children and organized religion

[cellio]

I found this article on the problems faced by child-free church-goers to be fascinating. Also extremely resonant. (Warning: tone is sometimes "undiplomatic".) Thanks to revlainiep for the link.

A few excerpts:

It is readily apparent that a crisis of faith exists among religious individuals within the childfree community. As religious organizations continue to gravitate toward all things "family-friendly" (at the paradoxical expense of childfree families), people are finding themselves increasingly alienated from the religion of their choice.

Not all families contain children. Please repeat this phrase like a mantra.

The family-friendly trend in modern worship leads to a phenomenon that I like to call the “Disneyfication of religion". When children become the focal point of a church, you'll find that the liturgical pickings get pretty slim. Everything becomes ridiculously over-simplified. Before long, you'll notice that the accomplishments of the 12 Apostles have been reduced to a panoramic display made out of Popsicle sticks.

Children, if permitted to attend church at all, should be kept in services geared toward children. It's doing both the adults and the children a huge favor. Children cry and scream during services because they cannot handle the situation. It's not their fault. If the children are kept busy with activities more appropriate to their own age group, then both they and the adult congregation will benefit greatly.

People get all misty-eyed babbling on about the beauty of the prayers of a child. Well, the prayers of an adult are just as crucial--and in the case of an adult, at least God won't be constantly petitioned for jellybeans and Pokemon toys.

On a more serious note, the phenomenon of childfree individuals giving up on organized religion is becoming an international epidemic. Is it because they're uncaring, unfeeling souls who are no longer concerned about honoring God? Hardly. It's because they've been all but shoved out into the streets by churches that are positively obsessed with keeping up a "family-friendly" image (but naturally, the childfree families can hang from the highest tree).

Update: Apparently, there is a "child-free" movement that is actively hostile to children. I thought the term merely described people who chose not to have kids, without specific implications about attitude. Let me just clarify that I don't have a problem with other people's well-behaved kids. But I do have a problem with bad behavior (from anyone), any expectation that I participate in child-care, and the various efforts out there to elevate children above adults. (As an example of the last, I think adults living in poverty are just as tragic as children living in poverty, and I don't contribute to charities that are about "saving children" as opposed to "saving people".) And yeah, I've seen this kind of elevation of unready children in my congregation, though it's not nearly as prevalent as the article's author says it is in hers.

Comments

[rani23.livejournal.com]

at least God won't be constantly petitioned for jellybeans and Pokemon toys

Okay, that made me laugh hysterically. :)

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

It's funny. I find myself torn between appreciating the author's perspective---where I come from, we take crying babies out of services---and wanting to defend children as humans. Not all children shriek and misbehave (and as for singing, has the author never heard a classical boy's choir?), and not all adults are so high-minded as to not wish for the equivalent of Pokemon and jellybeans.

Isn't there a middle ground between despising children and being one of those obnoxious people who can speak of nothing but children and nag every woman about when she'll have some? I have two good friends who like children as people (which is to say, they like those children whose personalities appeal to them) and don't plan to have any of their own. The venom of many 'childfree' writings scares me, but on the other hand I can't help but empathize with the exasperation, bred of many of the child-oriented dysfunctions of our society, that fuels that venom.

*sigh* I dunno. I plan to have a child one day, and I know there are friends I will lose when I do.

[cellio]

I'm not a "kid person", but I have friends with kids and I try not to let that affect things. Usually, because my friends are considerate people who don't impose on the unwilling, the restrictions actually come from them, not from me. You don't have to lose friends over it, if everyone involved has good will and a desire to work together.

There are certainly specific children that I get along fine with. But this can't really happen until well past the age of basic sentience; I just don't see what's so gush-worthy about an infant. I don't have anything against those who do; I'm just not going to participate.

I think the article would be more effective as a persuasion tool without all the negative tone, but I don't know the author's intent. And we all know that sometimes one just has to rant. :-)

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Though I'm not religious, I am one of those parents who expects other parents to be considerate of others, and monitor their children's behavior as I do mine. Would that more did so.

One quibble I'd have with the piece is that blame for the Disneyfication of religious ceremonies cannot fairly be placed only on the backs of children. There are many adults who welcome the quick, easy, Cliff Notes version of their holy books. For most of the people I know (parents or childfree), religion is something to be put in their back pockets, and pulled out only when they attend occasional services, get married, etc. I suppose these folks believe that the least the congregation can do is make it a bit more interesting. :-)

[indigodove.livejournal.com]

I like the way my church handles this. We have a children's service downstairs during the 11:30 am mass. This way, the kids are doing something meaningful and not running amok upstairs. Parents don't generally go with them, unless they are among the saints who run the liturgy.

But, I can also say that we have plenty of activities for adults, so it's pretty balanced.

[kayre]

I also think there needs to be some compromise in this area. Specifically, I'm rather tired of being told that the mere presence of children at an event makes it "unfriendly" to childless people. Children are welcome at many events at my church-- but very few of those events are "dumbed down" for the kids, and crying babies, or older children who can't behave, are removed.

Children are present during at least the beginning of both worship services at my church-- and yet they manage to sit quietly through my 3 minute prelude, week after week (unlike a few of the adults!)

[cellio]

but very few of those events are "dumbed down" for the kids, and crying babies, or older children who can't behave, are removed.

This is a key point. I don't think mere presence of children is a problem either; it's when their presence interferes with the ability of others to worship that I see a problem. That interference can be active (crying, playing in the aisles, etc) or passive (dumbing things down on their account).

'Child-free'

[lefkowitzga.livejournal.com]

That article gave me the impression that 'child-free' means a person who actively dislikes interacting with children in any way, shape, or form - even having one present is an offense. I am glad to know people for whom the designation means they have chosen not to reproduce. These people don't look down on others who choose to have kids, nor do they actively seek to exclude well-behaved children from public gatherings.

I was somewhat amused that the writer goes on and on about how important the church service is, but at the same time the kids should be 'dressed normal' rather than dressed up in good clothes. To me, dressing up shows respect for the occasion/place and the intent to make the occasion special.

No one should have to put up with someone else's bad behavior in a public setting, whether it is a disruptive child during a church service or adults having a loud, four-letter-word-filled conversation in a restaurant. That has nothing to do with being child-free or not, it has to do with polite behavior. I think the author's soapbox gets in the way of that.

The author doesn't comment on his/her attempts to create 'child-free'-friendly activities at church. It is easy to complain, but much harder to actually do something about the problem.

Re: 'Child-free'

[cellio]

I am glad to know people for whom the designation means they have chosen not to reproduce.

That was actually my understanding of the term "childfree" until this thread. Those who are child-hostile should use a different label.

For the record, I don't look down on people who choose to have kids, and I don't end friendships when kids come along. But I don't care to participate in certain kid-centered activities, and that can cause me to spend less time with people I still count as friends (at least until the kids are older). Any new interest or pursuit has the potential to do that -- marriage, kids, career change, going back to school, becoming religious, taking up a sport or hobby, etc. Real friendships are pretty resilient and can survive these bumps along the way, and the rest were going to fall apart eventually anyway.

"Childfree"

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

That is a *fraught* phrase.

If someone chooses not to have children, then, yes, they are childfree. If someone doesn't choose to not have children, but doesn't mind that they don't, that's childfree.

I'm *childless*. Even if, at this point, I don't know where kids would fit in my life, I feel their loss.

Orthodox Judaism *is* very child centered. Not the services - the carrying thing means that it's difficult to take babies to synagogue on the Sabbath (which also has the unfortunate result that mothers don't go until their youngest children can walk reliably). And even when there is an eruv, it's expected that noisy babies will be taken out of the sanctuary, and if a synagogue is large enough, they have age appropriate youth groups for kids under 12 or 13, plus they can always play outside.

Sabbath and holiday services are three hours long - longer on High Holidays - and no one expects that young kids will be able to endure that. Also, if kids *do* lead a service, it means they are older than thirteen and know what they are doing, and are leading the normal service. It probably helps that there are kid-led daily services in the schools. But the fact remains that kids aren't obligated to pray, just to learn to pray, and adults *are*.

The few kid things - Purim sketches and Chanukah plays and such - are outside normal services, and no one really notices that we don't show up.

Re: "Childfree"

[lefkowitzga.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put.

While it is sad that anyone should have to put up with being a minority regarding their religious life, children are by necessity a part of the community. They grow up to be us. Our early religious experiences give us a (dis)taste for participating in the community at all, so giving young people or anyone new to the community a chance to learn and participate in a pleasant setting is important. Please note that this doesn't mean putting up with bad behavior.

I like the services I've been to where the children get up and go out when they've had enough. They leave quietly and unobtrusively, and can get to the children's room on their own. This isn't possible for the very little ones, of course, but is a solution for a portion of the issue.

Re: "Childfree"

[cellio]

children are by necessity a part of the community

One part, yes. Would you agree that we should single out children (in service participation, for example) only to the extent that we single out women, men, new members, 20s/30s, retirees, and other demographic subgroups?

My congregation has several "nth-grade services" each year, where, for example, the fourth-grade class will lead a service. They do this for each grade. It's a real zoo, and it seems to be primarily a show for the parents. I know lots of regular congregants (I'm one too), the ones who are there every week as part of the community, who feel so alienated by those services that they just don't come on those nights, because in the process of serving those families' needs the congregation is not serving the other congregants' needs.

I actually have what you might think would be a counter-intuitive idea for how to fix this. I'd like to integrate some of those kids into most of the services. Let a few kids read the opening psalms in kabbalat shabbat, at the beginning of the service, and then be done. Let kids who don't want to do it bow out without shame, and if there are still too many then make it merit-based in some way. Make it an honor that's contingent on good behavior, and make it blessedly-short for the regulars. This forces some degree of integration (which some parents will object to, I predict).

I like the services I've been to where the children get up and go out when they've had enough.

I think anyone who's had enough and isn't getting anything out of a service should be able to get up and leave without any negative consequences. I wish talkers would do this. :-)

Re: "Childfree"

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I actually have what you might think would be a counter-intuitive idea for how to fix this. I'd like to integrate some of those kids into most of the services. Let a few kids read the opening psalms in kabbalat shabbat, at the beginning of the service, and then be done.

That is my experience from the church I grew up in. Children's usual participation in services was limited to the occasional Psalm reading or children's choir performance (the children's choir was as tightly cast, practiced, and controlled as the adult choir: we could sing). Once a year we had a Sunday-School-run service, which was planned and tightly controlled mostly by the Sunday School staff (which for many years was led by my father). A 'zoo' would never be allowwed, ever.

What I noticed from the article is that the author conflates badly-behaving, undisciplined, disruptive children with All Possible Children. I've seen that kind of conflation in many bits of 'childfree' rhetoric. It...bothers me. I was raised by parents, and in a community, that expected me and my fellow children to behave, so I guess that's why I think the solution is for children to behave, not to be exiled or banned.

Re: "Childfree"

[goljerp]

Another thing I've seen is to have children lead "Adon Alom" at the end of services. There's an echo-y tune to that that's pretty easy to lead. On the other hand, that's more suited to a mass of 5 and 6 year olds than to individual children.

At my current shul I regularly go to two different minyans. One has a wider age range. There are newborns up through high school students. Basically, kids are expected to be quiet. Sometimes they'll be crawling around, but if they get noisy then a parent will take them out of the room. There's a children's area on the same floor that they can go to, as well as various children's services in the building. The older kids come and go as they like. The other minyan doesn't have any children above the age of 5. Often the 5-year old and the 2 year old will play quietly on the steps of the ark at the front of the room. The main problem is when they start to giggle too much. If they're too noisy (there's one child who has lots of energy and finds it tough to stay quiet), they're taken outside by a parent. I like having children around (and G-d willing will have children of my own who I will take to services.) Neither service is dumbed down by the presence of children.

...another opinion...slightly ranty, mostly just opinionated...

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

Before I say anything else, as far as i'm concerned the problem isn't the child, it's the parent. The parent is the responsible adult in the situation and the child, who acts like a drunken monkey on acid because all children are just that, only knows what it is taught and what it sees.

The species has to perpetuate itself or die out.
Right now we have far more people on the planet than we truly need, we are currently in no danger of dying out. This is potentially the worst arguement for having children next to "I want someone to love me". The fact is that many people have not figured out that perhaps there are conditions where it is inappropriate to have/rear a child. If you don't have the means, you should not be reproducing. If you still choose to reproduce, you should place your child with people who do have the means. You should not expect handout one for your irresponsible behaviour if you do not do the above. I realise that this is an attitude frought with problems, and would take a world-wide social/religious change to actually work, but this is an opinion, so it is allowed to work in a vacuum :-)

I agree with you on the activly anti-child wing of the CF movement. They are a bunch of whiny, self-involved morons, which is exactly what they accuse those with children of being.

The problem that many CF people have with the childed is that there is an overwhelming majority of them who think that since they managed to reproduce, they should get tax breaks, drive their SUV-like strollers down the sidewalk so no one can share them (really, the current fashion are these side-by-side two child strollers that are the ultimate in rude), think that they should just be able to take their child anywhere regardless of how inappropriate a place it might be to do so, permit their progeny to run wild without correction, and generally fail to *parent* without repercussion. I have watched these people change diapers on restaurant tables, i've watched them permit their child to run around misbehaving in malls, and i've been told of them bringing their 2-year-old to see a late showing of "The Matrix" (fortunately, they left when the child got bored and cranky enough to really get on the dad's nerves). This is *not* living softly and politely with others. This is acting like the world owes you something, and that the world should just tolerate your child because they're spayshul.

Right now, there is a large group of children out there who were not reared to understand that their actions have consequences that they are responsible for, have hugely overblown senses of self-worth, and don't comprehend that the world is not their personal playground. These children are stunted from day one because their parents are idiots. Then, when the child hits adulthood, they aren't capable of being able to survive in the world.

For the parents that do try and instill their children with a reasonable sense of self-worth, that they are responsible for the outcomes of their own actions, and that living softly and well with others is just a good way to exist it is hard as hell to find other like-minded folk out there. You find yourself hoping that when you walk into a store/restaurant/whatever that you aren't coming in right behind one of these obnioxious morons, or that they are so burned out by the other parents that they assume that you are one of *them* the minute they see you. It makes parenting even harder.

I see both sides of this arguement and hope that you take this for what it is, an opinion.

Oh, and I am too distracted by my hate to worship! was just frickin' *hysterical* :-)

Re: ...another opinion...slightly ranty, mostly just opinionated...

[cellio]

You said a lot of things that I would have otherwise said, so I'll just say "me too" instead. It's especially refreshing to see this attitude coming from a parent.

[cellio]

In fact, I am inspired to rant.

That's fine. I enjoy a good rant, and I don't take it personally.

I wasn't previoualy aware of the folks who think no one should have any more kids. That's just silly and short-sighted. People who are ready to be good parents -- which includes imposing basic standards of polite behavior -- should have kids. I think it would be good to rein in the rate of growth in world population, but that's been happening some over the last 30 years. (Still, world population may double in our lifetime.)

I found myself going off on the "children are our future" tangent, but it got long so I decided to generalize it and post it separately.