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.

[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!)

'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.

"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.