Or is the vicar? Noisy DCs in church

[drspouse]

Background so as not to drip feed, bear with me as this is horrendously long: we go to a fairly naice church in a large historic building, locally there is a sought after church secondary school but none of the church primary schools are over subscribed. We've been going to this church for 12 years and we have two DC, aged 4 and 1. The 4yo is being investigated for mild SN and has always, always been very "lively". DC2 is walking.

The church knows us. Current vicar has been there about as long as our DC1 and baptised both of them. Church has a side chapel which is open to the rest of the pews where there are baby/toddler toys, a mat to play on. One other family (who are new to the country and have a 10 month old) use this baby play area every week.

The 4yo goes to Sunday School in term time, one of us goes with him, as we take it in turns and it doesn't last the whole service, both of us get some time during the service actually in the church. He's just starting to be able to stay in for 10 minutes on his own. DC2 is still lively and, yes, noisy in the side chapel. The other regular family's baby isn't walking yet. When smaller, both he and our DC2 could be quietened by feeding or carrying around.

Because of the pressure for secondary admission, most of the families that come have primary aged children. I can think of a couple of other families who are regulars with young DCs e.g. one Sunday School teacher has an 18 month old but I think she is restrained sat with them on non-Sunday School weeks not in the side chapel.

Today was the first weekend of half term, no Sunday school, there were 2 other children at church apart from our "baby chapel" group, maybe 6 and 8, who were using a construction toy in the side chapel for part of the time. Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. Frankly the only way to stop this would have been to physically restrain DC1 leading to shouting, screaming and kicking. This could be seen from the main church. DC2 was very excited by this and was squeaking, and also as a new walker fell over 2 or 3 times and cried, and was cuddled, and then was quiet.

Half way through someone came in and said "did we know the other room was open, we could go there if we wished". We declined and said no, we wouldn't, because where would be the point in being at church if we were not in the church? we might as well stay home. This is the first time in four years anyone has said anything, and I was massively surprised. It's definitely not the first time we were noisy!

The vicar stopped me on the way out and repeated that something had to be done, that it was distracting, people had complained, and that it was "exciting the other children" (the ones quietly using a construction toy? or the 10 month old who was quiet?) I said that the answer was not for us to go out because there was no point in us going to church if we couldn't be IN church. He repeated that "something must be done".

How does your church run this? Can you give us any ideas for suggestions? We want to bring this up and make some constructive suggestions (though frankly if the church can't put up with noise, it can't put up with children, and it will be left with definitely nobody under 5 and probably nobody under 50).

The historic fabric means a glassed off area is not possible (and I'd feel massively excluded in an aquarium every week!). There's only one area out of the church where smaller children could play (so they couldn't run a creche at the same time as Sunday School). We'd also feel pretty excluded if we couldn't go on non-Sunday School weeks (which is probably 15-20 weeks of the year), and I wouldn't bother if we had to be in an area with "piped church", also. It's not a "praise band" church where listening through an audio or video link gets you the flavour of church, it's a trad but (we thought) friendly church with old fashioned liturgy.

Everyone, threads like these often bring out a lot of anger and pain because they reflect the difficult issues and attitudes the posters are dealing with every day of their lives.

The thread is so often not about the OP at all, rather the various posters very real and very painful experiences.

Give each other a break and a little bit of understanding.

(I mean in that on the surface it appears to be about the OP, but actually it's nothing to do with the OP, and about the poster, iyswim?)

This thread makes me want to cry. If a church can't be inclusive, then where can?

I'm rather hoping that the vicar was just having a bad day and is now feeling ashamed of himself. If not, then he should.

Mad I'm interested by your comments because this is such a live issue for many church-goers. Like you, I would be despairing if I thought that parents with small children felt disapproved of in church, and as you say, it's not what happened in the Bible when Jesus taught. However :) Jesus interacted with communities in a number of different ways, and not all of the ways he engaged were equally inclusive. There were times when children were clearly prioritised, and times when it was the sick, or those listening and wanting to learn from the parables that he told.

With the best will in the world, it can't all be about any one group within a family all of the time, and nor should any group receive priority continually, whether it's the elderly person sitting on the pew or the child playing star wars in the aisle. There's a delicate balance to be found in accommodating a plethora of different needs within a church family, and saying 'Oh things were wild when Jesus was around' is not a good enough answer if 'wildness' is preventing others from hearing the word of God. We should remember that there may be wells of deep vulnerability and need where we're only seeing an intolerant older chap in a macintosh. Its an unfortunate reality within a family (or perhaps a fortunate reality!) and we have to accommodate each other at times, and that works both ways.

In order to receive spiritual nourishment in the form of teaching, there will be times when older couples who are struggling to hear and focus on a sermon (as I've said before, this is a skill that can reduce dramatically with age) may need to be 'included' in a way that requires accommodation from parents of young children. No one is saying 'put the special needs children' in a room for one second. What I do think Jesus might have said was 'Here Matthew, could you minister to these children while I talk about the talents to their parents?'. It's common sense, really, and particularly unChristlike to start arguing that one group is more deserving than another, given that Jesus would have seen the worth of every person present, and expected them to follow suit.

An old lady once told me that DS had 'Ruined the entire service' for her. I left in tears, and we soon found a more friendly church. However if I bump into her she always asks really kindly after DS. I conclude that she was having a bad day herself and has now forgiven and forgotten whatever it was he did. Perhaps the people who complained to the vicar in the OP also had something weighing heavily on their minds and just snapped. None of us know everything other people are facing.

Good post Lost

I think MN may be doing the OP a disservice by overly focusing on whether the children have SN. I am not an expert, but perhaps this has more to do with the children being adopted. I've got a vague idea that could mean the standard techniques for encouraging appropriate behaviour and discouraging inappropriate behaviour could be damaging to an adopted child. So the OP possibly can't use the techniques I used to make my children sit when they were four.

Perhaps the OP would be better off asking in adoption?

This thread only cements my belief that parents shouldn't indoctrinate their kids.

It isn't their religion, it is yours.

Aside in a location sense, they are not part of the congregation; they are bored, they are young children, they don't have a faith or set of beliefs.

I just don't understand why parents would push small children to sit quietly when they're clearly bored, often to tears, just because they believe in one particular skyfairy god. It isn't like school where they directly benefit.

Surely let them come along when they want to be there and take meaning from it. Otherwise it's just you impressing your beliefs.

Totally missed the kids being adopted. But there are 30 pages of this now!

@LarrytheCucumber

None of us know everything other people are facing.

This is often what happens here on MN. You would be surprised at the number of emails we get at HQ that say "sorry I was having a shit day/evening/time of it"

Not to say that the everyday situations that are relayed on here don't bring out much much bigger issues - e.g. people who don't recognise EA or SN or medical issues - I'm thinking of the pregnant MNer who had specific rpain and MN helped diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy and get her to A&E sharpish but also people who have left abusive relationships based on one thread where MNers have helped them to see.

Frank conversation is sometimes necessary - name calling is not.
Disablism is not.

Hence my plea earlier for a bit of peace and love and understanding often goes a long way and one post about one thing can be all about something else.

Please all, remember that Mumsnet is here to make lives easier.
Thanks v much
MNHQ

A post CAN be about something else.

However, also when discussing inclusion, it can also just be about advocating inclusion and disagreeing with posts calling for exclusion. Doesn't have to be about someone having deep seated issues with their child being excluded. My child is fairly well included. And I would like all children to be. Bottom line.

and getting exasperated by disablist posts (and also really disingenuous PA ones) doesn't automatically mean someone must be having a bad day for another reason.

Sometimes the disablist posts and passive aggressive digs can cause a bad day even if one is having a happy day.

So lets just say theres an elderly lady in te church who has a hearing impairmeny and struggles to hear because of the noise made by these children or there's another child maybe with ASD who finds their nosie intolerable what then?
Surely there has to be some compromise shown by someone. I mean which additional need "wins" or should there be an element of compromise from all directions?

well then there would obviously need to be some thought put into about how to include everyone.

but that was not what this thread was about to me, and not what I was objecting to.

But how do yoh know that there isnt someone in yhose circumstances who has spoke to the vicar?
Im intrigued what the solution would be

Are you trying to trip.me up or something? I don't know what the solution would be. What do you think it should be?

I think you're right, lost that we as churches need to find ways of supporting and including everyone, and that won't always look the same in each situation, hence my comment about messiness. We all come with so much baggage and all have differing needs, and one persons needs should not necessarily be seen as more important. However, when it comes to sn / disability, we do need to ensure we are providing reasonable adjustments and remembering that this doesn't look like a level playing field, but may look like prioritising some, and some may think this is to the detriment of others, when actually what we are doing is ensuring that each person is able to partake in the service or gathering as much as they can.

I'm not sure if Jesus sent the children off into another room, if he did, I'm sure it would have been with the same spirit of most Sunday schools, to give the children a chance to learn and worship at their level if they pleased. I'm sure he wouldn't have sent the noisy or challenging children or people away because others moaned. But I'm hypothesising.

Sadly, people here have said very much that we should send a particular child to another room.

Others are saying we are making too much of the SN thing. To me, the op was clear that her ds had some additional needs which were being assessed, and she chose to let him throw the teddy to avoid a meltdown, so making a choice which did consider the others in the congregation, which is all anyone can ask.

It's important to remember as well that people come into church with all kinds of difficulties, and some may be completely hopeless as parents, never having had a good model. I would hope that they wouldn't be turned away because they weren't considering others. Jesus was all about grace - that's what I love about him - not about rewarding the deserving and judging the undeserving, but about loving all without condition and without terms. If we as church can manage something of this then we're getting something right.

Why would I be trying to trip you up?
Just wondering how we can include everybody when often circumstances are not perfect and there will always be conflicting needs

well, the solution isnt send the child off to another room and call his mum slack and say she should be ashamed, as many have said.

So what woukd you suggest

OP said...
"By the way, there is also an 8am and a 6.30 pm service and some weeks there is an 11.30 service. Plenty of quiet, toddler free provision."

the hypothetical elderly lady could choose one of the other services, rather than the "family friendly" one.

It's interesting, Mad because I've no doubt people did complain about each other in those crowds that Jesus preached to. Well, we know they did - they tried to keep various factions away at different times and Jesus overturned their expectations.

Ministering to children in an age-appropriate way doesn't have to be a punitive measure. It seems rather a shame if it's only being done because someone complained. I feel, and many churches seem to feel, that services should be as inclusive as possible, but that includes making sure that everyone gets a chance to make out what the preacher is actually saying.

This would be a much more interesting thread if we were talking about an adult with additional needs. As things stand, there is generally recognition that the sermon part of a church service, unless specifically aimed at children, is a portion of time during which they can be more effectively ministered to elsewhere, and an audio link means that their parents don't miss out either. There is of course, no such understanding where adults with additional needs are concerned!

If anyone is truly interested in all of this, can I recommend googling L'Arche community which is a genuinely groundbreakingly inclusive model for church and will hopefully be an encouragement to everyone of all faiths and none.

I think i am reading a different thread fanjo

Yy lost I've come across L'Arche in the past and been very impressed. And yes to children's ministry not being punitive or 'to get them out of the way.'

Well quite a few were deleted.