Leaders @ Home
Recently, I’ve observed or been party to conversations wherein I reached a quick conclusion that more and more of our parents have bought into a philosophy that centers around the needs/wants/expectations/desires of their children above all else — even what is essentially good for the child in the longterm.
For example, there are several families in our church that absolutely, positively will not place their child (ranging in ages from 6 weeks to 3 years) in the nursery or childcare. I’m familiar with the over-protective “first-child” syndrome, though my wife and I never participated in it. The idea is that placing one’s otherwise healthy child in a church nursery is sure to infect the little darling with some fatal or near-terminal disease and one must wait until their little immune systems are capable of warding off an attack — you know, like when they are mid-way through puberty.
But beyond that, these are folks who have placed their child or toddler into the arms of a loving, screened and experienced nursery worker to see that child’s lip quiver or eyes fill with tears and believe that to leave them there will in someway traumatize them to the extent that it will require years of therapy to undo the damage. Thus, in spite of the fact that our nurseries are in the same wing as is the worship center, that we have message-capable vibrating beepers available, that we have a numerical calling system mounted in, not one but two places in, the auditorium and that we have a wonderful ratio of children to workers in place, they chose to sit in lobbies watching the service on video feed or simply roaming the halls carrying the little darling with them.
I don’t mean to sound mean or mocking, but honestly, I would like to know if they have the same “high standard” for separation anxiety when it comes time for them to go to work on Monday or when they have to go shopping or if it’s date night or what about when the kid needs to go to school? Or could it be that it’s just a way to cut out of church because of a spiritual issue? To me, it’s just an unhealthy symptom of a culture that places its children on pedestals and which creates an unrealistic expectation on the part of the child that the world revolves them and their immediate needs.
I am regularly stunned at examples that cross my attention of parents who are unwilling or unable to accept the fact that they are supposed to be the leaders in their own homes. I frequently hear of and observe situations of conflict and catastrophe wherein kids are seemingly managing or controlling the lives of their parents rather than the other way around.
As the father of four cookie-munchers myself, I can assure you that parenting is indeed a stressful and tiring role. I’m never tired of being a parent, but I am often tired as a parent. Earning a living, providing care, juggling schedules, coordinating transportation, training, following up, checking homework, attending ball games, wiping snotty noses, taking temperatures and a thousand other facets of parenting fill our days with an exhausting pace. And I’m experiencing this from the perspective of the husband of a stay-at-home mom! I honestly don’t know how single parents do it without collapsing.
One of the reasons we survive in our busy home is due to my firm belief that when God gave me children, He also put me in charge of them. Therefore every day, I must make decisions that aren’t always easy or popular, but which need to be made by the grown-up in charge and for better or worse, that happens to be me.
I’m glad the role of “FATHER” isn’t an elected position as I’m sure I wouldn’t make re-election on three days out of four. Most days, I’d be voted out of office faster than you can say “Gray Davis”. Whether it’s limiting the number of outside activities in which we allow our children to participate, to enforcing bedtime, to dishing out punishment, to insisting that each person make their own bed and clean up their own place at the dinner table, little of which I direct and decide in my own home is met with admiring approval and cried of “Yes, oh wise and benevolent father!” Pastor’s children argue, pout, resist and sneak just like anyone else’s kids do and I often find it easier to manage the one hundred and seventy-plus staff members at our ministry and the needs of nearly three thousand church members than I do managing my own household.
That said, I’m not trying to be discouraging or negative. I am saying that any parent who has a desire to rear their children with strong values, a moral conscience, a love for the things of God, an appreciate for their role in God’s economy, good character and personal discipline must be ready, willing and able to take the mantel of leadership in their home.
That means saying “NO” and meaning “NO.” It requires us to give up things that we’d like to do (like rest, watch TV and reading sometimes) in order to follow-through with training by “inspecting what we expect.” Leadership will sometimes mean that not everyone is going to be happy, understand or agree. Leadership sets standards, trains toward specific goals, adjusts and influences attitudes, evaluates growth and develops plans. Leaders is proactive, not reactive. Leadership must show initiative, set the pace and provide an example.
Much of what we see in the lives of our children is merely a reflection of what they have seen in us. Negative parents rear negative children. Fearful parents real fearful children. Parents who resist authority in their life rear children who are often rebellious and angry. Parents who have a hands off approach to life rear children who float, struggle and flounder.
Leadership provides security. During times of crisis, they might not have a ready answer, but they exude confidence, concern and commitment….qualities that children need from their parents. Leadership does not vacillate, nor does it merely dictate. It inspires. It functions by principle. It isn’t afraid to be in charge.
Kids need leadership in their lives and that leadership needs to come from their parents. Not their friends, not the media, not the school, not the entertainment industry, but good ol’ mom and dad. That’s the way God structured it and it is impossible to improve on it. Do your kids a favor and provide them with consistent direction, leadership and accountability. Don’t let them manipulate and coerce you with fits, tears and temper-tantrums. Don’t be afraid to be in charge. They may not like you today, but they’ll love you forever if you will.
Lyn said,
May 18, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I am left quite puzzled by your article. You state that you want fathers to assume their God-given roles of leadership, and yet you object when fathers decide that it is wiser for them to keep their infant/toddler out of your nursery in a manner that does not disturb your church service?!? I honestly do not understand your perspective.
Perhaps some of those parents who frustrate you by keeping their children out of the nursery are doing so for similar reasons to ours–the father has, in the exercise of his responsibilities of family leadership, determined such to be best for the health, discipline, and instruction of his children.
Furthermore, nurseries/day cares are some of the healthiest germ factories one can find! Many children who are regularly left in nurseries/day care centers are routinely sick. Very often these same children “miraculously” stay well as soon as they are removed from the nursery/day care center.
Please do not cavalierly attribute a decision to keep children out of nurseries to a lack of fatherly leadership or a passive “giving in” to our children’s whims. Sometimes these decisions–made all the more difficult by pastoral reactions such as yours–are made in an honest attempt to exercise God-given responsibilities to the best of our abilities.
Dan Burrell said,
May 18, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
Sorry, Lyn….I’m still not buying it. Kids get sick. The get sick from daycares, from going to the doctor’s office for immunizations, from church nurseries, from sitting in the buggy at the supermarket. That’s life.
I’m not suggesting that parents should be careless. If your child is ill — of course, keep it out of the nursery. If they have an immunity deficiency, then of course, precautions should be taken.
But again…if every person in our church adopted your philosophy of hyper-protectionism, then we’d have 150-175 kids milling about the halls with their parents or being disruptive in church.
I fully understand training a child to sit in church and behave. We’ve been through it four times. I think it is admirable for parents to train their children at a reasonably early age to get something out of church. We started ours at about 3. But we also sat near and exit, brought age-appropriate activities and distractions for them and made sure that they weren’t being disruptive.
As with all things, common sense should be a guide. But a parent, who refuses to ever use a church nursery because of the potential of picking up a bug, is demostrating exactly the kind of “child first” mentality that leads to what I discussed in my article.
But as always, anyone can feel to disagree… I don’t tell people they aren’t welcome at my church if they refuse to use the ministry. It’s just a characteristic of a broader problem in my humble opinion.
Lyn said,
May 18, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Sorry, Pastor Burrell, but I just don’t buy it!:) Your bottom line seems to be one of accusing parents who make different choices from yours about the church nursery to be abandoning their Biblical responsibilities for leadership in the home in favor of a “child-first mentality.” May I make a suggestion? Instead of assuming the motivation of your people–and certainly before you cavalierly assume that perhaps they are just trying to “cut out of church because of a spiritual issue”–please talk to them and ask them to explain their motivation. You might be encouraged and challenged to find that they take their Biblical responsibilities for family leadership as seriously as you take yours. You might find that they are consciously sacrificing their ease and comfort for the long-term spiritual well-being of their children. (And you might find that some of those who, with a sigh of relief, faithfully deposit their children in the nursery each week, do so not because they have consciously thought and decided that it is best, but because (1) it’s the way we have always done it, (2) my pastor will question my motivation if I don’t go along with what everyone else does, and (3) it’s a whole lot easier for me, the parent!)
As for sickness, it is not at all the only reason to keep an infant/toddler out of a nursery/day care, but it is a very good reason. Far from being a position of “hyper protectionism,” it involves a healthy dose of common sense–children who are healthy sleep better, eat better, behave better, and learn better than those who are constantly sick. Sure, there will be sometimes when it is necessary to expose one’s children to germs–frankly, we do it most everytime that we take them to the pediatrician’s office! But why do it when it is totally unnecesary and merely for our convenience?
In sum, please don’t assume our motivation! Talk to your moms and dads, really listening to what they have to say. You might well discover that some of these folks whom you are criticizing are the ones who are making personal sacrifices in order to exercise wise and godly leadership in their homes. You might also find that they are well aware of your pastoral assumptions as to their motivation and hurting.
Dan Burrell said,
May 18, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
You assume that I don’t know their motivations. I’m fully aware of what motivates the vast majority of those who refuse to use a nursery — it’s over protectionism. (And it’s because I or someone in our leadership has asked them — why aren’t you using the nursery?) But there’s a tremendous inconsistency that’s easily uncovered which I pointed out in my response. It’s generally exclusively that germophobia kicks in. Rarely does it apply at other places. I’m sorry — when such inconsistency occurs, it’s hard to take their protestations and rationale seriously.
Beyond that, I’d say I often see where it leads. It’s the same mentality that I’ve watched homeschoolers adopt over time which eventually leads them to drop out of church in order to protect their kids from outside influences. (Before you over respond to my use of the homeschooler analogy, know that we homeschooled for seven years.) Much of the “home church” movement is an outgrowth of over-protectionism in many homeschool circles. (I just KNOW that’s going to generate some angry emails to me. sigh.)
I find it difficult that I am sounding like one who doesn’t believe in sheltering their kids. My children would howl at the idea that I was suggesting that a parent should be protective as they consider me to be obsessively controlling on outside influences.
I don’t want to get completely bogged down in a dialogue with you over the nursery anecdote….we’ll just agree to disagree. The bigger point is this….
Many, many parents today allow their children — tacitly or implicity — to so dominate their life, their agenda that they fail to give proper guidance and direction to them. I realize I apparently struck a tremendous nerve with you in the opening paragraphs. That was not my intent obviously.
But I still believe both my illustration and my main point are worthy of consideration. Again, and as always, it’s just my opinion.
Thanks for reading!
Brent said,
May 18, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
I am saddened by this post. I accept your word that you do not mean to sound mocking, but that is exactly how you are coming across. And if it comes across this way to a Christian brother who is not in your church, I wonder how it feels to the persons in your spiritual charge who are the subject of your post.
I fear that a key problem is the “quick conclusion” that you have reached about these Christian brothers and sisters. Have you met with each of the fathers of these families to discuss these concerns? Have you engaged in a thoughtful conversation (not hallway conversation) with each man in which your first goal was to listen attentively to him to learn and understand fully what motivated HIS decision for HIS family?
If not, then why not? And then on what basis are you making insinuations about these men’s leadership of their families? And why are you dealing with this first on the world-readable web?
If you have had such conversations with each man, then good — but that does not come across from what you wrote. Your generalizations and trivializations of some important issues that go far beyond germs are not what I would expect following such thoughtful conversations about the issues. (And if the issue in your church is really just a germ one, then it seems that your post would have been just a germ post).
You see, I fully agree with you on the importance of men being leaders in their families. And you are absolutely right that being a leader involves sometimes saying “NO” and really meaning it. Sometimes, that means that I must say “NO” to my children. But sometimes it means that I must say “NO” to others whose ideas — no matter how well intentioned — are not best for my family. In such instances, I must not only say “NO,” but I must really mean “NO,” even in the face of adult peer pressure to go along with the program.
Cathy McNabb said,
May 18, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
At my church every child under the age of 3 has to be in the nursery. I don’t disput that. As an ER RN in a pediatric hospital, I do think it is unwise for parents to place their baby in the nursery for at least the first 6 weeks. Nothing like a little fever in a neonate, babe under 6 weeks that won’t result in a spinal tap and 2 days in the hospital.
If I even had another baby, I would opt staying at home them putting my baby through the risk of menigitis.
That is my 2cents
sleepygirl said,
May 19, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Brent, I don’t know who you are but I agree with you, and I also agree with the RN about babies. This is a sad post. I cannot say any more here about this, my opinion is too strong.
Christy said,
May 19, 2006 @ 9:55 am
It’s seems so interesting to me that we have become so “over-protective” as a society when it suits our needs. Didn’t our parents put us in the nursery, take us to the grocery store and let us play in the rain and mud? When we put our child’s needs in front of ourselves (in the sense of not using the nursery) we are robbing ourselves of the spiritual blessings and the commands from our Lord to not foraske the assembling of ourselves together. I for one have 3 boys, each has spent time in the nursery, but I wouldn’t want to guess where I’d be spritually if for the last 8 years I was walking the halls and sitting in the lobby instead of being under sound spiritual teaching. Not to mention robbing those nursery workers who have felt called by God to minister to our children. Aren’t you basically saying my child is “too good” for the nursery or these people are not careful enough to care for my child so that he would become ill at their hands?
Gordon Cloud said,
May 19, 2006 @ 10:08 am
As another pastor, let me say that I support Bro. Burrell’s comments. In my years in the pastorate, the number of children that I have seen getting sick in a nursery is incredibly low to the point of almost being non-existent.
As he has, I too have questioned parents as to why they do not use the nursery. The answer is almost always what he said.
On the other hand, one of my members recently testified in our church what a blessing the nursery had been to her. Her granddaughter was born with a crack addiction. She had to raise the baby who did nothing but cry incessantly for the first year and a half of her life. This member stated that were it not for the blessing of the nursery ministry that gave her one hour on Sunday morning to sit quietly and focus on the Lord, she would have lost her sanity.
NCADAD said,
May 19, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Pastor, I think you found a hot topic!
As the father of a 6 year old and a 3 year old, I have to say I agree with Pastor Burrell. I think the picture he is painting is one of a “child-centric” family…that’s the epidemic. The nursery example is a symptom of the epidemic. It’s not that ALL parents in the lobby are coddling their children - but some of them likely are. Speaking of which, I’ve been in the lobby with my kids too. There are valid reasons.
I’d like to add that if you’re child is sick…don’t bring them to the nursery…especially if your church has streaming video or other means that keep the nurseries clean and the adults in worship.
(One other thing: Dan never suggested that you should put a child younger than 6 weeks in the nursery)
Lyn said,
May 19, 2006 @ 11:34 am
I fear that several important ideas are being lost here. Is there a Biblical mandate for a church nursery, or are we talking about a church tradition of the last 100 years? Who has God tasked with the authority and responsibility of exercising loving leadership for their households? Upon what basis should fathers make decisions for their households? Certainly not under the influence of peer pressure, sarcasm, and hyperbole!
Christy, “the way our parents did it” is not the standard for our faith and practice. Likewise, an action is not advisable merely because “our parents did it and we turned out okay.” You asked, “Aren’t you basically saying my child is “too good” for the nursery?” NO! It is your reasoning that is faulty. Biblically, the decision as to whether or not to utilize a church nursery is within the authority and responsibility of the father. It is not an issue about whether “my child is too good” for the nursery, but whether, in my husband’s best judgment, the nursery is (A) necessary, and (B) the best tool at our disposal for the discipline, instruction, and nurture of our children.
Pastor Cloud, you cite anecdotal evidence as to the health of church nurseries, and yet I can cite loads of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. What does our anecdotal evidence prove? Not much. The issue has to be decided on principle and not on anecdotal evidence. In this case, the relevant Biblical principle is that God has given fathers the authority and responsibility to make these decisions for their own homes. Since the church nursery has no Biblical mandate, upon what Scripural authority can pastors rightly utilize sarcasm, hyperbole, and peer pressure to bring fathers into conformity with church traditions against their best judgment?
Pastor Burrell, I am sorry if you feel that I took your post off-track with the discussion of church nurseries. That seemed to be a major point of your original post. However, you stated that the bigger point of your post was actually your concern that, “many parents today allow their children — tacitly or implicity — to so dominate their life, their agenda that they fail to give proper guidance and direction to them.” I fully agree that it is a huge problem when children are allowed to be the de facto leaders of the home. However, there is a vital difference between children being the de facto leaders of the home and parents choosing to sacrificially devote a major percentage of their resources to the discipline and training of their children in the fear of God. The first instance is blatantly un-Biblical. The second is simple obedience to the precepts of Scripture. Do you really want fathers under your pastoral care making spiritual decisions for their family? Perhaps there are better ways to achieve this than sarcasm, peer pressure, and blog hyperbole.
weathtd said,
May 19, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Congradulations Pastor Dan, you obviously stepped on some toes–hard. However, some have taken the nursery example as the purpose of the article and ignored its real focus.
Having been a police officer and now working at a public recreation center, I see the results of “child centric” parenting daily. From the mother who protested that her “son wouldn’t do something like that” when I pulled him from a stolen car that he admitted he stole; to the parents who behave inappropriatly at their child’s basketball game; putting the child first results in the child growing up to be a miserable adult. The child finds out too late that the rest of the world will not bow down to them and their will.
My co-workers and I are amazed how easy it is to identify the families that come in that are run by the children. The kids are giving the orders and the parents act apologetic that they did not anticipate the child’s orders sooner. It’s very sad. Thanks alot Dr. Spock.
Gordon Cloud said,
May 19, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Lyn, you are right that my comment was anecdotal. I was simply trying to point out something from my experience that corroborated with the arguments Bro. Burrell was making.
You said:
Since the church nursery has no Biblical mandate, upon what Scripural authority can pastors rightly utilize sarcasm, hyperbole, and peer pressure to bring fathers into conformity with church traditions against their best judgment?
I don’t think anyone has tried to use Scriptural authority, sarcasm, hyperbole or peer pressure to make anyone do anything here. Bro. Burrell was trying to make a point that some (not all) parents are overly concerned about their children to the point of making them the center of their lives rather than what might be the best for all involved.
Northsider said,
May 20, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
I couldn’t help but laugh as Lyn keeps speaking and speaking and speaking for, not herself, but her leadership prone, but still silent, husband.
In any event, Lyn seems to wrongly assume that simply because her husband has been given the role by God for leading the family that there is no God-given role for a pastor to challenge the leadership decisions the husband has made. But, of course, that’s exactly the pastor’s proper Biblical role.
I’m also amused that, while Lyn repeatedly asserts that her husband has decided that the nursery is not the “best for the health, discipline, and instruction of his children,” she has never bothered to explain why that is so. The closest Lyn comes to explaing her assertion is her statement that “children who are healthy sleep better, eat better, behave better, and learn better than those who are constantly sick.” Thay may be true. But, according to Scripture, parents who are constantly absent from church run the risk of wavering in their Christian faith. See Heb. 10:23-25. Which is worse? As Christ put it, those who would be His true disciples may, at times, have to “hate” even their “children.” See Luke 14:25. Apparently, Lyn is more concerned about her children’s sleeping patterns and sniffles than about since sold-out discipleship. That’s your (or, as you insist, your husband’s) decision, but every pastor should confront that decision as wrongheaded and unbiblical.
I also couldn’t help but laugh at Lyn’s assertion that she shouldn’t be subject to “peer pressure.” Really? Perhaps if you weren’t sitting in the lobby during the service at your husband’s insistence, you would know that exorting one another — call it “peer pressure” if you want — is exactly the purpose of the church.
Brent said,
May 20, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
Northsider, you would have to work hard to be more wrong.
1. Lyn’s husband is not silent in this thread. He was the second commenter to join — me.
2. Neither Lyn nor I assume that an elder has no role in challenging a decision of a husband/father. To the contrary, we recognize and accept the Biblical roles and responsibilities of elders, including that of exhorting the believers in their charge. However, we also recognize that elders must follow the precepts, principles, and patterns of Scripture and must express themselves consistently with the Biblical principles of communication.
3. As to why I chose not to put my children in nurseries, I concluded that we could accomplish more for the spiritual and physical development of our children by our personal interaction with them at church outside the nursery than in it. (As an aside, it is my impression that most persons drastically underestimate what children can learn to do as to sitting quietly in church and learning to participate in the services). We were not absent from church: we were present and actively involved. We are very concerned about discipleship (but exactly how much discipleship occurs in church nurseries?).
4. When Lyn and I have referred to “peer pressure,” we were not talking about proper Biblical exhortation. Biblical exhortation is founded on the Bible. That for which the term “peer pressure” is generally used — and that for which we use the term here — is not. I have been in enough independent, fundamental churches over enough years to recognize that there is a great deal of pressure to conform that is not based on Biblical precepts, principles, and patterns.
I hope that you stop laughing long enough to recognize our hearts. We want fathers and elders to follow the Lord in all respects and to lead those in their charge to sell out to Him. We also want to edify other believers. And sarcastic public comments judging other’s motives does not accomplish that.
NCADAD said,
May 21, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Brent and Lyn,
I personally appreciate you stating your reasons for your actions. (Not that you owe them to me). I guess the one thing I want to ask is this:
Do you agree that there is an issue among many Christian families where they put their children in the center of their lives and often consequences follow?
If your answer is yes, then there really isn’t much of an issue here other than a disagreement on how Dan delivered it.
Regarding your comment about “independent funadamental churches”: I think you’d find that Northside breaks from this stereotype much like some families may break from the pattern Dan has mentioned regarding nurseries and worship. Perhaps his sarcastic delivery at times wouldn’t be for you, but the teaching is solid and I personally do not feel oppressed by our leadership. (I would have never thought I would end up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church).
Brent said,
May 21, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
NCADAD, you asked, “Do you agree that there is an issue among many Christian families where they put their children in the center of their lives and often consequences follow?”
I think that it depends on what you mean by “the center of their lives.” Let me attempt to explain. In the last twelve years (since our first child was born), Lyn and I have learned that a genuine effort to train our children in the way that they should go and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is an intense, involved process. It has required us to sacrifice things that we would otherwise have chosen to do at home, at work, and at church. Of course, one needs to seek a proper balance among multiple roles and responsibilities. However, I think that it would be a problem were we unwilling to make such sacrifices, and though I do not have the time and space to do so here, I believe that I can defend that proposition from Scripture.
Some parents essentially let their children assume the driver’s seat and manipulate the direction of the household. That is not right. Are there Christians who fall into this problem? Undoubtedly. Do elders need to call attention to the problem when they see it occurring? Absolutely.
However, when elders address these issues, they need to do so with caution, sensitivity, wisdom, and discernment. It will often be necessary to look beyond the actions alone and account for the reasons for them: Different parents might choose the same actions for very different reasons, and understanding the motivation for the decision can be critical to an accurate analysis.