# Hiring Nursery Workers



## Hunn

What is your opinion and is it acceptable for a church to hire paid nursery workers to watch children during worship?


----------



## Scottish Lass

I keep Grace with me, so I'd have to say no. I can't get past the fourth commandment on that one. If a church has a nursery, I think the children should be cared for by those in the congregation.


----------



## TimV

BTW many churches do background checks on nursery workers and Sunday school teachers.


----------



## TexanRose

I would say no. I like to see little ones kept with their parents during services; if nursery care is provided, I don't see why it shouldn't be provided by volunteers from the church. 

I was thinking about visiting a church and saw on their website that while they did not provide nursery care, they did have "mother's helpers" available to sit with you in church and help with your children. I thought that was a neat idea.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think that a church should have a nursery, but that it should be staffed by screened volunteer members from the congregation.


----------



## au5t1n

I have my doubts about whether taking volunteers out of the worship service is even right, let alone paying non-members. I'm not sure on the first point, though.


----------



## Tripel

For those of you whose church has a volunteer-only nursery, how many volunteers do you have? Do you have any trouble getting enough volunteers? How often do the volunteers have to work the nursery?

My church uses a combination of hired staff and screened volunteers. On a given Sunday morning, it takes 7-8 people to work the nursery, and about 5 of those are paid staff. I imagine we would have a hard time getting enough volunteers to cover all of it, while not being required to work the nursery too often.


----------



## Jack K

Most churches already have at least one paid person (a pastor) who has to work Sundays as part of the job. Larger churches may have many such staff persons. I so would allow for the fact that this question can become tricky, especially in very large churches. But generally, it is unwise to pay nursery workers, even if they are church members who otherwise would be volunteering their time and even if they're not being kept from worship since there are other services at other times. The reason is that paying them too easily makes the worship service seem to be an opportunity to earn a few bucks. This flies in the face of what Scripture teaches about a day of worship, and is ultimately unkind to your nursery worker.



TexanRose said:


> I was thinking about visiting a church and saw on their website that while they did not provide nursery care, they did have "mother's helpers" available to sit with you in church and help with your children. I thought that was a neat idea.



Thanks for mentioning this. I too find it an intriguing idea, even as an option in churches that do offer a nursery. It could also be a way for teenagers to serve in the church.

Now I'm thinking, scheming, how to implement... whether to implement... Is it as good as it sounds?... Hmmm...


----------



## Quatchu

austinww said:


> I have my doubts about whether taking volunteers out of the worship service is even right, let alone paying non-members. I'm not sure on the first point, though.



I know Churches that have 2 services on a Sunday, volunteers alternate between service and nursery duty. So some one is never going without worshipping the Lord. A volunteer helps out at 9:00 service in nursery, she then goes to the 11:00 service while someone who was at the 9:00 service stays in the nursery. Of course this only works if you have more then one service at a church.


----------



## Kim G

Jack K said:


> TexanRose said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about visiting a church and saw on their website that while they did not provide nursery care, they did have "mother's helpers" available to sit with you in church and help with your children. I thought that was a neat idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for mentioning this. I too find it an intriguing idea, even as an option in churches that do offer a nursery. It could also be a way for teenagers to serve in the church.
Click to expand...

 
We actually find that having teenagers sit with my husband and son and me is a real problem. We are trying to teach our son to sit and listen (within reason--he's 15 months old) and the teen girls next to me spend the whole time playing with him and trying to get his attention. It keeps him somewhat quiet, but it's not exactly teaching him what the worship service is all about. Of course, they are sweet girls just trying to help, and I do appreciate that.

Regarding our church's nursery, we have two rooms for nursery, but no workers (only 40-50 members in our church). We mothers take care of our own children in the service and slip out to the nursery if a little one needs a play break or a nap. When visitors with small children come, I make sure to let them know where the nursery is, tell them that little children are welcome in our services, even if they talk and are restless, but that they are welcome to use our nursery facilities or ask me to watch their child if they would prefer. We've had people do all of the above, and it's worked out fine for us.


----------



## Jack K

Tripel said:


> For those of you whose church has a volunteer-only nursery, how many volunteers do you have? Do you have any trouble getting enough volunteers? How often do the volunteers have to work the nursery?
> 
> My church uses a combination of hired staff and screened volunteers. On a given Sunday morning, it takes 7-8 people to work the nursery, and about 5 of those are paid staff. I imagine we would have a hard time getting enough volunteers to cover all of it, while not being required to work the nursery too often.



We have about 500 people in the building on a Sunday morning, and two services. We don't pay nursery workers. We treat them like we do children's Sunday school teachers. Their work in the nursery is an ongoing ministry commitment to those children and their families, and their ministry is to be there every week or find a sub. Then we have a separate set of workers for the summer, to provide a break. Recruitment sometimes takes a bit of work, but in general it's easier to find committed "ministry workers" for the littlest of kids than it is for the older ones.

I think treating it as an ongoing calling and ministry niche rather than you-have-nursery-duty-this-week is the key. It only works when you have multiple services, though.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I'd say no to the nursery, you don't need it. Children and babies will get used to worshipping with the congregation. But, if you're going to have one, I don't see any reason why they can't be paid. However they should all be adults. I get really aggrivated when churches start using their youth to watch nursery.


----------



## Soonerborn

austinww said:


> I have my doubts about whether taking volunteers out of the worship service is even right, let alone paying non-members. I'm not sure on the first point, though.



This is my biggest problem with volunteers during worship - it removes the volunteer from the ordinary means of grace for that weekend (We only have 1 service). Our church has volunteers during worship and I really don't agree with it. I would prefer there to be no nursery during Worship and then make it available for Sunday School. I understand that creates practical issues with families with young children - I have 4 children so I understand the problem. But I don't think its wise to remove people from worship to watch the kid. We have some "volunteers" who seemily work in the nursery for several weeks in a row during worship, so practically they go a month or so without ever attending church.


----------



## Tripel

Jack K said:


> I think treating it as an ongoing calling and ministry niche rather than you-have-nursery-duty-this-week is the key. It only works when you have multiple services, though.


 
That sounds like a good system and a better alternative to what we currently have, though we only have 1 service.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For those of you with nurseries how many have a speaker set-up in the nursery/cry-room that is hooked up to the service?


----------



## Kevin

Depends on the size of the church. It can be a good alternative to using all of you available volunteer hours 7 keeping them out of the service.

If you adopt the "No Childcare" model, recognise that this means you will get few visitors with children & almost none will return the second time.

I know of a church that hired child care workers for some services (but not all). The problem that they had was that the workers heard the gospel via the sound system & the lives of the families in the church & converted. Two times this happened. So that the new christian became a member of the church & joined the volunteer rotation & a new paid worker had to be hired.


----------



## Tripel

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> For those of you with nurseries how many have a speaker set-up in the nursery/cry-room that is hooked up to the service?


 
We have a few options. We have a regular nursery with no speakers (which is a good thing, cause it can get crazy in there). We have a small cryer room with a video/audio feed, and this room is restricted to mothers so it can be used for nursing. We also have a larger room with a video/audio feed setup with chairs and hymnals. It's used by maybe only a couple people each week, generally those with toddlers who are giving them fits.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------




Kevin said:


> The problem that they had was that the workers heard the gospel via the sound system & the lives of the families in the church & converted. Two times this happened. So that the new christian became a member of the church & joined the volunteer rotation & a new paid worker had to be hired.



I wouldn't mind having that problem!


----------



## he beholds

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> For those of you with nurseries how many have a speaker set-up in the nursery/cry-room that is hooked up to the service?


 
We have an unofficial "cry room" with a baby monitor piping the service in. 
Our nursery does not have a speaker, but our old church did, though it was impossible to listen to the sermon anyway. 

Our church offers nursery for Sunday School, Morning Worship, and the Evening Service. Volunteers are scheduled once per every-other month for one service, so an individual will be in there six times a year. I think sometimes a few people are needed for more than one scheduled session, so they might take a Sunday school and a morning worship, or whatever, and then be in there 12 times per year.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Our church has a nursery on Sunday mornings (during Sunday school and service) staffed wtih volunteers. The sermon is piped in to these rooms, and an elder brings the elements in to them when communion is being served. Finding enough volunteers is a challenge, but we seem to make it work. 

On Wednesday mornings, when the ladies get together at the church for their bible study, they do hire a grandma from the community to look after the kids, since 2 hours kid-free mid-week are highly prized.


----------



## Scottish Lass

As far as the service being piped into a nursery, assuming there's more than just a sleeping infant, I've never been able to hear the service over the normal noises of babies/toddlers.

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

For those who pay their workers, how does that fit with the fourth commandment?


----------



## Theoretical

Hunn said:


> What is your opinion and is it acceptable for a church to hire paid nursery workers to watch children during worship?


 
It shouldn't be done in most circumstances. An exception I could see is for an actual nurse to take care of very special needs children during worship so their parents can worship occasionally. But I'd still pipe the audio from the service into the room. This would obviously depend on the specific difficult circumstances of the church.

For my church, we recently expanded the nursery volunteer list, and I volunteered for it and will serve about 1 Sunday out of every 8 with an assistant. We pipe the audio into the room and make sure the workers are served the Lord's supper when we served to the rest of the congregation.

One out of 8 is not bad, and having a recording and live feed available is important I think if you're to do this. At my old church I once volunteered for the nursery, and was disappointed that everything was completely separated off from the rest of the congregation for that Sunday.


----------



## Kevin

Scottish Lass said:


> As far as the service being piped into a nursery, assuming there's more than just a sleeping infant, I've never been able to hear the service over the normal noises of babies/toddlers.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
> 
> For those who pay their workers, how does that fit with the fourth commandment?



It is a "work of neccessity & mercy".


----------



## raekwon

We have one paid nursery worker who is assisted by 3-4 parents from the church every Sunday. It works out well, though we'll soon have to increase the number of volunteers in the room. (Eleven babies to be born in the next few months!)


----------



## Scottish Lass

Kevin said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the service being piped into a nursery, assuming there's more than just a sleeping infant, I've never been able to hear the service over the normal noises of babies/toddlers.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
> 
> For those who pay their workers, how does that fit with the fourth commandment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a "work of neccessity & mercy".
Click to expand...

 
Mercy, maybe (though I'm not convinced how removing children from worship is mercy rather than convenience). Can you explain how it's a necessity in the same way we generally see medical and utility service? Or are you simply quoting the phrase in its entirety and only mean one or the other?


----------



## Romans922

There shouldn't be a nursery. A child should be with their parents in worship. If they are too fussy then the parent needs to take them out and either discipline if they are of age or calm them down (if possible).


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> If you adopt the "No Childcare" model, recognise that this means you will get few visitors with children & almost none will return the second time.



Not true, we have many visitors who come back. Calling it a "no child care" model isn't an appropriate title either. Parent's taking care of their children shouldn't be considered a "no child care" model. They are your kids. They should learn to be comfortable around you, because you are their parents. It's not a scary as it sounds. They are just children and they don't have to entertained every moment of their lives.


----------



## Kevin

Romans922 said:


> There shouldn't be a nursery. A child should be with their parents in worship. If they are too fussy then the parent needs to take them out and either discipline if they are of age or calm them down (if possible).


 
Then you have made public worship of God into a club open only to people-like-us & that share our parenting philosphy. You have set up a (defacto) requirement to join the worship of God that the scriptures do not require. The ability of small children to sit still, is not a requirement to attend church.

I say let them come. Let them bring their children. If you don't want to preach to them, then the baptist down the street will.


----------



## jwithnell

"The stranger that is within your gate" includes people outside of the faith and those who perhaps have another church to attend. So no, I don't think a business arrangement on Sunday is appropriate. I don't think this is analogous to the pastor who is following the regulative principle to what he contributes to worship and is to be reasonably paid, according to the scriptures.

Not all children can sit through a worship service, and if yours can, it is by God's mercy. Do not take pride in it and expect it of all. We have two special needs children in our congregation and others whose children seem to go through a time in the 1 to 2-year range where they haven't yet developed the self control to be quiet and still.

I consider it a blessing to be able to spend time every few months with these precious covenant children. I listen to as much of the service as I can hear through the speakers and sing along as much as I can. My sermon notes for that week will come from the recorded sermon (as it is every week so I don't have my nose buried in a notebook during this part of the service).

Since I am the Mom of one of those special needs kids who is finally (at age 7) making it all the way through the service, I've had the schedulers offer to take me out of the nursery service. I've continued for the reasons given above. I love getting to know these little ones and teaching them what I can of the great worship of our Lord.


----------



## Soonerborn

Kevin said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There shouldn't be a nursery. A child should be with their parents in worship. If they are too fussy then the parent needs to take them out and either discipline if they are of age or calm them down (if possible).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have made public worship of God into a club open only to people-like-us & that share our parenting philosphy. You have set up a (defacto) requirement to join the worship of God that the scriptures do not require. The ability of small children to sit still, is not a requirement to attend church.
> 
> I say let them come. Let them bring their children. If you don't want to preach to them, then the baptist down the street will.
Click to expand...


Pardon my interuption, but I have to add my 2 cents here. How is it wrong to encourage everyone to have their children with them in public worship? By having a nursery, you are encouraging people in essence, to banish their small children to the nursery because they are either i) too fussy, or ii) it is perceived the children are too young to receive anything from worship. Christ said, "Let the little children come to me". Children of believers should be in public worship, no matter the age. I don't see how this can be debated? If they are disruptive, their parents can take them to a "cry-room" and should be working on calming them down and training them to sit still, while listening to the service (if possible), over a sound system. By sending them to a nursery, you are basically telling the child, I don't want to worship with you today because you are too much of a hassle, and you won't learn anything either. They get more than you think. My 1 year old knows when the Pastor is getting ready to say the benediction as he holds his hands straight up in the air prior to "reiceiving the benediction". 

Nearly every church has a nursery for public worship. Does this mean as confessional, reformed Christians we must follow this model? Granted, if an unbeliever or person from another church visits and there is no nursery, they will challenged. But I say that this is a good opportunity to teach them the importance of public worship, the ordinary means of grace, and the joy that comes from worshipping with your children, even from a young age. 

In the nursery model, you are directly taking people out of worship to watch the kids. How can this be in accordance with scripture? Granted we want to make visitors feel as welcome as possible, but we can't compromise public worship. Kids are part of the covenant, they deserve to be in the worship.

Please understand I don't have it all together. My wife and I alternate with our current 1 year old and most Sunday's either her or I don't get to sit in the sanctuary because we are tending to him. But we are sitting with him in our library, trying to quiet him, and trying to teach him to sit still so one day he can make it through worship.


----------



## MarieP

austinww said:


> I have my doubts about whether taking volunteers out of the worship service is even right, let alone paying non-members. I'm not sure on the first point, though.


 
Wouldn't church-member volunteers fall under works of mercy/necessity? At my church, the deacon who organizes the nursery schedules is careful as to how many Lord's Suppers are missed and how many services are missed (and sometimes the workers can listen to the sermon over the intercom if the kids are behaved...)


----------



## Soonerborn

60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]

Wouldn't this apply to the covenant children as well. Shouldn't the children be spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship? By taking the children out of worship, are the parents breaking the 4th commandment? I just don't see the nursery as a "necessity". A convenience - Yes. But a necessity that requires workers?


----------



## au5t1n

MarieP said:


> Wouldn't church-member volunteers fall under works of mercy/necessity?



If it's a necessity.



MarieP said:


> At my church, the deacon who organizes the nursery schedules is careful as to *how many Lord's Suppers are missed and how many services are missed* (and sometimes the workers can listen to the sermon over the intercom if the kids are behaved...)



I haven't thought through the nursery question much and don't have a strong opinion, but I'm curious where the idea comes from that any services should be missed. Isn't corporate worship required on the Lord's day? Isn't it mandatory unless providentially hindered? The intercom improves the situation in my view, but a cry room with an intercom seems like a much better idea, because no one would have to miss attending the service totally.


----------



## Kevin

Mike, I agree that it is great to encourage children to sit in church. But what you are doing to the visitor is not "challenging" them, you are telling them to not come back.

We are a church plant with no child care. We have a lot of first-time visitors that are non-christians. Trust me they do not come back. If they, do it is mum or dad only. 

This is a serious issue for reformed churches. We have a choice. We can be a club that welcomes people that already agree with us on all the seconday issues, or we can be open to the lost around us & welcome them.


----------



## MarieP

Tripel said:


> For those of you whose church has a volunteer-only nursery, how many volunteers do you have? Do you have any trouble getting enough volunteers? How often do the volunteers have to work the nursery?
> 
> My church uses a combination of hired staff and screened volunteers. On a given Sunday morning, it takes 7-8 people to work the nursery, and about 5 of those are paid staff. I imagine we would have a hard time getting enough volunteers to cover all of it, while not being required to work the nursery too often.


 
It takes 2 for our nursery per service (SS, AM, and PM), and we have a rotation of 36 people. It's pretty much once a month. We also rotate Sunday School workers, 2 of us teaching each class, for 2-3 months at a time. For the younger kids, parents also get a pager if they are really, really bad. (Although it doesn't help when a 2 year old is biting everything in sight and the thing doesn't work, lol!)

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------




austinww said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't church-member volunteers fall under works of mercy/necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> At my church, the deacon who organizes the nursery schedules is careful as to *how many Lord's Suppers are missed and how many services are missed* (and sometimes the workers can listen to the sermon over the intercom if the kids are behaved...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't thought through the nursery question much and don't have a strong opinion, but I'm curious where the idea comes from that any services should be missed. Isn't corporate worship required on the Lord's day? Isn't it mandatory unless providentially hindered? The intercom improves the situation in my view, but a cry room with an intercom seems like a much better idea, because no one would have to miss attending the service totally.
Click to expand...

 
We have a cry room as well. As I replied to Tripel, we have a big enough rotation that people generally are not missing more than one worship service a month.


----------



## Kevin

Soonerborn said:


> 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]
> 
> Wouldn't this apply to the covenant children as well. Shouldn't the children be spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship? By taking the children out of worship, are the parents breaking the 4th commandment? I just don't see the nursery as a "necessity". A convenience - Yes. But a necessity that requires workers?



For historical context keep in mind that the Church of Scotland that contributed to that document, and adopted it had the common practice of mums staying home with new babies until they were 2-3 years old. Often the only time the mother & the child were in church for the first 3 years of the babies life was for the baptism!


----------



## Soonerborn

Kevin said:


> Mike, I agree that it is great to encourage children to sit in church. But what you are doing to the visitor is not "challenging" them, you are telling them to not come back.
> 
> We are a church plant with no child care. We have a lot of first-time visitors that are non-christians. Trust me they do not come back. If they, do it is mum or dad only.
> 
> This is a serious issue for reformed churches. We have a choice. We can be a club that welcomes people that already agree with us on all the seconday issues, or we can be open to the lost around us & welcome them.




Question 60 of the Shorter Catechism states: How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]

Does't this question pertain to covenant children as well? So if you take the children out of worship, you are causing them to miss the public excercise of God's worship. How is this not breaking the 4th commandment? Regarding the childcare for non-christians, I undertand your empathy and I don't want to seem overly harsh but should we take believers out of the public worship of God, and away from the ordinary means of grace, to care for the children of unbelievers, hoping this charity "brings them back" to church? How is this mindset different from the "seeker friendly" model of making the unbeliever feel the most comfortble they can so they will keep coming back. I am all for childcare during all other church activities. I just don't think it is wise, for the public gathering of God's people.


----------



## MarieP

We used to have a "training room" in the back of the sanctuary that was separated by a window. We lost that with our recent expansion and now have a "remote viewing room" across the building (which isn't far) that is used mainly for that purpose or for those with a physical problem that causes them to have to move around. Parents with crying babies can also use the ladies' lounge off one of the ladies' restrooms. So it's a matter of options. There have also been those who bring infants in to worship, but I think there are fewer now that do.

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------




Kevin said:


> Soonerborn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
> A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days;[145] and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,[146] except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.[147]
> 
> Wouldn't this apply to the covenant children as well. Shouldn't the children be spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship? By taking the children out of worship, are the parents breaking the 4th commandment? I just don't see the nursery as a "necessity". A convenience - Yes. But a necessity that requires workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For historical context keep in mind that the Church of Scotland that contributed to that document, and adopted it had the common practice of mums staying home with new babies until they were 2-3 years old. Often the only time the mother & the child were in church for the first 3 years of the babies life was for the baptism!
Click to expand...

 
Very interesting!!!!! 2 or 3 years old??? That's old for not bringing them to church- although back then they were far more susceptible to catching something, no? Jenney Greer, who used to post on the PB but is busy with her newest, Jocelyn, brought her to church like days after she was born. It warmed my heart!!!

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------




Kevin said:


> I know of a church that hired child care workers for some services (but not all). The problem that they had was that the workers heard the gospel via the sound system & the lives of the families in the church & converted. Two times this happened. So that the new christian became a member of the church & joined the volunteer rotation & a new paid worker had to be hired.



Without debating whether or not this was a correct thing to do (I would say no), it sounds like a good "problem" to have as a church! While the church building was being expanded recently, my pastor would watch them working and strike up a conversation. He'd say, "So, I've watched you work, want to come Sunday and watch me work?" Sadly, we didn't get any takers, but you can't fault him for lack of creativity!


----------



## jwithnell

> but a cry room with an intercom seems like a much better idea, because no one would have to miss attending the service totally.



A Mom with a child who must constantly deal with a child during the service is not participating in worship during those times. Neither is the child and likely many of the people around you._ Presence_ in the worship service provides vital means of grace. It is better to miss an occasional service -- and likely, I'm participating in the service in the nursery as much as many parents would in a cry room -- and be able to give full attention the other weeks. 

Actually, this is past tense for us now since our kids are fully participating. From birth on, we've been teaching them the hymns, the scriptures, the catechisms ... they knew that worship was central in our daily and weekly lives. Interestingly, our special needs child had always loved worship and would become the most disruptive when we had to remove him. Our congregation closed ranks around us and gave us the love and support we needed to get through those_ years_ it took us to get our son into weekly worship services. And you know what's really interesting? We have one medicine that doesn't seem to have any affect on him at any other time of the week -- so much so that our doctor had us stop using it on a regular basis. It works on Sunday. Only on Sunday. God is gracious!


----------



## kvanlaan

Hiring nursery workers just doesn't sit well - I can't get over the 4th commandment issues involved (nor do I think I should try to).

We have a rotating schedule with a mom or two and a couple of helpers to cover the crowd (out of ~475 attendees, about 250 are communicant - that's a lot of nursery users!) It works well, and has for decades.

Kevin, so far as attendance being tied to nursery is concerned, it seems odd to me that a person would be willing to give up the gospel over child care. We are open to the lost and welcome them warmly, but we have child care and so don't have to deal with your same issues. But I hardly think that that's the reason they return.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Marie,
I actually didn't even know y'all had a nursery! I would have kept Grace with me both times we've visited anyway, but I only knew about the nursing/cry room because I had seen it off the ladies' room. 

For the others, a couple of us have asked those who support paid workers to defend the fourth commandment, but I may have missed the answer---can someone speak to that? Citing mercy/necessity is not enough---how is it comparable to other things like providing medical service when there are other options, it's not life or death, etc.


----------



## MarieP

Scottish Lass said:


> Marie,
> I actually didn't even know y'all had a nursery! I would have kept Grace with me both times we've visited anyway, but I only knew about the nursing/cry room because I had seen it off the ladies' room.


 
Yup! It's off the Fellowship Hall, the first room to the left of the other ladies' restroom as you enter from the foyer. You aren't the only one, actually, one long-time member was telling me she wished we had nursery during prayer meeting, and I asked about it, only to find out we do have one then!


----------



## Theoretical

I would agree with the proposition that it's a work of necessity and mercy for someone from the congregation to serve in the nursery so long as they aren't constantly taken from the service. Unless the congregation almost completely lacks any teens, young adults, parents of young families, or the middle-aged, then I fail to see why one should hire paid nursery workers.

Outside of hiring a real nurse to care for frail babies during the service so mom and dad could focus on the sermon for brief time during the week, I can't see how it'd be "necessary" to hire nursery workers rather than strongly encourage or even assign nursery duty to enough people that at most one service every couple of months is missed. Both my current and my previous Presbyterian church assigned me to usher duty and my current church assigned to setup duty for one month out of the year without asking me _if _I wanted to serve but _when. _That I'd do the duty is something that is an assumed duty as a communicant member. Individual church membership has responsibilities to the broader body, and something like nursery care should be the same way, and not just for the women.


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> it's not life or death, etc.



Is that limiting acts of mercy and necessity to only acts of necessity? I've always read "and in the duties of necessity and mercy." to embrace two classes of work, not to be two limitations on a single class.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Edward said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's not life or death, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that limiting acts of mercy and necessity to only acts of necessity? I've always read "and in the duties of necessity and mercy." to embrace two classes of work, not to be two limitations on a single class.
Click to expand...

 
You truncated my quote, plus I included "etc." I asked earlier if people meant one or the other or both. No has really responded other than to say they agree it's an act of them, yet without explaining how/why. _How _is it mercy? _How _is it necessity? 

Theoretical/Scott--why is it necessary to use congregational volunteers but not necessary to hire/pay someone? Does that imply anything about the worth of service?


----------



## Kevin

Anna, acts of "necessity & mercy" is a term of art widely used due to its use in the WCF as a way of describing those actions that one views as being acceptable on the Lords day without violating the 4th commandment. I for one, am not inclined to exegete the phrase to provide a detailed explanation.

My view is that a work can be done on Sunday, then you can be paid to do it. e.g. If I may drive on Sunday, then I may ride in a cab. If a mother in the church may watch another mums kids, then she can be paid to do so. Since I am convinced that someone may watch another persons children, then I see no problem with them being paid. Since this is work that I consider acceptable on the Sabbath with out violating the 4th, then I refer to it as an act of "necessity & mercy".

The work of determining what falls into this category is not a simple task. It requires a careful reading of the case laws of the OT, an examination of the historical practices of the church (esp. the Westminister Devines, in my opinion), and an application of these principles into our modern context.

My greatest concern is that this practice is shortened, to a simple reading of the WCF & the SC/LC & a declaration of what the words "plainly mean". Often this results in a (very confident) practice that would be completely unknown to those that wrote the very words being cited. We all do this to some extent. I am an absolute felon, when it comes to hitting people on the head with the confession, before trying to understand it. As I have tried to repent of this, I have become more senative to some of the glaring examples of this (my former) practice. in my opinion this area is one of the most commonly misused.


----------



## Theoretical

Scottish Lass said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's not life or death, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that limiting acts of mercy and necessity to only acts of necessity? I've always read "and in the duties of necessity and mercy." to embrace two classes of work, not to be two limitations on a single class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truncated my quote, plus I included "etc." I asked earlier if people meant one or the other or both. No has really responded other than to say they agree it's an act of them, yet without explaining how/why. _How _is it mercy? _How _is it necessity?
> 
> Theoretical/Scott--why is it necessary to use congregational volunteers but not necessary to hire/pay someone? Does that imply anything about the worth of service?
Click to expand...

 
It's definitely not a question of the worth of service but that I think nursery service (just as ushering or helping out in other ways), but seems to me at first glance more of a reasonable service consistent with one's vows to help support the work and worship of the church (at least for the PCA - I just realized it wasn't in my OPC vows). Its my honor to be able to help out in the nursery to help alleviate some of the workload our moms and the teen girls shouldered during the year. I suppose one could compensate the members of the church who served in this capacity and that wouldn't be substantively different than paying the pastor for his work on Sunday. When members have joined a church, these kinds of obligations seem entirely reasonable. But, on reflection, there may be an implicit authoritarianism or sense of imposed obligation beyond scripture that there that shouldn't be in my thoughts.

My presumption when I hear "paid nursery workers" is people totally from the outside who aren't part of the church (similar to churches hiring outside musicians). If it means paying those in the congregation to do it, I'd be fine with that so long as they weren't constantly missing the worship service simply to take care of the kids. In other words, I don't think it should be an every Sunday sort of job, simply because of being inherently separated from the corporate worship. If I've responded to something totally not there (in terms of outside nursery workers) then disregard the rest of the commentary. 

As far as paying nursery workers, an implicit assumption was that most Reformed churches wouldn't have the kind of resources to pay the nursery workers more than a pittance I'd imagine. But I might be overestimating that.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Kevin, I know what the phrase means and its source. My problem is that most people in this thread have used without explaining why it applies. You have at least provided a rationale for why you think the phrase applies, which is what I requested. 

We would disagree, however, about the idea of paying someone for work one is willing to do on the Lord's Day. Tim and I prepare a meal on Sundays, but I don't see how it's fitting that I pay for one in a restaurant, expecting the owner, the cook, the waitstaff, etc. to work so that I don't have to. Nor would I expect them to serve me for free. Fellowship for lunch in a family's home is quite another matter. Eating out becomes a work of necessity and mercy when one must travel a great distance and hospitality is not available (we had visiting Gideons over for lunch once and they said they're rarely invited to lunch in a home or to a restaurant--sad). 
The same applies, in my opinion, to nursery work. It isn't "necessary" because there are other options. I guess one could stretch and say it's an act of mercy for the parents, but it hardly compares to visiting the sick or imprisoned. 

We don't muzzle the ox--the preacher's work is critical for worship, and he is to be paid justly. But I don't see how paying nursery staff is critical to the act of worship.


----------



## MarieP

I heard a really good point once about the language of the Confessions. They read:



> "This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, *and in the duties of necessity and mercy*."



There's also wording that's picked up a lot that's along the lines of the Abstract of Principles:



> The Lord's Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy *only excepted*



The point was that the wording of the LBCF makes these acts appear not as *exceptions* to the Day but *part of* the Day! Jesus didn't *have* to heal on the Sabbath- they weren't life threatening illnesses. Now, you can take that too far, such as a church I heard of that canceled worship to do some sort of mercy ministries (I can't remember what it was exactly). And, although you should remove your ox from the ditch, don't push it there yourself. But as our brother Scott said, he sees it as a service that's fully in keeping with glorifying Christ on His Day.


----------



## he beholds

Scottish Lass said:


> The same applies, in my opinion, to nursery work. It isn't "necessary" because there are other options. I guess one could stretch and say it's an act of mercy for the parents, but it hardly compares to visiting the sick or imprisoned.



I was never anti-nursery, but I was pretty determined to have the kids with us in the worship service. However, with the third child in three and a half years, this actually became a burden and a hindrance to our worship. So nursery is most definitely an act of mercy. It allows me to not miss every single service. Yes, there are alternatives, such as using a cry room, but in complete honesty, going in and out of the service from pew to cry room, cry room to pew, is not very conducive to worship. It is something I did, somewhat gladly, with the first two children. But when I was still training a two year old and a three and a half year old to sit still, a baby just did not fit. Yes, it could have. And I have friends for whom that does work. But they are talented in ways that I simply am not. My kids aren't typically extremely unruly (you know, the old ladies still come up to us in restaurants to complement us on their surprisingly good behavior), but a church is not typically, unfortunately, designed with babies in mind. My preference would be an acceptance with a little more noise, perhaps a baby sitting on his blanket on the floor, oh, and we are also in comfy seats. But that is not a model I ever see Reformed churches embracing. 

Once we did decide to put our baby in the nursery it was like a light bulb went off: Babies don't learn through osmosis and the means of grace that we receive by attending worship is not gleaned by simply being in the presence of preaching. It is instead from _hearing_ the word. Yes, we cannot tell when a baby hears, really hears, a sermon. So to error on the side of caution is commendable. But I don't think that makes it less true that a baby is probably not hearing it. My two year old probably still doesn't hear much of the service (well, especially when she falls asleep--and what about yours, do you let her sleep? The difference between sleeping in a crib in the nursery and sleeping in a pew is what, exactly?), but she will be trained for when she can actually listen. My one year old, on the other hand, has missed some of that training time. We'll see how that compares. 

Anyway, I like when churches allow parents to decide. I have been in churches where kids are discouraged from being in church and I have heard of churches where kids are not even allowed! I think both of those scenarios are sinful. A parent, if willing and able, should be allowed, encouraged even, to train the child to sit for church at an early age. But if the parent is always missing the sermon, that is probably a bigger problem than a baby always missing it.

Oh, and I will add, I think it DOES compare with "visiting the sick or imprisoned." I think mothering is such a hard work that being a part of the worship service might just be as refreshing to me as a visitor would be to the sick or imprisoned.


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> You truncated my quote, plus I included "etc."



If I misunderstood that you were saying something different in the edited portion than was in the truncated quote that I responded to, I apologize. 

I don't apologize for not understanding what you were encompassing in your 'etc' and considering it to be an extension of the thought given, rather than encompassing a broader class.

TO get to your question, I started to early on respond to the original post with a 'it depends', but I figured that that would not be helpful without a much longer description. Certainly we can't draw broad conclusions from our own limited experiences. 

It depends on the church itself. Does it have a single service, or multiple services? In the congregation that I am a member of, we have 3 morning services. So one could attend Sunday School, Church, and still have an hour to volunteer to serve in the nursery (or patrol the parking lot, or some other service). The case for paid nursery workers would thus be much weaker here than it might be in a single service congregation, where a paid nursery worker might allow a mother to regularly attend a full service. And the demographics of the congregation may come into play - how many families are available to serve as volunteers in the single service church. Are there children with severe special needs that would disrupt the service? So yes, I can construct scenarios under which nursery service would be an act of mercy. 

Should paid nursery workers be the norm? I'd say no. Are there cases where it would be appropriate? I think that likely. Just like the use of paid off duty police officers.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Edward said:


> If I misunderstood that you were saying something different in the edited portion than was in the truncated quote that I responded to, I apologize.



I specifically said "there are other options" just before the truncation, which applies more closely to this discussion. I included the etc. because I'm sure I overlooked another reason why some would not see it as an act of necessity. 

Your fourth paragraph includes a lot of qualifiers if it's so clearly an act of mercy and/or necessity. If it is such an act, why isn't it acceptable for all churches all the time?

~~~~~
Jessica, while you raise several good points, I'm trying to find a biblical example or basis from which this could stem. We have clear examples of gathering enough grain to satisfy hunger (without harvesting a field), healing, and being called to minister to the sick, the poor, the widows, etc. I don't see a biblical example of children removed from worship (OT or NT), especially when the most prominent issue is convenience (both for the parents and for those who'd rather not hear little ones). 
I admit I'm blessed to be in a church that loves the sound of little ones, and Grace plays quietly in the pew or on the floor or we step out to the foyer where she's not as easily heard by others. Yes, before she was full-term she slept in my arms, but hasn't done that for months. I help her stand when we stand for the reading of scripture, I hold her (somewhat) still during prayers, and so on. While she doesn't understand the sermon, she's learning the behavior we expect from her.


----------



## MarieP

Scottish Lass said:


> especially when the most prominent issue is convenience (both for the parents and for those who'd rather not hear little ones)


 
But, in many cases, it's not a matter of "convenience" or that they'd "rather not hear" children. If a baby starts crying loudly in the middle of a sermon, would that not be a distraction to people?


----------



## Scottish Lass

MarieP said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> especially when the most prominent issue is convenience (both for the parents and for those who'd rather not hear little ones)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, in many cases, it's not a matter of "convenience" or that they'd "rather not hear" children. If a baby starts crying loudly in the middle of a sermon, would that not be a distraction to people?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, which is why I said "most prominent" not "only". Few babies wail for more than several minutes, assuming all their needs have been met. I step into the foyer or walk with her down the hall until she calms, and then we return. Do I miss some of the sermon? Yes, but better I miss some than a worker miss all. Honestly, the one time I made use of the nursing room at RBC the other mothers chatted through most of the service. If I stay in the back, at least I can hear some of the service. 

Keep in mind the OP focuses on paid workers. The volunteer issue has some overlap, but I just can't see a defense for paying workers in light of the fourth commandment.


----------



## Theoretical

MarieP said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> especially when the most prominent issue is convenience (both for the parents and for those who'd rather not hear little ones)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, in many cases, it's not a matter of "convenience" or that they'd "rather not hear" children. If a baby starts crying loudly in the middle of a sermon, would that not be a distraction to people?
Click to expand...

 
I think there's a difference between someone else's baby crying ordinarily and my child crying. The former one I've trained myself to ignore (same with kids coming in and out during Bible study) and focus on the sermon. My own children's crying, I don't think I could ever imagine wanting to train to ignore. That's the big difference I'd make. It's not for my sake that I think a nursery helpful, but for parents who otherwise would struggle to hear even 1/4 of the sermon week-in and week-out. But I understand the parents who prefer to keep their kids with them at all times, so would never support forcing kids to be in the nursery unless they were actually disruptive and not merely crying.


----------



## MarieP

Theoretical said:


> I think there's a difference between someone else's baby crying ordinarily and my child crying. The former one I've trained myself to ignore (same with kids coming in and out during Bible study) and focus on the sermon. My own children's crying, I don't think I could ever imagine wanting to train to ignore. That's the big difference I'd make. It's not for my sake that I think a nursery helpful, but for parents who otherwise would struggle to hear even 1/4 of the sermon week-in and week-out. But I understand the parents who prefer to keep their kids with them at all times, so would never support forcing kids to be in the nursery unless they were actually disruptive and not merely crying.



I agree with you- you are right that it is more for the parents of the children. I sit at the front, so I'm relatively far away from those with babies. And you are right, when the kids who cry aren't your charge, it is easy to ignore them! We really don't have disruptions during the service anyway (not that I can see or hear, someone in the back might be able to better tell you).



Scottish Lass said:


> Honestly, the one time I made use of the nursing room at RBC the other mothers chatted through most of the service. If I stay in the back, at least I can hear some of the service.



It sounds like you made the wise decision there. I'm also saddened and surprised to hear that the ladies were chatting while you were trying to listen...


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> I specifically said "there are other options" just before the truncation, which applies more closely to this discussion. I included the etc. because I'm sure I overlooked another reason why some would not see it as an act of necessity.
> 
> Your fourth paragraph includes a lot of qualifiers if it's so clearly an act of mercy and/or necessity. If it is such an act, why isn't it acceptable for all churches all the time?



I would liken that argument to saying that if it is an act of mercy to take food to a disabled, elderly person, we should take food to all people all the time. 

The circumstances dictate whether something is an act of mercy or an act of convenience. So yes, I would qualify it based upon the circumstances. The alternative is to either classify it as 'always', or 'never'.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Edward said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said "there are other options" just before the truncation, which applies more closely to this discussion. I included the etc. because I'm sure I overlooked another reason why some would not see it as an act of necessity.
> 
> Your fourth paragraph includes a lot of qualifiers if it's so clearly an act of mercy and/or necessity. If it is such an act, why isn't it acceptable for all churches all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would liken that argument to saying that if it is an act of mercy to take food to a disabled, elderly person, we should take food to all people all the time.
> 
> The circumstances dictate whether something is an act of mercy or an act of convenience. So yes, I would qualify it based upon the circumstances. The alternative is to either classify it as 'always', or 'never'.
Click to expand...

 
Except we're talking about worship, not a Monday. It's always permissible to take food to a shut-in, and no less so on the Lord's Day. We have biblical basis for it. It doesn't matter why the person is shut in, how far away they live, or what food is prepared--those circumstances don't change whether it's an act of mercy. 
Either a nursery is permissible as an AoMoN or it's not. Just because a larger church *can* (compared to a small, single-service church) doesn't mean they should. I still don't see how paying a nursery staff fits under the fourth commandment. We need first responders, weary travelers need lodging, but we don't *need* a paid nursery staff.


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> Just because a larger church *can* (compared to a small, single-service church) doesn't mean they should.



I seem to be having trouble communicating tonight, as my point as to the larger church would not have the NEED for that particular act of mercy, not that it was better able to. 

Given that we have misunderstood each other several times on this thread, I'll withdraw from the discussion.


----------



## MarieP

Edward said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a larger church *can* (compared to a small, single-service church) doesn't mean they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to be having trouble communicating tonight, as my point as to the larger church would not have the NEED for that particular act of mercy, not that it was better able to.
> 
> Given that we have misunderstood each other several times on this thread, I'll withdraw from the discussion.
Click to expand...

 
I think there are two issues going on here:

1. Unpaid nursery volunteers- act of mercy?
2. Paid nursery workers- I don't think this is what Edward's talking about, but I'd say it would violate the Lord's Day.

The two issues are like serving Sunday dinner in your home versus going out to eat at a restaurant.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

On a related topic, it appears that someone has been taking our local Sunday paper sometime after it's delivered outside the library (they also took the Sunday NY Times but we are getting that mailed now, which won't work with the local paper). We've tried all kinds of things- the security guard on duty doesn't have a chance to get there in time, the carrier won't get out of his car to put it in the book-drop, and I thought about the idea of asking a student to pick them up on their way to church, but it dawned on me, hey, they can deliver Sunday's and Monday's both on Monday! This worked for awhile, and then the last couple weeks the Sunday paper disappeared then too! If this keeps happening, I might have to ask if a student worker who lives on campus could just throw the paper inside the door (assuming it's not already taken). Yikes! Would that be a work of necessity? It would surely be one of mercy to me!

Or....if we don't get it, someone might be willing to give up theirs....hmmmm....I like that idea!


----------



## au5t1n

MarieP said:


> The two issues are like serving Sunday dinner in your home versus going out to eat at a restaurant.



More like serving Sunday breakfast instead of going to church one Sunday every three months versus having Sunday School at Taco Bell.


----------



## kvanlaan

> We need first responders, weary travelers need lodging, but we don't *need* a paid nursery staff.



...and an act of mercy is something you are not, by virtue of it being an act of mercy, paid for. I don't think that it could fit under being an act of necessity (some thing which cops and doctors, etc. are paid for).


----------



## rbcbob

puritanpilgrim said:


> I'd say no to the nursery, you don't need it. Children and babies will get used to worshipping with the congregation



We have taken a cue from Nehemiah and do provide a nursery. 

Nehemiah 8:2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and *all who could hear with understanding* on the first day of the seventh month.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Our rule of thumb is school age. The nursery is available for those with newborns and toddlers. Kids 4 and above are encouraged to sit through the service. We are not dogmatic about it (neither should we be In my humble opinion) and never chastise someone for taking an unruly kid out of the service.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Ben, I'm guessing you don't pay the nursery staff, however, which is the focus of the OP. 

For those of you who think I'm anti-nursery all the time, please re-read my initial reply to the OP (post #2). We don't have one at Midlane Park because there's no request for it. The two families with little ones keep them in the service, and I personally wouldn't use one during worship (but would during Sunday School or maybe Bible study), but I'm not against a rotational, volunteer-staffed nursery.
What I'm against, and can see no biblical example for, is a paid staff--which is the basis of the OP.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Agreed.


----------

