After a recent order from a baby-related website, I received a notification in the mail telling me that my order came with a complimentary, one-year subscription to the magazine "Parenting". This magazine could more aptly be called "Lack of Parenting" or "Parenting Failures", but nonetheless, reading it makes for cheap comic relief after a hard day of real parenting.
Back to the subject at hand, though. The September issue featured an article called "Lost Babies", which deals with the subject of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is the diagnosis anytime an apparently healthy baby suddenly dies in their sleep of unknown causes during the first year of life (most deaths occur between 2 and 4 months).
First off, let me make it clear that I do think SIDS is real, that it is not entirely preventable, and that parents should never be blamed in the death of their child regardless of the circumstances.
Having said that, I think there are many factors that could reduce the incidence of SIDS. Some of the more well-known are putting babies on their back to sleep, keeping away cigarette-smoke, not using soft bedding, and breastfeeding exclusively. Personally, I am also convinced that sleeping next to Mom and Dad is infinitely important, and I am not talking about a bassinet by the bedside. SIDS is thought to be caused largely by an immature breathing reflex. If healthy babies do not get enough oxygen in their sleep, this reflex will kick in and make them yawn or turn their head to get more air. This reflex is also responsible for making sure baby doesn't "forget" to breathe once they go into a deeper sleep phase. By being tucked into bed next to its parent(s), the baby has a sort of "breathing pacemaker" by its side. Babies that sleep like that automatically fall into the same breathing pattern as the parent that they are snuggled up to, and thus do not forget to breathe. Also, babies have a reflex that causes them to take a deep breath anytime someone blows in their face, which Mom does all night long when she is breathing next to the baby cradled in her arms, face to face. Of course, there are safe sleeping practices that must be observed when sleeping next to a young baby, but I will not discuss those here.
Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has also started recommending that all babies should be using a pacifier, which has been shown to reduce the incidence of SIDS by as much as 90%. To me, this further supports my theory that sleeping next to Mom is very healthy, because babies that do so spend their night using Mom for their nursing comfort rather than a binky. This has many benefits for mom and baby: Mom will have a good milk supply, and will have lots of endorphins in her system from the extra feedings, which will create a strong bond between her and the baby. She will also sleep better and never wake up groggy and sleep-deprived from having to get up for midnight feedings. The baby will grow faster, have a close bond to its mother, and will not be sucking on a plastic binky that may contain dangerous chemicals or be recalled for being otherwise dangerous. Baby will also not be taught to find comfort in material objects rather than in his real, human Mom.
The following information, however, was new and shocking to me. According to the article, "In the most recent AAP analysis, about 20 percent of all SIDS deaths occurred while the baby was in the care of someone other than a parent. One third of the infants died during the first week of childcare, and half of those deaths occurred on the very first day." Such was the case of the couple that was introduced in the article, whose 4-month old died of SIDS during an afternoon nap on his first day in childcare. The study suggested that being in an unfamiliar (which to a baby equals hostile) environment might interfere with the baby's sleep cycle, "so that when he finally does fall asleep, he sleeps too deeply". Going back to the binky theory, this would now make more sense because the baby is fooled into thinking Mom is near when she isn't.
So please, do not put your young baby in a childcare facility, and you might save his/her life.
What does that have to do with church nurseries? A lot. Many churches are now making nursery care mandatory for all babies in an effort to eliminate all distractions from the service. For one, I don't know what young baby is ever a distraction when all they do is eat and sleep, both of which are silent activities and can be done during a service.
It has always amused me that it is perfectly fine to whip out a bottle and pop it in baby's mouth in front of everyone, but that discretely breastfeeding under a shawl or blanket is considered obscene, when a bottle that is made to look and feel like the "real thing" is much more graphic than a mom who is completely covered. Here is a shock: everyone is naked underneath their clothes. GASP! So covering up with a blouse or dress is fine, but a (much more modest) shawl is insufficient? That doesn't make any sense. Of course, these squeamish people will be quick to point out that it is the ACT of breastfeeding that is offensive, even if no skin is ever visible. In fact, I have heard one pastor compare breastfeeding to the marriage act, which I can only call perverted. Other people say that there is nothing indecent about nursing a baby if Mom is covered, but it is still inappropriate in mixed company because it reminds men of the fact that women have breasts. To me, that is just as laughable. You mean there are men who DON'T know that?!? Those same people must not read their Bible very much, because it talks a lot about those subjects.
Breastfeeding is vital to a baby. It has become optional in our freak society with science supposedly making life "easier and better", but God never intended for that. He designed for Moms to feed their children, not Nestle. To me, giving a baby formula on a physical level is like reading to him out of a false Bible on a spiritual level. The Bible is called the "sincere milk of the word", and babies should be fed with sincere milk both physically and spiritually. If exclusively breastfeeding Moms should only do so in the privacy of their home, than they would never ever be able to go anywhere, including church, because most young babies need to eat at least once per hour.
Back to the church nursery. Young babies are not allowed in the service because they like to nurse, the thought of which sends most independent Baptist pastors into convulsions. Older babies are not allowed because they might coo, or look at other people in the room and distract them by smiling at them. Young toddlers might drop a toy, say something, or need to go to the bathroom. On and on the list goes.
Nobody seems to care that Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14) and "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:16). They seem to never have read that "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14). I wonder why all three times Jesus used the word "suffer" - could it be because babies and young children can, in fact, be distracting at times, but we are still supposed to put up with it?!? What a strange thought. My kids were very distracting to me throughout the day today, but the thought that I should just leave them at a daycare center instead never crossed my mind. You just learn to put up with it. I find adults just as distracting at times. They have coughing fits, whisper during the service, dig through their purse, and are not just allowed but actually encouraged to yell out during the service ("Amen!" "Preach it, brother!" "That's right!" etc.). So an adult yelling out loud is not distracting, but a baby is? Why are children not allowed in church (which is not the building, but the general assembly)? Don't they need to learn more than anyone else, and aren't they the most likely to believe what is taught from the Bible?
If anyone who reads this thinks that our services must be a pandemonium because all children of all ages are in the services, they should listen to the sermons. Outbursts from children are very, very rare, and always very brief. We do have a "mother-baby room" at the back of the auditorium that has a rocker, a swing, toys etc. where Moms can step out while still being able to see and hear the service without being heard themselves. That being said, nobody is ever expected to use it, and the room is empty at most of the services.
In spite of claims of how clean, nice, and loving church nurseries are, I have to yet see one that is. Nursery workers are "hirelings", and a hireling is just that - a hireling and not a loving parent. Back when we were going to a big church in Indiana I heard of several young babies that had died in their newborn nursery, some while we were there. In fact, 3 more died in the year after we left. While some of the ladies in the older nurseries were sincerely friendly, such was not the case with the newborns. The Nazi in charge of the nurseries had picked the meanest, oldest matrons to care for these babies. The routine was the same for each baby at each service: feed, change diaper, put down in crib or swing to sleep. Crying babies were left to soothe themselves and were not carried, rocked, or otherwise comforted, and is it any wonder that the babies who had died were found lying dead in their crib after crying themselves to sleep. Just the thought makes me shudder. This same church issued photo ID cards (they looked much like a driver's license) for babies who due to medical reasons could not be in the nursery (such as a permanent, contagious disease). These babies and their parent(s) were then confined to a glass-enclosed extension of the main auditorium that was soundproof but had the service transmitted via speakers. I think we were the only parents to hold this precious card, other than the family whose daughter was born with a heart defect. She was not allowed to cry much because it could have strained her weak heart to the point of death, which made her ineligible for the loveless nurseries. This same little girl died shortly after she was finally put in the nursery at age 1 - but of course, there is no connection, right?!?
Another argument against telling people where they or their kids have to be during church is found in James 2:3: "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:" I am well aware of the fact that gay in the Bible has a different meaning than it does today, but isn't it ironic that most churches will in fact allow homosexuals in their service and treat them kindly and respectfully, but ban the babies from church? "Stand thou there in the hallway outside the auditorium" and "Sit here under my footstool in this back office" (or worse yet, the closet behind the restrooms) are all places where I have found myself with my babies.
There are other arguments against nurseries, such as the perverts and pedophiles who are always quick to volunteer to watch the kids, or the never-ending cycle of diseases being passed around.
Why is it acceptable to drop your child off four times a week for Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night services and for soul-winning, but it is wrong to put him/her in daycare five times a week to go work a job? If leaving your child in the nursery means risking him/her dying, being molested by a worker or hurt by another bratty child, and at best coming home with (sometimes very serious) diseases, why does everyone do it even though the Bible says it is wrong?