There have been a couple of clickbaity article in The Times over the last few days. The first concerned the newsreader, Jan Leeming, who claimed her lunch out was “spoiled” by a “tot [who] was a real menace”. She was raging that the “oblivious” parents did nothing and the staff did not take her concerns at all seriously, daring even to engage with the child. Leeming said, “When paying the receptionist, she treated me as though I was out of order. She defended parents bringing children to the restaurant — there were three. If you can afford to eat there, get a babysitter!” If you can get behind the paywall, it is here if you can be bothered.

The other clickbaity article was a follow up from the disgruntled parents referenced in the complaint. The parents claimed the suggestion they were “oblivious” was “unfair and frankly offensive”. The mother went on to say, “The restaurant offers a children’s menu, which we took to mean that children are welcome. If someone strongly dislikes the sound or presence of children, I would suggest that responsibility lies with them to choose a child-free venue.” She went on to describe the language used by Leeming as “disappointing”, adding “Children don’t magically learn how to behave in social settings — they learn by being included in them.” If you can get behind the paywall, the follow up is here if you want it.

The reason I share this is because this encapsulates something of a tension that exists in the world generally. How do we make ourselves inclusive without impinging unreasonably on those who must make adjustments? It is not a matter of one way being right and the other wrong, it is a genuine tension with a balance needing to be struck. The tension exists in all kinds of settings and concerns all manner of different people, but it is perhaps writ large when it comes to children because opinion is so polarising. There are those who would adjust the entire world around young children and those who, with a similar degree of vehemence, would like to expunge them from all public settings. Between those poles sits a broad spectrum.

My particular interest here, however, relates to the church. I have not yet met the church that claims it has no interest in welcoming children and families. I have met many churches, however, that seem to do everything in their power to appear actively hostile to anything normal children might be inclined to do at any point in their building. I have also been in churches that so want to welcome children they force every adult in the room – whoever they are regardless of if they have children, attend regularly or are believers – to join in regular services built exclusively around children with no content (so it seems) for anyone else. There is that tension again between inclusion, welcome and impinging on others. The further we push down one line, the further we move away from the other.

Perhaps how the church should be different is less about where they land on that aforementioned spectrum. Rather it should be in the attitude of its members. The linked stories at the top of this post have one thing in common: both sides think the other should adjust for them. The older ladies believed the family should keep away for their sake, the family believed the older ladies should have put up with whatever they perceived to be at issue. In the church, it should be the other way round.

Rather than expecting others to adjust for us, we ought to be preferring the needs and preferences of others above ourselves. Rather than getting irritated with that child shifting around and making noise, we should be setting aside our preference in favour of welcome. At the same time, rather than expecting everyone to put up with whatever noise and mess our children make, we should be doing whatever we are able to help mitigate these things for the sake of others. We may all tend slightly more in one direction or the other, but our attitude ought to be that wherever we land on the spectrum we mentioned before, we will set aside our preference for the sake of others.

For my part, what I do know is if we want to include people – be they children or minority groups – we are almost certainly going to have to make some adjustments. If we want children in the church, we may have to accept that they will run around and make a bit of noise before and after the service (and, sometimes, even during!) Whilst I’m not saying there is never a time to expect parents to do something about their children, I am saying if you do that with any regularity very few of them will stick around. At the same time, if children are being genuinely disruptive to the point of things no longer able to function, you will have to manage that on some level. There is that pesky tension again.

You have to balance welcome and inclusion with functionally being able to do what you are there to do. There are no straightforward answers here. Contexts vary, as do a host of other considerations. But what seems unassailably biblical is that – wherever we’re coming from on the question – we ought to prefer the needs and preferences of others, seeking to adjust ourselves, so that we might by all means welcome some.