Children's church, Sunday School and nurseries

[rlvaughn]

You know what? About his fatal interaction with another's family's child several years ago?

That respondents would focus on J. D. Hall rather than what he said in the quote I pasted. I think that is called ad hominem argument.

Leppers?
Forget Sunday School, looks like 'J.D.' needs some regular school.

And his spelling, which we might more graciously accept as a typo rather than thinking he needs to go back to grade school.

 

[Jerome]

Please, don't put him into a classroom with youngsters! GED or independent study for sure.

Sorry, it was just sticky P.

 

[rlvaughn]

Fie on thee and thy sticky P (whatever that is).

 

[rlvaughn]

Moving on from Heathen Hall and stating it myself, I would also consider a restaurant that wanted me to check my grandchildren at the door as not being “family friendly.” And there are at least some churches that expect this.

 

[annsni]

I found this interesting comment on children's church at Pulpit and Pen (yea, I know, I know).

See, instead I see it this way:

A restaurant that welcomes the kids to sit with the parents but they also provide an additional dining room for kids with kid sized tables, food that the kids would enjoy, their sized silverware, cups with lids and fun entertainment and/or learning geared towards the kids.

 

[Jerome]

Fie on thee and thy sticky P (whatever that is).

Isn't that how he might've "mistyped" leper as lepper?

 

[rlvaughn]

Perhaps so. I don't need anything sticky on a keyboard to be able to mistype.

 

[rlvaughn]

See, instead I see it this way:

A restaurant that welcomes the kids to sit with the parents but they also provide an additional dining room for kids with kid sized tables, food that the kids would enjoy, their sized silverware, cups with lids and fun entertainment and/or learning geared towards the kids.

And what would be their motive -- because on principle the restaurant loves kids or a wise business decision to make more money? A church's mentality to provide everything for everybody often comes off that way as well.

 

[Jerome]

Do some primitives allow entire families to be seated together now? The old timey way separated families in seating.


P.E. Burroughs, The Baptist People, p. 45:

Among the English Baptists of the seventeenth century some interesting customs prevailed, which were likewise to be found in America in the eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries. The men sat on one side of the meeting house, while the women sat on the other side.

The History of the European Family: Family life in the Long Nineteenth Century 1789-1913, p. 215:

women [sitting] next to their husbands in church. . .reflected modern norms about gender relations.

 

[Jerome]

Same with the Puritans and Methodists, apparently:


Robert J. Dinkin, "Seating the Meeting House in Early Massachusetts," New England Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), p. 457:

In a few instances children were seated in accordance with their family's standing, but most frequently they were assigned gallery seats, the rear seats, or the stairs.

19th Century Southern Methodist preacher deemed family seating a modern and unwelcome innovation:

I avow myself in favor of the old rule. 'Let the men and the women sit apart in all our congregations' It may be pleasant and convenient for families to occupy the same pew, but pleasure and convenience ought to be given up for the sake of religious interest.

 

[Jerome]

food that the kids would enjoy, their sized silverware, cups with lids

Yes, I wonder if these folks are ever tempted to take advantage of the "kids eat free off their own menu" deals? Or would they reject such on principle?

 

[rlvaughn]

Do some primitives allow entire families to be seated together now? The old timey way separated families in seating.

If by primitives you mean Primitive Baptists, I can only say that there has been no seating segregated by gender in any Primitive Baptist Church I've ever visited (which is quite a few, but mainly in Texas). But I would not be surprised to hear that some more isolated churches still practice this.

P.E. Burroughs, The Baptist People, p. 45:

I was intrigued that Burroughs implied this was a bygone practice after the 19th century. This was, from what I have been told, still common in rural Baptist churches in East Texas in the early 1900s, but was breaking down by the 20s and 30s. I am aware of one black missionary Baptist church that continued the practice into the 1970s.

19th Century Southern Methodist preacher deemed family seating a modern and unwelcome innovation:

Reading further down it seems Pierce's primary objection was that once the division of seating was abolished, the unmarried males and females would be sitting side by side!