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

'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.