Comment by crdrost | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crdrost | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So my nerdiness is a very particular niche and a book about certain conference on Episcopalian growing pains called Shaping Our Future happened to fit into it, like nobody I show this book to seems to find it interesting but me, haha.

But one of the talks given at that Episcopalian conference claimed, much to my shock, that we needed more little kids running around during the church service, not less... even raising the idea that maybe children's ministry breakaways were not correct. What unimaginable chaos did they intend for my solemn-leaning Catholic-raised soul? Never! But then the talk quoted a different work by Stanley Hauerwas,

> The Christian community’s openness to new life and our conviction of the sovereignty of God over that life are but two sides of the same conviction. Christians believe that we have the time in this existence to care for new life, especially as such life is dependent and vulnerable, because it is not our task to rule this world or to “make our mark on history.” We can thus take the time to live in history as God’s people who have nothing more important to do than to have and care for children.

[emphasis mine.]

So there I was running around, trying to make my mark on history, it was not going especially well heh... Really marked a big shift in my attitudes.

What if caring for new life is of no interest to someone? This advice just sounds like pigeonholing people into roles, making sure people know their place, and don't ask too many questions.

So I don't necessarily want to get too far into this because this is HN and religious discussion kind of doesn't belong here... But let me say very briefly that if someone calls themselves a Christian but mocks you for not having children, then in the selfsame breath they are mocking every modern Catholic priest; most monks, nuns, and hermits; the guy who wrote half of the New Testament; and yes, even Jesus himself. So that the community as a whole is open to New Life and that each individual person feels like they are not in a rush and could potentially parent children if that is the gift that they are called to, should never be mistaken for a requirement that each individual person must do whatever they can to have children.

> "We can thus take the time to live in history as God’s people who have nothing more important to do than to *have* and care for children."

I think this statement is very problematic, especially if you want to be inclusive to the childless or celibate. In the end, it's not an applicable answer for everyone. It's only an answer for those who have already subscribed at some level to that belief, thus I find it unsatisfactory.

You seem to be intentionally finding offense. This isn't the right forum for that.

It is not offense, it is a logical analysis of the statement. This is the perfect forum for such analysis. If it's not the correct forum for my analysis, then it is not the correct forum to be posting such statements in the first place.

> pigeonholing people into roles, making sure people know their place, and don't ask too many questions.

This has to be one of the best descriptions for religion that I ever read.

What you just said has to be one of the biggest generalizations for religion that I have ever read.

Not really: that is what you do with children in the stage and amount where you have determined they are too immature to properly understand.

I wrote about pigeonholing adults into the role of child caregiver, constraining their opportunities to do something else with their life. What they quoted applied to adults, not children.

And I made instead a clear statement that it «applies» to those which are considered children.

I am not following. Are you talking about pigeonholing adults who you think lesser of, or actual children?

I would say it is the opposite: the formula "you can thus take the time to live in history" is quite a celebration of freedom.

Very many feel a call for making a family, the said idea blesses them encouraging them to follow that call without reticence. And the formula in no way seems limited to making a family: "live in history" has the highest degree of freedom, in one direction.

I guess to each their own. I read what's written as constraint and limitation, a freedom only to those who struggle to think for themselves.

You are making no sense. The statement "consider yourself free to take the time to live in history" means "you can follow your own projects - as opposed to devoting oneself on a single task".

How can you read that «as constraint and limitation»? You cannot read a banana into a pigeon if not for performance art. What has «think[ing] for themselves» to do with the said concept?! It is fully inconsequential. According to which mysterious theorem should "consider yourself free to be active in the world" have any relation to cognitive dependence?!

It is an abuse of the statement when it's immediately contradicted by explicitly setting a specific task as "most important". I read how it was written as "don't be too ambitious, don't be worldly, have a lot of kids", a regressive viewpoint.

> Never!

Note that some other traditions of gatherings do have children running around during the service... It is like being a point inside an area of brownian motion. Yes, it does not facilitate - but it more mirrors the reality of being in the world, "«unimaginable chaos»" and nonetheless ("nobody told you you will practice in natural lab conditions"). The children would make a smoothed progress from natural encounter to discipline (of course meaning self-discipline).

Note also that the suggestion was about chaos in the «service», not in the monastery.

Agree that children add life to the service, there is also something to be said for giving the parents a break from having to worry about their kids.

So, kids in the main service for the first half, and to "kids church" for the second half.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com