|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Screaming babies during worship
|
Aardvark
Shipmate
# 2295
|
Posted
There is a simple solution to all this: find a church which has an evening service. Most of the screamers will be in bed, or very nearly by 7 pm and you can enjoy a tranquil, adult only environment. I am resigned to attending the noisy morning service with my children, but I sometimes go along to the evening one on my own and the quieter more reflective worship is a rare treat.
--------------------
...a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?
Browning
Posts: 618 | From: just outside the M25 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I'm not even talking about foyers or halls. I'm talking about inside/outside. I have never been in a church where there was no door to the exterior of the building, where parents with their screaming kids were trapped inside it against their will. If your child is shrieking, get up off your butt and take the kid outside.
It's not rocket science, for fuck's sake. I mean, I'm one of the clueless ones who doesn't have a kid and even I could figure that one out. It's kinda frightening that those of you who haven't are actually raising children.
You live in Florida, where I believe it is usually warm. I live in England where it is not. The church we used to attend had no rooms attached at all, just the church itself. Not even a toilet. It was inside in the warm(ish) church, or outside in the cold.( And yes, I did used to go outside and go home.)
Oh, and stop throwing tantrums, sweetie, or I'll ask your Mummy to take you out.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I wonder how much this has changed over the years. Certainly in the CofE it used to be quite normal for people to take out young children for the sermon - there was no creche (in fact no concession for small children was made at all) so mums and dads would be seen walking up and down outside and then coming back in during the last hymn.
However, now churches go out of their way to welcome those with young children in - there are toys and play corners; the mothers' union often provide a creche with toy bags and books. So people expect to keep their children in church with them, to the extent of not taking them out at all even when they cry. Churches are much more aware of not putting people off now that the numbers are dropping, especially of young families.
I think a lot of it must depend on general tolerance levels. For example, I have noticed my level is quite low and I would take my children out often to avoid disturbing people. But I also went to cafes and did the same there and on holiday was always worrying that my children might be disturbing others. In these places were also families who had a much higher tolerance level than me and would let their children make lots of noise, not seeming worried by it at all. (Particularly annoying on a camping holiday!)
I actually changed my church because the CofE service with no creche was not suitable for a colicy baby with a very loud cry. This was only a temporary move - the boys now sing in the choir and make a noise in (mostly!) the right places.....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
And hatless, re your question: quote:
Crying babies are a problem, but whose problem? Who should find the solution?
Isn't the logical choice the person responsible for the crying baby?
Whether or not it's logical depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to be spared having to make any effort yourself then, yes, it's the logical choice.
Consider, though, whose problem it is, and who might try to find a solution, if there are people who want to come to your church who are deaf, or hearing-impaired. What about people who cannot climb all those stone steps up to the front door? Or what about someone who uses a wheelchair and can't sit in one of the wooden pews which are the only form of seating and occupy all the suitable space? Or the person with failing eyesight who can't read the screen?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
Right, my turn now.
I am a parent of two (soon three) children. I wanted to be a parent and knew that there would be many difficulties but went ahead anyway.
As a parent I have to organise everything with the little darlings in mind - they dominate my life. So when I am completely knackered and just want a few minutes peace I may or may not get it.
If the cherubs cause any problems they are my responsibility to sort out - whether it is causing a disturbance or throwing up on a nice carpet or stealing a car and driving it through a bus stop queue.
I accept all this and the church (at baptism) promised to support and encourage me in these responsibilities.
That does not mean I can do whatever I want and "sod the rest of you". If my child is causing problems for someone else then I have to sort it. The best way of doing this is usually to take him/her away from the situation - ie get up and walk out of the service. To help this I sit near an exit and if I have to go outside in the cold or rain then I wear warm and/or waterproof clothes.
The church has some responsibility for me and my children and my last one fulfilled that magnificently by clearing the pews out of an area at the back (and near the door), putting down a carpet and getting in loads of toys and books. I was still part of the service; my children would not distract anyone unduly by their normal play etc; they did not see church as a place where they are scared into boredom and silence; during the peace there was quite a procession of people coming to the back to share God's love with us; anyone who was put off by their presence could get away from it by sitting at the front.
However if they do cry for more than a few moments I take them out. If they fill their nappies I go out of the service to change them. If they want a few moments of my time I give it to them. This makes for interruptions to my participation in the service but then as a parent everything is interrupted and I knew that would be the case before I started.
The idea that I must keep a crying child in the service because another child is doing something is bollocks. My other child will understand if this happens and will always be delighted to perform for me at home later. I guess I am bringing my children up to be reasonably well adjusted.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Authur Dent
Apprentice
# 3807
|
Posted
I'm a lecture at my church and too often I have to compete with children sreaming. Do I frown and get all spiteful? No. I don't mind it.
Once I was in the back before the mass started, and this young mother had three children with her. I assume she was by herself with the children cause I didn't see any other adult accompanying her. So anyway, her children were all under five years old. One of them starts crying. I don't expect her to abandon the other two children just so she can pacify the one crying.
A few minutes later, a spiteful old lady scolded the young mother. I found this hypocrytical because during the mass, i see the old lady talking to her friend while the homily was going on.
I saw the young mother leave with all her children and never come back.
Now, while I'm reading... the only thing that bugs me is late comers who chose to sit down in the middle of the reading.. and ringing cell phones.
Often people find seats when I'm about to read so i wait for them to sit down. and I WATCH THEM. and then i start when they finally sit down. I do it for shits and giggles.
Also, if when I'm reading a cell phone happens to start ringing.. I roll my eyes and stare at the person. AGain, for shits and giggles. Being a lector and up there and people watching me .. i like to use that (authority?) to make people nervous.
which reminds me, I get to go home for xmas and im a lector at the midnight mass. (meaning lots of people)
Posts: 15 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
hatless wrote: quote:
Consider, though, whose problem it is, and who might try to find a solution, if there are people who want to come to your church who are deaf, or hearing-impaired. What about people who cannot climb all those stone steps up to the front door? Or what about someone who uses a wheelchair and can't sit in one of the wooden pews which are the only form of seating and occupy all the suitable space? Or the person with failing eyesight who can't read the screen?
Glad you mentioned it, hatless, because I'm one of the people you just described. So what may be a rapier-like debating parry to you is quite the everyday event for me.
If someone has made a special effort to make things easier, then yes, I'm greatly appreciative. But I don't go in with the attitude of entitlement. I don't expect the 499 to be subjected to annoyance or inconvenience on my account.
I would also draw a distinction between medical conditions and parenthood for the same reason that my insurance policy pays for heart transplants, but not face lifts. Deaf people, for example, don't voluntarily choose to undertake the difficulties that accompany failing hearing. Parents do voluntarily choose to take on the full responsibility for their children.
And all I'm asking -- to say it for the 76th time -- is that on the rare occasion when a child's normal fussing turns into rafter-shaking wails, please take the child out for a few moments and then hurry back in to join the congregation once you've been able to rule out that he or she is in dire need. Unless you're worshipping in Moth's architectural anomaly of a church, of course -- to which I'll gladly contribute a tenner toward building a bathroom.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Consider, though, whose problem it is, and who might try to find a solution, if there are people who want to come to your church who are deaf, or hearing-impaired. What about people who cannot climb all those stone steps up to the front door? Or what about someone who uses a wheelchair and can't sit in one of the wooden pews which are the only form of seating and occupy all the suitable space? Or the person with failing eyesight who can't read the screen?
And in what universe does this have anything to do with the discussion of screaming children in church?
[ 19. December 2002, 02:10: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
and how do blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound people disrupt the service for anyone else anyway? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Well there you go, Erin.
In fairness to seadog I should add that babies do grow up and turn into heathens then one can start enjoying unaccompanied church again.
I should also add that I quite enjoyed stirring up dear old Sponsa by marching off to Mass with one, two and finally three of the little blighters in tow-in the end he was worn down by my recalcitrant papistry, saw the funny side of it and stopped whingeing.
tangent- BTW in my book there are only 2 grounds for booting the old man onto the street and they are physical cruelty and public adultery. Otherwise it's for better or for worse-end of tangent. Horses for courses, say I.
cheers,
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
quote:
public adultery
He's got to do it in the street ?
That's setting the bar pretty bloody high isn't it? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
oh shit I needed that laugh
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If someone has made a special effort to make things easier, then yes, I'm greatly appreciative. But I don't go in with the attitude of entitlement.
Presleyterian, I thought we had agreed. My children have always been taken out if they start to cry wholeheartedly and, though I know others have different thresholds so I try to be patient, I basically expect others to do the same. However, that's not quite the same as asking them to do this, or putting pressure on them. That says the solution is down to them.
In contrast, all true communities try to see the problems of any one as the problems of the whole. We do our best to accommodate and enable and include. It's not an entitlement, but it's a gift that I want the Body of Christ to make whenever reasonably possible.
quote:
Erin asked:
And in what universe does this have anything to do with the discussion of screaming children in church?
It's an issue of inclusiveness, so any universe in which 'inclusiveness' can apply to more than one thing, any universe where comparisons or examples are possible.
quote:
and nicole asked:
and how do blind, deaf, or wheelchair-bound people disrupt the service for anyone else anyway?
They don't disrupt the service for someone sitting quietly in their pew taking no notice of anyone else, but their disabilities do disrupt the wholeness of the church for anyone who cares for the 'weaker member.'
Seeing as this is Hell, I will ask why it is that Americans are so sensitively tribal that they take criticism of their mustard recipes to heart, yet are so atomistically individualistic that they haven't a clue what belonging to a community is all about?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I took my daughter to church, on my own, from the age of 1 week old, because that's where I wanted her to be. Church is the place for small children, just as it is the place for all of us.
You had a daughter when you were one week old?!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Me x
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
To go back to the issue of 'what if there's nowhere to go'... It's not all that uncommon for old C of E churches to have no extra rooms etc - none of the 4 churches in our 3 parishes, and in fact 9 of the other 10 churches in the team have no other rooms to go to. Even the vestry is no help, as in our churches it's not a 'proper' room, but a side area curtained off. There really is nowhere else indoors to go. So we take B outside. It really is that simple. If the weather's really foul, I try to lurk in the porch, but heck, if she's screaming that loud, then yes, I have ended up walking her around outside in the cold & rain in order not to disturb everyone else more than necessary.
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beethoven:
To go back to the issue of 'what if there's nowhere to go'... It's not all that uncommon for old C of E churches to have no extra rooms etc - none of the 4 churches in our 3 parishes, and in fact 9 of the other 10 churches in the team have no other rooms to go to. Even the vestry is no help, as in our churches it's not a 'proper' room, but a side area curtained off. There really is nowhere else indoors to go. So we take B outside. It really is that simple. If the weather's really foul, I try to lurk in the porch, but heck, if she's screaming that loud, then yes, I have ended up walking her around outside in the cold & rain in order not to disturb everyone else more than necessary.
Thanks Beets, I was beginning to think I was mad in thinking that many churches don't have extra rooms.
Look, I know this is Hell, so I shouldn't be doing this, but I think we're more agreed than it appears. Most parents do take their kids out if they start to scream - I certainly did. However, if they don't, there may be some reason for it which is not immediately apparent to an onlooker.
As a general point, don't judge the quality of the parenting by the behaviour of the child - if I'd been judged on my first child's behaviour, I'd come over as a paragon of parental virtues, if on the second child's behaviour, as a total failure! I must add, by the way, that they're much older now, and though still very different in character, neither of them is anything other than very well-behaved indeed in church. Even better, they both enjoy it, and take part in many church-related activities.
It's very odd that I'm clearly coming over as a "let 'em scream" advocate - I spend half my time in supermarkets telling other parents to put their children in the trolley, rather than let them run about. I have, in general, a very low tolerance of bad behaviour in public by children! I suppose, like some others I feel 'at home' in church, rather than 'in public', and in my present church there's never been a problem - there were lots of babies at the time my screamer was born, and people were very supportive. If I disappeared outside for too long, one of the 'grannies' in the congregation would often pop out to see how I was doing, and the known 'baby-wranglers' in the congregation would often hold him after the service so we poor parents could drink our coffee in peace!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
One thing that a lot of the "take them away, take them far away" advocates are assuming is that the people with the babies are so deeply committed to coming to church that they will find another church (one 10 miles away on public transport but hey, it's got a crêche that's wired for sound), that they will come back again if tutted at, and that they will debate with non-churchgoing spouse about looking after the baby on Sunday.
Heaven forbid that anyone should turn up to church who is not 100% sure about the whole enterprise. Better that they never darken the door of church.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
If I disappeared outside for too long, one of the 'grannies' in the congregation would often pop out to see how I was doing, and the known 'baby-wranglers' in the congregation would often hold him after the service so we poor parents could drink our coffee in peace!
We've never yet had a congregational granny pop out to see us (as far as I know!), but oh yes, the wonderful baby wranglers (love the phrase!) ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Those few minutes after the service in which our arms got a few minutes' rest, and the would-be grannies got to indulge their grand-maternal (is there such a word? ) instincts - wonderful! And of course, it's now that we're really reaping the benefit. B is so comfortable with several of them that they can look after her in services while Mr B is preaching, or whatever - even though last time that meant the baby-wrangler concerned had to miss the sermon... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Hatless wrote:
quote:
Seeing as this is Hell, I will ask why it is that Americans are so sensitively tribal that they take criticism of their mustard recipes to heart, yet are so atomistically individualistic that they haven't a clue what belonging to a community is all about?
I'm sorry, but where did that come from?
None of the posters on this thread – British or American – has said that church isn’t the place for children. Or that they aren’t welcome in church. Everyone has said that “normal” child behaviour – giggling in the wrong place; running up and down; crying for a bit – is okay and something that you expect to see in a church family. The kind of behaviour that is easily dealt with by a “look”.
The only thing that has been suggested is that sometimes, if a child will not stop crying (or misbehaving) then they should be taken out of the service by either a parent or a trusted adult. And once the child has calmed down, both can return to the service. And I would guess that trying to calm a child down can be a lot easier away from the service and a large number of people than in the midst of it. And the reason for this suggestion – so the rest of that community can continue to worship without being distracted.
Everyone has said that part of the churches ministry to parents is to provide things to help “doing church” easier – children’s and young people’s teaching; a crying room; additional services in the evening that parents can take it in turns to attend; a baby sitting rota; toys in the pews; love and acceptance for those times when a child just won’t behave etc.
I really don’t see the problem …
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Chukovsky said:
quote:
One thing that a lot of the "take them away, take them far away" advocates...
In general, what I've read in this thread from those who prefer that screaming children be removed from worship spaces is that if/when the child calms down, both parent and baby should return. I think that 'far away' is a bit severe. Out of earshot? Preferrably, but at least 'away' to the point where the service is once again the obvious and dominant focal point.
hatless: Don't derail this thread with sorry, unfounded, ridiculously ignorant and, I might add, frightenly overgeneralized (at least for the intellignent) anti-American hash. It's cheap, base, and beneath you. Argue your point and save your sanctimony for the next great Pond War.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
hatless: Don't derail this thread with sorry, unfounded, ridiculously ignorant and, I might add, frightenly overgeneralized (at least for the intellignent) anti-American hash. It's cheap, base, and beneath you. Argue your point and save your sanctimony for the next great Pond War.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of frightening overgeneralisation every now and then. But you're right, that's what it was. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I am childless, of course, but have noticed quite a difficult situation in the "bring biscuits" approach. Though I have served in parishes where there were kids everywhere, and certainly no raised eyebrows at their being in church, the trouble with the 3-year-old who is munching a snack is that 5 other little ones, deprived of this solace, will begin wailing when they see the other eating.
My problem, and this for the child's sake, is with those who bring babies to lengthy services. I have seen babies who were two months old or less brought to Easter vigil and Christmas Midnight Mass. Of course they are fretful and uncomfortable! All the more if the mother is so afraid the child will get a chill that s/he's bundled up as if for an excursion to the top of Mount Everest, and the church is both heated and crowded.
I have no problem with parents walking (unobtrusively, perhaps in the back) with little ones, and think it a fine idea to have a creche, or at least a separate room where a parent may retire with a child who needs to be changed, fed, or comforted.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) Question for the ages: When I was a child, many people had much larger families than they do now, and it was usual to see the entire brood at Sunday services. Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
Nintendo.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beethoven
Ship's deaf genius
# 114
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
My problem, and this for the child's sake, is with those who bring babies to lengthy services. I have seen babies who were two months old or less brought to Easter vigil and Christmas Midnight Mass. Of course they are fretful and uncomfortable!
Well, baby B has been to both, and will be attending Midnight Mass this year. The timing of these services means she slept straight through them last year. Hopefully she will this year, too, but it's likely to be much harder work for me if she's awake this time round than it would have been when she was just a couple of months!
--------------------
Who wants to be a rock anyway?
toujours gai!
Posts: 1309 | From: Here (and occasionally there) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question for the ages: When I was a child, many people had much larger families than they do now, and it was usual to see the entire brood at Sunday services. Having a baby taken out was not unusual, but most kids a little older did not need to be entertained. What has happened to this generation?
Parents got paranoid about other people looking after their children?
Children got less used to other people in church looking after them?
You presumably are also referring to "broods" with two churchgoing parents...
If/when I have children I'm going to let them scream their little lungs out in church. In fact, I am going to poke them so they scream more. You all need not come to my church though.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
I make a point of not going to Pram Services.
Sometimes we have children just wandering around services not making any noise but with an air of inquisitive innocence.
Very occassionally the preacher will stop and smile at them. Almost God-like I feel.
Then again recently a beautiful butterfly decided to come out of the flowers on the Communion table and fly around the Church during the service, making everyone focus on it rather than what was being said.
A complete and total disruption to the service.
Ban Beautiful Butterflies as well I say.
(Why can't preachers stop what they are saying and incorporate the butterfly/children into their sermon ?)
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky said:
quote:
If/when I have children I'm going to let them scream their little lungs out in church. In fact, I am going to poke them so they scream more. You all need not come to my church though.
Charming. Those other contestants for Future Parent Of The Year don't have a snowball's chance... You would antagonize your own, innocent child for the intentional annoyance of those around you? Wow. That's an application of "the needs of the many (to learn your 'lesson,' chukovsky) outweigh the needs of the few" I hadn't considered. No doubt hatless would disapprove of your "atomistic individualism and ignorance of your community." I would say you'll earn every scowl and tut coming your way, then.
Garden Hermit: I heard a tale (was it abour Charles Spurgeon?) about a service from the days before air conditioning in which a song bird entered the open window of a church, perched on a rafter and sang for three minutes staight, and then abruptly flew back out of the sanctuary. The speaker approached the pulpit and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the sermon has been given," and then returned to his seat whereupon the service continued.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
An aside on the question of small children and long services (and this may not be very applicable to small babies):
I have awful childhood memories of sitting through boorrrrrinnng (to me at the time, of course) services without anything to entertain me. (Yes, this was pre-nintendo.) They just about drove me crazy with boredom. Such experiences were one of the factors behind me acquiring a very negative attitude toward the church in general. When I did became a Christian, it was almost in spite of the church.
My point being is that if you bring a child into a service that is beyond his ability to enjoy or at least endure with contentment, please be sure he has something to entertain himself. If he likes a childrens' Bible, so much the better.
God forbid that we inadvertantly teach children that church is boring. It's been said it's a sin to bore a child in church. From expericence, I heartedly agree.
(This is a bit of an aside, but would surely help with noise issues with some smaller children as well.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
God forbid that we inadvertantly teach children that church is boring.
Inadvertently? You mean it isn't supposed to be?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Not about crying children but loud aggressive adult behaviour.
Tonight is my school’s carol service at the local church. Every year the same salty fellow greets our guests at the door. I responded to his meths fuelled conversation once after I noticed a medal on his duffle coat. He charmingly turned the exchange into a racist 100 decibel rant. He patrols the aisle and sings loudly whilst conducting the congregation and lurching at young women. Luckily he is most vocal during the readings about seeing Christ incarnate in the needy.
Last year we gave him a tenner and asked him where he wanted to be driven to. He seemed quite happy to miss the second half of the service.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hull Hound:
Tonight is my school’s carol service at the local church. Every year the same salty fellow greets our guests at the door. I responded to his meths fuelled conversation once after I noticed a medal on his duffle coat. He charmingly turned the exchange into a racist 100 decibel rant. He patrols the aisle and sings loudly whilst conducting the congregation and lurching at young women. Luckily he is most vocal during the readings about seeing Christ incarnate in the needy.
Last year we gave him a tenner and asked him where he wanted to be driven to. He seemed quite happy to miss the second half of the service.
We had a vicar like that, once.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seadog
Shipmate
# 2931
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
In fairness to seadog I should add that babies do grow up and turn into heathens then one can start enjoying unaccompanied church again.
Indeed, and this bit I look forward to immensely, along with the few months between them being legally allowed to drive and legally allowed to drink in a British pub. I plan that they should take their driving tests early and spend 6 months ferrying me to and from the pub every night.
Erin - good on you . But with Mr Seadog flat on his face in the street every time I get a bit pissed off, bugger all will be achieved in this house. I prefer to try to focus more on his redeeming features, as I hope he does with me (otherwise we are in deep trouble...).
--------------------
A good landing is a succession of errors rapidly corrected.
Posts: 433 | From: Isle of Wight, UK | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seadog:
[<snip>
Erin - good on you . But with Mr Seadog flat on his face in the street every time I get a bit pissed off, bugger all will be achieved in this house. I prefer to try to focus more on his redeeming features, as I hope he does with me (otherwise we are in deep trouble...).
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
hatless wrote: quote:
Presleyterian, I thought we had agreed. My children have always been taken out if they start to cry wholeheartedly and, though I know others have different thresholds so I try to be patient, I basically expect others to do the same. However, that's not quite the same as asking them to do this, or putting pressure on them. That says the solution is down to them.
hatless, if the sermon gets boring, I like to place long, loud personal calls on my cell phone from the middle of the sanctuary. You -- and everyone else -- find that this disturbs your ability to concentrate on the servie. Based on what you've said, you wouldn't engage in such boorish behavior and you wish that I would follow your lead. But I don't. I just chatter a way.
Following your line of reasoning, I assume that you wouldn't dream of suggesting in a gracious tone that I might want to step out of the sanctuary if I need to place a call because you'd want to "accommodate and enable and include" my telephone habits and it would be very non-inclusive of you to do otherwise. Furthermore, it might damage our sense of community were you to suggest that the solution to the problem of my disruptive behavior "was down to [me]."
Mrs. Tubbs, The Riv, and others have spoken much sense on this thread. There will always be extentuating circumstances, such as Moth's one-room church in a blinding snowstorm or Chukovsky's interesting strategy of intentionally provoking her own child to cry in discomfort. It seems to me, however, that the truly selfless thing to do -- the thing that shows the most sensitivity to one's community -- is to put the needs of others ahead of one's own desires and step to the back for the one or two minutes that it might take to calm an upset child. That, from what you said, is the sensible and generous course of conduct that you undertake.
And in the spirit of catching more flies with honey and vinegar, I'm not suggesting that the parent of the crying baby be met with dirty looks or curse-laden harangues. Just last month, I saw an usher at my church handle the situation with much aplomb. She leaned over to the mother who was sitting in front of me and said something to the effect of, "Let's step outside and see what we can do to calm her down."
However, if people are so selfish that they aren't willing to subject themselves to that momentary inconvenience for the good of their fellow worshippers, I doubt they were ever much into the community thing in the first place.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
That should have read "...in the spirit of catching more flies with honey than vinegar."
Or maybe I just inadvertantly came up with an American mustard recipe that will satisfy Timtim.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
What precisely is the "silly" part, hatless? The sentence in which I described your course of conduct as "sensible and generous"?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I always thought community worked all ways the person with the screaming child should help build up community by seeing the need of the others to worship. Those without children should realise they don't know the whole situation so shouldn't judge harshly.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
I have no idea how anyone can worship while holding a screaming baby. Early parenthood is full of deprivation, you get used to missing at least half of most things you were looking forward to. It doesn't go on forever though it feels like it at the time. There is usually a pay off.
I hated people telling me 'we do have a creche' as I took that as shorthand for 'get the brat out of here', in general as my 'seeking' period coincided with my early parenting days I left them at home with my other half or sought child-friendly churches. When my OH started going to church as well we took it in turns.
People who can stay in church when their baby is screaming are either totally desensitised to the effect on others,(maybe because they were always lacking in empathy or maybe they have got depressed by the whole early parent thing) or so traumatised by day long screaming that they have become antisocial and don't care what effect it has on others.
I used to go to Quakers for an hour of silence and peace in the week when mine were very little, someone else's baby screaming through the hour would not have done much for my tolerance levels as I had gone to get away from all that. They did have a big commitment to children's work during the hour so those who did accompany their parents had their own version of worship.
Not sure what the solution is!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
What precisely is the "silly" part, hatless? The sentence in which I described your course of conduct as "sensible and generous"?
The silly part is where you compare a parent struggling with an unhappy child with someone behaving deliberately obnoxiously with a mobile phone. These are not alike in any useful way. Nor is a mobile phone much like a baby.
The point you persist in misunderstanding is that parents of small children, being often fraught, overtired, embarrassed and only clinging on to engagement with the rest of the world by their fingernails need the Christlike welcome of the Church, not to hear themselves likened to the worst and most selfish of antisocial boors.
(53 word sentence, a personal record for this month)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I think Presleyterian is equating "having children" with "choosing to have children", and implies this is a choice for the individual.
This may become too tangential for this thread but can I point out the following:
Firstly, which I have already said, you may not have children yourself, but you live in a society and more particularly a church community, which contains children. You will reap the benefit of those children when you are older (unless you want to be old and grey and have no doctors). You therefore have taken a choice to live in community with them now, unless as I say you can find some way round relying on the labour of younger people when you are retired. You aren't relying on it as directly as their parents, but you aren't called to care for them, or live in community with them, as directly as their parents.
Secondly, some people on this thread have equated having children with "a choice to conceive those children". A very large proportion* of children are not planned, but are wanted. Unless you are going to say that no-one who doesn't want children should ever have sex, then you need to be realistic about the rate of failure of contraceptives - high - and say this is "a choice not to terminate the pregnancy". Which is basically what it boils down to. You may be happy with abortion as a method of contraception; although I am not totally opposed to abortion, I am not happy with its use in this way.
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
*this link suggests that for one US state, 40% of births are unintended, and 53% of these are due to contraceptive failure
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't think your remarks are at all tangential, chukovsky. I would like to add that as well as conception and having children being something that happens to people, it is also something that we do. We reproduce, we raise the next generation, we educate and train, nurture and value our infants, children and youth.
I believe that thinking in terms of we rather than I is a habit we need to rediscover. That's why I was asking those questions about whose problem the crying child is.
Of course, there are many things we wish to do that cannot accommodate children's presence - like going to the theatre or running a marathon. The problem the Church has is that its main act of worship often includes activities that are not easily compatible with the presence of children. Everyone should be able to participate in the main act of worship, but it includes a sermon and quiet prayers that require a high order of behaviour. This tension is a problem, we all recognise that. The thing that seems crucial to me is that this problem must not just be dumped on the shoulders of parents. It is our problem.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky amused with:
quote:
You will reap the benefit of those children when you are older (unless you want to be old and grey and have no doctors).
Sharkshooter already said something like this in post #12, and it rang hollow then...
Then continued:
quote:
You therefore have taken a choice to live in community with them now, unless as I say you can find some way round relying on the labour of younger people when you are retired. You aren't relying on it as directly as their parents, but you aren't called to care for them, or live in community with them, as directly as their parents.
Secondly, some people on this thread have equated having children with "a choice to conceive those children". A very large proportion* of children are not planned, but are wanted. Unless you are going to say that no-one who doesn't want children should ever have sex, then you need to be realistic about the rate of failure of contraceptives - high - and say this is "a choice not to terminate the pregnancy". Which is basically what it boils down to. You may be happy with abortion as a method of contraception; although I am not totally opposed to abortion, I am not happy with its use in this way.
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
*this link suggests that for one US state, 40% of births are unintended, and 53% of these are due to contraceptive failure
Here Chukovsky, *holds out a handful of straws*, stop grasping. You were right to think it would become to tangential, and you forgot to mention pathetic. There is no "Big Lie" about contraception failure, and even the "unplanned but wanted" children are a foregone possibility for practically every/anyone who slips between the sheets.
And this:
quote:
Next time you look at parents not coping with their children, don't think "well they decided to conceive children"; rather think, "well they got unlucky in the contraceptive roulette, and decided to carry on with the pregnancy".
is asinine and/or convoluted at best. I do agree with you re: abortion as contraception, but it's so far afield from the topic of this thread that I can only drop it at that.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Arrietty, thanks for your post.
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: parents of small children have my sympathy (most of them at least). I wonder how I could maintain what sanity I have during what I call the Baby Trip.
Frankly, this thread makes me even more hesitant about marriage. And I like kids! (after 2 or 3 yrs old at least )
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Markthe Punk said:
quote:
Arrietty, thanks for your post.
ditto.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...the student common room was often used as an unsupervised creche and playroom by some parents, who ... would send their offspring over to the common room, while they had a quiet two hours at home.
This is where a bit of creativity helps. If other people draft you into supervising their kids without your consent, then you have their consent in the same way to teach the children whatever anti-social mythology you can concoct on the spur of the moment.
(Thanks to Scott Adams and Dilbert for the idea.)
Something relatively harmless yet distinctive, like "coffee is really boiled goat manure" or "smoking causes pregnancy" or "Freemasons rule the Universe"
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
There is no "Big Lie" about contraception failure, and even the "unplanned but wanted" children are a foregone possibility for practically every/anyone who slips between the sheets.
I totally agree. So I take it that those who think "having children is a choice, you took it on voluntarily" actually mean "having children is a natural result of having sex, when you decided to have sex you took on the possibility voluntarily". So I also take it they are not going to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, because they think having children around is A Bad Thing, for them at least.
I could of course be preaching to the converted, and those on this thread who feel childlessness is their only option are gay or celibate. In which case, good for them, because they are being consistent.
And precisely why does the idea that other people's children will look after you when you are old ring hollow? Who are you planning to have look after you when you are old, if not the child of your neighbour?
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Probably because you utterly fail to acknowledge the accommodations the childless make so that their parents can look after them. I'm the one who goes on business trips, I'm the one who stays late and comes in early, I'm the one who works on the weekends, and I'm the one who takes on the time-consuming projects. Why? I don't have children and all of my co workers do, and their parents need to be home to take care of them.
So they're not making a huge sacrifice when the bill comes due.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
chukovsky:
It rings hollow b/c the thrust of the thread is on parental consideration, or lack thereof, and not the issue of the child, whether planned, uplanned, wanted, resented, easy, or difficult. My issue is not with the child and the fact that he/she may cry, but with their moms and dads who behave poorly (by disregarding the worship of others) in the face of it.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
