February 2008 Archives

It has been five (5!) years now since my first post on Ye Olde Solefude Blogge. This is post number 1048 and there have been 2491 comments so far. Thanks as usual to the usual people for their usual level of participation -- and all of the rest of you, as well. I most definitely enjoy the type of interaction blogging generates.

I'm home early today, by the by, because Jamie has a monthly checkup with our midwife. She was going to go last week but had to cancel due to inclement weather, and we weren't able to find anyone on such short notice who could stay with the kids while they nap. Not that I mind being forced to leave work early. . .every once in a while. ;)

I recently received a comment on a post from September 23rd regarding children and church. The comment itself was longer than my original post, so rather than respond to it in the comments I am posting my response here. You can read the original post and Chris' comment here.

I'm going to parse this comment pretty much line for line, and in doing so will demonstrate (hopefully in a gentle, peaceful way) how different Chris' and my views are. So let's begin:

I have seen many children who were forced to sit quietly through church, turn away from the church as soon as they were given (or took!) the freedom to do so.

I have seen many children who were forced (your word) away from their parents and given to strangers who play games with them and sing songs to them grow up completely ignorant of and unable to understand God's Word. They may come to "adult" church some day but find it boring and irrelevant because it doesn't engage them, so they end up leaving the church anyway or going somewhere where the message is engaging but vapid and empty.

Having children in adult worship service is NO substitute for worshipping as a family outside of 'church'.

I agree 100 per cent. I made that exact point in my post.

There is a misinterpretation of the children coming to Jesus if you use that passage to support keeping children in adult worship services. That passage does however reinforce the fact that we should be more focused and intentional about engaging kids in worship rather than making them sit through an adult service where they often are not engaged (yes, there are always exceptions).

I just read through those passages in the Synoptic Gospels and I agree, it doesn't really support the interpretation you reference (note: I did not use that passage as a reference, so your whole paragraph is a straw man). It is, on the other hand, even more of a stretch to interpret it as you have. All three passages state that people were bringing children to Jesus for him to lay hands on them. That is the context. What does that have to do with engaging them?

But since you bring it up, here's a great passage in Mark that provides us with context regarding children's place in the body of Christ:

"Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in his arms, He said to them. . ." Mark 9:36

In every passage I can think of offhand in the Gospel accounts where the makeup of the crowd is indicated in some way, it is apparent that children were part of them. In this particular passage (in which Jesus teaches the disciples a lesson in humility) at least one child is close at hand. There are children in the crowds, with their parents (one would reasonably assume), following Jesus. The disciples weren't giving a separate teaching to these children on the side. The children gleaned what they could understand by listening alongside their parents. Godly parents would then have answered their children's questions in a different setting.

Moving on. . .

I agree more with following comments. Notice there are no judgmental comments or telling fellow Christians they disobeying God by teaching their children to be actively involved in worship.

Every statement of value inherently carries a judgment. If you believe an idea is true, or right, or good, then you also believe that a competing idea is less true, or less right, or less good. Your opening paragraph carried in it a strong judgment about the efficacy of keeping children with their parents in worship services. The above statement itself implies both that my post was judgmental and that in having written it so I erred, in contrast to which fault your comment has the "virtue" of being non-judgmental and is therefore not faulty in that manner. So what is your point?

A strong children's worship service serves the needs of parents and children. Parents benefit from having an uninterrupted period of worship. Children are able to have a time to worship with peers and be taught with a curriculum at their level of understanding.

You make a number of assertions here with which I disagree. To whit, (1) church exists to serve the needs of people (inherent in your first sentence); (2) parents can't worship properly (whatever that means) if they are distracted by their children (inherent in your second sentence); (3) being with their peers is always valuable and beneficial to children (first part of third sentence); and (4) children need to be taught at their own level (whatever that means) in order to understand (whatever that means).

Since you haven't presented any arguments to back up your assertions I can't refute or agree with them and the most I can do it state my disagreement with all four assertions and leave it to you to present arguments to the contrary.

There are two general models for how to serve children during weekly worship services. In one model, children stay with adults through the entire worship period. In these churches, the sermons are usually shorter and the worship service is more child-friendly. This model for children's worship has not produced as much positive fruit in the lives of our youth as we would have hoped. We have tended to have our young children sleep or play quietly during worship services. An unfortunate result for some young people was that they learned to tune the sermons out.

In my opinion, the above statement suffers from a lack of historical perspective. The model you describe above was the norm for the first 1900 or so years of church history, as well as the whole of the Old Testament. The practice of segregating children from the their parents in general, and at church in particular, is a product of Enlightenment thinking (I can back that up if you need me to) and is still largely contained to "modern" western societies. If what you say is true, it is amazing that the Church survived all those centuries with the alleged severe shortage of positive fruit in the lives of successive generations.

However, I do agree when children are brought to worship services and then ignored by their parents that it drives them away. Church becomes just another place where the parents tell their children in subtle ways that they are unwelcome distractions. My response is to interact with my children during the worship service; yours is to pass them off to someone else. In case you didn't catch it, the preceding statement makes a judgment and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

We must do more for our children so that they may be involved in worship. We therefore recommend the second model: teaching children separately either through the entire service or through a portion of the service. The following are some of the reasons for this recommendation:

Children learn better when material is presented at their level. Although a child-friendly adult service might have aspects that are suitable for some children, it cannot reach all age groups simultaneously. If a presentation is targeted toward 10-year-olds, the 5-year-olds will probably not be able to understand. And if it is targeted toward 5-year-olds, the 10-year-olds probably won't learn as much as they could. A child-friendly service does not help adults to the same extent as a service designed primarily for a more mature audience.

If we came right out and said it, we would probably find we have very different ideas as to the purpose of community worship. At any rate, based on what you have written one can infer that worship services should be entirely age-segregated so as to maximize relevancy and "engagement" (whatever that means) for different stages of adult life as well. So if you are consistent, you'll have about 5 or 6 worship services ranging from the "Jesus Loves Me This I Know" level to the hymns-only, no-drums-allowed end of the spectrum. I went to a church like that once. I was engaged. I even substitute-taught two different adult Sunday School classes (gasp!). Then we started having too many children, and since there wasn't a service for people who have lots of kids, we left. :) Does your church have a service to engage people like me?

One reason for having a child-friendly service is so children feel like they belong in the congregation. This goal can be accomplished in other ways. Classes and worship designed for children may help them have a greater sense of belonging. The children know they belong because the class is designed specifically for them.

Children and adults can be integrated for some worship services, such as when children are invited to participate in portions of the worship service. For example, children may serve as greeters and ushers, help distribute material or collect offerings. The children's choir may provide worship music. Children may be part of the worship message by performing a short skit for the congregation. Children may even give a prayer or message. The adults may need to be updated about the children's ministry itself, and one of the classes may be held for the adults to see. This will also give children a sense of belonging, and it will encourage adults to pray for and support the ministry we have to our children.

I'm impressed by the children in your congregation. On the one hand they are so simple they cannot comprehend the Gospel message as it is presented in Scripture unless it is taught at their level; on the other hand, they are so perceptive they feel slighted and marginalized if a teaching isn't tailored specifically for them as individuals. But now I'm getting surly. *Deep breath* okay I'm better now.

My kids don't "feel" like they belong to our church; they know it because they are part of the congregation in every meaningful way. They know it because we pray regularly for all the families in our church by name, and pray for specific needs. They know it because they learn the hymns and psalms and spiritual songs and can sing them with us on Sunday morning. They know it because the ones who can read follow along in their own Bibles while the pastor is teaching, and they take notes. They know it because the people in our worship services smile at them (not glare) when they make noise or when we get up to visit the bathroom during the service.

I detest it when children are trotted up in front of the congregation to perform skits or sing. Yes, it is cute. Yes, it is sweet. Yes, it melts my heart. And in the end, it is a spectacle. I don't see the value of it.

Volunteer teachers and staff are part of the congregation. As children are given the opportunity to be in closer settings with these adults, they are better able to build intergenerational friendships. These relationships go further toward feelings of belonging than merely sitting through an adult service.

I agree with everything but your assumption that my children who don't go to children's church or Sunday School do not have opportunities to build, and do not have, intergenerational friendships. Especially since it is false.

Children have more time with their peers during the children's church time. In some cases, children would not otherwise see much of their peers, especially in larger congregations. (Most children spend lots of time with peers at school, but children's church gives them an opportunity to spend time specifically with peers from Christian homes.)

One of the reasons we stopped sending our oldest son to Sunday School is the behaviors and language he picked up after spending time with his "peers from Christian homes." This was in a large congregation (750+).

I have serious doubts about the value of peer-to-peer interaction in childhood development. But that discussion is for other posts.

Children have more opportunity to learn to pray in classes during children's church.

Didn't we agree above that parents should be teaching their children at home throughout the week? Why would I need the church to teach my children how to pray. . .unless they aren't learning from my example at home?

Parents need uninterrupted worship time. Even children who sit quietly for one and half hours sometimes need parental reminders, and parents have to keep one eye on their children throughout the service. Parents are not always able to give the sermon their undivided attention and cannot worship fully. The need for children's church can be even greater for single-parent families, for families with young children, and for families with many children. If most of the childcare falls on the mother, she may be unable to listen to sermons for several years in a row.

Parenting is worship. Work is worship. Play is worship. Being faithful in all of the responsibilities we have been given (including caring for small children and infants) is worship. I have a child on my lap as I'm writing this sentence. Life is a constant distraction from worshiping God. It seems to me that learning to worship God through the distractions is an integral part of discipleship. On the other hand, the inability to focus despite distractions is, well, childish.

With a children's church, the church sends a message to the children that it cares enough for them to have a separate service. Parents have mentioned how excited their children are about coming to church, now that there is something just for them! The children's feelings are important to consider. If they are happy about coming to church, they are more likely to make a commitment to Christ. What better reason do we need?

A biblical model would be the best reason. But it's really not there. The OT model, NT example, and historical church norm is full integration of children in community worship. I want to raise my children to be adults, not big children who are constantly seeking to have their needs met and to be engaged; who will let the Gospel change them to suit God's desires, not change or dumb down the Gospel to suit their own desires. And that is what I will do with humility, graciousness, and much reliance on God's grace for all the mistakes I make in my sinful selfishness.

This past weekend we were in Goshen for the annual fondue party. No one was able to make a weekend in December work this past holiday season (when all of us kids were still living at home, we usually had it on New Year's Eve, but that has changed in recent years), so we held it on Saturday night. My parents and two other couples have been having this party every year since 1974, and I've only missed 2 of them since I was born in 1977 (once when I was in Germany, and in 2006 right after our 1yo was born in early December).

We had 21 people there this year, down from 30+ a few years ago. But it was still a lot of fun, and the food was excellent as usual. Afterwards we played games, including Trivial Pursuit (tradition!) and a new-to-me game called Apples to Apples. We also played 25 Words or Less, and then the hardest-core gamers among us (including me, of course) played a game called Ticket to Ride. Good stuff.

Saturday in Goshen was awesome. There was about 3" of snow on the ground and Dad and I took the four oldest kids sledding at a local park. Sunday it rained. Meh. On Monday it snowed again while we were driving home. In between we had a nice time visiting with my parents. I always miss Goshen most when I'm leaving it. Such a nice town. *Sigh*. I also always feel a twinge of remorse every time I cross the Indiana-Illinois line heading west. I miss Indiana. But, those are the breaks. I am already looking forward to the real 2008 edition of the fondue party!

Our almost 3yo has been asking for pancakes for the past few days. Since I was home this morning for once, I happily obliged (pancakes are a dad's job in our house). There was one little snag: just after I started frying them up I discovered we were out of maple syrup.

Never one to be daunted by such situations, I came up with an improvisation and it was a total success. Here's my recipe for peanut butter banana pancake topping:

5 old bananas (they need to be almost mushy)
3/4 cup peanut butter (estimated -- I just threw some in there)
3/4 cup water (also estimated)

Throw everything in a blender or power mixer (I used our Bosch with the whisk tool) and mix until it forms a puree. I thought it might need sugar but it didn't. It made an excellent substitute for syrup and it added protein to our breakfast. I used Skippy Natural smooth peanut butter, by the way. I don't think it would work as well with a crunchy peanut butter.

I recently finished reading Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab World. I thought the writing was somewhat lacking in vim and vigor, and it ended rather abruptly. I'm not sure if the author was just trying to be objective or if he couldn't quite figure out what his own perspective was, but as a book it was rather disjointed and I never quite figured out what his angle was. At any rate, it served the purpose I had hoped, insofar as it gave me a greater knowledge of the roots of the Middle East conflicts.

Probably the most important insight I gained from the book is the ethnic roots of the Sunni-Shi'a divide. Yes, it is partly religious/theological; however, it seems more significant that the conflict between the Arabs (mostly Sunni) and the Persians (mostly Shi'a, with ancient Persia being roughly equatable with modern Iran) predates the introduction of Islam.

Another important insight is how dumb we Americans are. How many of Europe's messes are we going to try and clean up? It is France and Britain's (among others) colonial meddling that created many of the political problems in the Middle East (not to mention Southeast Asia) in the first place; but from Korea to Vietnam to Palestine to Iraq, much of the conflict that we are trying to resolve by force was only made worse by Europe's own ill-conceived interference back in the day. At least Britain, unlike France, tries to help out, albeit without really acknowledging its own historical contribution to the problem.

Anywho, now I'm on to another history: Asia. I'm starting with a short primer entitled (appropriately) A Short History of Asia by Colin Mason. And that's what's on my reading plate lately.

I also recently finished reading The Chronicles of Narnia series out loud to the two oldest children. We are now adding to their literary experience and filling a gap in mine by reading a series of books about a girl named Anne Shirley, the first book of which is called Anne of Green Gables. So far I am much enjoying it, as are the children.

Americans, before the age of television, were probably the most prolific readers in the world. We may still be, though much reading time has been replaced by boob tube time. Television never has been able to displace reading completely, though it has both influenced and diminished print in many ways. The Internet is still primarily text-based, and hopefully will remain so for quite some time. But now I am digressing.

I grew up reading periodicals as well as books. If I remember correctly, our family subscribed to Highlights for quite some time; later, I was an avid reader of Guideposts and Newsweek. I didn't read many periodicals during college, though. When Jamie and I married, one of our friends gave us a trial subscription to World and we appreciated it enough to take up the subscription ourselves.

Later on, we started subscribing to Christianity Today. At one point we canceled our subscriptions to both CT and World, because we just didn't have time to read them. However, for some odd reason, CT just kept coming to our home -- even after we moved. We got several notices that our subscription was running out, but the magazine showed up in the mail each month nonetheless. This past year, out of guilt as much as anything, I started paying for the subscription again. We also recently renewed our subscription to World.

We also currently receive two other paid-subscription periodicals: The Economist and Tabletalk. I first read The Economist for a class I took in college, and later a friend bought me a year's subscription (a generous gift!) to it, which I let lapse. But recent improvements in our budgetary situation have allowed me to re-subscribe. It provides in-depth news coverage and analysis of events, politics, and (naturally) economic conditions from all over the world, from a liberal (in the old-fashioned, free-market sense of the word) point of view.

Tabletalk is a monthly devotional-type periodical published by Ligonier Ministries, part of R.C. Sproul's organization. A friend had been handing it down to me each month for the past 18 months; this past November I decided to get it myself instead.

I try to read all these magazines from cover to cover; the most difficult feat to accomplish is doing so with The Economist, as it is a weekly publication that generally runs over 100 pages. But I appreciate the way in which all of these contribute to and influence my worldview.

What do you think? What magazines do you read, and why?

Our culture hates children. It sees them as an inconvenience. I know that people think they have a lot of good reasons to justify avoiding pregnancy, but their reaction to my wife and me (and other families like ours) belies the more noble excuses people make (i.e. I want to be a good steward of my resources). At least, in my experience. Let me give an example.

By far the most common (somewhere in the 80% range) response I get when I tell acquaintances we are expecting another child is "Do you know what causes that?" As I try to be polite even in the face of such rudeness, my usual rejoinder is something along the lines of "yeah, we've pretty well got it figured out."

Why do I call it rude? Well, for starters, inherent in the question is the belief that my wife is pregnant because we are ignorant. The thought behind it goes something like, "If you really knew what caused you to be cursed with a pregnancy, you wouldn't let it happen."

Along the same lines, the response assumes we don't want more children. Why is that? What is so strange about wanting to have children? Well, in my opinion, it is because having children is truly inconvenient. It's not easy and there are many costs involved -- and I'm not just talking about financial costs. We lack for nothing we need. We have no problem making ends meet and are able to do so on a single income while giving away a sizeable chunk (about 5 times the national average, according to the software I use to do my taxes) and saving a good amount as well.

We don't, however, enjoy all of the material comforts many of my peers do. We don't have a third vehicle. We don't have a big screen plasma TV. We don't have a timeshare, or go on cruises, or vacation in Europe. We manage to enjoy life just fine without any of those things. And we'd rather be blessed with children than any of those other things.

We also don't have time to ourselves. I don't play Ultimate frisbee anymore, or even very much disc golf (usually only on vacations). I don't go hang out in bars or engage in other extracurricular activities. I rarely have time to play computer games, or even read for pleasure (though I do read quite a bit considering our situation). Jamie isn't in any clubs, but I do try to get her out with her girlfriends once a month or so.

My point is, I don't believe (most) people when they make arguments as to why they don't want more kids. I think most people look at a life like ours and say it's not worth it. Having children is too much hassle and too much work and too, well, personally inconvenient.

I'm not saying any of this to glorify the choices we've made and the lifestyle we lead, or to paint myself as holier-than-anyone (God knows I'm not that). I do get tired of the rude responses we get and I feel much more free to vent in this space as opposed to unloading on the next idiot in meatspace who asks me if I know why my wife is pregnant. So take this for what it is, and nothing more. And of course, feel free to take offense and tell me why I'm wrong. 'Tis the beauty of the medium.