so I went to have breakfast.
I was seated next to an elderly couple ( in front of me) and a mother with a toddler boy. The toddler boy was doing toddler boy things-- shredding his napkin, banging his spoon, tossing his food, etc. ( Gwai-"being a goober." ) I sensed I was on edge and it was working on my nerves, but it was easy enough to ignore as there was a table space between us and they were behind me.
About five minutes into the meal, the kid let out a piercing scream. I jumped out my skin and looked around-- pure reflex. Also job instinct, I guess-- if I heared one of my own toddlers scream like that, I would have assumed he'd bit his tongue in half. Kid was just horsing around, mom gently corrected him, that was that. I took a few deep breaths and picked up my fork.

The husband of the couple in front of me saw me jump, threw his napkin down, and started in a loud speech about people who didn't appreciate the joyful sounds if chldren, about how he thought it was a blessing and one should rejoice in hearing it. He was glaring ar me the whole time, and his voice shook with rage.His wife shushed him. i just sat there crying and wishing I had never left the house. I'm sure that just confirmed to him that I was a person who resisted joy.

So, there is the judgement that " i would never let my kid do that, by gum, in my day..." But there is also the judgement that. " anyone who jumps at a loud noise hates kids." Neither is fair. You just don't know what might be going on.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
That father's damn lucky he didn't have a Vietnam vet sitting with his back to him. Idiot.

ETA: I see it was a different table which produced the idiot. Still, a Vietnam vet in PTSD flashback mode is not a pretty sight. You think older people particularly would have some awareness of the effect sudden screams from behind have on people.

[ 11. December 2014, 21:43: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Twilight - I'm not talking about any change that's down to a new fad or anything. In my church's case, some pews (like, 5 in a big church) were going to be removed and the pews shifted around in order to make the layout more wheelchair-friendly. Said old people were unhappy because 'their' pews were going to be moved. If that's not childish and toddler-like I don't know what is. Btw these weren't pews with memorials or anything like that in, just standard pews the people habitually sat in every week. There are lots of changes that happen in church that have nothing to do with trends.

I'm genuinely glad that you've only experienced nice old people in your church(es), but that's not the case for everyone. Rather than acting as if our experiences cannot possibly be true, why not believe us...? Btw I would be perfectly fine with a parent wanting to take out a genuinely screaming child, and wouldn't hesitate to ask a parent to get their child to stop running around (for example). I'm also baffled by why you took my comment about a church with different ages being alive so literally - a church is supposed to be a family, a community. Obviously it's only going to live and survive with a mix of different ages. A school class is part of the wider school body and is a bit different. Do you genuinely not understand why one needs a mix of ages and the other doesn't?

By far the nastiest people I have encountered in a church situation have been old people. One time a newcomer sat in 'their spot' and said person hissed about it to their neighbour. The newcomer got up, left and never came back. Another time (different church!) quite possibly the nastiest person I've ever encountered in a church setting thought she could just do and say whatever she liked and nobody dared tell an old lady to stop. Screaming at someone for folding a used raffle ticket 'incorrectly'. Like I'm assuming there may have been some mental health issues there but she was just horrible to everyone, and in a church with a small congregation that was not exactly helpful to growth.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend of mine was on the vestry of a church in Haymarket, VA, and had me look over the 'Welcome' leaflet before they went to reprint. It was quite an old document, probably written fifty years ago. I pointed out that if they insisted on referring to 'the War of Northern Aggression' it was a lead pipe cinch that modern suburban families would not feel very welcome. He replied that the oldest member of the congregation was also the wealthiest, and she was still fighting the Civil War. Nothing could be done to change the wording until she died.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Twilight ... I'm genuinely glad that you've only experienced nice old people in your church(es), but that's not the case for everyone. Rather than acting as if our experiences cannot possibly be true, why not believe us...?

By far the nastiest people I have encountered in a church ...situation have been old people. One time a newcomer sat in 'their spot' and said person hissed about it to their neighbour. The newcomer got up, left and never came back. Another time (different church!) quite possibly the nastiest person I've ever encountered in a church setting thought she could just do and say whatever she liked and nobody dared tell an old lady to stop. Screaming at someone for folding a used raffle ticket 'incorrectly'. Like I'm assuming there may have been some mental health issues there but she was just horrible to everyone, and in a church with a small congregation that was not exactly helpful to growth.

---

I'm sure it varies a lot from place to place. In my experience, it's been a bit more of a mixed message-- in almost every church I've attended the verbal communication (e.g. mission statements) has very much favored young families to the exclusion of singles and older folks-- to the point you'd think "young family" was code for "Christ incarnate". But the actual priorities of said churches-- what actually gets done when push comes to shove (and it does)-- almost always favored older adults, often to the point of even explicitly saying "because that's where all the givers/ money comes from"

As to who wins the "worship wars" about what sort of music is sung, the short answer is: no one.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Far as I can tell, you are all correct.

Churches can simultaneously seek to please "young couples with children" and also elders demanding traditional un-wheelchair friendly seating or Easter flowers done exactly the way Mildred's grandmother did the flowers. It's a connection to loved dead ancestors for the oldest long time members and a dusty museum that needs to focus more on the present congregation.

Some churches depend on singles to do lots of the volunteer work while the informal social life centers on couples/families. A church naturally reflects the lifestyle and values of the majority but is littered with people who don't fit those values.

Churches can be warm and friendly to it's long term members and cold to newcomers who aren't the target demographic. It needs to be reaching out to new members but success in that can make long term members feel invaded and shunted aside.

It needs to mix all ages while giving children room to be children and simultaneously protecting toddling elders from the dangers of crawling or toddling (or running) children. It needs to engage instead of boring the teens without reducing adult level of interest.

Etc.

We all seem to have expectations of what "church" is supposed to be like, but those expectations conflict. Is church supposed to be a refuge into a familiar environment or a stimulation to change and get out of your rut? Yes to both?

Were things easier back in a less mobile society, when people in church mostly grew up together, and the handicapped (toddling elders, wheelchair riders, the deaf, autistic, young children needing wiggle room, etc) stayed home?
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How would you as Minister/Vicar/Priest deal with said old lady's complaint that the church has become a playground?

---

I would interpret the old lady's complaint as fear of being knocked down, a fear that becomes quite serious as people age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
In a nearby church, there is a veritable ''Night of the long knives'' going on. Older and experienced people are being air brushed out of the picture. Or to be more precise removed..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Thanks everyone.

The fact is that this is a real life event. All the facts as written are 100% true and correct. Now for the extra facts.

Belle, the lady in question may be afraid of being tripped but seeing as she sits down for 100% of the service, it's not that in this instance. Said lady is also causing ructions at the weekly lunch (mainly attended by people 60+) and has had an issue with gossip and winding others up for many years. She is also married but childless with no nieces/nephews. Her views have not come to me directly but through others.

---

quote:

---

The family. Very poor and on benefit. Dad has mental health problems and doesn't leave the house. They often don't have enough food - not through mismanagement or anything but because of benefit cuts and restrictions. They have no money and rely on food banks to make ends meet. Their house is not the cleanest but the children are happy and full of joy and have come to enjoy church and the many people who talk to them and support them as a family. Mum has helped others in the community even though poor herself.

---

quote:

---

The question is should I make a suggestion to the elderly lady (who has been in the church for many years)? The suggestion is being this: there are 94 churches at least in this area, some closer to her home than this. Over 80% of them are child free zones. Would she care to attend one where she might feel better at home? [By the way, pretty much everyone admits that she should have been tackled on her gossip etc years ago but no one dared it seems].

---

quote:

---

Or, should I invite the family to parent craft classes, ask the children not to wave the flags provided? Not to smile and be part of the welcome team? In other words to lose perhaps the only part of their week where they feel they are giving something to others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
In my church's case, some pews (like, 5 in a big church) were going to be removed and the pews shifted around in order to make the layout more wheelchair-friendly. Said old people were unhappy because 'their' pews were going to be moved. If that's not childish and toddler-like I don't know what is. Btw these weren't pews with memorials or anything like that in, just standard pews the people habitually sat in every week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Its obvious your mind was made up before you asked the question. The children are popular, pretty little things and the woman is unpopular, old and ugly. Nobody likes her, particularly the gossipy people who complained to you about her. I guess it's true the church is like a big family and when grandma becomes a downer at the parties its time to put her in a home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
No, I haven't experienced a church like that. Our church takes a vote on changes, so a small group would never override a large one.

---

quote:

---

The single biggest complaint about old people on this thread seems to come down to some of them preferring to keep to tradition rather than institute something new. Why is this always a bad thing? Where is the evidence that the new changes will make the church better or keep more people in the pews over the long run?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A friend of mine was on the vestry of a church in Haymarket, VA, and had me look over the 'Welcome' leaflet before they went to reprint. It was quite an old document, probably written fifty years ago. I pointed out that if they insisted on referring to 'the War of Northern Aggression' it was a lead pipe cinch that modern suburban families would not feel very welcome. He replied that the oldest member of the congregation was also the wealthiest, and she was still fighting the Civil War. Nothing could be done to change the wording until she died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:



As for the "putting in a home crack" you have no reason to know but one more fact may help you in your next translation. Given the choice between a nursing home and family care, we care in our own home for my 84 y/o father who has complex health needs relating to 3 joint replacements and 4 different cancers. I apply the same standards of love and care to others, however "embarrassing" or "tough" others may see their behaviour or condition. I find your comment about such matters as "putting people into homes" repugnant Twilight.

---

quote:

---

As for WWJD - didn't he say on a couple of occasions "depart from me I never knew you?"

---

quote:

---

Add to that his invitation for the "little ones" (all children) of whatever age to come close and perhaps it's not as clear cut as it seems at first glance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Would it maybe work to stop altogether considering the woman as elderly (either for better or worse) and consider her instead as a Christian with particular needs? ...

But you'll need to get the age thing out of the way, either as an excuse for her behavior or as an alleged cause for it. Nobody on any side of the discussion should be allowed to invoke age either positively or negatively...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Would it maybe work to stop altogether considering the woman as elderly (either for better or worse) and consider her instead as a Christian with particular needs? One of which seems to me (if information supplied 3rd or 4th hand is correct) is a serious need for discipleship. I'm thinking here about the gossip--assuming the informants are correct (and yeah, I realize they probably are). Also other interpersonal relationship issues.

It's a really loathly, dreadful job, but it sounds like somebody needs to look past the immediate problem and start discipling her. As in, showing serious love and attention to her, and also calling her on her bullshit (as it happens, once piece at a time, would probably be best). And this is really going to suck, because she's used to having immunity, and is unlikely to enjoy being taken seriously as a fellow servant of Christ. But she could very well surprise everybody and do a major turnaround. I've known a few people who did.

But you'll need to get the age thing out of the way, either as an excuse for her behavior or as an alleged cause for it. Nobody on any side of the discussion should be allowed to invoke age either positively or negatively. And then deal with her as you would any other disciple of Christ of adult age. Either that or decide to put up with her till she dies.

---

Once again Lamb Chopped knocks it outta the park.

While Belle's suggestions for sermons are fine, I suspect in this case they'll miss the mark. If it really is just one person who is the problem, the scattershot approach of a sermon is not warranted. And I suspect the woman in question will be the only one present to not realize it's about her.

Yes, really, what Lamb Chopped is suggesting is the thing: it will take someone with pastoral authority and courage to step up and do the hard work of discipling. Both loving her and confronting her. Both listening to her and speaking truth into her life. Because she's right, that IS what it's about-- not age, not priorities, not consideration-- it's about spiritual immaturity, regardless of her chronological age. As LC suggested, it won't be easy, and it will come at a cost.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.

---

'Feral' is a very strong and inappropriate word to use about a child who displays such strong autistic traits. I realise not everyone knows the traits of autism, but did it really not occur to you that the child had a neurological condition? A meltdown is due to sensory overload and is not about bad behaviour - it's not the same as a tantrum.

---

I agre that " feral" is a reductive, unhelpful word, but this would have lit up all my dials, too. The kid needed help coping, and wasn't getting it.

The most generous intepretation is that that was a crucial phone call-- like a panicky relative completely lost and calling for directions.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And joining in the for Lamb Chopped's wise words.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.

---

'Feral' is a very strong and inappropriate word to use about a child who displays such strong autistic traits. I realise not everyone knows the traits of autism, but did it really not occur to you that the child had a neurological condition? A meltdown is due to sensory overload and is not about bad behaviour - it's not the same as a tantrum.

---

I agre that " feral" is a reductive, unhelpful word, but this would have lit up all my dials, too. The kid needed help coping, and wasn't getting it.

The most generous intepretation is that that was a crucial phone call-- like a panicky relative completely lost and calling for directions.

---

Oh no, totally! The mother's behaviour was *awful* and I would have said something (or wanted to say something) for sure. It's just that the kid's behaviour just screams autistic/some other neurological issue. But totally agree that either way he wasn't getting the right help and his mother was really not helping the situation.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Ok. Sometimes in conversations like this it feels like the only acceptable way to deal with children's behavior is to ignore it or act like it is acceptable. If the behavior is the child's way of letting you know they need help, this is not helpful.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Thanks, guys.*

About the 3 year-old--I've been taking care of one for my niece Saturdays and man, it's been a real refresher course in just how awful toddlers can be. As in, neurologically normal toddlers, who can be sweet as pie one week and baby hellions the next. Heck, wait 30 minutes and they change. I know what inspired Jekyll and Hyde now.

I'm suspecting that there's no way to form a decent opinion of this particular 3-year-old (the one at the baptism, I mean) unless you've seen him in action at least several weeks. A one-time freak-out doth not an autistic child make. It could easily be "he's coming down with a virus tomorrow, oh lucky us, to have this advance warning" (my own always went particularly psycho when a germ was sneaking up on him, and we only realized why in retrospect). Or even "he saw a little girl throw a tantrum in the grocery store yesterday and get what she wanted, so he's decided to try out that technique now, having a diabolical sense of timing."

Seriously, even if the kid was standing on the steps of the high altar doing a strip tease, I don't think you could conclude anything about his health from a single incident.

ETA: Did I ever tell y'all about the five-year-old I saw in church dancing and singing (LOUDLY), "I'm a sperm, I'm a sperm, I'm a sperm"!? And that was a pastor's kid!


* Californianism. Not meant to imply anything about anybody's gender.

[ 12. December 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Pomona, I apologise for offending by saying the child's behaviour appeared feral. I agree it was an unfortunate term to use. You may notice that I did express caring feelings for the child whereas it was the mother who was at fault. However, why do you choose to label the child as autistic just on the basis of what I reported? I have worked with many autistic children and can assure you that he does not fit the category. I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...a serious need for discipleship. I'm thinking here about the gossip--assuming the informants are correct (and yeah, I realize they probably are). Also other interpersonal relationship issues.

It's a really loathly, dreadful job, but it sounds like somebody needs to look past the immediate problem and start discipling her. As in, showing serious love and attention to her, and also calling her on her bullshit (as it happens, once piece at a time, would probably be best). And this is really going to suck, because she's used to having immunity,

---

Once again Lamb Chopped knocks it outta the park.

While Belle's suggestions for sermons are fine, I suspect in this case they'll miss the mark. If it really is just one person who is the problem, the scattershot approach of a sermon is not warranted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I dunno. Why not do both? have sermons AND individual discipleship. I don't think one can take the place of the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
Pomona, I apologise for offending by saying the child's behaviour appeared feral. I agree it was an unfortunate term to use. You may notice that I did express caring feelings for the child whereas it was the mother who was at fault. However, why do you choose to label the child as autistic just on the basis of what I reported? I have worked with many autistic children and can assure you that he does not fit the category. I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A thought occurred to me this morning while flicking through a volume of C.G.Jung's essays, as one does of a cold Friday morning.

While I have no objection to <insert usual stuff about youth and the Church here>, surely if Jung has any mileage left in him at all, then one of his key insights is that spirituality tends to be something people pursue in the second half of life?

What do we think of that? And of the corollary that if it's true, then turfing out the second-half-of-lifers in order to create a "young Church" is probably the last thing we should be doing?

Personally, I think there's something in that. A lot of my work involves pastoral relationships with older people who have only begun to think really deeply about faith as they became older.

(But can we avoid reference to the old joke - "Mum, why does Granny read the Bible so much?" "She's cramming for her finals, dear.")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
: how do you say that not all adults can be mentors and maintain confidentiality? How do you keep the child protection guidelines in place and allow mentoring?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I was also reflecting on the implications of losing the more established members of the church and replacing them with young people. There's a good chance that will result in a financial hit as the older people are the ones who are likely to be leaving legacies, setting up decent standing orders or whatever. Which could cause other problems in maintaining that church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


All very true. Which, as I mentioned before, all too often turns into a rationale for cow-towing to the elderly, giving them whatever they want "because they are the ones paying for it".

The flip side is that-- crass as it sounds-- those older people won't be there forever, whereas the young people theoretically could be (well, not forever obviously but longer) if we find a way to buck the trend and actually keep them in church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


All very true. Which, as I mentioned before, all too often turns into a rationale for cow-towing to the elderly, giving them whatever they want "because they are the ones paying for it".

The flip side is that-- crass as it sounds-- those older people won't be there forever, whereas the young people theoretically could be (well, not forever obviously but longer) if we find a way to buck the trend and actually keep them in church.

---

I wonder exactly what birthday marks the moment when a church member quits being an energetic, vital, valued member whose interests and tastes should be considered top priority and turns them into someone whose interests and tastes should be ignored? When does serving their interests become cowtowing and "giving them whatever they want." Is building a new nursery cowtowing to those babies and giving them whatever they want?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Even though I'm one of those older members you supposedly value so much, I won't take it personally, since you seem to have the same problem reading everyone's posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:




All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.

---

I'm sorry also, that I've had trouble keeping a civil response in this thread and I think this quote might help explain something.

Cliffdweller thinks the point of this thread is "that we need both."

I think the point of this thread is to answer the question: "Is the church ageist?" To me the answer to that is clearly, "Yes." The evidence is in our experiences and in the posts on this thread. Just read them and substitute racial terms for "young," and "old." Or for "old biddy," and "vibrant young single mother." Imagine a sentence on this board where Race Y was described as energetic and full of joy and Race X was always seen as stubborn and selfish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Isn't it ageist to value older people only in how they might help the young, rather than for themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
..as Kelly and others noted, this is something that is already done for Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, anyone else who is working with children and youth, so there's already natural processes in place (even in the US which doesn't have the formal process UK has). .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
..as Kelly and others noted, this is something that is already done for Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, anyone else who is working with children and youth, so there's already natural processes in place (even in the US which doesn't have the formal process UK has). .

---

... You're talking about just Sunday School, right? Because in most US states I know of you can't get any kind of child/ youth work job without a background check, a TB Test, and a fingerprint scan. And it's been that way for a very long time. I haven't been in the Sunday School loop for a while, but it would surprise me if most churches haven't followed suit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't understand why mentoring has to be linked to going through the processes for child protection training/background checks. Are we assuming that this mentoring has to be an organized program of the church, through which all mentoring is funneled? What if someone just introduces themselves to a new member or members, and gets on with being helpful? Or is that to be discouraged?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because lawsuits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously there is nothing the church can do if two members make such informal arrangements, but yes, i would discourage them from doing so in a way that bypasses the ordinary screening procedures. These procedures protect the mentor as well as the mentoree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously there is nothing the church can do if two members make such informal arrangements, but yes, i would discourage them from doing so in a way that bypasses the ordinary screening procedures. These procedures protect the mentor as well as the mentoree.

---

I consider mentoring to be a form of friendship. So, no friendships at church that cross age lines? My child protection training/vetting isn't up to date; should I avoid talking to children and their families at church? If I had children, should I be checking that someone's vetting is up-to-date before I become friends with them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think we might be understanding very different things by mentoring, and by the circumstances under which it takes place.

I don't see it as something that requires lots of one-on-one unsupervised contact between adults and children. Indeed, from Lamb Chopped's original way she described it, and regardless of whether it's done formally or informally, I see it as a relationship initiated between adults, not between an adult and a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

Separate from that: how does having gone through a background check and training in child safety procedures protect the mentor?

From my recollection of when I went through this before, the way it protected me is that I learned some things about not touching children (so when I was acolyte master and needed a measurement, having the child or their parent take the measurement), and always having two adults present when in a room with children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

And if these things are important to protect the adults in the church, perhaps the information should be made more public and all the adults should be educated on these matters. Because who knows when you might happen to find yourself alone in a room with a child by chance, or want to pick up a child that has fallen down, or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

I accept that it's a fact that for the official roles of adults working with children, this kind of vetting is a requirement now. But what you're describing makes it sound as if anyone who wants to be fully a member of the church and actually become friends with anyone who has children, had better have their vetting in place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

Do parents making friends with the parents of their children's friends, check that those other parents have been vetted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This has become quite the tangent, though. Is there some reason why you're pursuing it so doggedly? Perhaps a separate thread would be in order?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[QUOTE]
That saddens me, and it also makes me wonder if I've understood you correctly. Because it seems to me as if you're saying the church can't encourage longer-term members to take an interest in more-recent members, without setting up a formal program.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

Lamp Chopped mentioned something that to me seemed reasonable -- longer term members acting as mentors to bring along more recent members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

To me, that's something informal that happens between people. Or the minister perhaps introduces people to each other. It seems to me that's happened before (I've certainly observed this often) -- someone alone at coffee hour, someone starts a conversation with them, says "oh, I'd like you to meet so-and-so," takes them over and introduces them to so-and-so. Perhaps there's encouragement from the pulpit -- along the same lines as encouragement to wear your nametag at coffee hour, or talk to people you don't know, or scooch over in your pew to make it easy for someone to join you. You know, general teaching about "how to be a welcoming parish." Then the two people involved work out what conversations they have, what information gets passed on, how the friendship develops, and so on.

But your first reaction to it seems to be to conceive of it as a formal program of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.

---

You're reading too much into this. Threads drift away from the original question, and really, this one hasn't drifted very far at all.

Since I suspect you're aiming at me with the "only justified through how they can help the young," I'll just tell you that you're wrong. No such thing was ever said or intended.

---

quote:

---

All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
cliffdweller, thank you for the posts you've made trying to explain this to me. I appreciate your being willing to try to help me understand. I don't know where the disconnect is coming from either. I wonder if part of it is coming from this: do you see this mentoring idea as something that would primarily be between adults and children? Or perhaps very possibly between adults and children, even if not primarily so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...I strongly suggested that anyone on the welcome team should be DBS checked (old CRB) as a way of losing that problem when it arose.

---

• An offender should not be permitted to get close to children (either physically or emotionally)
• He or she should not sit in the vicinity of children at church or attend house/cell group meetings where there are children in the home.
• An offender should never be allowed to work with children and young people.
• They should not hold positions of leadership or responsibility where seen by children within the church because a child is likely to regard them as someone they can trust.
• they should not undertake any activity where they might be seen as in a position of trust. eg giving books out at the door, greeting people, reading the lesson, leading prayers or a bible study, because a child is likely to regard them as
  someone they can trust.

quote:

---

8.7 Research has indicated that a higher proportion of convicted offenders against children may be found in church congregations than in the population generally. It is therefore probable that many congregations will have people who have abused children among their worshippers, some of whom will be known. Not all will have committed sexual offences; some will have been guilty of neglect, physical or emotional abuse. They may still present a risk to children. The church’s duty to minister to all imposes a particular responsibility to such people. However, this must not compromise the safety of children. If a congregation is generally aware of how offenders will be treated it will be easier to deal confidentially with a specific case, should one occur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Churches can decide that certain roles require contact with children in supervisory and advisory roles and ask that volunteers should be police checked.

---

quote:

---

Having watched a known sex offender refuse to follow a contract for attendance (it was described as a silly bit of paper) it made me much more wary about people volunteering to do anything with children and worry about how badly churches are unprepared for abuse in the way they are encouraging involvement in the way they do.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0