Thread: Toddlers during preaching

I've commented on this topic before (a search will reveal at least a dozen of such threads), so I won't be extensive in my comments here.

1. I think that a covenantal principle is important, and families should be encouraged, where possible to worship together.

2. Attempts to embarrass families or restrict children from worship (especially at a late age) are wrong. I have seen instances where all children under 12 or 16 are discouraged/prevented from worship in favor of "children's" or "teen" services.

3. But I also believe it is illegitimate to embarrass or cajole families who have a real need for childcare during a service. Moms need a break. FAR too often it is always the Mom who is distracted or leaves the room. (And before a couple of posters pipe up who say "I take the child out," I am speaking from extensive experience in many churches in different parts of the country).

4. I have never seen an advocate of the baby/toddler must be in the service (as opposed to a "may") answer the point made by Nehemiah 8:2-3

2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. (Emphasis added)

5. I believe that those who most champion the "child must be in the service" view often make arguments that are contrary to the Reformed way of viewing both worship and the means of grace. When we speak of the means of grace, we (rightly) discuss the priority of the mind (viz. Owen on this point). This is the main reason we advocate Scripture reading in an intelligible (vulgar) language, preaching as a primary means of grace, and deny paedocommunion. Yet somehow, when we are speaking of a 8 month old, or a 10 month old, there is a form of mysticism that comes up, in which somehow simply being in the immediate physical location of a worship service imparts grace to a person who has no understanding of language, Biblical concepts, or teaching.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a nursery for such young ones, at the parent's option, so that the parents can be fed from the Word, have a short break from the cares of parenting, and be better equipped to teach their children.

Rightly said, Fred!

Yes, well said, Pastor Greco. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Brian, How can the two be separated? This may digress the thread, but to say teaching is not part of the worship service is directly against the recorded writ of what is supposed to happen when we corporately come together. Teaching is used so frequently in connection with our Lord's appearance in the synagogue, that its lesson is obvious ( Matt 4:23; Mark 1:21, 6:2; Luke 4:15, 6:6, 13:10; John 6:59, 18:20). The main object of the synagogue was the teaching of the people. Paul continued this principle for the church:

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Titus 1:9

The rule of the synagogue for leaders was repeated by Paul. As the elders were the "pastor teachers" in the synagogue, Paul insisted that they be the preacher-teachers in the local congregation. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Col 3:16

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people


And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.


In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.


And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.


There is just too many to mention here. I suggest you rethink this point you are making.

WCF 21.5

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

Teaching is part of the church, of that I agree completely, but it is not listed as an element of worship. Church members are not allowed to be just in a service on Sunday morning and that is it. If they are not immersing themselves in the Bible through self education, through group Bible study, Sunday School (even adults) then there is no way they are going to understand the scriptures enough.

Learning occurs during preaching, but preaching is not teaching. Teaching requires two way interaction between student and teacher. And even though preaching is somewhat like a lecture, it is not to be purely lecture (if it were, then our worship services could have the "preacher" be a recorded sermon from the internet! Yuch!)

That the two are different is clearly shown by one of the verses you quoted:

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

This verse show Jesus doing three things, teaching, preaching and healing. They are different, and while it might be that many people want to equate them (I've seen this as an excuse for allowing a skit during a worship service ... "it is effective in teaching a Bible lesson"). More often the equating of them comes from those that want to bend the RPW into a wax nose to be bent that allows anything ... if it can be used to teach; then by saying teaching is what a sermon is, allows anything which can teach. It is preaching that is an element of worship, not teaching.

Of course teaching must be done. The great commission is a command to make disciples, and we doing that (partially) through teaching. But disciples are those that undergo discipline (self-discipline most of the time). Are we making disciples if people only show up on Sunday morning and that is the only time they hear the word of God? I would say no. The call of God is not a call to slowly ease oneself into a new lifestyle, it is a call to deny self, take up a cross and follow. Those that show no sign of heeding that call may or may not be part of the body of Christ, but it is not for them that worship occurs (I would submit it is *least* for those that are not part of the body of Christ ... the worship service is not for evangelism even less than it is for teaching, even though it sometimes does occur).

I recognize that some churches use the worship service for teaching, and many use them for evangelism (with "alter calls" at the end of every sermon) which I submit is outside the scope of what worship is to be. Worship is to be God centered, and done as he has commanded.

I know what it is like to have to remove a child from a service when they are disruptive, but having library quiet is not required in a service. There needs to some control over children ... the service should not be a place where heckling occurs either ... but God (the audience of worship) hears the congregation (the performers of worship) even when children are less than perfectly quiet.

-----Added 10/19/2009 at 06:09:35 EST-----

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

4. I have never seen an advocate of the baby/toddler must be in the service (as opposed to a "may") answer the point made by Nehemiah 8:2-3

2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. (Emphasis added)

Fred, much of what you state I agree with, and while I tend to be of the opinion that it is not right to keep children out of the service, I do so for different reasons than you express. But I certainly want to be the first person to answer the post if you have never had this answered. The passage is not a worship service ... people worshiped, but this was at the outset, this was just reading the law to a people that had not heard the law (return to Jerusalem). So while it was those that could understand, there is nothing to say it was the Sabbath (it was the first of the month), and while worship occurred, it certainly was not temple worship. The context simply does not allow the application that it is supposed to be typical.

To state that I see nothing wrong with having a nursery is also true, but I see absolutely no mandate that it be used or that children be absolutely quiet.

i love hearing babies in church.... i think Jesus liked it as well

The one problem with nurseries is that, by necessity, they take some of 'those who understand' away from the preaching. I think each church needs to weigh the pros and cons and establish a policy that fits them best. This policy should not turn into 'tradition'. The church should revisit such decisions often to make sure the power of preaching is meeting its maximum potential in the church.

One more thing that I'd like to add. If "piping the sermon" into a nursery or cry room is sufficient, then how about over the internet? I see little if any difference between having a sermon piped into a nursery and having someone stay home and listen to whomever on the internet.

All those arguments for not having an internet church are the same for those that would be in the nursery week after week. The fewer people in the nursery, the better (though if you have a nursery, then it should be shared by as many people as possible so that few are out more than once or twice a year -- it should especially be manned by those that don't like to hear little children in the service if you ask me!).

I also love to hear children in the service, and while I might be upset with an older child that is not paying any heed to the sermon, I am happy to hear the sound of a baby in a worship service. I do not know when a child becomes aware of what is being said around them, but I know it is generally much sooner than when they can articulate it. I would rather have all the members of a church in the worship service than keep any of them out.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

I've commented on this topic before (a search will reveal at least a dozen of such threads), so I won't be extensive in my comments here.

1. I think that a covenantal principle is important, and families should be encouraged, where possible to worship together.

2. Attempts to embarrass families or restrict children from worship (especially at a late age) are wrong. I have seen instances where all children under 12 or 16 are discouraged/prevented from worship in favor of "children's" or "teen" services.

3. But I also believe it is illegitimate to embarrass or cajole families who have a real need for childcare during a service. Moms need a break. FAR too often it is always the Mom who is distracted or leaves the room. (And before a couple of posters pipe up who say "I take the child out," I am speaking from extensive experience in many churches in different parts of the country).

4. I have never seen an advocate of the baby/toddler must be in the service (as opposed to a "may") answer the point made by Nehemiah 8:2-3

2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. (Emphasis added)

5. I believe that those who most champion the "child must be in the service" view often make arguments that are contrary to the Reformed way of viewing both worship and the means of grace. When we speak of the means of grace, we (rightly) discuss the priority of the mind (viz. Owen on this point). This is the main reason we advocate Scripture reading in an intelligible (vulgar) language, preaching as a primary means of grace, and deny paedocommunion. Yet somehow, when we are speaking of a 8 month old, or a 10 month old, there is a form of mysticism that comes up, in which somehow simply being in the immediate physical location of a worship service imparts grace to a person who has no understanding of language, Biblical concepts, or teaching.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a nursery for such young ones, at the parent's option, so that the parents can be fed from the Word, have a short break from the cares of parenting, and be better equipped to teach their children.

So appropriately succinct, I am thinking through my stance on this again. Thanks!

If a child is not old enough to take communion, and has not reached what the parents consider to be the age of faith and understanding for that sacrament, are they really mentally capable of having their mind well renewed in faith by an adult sermon?

If they cannot eat the Lords supper, can they really "feast upon the word" any better in with the pastor's sermon, than with kid appropriate curriculums? If they do not have evidence of conversion and faith for communion, can they recieve the word spoken with faith? Don't we need to listen with faith?

I don't know, but I have always thought that the singing and prayer part of worship they do get something out of. But renewing the mind needs to be age appropriate, whether math, science, language, or theology. And faith is necessary for listening to the word preached.

My personal opinion is to let them stay in when they start taking communion but not before, its just a waste of coloring book pages and crayons and a distraction to everybody else.

Originally Posted by lynnie

If a child is not old enough to take communion, and has not reached what the parents consider to be the age of faith and understanding for that sacrament, are they really mentally capable of having their mind well renewed in faith by an adult sermon?

If they cannot eat the Lords supper, can they really "feast upon the word" any better in with the pastor's sermon, than with kid appropriate curriculums? If they do not have evidence of conversion and faith for communion, can they recieve the word spoken with faith? Don't we need to listen with faith?

I don't know, but I have always thought that the singing and prayer part of worship they do get something out of. But renewing the mind needs to be age appropriate, whether math, science, language, or theology. And faith is necessary for listening to the word preached.

My personal opinion is to let them stay in when they start taking communion but not before, its just a waste of coloring book pages and crayons and a distraction to everybody else.

The logical conclusion to some of your points would be to exclude unbelievers from the sermon as well.

Plus, do children benefit from seeing the sacraments modeled? We have had two children (in our tiny congregation) ask questions about the Lord's Supper and expressing a deepening understanding of faith (for the one who is capable).

Originally Posted by lynnie

If a child is not old enough to take communion, and has not reached what the parents consider to be the age of faith and understanding for that sacrament, are they really mentally capable of having their mind well renewed in faith by an adult sermon?

If they cannot eat the Lords supper, can they really "feast upon the word" any better in with the pastor's sermon, than with kid appropriate curriculums? If they do not have evidence of conversion and faith for communion, can they recieve the word spoken with faith? Don't we need to listen with faith?

I don't know, but I have always thought that the singing and prayer part of worship they do get something out of. But renewing the mind needs to be age appropriate, whether math, science, language, or theology. And faith is necessary for listening to the word preached.

My personal opinion is to let them stay in when they start taking communion but not before, its just a waste of coloring book pages and crayons and a distraction to everybody else.

Exo 12:24-26

“And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever. “When you enter the land which the Lord will give you, as He has promised, you shall observe this rite. “And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’

Not all are going to understand, and that is explicitly okay. Passover was explicitly for "you and your children" without lower age limit.

Again, worship is not what we get out of it. It is given to God, and we benefit from it only as a peripheral issue -- yes, we benefit from it (at least some of us) but that is beside the point. The pastor I would think often does not learn anything new in hearing his sermon preached (he hopefully knows what he is going to say and so much more before he speaks that when he preaches, it will add little to nothing), yet he is worshiping in the service as much as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

4. I have never seen an advocate of the baby/toddler must be in the service (as opposed to a "may") answer the point made by Nehemiah 8:2-3

2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. (Emphasis added)

Fred, much of what you state I agree with, and while I tend to be of the opinion that it is not right to keep children out of the service, I do so for different reasons than you express. But I certainly want to be the first person to answer the post if you have never had this answered. The passage is not a worship service ... people worshiped, but this was at the outset, this was just reading the law to a people that had not heard the law (return to Jerusalem). So while it was those that could understand, there is nothing to say it was the Sabbath (it was the first of the month), and while worship occurred, it certainly was not temple worship. The context simply does not allow the application that it is supposed to be typical.

You prove way too much. Find me one passage in the Bible where there is an explicit worship service, where babies are present. Explicitly. You cannot, by the rule you have just made. And you have also gutted the proof of the "Jesus suffered the children" proof text, since that was much less a worship service than that of Nehemiah 8.

There is a principle here that you dodge and refuse to address by generalities like "worship is not what we get out of it." No one is saying that. But you refuse to address the issue of the mind, the reading of Scripture in the vulgar (common) language and the Reformed view of the means of grace.

Originally Posted by lynnie

If a child is not old enough to take communion, and has not reached what the parents consider to be the age of faith and understanding for that sacrament, are they really mentally capable of having their mind well renewed in faith by an adult sermon?

If they cannot eat the Lords supper, can they really "feast upon the word" any better in with the pastor's sermon, than with kid appropriate curriculums? If they do not have evidence of conversion and faith for communion, can they recieve the word spoken with faith? Don't we need to listen with faith?

I don't know, but I have always thought that the singing and prayer part of worship they do get something out of. But renewing the mind needs to be age appropriate, whether math, science, language, or theology. And faith is necessary for listening to the word preached.

My personal opinion is to let them stay in when they start taking communion but not before, its just a waste of coloring book pages and crayons and a distraction to everybody else.

This also proves too much. Being admitted to the Table implies a level of understanding (not just a capacity to understand, but more beyond that) prior to admission. There is a huge difference between understanding simple things appropriate to one's age, and an inability to understand language at all.

I make it a point to have portions and applications of my preaching understandable to small children.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

You prove way too much. Find me one passage in the Bible where there is an explicit worship service, where babies are present. Explicitly. You cannot, by the rule you have just made. And you have also gutted the proof of the "Jesus suffered the children" proof text, since that was much less a worship service than that of Nehemiah 8.

There is a principle here that you dodge and refuse to address by generalities like "worship is not what we get out of it." No one is saying that. But you refuse to address the issue of the mind, the reading of Scripture in the vulgar (common) language and the Reformed view of the means of grace.

Fred, I'm not going to fall into a trap of trying to prove that an argument from silence is valid. There are also no instances of explicit mention of the baptism of infants, but I know you won't insist that means we should not baptize infants. Though toward the end, you will find there is a command to bring infants into the worship at least once to which you will agree.

I think you missed something of what I said initially ... much of what you said I agree. My point is that there is reason for not having paedo communion that is beyond not having an example of it. The LS requires discerning the body and blood of the Lord, and so requires faith on the part of the individual.

There is no requirement of faith on the part of the individual for baptism (and I take it that you would agree that a baptism for infants is only done in a worship service, so if you must have one example of a worship service with an infant, you have it there ... along with every circumcision in the OT). Of course you might want to argue that these are the exception ... that we bring our children in to be baptized, then relegate them to nursery for years after having them in the service once. So then there is a requirement for infants to be in a worship service at least once (even our credo baptist brethren would have a dedication of an infant in a worship service). But then those that say infants have no place in worship would then kick them out.

Again, while I agree with much of what you post, I do not think that worship only occurs because of understanding. Long before my children understand the language of the apostles' creed, they know and can recite the words. Long before they understand the Bible, it is read to them. Long before they understand the words to "A Mighty Fortress" they sing it. Long before they understand why we give an offering, they place their offering in the collection. Are they participating in worship at their baptism? You bet they are! Are they participating in the offering? Absolutely! Are they hearing the word of God? Do they recite the creeds? Do they sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs?

They worship God. Not only through what they understand, but also through what they do not know. They knew nothing of the meaning of baptism (at between 10 days and 2 months [when we were in a church plant]). They participated in worship then, and I see no reason why they should not participate all the way along.

Does that mean that there shouldn't be a nursery? No. Does that mean that there aren't times when parents have little choice but to have a child in nursery? No. Take an autistic child into a service, and if they are having a highly autistic incident, they will melt down with nothing to do but remove them from the service (all the while them saying "I want to worship God! I want to worship God!) What I do not think acceptable is that with no extenuating circumstance that people think it okay to warehouse their children away from the worship of God.

It would be good for those in the church to help parents keep children in the worship, but the norm is to help parents keep children out of worship. I'd rather see volunteers that will sit with a little one and help keep them under control in worship than have nursery workers outside the worship.

Originally Posted by Scottish Lass

Originally Posted by lynnie

If a child is not old enough to take communion, and has not reached what the parents consider to be the age of faith and understanding for that sacrament, are they really mentally capable of having their mind well renewed in faith by an adult sermon?

If they cannot eat the Lords supper, can they really "feast upon the word" any better in with the pastor's sermon, than with kid appropriate curriculums? If they do not have evidence of conversion and faith for communion, can they recieve the word spoken with faith? Don't we need to listen with faith?

I don't know, but I have always thought that the singing and prayer part of worship they do get something out of. But renewing the mind needs to be age appropriate, whether math, science, language, or theology. And faith is necessary for listening to the word preached.

My personal opinion is to let them stay in when they start taking communion but not before, its just a waste of coloring book pages and crayons and a distraction to everybody else.

The logical conclusion to some of your points would be to exclude unbelievers from the sermon as well.

Plus, do children benefit from seeing the sacraments modeled? We have had two children (in our tiny congregation) ask questions about the Lord's Supper and expressing a deepening understanding of faith (for the one who is capable).

Plus, our children are also just aware of what we do on Sundays. They are aware that we pray, sing, read, listen, and partake of communion every Sunday. They see that the things we do at home in family worship are modeled after something. (All but the communion!) Should we wait until they are old enough to "comprehend" to start family worship?

However, I do like Pastor Greco's point about comprehension mattering, and I appreciate the way he connected it to ours not being a faith of mysticism, because I do believe that I have probably considered my children to be receiving the means of grace earlier than what was possible--BUT, I also believe that I wouldn't know for certain when they are able to start receiving them, so it is a safe choice, in the very least.

-----Added 10/19/2009 at 09:25:07 EST-----

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

It would be good for those in the church to help parents keep children in the worship, but the norm is to help parents keep children out of worship. I'd rather see volunteers that will sit with a little one and help keep them under control in worship than have nursery workers outside the worship.

Great idea!!!

Originally Posted by Caroline

I don't think anyone said anything about not spanking a child at all. I said I prefer not to spank them for not sitting still in church when they are toddlers.

Indeed, not!

Discipline established and accomplished in the home, will reflect in public.

some here say that they spank their children every Lord's Day at least once for not sitting still.

God forbid!

Proper biblical discipline at home should prevent public discipline. Spanking children in the context of worship is very unwise.

Let's face it, if you were slapped every time you attended church, wouldn't you start to dread going?

A profound, AMEN!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline

I don't think anyone said anything about not spanking a child at all. I said I prefer not to spank them for not sitting still in church when they are toddlers.

Indeed, not!

Discipline established and accomplished in the home, will reflect in public.




Quote:
some here say that they spank their children every Lord's Day at least once for not sitting still.

God forbid!

Proper biblical discipline at home should prevent public discipline. Spanking children in the context of worship is very unwise.


Quote:
Let's face it, if you were slapped every time you attended church, wouldn't you start to dread going?

A profound, AMEN!

You don't have my son.

scottish lass, I think unbelievers understand the sermons perfectly. They may think it is a load of rubbish, but they comprehend what is being said. Does a two year old? It isn't the same at all.

Just to clarify, we had our kids in for singing/prayer/communion/scripture reading. I didn't mean I thought toddlers should be out the whole time, I meant during the sermon. If teaching from the pulpit is to renew the mind, I think the way the mind of a three year old and the mind of a 45 year old gets renewed is a little bit different. By maybe 8-12 depending on the kid they start grasping deeper theology from the pulpit, but the average toddler, well, mine were in the 99th percentile on all those CAT tests in school, they are smart, but they were not ready for sermons as toddlers. Not at all.


Our kids took communion very young though. By age 4 if I recall correctly. (before our PCA days and it was OK in those churches).They all gave every evidence of having true love and faith for the Lord and were aware of sin in a way appropriate to their age. (I tend to think they may have had more simplistic faith and repentance at the table than us grownups did!) I don't see how the table can be denied to those who are capable of understanding sermons. It is easier to understand communion than the average good Reformed sermon. At least that is how I see it......

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim

You don't have my son.

Are you admitting to physically punishing your child in church, routinely and repeatedly?

How are you dealing with your son in private and out of sight of others?

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim

You don't have my son.

Are you admitting to physically punishing your child in church, routinely and repeatedly?

How are you dealing with your son in private and out of sight of others?

Quite frankly, I don't think this is any of your business. His job as a parent isn't to live up to your expectations.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Again, worship is not what we get out of it. It is given to God, and we benefit from it only as a peripheral issue -- yes, we benefit from it (at least some of us) but that is beside the point. The pastor I would think often does not learn anything new in hearing his sermon preached (he hopefully knows what he is going to say and so much more before he speaks that when he preaches, it will add little to nothing), yet he is worshiping in the service as much as anyone else.

Brian, I hope you do not mind, but I am going to start another thread on this issue and hope many can hammer it out together. "Is teaching involved in the worship service"

Hey sola, don't feel bad, we had four sons. The second one got 20 times more spankings than all the rest and was still the ringleader for mischief. Drove us wild sometimes. Age 25 now and turned out fine. He got hired several years ago at a huge summer camp with a hundred school teachers doing specialties (his was archery), and the camp director said he had only hired 3 non school teachers and my son was the youngest of all, but he thought he could handle it. He did great, especially with the goof offs and the troublemakers. He's a natural with kids. Good leadership giftings, he has been a natural leader all his life in most situations.

One time in church when he was about two almost three maybe, he got up, ripped down his pants and announced that he had to pee and waddled down the aisle. The whole church dissolved laughing. I was mortified. My other three were so compliant and mellow, we used to joke that we wondered if the hospital gave us the wrong kid.


I'm not into Dobson but he does talk about the pin prick test in one of his books. Prick a baby foot at one week old and there are maybe nine different reactions. The whimper, the pull the foot away, the scream, the indifference, the angry defiance, etc. At one week. Some of them are just born a certain way. The strong willed are much harder to train but the potential for influence is also greater, so it is a gift. Hang in there.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

One more thing that I'd like to add. If "piping the sermon" into a nursery or cry room is sufficient, then how about over the internet? I see little if any difference between having a sermon piped into a nursery and having someone stay home and listen to whomever on the internet.

I told my husband about this post this morning and said, "maybe I should just keep my fuzzy slippers on and stay here this morning..?"

Yeah, he wasn't really convinced.

I agree with Brian, and wish I could find a church where people really didn't mind a 17 month old puttering around, but I think a cry room is the next best thing.

I listened to a very interesting sermon on this topic by Jeff Noblit that would be beneficial to this topic.
Sermons | Anchored In Truth Ministries "Why We Encourage Using the Nursery Until Your Children Are Able to Listen With Understanding"

I wrote this on my blog about it..

Plenty of sermons have been preached about disciplining children, and why children should sit in the worship service with their parents from birth, but below is a sermon you’ve probably never heard before. Many well meaning parents, with their hearts in the right place (myself included), have headed this advice. Some level of guilt is planted in us that leaving our children in the presence of christian fellowship while we give our attention and respect to the Word of God is somehow passing off our parental responsibilities spoken of in scripture.

But is the purpose of the preaching of God’s word being ignored, while the purpose of the training of children exalted? What do the scriptures say about conduct during the preaching of God’s word?

If you are under the impression that having a nursery is only for selfish and irresponsible parents, I encourage you to open your heart for a moment and your mind to the scriptures. Jeff Noblit, who is Paul Washer’s pastor, gives some insight to this topic in his sermon Why We Encourage Using the Nursery Until Your Children Are Able to Listen With Understanding from Nehemiah 8:1-3, 8 which can be found here.

I think above all, we need to be careful in forcing guilt and blame on other believers for silly things with no scriptural basis. I have yet to find a bible verse that condemns a parent for leaving their child in the presence of another while they attend to other tasks. I think it quite a good idea to suggest that we treat the preaching of God’s word with reverence, so that when a child enters the age of understanding the scriptures, they might be as attentive and respective of the preaching of the word as we have been. How do we allow ourselves to become so distracted during the preaching of the word, and yet expect our very young children to do exactly the opposite?

Thanks Vanessa, that does look interesting. Very rarely hear anyone preaching directly about stuff like that!
I haven't been able to listen to that yet, but I'm interested in what age he says is old enough to understand the sermon.

I haven't heard the sermon yet, but I am wondering if this could be a Baptist vs. Presby distinction.

I know that Baptist churches in general seem (I said seem, please don't be mad if I am way off base!) to be intentional and deliberate in their children's service idea, whereas most Presby churches that I know of generally set it up so that the best place for them to be during the worship service is in worship, though of course they might take Sunday School seriously for children. The Presby's approach to an alternative during the worship hour is not quite as intentional or even as "beneficial" to a child, as it is usually just nursery. In my experience, I've not been to a Presby church (a legit one--not USA or anything) with Kids' church, but I have been to Baptist or Baptistic churches with Kids' church.

So if a parent was convinced that children should not be in the Service, he might fare better at a church where there is something other than nursery offered, not because nursery is bad, but because it is not a time of teaching and it's not Sunday-specific.

Also, could Covenant Theology come into play?

An aside, and I am sure that I've mentioned this specific incident before on the PB, but we once bought a book from the thrift store by Dobson on child-rearing. I read his belief that children should not be in church before a certain age (four, I believe). He said that if your church did not have a nursery, you should hire a babysitter and leave your child at home! My husband threw the book away

Does anyone else who advocates children in the nursery also advocate children staying home on Sunday mornings? Let's say that you did not have to hire a babysitter, but it worked out that your mom watched them for free because her service was at a different time (this way, no one is missing church or being employed on Sunday for your children). Would you see a strong reason to bring your kids with you Sunday morning, if there was no Sunday School class that they were missing.

Originally Posted by he beholds

An aside, and I am sure that I've mentioned this specific incident before on the PB, but we once bought a book from the thrift store by Dobson on child-rearing. I read his belief that children should not be in church before a certain age (four, I believe). He said that if your church did not have a nursery, you should hire a babysitter and leave your child at home! My husband threw the book away

Needless to say, Jessi, little Grace Cameron Phillips, D.V., will be not only be baptized as close to the 8th day as is feasible, but she will be sitting under the preaching of the word as early as possible.

Someone asked for an explicit reference that called for the bringing of children to worship. The following text calls for a gathering of the whole people together for the ministry of the Word. And a general reference to children is made, part-for-the-whole, indeed a fortiori, argument from lesser to greater (if these least-of-all, then the whole number).

It may be argued that this was a special occasion, or occasional in nature. OK, but it is a plain call for the entire people to be gathered, without exception for age. Providence and prudence are always needful considerations (blunting the absolute enforcement of any statue), but take note of this passage.

Dt.31:9-13

9 So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 And Moses commanded them, saying: “At the end of every seven years, at the appointed time in the year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. 12 Gather the people together, men and women and little ones, and the stranger who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe all the words of this law, 13 and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess.