Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think these were not appropriate images for the age group

28 replies

Smithagain · 25/01/2009 21:10

Genuine AIBU question here ... I need a wider perspective.

We have a large screen in our church, which is used to display the words of songs, notices about events and visual aids of various sorts during the service.

This morning's service was for all ages, meaning that there were children and adults present throughout the service. Children ranged in age from babies to teens, but there were quite a few between 3-11.

During the prayers, images were projected of events in the news. They included scenes from (I presume) Gaza - one of a person carrying a body with very obvious wounds and blood all over his face, and another of pools of blood on the ground.

Neither was on the screen for very long - maybe 5 seconds - and they were intermingled with other images that were less graphic. The person leading the prayers warned us that some of the images were powerful before the start. But he also said that people should look and reflect.

Personally, I thought the two pictures I've described were inappropriate for a service where young children were present. I do not want my children (age 3 and 6) to see such explicit scenes just yet and I don't think they would be broadcast on (for example) a children's news programme - or even before the watershed. DH agrees and has expressed his view (somewhat forcefully!) to the person who was responsible.

My kids are quite sensitive and they don't watch adult TV, so it is possible we're out of step with what most children are used to seeing. I am also employed as a children's worker for the church, so I have to have further discussions with the minister and the person that was leading the prayers. I'd like to get a sense of what other parents think, before I decide whether to take things further.

OP posts:
twinsetandpearls · 25/01/2009 21:13

I am not sure to be honest, I think it is very important for issues such as this to be addressed by Christians in a way that is going to provoke and move. You were giving a warning as well.

I use images in my teaching (secondary) and I do use some very powerful ones but do choose them carefully.

Do they have a service where children are not present, it may have been better to do it then?

loobeylou · 25/01/2009 21:13

No smith, YANBU

not appropriate for a service in which all ages are present, its common sense. My dad is a minister and he would string up any visiting preacher who did that in his church! Was it a regular leader or visitor?

Do complain before something similar happens and really affects some poor child!

tumtumtetum · 25/01/2009 21:17

A lot of the images in churches normally can be quite gory though?

Jesus on the cross with a crown of thorns is often depicted with blood and that is pretty upsetting.

Not trying to get anyone's backs up, I just think sometimes we forget the impact of images we see every day/are used to.

Northernlurker · 25/01/2009 21:17

I don't think it's unreasonable to include those images - but then I have always allowed my children to watch the news and dealt with the issues as they came up (apart from the Norfolk prostitute murders - I just couldn't begin to find the words for that one) I don't we should traumatise children - but I don't think a brief picture would do that - and the service was for all wasn't it. As adults we should know what's happening in the world and direct our prayers accordingly. All age worship is very difficult to do - it's not just providing something that's ok for children - it's enabling adults to worship and be touched too. I wouldn't have had a problem with it - but if you do, you were well within your rights to feedback on it. Just try to be encouraging too. A lot of work goes into planning services and it's terrible when all you get back is negativity.

twinsetandpearls · 25/01/2009 21:18

I was thinking the same tumtum I used to sob with fear when I used to have to go through the stations of the cross at age 5.

MissusLindt · 25/01/2009 21:20

I would find that inappropriate too. My DC are 4yo and 6yo and we do not watch the news when they are around. There are too many distressing images that children cannot process.

loobeylou · 25/01/2009 21:21

sorry to hijack a serious thread with a joke, but it does highlight the need to be more switched on in what you say and do in an all age service

Minister says in prayers "...Lord, without you we are but dust..." and a little girl LOUDLY pipes up "Mummy, what's butt dust?"

sorry,but thats had me ROFL all day!

Northernlurker · 25/01/2009 21:22

missuslindt - how do you know what a child cannot deal with - and how do you expect them to learn to deal with situations we all must face if we protect them from seeing the reality of those situations?

twinsetandpearls · 25/01/2009 21:23

lol loobey.

Original poster
Smithagain · 25/01/2009 21:24

loobeylou!

Interesting mixture so far - anyone else?

And in response to questions - yes, this was a regular worship-leader. And I was at the planning meeting where the concept of using news photos was discussed. I thought it was a good idea - just assumed that some care would be taken to make them age-appropriate. There were plenty with soldiers, tanks, hungry children, natural disaster etc that I thought were OK and thought-provoking. Just a couple that I felt were excessive.

And FWIW this is a Methodist church where pictures of Jesus tend not to be too gory - might have been different if we were catholics

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 25/01/2009 21:26

Smith I was thinking that about gory pictures of Christ - we are also non-conformist and I think there's probably more liklihood of satan-worship in our church than there is a blood stained crucifix!

smudgethepuppydog · 25/01/2009 21:26

I don't think I'd object either, the images were on for a short time and they weren't shown for gratuitous reasons, I assume they were shown to get the message across. That said, I can understand that others may be upset. I think taking your concerns to the person in charge is sensible, that way a common ground can be found. Maybe a warning could be given next time?

tumtumtetum · 25/01/2009 21:26

Aha yet again it comes back to my having only ever experienced one type of christainity...

twinsetandpearls · 25/01/2009 21:27

Yes a fellow catholic here , we love our guilt filled gore.

loobeylou · 25/01/2009 21:28

I am a lay preacher, so I prepare and lead worship in our church, when i am not running sunday school

if these images were shown in a primary school class, or in the assembly by a visitor, parents would be livid.

Just because it was in a church where adults were present (who can use their imaginations to picture the scenes being spoken of) does not mean it is OK to use these images where children were - some of them might not be able to get those pictures out of their heads and it shows a gross lack of understanding from whoever it was about what is appropriate for ALL ages. That was not.

loobeylou · 25/01/2009 21:31

smith - methodist here too!

I like that our church has just an empty cross and lots of colourful banners and posters....no gore, does not scare kids off.

When I was a teacher we took the whole school to the loacl (very high) anglican church for carol service, some of them were scared witless by the icons and windows!

Northernlurker · 25/01/2009 21:32

loobeylou - whilst I don't want children to be upset and living in shadow - why do we not think children can cope with the uglier sides of life. Children in Gaza are dying, are seeing their friends and family die, their homes destroyed, their families without hope. Is it really asking too much of our secure,safe and loved chidlren that they get to understand a little bit of what is happening in our fallen world? I don't think it is.

smudgethepuppydog · 25/01/2009 21:35

If the children were witnessing scenes from a 'shoot-em-up' movie or video game I would be livid if it were shown to my young child but these were scenes from life in the world as we know it today.

loobeylou · 25/01/2009 21:38

northernlurker - agree with your point about not hiding our kids from reality, and personally i do talk to my kids about some of the nastier things in the news, at appropriate times and at their level. But i would not want pictures like that shoved in their faces in a place I want them to feel safe and secure and happy (church) just like I would not leave a newspaper like that laid around at home for them to see.

There is a very real possibility that some of the kids I know would have cried or screamed, not what you want in the prayers.

A tank, a destroyed home or people wailing would have been poignant (sp?) & done the job just as well, no need for the graffic gore IMO

Original poster
Smithagain · 25/01/2009 21:57

loobeylou I think I am precisely on your wavelength!

I do get the points about over-protecting our children. I know that this is real life. But actually a six year old is in no position to do anything about it, just yet, so what does it achieve to thrust it in their face at this point? I think loobeylou's point about the adults being able to use their imaginations - therefore there being no need to be so explicit - is a good one.

And would it change anyone's mind to appreciate that the pictures were set to music - thereby heightening the emotion - and the screen is about 10 feet across and we were sitting in the front row!

OP posts:
loobeylou · 25/01/2009 22:08

Smith - sounds like you are on the worship team or something, and able to have a respected input so can legitimately voice your views and ensure people are more careful in future? Out of interest what age was the person who did this and do they/the minister have kids?
(I'm thinking either doddery old man trying too hard to be up with the trendy technology OR young, poss full of themselves, childless and clueless - LOL at me being so judgey!!)

Original poster
Smithagain · 25/01/2009 22:14

Yes - I am on the worship-leading team and also part time family and children's worker, so am in a position to have my views heard. Which why I wanted to see whether my views were reasonably representative or not.

The person who chose the pictures is in his 50s, has kids but they are grown up, not particularly well known for having high levels of tact and empathy ...

I'm going to try and arrange a calm and rational discussion about where we draw lines about what is shown during services with children present. For those who let their children watch the news ... I'm not actually convinced that these pictures would have been shown on daytime news. There's certainly nothing so gory on the BBC news website.

OP posts:
Original poster
Smithagain · 25/01/2009 22:15

PS going to bed now. Thanks for some interesting viewpoints.

OP posts:
MissusLindt · 26/01/2009 09:14

NorthernLurker
I do understand your point and we will introduce the children gradually to things that are happening in the world,but at present images as described in the OP would have scared my (rather sensitive) DD witless and given her nightmares for weeks.

loobeylou · 26/01/2009 12:29

Smith, I think you should make it known that whilst SOME parents would have been OK for their kids to see those images, and confident their kids would not be upset at the time or have nightmares afterwards, the important point is that SOME parents and children WOULD find those images disturbing, upsetting and inappropraite IN A SERVICE BILLED AS SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES, which is why they were not appropriate to use - just like they would not be in a "U" film!! I for one have deliberately directed my kids attention to such "slide shows" as a way of keeping them quiet in the prayers.

IF no one was badly affected this time, that was just good luck, and not an indicator that it was suitable material. It should def not be repeated. There may even have been adults present who went home thinking "blimey that was a bit severe", but won't necessarily complain.

The absence of these pictures would not have affected the "quality" of either prayers or service as a whole, neither did their inclusion make it in any way better.

Swipe left for the next trending thread