|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sunday School
|
AndyB
Shipmate
# 10186
|
Posted
Last few churches I have belonged to have Sunday school under various names during the service. The church I grew up in had Junior Sunday School during the service, and Senior Sunday School beforehand as the Minor Halls were too small to handle seven classes (of 5-8 kids) at once (the main halls were at the opposite end of the village!) Ah, those were the days!
I think the point is that if we have an ALL IN service as it's called in my current church's shorthand, the sermon has to be carefully written to bore neither the children nor the adults. If the children are out at Sunday School, the preacher can preach differently.
Posts: 149 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's very introvert-orientated, I think. Fine for introvert kids, less good for extroverts.
It might be relevant to note that my church mostly appeals to the more introvert families, so this sort of group is in keeping with the overall ethos of the church. There are other churches in the town which are very lively and appeal more to the extrovert families. The ones who come to us make a deliberate choice to come to a quieter church.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's very introvert-orientated, I think. Fine for introvert kids, less good for extroverts.
It might be relevant to note that my church mostly appeals to the more introvert families, so this sort of group is in keeping with the overall ethos of the church. There are other churches in the town which are very lively and appeal more to the extrovert families. The ones who come to us make a deliberate choice to come to a quieter church.
That's fair enough in areas with a variety of churches - but round here the CoE churches are limited to nosebleed high or snakebelly low. If you're a liberal introverted parent with extrovert kids, you are in a tricky situation. It must be even more frustrating in the middle of nowhere where the parish church is your only CoE church at all.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
... though, there would also be Methodist, URC, Baptist, etc churches. locally. You're not limited to CofE.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We used to have a number of children (6 or so) between the ages of 5-10 who largely made up our (fairly) regular Sunday School. Alas, they all belong to one extended family, which has (for reasons which seem cogent to them) decided to stop coming to Church. A sad loss, and one which we are working on, but for the time being at least the number of children who come to our place is reduced........
..... though we still have several under-16s who attend from time to time (albeit not all of them every week - which applies to many of our adult congregation), not to mention the occasional babe-in-arms (or pushchair).
It's very hard to plan any sort of coherent children's work, and I know many other churches have the same problem. Thankfully, we have a growing number of older children, together with some students (a confirmation class is scheduled for the Spring), but we are now praying for a number of new young families to join us!
Meanwhile, our Sunday School is, sadly, in abeyance.......
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
....where would Goldilocks go to church?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For me, yes (although Methodists and URC etc are not likely to be lively, and depending on one's Eucharistic theology the CoE might be the only reasonable option), for others in small villages not necessarily.
An example from where I live - if I wanted to keep higher Eucharistic theology but go somewhere with better/livelier Sunday School, I would have to go to the RC church and then be unable to receive the Eucharist.
....where would Goldilocks go to church?
I don't think wanting one's spiritual needs met is being fussy, and I find that a bit offensive - why is it impossible to imagine that some people live in areas where no churches are really suitable? That's why Fresh Expressions get set up. Shipmates like Karl LB (hope he doesn't mind me bringing his name up) have spoken at length about their struggles in this area.
I should clarify that I have no children so Sunday School provision isn't an issue for me personally - however, if I did have children I would have a real dilemma. Not receiving the Eucharist weekly is not an option for me, so that's lower CoE churches and Nonconformists out, as are RC churches since I could not receive there (I could lie but IMO that would invalidate my reception of the Eucharist anyway). Given that where I live has a distinct lack of MOTR churches, I then have to choose between A-C churches with no Sunday School whatsoever and A-C churches with poor Sunday School. I don't think being unhappy with that choice is fussy in the slightest, that's a really crap choice to have to make. That is also making the sacrifice of considering churches whose stance on DH I am uncomfortable with.
Not everyone has as much choice as you as to what churches are available. Sometimes there really are no reasonable options. That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Yes, LC, and for nine years we did the provision. Unfortunately it wasn't sustainable, and when we reluctantly had to drop it, no-one gave a sufficient shit to take the job on. And that was that. The individual can do very little if the rest of the church doesn't recognise the problem.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church.
You have told us that you find the provision for children at your church inadequate, and that you have only two children in your regular congregation. You speculate that this inadequate provision is the reason that your church does not have more young families.
It sounds rather like you are setting yourself a challenge.
Given my disabilities, it's not a challenge I can reasonably accomplish. And as Karl says, when the rest of the church sees no problem with how things are, there is only so much one person can do.
It is not the only reason for the lack of young families and possibly not even the main one.
[ 27. January 2014, 09:30: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I am concerned at how many churches consider Sunday School is desirable and a necessary experience. As a child I hated Sunday School and eventually refused to attend, but I loved the church service with its hymns and liturgy. I think if I hadn't been allowed to attend adult church I would never have developed any interest in religion. Maybe kids should be given a choice of either Sunday School or church. However, don't offer a dumbed down service as kids can see through such demeaning occurrences.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I am concerned at how many churches consider Sunday School is desirable and a necessary experience. As a child I hated Sunday School and eventually refused to attend, but I loved the church service with its hymns and liturgy. I think if I hadn't been allowed to attend adult church I would never have developed any interest in religion. Maybe kids should be given a choice of either Sunday School or church. However, don't offer a dumbed down service as kids can see through such demeaning occurrences.
Many children would prefer neither. I've got three; I was one.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Should add. I keep reading on here about how people wanted to be in the main service as children. It's not something I identify with.
Can I float an idea. Let's put some facts together:
1. Church attendance dropping;
2. Majority of children within the church do not become adult attenders.
Can I suggest that churchgoer have become a highly self-selecting group, and the reason that there are so many people on here who actually enjoyed church services as children is not that this is particularly common, or normal, but all the others - the majority - are not in the pews? Naturally enough, the children of Churchophiles are more likely to like church themselves temperamentally; I'm something of a Churchophobe despite attending anyway (I've fortunately found quite a good place for Churchophobes; most Eccles denizens would hate it...) so perhaps it's not surprising my kids don't like it much.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
And then wonder why, the moment the kids hit an age where they can be left behind, that's what they opt to do. If Sunday Morning football hasn't hit first.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
My son wants to be in the service because when there was a Sunday School option he hated that more than the service. That doesn't mean he likes being in the service.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My son wants to be in the service because when there was a Sunday School option he hated that more than the service. That doesn't mean he likes being in the service.
You'd like to think we could do better than this, wouldn't you?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The simple fact is that children are all different. There is no "one size fits all" model of how churches can appeal to children. In any family with more than one child, all the children will be different and find different things attactive or repulsive about church. Even a single child can change in what's suitable over relatively short periods of time.
At the end of the day we all have limited options, there are only so many churches we can get to on a Sunday morning. One of them may have services, Sunday School, other provision for children that works very well for our children. But, it won't be perfect, and certainly won't be as good for each child in a family of 2 or more children. And, that same church may not meet the needs of the parents. We end up having to compromise. And, we may find ourselves stuck with the least bad of a range of not very good options.
And then wonder why, the moment the kids hit an age where they can be left behind, that's what they opt to do. If Sunday Morning football hasn't hit first.
The best I can do is demonstrate the importance church has for me. At the end of the day when the kids are old enough to do something on their own and they choose not to come to church I have to respect that. At present I can't leave them alone in the flat, so they come.
At this point in my life I need the stability and support of the congregation I am a member of. So, I'm not going church shopping to find one better for the children. If life had turned out differently then maybe that would have happened (with the blessing of our current church because they recognise the inadequacy of provision for children - though they would be sad to lose young people in the service).
The least worse option ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think we need better options. Or we will end up with even emptier churches.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course we do. But, we also need fuller churches first ... it's catch-22. Our church would love to be able to provide Sunday School for those who want it, and let those who want to stay in the service do so. But, first we need probably at least two more young families attending every week to provide the critical number of children, and with the existing adults form a rota to lead Sunday School so it isn't always on one persons shoulders. Then we can look at material suitable to the children we have (or, rather at present don't have) and be a church more attractive to other young families.
Of course, we'd also need to adjust our services to better suit those young families without alienating the existing congregation. We'd need to look at other provision as well, especially for teenagers when the young families get a bit older. But, how does any church start such a process? It can't be left to the parents, we're already run off our feet looking after the bairns during the week and frazzled by the time we get to church because of the effort of getting reluctant children dressed and out the door.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is not the fault of churchgoers - why are they blamed? Why not blame the churches for crap Sunday School provision? If the CoE wants to attract families it has to do far better than some colouring in and jigsaws in the corner.
We are "the churches". The Church of England isn't some abstract corporate body - it's you, it's the man in the next pew, and if I ever move back to the UK, it will be me again.
"Churchgoers" are not customers of the church - they are the church. ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I don't think we can ever legitimately say 'somebody ought to have a vision for .... '
Nor, for that matter, 'I have a vision for what you ought to do'.
[ 27. January 2014, 12:28: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course we do. But, we also need fuller churches first ... it's catch-22. Our church would love to be able to provide Sunday School for those who want it, and let those who want to stay in the service do so. But, first we need probably at least two more young families attending every week to provide the critical number of children, and with the existing adults form a rota to lead Sunday School so it isn't always on one persons shoulders. Then we can look at material suitable to the children we have (or, rather at present don't have) and be a church more attractive to other young families.
Of course, we'd also need to adjust our services to better suit those young families without alienating the existing congregation. We'd need to look at other provision as well, especially for teenagers when the young families get a bit older. But, how does any church start such a process? It can't be left to the parents, we're already run off our feet looking after the bairns during the week and frazzled by the time we get to church because of the effort of getting reluctant children dressed and out the door.
Aye, which is why we need the rest of the church to help, like they promised in the Baptism, if they cast their minds back, at least in the CofE. I may be being unfair to LC and Enoch, but I'm reading their contribution as "your problem, you deal with it."
[ 27. January 2014, 12:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Some of the missing children I mentioned in my earlier post actually (*gasp*) like coming to Church! They're not the problem - it's their parents...... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
How many adults refuse point blank to eat broccoli because they were made to as a child? How many musicians wish their parents had in fact let them just drop it when they whined about it as children? Why does it follow that being made to go to Church as a child means you hate it and stop going when you are an adult?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
I like to think that there's a chance that they might actually want to carry on coming to church once they have a choice in the matter. It may have escaped your notice, but most people, given a voluntary activity they don't like, don't do it.
How many adults refuse point blank to eat broccoli because they were made to as a child? How many musicians wish their parents had in fact let them just drop it when they whined about it as children? Why does it follow that being made to go to Church as a child means you hate it and stop going when you are an adult?
Being made to go doesn't. It being incredibly dull, boring and uninspiring does. It certainly did for my mother, who refused to take us to church as children because she'd been bored out of her skull as a child and hated it and wouldn't inflict it on any child of hers.
Adults who eventually come to like broccoli or playing an instrument keep it up. Those who don't, don't. Making church dull and boring makes it far more likely that folk will not eventually come to like it, and will therefore not continue to do it once they have a choice.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I should add, btw., that we were seriously considering giving up church ourselves at one point because we couldn't very easily leave the kids at home and it was painfully obvious that the experience was killing what nascent faith they had. That was looking like our "least worst option."
[ 27. January 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
"a bit tough" will not fill the empty pews that that policy guarantees in the future. Of course as parents we can tell them they're going anyway, but that doesn't make disciples; it makes resentful children who want nothing to do with it as soon as they have grown up.
And have you ever endured an hour's service with three bored children? I suppose we could threaten to beat them within an inch of their lives if they dare move or speak, but otherwise it's a trial for the parents as well.
[ 27. January 2014, 13:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
Does this mean you think it's better that children get switched off from church, faith, Jesus etc. (and potentially, depending on one's theology here, run the grave risk of entering eternity without God) than for some thinking and adapting to happen so that church services are more enticing / attractive / amenable to children?
Unless our tradition dictates in detail the nature and style of our church services (and I know some traditions do so), surely it's incumbent on all of us to do some serious thinking about how we can make the whole church service 'thing' more engaging and more effective at introducing people to Jesus and to the idea of being his followers. If children are growing up with the idea that church services (and presumably, by extension, faith in Jesus) are boring and irrelevant to real life, well that's a big problem.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Aye. Thing is, children are part of the church. Not a potential part. Not a part in the future. Part now. We do them a massive disservice if our response to their spiritual needs is to bore them rigid.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I'm dropping in here to remark that Karl's children's experience is not necessarily common to all - as I have said, we have a number of children who like coming to church, and who are happy to be involved in Sunday Club or the liturgy......their current absence is down to problems with their parents, not them.
Just saying...whatever Karl's experience may be, not all kids (or churches, come to that) are the same. I don't for one minute deny, however, that this is a most challenging subject for churches of whatever denomination or style!
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I never said it was common to all. But what I want to point out is that neither is the experience of children liking the service, or, for that matter the normal Sunday School offerings. Moreover, I refer back to my earlier post about a self-selecting sample; I have a distinct hunch that once in mission you move beyond the churched and largely churchophilic current punterage, you'll find this problem more and more.
Of course, it also depends on the church. Perhaps my kids would have been engaged by Bishop's Finger's church's offering; I only know they weren't by any of the parish churches in our area.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Is Church and her worship a "response to people's spiritual needs"? Are children saved by some other Gospel?
I agree that provision for children is piss-poor in many (most?) places. Having said that, I deplore the (fairly modern) idea that you go to church to be vended a service suitable to your spiritual requirements: this is not (generally) a wise approach to take with adults, who have enormously varied spiritual 'needs', so why would it work better with children?
Admittedly, my ecclesiology is wildly at variance with that of people like SCK (and probably KLB), so I don't view services in the same light. I wonder, though, whether anyone thinks the spiritual life of a child (or an adult) stops at the church porch? Why do all of their spiritual needs have to be met in a church service?
Also: I don't understand what's so awful about children being bored (KLB's case seems to be an extreme example which I'm not necessarily talking about). Boredom is useful. Children do not have an human right to stimulation.
Also Also: what Bishop's Finger said.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be being unfair to LC and Enoch, but I'm reading their contribution as "your problem, you deal with it."
Not my intent - I would rather say that it it our problem, and we should deal with it. But it is definitely "we need to fix..." rather than "they need to fix..." because the church is us.
And I agree, of course, that one couple being the Sunday School provision isn't sustainable. Part of the problem, certainly, is the point of view that Sunday School is only an issue for the parents of small children, so that the rest of the church leaves the young families to sort it out between themselves. That point of view is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why does Church have to be attractive to children? We make them do all sorts of things they don't 'want' to, but which we want them to, like music lessons and school and eating broccoli. Why do they get the option of opting out of Church?
All my kids like music lessons, and the majority like broccoli, but that's not really your point. At some level, you're right - I make my children try unfamiliar foods, and the assertion that this green thing that they haven't tried for months is "yucky" doesn't get them out of trying it again - but I don't hold them down for an hour or so every week and force-feed them green vegetables in the hope that they will acquire a deep and abiding love for Brussels sprouts in the process.
I think I mentioned upthread that my five-year-old isn't going to Sunday School at the moment. He gave it a decent try, he didn't enjoy it much, and it spoiled the church service for him. I see no sense at all in forcing him to go - he might be ready in September, and I'm pretty sure he'll want to go in 18 months time. Waiting until then to go back to Sunday School isn't going to do any damage to his spiritual development.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No-one is saying that all of everyone's spiritual needs ought to be met in every service. However, a situation where the church's provision is clearly antithetical to spiritual needs is a big problem. And I could see my children being alienated further from the church every service I dragged them to. When we got to our current gaff (which some on here would probably want closed down) the eldest made a point of spending the entire service with his fingers in his ears, so strongly did he no longer want to know anything about it. Fortunately their engaging approach means he is now engaged and participates in the service. I can hardly think how it'd be better if we didn't do that and instead served him up boredom.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Is Church and her worship a "response to people's spiritual needs"? Are children saved by some other Gospel?
I agree that provision for children is piss-poor in many (most?) places. Having said that, I deplore the (fairly modern) idea that you go to church to be vended a service suitable to your spiritual requirements: this is not (generally) a wise approach to take with adults, who have enormously varied spiritual 'needs', so why would it work better with children?
I certainly don't think church services are about being provided with 'a service suitable to your spiritual requirements', so my apologies if I've given that impression. For me, a church service (I prefer the words 'meeting' or 'gathering', but never mind that) is where Christians gather together to encourage and strengthen one another in their faith and their efforts to be disciples of Jesus. It's all about mutuality and 'one another-ing' IMO.
Like K:LB has just said, if children (or anyone really) are going to a church service / gathering and repeatedly finding it irrelevant and dull, then what impression are they getting of what it's like to be a Christian? Aren't they're learning that being a follower, an apprentice of the creator and sustainer of the universe is a tedious waste of their time? Woe to us if we're contributing to the sending of that message!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Like K:LB has just said, if children (or anyone really) are going to a church service / gathering and repeatedly finding it irrelevant and dull, then what impression are they getting of what it's like to be a Christian?
I suspect that there's probably a correlation between children finding church dull/irrelevant and most adults finding the same service dull/irrelevant. If we can find ways to make our services interesting and relevant for the adults who don't darken our doors then we'll probably be taking a big step towards doing the same for the children we already have.
The difficulty is that the adults already there choose to come, and almost by definition therefore come for what we currently do. Often there is a reluctance to change, because people like it the way it is. If a minister forces change on a congregation to make the service relevant to people who don't come then they risk alienating the current regulars, and if they aren't driven away they sit there resentful that what they valued before isn't there. And, if you do then get new people in they see a lot of people unhappy with the service, and even if they then get something from the service they still go away feeling unwelcome and resented and probably never come back.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
You've put it in a nutshell, Alan ... so do you (or others) have any ideas about how one might proceed?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Church services don't need to be relevant, but they should be constructed and carried out in such a way that no one, adult or child, gets bored.
That means music that is attractive, well-rehearsed by the music group/choir (if there is one) and relatively easy to pick-up if there are visitors. It means intercessions that are structured and not full of shorthand/local references that are meaningless to someone not "in the loop"; it means a sermon or homily that is to the point, well-constructed and delivered.
Notices and announcements should be kept to a minimum; if you have a pew sheet that is where they should be.
Church should be as warm as it can be made, well-lit, with a loop for people who use hearing aids, have decent seating, cushions for those who need them, play-bags for the very small, etc.
Sunday School (if separate) should be similarly well-organised and thought through.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In my case, I liked Sunday School and pretty much stayed there until I left for university at eighteen. In the last year or so it's occurred to me that my interest in small group church probably goes back to that time in my life.
There are many problems facing the whole concept of Sunday School, though. Here are just a few examples, as I see it:
- It's difficult to get decent staff to run them. Training is now available, but commitment is low, so children end up with an unsatisfying or age-inappropriate experience.
- I was mostly sent to SS by myself, and before my time this was quite normal; this practice seems almost obsolete now. Even if only a small number of such children ever stayed on, that was better than nothing.
- Parents who want good SS provision for their children are likely to defect to those churches that already have good SSs. This makes the situation at other churches worse. Like attracts like.
- Sunday isn't always a free day for kids. Sports activities are often on Sunday mornings, and for non-resident parents the weekend may be the only time they have with their kids.
- Churches need a strategy for holding on to children beyond SS and even beyond the youth group. If the general culture and environment of the church is very different from the youth provision then the young people won't stay on anyway. This means the whole character of a church might have to change. I've seen this happen at a local Baptist church but how it would work in churches whose identity is embedded in worshipping in a 'traditional' style?
- One argument I've read is that the way to attract children to church is to attract the parents. Especially the dads! Easy, or what?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It was called 'offensive' when I mentioned Goldilocks in relation to attitudes towards children's provision. But I think it's fair comment to say that - in an age where the consumer is always right - there is a danger that 33 different parents clamour for 33 different styles of provision. Obviously that is just not possible. A reasonable sized church could probably offer 3 options, any more is unrealistic. So 30 of those parents have to be prepared to compromise (or expect their children to compromise) a little.
The options at my church currently are: play/activity corner at the front and to the side of the church; children's group meeting in the vestry; acolytes and choir taking part in the service. Of course, parents are also free to do their own thing with their own children in their pew, or take them to run around outside for part of the service (as my father used to do with me during the sermon when I was young - apparently that was normal back then). To me, that sounds an entirely reasonable number of options. But if anyone wanted to suggest and organise further options, I'm sure they'd be made most welcome.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Church services don't need to be relevant...
Wow! Now they tell us! That will make our lives much easier in future. All that effort we spent on planning sermons and music to be relevant to e congregation was just unnecessary.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If church is relevant then I think most people would put up with all sorts of stuff they don't actually like (though, with limits).
If it's irrelevant then basically you're just there for entertainment. And, if it isn't as entertaining as the omnibus edition of your favourite soap opera or watching the kids play football then why are you at church at all?
It's probably difficult to say what children are less tolerant of, boring or irrelevant. But, if the service isn't saying anything to them as they are, then why are children (or anyone else) enduring it?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Church services don't need to be relevant...
Wow! Now they tell us! That will make our lives much easier in future. All that effort we spent on planning sermons and music to be relevant to e congregation was just unnecessary.
And, to think I've just written a sermon for Sunday. I could have just used the one I wrote on the same passages for a different church 3 years ago. No need to worry about the old sermon being written specifically in the context of a church in vacancy and drawing applications from and into the immediate worries of the church. My current congregation wouldn't notice, and if they did so what? Not like I need to speak to them when I get behind the lectern (we don't have a pulpit). And, as I stand behind the Table to break bread and raise the cup I don't need to say words that make those actions something special. How many hours have I wasted this week trying to craft a service that says something for the people who will be in front of me (including at least two children), prayers that address needs I know they have, hymns that they can sing well and offer praise to God.
"Church services don't need to be relevant"? Bollocks to that. When we stop trying to be relevant we might as well give up the faith. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us", but we can't be bothered let him into our services and live there? "The light shines in the darkness", but we don't want illumination on the path we walk?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It was called 'offensive' when I mentioned Goldilocks in relation to attitudes towards children's provision. But I think it's fair comment to say that - in an age where the consumer is always right - there is a danger that 33 different parents clamour for 33 different styles of provision. Obviously that is just not possible. A reasonable sized church could probably offer 3 options, any more is unrealistic. So 30 of those parents have to be prepared to compromise (or expect their children to compromise) a little.
The options at my church currently are: play/activity corner at the front and to the side of the church; children's group meeting in the vestry; acolytes and choir taking part in the service. Of course, parents are also free to do their own thing with their own children in their pew, or take them to run around outside for part of the service (as my father used to do with me during the sermon when I was young - apparently that was normal back then). To me, that sounds an entirely reasonable number of options. But if anyone wanted to suggest and organise further options, I'm sure they'd be made most welcome.
But that isn't even close to what I was suggesting and that's fairly obvious. It's not about the consumer being always right, it's about church being for everyone, including children, and right now that is not the case.
Wanting ONE reasonable Sunday School provision is surely not unreasonable and is not at all the same as a classroom size group of parents all wanting different things. This is the case of churches having no parents at all because children are either unimportant to the church, or the church has no idea how to get parents into the church and it's not seen as a priority....because actual living children are ultimately not as important as tat and serving bad coffee, apparently.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make children do music lessons (outwith school) even if they don't want to?
For most children these days school is the only compulsory activity. They get to choose if they want football or athletics, or neither. And, most of their friends will not be going to church on a Sunday morning, many will be doing something else; "Why do I have to go to church, my friends don't" is a common question.
Um. You, parent. They, children. You do get to tell them what to do. It's part of the job.
And K:LB, if Church is boring for both children and adults, that's one thing, and it might be that that church is boring. In which case perhaps it should change/people should change it/leave. If it's just boring for the children, well, it's a bit tough.
What about the shocking idea that children are part of the Body of Christ and as such should be treated as being as important as the adults? Why is church so exclusive of children that it makes them have no faith an acceptable prospect?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
