Children's Church during Worship Service...

Status
Not open for further replies.
(By the way, we do not have heat or air conditioning either) :lol:

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 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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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)...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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)...

:ditto: 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. :worms:
 
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.

:ditto:
 
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.
 
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.:um:

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

:amen:
 
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"?
 
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? :agree:
 
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? :worms:

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

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. :coffee:
 
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?
 
Under 10 generally would not have made a profession of faith. :worms:
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.
 
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! :lol:
 
:lol: @ 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.
 
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.
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 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).
 
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.
 
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top