# Children's Church during Worship Service...



## natewood3

This may not be where I need to post this, but this question does have to do with worship.

My wife and I attend a very small Baptist church, and we are involved in the children's ministry. For sometime at our church, we had no children at our church. Everyone that attended our church at the time did not have young kids in their home. We began having a couple come with two kids, and another older couple that began bringing grandkids to church. For a 3 or 4 months, these kids on came during the worship service, and the pastor and I felt the need to have something for the kids, so we began to take the kids into another room during the preaching. We have been doing this for about a year. I have now began questioning whether it is right to separate the children from congregational worship. We do not go to our class until after the singing, prayer, reading of Scripture, but it is right before the preaching begins. 

My question is this: Should children be with their families during the entire worship service? If so, what about kids who are coming with grandparents or kids are who have family present? If having a class during Sunday morning service should not occur, how is the best way to transit to something else? In other words, if we were to stop the children's class during worship, then what do I tell the kids and church in general as to WHY we are stopping this? Any good resources on this or related questions?


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Personal conviction - keep children with Parents*

Nate,

I posted a similar thread....follow it here
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=17984&highlight=family+integrated


----------



## bookslover

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Nate,
> 
> I posted a similar thread....follow it here
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=17984&highlight=family+integrated



Nope. I think it's important to have a separate service for the children, especially younger children. I watch the children during our worship service and, for the most part, they're not paying attention, squirming, or are bored out of their little minds.

It makes perfect sense to have a time during the adult worship service (that is, for churches with enough staff) to have a worship service for the children - something completely biblical (of course) but geared to their ages and understanding. Children are not miniature adults, and it would both redeem the time and be edifying and beneficial for them to have a worship time that fit their capacities.


----------



## LadyFlynt

As a child, and a bus kid, the BEST part of going to church was the actual service and being included in it. Sure I was figety a bit, but the preaching and teaching of the word from the pulpit, the pastor, and the coming together of the saints is what reached me the most.

Children belong with the rest of the church in worship, not off for an additional hour of Sunday School (oh, and that is another can of worms...LOL!). Our time is redeemed with our children: by keeping them with us, by training them, by showing them how we worship, by including them in worship, by letting them worship, by conversing with them later about worship and the preaching of the Word.


----------



## Bandguy




----------



## KMK

LadyFlynt said:


> As a child, and a bus kid, the BEST part of going to church was the actual service and being included in it. Sure I was figety a bit, but the preaching and teaching of the word from the pulpit, the pastor, and the coming together of the saints is what reached me the most.
> 
> Children belong with the rest of the church in worship, not off for an additional hour of Sunday School (oh, and that is another can of worms...LOL!). Our time is redeemed with our children: by keeping them with us, by training them, by showing them how we worship, by including them in worship, by letting them worship, by conversing with them later about worship and the preaching of the Word.



 We do not have a seperate room for a nursery or school room even if we wanted to. We have as many children and youth in our services as we do adults. They are an absolute joy and I keep them in mind when I prepare my sermons. When I look at those old drawings of the Puritan churches in early America I do not see any 'cry rooms' either.

I guess if we had 12 newborns at one time we might have a problem but not yet.


----------



## Civbert

I'm not so worried about taking the children away from the parents as much as taking the parents away from the children. If my kids had to go to a "children's sermon" during the preaching, I think I should go with them. How else will I know what they are being taught? After all, that's my job right? Maybe if they tape the children's service and require parents to listen to it. 

Really, if my kids not going to pay attention during the adult service, how do I know they will pay attention during the children's. And sometime I have trouble paying attention so I can't be too hard on them. I will ask my kids to tell me what the topic of the sermon was, or what bible verse was the focus. Sometime they remember, and sometime I forget. It good to talk about the sermon after the service (for me and my children). 


"Funny hats", now that's and idea! Might help the kids pay more attention.


----------



## Bandguy

Civbert said:


> I'm not so worried about taking the children away from the parents as much as taking the parents away from the children. If my kids had to go to a "children's sermon" during the preaching, I think I should go with them. How else will I know what they are being taught? After all, that's my job right?



I guess you are going to have to be involved in your children's lives and talk to them. I would even go as far as to check out the class a time or two before allowing my kid to go there. I am not saying that kids should never go to Big Church. Certainly the older and more mature they become, the more they should be involved in Big Church. I did, however, leave our son in the nursery when he was a baby. I didn't worry too much about the theology he was taught during those times when the nursery worker was feeding him, burping him, comforting him while he cried because the pastor doesn't understand children being on a schedule... , and watching him while he took a nap or played with toys. Maybe I should have...who knows? Of course, from the time he was in the womb, I have been reading the Bible to my son, praying for him, and doing everything I can to fullfill the mandate of Scripture found in Deuteronomy 6. I call it early intervention. A few hours a week is not going to cancel out all the countless hours per day that I spend with my son praying for him and teaching him the Bible. If you are worried about 2 to 3 hours a week, I would suggest to you that perhaps you need to consider spending more time with your kids at an early age, or at the earliest age possible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think there are extremes to avoid on either side. I get pretty frustrated, in my circles, over the "we don't really believe in the Covenant unless we do _everything_ as a family" crowd. Chuch, Sunday School, Wednesday Bible Studies: everything is supposed to be for the family. It's absurd.

I think some actually believe that this is the way God ordained it. Passover and several other assemblies in the OT were commanded for men. There were assemblies that included men, women, and children but they were not for all assemblies.

The Temple had a court for women and children.

That said, my priority in worship is that I hear and pay attention to the preacher. I ask Sonya regularly to bring our youngest down to the nursery because she cannot sit still. On the other hand, I do keep James (4) and Anna (3) in the service because they are not very distracting and part of my training is that they get some discipline in their bodies.

Honestly, I don't believe in children's Church so much as I would support a place where mothers and children could go, behind a sound proof window, so the kids can continue to participate in worship but not where they can distract. Since children's Church means "activity time" and "lame Bible story time" I want them in the service. I think if a "Children's Church" was done right it would have a sermon and require the kids to sit still so that they get used to the posture they are supposed to have while being under the Word. I don't want my children growing up thinking that the Sermon is the part they should leave so they can go do interesting things.

Thus, I don't make a big deal of it but Anna and James sit with us and are expected to pay attention. Discipline is good for a child. Parents that don't discipline their children so they can sit through a service will have larger issues than the fact that there children are in children's Church over the long haul. I believe discipline is a means that prepares a child's heart for the Gospel.


----------



## jenney

i wrote about "what we do" on the second page of the thread linked above, so I won't rewrite it here. It deals with children too young to sit still and where we draw the line and what church looks like for us.

If our church had a separate worship for the children I'd have to ask what the point is. If the children are too young to get anything out of the adult worship, then they are too young to get anything out of the separate worship, too, in my opinion. 

I also have some issues with "children's church" that might not apply to the way your church does it. (Keep in mind I'd never heard the phrase "integrated worship" before a month or two ago, so I might be using wrong terms here!) In the one church I went to that had such a thing, the children's thing had a lot of entertainment and it was so fun and exciting that the kids never wanted to transition out of it into the regular service. It is hard for me to see how it trains the children to be part of the regular service.

If the children are out for the preaching, then where do they hear the Word of God preached? I give it to them at home, like today I talked to my seven year old about an idolatrous love of pleasure when she resents having to put away her toys and it gave us a chance to see what God says about it. But that isn't the same as the preached Word and I want them to have the whole Real Deal, not just our application of it in specific situations.

Another issue I have is the adults who lead it always have to miss the worship themselves which I think is a bad idea. I miss a lot because I have to take out my babies (unlike those Doug Phillips fans, Trevor, I take mine out at the second peep!) but I take turns with my husband or older children and figure it is only a season of missing some parts.

It also makes me sad to think of my children getting different teaching from what we get. As a family we spend part of the Lord's Day talking about the sermon and how we can apply its truth to our lives. Having heard the same sermon means that we can help our children learn to listen and understand it and we can recall the valuable points ourselves as we explain them. The girls ask any questions they have about the message and talk about the hymns we sang. i would hate to miss out on that and think it would be hard to explain what their service was about since we'd not have been there.

As to what to tell people, you could tell them your reasons for the change. I don't know those, so I can't say what they are!

I hope you don't hear me as judging your decisions, past or future. I believe we both want to glorify the same God and it is to Him you must give account. I don't want to bind your conscience where the Scriptures have not given clear instruction. It's an area of Christian liberty, in my opinion.


----------



## jenney

Cross posting with me was this gem from SemperFi:



SemperFideles said:


> Honestly, I don't believe in children's Church so much as I would support a place where mothers and children could go, behind a sound proof window, so the kids can continue to participate in worship but not where they can distract.
> (snip)
> I believe discipline is a means that prepares a child's heart for the Gospel.



This is something I forgot to include. Thanks Rich!

I like the soundproof room thing. We call it a "training room" because we use it to train them to sit. The same behavior is expected there as in church, but in the soundproof room, they receive discipline for being disruptive and the crying doesn't disrupt the main service. It does disrupt the training room, which is all the more reason to get them trained quickly and out of there! Nurseries can be places moms easily get tempted to chat instead of eagerly desiring to get back to the service.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jenney said:


> Nurseries can be places moms easily get tempted to chat instead of eagerly desiring to get back to the service.


This is key as well. I was going to mention this. My wife used to have to go into the hall until she suggested setting up a partition in the back for nursing moms. She complained that she wanted to listen but the women would start talking to each other instead of paying attention.

The sad thing for me with children's Church that I didn't add was that most see it as normative that somebody else is primarily responsible for training a child. It also saddens me to see the sad state of discipline in most children. I grew up being expected to sit still in Church from as early as I have memories. I still can recall snippets of lessons I learned from Church as early as age 4.


----------



## Herald

We are in the midst of dealing with this same question. We moved into our current facility two years ago. We decided at that time to start a childrens church program. I now regret that decision. Children should be with their parents during worship (and vice versa). There are some notable exceptions:

1. I do support cry rooms. These are not for the slightly fussy child. Cry rooms would be for the child who is crying loud and long. 

2. Nursery for infants is not a bad idea. Some infants need care that is not practical during worship. The nursery need not be staffed. No need to keep other adults out of worship.

Other than these offerings I would not provide a childrens church running parallel with the worship service.


----------



## KMK

trevorjohnson said:


> The Puritans did not have AC or microphones either. They also wore funny hats. The fact that the Puritans did not have cry rooms proves little.
> 
> Just because children are indeed a joy, 12 newborns all crying up a storm need not sit in the front row. Out of Christian love, they can be placed in back or even separate from services without any violation of Scripture.



I did not mean to bind your conscience Trevor. I was just saying that some of us who do not even have our own building have to do without seperate rooms, just like the early Puritans in America. We are basicly a 'church plant' and I know some people look down on us because we do not have all of the luxuries that most modern American churches do. However, the Lord has blessed us with an amazing amount of peace and joy having all of our children with us for worship. I question why some people seem to be so adamant that it cannot nor should not work this way when in fact it does work for us every Lord's Day for over a year. 

(By the way, we do not have heat or air conditioning either)


----------



## CDM

bookslover said:


> Nope. I think it's important to have a separate service for the children, especially younger children. I watch the children during our worship service and, for the most part, they're not paying attention, squirming, or are bored out of their little minds.
> 
> It makes perfect sense to have a time during the adult worship service (that is, for churches with enough staff) to have a worship service for the children - something completely biblical (of course) but geared to their ages and understanding. Children are not miniature adults, and it would both redeem the time and be edifying and beneficial for them to have a worship time that fit their capacities.



So, not only are the children not sitting under the preaching of the Word but the staff, too, is not participating in the public worship of God.  



BaptistInCrisis said:


> We are in the midst of dealing with this same question. We moved into our current facility two years ago. We decided at that time to start a childrens church program. I now regret that decision. Children should be with their parents during worship (and vice versa). There are some notable exceptions:
> 
> Other than these offerings I would not provide a childrens church running parallel with the worship service.



 Good move.

General question to all: These "services" --when are the facilitators of them among the congregation's public worship of God? 

My covenant children are indeed part of the Lord's congregation. Why would I send them away? The congregation's public worship of God isn't school.


----------



## non dignus

I think the children should wear headsets like at the United Nations....

Pastor: "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the nations, and shalt suck the breast of kings; and thou shalt know that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. "​Translator: "....and you shall have snacks......"​


----------



## KMK

I remember Pastor Morecraft preaching one time and he told this story about how he visited a church once with his granddaughter and he was so insulted that they offered his granddaughter a bag of toys to play with during the sermon. Then he said, "But after a few minutes of the sermon, *I* was asking for a bag of toys!"  (It is a lot funnier coming from Morecraft than me.)


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I agree the hyper Phillips folks are a bit much. But my former church has a cry room with a glass window and piped sound; there is a nursery for infants. The children are expected otherwise to be in the service, which has been the practice since the very early 1990s. I'm single but amongst those I've known the last twenty years which regularly practiced family worship, the children really were trained at an early age and could sit through a service; the morning one often ran 2 hours. The book I'd recommend on the subject is Revealed to Babes: Children in the Worship of God, By Richard Bacon. The pastor wanted to call it "No Nurseries" but went with the better title in my opinion. This was published by Old Paths some years back but is in PDF for now (my understanding is fpcr.org will be changed significant sometime in the coming months so I don't know what content will continue online for free and what not; grab it while you can).


----------



## jawyman

We have both a nursery and kid's church. My 4 year old daughter loves kids church, because it is geared for her age and the children are taught about Christ at the appropriate age level. Now when she turns 5, she will remain with us in the service. My 2 year old son also attends kids church. I shouls say they both remain with us until the sermon and then they are dismissed, so they are hearing the Word.


----------



## KMK

NaphtaliPress said:


> I agree the hyper Phillips folks are a bit much. But my former church has a cry room with a glass window and piped sound; there is a nursery for infants. The children are expected otherwise to be in the service, which has been the practice since the very early 1990s. I'm single but amongst those I've known the last twenty years which regularly practiced family worship, the children really were trained at an early age and could sit through a service; the morning one often ran 2 hours. The book I'd recommend on the subject is Revealed to Babes: Children in the Worship of God, By Richard Bacon. The pastor wanted to call it "No Nurseries" but went with the better title in my opinion. This was published by Old Paths some years back but is in PDF for now (my understanding is fpcr.org will be changed significant sometime in the coming months so I don't know what content will continue online for free and what not; grab it while you can).



It wouldn't allow me to 'save'.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> I remember Pastor Morecraft preaching one time and he told this story about how he visited a church once with his granddaughter and he was so insulted that they offered his granddaughter a bag of toys to play with during the sermon. Then he said, "But after a few minutes of the sermon, *I* was asking for a bag of toys!"  (It is a lot funnier coming from Morecraft than me.)



I'd like to believe that those folks who have their heads down and writing are taking copious notes during my sermons. The truth is they are probably playing tic tac toe.


----------



## natewood3

I have not read all of the replies so far, but I do appreciate your responses.

For clarification, the kids I teach are from 7-12. My lesson normally comes from questions in the Catechism for Boys and Girls. When I first started teaching, I did go through some of the OT stories, because they were suprisingly unfamiliar with basic OT stories, such as Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, etc. I didn't go into much details, but just some overviews of the things that happened in their lives, stressing God's trustworthiness and watchcare over us. I tried to start having the kids memorize questions of the catechism, but they would always seem to "forget" to do it during the week, and I honestly just gave up doing that. I have, as I said, continued to teach through some of the questions of the catechism. My point is that it is not just "play time." I make worksheets for them after the lesson, so that they have to actually use their Bibles and look up verses that related to what we were learning.

Let me say this: Sunday morning (we do not currently have a Sunday night service) is the only time the kids are present. The couples that bring their grandkids are not able to bring them any other time, and the couple that brings their two kids live 45 minutes away, and the mother works on Wednesdays, and the father has bad health. Hence, Sunday school and Sunday morning worship service is the times available for teaching and for any type of class. There is another SS teacher, and I do it during the worship.

I haven't ever liked doing it during the preaching, but at the time it was the only time available, because many of them didn't come to SS. So honestly, it began during preaching because it was pragmatic and the only time I had the opportunity to teach them. To be honest though, there are times when they hardly pay attention to me, but I am not sure they will get anything from the preaching at our church. They seem to know very little about the Bible, so I am not sure what they would get out of it.

My main concern is that I don't want to separate the kids from the means of grace in the worship service. At the same time, I feel as though I am teaching the Word to them, as well as exposing them to Gospel truths each and every Sunday.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

natewood3 said:


> My main concern is that I don't want to separate the kids from the means of grace in the worship service. At the same time, I feel as though I am teaching the Word to them, as well as exposing them to Gospel truths each and every Sunday.



If it is wrong to separate them from the regular means of grace, whatever good is being accomplished at that time, it needs to be done at some other time.


----------



## natewood3

Everyone else agree with Chris's point? I tend to think it is wrong to separate them from the regular means of grace also, which is why I started asking questions in the first place.


----------



## JonathanHunt

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'd like to believe that those folks who have their heads down and writing are taking copious notes during my sermons. The truth is they are probably playing tic tac toe.




Why did I never think of that?


----------



## KMK

natewood3 said:


> Everyone else agree with Chris's point? I tend to think it is wrong to separate them from the regular means of grace also, which is why I started asking questions in the first place.



Read the posts above and I think you will see who agrees with you and who doesn't.


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'd like to believe that those folks who have their heads down and writing are taking copious notes during my sermons. The truth is they are probably playing tic tac toe.



 To quote Homer Simpson:



> "It's funny 'cause it's true!"



On a serious note, there are those who learn best when doodling or knitting or note-taking etc. It is sometimes those who are nodding in agreement the whole time that have no idea what you're talking about!


----------



## Robert Truelove

Yes, I believe the children should be in the worship service with everyone else. To say that children, even very young ones, do not get anything from the preaching is unbiblical. God's word does not return void.

It is a historical fact that the children have been in the worship services all the way back to the first century. If the church in Ephesus had "children's church", then their children would have never heard Paul say the following when the epistle to the Ephesians was read to the church...

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” - Eph 6:1-3

Paul had no doubt when he wrote that epistle that the children would be present in the congregation when the letter was read. So then should our children be in the congregation during our services.




natewood3 said:


> This may not be where I need to post this, but this question does have to do with worship.
> 
> My wife and I attend a very small Baptist church, and we are involved in the children's ministry. For sometime at our church, we had no children at our church. Everyone that attended our church at the time did not have young kids in their home. We began having a couple come with two kids, and another older couple that began bringing grandkids to church. For a 3 or 4 months, these kids on came during the worship service, and the pastor and I felt the need to have something for the kids, so we began to take the kids into another room during the preaching. We have been doing this for about a year. I have now began questioning whether it is right to separate the children from congregational worship. We do not go to our class until after the singing, prayer, reading of Scripture, but it is right before the preaching begins.
> 
> My question is this: Should children be with their families during the entire worship service? If so, what about kids who are coming with grandparents or kids are who have family present? If having a class during Sunday morning service should not occur, how is the best way to transit to something else? In other words, if we were to stop the children's class during worship, then what do I tell the kids and church in general as to WHY we are stopping this? Any good resources on this or related questions?


----------



## 5solasmom

Good post Jenney - I agree.


----------



## bookslover

natewood3 said:


> Everyone else agree with Chris's point? I tend to think it is wrong to separate them from the regular means of grace also, which is why I started asking questions in the first place.



You mean, if there's a children's service and an adult service at the same time, that the Holy Spirit can't be in two places at once?


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> (By the way, we do not have heat or air conditioning either)



Sure you do: the air is hot in the summer and cold in the winter!

By the way, if there is a separate children's church, one benefit goes to mothers. She gets a (probably much needed) break from the little ones. She can actually pay attention in the worship service without constantly being distracted by her children.

She has, after all, the other six-and-a-half days of the week to be distracted...


----------



## tcalbrecht

bookslover said:


> You mean, if there's a children's service and an adult service at the same time, that the Holy Spirit can't be in two places at once?



If by the "regular means of grace" they mean the preaching of the word by a gospel minister and sacraments, unless you have a minister in with the children I think the answer to the real question is obvious.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

tcalbrecht said:


> If by the "regular means of grace" they mean the preaching of the word by a gospel minister and sacraments, unless you have a minister in with the children I think the answer to the real question is obvious.


Yep (That's Texican for "ditto;" I think we need a "Yep" smillie)


----------



## KMK

bookslover said:


> Sure you do: the air is hot in the summer and cold in the winter!
> 
> By the way, if there is a separate children's church, one benefit goes to mothers. She gets a (probably much needed) break from the little ones. She can actually pay attention in the worship service without constantly being distracted by her children.
> 
> She has, after all, the other six-and-a-half days of the week to be distracted...



You are correct that air is air! Take it or leave it!

No doubt mothers need breaks. However, that does not mean that the worship service must be that break.


----------



## bookslover

tcalbrecht said:


> If by the "regular means of grace" they mean the preaching of the word by a gospel minister and sacraments, unless you have a minister in with the children I think the answer to the real question is obvious.



Well, most kids under, say, ten aren't going to be receiving the Lord's Supper. As for preaching, an elder could do that (it's the 2-office guy in me)...


----------



## LadyFlynt

Trevor, I'm saddened by your attitude of "blame the homeschoolers", "those dratted hyper-Phillips ppl!" (Mr. Coldwell's remark about Phillips) Okay, you went to one in home meeting of one particular group. We meet at home once a month with those in our area (a side study encouraged and overseen by our elders). The children stay in the entire time. The babies (in this case one) may be laid down at any time. Nursing may occur...in the room or out of the room.

If you listen to our service online, you will hear babies...but the pastor is well heard as well. Sometimes, us mothers will leave the room with the babies. I believe it is more important for my husband to be in service than myself as he must be the one to go out to work and deal with others and I can a) listen online during the week and b) ask my husband what was said and discuss with him. I used to work nursery and other such. The deprivation the "staff" went through, I've seen churches fall apart because of. Want to have a nursery...fine, but the mothers or fathers should be the ones taking care of their children...this will also encourage them to train their children properly and soon rather than think they have no part in training because they can just stick "oh he's just hyper-Johnny" in children's church.


----------



## KMK

Somehow John the Baptist understood while in the womb! Who gets to decide when a child is finally capable of 'understanding'. Should we have a 'special room' for the autistic as well? 

Having done the home church and homeschooling thing myself, I understand where you are coming from, Trevor, but I do not think the problem lies in bringing babies into worship. With home churching the problem is usually a lack of proper oversight, accountability, preaching, discipline etc. (I am sure that LadyFlynt's meetings are not this way) 

Also, I have to admit that I have found Phillips stuff to always encourage reverence for the preached word.


----------



## calgal

bookslover said:


> Well, most kids under, say, ten aren't going to be receiving the Lord's Supper. As for preaching, an elder could do that (it's the 2-office guy in me)...



 The question to the folks who disagree: Would children under 10 learn more in an age appropriate class or by coloring during the sermon and watching mom and dad and older sibs receive the Lord's Supper? The message in the sermon can be presented to younger kids using language they understand and the kids will be more likely to listen and LEARN in that environment. No comment on HS vs Non HS: the variances depend on mom and dad.


----------



## Bondman

LadyFlynt said:


> As a child, and a bus kid, the BEST part of going to church was the actual service and being included in it. Sure I was figety a bit, but the preaching and teaching of the word from the pulpit, the pastor, and the coming together of the saints is what reached me the most.
> 
> Children belong with the rest of the church in worship, not off for an additional hour of Sunday School (oh, and that is another can of worms...LOL!). Our time is redeemed with our children: by keeping them with us, by training them, by showing them how we worship, by including them in worship, by letting them worship, by conversing with them later about worship and the preaching of the Word.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I corrected showing that the Phillips statement was from someone agreeing with you, Trevor.

The problems I have with certain statements are:

1) the broad-lumping assumptions about homeschoolers
2) the idea that babies can't possibly benefit from the hearing of the Word or the gathering of the congregation
3) the whole "give mom a break" theory


Yes, I strongly believe in homeschooling for many reasons, both spiritual and practical. Yes, I strongly believe children should be in worship, right down to the nursing infant. Yes, however, I am fine with a place for mothers to go WITH their infant to take care of certain issues that arise. I am NOT for "dumping grounds" nor women that persist to regularly convene in the nursery. This becomes breeding grounds for gossip and unneccessary chit-chat. I've BTDT and refuse to participate or promote such places ever again. Even in visiting a friend's church: I changed a diaper in the nursery, saw the congregating of the women and the chatter/gossip, when it was time to nurse my child I alternated between the back pew and the foyer. I was "informed", several times, that there was a nursery I could go to. I had a blanket, was fully covered, my child was quiet, and there was no one in the foyer...I wasn't heading toward the snakepit of the nursery, I'll stay and hear the Word preached, thank you very much. (naturally, I just stated I was aware of the nursery, but was fine where I was at, and thank you)

Phillips does have much good to say. In fact, most of the type of churches I am familiar with the support the "home meeting" described further up are Charity meetings, not Reformed...but even then, the mothers removed a crying child, dealt with the situation (or calmed the child in the case of an infant), and came back in with said child to the meeting. In our study group we have all the children in the centre on the rug (my home, generally). I have a bassinet and a crib, if needed for use. We have had to separate the girls once...the three oldest enjoy being with eachother, but we are teaching them to share their news and chats before or after the study. And yes, they are mini-adults...as in they are children being taught what will be expected of them as adults. Yes, they are children, are expected to act like children, are expected to have to be corrected as children....but the goal is to show them and teach them, what is expected of them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Lady,
First, casting my comment as a curse is uncharitable at the _least_. Second, Minced oath notwithstanding, I see little difference in recognizing some people take things to extremes than suggesting by implication you don't think everything Phillips has to say is good. I believe we are on the same page as far as children in the worship service, so I'm at a loss at the hostility.



LadyFlynt said:


> Trevor, I'm saddened by your attitude of "blame the homeschoolers", "those dratted hyper-Phillips ppl!" (Mr. Coldwell's remark about Phillips)


----------



## tcalbrecht

bookslover said:


> Well, most kids under, say, ten aren't going to be receiving the Lord's Supper.



Well, that certainly is self-fulfilling if you relegate them to their own faux worship.


----------



## KMK

calgal said:


> The question to the folks who disagree: Would children under 10 learn more in an age appropriate class or by coloring during the sermon and watching mom and dad and older sibs receive the Lord's Supper?



That would be the question if the Bible was neutral on the subject. However, the Bible seems to lean in favor of including children as demonstrated in some of the posts above. Never does the Bible teach that there are some who should be excluded from the preached word. 

Neh 8:1 says that "all the people gathered themselves together as one man" to hear Ezra preach. Then in 8:2 it says that "Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding..."

I believe Ezra preached the law to "all the people". But of course, those who could not understand because of their age or their mental capacity did not 'hear' (shama) or 'hearken'. But if a special 'children's church' had been set up then the people who were 'babysitting' would not hear Ezra's preaching.

Once again, where did you come up with the age of '10'? To quote Kramer, "It seems capricious and arbitrary." Who gets to decide when a child can understand? When they make a credible profession of faith?  

Look, if you want to argue that children's church is sometimes necessary, then fine, use your 'brotherly love' verses, but you cannot go so far as to say that it *must* be so. The Bible teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord and I could just as easily argue that to remove my children from the worship service would be 'unloving' to my brother.

Of course the preacher does have the responsibilty of including some bread of life for the children in the service as well. And what happens in my church (I can't speak to every church) is that those parts of the message that I make clear enough for children are the parts that the sheep as a whole remember most! In fact, Christ said we are to come to Him as babes! Maybe we can learn something from these children in our midst.

Once again, I am *not* trying to bind anyone's conscience. If you pastors are compelled to establish a nursery or children's church then do so. But that does not make it the rule for every church.


----------



## rjlynam

LadyFlynt said:


> Children belong with the rest of the church in worship, not off for an additional hour of Sunday School (oh, and that is another can of worms...LOL!). Our time is redeemed with our children: by keeping them with us, by training them, by showing them how we worship, by including them in worship, by letting them worship, by conversing with them later about worship and the preaching of the Word.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I didn't realize I had used a minced-oath...my apologies, I'm usually careful about such things.

On the Phillips thing...Due to activity I've had with others on other boards, my familiarity with those that speak against Phillips, speak against EVERYTHING he promotes, against patriarchy, against submission, against females being as they are created, against homeschooling for religious reasons, against quiverful families, etc.

Yes, I am for "Uniting Church and Home" in that the Home should be encouraged and kept together in the Church. But I am not for what is known as Shephardism...the Church interfering in portions of the Home that are between the Husband and Wife and their role as parents.


So, would you please explain the difference you see between "Uniting Church and Home" vs "Hyper Uniting Church and Home" or Patriarchy vs "Hyper Phillipism"?


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> Once again, I am trying to bind anyone's conscience.



I think you left out an important word here.


----------



## jenney

bookslover said:


> She gets a (probably much needed) break from the little ones.



I don't want a break from my children. Yes, sometimes they are distracting me from the worship as I have to take someone out, but it is only a season and only the really young ones. Soon enough I'll be able to sit through the whole thing. No rush through this season.



calgal said:


> Would children under 10 learn more in an age appropriate class or by coloring during the sermon and watching mom and dad and older sibs receive the Lord's Supper?


Once my children can write, they are not allowed to color during the sermon. They may take notes or just sit, but they may not color. 

We discuss the sermon afterward, so they try to hear, understand, note the Scripture refs, etc. It is a good time of fellowship for those of us who are believers in my family and those who do not know the Lord have that weekly witness of our joy in discussing what we learned. The children do ask questions about what they didn't understand and we go over all the verses referenced to fit the pieces together. If they'd been in a different service, we wouldn't be able to do that at all, which would be a shame since it is such a benefit for all of us!

About six months ago, we listened to a sermon series on the ten commandments. A few weeks after we heard the third commandment, my then-eight year old wasn't singing our hymn during family worship. I took her aside and asked why she didn't sing and she said, "I keep thinking about that sermon and how if I'm not thinking about the words and agreeing with them, then I'm taking the Lord's Name in vain. I don't understand that verse so I can't really agree with it. I'm singing things about the Lord but not with my heart." She had been totally convicted by that sermon. I wouldn't want her to miss out on that.

Oh, and that stuff Lady Flynt said?


----------



## KMK

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I think you left out an important word here.



Actually I did it on purpose to see if anyone was paying attention.  

I edited it.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yep, caught it.

And I agree with Jenney; I don't want a break from my children.


----------



## calgal

KMK said:


> That would be the question if the Bible was neutral on the subject. However, the Bible seems to lean in favor of including children as demonstrated in some of the posts above. Never does the Bible teach that there are some who should be excluded from the preached word.
> 
> Neh 8:1 says that "all the people gathered themselves together as one man" to hear Ezra preach. Then in 8:2 it says that "Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding..."
> 
> I believe Ezra preached the law to "all the people". But of course, those who could not understand because of their age or their mental capacity did not 'hear' (shama) or 'hearken'. But if a special 'children's church' had been set up then the people who were 'babysitting' would not hear Ezra's preaching.
> 
> Once again, where did you come up with the age of '10'? To quote Kramer, "It seems capricious and arbitrary." Who gets to decide when a child can understand? When they make a credible profession of faith?
> 
> Look, if you want to argue that children's church is sometimes necessary, then fine, use your 'brotherly love' verses, but you cannot go so far as to say that it *must* be so. The Bible teaches that children are a blessing from the Lord and I could just as easily argue that to remove my children from the worship service would be 'unloving' to my brother.
> 
> Of course the preacher does have the responsibilty of including some bread of life for the children in the service as well. And what happens in my church (I can't speak to every church) is that those parts of the message that I make clear enough for children are the parts that the sheep as a whole remember most! In fact, Christ said we are to come to Him as babes! Maybe we can learn something from these children in our midst.
> 
> Once again, I am trying to bind anyone's conscience. If you pastors are compelled to establish a nursery or children's church then do so. But that does not make it the rule for every church.



Where did I say EVERY Church MUST have kids church? It is an option not a mandate. It seems that your side of the argument is using EVERY. As for the issue of Paedo communion, that is an issue for Session, Presbytery and GA/Synod (or Consistory/Classis/Synod) to hash out. Under 10 generally would not have made a profession of faith.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

LadyFlynt said:


> I didn't realize I had used a minced-oath...my apologies, I'm usually careful about such things.


Apology accepted. 


LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, I am for "Uniting Church and Home" in that the Home should be encouraged and kept together in the Church. But I am not for what is known as Shephardism...the Church interfering in portions of the Home that are between the Husband and Wife and their role as parents.
> So, would you please explain the difference you see between "Uniting Church and Home" vs "Hyper Uniting Church and Home" or Patriarchy vs "Hyper Phillipism"?


Nope; not a conversation I'm looking to have with you since you want to put words in my mouth.


----------



## KMK

calgal said:


> Where did I say EVERY Church MUST have kids church? It is an option not a mandate. It seems that your side of the argument is using EVERY. As for the issue of Paedo communion, that is an issue for Session, Presbytery and GA/Synod (or Consistory/Classis/Synod) to hash out. Under 10 generally would not have made a profession of faith.



I apologize. I realize now that by the way I quoted your post it sounded as if I was accusing you personally, but that is not the case. I was directing my statements to those to whom they would apply. Sorry.


----------



## KMK

I did not bring up paedocommunion but I assume that those who believe in paedocommunion would also be against 'children's church'. Yes or no?


----------



## LadyFlynt

calgal said:


> Under 10 generally would not have made a profession of faith.


Definately a can of worms, considering I know many that have professed before the age of 10yr, myself included as well as two of my children.


Mr. Coldwell, it was an honest question. I wasn't putting word in your mouth earlier...I was showing the attitude that came across by the addition of the hyper to cause a negative connotation to those that might read or agree with certain ppl on certain things. I have never heard of any of these being termed as a "hyper" anything. You used the term "Hyper Phillipism" and Trevor used both that term as well as "Hyper Uniting Church and Home". I'm asking for a simple explaination as to what is meant by that, by either yourself or Trevor, since I was asked if I was caught up in such. I cannot answer until I know what is meant by your definition.


----------



## KMK

LadyFlynt said:


> Definately a can of worms, considering I know many that have professed before the age of 10yr, myself included as well as two of my children.
> 
> 
> Mr. Coldwell, it was an honest question. I wasn't putting word in your mouth earlier...I was showing the attitude that came across by the addition of the hyper to cause a negative connotation to those that might read or agree with certain ppl on certain things. I have never heard of any of these being termed as a "hyper" anything. You used the term "Hyper Phillipism" and Trevor used both that term as well as "Hyper Uniting Church and Home". I'm asking for a simple explaination as to what is meant by that, by either yourself or Trevor, since I was asked if I was caught up in such. I cannot answer until I know what is meant by your definition.



I think this is a blatant example of hypercoldwellism!


----------



## LadyFlynt

@ Ken

Seriously, all I know that I'm caught up in is that I hold a strong bar on the home and the family in the Church. I'm quite old fashioned. But, I also consider myself quite reasonable as well.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Colleen,
First, I did not use that phrase. I did pick up Trevors use of hyper. I was simply using a hook to lead into my post. I certainly regret it now! My original post is below. What I mean by using the term hyper is I think some folks are so into some of what is taught they do not keep it in proper bounds and perspective of the totality of the Reformed faith or church life.


LadyFlynt said:


> Mr. Coldwell, it was an honest question. I wasn't putting word in your mouth earlier...I was showing the attitude that came across by the addition of the hyper to cause a negative connotation to those that might read or agree with certain ppl on certain things. I have never heard of any of these being termed as a "hyper" anything. You used the term "Hyper Phillipism" and Trevor used both that term as well as "Hyper Uniting Church and Home". I'm asking for a simple explaination as to what is meant by that, by either yourself or Trevor, since I was asked if I was caught up in such. I cannot answer until I know what is meant by your definition.





NaphtaliPress said:


> I agree the hyper Phillips folks are a bit much. But my former church has a cry room with a glass window and piped sound; there is a nursery for infants. The children are expected otherwise to be in the service, which has been the practice since the very early 1990s. I'm single but amongst those I've known the last twenty years which regularly practiced family worship, the children really were trained at an early age and could sit through a service; the morning one often ran 2 hours. The book I'd recommend on the subject is Revealed to Babes: Children in the Worship of God, By Richard Bacon. The pastor wanted to call it "No Nurseries" but went with the better title in my opinion. This was published by Old Paths some years back but is in PDF for now (my understanding is fpcr.org will be changed significant sometime in the coming months so I don't know what content will continue online for free and what not; grab it while you can).


----------



## LadyFlynt

I agreed...the phrasing was mine. The phrase what to show how the use of "hyper" is taken as appearing to have an attitude toward those that agree with Phillips on Church and Home. I've seen the same done by labeling ALL Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists (by arminians intentionally not distinguishing between the two to make all Calvinists look rabid).

What is in bounds and what is out of bounds? I'll start a new thread as I'm still not sure what the objections are.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Fine Colleen, but if you really mean _agreed _rather than _agree_ below, we are not reading the same material.


LadyFlynt said:


> I agreed...the phrasing was mine.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I agreed previously when I stated, "I was showing the attitude that came across by the addition of the hyper to cause a negative connotation to those that might read or agree with certain ppl on certain things."


I've done some reading and some things have come to my attention that help me to understand why there might be antagonism towards the whole UC&H and Phillips ordeal. Please understand that the actions of some is not neccessarily the intent of the originator or others that are encouraged by the originator's writings. Thus I'm starting to understand the use of "hyper-Phillipism" just as there are "hyper-Calvinists". No I'm not caught up in hyper-Phillipism (what I know as Shepardism).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Fine. I am happy for some "slack". However in the same post in the next breath so to speak you say I used the term. I just would appreciate a fair reading is all.


LadyFlynt said:


> I agreed previously when I stated, "I was showing the attitude that came across by the addition of the hyper to cause a negative connotation to those that might read or agree with certain ppl on certain things."
> 
> 
> I've done some reading and some things have come to my attention that help me to understand why there might be antagonism towards the whole UC&H and Phillips ordeal. Please understand that the actions of some is not neccessarily the intent of the originator or others that are encouraged by the originator's writings. Thus I'm starting to understand the use of "hyper-Phillipism" just as there are "hyper-Calvinists". No I'm not caught up in hyper-Phillipism (what I know as Shepardism).


----------



## LadyFlynt

Mr. Coldwell, you did use the term (as well as Trevor):

Post #20


> I agree the hyper Phillips folks are a bit much.



Just as I need to cut you and others slack, please cut me some also. I have had to fight hard for my traditional stands and many of those that fight against traditional families and values are those within the church. Please accept my apology for lumping you in with them. At the same time, you assumed I should know where you were coming from or what your experience was. This is where miscommunication comes in, on both our parts...and thus why I backed up and ask for an explaination of your meanings.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There is no use discussing it further if you can say that I used the term you put in quotation marks. The record is clear and I'm fine letting that stand as the judge. I've owned what was my fault, and I thank you for the bit you owned up to. Time to move on to something more profitable.



LadyFlynt said:


> Mr. Coldwell, you did use the term (as well as Trevor):
> 
> Post #20
> 
> 
> Just as I need to cut you and others slack, please cut me some also. I have had to fight hard for my traditional stands and many of those that fight against traditional families and values are those within the church. Please accept my apology for lumping you in with them. At the same time, you assumed I should know where you were coming from or what your experience was. This is where miscommunication comes in, on both our parts...and thus why I backed up and ask for an explaination of your meanings.


----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## bookslover

tcalbrecht said:


> Well, that certainly is self-fulfilling if you relegate them to their own faux worship.



How many children under the age of ten do you know, or know of, who take Communion?

Why is it "faux worship"? Why is it better for a 6-year-old child (say) to be bored in the adult worship service when he or she can be attending a children's service, learning about God and worshipping Him in a manner suitable to his or her 6-year-old intellectual capacities? Why is that so evil? To me, young children sitting and listening to a sermon they don't understand is a lost opportunity.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Trevor, you have some misconceptions about me. I don't give looks, nor condemn mothers for going out with their children. In fact, I leave service quite often (a 9mos old that has found her voice). I also mentioned traditional families and values, not traditional churches (which is quite subjective...not all churches charged a pew fee, nor did they all separate by gender...btw, I've been in a church seperated by gender before: understand the reasoning, can give the impracticalities of such an arrangement). I also have no problem with a cry room for the parents to go...I have a problem with dumping ground type nurseries (with many reasons that have been listed throughout the thread). I also mentioned in the Doug Phillips thread that there is nothing new under the sun, but rather that 'those days' were just as corrupt as today. Neither have I ever said that a private Christian school is a sin. I see impracticalities in it for the raising of one's children, but I do not condemn it's use. I do on the other hand have an issue with government schools for children. Where I got the idea that you blame homeschoolers is in the examples you gave. Sorry if I misread you.



> I went to a church that was in a home and EVERYONE read Doug Philips and home-schooled. All these babies were crying SO LOUD that no one could hardly hear a full sentence of the sermon. But their personal convictions said that all children should sit in service with their parents....so, no one was fed except the babies - and that on milk from Mommy instead of the Word.



I read Mr. Phillips and Mrs. Chancey. I homeschool. I believe my children should be in service with me. I, however, will and do remove myself and my crying babe from the service when necessary. The first three items do not cause one to stay seated and have all the babes cry it out in service.



> There is NOTHING wrong with taking children out of service out of love for your neighbors. They should be trained to sit still, but if they are just not there yet, don't make the rest of the church suffer. If you have a church full of quiet kids, or it doesn't bother you, good, praise God. Just don't condemn those churches that have cry rooms.


I fully agree.


----------



## LadyFlynt

bookslover said:


> How many children under the age of ten do you know, or know of, who take Communion?
> 
> Why is it "faux worship"? Why is it better for a 6-year-old child (say) to be bored in the adult worship service when he or she can be attending a children's service, learning about God and worshipping Him in a manner suitable to his or her 6-year-old intellectual capacities? Why is that so evil? To me, young children sitting and listening to a sermon they don't understand is a lost opportunity.



Could you please describe the activities and how they are worship? Teaching time, I can see...but how is it worship?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This thread has been so lengthy. I guess it was expected. Both sides have some light to shed but it is not quite an "either you believe in the family or you don't" issue.

This is a hard subject to get one's arms around but let me try it this way: I want as few bars for immature people to feel welcome at a Church to hear the Gospel while allowing parents the freedom to worship with their own children.

One reason that George Bryson ticks me off is that he calls Calvinism sterile. That it can't reproduce and so it has to rely on places like Calvary Chapel to get new "converts" to grow. This is a gross mischarecterization of Reformed Confessional Churches in general but is actually a pretty valid criticism of the way that many practice it.

I can tell you this: if I was 28 years old again and looking for a Church in Northern VA as a newlywed with Sonya we would have spent 1 Sunday with a Reformed "micro-Church" and never returned. We just would have felt awkward with all the distinctive elements that are indifferent but, taken together, make a Church seem odd, not for the Gospel's sake, but for parent's sake. It took me a couple of years of reading and listening to R.C. Sproul and then going to a PCA with a contemporary service to break into Presbyterianism. After 9 years Reformed, I came to this board and it opened my eyes to even more areas where I could be punctilious. I'll be honest, there are times when I wonder: "If I have to swallow all of that to be faithful to the WCF then I think I need to check out the URC!"

Even the OPC that we once attended has gone in certain directions that I don't like. People don't like having a nursery any more because they feel like kids should be with their parents. Sunday School is now called "Family Catechism" and there's no adult-specific or child-specific teaching periods for Sunday School.

People become so comfortable with the common convictions of the "small group" that they don't even see how distinctive they have become. You have to be a maturely Reformed person, good parents with disciplined kids, and an appreciation for a theological vocabulary to feel comfortable enough to stay and hear the Gospel.

What I'm saying is that people really ought to keep their private convictions private for the common worship environment.

I'm not arguing seeker sensitivity in worship, I'm arguing removing hurdles that others should not have to walk over and _then_ also be offended by the Gospel. Let them be offended by the latter but never the former.

Sonya and I believe that our kids should be in worship with us. We've been worshipping at our current Church for almost two years and James and Anna are with us every week. We don't stand on the street corner and proclaim: "Look at us! Mature Christians bring their kids into worship with them!" 

Most other kids go to Children's Church and I'm quite thankful for it actually because many of them are woefully under-disciplined. But get this: At least their parents are hearing the Gospel and will come back and hear it again and will mature in the faith and learn about Godly child-rearing and then, someday, they might bring their kids into the service after the parents have matured a bit, catechized in the home, etc....

In other words: worship is not just for the mature. It's also for the maturing.

As I've said before, I like the crying room behind the glass because I want the fathers hearing the sermon.

I don't disagree, on a personal level, with any of the more family-oriented people on this Board. I catechize and I don't consider Worship an opportunity to get a break from my kids. I probably differ from some in that the Word clearly reveals there is a place and a season for adults to learn apart from children and at their own level when it comes to corporate catechesis but that's outside the Worship event. So even while I agree in principle about where we need to be thinking as mature families - not everybody who darkens your door will be a mature family.

I take that back: maybe everybody who darkens you door will only be a mature family. It's up to you and your Church to evaluate the character you've set for your Church and if the families are wearing phalacteries on their heads proclaiming: "you better be just like us because we don't accommodate your immature family if your kids can't sit still."


----------



## calgal

KMK said:


> I apologize. I realize now that by the way I quoted your post it sounded as if I was accusing you personally, but that is not the case. I was directing my statements to those to whom they would apply. Sorry.



Is that Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf coffee?  YUM! I apologize for reacting a bit strongly.


----------



## fredtgreco

SemperFideles said:


> This thread has been so lengthy. I guess it was expected. Both sides have some light to shed but it is not quite an "either you believe in the family or you don't" issue.
> 
> This is a hard subject to get one's arms around but let me try it this way: I want as few bars for immature people to feel welcome at a Church to hear the Gospel while allowing parents the freedom to worship with their own children.
> 
> One reason that George Bryson ticks me off is that he calls Calvinism sterile. That it can't reproduce and so it has to rely on places like Calvary Chapel to get new "converts" to grow. This is a gross mischarecterization of Reformed Confessional Churches in general but is actually a pretty valid criticism of the way that many practice it.
> 
> I can tell you this: if I was 28 years old again and looking for a Church in Northern VA as a newlywed with Sonya we would have spent 1 Sunday with a Reformed "micro-Church" and never returned. We just would have felt awkward with all the distinctive elements that are indifferent but, taken together, make a Church seem odd, not for the Gospel's sake, but for parent's sake. It took me a couple of years of reading and listening to R.C. Sproul and then going to a PCA with a contemporary service to break into Presbyterianism. After 9 years Reformed, I came to this board and it opened my eyes to even more areas where I could be punctilious. I'll be honest, there are times when I wonder: "If I have to swallow all of that to be faithful to the WCF then I think I need to check out the URC!"
> 
> Even the OPC that we once attended has gone in certain directions that I don't like. People don't like having a nursery any more because they feel like kids should be with their parents. Sunday School is now called "Family Catechism" and there's no adult-specific or child-specific teaching periods for Sunday School.
> 
> People become so comfortable with the common convictions of the "small group" that they don't even see how distinctive they have become. You have to be a maturely Reformed person, good parents with disciplined kids, and an appreciation for a theological vocabulary to feel comfortable enough to stay and hear the Gospel.
> 
> What I'm saying is that people really ought to keep their private convictions private for the common worship environment.
> 
> I'm not arguing seeker sensitivity in worship, I'm arguing removing hurdles that others should not have to walk over and _then_ also be offended by the Gospel. Let them be offended by the latter but never the former.
> 
> Sonya and I believe that our kids should be in worship with us. We've been worshipping at our current Church for almost two years and James and Anna are with us every week. We don't stand on the street corner and proclaim: "Look at us! Mature Christians bring their kids into worship with them!"
> 
> Most other kids go to Children's Church and I'm quite thankful for it actually because many of them are woefully under-disciplined. But get this: At least their parents are hearing the Gospel and will come back and hear it again and will mature in the faith and learn about Godly child-rearing and then, someday, they might bring their kids into the service after the parents have matured a bit, catechized in the home, etc....
> 
> In other words: worship is not just for the mature. It's also for the maturing.
> 
> As I've said before, I like the crying room behind the glass because I want the fathers hearing the sermon.
> 
> I don't disagree, on a personal level, with any of the more family-oriented people on this Board. I catechize and I don't consider Worship an opportunity to get a break from my kids. I probably differ from some in that the Word clearly reveals there is a place and a season for adults to learn apart from children and at their own level when it comes to corporate catechesis but that's outside the Worship event. So even while I agree in principle about where we need to be thinking as mature families - not everybody who darkens your door will be a mature family.
> 
> I take that back: maybe everybody who darkens you door will only be a mature family. It's up to you and your Church to evaluate the character you've set for your Church and if the families are wearing phalacteries on their heads proclaiming: "you better be just like us because we don't accommodate your immature family if your kids can't sit still."



Rich,

Excellent thoughts, and AMEN! Far too often we lose sight of the fact that one of the purposes of the Church is to instruct and bring people on to maturity. Instead, we simply pass around "mature" Christians from church to church. We do not want to compromise the gosepl, but we need not look like 16th century England (or 2nd century N. Africa, or even 21st century China). Real people with real backgrounds and real stories and real problems are coming in our door. The gospel divides. Schooling preference (as important as it might be) does not.

Believe it or not, for the average American, to simply show up in church and listen to a solid (30+ minute) sermon is a radical change. Must we shame them if they do not keep squirming 3-4 year olds in their seats?

And if children are to be removed, it must be fathers who do the work as well. I'm tired of not being able to affect the lives of mothers because they are constantly walking the back aisles with infants who must be "in worship."


----------



## calgal

SemperFideles said:


> This thread has been so lengthy. I guess it was expected. Both sides have some light to shed but it is not quite an "either you believe in the family or you don't" issue.
> 
> This is a hard subject to get one's arms around but let me try it this way: I want as few bars for immature people to feel welcome at a Church to hear the Gospel while allowing parents the freedom to worship with their own children.
> 
> One reason that George Bryson ticks me off is that he calls Calvinism sterile. That it can't reproduce and so it has to rely on places like Calvary Chapel to get new "converts" to grow. This is a gross mischarecterization of Reformed Confessional Churches in general but is actually a pretty valid criticism of the way that many practice it.
> 
> I can tell you this: if I was 28 years old again and looking for a Church in Northern VA as a newlywed with Sonya we would have spent 1 Sunday with a Reformed "micro-Church" and never returned. We just would have felt awkward with all the distinctive elements that are indifferent but, taken together, make a Church seem odd, not for the Gospel's sake, but for parent's sake. It took me a couple of years of reading and listening to R.C. Sproul and then going to a PCA with a contemporary service to break into Presbyterianism. After 9 years Reformed, I came to this board and it opened my eyes to even more areas where I could be punctilious. I'll be honest, there are times when I wonder: "If I have to swallow all of that to be faithful to the WCF then I think I need to check out the URC!"
> 
> Even the OPC that we once attended has gone in certain directions that I don't like. People don't like having a nursery any more because they feel like kids should be with their parents. Sunday School is now called "Family Catechism" and there's no adult-specific or child-specific teaching periods for Sunday School.
> 
> People become so comfortable with the common convictions of the "small group" that they don't even see how distinctive they have become. You have to be a maturely Reformed person, good parents with disciplined kids, and an appreciation for a theological vocabulary to feel comfortable enough to stay and hear the Gospel.
> 
> What I'm saying is that people really ought to keep their private convictions private for the common worship environment.
> 
> I'm not arguing seeker sensitivity in worship, I'm arguing removing hurdles that others should not have to walk over and _then_ also be offended by the Gospel. Let them be offended by the latter but never the former.
> 
> Sonya and I believe that our kids should be in worship with us. We've been worshipping at our current Church for almost two years and James and Anna are with us every week. We don't stand on the street corner and proclaim: "Look at us! Mature Christians bring their kids into worship with them!"
> 
> Most other kids go to Children's Church and I'm quite thankful for it actually because many of them are woefully under-disciplined. But get this: At least their parents are hearing the Gospel and will come back and hear it again and will mature in the faith and learn about Godly child-rearing and then, someday, they might bring their kids into the service after the parents have matured a bit, catechized in the home, etc....
> 
> In other words: worship is not just for the mature. It's also for the maturing.
> 
> As I've said before, I like the crying room behind the glass because I want the fathers hearing the sermon.
> 
> I don't disagree, on a personal level, with any of the more family-oriented people on this Board. I catechize and I don't consider Worship an opportunity to get a break from my kids. I probably differ from some in that the Word clearly reveals there is a place and a season for adults to learn apart from children and at their own level when it comes to corporate catechesis but that's outside the Worship event. So even while I agree in principle about where we need to be thinking as mature families - not everybody who darkens your door will be a mature family.
> 
> I take that back: maybe everybody who darkens you door will only be a mature family. It's up to you and your Church to evaluate the character you've set for your Church and if the families are wearing phalacteries on their heads proclaiming: "you better be just like us because we don't accommodate your immature family if your kids can't sit still."



 
Thank you Rich! I am coming from a non Reformed background (and that is putting it mildly) and I would have run screaming for the exits in some churches described.


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet

As a member of a Reformed Micro-Church in Northern Virginia, I just wanted to write a few words about what it's like being in our church. Our congregation is like Ezra's congregation which includes men, women and children. (Ez. 10:1) We don't have a Sunday School for children or a nursery, but the children are very involved in the worship. My children are pretty young still and not able to fully engage in the worship but they actually surprise us sometimes on what they have picked up. I actually asked my two oldest children (ages 4 & 6) how they would feel if they were not in the worship with us. They both agreed that there is no other place they would rather be. They said today, "but how would we learn to sing and pray?"

I also have a 6 month old baby. He does get fussy/hungry during the service and has to be taken out on occasion. My husband is glad to walk around in the back or in the hall with the baby, as do many of the other fathers in our church, but alas, he is just not equipped in the nursing duties and sometimes that is the only remedy for a fussy little one. However, if my older children misbehave or need to use the potty, he is very willing to do whatever needs to be done. It is not the sole burden of the mothers.

We have also been to many churches which have a "crying/training room". They're great! I wish all churches had them, including mine. I, for one, would love an occasional break every now and then from my children, but not at their expense. I would love to sit through an entire worship service without being distracted, but to everything there is a season and at this time in my life, my duty is to train my children and care for their souls. I would not want them to go to a nursery where I would be causing them and others to not be able to attend upon worship.

On occasion, one of our elders has been kind enough to walk around with our baby in the back of the room, thus helping baby and parents. His kindness has been a great help to our family. 

My pastor has an excellent ability to preach to the entire congregation, including the children. There are always applications for the children. They are being taught. Why do we think that everything has to be dumbed down for children? I grew up hearing and reading from the KJV and never struggled to know what thee and thou meant. Children are capable of so much more than they are given credit for.

I would highly recommend this article by Karl Hubenthal, who occasionally preachs at our church when our pastor is away (which has been posted in the links manager under "worship").


----------



## fredtgreco

HuguenotHelpMeet said:


> My pastor has an excellent ability to preach to the entire congregation, including the children. There are always applications for the children. They are being taught. Why do we think that everything has to be dumbed down for children? I grew up hearing and reading from the KJV and never struggled to know what thee and thou meant. Children are capable of so much more than they are given credit for.



I am greatly encouraged that non-Moms care for the kids. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of that on a regular basis.

However, what exactly does an application to a six month old look/sound like?

Nehemiah must be in trouble:



> Nehemiah 8:2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women *and all who could understand* (literally in the Hebrew: "those who could perceive/understand well/pay attention/bring to insight) what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet

fredtgreco said:


> I am greatly encouraged that non-Moms care for the kids. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of that on a regular basis.
> 
> However, what exactly does an application to a six month old look/sound like?
> 
> Nehemiah must be in trouble:



As for Nehemiah, I'll just ditto a previous poster and quote what he had to say.



> Originally posted by KMK
> 
> Neh 8:1 says that "all the people gathered themselves together as one man" to hear Ezra preach. Then in 8:2 it says that "Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding..."
> 
> I believe Ezra preached the law to "all the people". But of course, those who could not understand because of their age or their mental capacity did not 'hear' (shama) or 'hearken'. But if a special 'children's church' had been set up then the people who were 'babysitting' would not hear Ezra's preaching.



As for your question regarding how an application would look/sound like for a 6 month old, of course, you must have known that I was speaking for children who were older. However, I don't know, nor do I believe anyone knows how much is revealed unto babes.



> Matthew 11:25 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, LORD of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes”.



A previous poster linked to my father's book on this subject. Below is an excerpt from his book which I think is prudent to the conversation. 



> Revealed to Babes (in his summary of Ch. 3) ... God often hides the things of His kingdom from the wise and prudent and reveals them instead to speechless babes. Because even the wisest of men cannot understand the things of God without the aid of His Spirit, and because even a speechless babe can receive the things of the Spirit without conceptual understanding, salvation is “not by power nor by might but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6).


----------



## fredtgreco

HuguenotHelpMeet said:


> As for Nehemiah, I'll just ditto a previous poster and quote what he had to say.



A strained reading ad best, since the sequence is of a series of nouns connected by waws (vavs) that serve to explicate the "assembly" (qahal). The assembly = men, women and "those who could hear" (a substantival hiphil participle, not an adjectival particple or realtive clause, thus NASB).

Mathhew Henry makes that point:



> III. The persons that met were all the people, who were not compelled to come, but voluntarily gathered themselves together by common agreement, as one man: not only men came, but women and children, *even as many as were capable of understanding what they heard*. Masters of families should bring their families with them to the public worship of God. Women and children have souls to save, and are therefore concerned to acquaint themselves with the word of God and attend on the means of knowledge and grace. *Little ones, as they come to the exercise of reason, must be trained up in the exercises of religion*.



and Kiel and Delitzsch:


> The assembly consisted of men and women indiscriminately ( 'ishaah (OT:802) wª`ad (OT:5704) 'iysh (OT:376), like Josh 6:21; 8:25; 1 Sam 22:19; 1 Chron 16:3), and lishªmoa` (OT:8085) meebiyn (OT:995) kol (OT:3605), *every one that understood in hearing, which would certainly include the elder children*.



and Gill:


> both of men and women; adult persons of each sex, who met promiscuously; though Grotius thinks the women had a separate place: and all that could hear with understanding; all under age, who yet were capable of hearing the law read to some advantage to them



and the Geneva Bible Notes:



> *8:2* And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all b that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
> 
> (b) Who had age and discretion to understand.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Jessica, excellent post. You described the church beautifully...this is what I have seen.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> A strained reading ad best, since the sequence is of a series of nouns connected by waws (vavs) that serve to explicate the "assembly" (qahal). The assembly = men, women and "those who could hear" (a substantival hiphil participle, not an adjectival particple or realtive clause, thus NASB).



Thanks for the correction Rev Greco. Are you saying that the Hebrew impies that those who could not understand were not present at the convocation? (I ask in all sincerity) It seems to me that if 'all' the people were there then that at least implies that all the mothers were there as well. But, then again, 'all' does not always mean 'each and every' in the Bible.

And again I do not think it is a rule that children be in the service one way or the other, I just think there is a stronger case for having them in the service than not. But for those who disagree, I ask again, who gets to decide when a child is old enough that they need to hear preaching? Is it the elders? the parents? Does the child need to give a credible profession of faith? (again I ask in sincerity)


----------



## calgal

KMK said:


> Thanks for the correction Rev Greco. Are you saying that the Hebrew impies that those who could not understand were not present at the convocation? (I ask in all sincerity) It seems to me that if 'all' the people were there then that at least implies that all the mothers were there as well. But, then again, 'all' does not always mean 'each and every' in the Bible.
> 
> And again I do not think it is a rule that children be in the service one way or the other, I just think there is a stronger case for having them in the service than not. But for those who disagree, I ask again, who gets to decide when a child is old enough that they need to hear preaching? Is it the elders? the parents? Does the child need to give a credible profession of faith? (again I ask in sincerity)


The parents As far as I know. Some families keep their kids with them throughout the service. The elders may set the ages for kids church but not all kids attend during the service. Sunday School is a different story.


----------



## king of fools

I appreciate everyone's input on this issue as our little one is just getting to that age, plus there is another couple of factors that I'll get into later in a different topic. Just curious what everyone who has a nursery thinks a good age to leave kids in there is?


----------



## bookslover

king of fools said:


> I appreciate everyone's input on this issue as our little one is just getting to that age, plus there is another couple of factors that I'll get into later in a different topic. Just curious what everyone who has a nursery thinks a good age to leave kids in there is?



Just this morning in our worship service, there was a family in the pew just behind me. They had a small child who fell and screamed and had to be taken out of the service, not once, but twice, thus demonstrating my point that, during the worship service, small children should be...elsewhere.

It was a good sermon, too - what I heard of it.


----------



## 5solasmom

bookslover said:


> Just this morning in our worship service, there was a family in the pew just behind me. They had a small child who fell and screamed and had to be taken out of the service, not once, but twice, thus demonstrating my point that, during the worship service, small children should be...elsewhere.



 

In our church we have many little ones and it is rare to hear any of them make a disturbance. When they do, they're taken out promptly.

I'm thankful our pastor sees them as part of the body and welcome in the service.

We try to be very mindful of others around us with our little guy. 

I think the scenario which you described demonstrates that that particular family might need some help and guidance given by the pastor and elders as to how best to deal with a child that disruptive (if you heard little of the sermon, it sounds to me that they waited quite a while before ever taking him out), and not that _all children should be elsewhere_.


----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## fredtgreco

And what happens if that child is a part of a family that is visiting, and has never been a member of a church, or the family has never had their child sit in worship before?

In other words, 99.99%+ of the population.


----------



## 5solasmom

fredtgreco said:


> And what happens if that child is a part of a family that is visiting, and has never been a member of a church, or the family has never had their child sit in worship before?
> 
> In other words, 99.99%+ of the population.




We have a cry room in our church for both members or visitors for that purpose. There is also the foyer (which I usually use).


----------



## LadyFlynt

As a guest, I take my child out and usually use the foyer as well. When directed to a nursery I turn it down (to be honest, I'm more offended to be directed there as though my child is not welcomed). As a visiting parent, I would know no one and therefore would have even more reason NOT to drop off my child in a nursery.

Fred, are you seriously suggesting that the church should conform to the world's view of children and their placement? I know children can be a distraction...but I think the attitude of "that's why children don't belong in worship" that was present by a previous poster is worse than the distractions of a child LEARNING how and what it is to worship the Lord.


----------



## fredtgreco

LadyFlynt said:


> As a guest, I take my child out and usually use the foyer as well. When directed to a nursery I turn it down (to be honest, I'm more offended to be directed there as though my child is not welcomed). As a visiting parent, I would know no one and therefore would have even more reason NOT to drop off my child in a nursery.
> 
> Fred, are you seriously suggesting that the church should conform to the world's view of children and their placement? I know children can be a distraction...but I think the attitude of "that's why children don't belong in worship" that was present by a previous poster is worse than the distractions of a child LEARNING how and what it is to worship the Lord.



No, I am seriously suggesting that a proper reading of Nehemiah 8 prevents us from being completely dogmatic and inflexible on the issue.

And I am seriously suggesting that churches take the time and effort to reach out to more than the 1,000 reformed Christians who have it all together on all issues in order to see the Kingdom expand and have the Word brought to the lost.

Obviously, we have different priorities. I am more concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, than I am a one year old sitting in worship. You obviously have the reverse priority.


----------



## 5solasmom

fredtgreco said:


> I am more concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, than I am a one year old sitting in worship. You obviously have the reverse priority.




 

I'm sorry, I am just as concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, which is why I have my child in the service with me. 

As a side note, in our church we are able to continue to hear the service and participate whether we are in the foyer with a little one or in cry room.

What you are suggesting requires SOMEONE to have to be outside the service, whether or not it's the parent or a nursery worker. So the logic doesn't stand that "more" are hearing the Word if mothers simply just dropped their kiddos off in nursery every week.


----------



## 5solasmom

As well, I don't have any dogmatic view that the church shouldn't provide helps to parents with young ones if they so choose to use it. I don't have a problem with nursery or toddler rooms (though I prefer to have my child with me, I don't judge or worry about others who don't).

Children's Church, however, I do have a problem with (personally). I don't see a reason why I should have my 4yo on up child be separated from us and the corporate worship of God.


----------



## LadyFlynt

No, I don't have the reverse priority.

My priority is that EVERYONE hears the Word preached, including the children. You would be amazed what even a wiggly child picks up. The other priority is that of being an example of a covenanted family. The family is not separated, children are not excluded, children see that everyone is together and they are part of the worshipers. I'm a mother. I leave often with my babe right now. My husband will generally take the babe for one service and I for the other...so we both get some. Other times I will take her both services and listen to the sermons later online or via a cd or tape recording of the sermon. I used to work in a church nursery...I get more of the sermon now (even leaving with my child or standing and rocking the baby in the back) than I ever did as a nursery worker. And don't think that sacrificing one person so many mothers hear is a good idea...things went drastically south for me at the time I worked nursery, the church didn't care (went to them with my concerns), and we ended up leaving the church altogether.


----------



## KMK

LadyFlynt said:


> As a guest, I take my child out and usually use the foyer as well. When directed to a nursery I turn it down (to be honest, I'm more offended to be directed there as though my child is not welcomed). As a visiting parent, I would know no one and therefore would have even more reason NOT to drop off my child in a nursery.



I think this is true in a great deal of cases. I am not keen on just dropping my kids off with a stranger either. (Even if they are fingerprinted and scanned etc.) 

I think that a church that has a hard and fast rule one way or the other may run into problems of trying to reach that other 99.9999% of the population.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I don't think we will ever reach the 99.999999% of the population, simply because they a) don't want to be reached b) will always find SOMETHING to complain about.

I have no problem with a place for parents to go with children. I just have a problem with parents dropping off children (that most times want to be with mom and dad). I strongly believe that worship is for everyone. That the attitude of "that kid shouldn't be in here" is detrimental to families and families attending as well. Instead we should be encouraging families that grew up as latch key kids to become stronger. Worshipping together is one way of doing that.

There is also a growing percentage of families that WANT a church where the children are welcome in service and not made to feel like outcasts because they (the children) aren't running with the "youth group" etc. Some of these families are treated ill and strange.


----------



## bookslover

fredtgreco said:


> I am more concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, than I am a one year old sitting in worship.


----------



## Barnpreacher

fredtgreco said:


> I am more concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, than I am a one year old sitting in worship.



 

As ministers we have seen the distraction that little children can cause from time to time from a different point of view. Literally. Without meaning any disrespect unless you've been behind the pulpit trying to preach/teach when a child is pitching a fit it's very difficult to comprehend what Fred is trying to say here. He's right.

Not that I am discounting family worship, but that comes in time with more training and understanding at home.


----------



## LadyFlynt

fredtgreco said:


> I am more concerned that more people hear the Word preached, including mothers, than I am a one year old sitting in worship. You obviously have the reverse priority.



This whole attitude (that a few of you agree with) is what is truely sad and disheartening. It is the reason that children grow up and leave the church. Because THEY don't matter. All the programs, nurseries, camps, etc won't keep them. The preaching of the Word is the one thing that will...but you would deny that to someone due to age.


----------



## Barnpreacher

LadyFlynt said:


> This whole attitude (that a few of you agree with) is what is truely sad and disheartening. It is the reason that children grow up and leave the church. Because THEY don't matter. All the programs, nurseries, camps, etc won't keep them. The preaching of the Word is the one thing that will...but you would deny that to someone due to age.



I disagree. The main reason why kids leave churches is not because they don't matter. It's because parents expect the churches to Christianize their kids without doing their part at home. The preaching of the Word is to be heard and practiced at home. Then it is to be watered in the church. If a child is denied the Word because they go to Children's Church and/or the nursery then the parents aren't doing their part at home. That's the real problem.


----------



## bookslover

LadyFlynt said:


> This whole attitude (that a few of you agree with) is what is truely sad and disheartening. It is the reason that children grow up and leave the church. Because THEY don't matter. All the programs, nurseries, camps, etc won't keep them. The preaching of the Word is the one thing that will...but you would deny that to someone due to age.



No, sometimes children get they idea they don't matter because they're sitting in a worship service where they don't understand the sermon and have little idea what's going on. Why should they be getting the (mistaken) idea that worship is boring and irrelevant, when they could be in a different place during the worship service getting the Word of God pitched to their level? This would do a 3, 4, 5, or 6 year old a lot more good than sitting wiggling with boredom in a worship service pitched to adults.

I think a separate children's service is an excellent idea.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Mr. Zuelch, I don't buy the "pitch to the kids level" due to your previous attitude that "kids are brats" (no, you didn't say it...you simply believe that children ought to be separated at all costs in case they should disrupt your precious atmosphere). I feel sorry for the family that you posted about here. They should have been shown some care for. Instead you criticized them and turn up your nose...they were disturbing YOUR service. There are things I see occasionally, but I think instead "what can I do to make it easier". I've seen families assist in watching other's children IN service...other's offer to stand in back with a babe for a bit...parents though having struggled with a child, be treated kindly and warmly with understanding and maybe an idea thrown in here or there. If you were distracted, sir, then perhaps your own thoughts are easily wandered. Reminds me of the mennonite church where it was easy to sit and count the pleats on the back of the kapps and the gathers in the sleeves...who got up with whom in service and who had to drag their child to the back. The issues weren't the gathers nor the pleats...nor the removal of a child. The issue was my own mind and it's tendency towards distraction. (Richard Steele has an excellent book A Remedy for Wandering Thoughts in Worship. The child's cry is a temporary distraction just as the fingerprints on my windows are there for only a time. I still wouldn't trade in all the reasons those fingerprints are there just to have my windows consistantly clean.


I was a child that was NOT discipled through the week, was stuffed on a bus...in a church where all children had to sit in with the REST OF THE CHURCH for worship. THAT is what I remember most. The rest of so simplified that even as a child I knew the difference between having a good ole time (the bus ride), being told a story (aka Sunday School), and WORSHIPPING MY GOD (worship service with the entirety of the church). 

If I had been denied that as a child, I would never have gotten back on that bus. In fact, at ten years old, I had taken my 5yr brother and walked across town to a church. Due to the treatment of me 'as a child' in that church, we walked out and I told our parents that we were not going back.

On the pitch to their level thing...children LOVE being included with adults. Sure there are times that it's "no fun" or they may not understand fully at a young age (you can't judge when understanding occurs). But they understand the atmosphere, community, and they quickly pick up on what it is to worship the Lord.


----------



## fredtgreco

LadyFlynt said:


> This whole attitude (that a few of you agree with) is what is truely sad and disheartening. It is the reason that children grow up and leave the church. Because THEY don't matter. All the programs, nurseries, camps, etc won't keep them. The preaching of the Word is the one thing that will...but you would deny that to someone due to age.



Colleen,

To say that children leave the church because they can be in the nursery until age 3 is completely ridiculous. It actually borders on the absurd. We are not talking about telling 4th graders that they must be shunted off, or even kindergarten children. I am saying that having a nursery for the youngest children, who get very little to nothing out of a worship service, especially for the incredible majority of people who cannot even contemplate having their 1-2 year old sit still with them for a 30-50 minute sermon is a common sense way to have opportunities to minister to the community.

Failure to be even the tiniest bit flexible on such issues is why the vast majority of reformed churches have never had an actual "unchurched" convert. To me, the fervor with which such an issue is pressed is further evidence that our churches do not live in the real world, but rather a tiny reformed (_insert 10 more distinctives as adjectives here_) Christian ghetto.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Fred, the issue is that I see the exact same excuses being made to have 9 and 10 yrs sent to "Children's Church" in many places. And it's gone so far nowadays, that there are churches where there is not only a youth pastor but a youth building...not for sunday school classes, but for their own church! For me, it is a) an initial attitude towards children and the family and b) a snowball issue.

I have no problem with a cry room, where a parent can go with their child and can still hear the sermon. I used to be a nanny, I grew up like many kids in America grew up during the last half of the cold war. I hate the "drop off service" mentality. I've seen burn out of the "child workers" in churches. And attitudes snowball from there on who should and who shouldn't have to help in those places. Older women stating "I did my time!" Younger women thinking they have a "right" to have someone there to dump their child off with (I've even dealt with PWs who dropped off their children with bronchialitis just because they had to "practice with their singing quartet"), parents in their 30s and 40s exhausted from the schedule of working and overseeing the children of the church and not being fed themselves.


----------



## fredtgreco

LadyFlynt said:


> Fred, the issue is that I see the exact same excuses being made to have 9 and 10 yrs sent to "Children's Church" in many places. And it's gone so far nowadays, that there are churches where there is not only a youth pastor but a youth building...not for sunday school classes, but for their own church! For me, it is a) an initial attitude towards children and the family and b) a snowball issue.



So? I see the same reasons used by Reformed churches for catechising by Jehovah's Witnesses. Does that make catechism wrong? (By the way, what you just gave was a logical fallacy).

You have just provided me with yet another problem in reformed churches - "I'm so afraid that X will happen (and that is really bad), so I can't let Y be done (even though I can't properly object to Y)"

I could just as easily, (nay, easier) argue that the current "family" attitude in reformed churches is snowballing toward _actual heresy_ - paedocommunion, fathers thinking that they must serve their families the elements in the Lord's Supper instead of the elders, denigration of Church authority....

Given the choice between the troubles caused by infant nurseries and paedocommunion, I don't even have to think about which is worse - which touches on justification by faith.

As for fighting about serving - there is a larger issue there, a heart issue. Serving the body of Christ, and making opportunities for visitors is what makes a church a church. Visitors are not going to use a cry room. And even if they did, do we really want mom to miss the sermon? It may be the only one where she truly hears the gospel. Nurseries are also among the only places where young people (teens) can serve and get a part of being a part of the larger body, of sacrificing.


----------



## KMK

I am not sure what is being argued here. Both sides agree that it would be nice to have a place to take disruptive children out of the service. But both sides (I think) also agree that preaching is important to the salvation of all, including children. Perhaps Colleen is arguing that it is the parents' responsibility to decide when children are disruptive, and the others argue that it is the church's responsibility to decide when children are disruptive.

Here's my story. Our church does not have a place to take disruptive children. Why not? Because our building does not have that kind of room. The only place a crying child can be taken is outside, (and we live in the mountains) or in the kitchen (where the crying would be even louder). But the Lord is faithful. He works through our church in spite of us. We do have visitors that come back. We do have adults who join, profess and are baptized. We have all the marking of a church with a good lampstand in spite of the fact that all children must worship with us. Take that for what it's worth.

Also, as a public school teacher of 18 years it is my unscientific observation that children learn faster than adults. We have children's church but we have it on a weekday night. Those children retain more on those nights than most of the adults in the church do on Sundays. After a year or so of being in our weekday children's church, the children have more knowledge than some of the adults. I really do see the children understanding at least some of what I preach about. (Which is more than I can say about some of the adults)

Anyway, I think unity is important. If we get a huge influx of visiting disruptive children then we may have to change what we do, or where we worship.


----------



## LadyFlynt

UNCLE! (on the logic)



Cry rooms: a person can still hear a sermon...others just cannot hear a crying child. There is usually a one way window to the sanctuary and speakers. Many churches have these and they are used.

If nurseries are the only place a teen can serve, then there is a problem. There are many things teens can do other than babysit. Now, getting them to do it because much of it will take place on other days is another thing. That takes real sacrifice. 

Also, mothers hearing the word, but teens in the nursery with the three year olds? You've just done the exchange again. If for no other reason to have the young in service, perhaps it should be so NO ONE is left out of service? Generally tots can be pacified in several ways that are not distracting nor require removal. Usually there is plenty of room in the back for standing and rocking a child. I even know of a church that has gliders in the very back for mothers with young children that need rocking to sleep or nursing, or pregnant mothers that simply can't sit on a normal pew and chair (I can't tell you how many times I've had to get up because of my back and walk the foyer...thank you Lord for sound systems!). Yet, I'm not relegated to a pregnant ladies sermon on a ladies level...nor are elderly relegated to a geriatric service, elderly can be just as distracting as a fussing babe at times.

The problem is that many churches rely on "appearances and attraction" rather than "what can we do to keep everyone together to hear the Word preached regardless of ability". Children are seen as a problem to be dealt with...not a part of the church that needs to be taken into consideration.

Just some ideas...


----------



## LadyFlynt

Ken, I think you got it


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In one Church I attended, we had a wireless speaker where we could pipe the sermon into the nursery so the workers could listen to the sermon while watching the children.

Ironically, the problem is not always whether or not some have _opportunity_ to listen but whether they actually _do_ listen. What would typically happen is that a mother would bring her children and a conversation would ensue...


----------



## LadyFlynt

I want to clarify the "attraction" comment. The attraction of "we have a nusery" only validifies the "rights of the mother" and other attitudes of moms can't possibly handle having their children with them all the time. "Church should be my one break to feed ME!" I understand the frustration...I also understand that it isn't a scriptural mindset. I just don't believe that churches should feed that mindset.


----------



## 5solasmom

fredtgreco said:


> Failure to be even the tiniest bit flexible on such issues is why the vast majority of reformed churches have never had an actual "unchurched" convert. To me, the fervor with which such an issue is pressed is further evidence that our churches do not live in the real world, but rather a tiny reformed (_insert 10 more distinctives as adjectives here_) Christian ghetto.




I said in my earlier post that I have no issue with the church being "flexible" on this issue (having a nursery and toddler room situation for those who don't prefer or cannot have their young ones with them).

The attitude that parents who WANT to keep their children with them (and respect those in the service when the child needs to be removed) are to be thought of as inflexible and then somehow responsible for the reformed churches being christian ghettos is, put calmly, insensitive and unjust.


----------



## wsw201

Personally I have no problem with kids attending the service but from my perspective, the problem are the parents who put up with un-disciplined children. Granted, 1 and 2 year old kids can be a handful, but I have seen it done. Sit some of these kids in front of a computer screen or TV and they won't move for hours. Bring them to Church and its like there is a cattle prod under the seat. Then try to talk to those parents about their children in the most loving way you can and in most cases you get "you don't love my covenant child!". Its almost a no win situation. And I'm not even talking about the parents that Fred is talking about, where the father has the strange idea that they are Prophet, Priest and King and can administer the sacraments and don't want their child going to Sunday School because they can't control the ciriculum. So as long as we have parents who don't know how, or flat out don't want to control their children, churches will continue to have nurseries and childrens church.


----------



## Civbert

I'm very good at discerning character and let me tell you...

If a child is not sitting up still and straight and eye's front, then he has a discipline problem and the parents need to either lock him in the nursery or give him a good thrashing and then lock him in the nursery. After all, that's what he nursery is for - keeping the noisy little brats out of my sanctuary. 

Same goes for people with coughs, and people who accidentally forget to turn off their cell-phones (those people should be drawn and quartered!). And I wish that guy with the creaky knees would find somewhere else to sit. Not to mention the lady who keeps opening cellophane wrapped candies. And let's not forget the guy who takes notes. That scribbling is enough to drive someone batty! Go to school if you want to take notes, this is church! And then there are people talking all the way up to the point the pastor first clears his throat. Can't someone see I'm trying to meditate here?!? OH! I could go on and on with how stupid people act in church! Such offensive behavior is simply outrageous!





P.S. Do I need to add a note that says this is a parody of complaining self-righteous Christians?


----------



## fredtgreco

5solasmom said:


> I said in my earlier post that I have no issue with the church being "flexible" on this issue (having a nursery and toddler room situation for those who don't prefer or cannot have their young ones with them).
> 
> The attitude that parents who WANT to keep their children with them (and respect those in the service when the child needs to be removed) are to be thought of as inflexible and then somehow responsible for the reformed churches being christian ghettos is, put calmly, insensitive and unjust.



Then you must re-read my post. I never said that children should not be kept in a worship service. I was commenting on the several posts that anathematized nurseries, and reflecting on my (significant) experience with such churches where all who would nave their children from birth on up sitting in neat quiet rows as being sub-Christian and unworthy of church.

A cry room is not a nursery. A hall is not a nursery. To the average American, and frankly, typical Christian, to imply, "well if your children aren't sufficiently spiritual like _my _children to sit quietly, you can stand with them in an open hall for an hour" is unbelievably uninviting, and places a non-gospel item (visible and physical family unity) above the gospel. That, my friend, is the _definition_ of a Christian ghetto.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Let me clarify again...

You apparently are assuming that parents who believe children should be with them must have a superior attitude or that our children are of the few that behave.

Sorry, no cigar this time. We've had our moments of child removal. I've had more than my share of times (and still to this day) of hall walking to put a child to sleep or stand in the back to keep them quiet (think 9mos old here and discovered she has a voice). The church is definately not uninviting...we've had ppl visit and ppl stay. Nurseries don't make a place inviting or uninviting for I know many places that have nurseries that have been the most uninviting places to be.

Fred, you also apparently did not read my post further up where I criticize another for their imidiate thoughts to a distraught child. Where the parents are NOT to be looked down upon, but rather are to be encouraged. There is no, "you're not as spiritual if your child doesn't sit still" attitude. That is your own assumption. Perhaps there are those like that, there are also those that flat out just don't want to have to deal with children and dump them every chance they get. Neither person is here nor there.

The point is what should the church be doing? Worshipping together. Should they be feeding the "age gap syndrome"? No. Do you think the early church or the church of the Reformation would think we were wise in our age segregation of churches and mommy-respites? I doubt it. Are we to cater to those that come in and entice them through various means to stay or are we to simply follow principle, keep a generous spirit, and let God do the work? Lack of nurseries never prevented mothers throughout history from hearing the gospel...why do we think that the nursery is the breaking edge? Because society tells us so. Natural revelation tells us that children belong with their parents and family. The church should encourage this. And curious, how is a cry room different from a nursery? The child stays with the parent rather than passed off to another adult or teenager, the parent and child can still see and hear the sermon, and there is usually a crib or two for a little one to nap in if need be.

If you are so willing to so through all the stocking, scheduling, removal of various ppl from the service to attend the nursery, etc...would it hurt for you to make possible for those mothers that would like to stay in the service with their children feel welcome (even as a pregnant woman, I spent much time in the nursery because my movement was considered a "distraction")? Do we just feed the modern american mindset or do we encourage a Christian view of children, families, and most importantly...their role in worship?


----------



## KMK

Civbert said:


> I'm very good at discerning character and let me tell you...
> 
> If a child is not sitting up still and straight and eye's front, then he has a discipline problem and the parents need to either lock him in the nursery or give him a good thrashing and then lock him in the nursery. After all, that's what he nursery is for - keeping the noisy little brats out of my sanctuary.
> 
> Same goes for people with coughs, and people who accidentally forget to turn off their cell-phones (those people should be drawn and quartered!). And I wish that guy with the creaky knees would find somewhere else to sit. Not to mention the lady who keeps opening cellophane wrapped candies. And let's not forget the guy who takes notes. That scribbling is enough to drive someone batty! Go to school if you want to take notes, this is church! And then there are people talking all the way up to the point the pastor first clears his throat. Can't someone see I'm trying to meditate here?!? OH! I could go on and on with how stupid people act in church! Such offensive behavior is simply outrageous!



 It is funny because it is true. Where do you draw the line with the distractions? Anyone ever been to Keith Jarret concert? He will stop the music and glare at the audience if someone so much as coughs!


----------



## Civbert

LadyFlynt said:


> ... I spent much time in the nursery because my movement was considered a "distraction") ...



How funny and sad! I must be a real problem for some in church because I have trouble sitting still. I'm always shifting and adjusting. Never could sit still through a whole service and when I try it makes it difficult to pay attention. Maybe I need to go to the nursery too.


----------



## 5solasmom

fredtgreco said:


> To the average American, and frankly, typical Christian, to imply, "well if your children aren't sufficiently spiritual like _my _children to sit quietly, you can stand with them in an open hall for an hour" is unbelievably uninviting, and places a non-gospel item (visible and physical family unity) above the gospel. That, my friend, is the _definition_ of a Christian ghetto.



I'm sorry to hear that you've had these experiences. I have not, as I've already shared a bit of my background on it. I can assure you that not all reformed churches who don't staff a nursery/toddler room have self righteous christians who imply what you shared in the quote above.


----------



## wsw201

Civbert said:


> I'm very good at discerning character and let me tell you...
> 
> If a child is not sitting up still and straight and eye's front, then he has a discipline problem and the parents need to either lock him in the nursery or give him a good thrashing and then lock him in the nursery. After all, that's what he nursery is for - keeping the noisy little brats out of my sanctuary.
> 
> Same goes for people with coughs, and people who accidentally forget to turn off their cell-phones (those people should be drawn and quartered!). And I wish that guy with the creaky knees would find somewhere else to sit. Not to mention the lady who keeps opening cellophane wrapped candies. And let's not forget the guy who takes notes. That scribbling is enough to drive someone batty! Go to school if you want to take notes, this is church! And then there are people talking all the way up to the point the pastor first clears his throat. Can't someone see I'm trying to meditate here?!? OH! I could go on and on with how stupid people act in church! Such offensive behavior is simply outrageous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Do I need to add a note that says this is a parody of complaining self-righteous Christians?



I know you meant this as a parody but unfortunately this hyperboly is a reflection of the type of attitude many parents take when an officer of the church makes an attempt to talk about this issue (I'm sure you or anyone else on this board would not take on this type of attitude). I would rather walk into a mine field blindfolded than talk to a parent about the way their children act in a worship service. As I said before, its a no win situation.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Fred, I agree that that particular is uninviting...equally so as "no brats allowed" glares some ppl can give.

I just wish ppl were more accepting of children, even their own, as Christ was..."Suffer not the little children to come unto me"


----------



## KMK

wsw201 said:


> I would rather walk into a mine field blindfolded than talk to a parent about the way their children act in a worship service.



This is something that all of us could agree on for sure. Nothing will send a family out the door faster than an elder even bringing up the possibility that a child may be a distraction.


----------



## bookslover

LadyFlynt said:


> I just wish ppl were more accepting of children, even their own, as Christ was..."Suffer not the little children to come unto me"



Yes, but Christ invited children to come to Him when He was out in the open somewhere, where He could speak to them and be with them. I don't think He was inviting them to sit still on a wooden pew for an hour.


----------



## bookslover

Awright...awright!

Who put "Chuck Smith is my Homeboy" up there under my name?

Whodunnit? Huh?

And whyfor?


----------



## smhbbag

Richard, I believe that was our friendly neighborhood Marine....

In response to your suggestion to name his future daughter/son: Richardina Zuelchiana L. or Richard Zuelch L..

And I think it was well-deserved


----------



## bookslover

smhbbag said:


> Richard, I believe that was our friendly neighborhood Marine....
> 
> In response to your suggestion to name his future daughter/son: Richardina Zuelchiana L. or Richard Zuelch L..
> 
> And I think it was well-deserved



Oy. Some people just don't recognize classy names when they see them!


----------



## tfelice

We recently visited a church where the back two rows of pews were marked as being reserved for parents with small children. I thought this was a great idea for churches that do not have the ability or desire to have a children's service.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Our families with small children and babes sit toward the back as well.


----------



## ReformedWretch

tfelice said:


> We recently visited a church where the back two rows of pews were marked as being reserved for parents with small children. I thought this was a great idea for churches that do not have the ability or desire to have a children's service.



Was that in Middletown Tony? My wife and I visited there as well.


----------



## tfelice

houseparent said:


> Was that in Middletown Tony? My wife and I visited there as well.



No it was at Grace Baptist (ARBCA) in Carlisle


----------

