Children's Church during Worship Service...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
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).
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
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:

Is that Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf coffee? ;) YUM! I apologize for reacting a bit strongly. :handshake:
 
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."
 
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."

:amen:
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.
 
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").
 
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
 
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).
 
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.
 
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) :candle:
 
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) :candle:
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. :2cents:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

:down:

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


:wow:

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.
 
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.

:2cents:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top