A church in Arkansas decided to close down its successful day care program because, according to the church elders, the program was detrimental to the family.

Their rationale went something like this: the mother's place is in the home. By providing day-care to working mothers, we are tacitly giving approval to an unhealthy situation. Therefore, we will close the doors.

It is a theology that, I suppose, does make some logical sense although I certainly don't agree with it. Consistent as such action may be for that particular church's adherence to their doctrine, it does seem odd that they have turned their congregational back on people in desperate need.

The church leaders did promise to give the working mothers their money back. Who says Christian charity is dead?

This disturbing turn of events was brought back to mind by my reading the results of a new study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Child-care experts from 14 different universities followed nearly 1400 children from birth to age 3. 20% of the children were cared for full time by their mothers and the rest were in day-care centers of one kind or another.

Interestingly, what the researchers discovered was that these children really showed no significant difference in development between these two groups. Indeed, children in excellent day-care actually did better.

There is more. The study also discovered that the primary factor in determining a child's development wasn't the day-care provided, be it from Mom or someone else. The primary factor was the character of family life. Whether the mother stayed home or not wasn't nearly as important as what occurred within the family, working Mom or not.

The quality of conversation, the use of television, the tenor of relationships, these were the elements that profoundly shaped the child's development and they exerted their influence with Mom present or absent.

My conclusion is that we need not feel so guilty over leaving our children in day-care and instead make better use of the time we do share together.

The strategies we employ to enhance our children's development might include making meal times holy times. That is, placing the very highest priority on gathering around the dining room table at least once a day. In that forum, we can explore and discuss the kinds of issues that can serve as a helpful catalyst for our children's intellectual growth.

I am convinced that conversation that can't even be deciphered by a young child can still be influential to his or her development. Talk that is conducted in a kind and compassionate manner can model a way of behaving that can serve our children well in the future.

Discussion can and should include the little ones. Certainly such conversation takes a different form than between adults but it is no less important with children. Explorations of the day's events, both the triumphs and the defeats, can go a long way in helping our children acquire the skills needed for healthy development.

We have two rules that govern our conversation at home. The first is that there can be no put-downs. Such derisiveness is of no value to anyone. The other rule is that we don't discuss tv shows at the table. The television gets enough attention without our forming a kind of sub-culture around it. Hollywood, most often, offers such a skewed version of reality, of what constitutes a healthy society, that for our own intellectual and emotional development, we best ignore it.

In any case, why not concentrate less on how terrible it is that we must all work outside the home and more on what happens when we're in it?