|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is the church ageist?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.
'Feral' is a very strong and inappropriate word to use about a child who displays such strong autistic traits. I realise not everyone knows the traits of autism, but did it really not occur to you that the child had a neurological condition? A meltdown is due to sensory overload and is not about bad behaviour - it's not the same as a tantrum.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
Was this the mother of one of the children being baptised? I'd be shocked to hear that she was, considering how much thoughtful interest she was clearly taking in the service.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
In my church's case, some pews (like, 5 in a big church) were going to be removed and the pews shifted around in order to make the layout more wheelchair-friendly. Said old people were unhappy because 'their' pews were going to be moved. If that's not childish and toddler-like I don't know what is. Btw these weren't pews with memorials or anything like that in, just standard pews the people habitually sat in every week.
I know this is a tangent but ... some years ago we wanted to remove some pews so as to open up a circulating/exhibition space. We discussed it, on and off, for four years. We publicised it in our church magazine and asked for comments. We gave out a questionnaire to every member of the congregation. We discussed plans and ideas at several church meetings. And eventually we went ahead and did the deed.
One (fairly regular) older couple came to church the next Sunday and were horrified to find that "their" pew had gone. They never returned, and made it clear that they wanted no further contact with the church. Why? Because "no-one had told them what was going on".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Its obvious your mind was made up before you asked the question. The children are popular, pretty little things and the woman is unpopular, old and ugly. Nobody likes her, particularly the gossipy people who complained to you about her. I guess it's true the church is like a big family and when grandma becomes a downer at the parties its time to put her in a home.
Interesting translation Twilight but far far from the truth. I don't, for example, need gossipy people to complain: I can see and hear for myself. I take the time to listen to people's stories and that of the church: in this person's case it's not a happy one but no one has ever done anything about it. I'm not prepared to let it go. Incidentally it is also other elderly people (non members) who this particular lady seems to upset: her approach is not age related. It was simply a list of possible options suggested by other leaders, none of which I've embraced.
No, its not a drive to get a young church - we seem to be seeing new people in all age groups. But we do want church to be real and welcoming and given that the incident as described was for short time (a minute or so) and only one week, then the response was a touch disproportionate don't you think?
Well if the elderly self refer as that, I don't see it as ageist, esp as I'm there myself.
As for the "putting in a home crack" you have no reason to know but one more fact may help you in your next translation. Given the choice between a nursing home and family care, we care in our own home for my 84 y/o father who has complex health needs relating to 3 joint replacements and 4 different cancers. I apply the same standards of love and care to others, however "embarrassing" or "tough" others may see their behaviour or condition. I find your comment about such matters as "putting people into homes" repugnant Twilight.
As for WWJD - didn't he say on a couple of occasions "depart from me I never knew you?" As I recall he had a lot to say about pharisaic legalism as well. Add to that his invitation for the "little ones" (all children) of whatever age to come close and perhaps it's not as clear cut as it seems at first glance.
[code]
[ 12. December 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Tactically it seems you can be the nicest and the meanest at the same time. If you take the lady aside and talk to her about trying to be more welcoming as a church. Carefully not put like it's about her alone, since a it shouldn't be and b that would get her back up. You can talk about wanting to <something that would please the elderly people she is mean to> and wanting to welcome children. then she has a chance to understand that you see her and would appreciate behavior that welcomes and loves not hurts. (I.e. not hurting other people by gossiping about them or whatever.) If she understands where the church is going under your direction and chooses to leave then it is her choice, and she is not driven out. And maybe she will surprise everyone. There is a woman who I thought would eventually leave because she couldn't get along with pastor and she seemed to hate the change pastor was bringing. Neither one was behaving perfectly, but over the years they have both worked on it and now instead of actively trying to drive each other out of church they are both trying to support each other and pastor has appointed said woman into positions where they work together regularly. Fireworks have not ensued.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No, I haven't experienced a church like that. Our church takes a vote on changes, so a small group would never override a large one.
A small group can be so antagonistic that a particular course of action is taken / not taken despite what the vote said. I've seen it happen.
quote:
The single biggest complaint about old people on this thread seems to come down to some of them preferring to keep to tradition rather than institute something new. Why is this always a bad thing? Where is the evidence that the new changes will make the church better or keep more people in the pews over the long run?
It's not always a bad thing, but there's a difference between "I don't agree with this change because of <perfectly legitimate, valid reason>" and "We've always done it that way, so it can't be changed".
I've seem far more of the latter than of the former.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A friend of mine was on the vestry of a church in Haymarket, VA, and had me look over the 'Welcome' leaflet before they went to reprint. It was quite an old document, probably written fifty years ago. I pointed out that if they insisted on referring to 'the War of Northern Aggression' it was a lead pipe cinch that modern suburban families would not feel very welcome. He replied that the oldest member of the congregation was also the wealthiest, and she was still fighting the Civil War. Nothing could be done to change the wording until she died.
And there we are. "Do something I don't like and I'll take my ball home." - toddler like behaviour.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As for the "putting in a home crack" you have no reason to know but one more fact may help you in your next translation. Given the choice between a nursing home and family care, we care in our own home for my 84 y/o father who has complex health needs relating to 3 joint replacements and 4 different cancers. I apply the same standards of love and care to others, however "embarrassing" or "tough" others may see their behaviour or condition. I find your comment about such matters as "putting people into homes" repugnant Twilight.
About half of the points you've addressed here were said by other people, not me, so I'll stick to what I did say. The church is often reffered to as a family and I think, in that sense, asking church members to go somewhere else "where the congregation is all old people," is similar to asking old people to go to assisted living. I was talking about the church, obviously, not your own personal home situation. You just chose to take it personally so you could find the remark, an apt analogy, "repugnant."
quote:
As for WWJD - didn't he say on a couple of occasions "depart from me I never knew you?"
Yes but he was Jesus, he could make that call. You are not. This woman may be in her last year of life, she only has a short time to save herself from such condemnation so she needs church. quote:
Add to that his invitation for the "little ones" (all children) of whatever age to come close and perhaps it's not as clear cut as it seems at first glance.
I have not made the slightest suggestion that you say anything unwelcoming to this family at all. I am only asking you not to tell this woman about other churches. I'm sure she's driven past them a hundred times.
If you want to bring Jesus into this, how about remembering Anna, an old woman who "lived at the temple," and was the first to recognize Jesus as the Christ. I'm glad someone hadn't told her she would probably be happier at home.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Would it maybe work to stop altogether considering the woman as elderly (either for better or worse) and consider her instead as a Christian with particular needs? One of which seems to me (if information supplied 3rd or 4th hand is correct) is a serious need for discipleship. I'm thinking here about the gossip--assuming the informants are correct (and yeah, I realize they probably are). Also other interpersonal relationship issues.
It's a really loathly, dreadful job, but it sounds like somebody needs to look past the immediate problem and start discipling her. As in, showing serious love and attention to her, and also calling her on her bullshit (as it happens, once piece at a time, would probably be best). And this is really going to suck, because she's used to having immunity, and is unlikely to enjoy being taken seriously as a fellow servant of Christ. But she could very well surprise everybody and do a major turnaround. I've known a few people who did.
But you'll need to get the age thing out of the way, either as an excuse for her behavior or as an alleged cause for it. Nobody on any side of the discussion should be allowed to invoke age either positively or negatively. And then deal with her as you would any other disciple of Christ of adult age. Either that or decide to put up with her till she dies.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Would it maybe work to stop altogether considering the woman as elderly (either for better or worse) and consider her instead as a Christian with particular needs? ...
But you'll need to get the age thing out of the way, either as an excuse for her behavior or as an alleged cause for it. Nobody on any side of the discussion should be allowed to invoke age either positively or negatively...
I think this is a valid point. Some older folks mellow, others just continue being who they always were when younger. Some younger folks display the same kinds of behavior we tend to resent in oldsters.
Gossip is a problem at all ages. Surely I'm not the only one who has heard "prayer requests" that are really more liked gossip, by young adults and middle aged, not just elderly. Gossip is often excused as "fun" at younger ages. It's not something only oldsters do!
Possessiveness of a particular seat location is common. I remember in university walking into a large lecture hall with no assigned seats, the second class session I sat in a different seat and someone objected "that's my seat."
Dislike for kids being kids is fairly common at all ages unless they are your own kids.
The real issues are gossip and possessiveness and getting along with others who are different from you, etc, not age.
You don't live to be old unless you are capable of flexibility, look how much has changed in society in 50 years that our elders have adapted to. Old folks can change, they've done it a lot and are good at it. But they have to know change is worth the effort. Not "change or we'll throw you out" but "change this behavior (one behavior at a time) and people will like you more." We all want to be liked.
Address the problems, in *all* who have that problem.
Maybe a sermon mention of the harm of gossip - and what is gossip, and how to handle things others do or say you dislike. The difference between telling someone who needs to know vs spreading rumors (even if true!) to people who can't do anything about it anyway.
Maybe a sermon suggesting everyone change seats next Sunday to sit near someone you don't know well. Some will refuse (or forget). Some actually do hear/see better in one part of the hall than another.
Addressing common problems is harder than telling one person to leave but helps a lot more people grow.
I'm no expert at how to handle a bully, which some (at any age) may be. I have also seen prayer change relationships I thought could not improve. Set the prayer team to work on the problem!
Just thinking out loud. I've never run a church and don't want to!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Would it maybe work to stop altogether considering the woman as elderly (either for better or worse) and consider her instead as a Christian with particular needs? One of which seems to me (if information supplied 3rd or 4th hand is correct) is a serious need for discipleship. I'm thinking here about the gossip--assuming the informants are correct (and yeah, I realize they probably are). Also other interpersonal relationship issues.
It's a really loathly, dreadful job, but it sounds like somebody needs to look past the immediate problem and start discipling her. As in, showing serious love and attention to her, and also calling her on her bullshit (as it happens, once piece at a time, would probably be best). And this is really going to suck, because she's used to having immunity, and is unlikely to enjoy being taken seriously as a fellow servant of Christ. But she could very well surprise everybody and do a major turnaround. I've known a few people who did.
But you'll need to get the age thing out of the way, either as an excuse for her behavior or as an alleged cause for it. Nobody on any side of the discussion should be allowed to invoke age either positively or negatively. And then deal with her as you would any other disciple of Christ of adult age. Either that or decide to put up with her till she dies.
Once again Lamb Chopped knocks it outta the park. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
While Belle's suggestions for sermons are fine, I suspect in this case they'll miss the mark. If it really is just one person who is the problem, the scattershot approach of a sermon is not warranted. And I suspect the woman in question will be the only one present to not realize it's about her.
Yes, really, what Lamb Chopped is suggesting is the thing: it will take someone with pastoral authority and courage to step up and do the hard work of discipling. Both loving her and confronting her. Both listening to her and speaking truth into her life. Because she's right, that IS what it's about-- not age, not priorities, not consideration-- it's about spiritual immaturity, regardless of her chronological age. As LC suggested, it won't be easy, and it will come at a cost.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.
'Feral' is a very strong and inappropriate word to use about a child who displays such strong autistic traits. I realise not everyone knows the traits of autism, but did it really not occur to you that the child had a neurological condition? A meltdown is due to sensory overload and is not about bad behaviour - it's not the same as a tantrum.
I agre that " feral" is a reductive, unhelpful word, but this would have lit up all my dials, too. The kid needed help coping, and wasn't getting it.
The most generous intepretation is that that was a crucial phone call-- like a panicky relative completely lost and calling for directions.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
And joining in the for Lamb Chopped's wise words.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
No matter how tolerant we all profess to be, I'm sure we have all reacted with irritation when people around us in church do something to upset the equilibrium. I found myself feeling such irritation last Sunday at which there were several young families present for a baptism. There was one little boy aged about 3 who spent the entire time having melt downs and screaming the place down. He physically lashed out at people around him and generally caused a disturbance. Unfortunately, mother did nothing about the kid apart from the occasional loud yell as she was busy talking loudly all the time on her mobile phone. She made no attempt to take the child out or to calm him.
I was sorry for the kid, but I found myself becoming increasingly irritated with the mother whose behaviour was so inappropriate. No wonder her little boy appeared feral - he knew no other way. I think it was normal to feel irritated, but I also felt so sad for the child and frustrated at not knowing what to do. I don't think I could cope with that every Sunday.
'Feral' is a very strong and inappropriate word to use about a child who displays such strong autistic traits. I realise not everyone knows the traits of autism, but did it really not occur to you that the child had a neurological condition? A meltdown is due to sensory overload and is not about bad behaviour - it's not the same as a tantrum.
I agre that " feral" is a reductive, unhelpful word, but this would have lit up all my dials, too. The kid needed help coping, and wasn't getting it.
The most generous intepretation is that that was a crucial phone call-- like a panicky relative completely lost and calling for directions.
Oh no, totally! The mother's behaviour was *awful* and I would have said something (or wanted to say something) for sure. It's just that the kid's behaviour just screams autistic/some other neurological issue. But totally agree that either way he wasn't getting the right help and his mother was really not helping the situation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Ok. Sometimes in conversations like this it feels like the only acceptable way to deal with children's behavior is to ignore it or act like it is acceptable. If the behavior is the child's way of letting you know they need help, this is not helpful.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Thanks, guys.*
About the 3 year-old--I've been taking care of one for my niece Saturdays and man, it's been a real refresher course in just how awful toddlers can be. As in, neurologically normal toddlers, who can be sweet as pie one week and baby hellions the next. Heck, wait 30 minutes and they change. I know what inspired Jekyll and Hyde now.
I'm suspecting that there's no way to form a decent opinion of this particular 3-year-old (the one at the baptism, I mean) unless you've seen him in action at least several weeks. A one-time freak-out doth not an autistic child make. It could easily be "he's coming down with a virus tomorrow, oh lucky us, to have this advance warning" (my own always went particularly psycho when a germ was sneaking up on him, and we only realized why in retrospect). Or even "he saw a little girl throw a tantrum in the grocery store yesterday and get what she wanted, so he's decided to try out that technique now, having a diabolical sense of timing."
Seriously, even if the kid was standing on the steps of the high altar doing a strip tease, I don't think you could conclude anything about his health from a single incident.
ETA: Did I ever tell y'all about the five-year-old I saw in church dancing and singing (LOUDLY), "I'm a sperm, I'm a sperm, I'm a sperm"!? And that was a pastor's kid!
* Californianism. Not meant to imply anything about anybody's gender. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 12. December 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Pomona, I apologise for offending by saying the child's behaviour appeared feral. I agree it was an unfortunate term to use. You may notice that I did express caring feelings for the child whereas it was the mother who was at fault. However, why do you choose to label the child as autistic just on the basis of what I reported? I have worked with many autistic children and can assure you that he does not fit the category. I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.
Quite likely, Bib. My son is a cashier at Walmart and he sees tired, bored children screaming for the soothing comfort of a candy bar fifty times a day. Often the parents are also tired and stressed and quite mean to their children. They aren't all autistic, though some are and some are suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, or ADD, or parental attention disorder, which I see lots of. I noticed a few years ago that kids today seem so much louder than they were when mine was young and, close observation taught me that It takes a louder scream to get the attention of a mom on a cell phone.
All the old people aren't in the first stages of dementia, either, though some of them are and most of them are in a certain amount of pain from arthritis or worse.
I got up this morning and did a little test in my mirror. While my face was still slack from sleep I looked in the mirror and imagined how it might seem to others if I was turning suddenly to the sound of a child's scream (like Kelly did.) It could easily have been described as a "dirty look," even though it was just the long thin face of a woman my age. When strangers and priests feel free to lecture us for cruelty to children based on nothing more than our natural face in repose, it really isn't fair. I know that after this thread I'm going to be very careful to stare dawn at my hands when a child is acting up in my vicinity.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Bib, I did't say you didn't express caring feelings for the child. As I said to Kelly, clearly the mother was at fault. Obviously you know the child better than me, but the use of the term 'meltdown' made me think of autism since that is usually used for neuroatypical children, and is different from a standard tantrum.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...a serious need for discipleship. I'm thinking here about the gossip--assuming the informants are correct (and yeah, I realize they probably are). Also other interpersonal relationship issues.
It's a really loathly, dreadful job, but it sounds like somebody needs to look past the immediate problem and start discipling her. As in, showing serious love and attention to her, and also calling her on her bullshit (as it happens, once piece at a time, would probably be best). And this is really going to suck, because she's used to having immunity,
Once again Lamb Chopped knocks it outta the park.
While Belle's suggestions for sermons are fine, I suspect in this case they'll miss the mark. If it really is just one person who is the problem, the scattershot approach of a sermon is not warranted.
Just to clarify, I don't think a quick mention in a sermon changes anyone from devil to saint. And yes people totally miss that they fit the picture.
But if someone has been "getting away with" inappropriate behavior for years, a sudden personal correction comes across as an irrational attack, if there was a problem why didn't you say so long ago?
Besides, common behaviors like gossip are not confined to one person, so calling out one person (even in private) looks like a personal attack because why me and not them?
Raising a common problem such as gossip and explaining why it is harmful to community and how to deal with it when you run into it (on the job, in the neighborhood, as well as in church) signals those who have been suffering in silence ("we aren't supposed to judge") that the local environment on this issue is changing, and gives them some tools that can help improve the situation wherever they run into gossip.
I've seen groups fall apart because the group assumed a group value (like "we have to accept nasty behavior by that person") that was not healthy. Declaring a healthier community value system from authority in public helps the group as a whole find a better way. Then the individual counseling comes within a known framework.
But LC has a lot more church management experience than I have! Undoubtedly a sermon, alone, changes nothing.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I dunno. Why not do both? have sermons AND individual discipleship. I don't think one can take the place of the other.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I dunno. Why not do both? have sermons AND individual discipleship. I don't think one can take the place of the other.
Yes. I think that's what Belle is arguing for, now that I've read her clarification. I think that is the way to go. As I said, a sermon is apt to miss it's mark as per the really nasty person-- they won't recognize themselves, even if everyone else does. But as Belle said, it does raise the community value, remind everyone else "this isn't OK", and lets the victims know we're not OK with this. To deal with the actual instigator, as LC suggests, real, hard-won, ongoing discipleship will be needed.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Pomona, I apologise for offending by saying the child's behaviour appeared feral. I agree it was an unfortunate term to use. You may notice that I did express caring feelings for the child whereas it was the mother who was at fault. However, why do you choose to label the child as autistic just on the basis of what I reported? I have worked with many autistic children and can assure you that he does not fit the category. I think he was probably tired and bored and had a parent who didn't care or fulfil her parenting duties.
I don't see any need for you to apologise, Bib. You did not say that the child was feral, simply that the behaviour was - and that's a pretty accurate name for what you set out. And the mother's behaviour was, well......
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A thought occurred to me this morning while flicking through a volume of C.G.Jung's essays, as one does of a cold Friday morning.
While I have no objection to <insert usual stuff about youth and the Church here>, surely if Jung has any mileage left in him at all, then one of his key insights is that spirituality tends to be something people pursue in the second half of life?
What do we think of that? And of the corollary that if it's true, then turfing out the second-half-of-lifers in order to create a "young Church" is probably the last thing we should be doing?
Personally, I think there's something in that. A lot of my work involves pastoral relationships with older people who have only begun to think really deeply about faith as they became older.
(But can we avoid reference to the old joke - "Mum, why does Granny read the Bible so much?" "She's cramming for her finals, dear.")
Wow, I just whizzed past this, didn't I?
So right, Adeodatus.
In my home church, I remember being saddened as a young adult by the us and them attitude between the youth and the older folk. On the one hand I remember the older folk-- particularly the older women, I have to say-- being really discouraging and sometimes outright vicious toward younger people (particularly young women) who were trying to include themselves in church roles (such as they were-- being on committees, serving the Altar Guild, etc.) At the same time, when we were planning the Youth led service and I advocated throwing in a couple favorite folk hymns to allow the older folk to actively participate, the Pastor himself accused me of appeasing the conformists and holding my fellow youth back.
I think what was missing here was the idea of mentoring-- both as a valuable resource and as a valued activity. In my case this had to do with the Pastor himself really wanting full control over what happened in the Church, but I wonder if under more reasonable circumstances there might be a way to formalize the mentor role for older parishioners?
I think people have made fleeting references to that dynamic in Mousethief's church-- the "babushkas" (older women) actually seem to have the task of babysitting new arrivals and helping them through the liturgy. What if that new couple with the screaming kid had a grandma/ grandpa type on hand to gently support the parents and help them through the hymn book at the same time?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There could be problems with a mentoring situation if there are people in church who are not supposed to be with children or young people for whatever reason. Mentoring can open cans of worms better not opened: how do you say that not all adults can be mentors and maintain confidentiality? How do you keep the child protection guidelines in place and allow mentoring?
I was also reflecting on the implications of losing the more established members of the church and replacing them with young people. There's a good chance that will result in a financial hit as the older people are the ones who are likely to be leaving legacies, setting up decent standing orders or whatever. Which could cause other problems in maintaining that church.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
: how do you say that not all adults can be mentors and maintain confidentiality? How do you keep the child protection guidelines in place and allow mentoring?
Well, if it was indeed formal, I'd think that would include a formal background check and a formal written statement of expected duties, including a confidentiality agreement. Signed by the prospective mentor. Or assigning the new gal an altar guild buddy.
Even informally, choosing people who are suited to the job and training them in it is a no-brainer. We train elders and lay readers and altar attendants, right? What's the difference?
And I think you are picturing something a lot more involved and intrusive than I was-- which was something along the lines of pointing out the page number in the hymnal.
[ 14. December 2014, 18:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I was envisaging something that I have seen suggested where older members of the congregation build links with the young people to mentor them. Have phone numbers and access, type mentoring.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Hm, yeah any kind of situation that involved access to personal information would have to be restricted to people who could be verifiably trusted with it. I was thinking more of helping with the flow of the normal routine.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
And maybe that is part of the problem-- people kind of tune out how important the smooth flow of a normal routine is-- especially if it is very smooth-- and therefore don't give enough credit to the ones who provide it. Putting them in a mentoring position helps give them that credit.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I was talking to a friend recently about an elderly relative and it struck me just now much we have gone away from giving old people their proper role as teachers. I mean seriously, it's a freaking waste not to listen to so many of these people, they've got a lifetime of experience and it mostly goes unused and uncommunicated after a certain age. The relative in question needed some work done but wasn't physically up to it, and refused to have someone do it for her out of "charity." Which I totally understand, but the thing I was wondering was whether the situation could be recast--as a teaching situation where she would be able to mentor / apprentice a younger person in doing the job.
Take gardening, for instance. Someone who is well past the heavy digging is likely to have oodles of information and experience that would be useful to a young would-be gardener. There could be an exchange there--his/her strength for the elder's knowledge and advice.
In the church, this kind of thing can involve anything from how to run the cranky kitchen appliances (which way do you turn the gas stove, and what the hell do you do when the boiler screws up?) to positions such as treasurer, secretary, trustee... and homelier things like how you herd cats (that is, deal with a pack of toddlers without losing your mind).
The teaching/mentoring/serving relationship can be as formal or informal as the people involved want it to be. I know I learned a helluva lot from the elders at our first congregation when I was in my mid-twenties and still wet behind the ears. and I think my ability to carry boxes etc. was appreciated in return.
Best of all, nobody has to feel beholden.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Mentoring or even just sharing hobbies like is being suggested here is precisely what the Sticky Faith research cited above indicates is really effective in building those bonds that keep young people in church even into adolescence and beyond. I don't see asking the mentors to go through a background check as any barrier to this program, whether formal or informal-- as Kelly and others noted, this is something that is already done for Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, anyone else who is working with children and youth, so there's already natural processes in place (even in the US which doesn't have the formal process UK has). Anyone who didn't pass the background check wouldn't really be surprised when they were (confidentially) informed that they wouldn't be able to participate in the program.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was also reflecting on the implications of losing the more established members of the church and replacing them with young people. There's a good chance that will result in a financial hit as the older people are the ones who are likely to be leaving legacies, setting up decent standing orders or whatever. Which could cause other problems in maintaining that church.
All very true. Which, as I mentioned before, all too often turns into a rationale for cow-towing to the elderly, giving them whatever they want "because they are the ones paying for it".
The flip side is that-- crass as it sounds-- those older people won't be there forever, whereas the young people theoretically could be (well, not forever obviously but longer) if we find a way to buck the trend and actually keep them in church.
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.
[ 15. December 2014, 03:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All very true. Which, as I mentioned before, all too often turns into a rationale for cow-towing to the elderly, giving them whatever they want "because they are the ones paying for it".
The flip side is that-- crass as it sounds-- those older people won't be there forever, whereas the young people theoretically could be (well, not forever obviously but longer) if we find a way to buck the trend and actually keep them in church.
I wonder exactly what birthday marks the moment when a church member quits being an energetic, vital, valued member whose interests and tastes should be considered top priority and turns them into someone whose interests and tastes should be ignored? When does serving their interests become cowtowing and "giving them whatever they want." Is building a new nursery cowtowing to those babies and giving them whatever they want?
No, those babies wont be there forever, even if they don't leave the church for awhile as Jung, and I further up thread, predicted, they are still going to do something worse in the eyes of many -- turn into old people.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All very true. Which, as I mentioned before, all too often turns into a rationale for cow-towing to the elderly, giving them whatever they want "because they are the ones paying for it".
The flip side is that-- crass as it sounds-- those older people won't be there forever, whereas the young people theoretically could be (well, not forever obviously but longer) if we find a way to buck the trend and actually keep them in church.
I wonder exactly what birthday marks the moment when a church member quits being an energetic, vital, valued member whose interests and tastes should be considered top priority and turns them into someone whose interests and tastes should be ignored? When does serving their interests become cowtowing and "giving them whatever they want." Is building a new nursery cowtowing to those babies and giving them whatever they want?
hmmm... apparently you clicked on the wrong post, since your comments don't seem to respond to what I actually said.
It might have helped had you not edited my post to eliminate the part where I made clear that I was not advocating prioritizing the needs of the young over those of the older members:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.
Even though I'm one of those older members you supposedly value so much, I won't take it personally, since you seem to have the same problem reading everyone's posts.
[ 15. December 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Even though I'm one of those older members you supposedly value so much, I won't take it personally, since you seem to have the same problem reading everyone's posts.
You seem to have a problem with the idea that personal insults are not allowed here. Lay off or take it to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You're right, my apologies. It is indeed getting difficult to stay out of the hellish territory this topic seems to lead us to time and time again.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.
I'm sorry also, that I've had trouble keeping a civil response in this thread and I think this quote might help explain something.
Cliffdweller thinks the point of this thread is "that we need both."
I think the point of this thread is to answer the question: "Is the church ageist?" To me the answer to that is clearly, "Yes." The evidence is in our experiences and in the posts on this thread. Just read them and substitute racial terms for "young," and "old." Or for "old biddy," and "vibrant young single mother." Imagine a sentence on this board where Race Y was described as energetic and full of joy and Race X was always seen as stubborn and selfish.
Imagine, in an attempt to prove a lack of racism, someone said that We need Race X because they can be helpful to Race Y and because they contribute money. We need Race Y just for themselves, because they will bring new ideas and insight, energy.
Isn't it ageist to value older people only in how they might help the young, rather than for themselves?
Suppose Race X wanted a certain kind of food at the dinners and providing that food was described as cowtowing to their interests?
I don't disagree that the church needs both young and old people and that we should try to meet all their needs. I think, for a long time, older people have already been mentoring the young through teaching Sunday school classes,vacation bible school, leading the children's choir and a dozen other contributions. Children, of course, have added joy and pleasure to almost every event.
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.
I'm sorry also, that I've had trouble keeping a civil response in this thread and I think this quote might help explain something.
Cliffdweller thinks the point of this thread is "that we need both."
I think the point of this thread is to answer the question: "Is the church ageist?" To me the answer to that is clearly, "Yes." The evidence is in our experiences and in the posts on this thread. Just read them and substitute racial terms for "young," and "old." Or for "old biddy," and "vibrant young single mother." Imagine a sentence on this board where Race Y was described as energetic and full of joy and Race X was always seen as stubborn and selfish.
I don't think the point of the thread is "do we need both?". I think "we need both" is the answer to the question both you and the OP are asking-- "is the church ageist?". I and pretty much everyone on this thread has agreed with you that, yes, the Church is ageist. Where we disagree is that many of us see the ageism working both ways. We see and have agreed with you re many forms of ageism that works against older members of our congregations in ways that are hurtful as well as ill-advised and, of course, unChristian. Where we disagree is that many of us have also observed ageism working in the other direction-- where children, youth, and young people (particularly young singles) are disadvantaged in different but no less hurtful ways. Which is why I and others have been affirming the principle that we need both. We need to value and honor the contributions of every member of the congregation, of all ages.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Isn't it ageist to value older people only in how they might help the young, rather than for themselves?
Absolutely. And vice-versa as well.
otoh, both older people and young people seem to enjoy it when they are able to contribute to the community. Both groups seem to appreciate feeling like they have something real to offer (which they do) despite their chronological age.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.
I don't think anyone here has suggested that.
[ 15. December 2014, 19:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
What is this stereotype that it's only the younger people with the new ideas? If you talk to the older people in my church, there's a whole range of what different people want, including people who want things that are different from how we currently do them. Lots of "I wish we could do this" or "why don't we do that?"
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
..as Kelly and others noted, this is something that is already done for Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, anyone else who is working with children and youth, so there's already natural processes in place (even in the US which doesn't have the formal process UK has). .
... You're talking about just Sunday School, right? Because in most US states I know of you can't get any kind of child/ youth work job without a background check, a TB Test, and a fingerprint scan. And it's been that way for a very long time. I haven't been in the Sunday School loop for a while, but it would surprise me if most churches haven't followed suit.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
..as Kelly and others noted, this is something that is already done for Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, anyone else who is working with children and youth, so there's already natural processes in place (even in the US which doesn't have the formal process UK has). .
... You're talking about just Sunday School, right? Because in most US states I know of you can't get any kind of child/ youth work job without a background check, a TB Test, and a fingerprint scan. And it's been that way for a very long time. I haven't been in the Sunday School loop for a while, but it would surprise me if most churches haven't followed suit.
That's what I was saying... that most churches require a background check for any volunteer job working with minors (TB test & fingerprint scans less common). My offhand remark was simply that I've gathered in the UK this process is centralized making it a bit easier, whereas in the US everybody's doing it on their own one-off so a bit less standardized/ organized. But still the norm.
[ 16. December 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.
You're reading too much into this. Threads drift away from the original question, and really, this one hasn't drifted very far at all.
Since I suspect you're aiming at me with the "only justified through how they can help the young," I'll just tell you that you're wrong. No such thing was ever said or intended.
[ 16. December 2014, 18:26: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I don't understand why mentoring has to be linked to going through the processes for child protection training/background checks. Are we assuming that this mentoring has to be an organized program of the church, through which all mentoring is funneled? What if someone just introduces themselves to a new member or members, and gets on with being helpful? Or is that to be discouraged?
[ 16. December 2014, 19:12: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Because lawsuits.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't understand why mentoring has to be linked to going through the processes for child protection training/background checks. Are we assuming that this mentoring has to be an organized program of the church, through which all mentoring is funneled? What if someone just introduces themselves to a new member or members, and gets on with being helpful? Or is that to be discouraged?
Obviously there is nothing the church can do if two members make such informal arrangements, but yes, i would discourage them from doing so in a way that bypasses the ordinary screening procedures. These procedures protect the mentor as well as the mentoree.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because lawsuits.
Actually, because of abuse. Lawsuits are just an additional unfortunate consequence.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously there is nothing the church can do if two members make such informal arrangements, but yes, i would discourage them from doing so in a way that bypasses the ordinary screening procedures. These procedures protect the mentor as well as the mentoree.
I consider mentoring to be a form of friendship. So, no friendships at church that cross age lines? My child protection training/vetting isn't up to date; should I avoid talking to children and their families at church? If I had children, should I be checking that someone's vetting is up-to-date before I become friends with them?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously there is nothing the church can do if two members make such informal arrangements, but yes, i would discourage them from doing so in a way that bypasses the ordinary screening procedures. These procedures protect the mentor as well as the mentoree.
I consider mentoring to be a form of friendship. So, no friendships at church that cross age lines? My child protection training/vetting isn't up to date; should I avoid talking to children and their families at church? If I had children, should I be checking that someone's vetting is up-to-date before I become friends with them?
You can be friends w/ someone w/o being alone with them. It is primarily that alone one-on-one time (often a component of mentoring) that puts you, the child, and the Church at risk. Life is complicated, but yes, it's best if you have been background checked before having that sort of one-on-one time.
That feels harsh, and restrictive-- not just to you, but really to all of us. It's unfortunate, it gets in the way of the sorts of natural relationships and even innocent physical affection that children thrive on. Each church community will parse that challenge differently, weigh the risks differently. But these most will ask you to be background checked before engaging in those sorts of relationships. And parents these days expect them-- so yes, they WILL ask. Any church that encourages lots of one-on-one unsupervised relationships w/o background checks will very quickly find the young families have rapidly moved somewhere else. That is tragic, for a lot of reasons, but it is today's reality.
That does leave room, of course, for all sorts of friendly encounters in large public gatherings-- coffee fellowship, etc. And background checks don't need to be onerous. But sadly the are a cost of doing ministry these days.
[ 16. December 2014, 21:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I think we might be understanding very different things by mentoring, and by the circumstances under which it takes place.
I don't see it as something that requires lots of one-on-one unsupervised contact between adults and children. Indeed, from Lamb Chopped's original way she described it, and regardless of whether it's done formally or informally, I see it as a relationship initiated between adults, not between an adult and a child.
Separate from that: how does having gone through a background check and training in child safety procedures protect the mentor?
From my recollection of when I went through this before, the way it protected me is that I learned some things about not touching children (so when I was acolyte master and needed a measurement, having the child or their parent take the measurement), and always having two adults present when in a room with children.
But that isn't changed by whether or not my certification is up-to-date. And if these things are important to protect the adults in the church, perhaps the information should be made more public and all the adults should be educated on these matters. Because who knows when you might happen to find yourself alone in a room with a child by chance, or want to pick up a child that has fallen down, or whatever.
I accept that it's a fact that for the official roles of adults working with children, this kind of vetting is a requirement now. But what you're describing makes it sound as if anyone who wants to be fully a member of the church and actually become friends with anyone who has children, had better have their vetting in place.
Do parents making friends with the parents of their children's friends, check that those other parents have been vetted?
[ 16. December 2014, 21:52: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think we might be understanding very different things by mentoring, and by the circumstances under which it takes place.
I don't see it as something that requires lots of one-on-one unsupervised contact between adults and children. Indeed, from Lamb Chopped's original way she described it, and regardless of whether it's done formally or informally, I see it as a relationship initiated between adults, not between an adult and a child.
In my response to you I addressed all these variations, while indicating that it is primarily unsupervised one-on-one mentoring between an adult and a "vulnerable other" (which might be another adult in some circumstances) that is subject to these sort of precautions.
[ 16. December 2014, 21:57: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Separate from that: how does having gone through a background check and training in child safety procedures protect the mentor?
From my recollection of when I went through this before, the way it protected me is that I learned some things about not touching children (so when I was acolyte master and needed a measurement, having the child or their parent take the measurement), and always having two adults present when in a room with children.
Well, that's a huge part of it. Most churches that have good procedures for background checking volunteers will also have good practices that alert you to things like that which might not otherwise occur to you, and other practices that help protect you from false allegations. Not foolproof of course, but you are generally safer in a church that has such protections than one that does not.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
And if these things are important to protect the adults in the church, perhaps the information should be made more public and all the adults should be educated on these matters. Because who knows when you might happen to find yourself alone in a room with a child by chance, or want to pick up a child that has fallen down, or whatever.
Yes, it is helpful when churches make these things known generally-- and many do. Of course, as I said, life is complicated. Stuff will happen. None of us are going to just sit back on our hands while a child with a bloody knee is sobbing. As I said, all of us find these restrictions unnatural and intrusive. Each community will parse where to draw the lines and how to weigh the risks differently. But a wise community will at least be having these conversations.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I accept that it's a fact that for the official roles of adults working with children, this kind of vetting is a requirement now. But what you're describing makes it sound as if anyone who wants to be fully a member of the church and actually become friends with anyone who has children, had better have their vetting in place.
I believe I said fairly clearly that you can be friends with a child w/o being alone w/ him or her, and specifically said there are all sorts of ways to have friendly encounters in public spaces w/o any of these sorts of concerns arising. Beyond that-- see my para above.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do parents making friends with the parents of their children's friends, check that those other parents have been vetted?
Many will before leaving their children alone in their care. Some won't if they are friends. It varies, like most things. Once again (I've said this several times, but you seem to miss it?) it usually only arises when an adult is alone w/ an unrelated minor. Which, again, leaves lots of room for friendly group encounters in public areas.
This has become quite the tangent, though. Is there some reason why you're pursuing it so doggedly? Perhaps a separate thread would be in order?
[ 16. December 2014, 22:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted. I'll read what you just wrote and try posting again.]
[ 16. December 2014, 22:09: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
