“Where have all the good men gone..?”
13 Aug 2006
…is a question posed by Bonnie Tyler but I believe the question that the church should be asking is where have men gone, good, bad or indifferent ? Look around in many churches in western culture and the women out number the men (in the USA for example on average women make up 60% of the congregation). I did my own research to check this out and in a quick head count at church this morning the women out numbered the men 3:2 (3 women for every 2 men). This is in stark contrast to every other major religion in the world where male and female participation is in equal numbers. Far from being a male institution the church’s work is mainly carried out with the support of women, they attend on a Sunday, they volunteer themselves for the churches programmesand they care practically for the church community around them. So where have the men gone? Why are the ones who do attend so bored and disengaged? Why do so many men never wish to venture through the doors of a church in their lifetime and indeed fear doing so?
Not so much a case of women leaving the church but men never arriving
Jase in his post on the seminar he attended on the decline of the church in the UK suggests that the empowerment of women in culture did not happen in the church and therefore women opted out taking their husbands with them. One of the commentators on this post suggested to me a book called why men hate going to church by David Murrow. I have not yet had time to get hold of the book but my father-in-law had passed me a copy of a talk based on this book which I listened to today. Having heard the talk I really want to get hold of the book and read more as it seems to suggest that rather than women stepping out of church and taking men with them that the church for centuries has become adapt at reaching women, children and old people for the simple reason that they show up i.e. the are the punters in the pews. David Murrow argues that rather than calling men back to the church it is in fact time to call the church back to men.
The church culture thermostat is set to feminine
Murrow believes that as women make up the bulk of the church that they set the thermostat for the churches values firmly to feminine, for example safety is valued over risk, stability over change, preservation over expansion and predictability over adventure. Church becomes sweet and sentimental, nurturing and nice – an environment in which women thrive but men wilt. Murrow contrasts the thermostat of films aimed at men – a hero saving the world from impossible odds – with that of films aimed at women – having a relationship with a wonderful man – think Gladiator (saving Rome) vs Bridget Jones (finding Mr Right). So is it no wonder then that churches emphasise a relationship, especially with a wonderful Mr Right named Jesus and few model male values of risk/reward/accomplishment/sacrifice/action and adventure…? And even if a man tried to do something like that he would get into trouble within 5 minutes – and spend the rest of his time in grudging silence – he just isn’t sure about falling in love with a wonderful man, even one named Jesus.
10 male fears about church
Murrow suggests that men value being/feeling competent (we don’t stop and ask for directions cos we want to be competent navigators) and we don’t feel that competent in a church environment which values qualities of expressing feelings, understanding emotions and singing songs. Men also value competition and realise that we can’t compete with women in this environment so we’d rather not come than compete in something so stacked against us. Murrow highlights 10 things that men therefore fear about church:
1. Being outshone by women who thrive in the feminine climate.
2. Singing in public (look around next time the singing starts at the difference in engagement between men and women).
3. Having to check their minds at the door, not being able to ask questions or use their brains.
4. That the church will brain washing their boys into becoming sissies.
5. Having to become a super husband, their wives love Jesus who is already perfect so how can we compete with that?
6. Church is synonymous with homosexuality – from images in the media off the effeminate portrayal of clergy to sex abuse scandals and then we make man hug, sing and hold hands…
7. Getting less sex – church to them is portrayed as promoting a Victorian attitude towards sex and many Non-Christian men suspect that Christian mates get little sex as a result.
8. Having to get dressed up at the weekends – men like to be scruffy and not sure churches really allow that.
9. Men appreciate excellence and don’t expect to find it in a church.
10. There’s already an alpha male in residence called the pastor/minister/vicar – fears that he will never be able to use his own talents in any way that could possibly outshine the dominant male.
Calling the church back to men?
I’m a man and I really value church but I find myself agreeing that I am not very engaged by it. The most engaging thing about church this morning for me was arranging to go out on friday to drink Guinness and talk theology with another man.
So that all said it poses some questions – men what do you honestly think about church and what Murrow is suggesting from his research? Women do you wonder where all the men are? how can men and women find adventure in church? How can the thermostat be adjusted (other than Jase giving up his pink shirts ;)? How can men and women be engaged, excited, competent church practitioners? How can not only these fears be addressed but a balan
130 comments
Trackback
Pingback by TheGeoffRe(y)port » Boys will be… wait, where’d they all go?
12.37 am on 14 Aug 2006
[...] Very interesting post from a guest contributer over at Jason Clark’s blog (always worth a read) asking what the church needs to do about the noticeable imbalance between the genders in todays church (there just aren’t that many blokes in churches). [...]
Comment by Helen
2.48 am on 14 Aug 2006
1. Being outshone by women who thrive in the feminine climate.
Men who are afraid of being outshone by women need to get their act together so they won’t be outshone, imo…
2. Singing in public (look around next time the singing starts at the difference in engagement between men and women).
Maybe women do like singing a bit more than men.
3. Having to check their minds at the door, not being able to ask questions or use their brains.
It’s not just men who care about that!
4. That the church will brain washing their boys into becoming sissies.
I was glad in recent years when my kids quit Sunday school, then kids club, and now we don’t go at all. Thinking about what my children would be taught there did bother me but not because I thought it would turn my son into a ’sissy’.
5. Having to become a super husband, their wives love Jesus who is already perfect so how can we compete with that?
Isn’t this more of a complaint against Christianity than church?
If anything church is where men can be reassured that none of them are perfect.
6. Church is synonymous with homosexuality – from images in the media off the effeminate portrayal of clergy to sex abuse scandals and then we make man hug, sing and hold hands…
I don’t like the hugging and holding hands anymore. So I’m not sure what that makes me…
7. Getting less sex – church to them is portrayed as promoting a Victorian attitude towards sex and many Non-Christian men suspect that Christian mates get little sex as a result.
Ok, this may impact men a little more than women.
8. Having to get dressed up at the weekends – men like to be scruffy and not sure churches really allow that.
I don’t like dressing up either!
9. Men appreciate excellence and don’t expect to find it in a church.
I like excellence too!
10. There’s already an alpha male in residence called the pastor/minister/vicar – fears that he will never be able to use his own talents in any way that could possibly outshine the dominant male.
It is a problem when current leaders don’t umpower new, upcoming ones.
Seriously though, I’d rather not be at church with men bent out of shape because they aren’t the ‘alpha male’.
If I want to see creatures upset about that I can go to the zoo ;-)
Overall I find this a rather sexist list. Saying men in particular don’t want to check their brains at the door and they care about excellence implies women don’t have brains and don’t care about excellence. Which I think is simply untrue.
Since women like adventure too, perhaps the solution is for the church to find joint adventures that husbands and wives do together.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.58 am on 14 Aug 2006
Paul: A great thought provoking post, that needs some good discussion.
You references me, and some of my notes, I’d just want to add that their is a thesis that after tha 2nd world war, women left the church in the UK in droves, refusing to occupy the roles the church was complicit in provididing, and their husbands were happy to stop attending.
Now from a peak of 40% attendance, down to less than 7%, still largely includes women. In other words, in the UK the ration of women to men has always been very high.
You also need to factor in two world wars, particularly world war I, that decimated a a generation of men.
Again this is from a Uk perspective for anyone reading from the US.
Helen: Please don’t be offended Helen when I say this, I just want to push back a little if I may. Paul’s post is about men, not a criticism of women, and I think it may be a little harsh to call the list sexist. It’s a theory about men an why they don’t connect at church.
I must admit as I read it, I wonder how much of it is true, and what it would look like if responded to.
Paul: My big question, what do you think that looks like in practice? You said you didn;t get much out of going to church, what would you get if you did on a sunday? What do you think men should expect on a sunday in particular? How does that fit with the history of the church and nature of the church?
Just wanting to dig a little deeper with you :-)
Jason
Comment by jonny
9.32 am on 14 Aug 2006
Interesting post paul, but I have to say I didn’t find my self aggreeing with any of Murrow’s points. Now perhaps, either i’m not a typical man – or i’ve not had a typical experience of church (both could be true). But, I do think the points play on a lot of stereotypes and characatures, and therefore, I can understand why someone might find it sexist or be offended by it in some way. Also, I wonder if, it is overly focused on church as the sunday gathering – and not bring in to consideration other elements?
Obviously there are issues with people not engaging in church – but I’m just not convinced the issue is because of gender.
Comment by Paul
10.11 am on 14 Aug 2006
Hi Jase, just don’t be gettin me in trouble with Bev now getting you posting on your holiday :).
Thanks for the back ground on the post war female exodus from the church and a fully understandable outcome. I wonder though why there husbands were so willing to leave with them – maybe they were even happier? I haven’t got hold of the book but on the stats I understand Morrow goes back as far as the 17th century to demonstrate that women out number men in church and his big thesis was this gap continued to widen through out the industrial revolution (again he is more focusing on the US church situation). If his theory holds for the UK situation it would mean that modernity has presided over continued hemoraging of men from the church and in the later half of the 20th century women too.
I have been around church all my life, I love the whole mission, context, connection of a community of God. Hearing the talk makes me think not so much about my church and church going context as my tolerance for such things is going to be way higher then the invisible men who don’t show up. Women significantly out number men in church and it is worth asking the question why this is – I am not saying Murrow is right in every aspect but is research is very interesting and he has spent time asking men in and outside of church what they think/feel – some of those fears will not apply to me as I am a product of the system, stamped with church experience so i can ignore the fear based on my exeperience.
I also feel a bit uncomfortable making this about me and my church experience – maybe that’s part of the issue I am less confident expressing verbally my feelings – takes me a long time of thinking to find the right words to give detail behind the emotional colour – also it does smack a little bit about being consumerist altho if so I am a poor one as i still keep on coming back for more :)
Ok caveats aside in my personal experience my wife values going to church on a sunday a lot more than I do. I would rather go out for a pint, read a book, engage in a conversation, see a filmm, listen to music, chase my thoughts a feelings down a blog post and connect with God more in all those things then sitting in church on a sunday. Largely I go to church on sunday for the sake of my wife(who really does thrive in her faith if she goes) and for my kids to get a chance to hang with other christian kids. Since I love all three of them I am usually happy to make the sacrifice and go along willingly.
A good sing song is great sometimes but really i feel a bit inadequate at it and conscious that I am not a good singer and sometimes very unconnected from the words and my life – I call my wife beautiful I struggle sometimes to call Jesus that – really songs that get so personally intimate do make me feel a little uncomfortable – i have not got a problem saying I love God, I don’t have a problem saying I love my dad either – but for me giving my dad a hug or another man its that hearty back slap that goes with it, like heh we’re hugging but we’re hugging like men. I like songs much more about action or where I can choose how to respond – but there doesn’t seem to be as many of those – i appreciate that al ot of men have written these romatic love songs to Jesus, I just wonder how many were thinking of their wives or gfs at the time for inspiration? It’s also one of the reasons that I love visual images in worship, not only is it playing around with gadgets and gizmos (highly competent and cool) but visual stimulation just works for me. That also means I’m highly visually distracted – like counting men and women in church on a sunday or looking around during worship. Is it I wonder a reaction to the more intense singing format of the charismatic movement that people are looking back to other christian traditions and bringing in practices/participatory activities which engage the whole person rather than singing aiblities?
Intellectually I am pretty much bored by church teaching – and i know that if i want to hear a sermon i can get on the web and download it for the commute to work. I acknowledge that I am not the best case study for pitching a sunday talk at but largely i find it a nodding dog exercise – i agree, occassionally something will interest me or challenge me but mainly it seema a yes exercise. I like to be challenged personally and mentally, I like practical alongside the theoretical, what can I do and how can I do it. So take a recent example of church where there was a reference to the judaic practice of writing a prayer and putting it on the door frame to touch on the way out – and how the celts adopted that idea of tactile spirual connection, interwove their spiritual life with their practical daily living – that engaged me and I spent a lot of time thinking how can i do this in my life – is there a prayer for getting on the train (other than God save that seat for me) or coming through the front door. So I am not saying church can’t and doesn’t engage me.
I think the alpha male concept works especially in a church planting movement like the vineyard which I am part of but i can see it working in other contexts where there is a hiarachical system of clergy and laity as well. This is of course a highly subjective point but there is something in it. I just have yet to experience a church environment where the church leader systematically has a programme of investing/training/mentoring in other men to give away his power – there is a glass ceiling. I’m not saying its not right to have but if I’m drawing on Morrow’s arguement that men are competative they know that this is someone elses territory and they are a guest on it, even if they are a warmly welcomed and cared for one. That said you kindly gave me the opportunity to guest post on your blog which is something i have thrived/enjoyed doing – maybe its those examples of risk taking that we need more on a sunday – having a recongition of risk, action, excitement, acheivement? More mission less church services maybe :). And maybe some things outside of a sunday as well to make maleness more a welcome part of church life?
In the historical context did people Peter, John, Paul see Jesus as a lover of their soul to whose bossom they wanted to fly? Image seemded to be of a friend who they loved, an elder brother who inspired, a hero who loved them so much that he was prepared to lay down his life for them so they were prepared to lay their lives down for him? I’m just speculating or maybe just projecting me and how I feel on to them… :)
Comment by Helen
10.38 am on 14 Aug 2006
Jason wrote: Helen: Please don’t be offended Helen when I say this, I just want to push back a little if I may. Paul’s post is about men, not a criticism of women, and I think it may be a little harsh to call the list sexist. It’s a theory about men an why they don’t connect at church.
Jason, I’m not offended by people disagreeing with me – not a problem. But may I clarify why I found the list sexist? It was the context.
A list of ten reasons men fear church is not sexist per se, although to avoid an appearance of sexism I would recommend adding the disclaimer “Some of these reasons apply to women also”.
However, the list was shared after having said the following:
Murrow believes that as women make up the bulk of the church that they set the thermostat for the churches values firmly to feminine, for example safety is valued over risk, stability over change, preservation over expansion and predictability over adventure. Church becomes sweet and sentimental, nurturing and nice – an environment in which women thrive but men wilt.
This makes the list a list of reasons men fear church more than women, by implication. So when the list includes, for example, “Having to check their minds at the door, not being able to ask questions or use their brains”, it implies this is more of a problem for men than women. Which I find sexist because I don’t believe women in general are less bothered by having to do these things than men.
Comment by Paul
10.45 am on 14 Aug 2006
Hi Helen, thanks for your thoughts – I’m not trying to be sexist or saying women are intellectual or don’t value excellence, but asking the question as to why men are out numbered at church. The list isn’t mind but based on the research that Morrow did to try and explore what men’s fears are and why they don’t come :)
Comment by Helen
10.55 am on 14 Aug 2006
Paul wrote: I like to be challenged personally and mentally, I like practical alongside the theoretical, what can I do and how can I do it. So take a recent example of church where there was a reference to the judaic practice of writing a prayer and putting it on the door frame to touch on the way out – and how the celts adopted that idea of tactile spirual connection, interwove their spiritual life with their practical daily living – that engaged me and I spent a lot of time thinking how can i do this in my life – is there a prayer for getting on the train (other than God save that seat for me) or coming through the front door. So I am not saying church can’t and doesn’t engage me.
Although my gender is not the same as Paul’s ;-) my experience with church was very similar to this, i.e. church was a lot of blah blah blah, but now and again something would really catch my imagination and I would run with hit.
I thought your comments on the ‘alpha male’ problem were insightful:
I just have yet to experience a church environment where the church leader systematically has a programme of investing/training/mentoring in other men to give away his power – there is a glass ceiling.
Me too. I spent 1986-2005 in churches large enough to have pastoral teams. The senior pastor almost always preached on Sunday mornings; even the other pastors rarely preached. If the senior pastor was away they brought in a guest as often as they had a different pastor preach. If their own pastors never get to preach, what hope is there for up-and-coming young leaders? Ironically the current senior pastor of Moody first preached there when he was visiting one day, saw the then-senior pastor in the lobby and the other man said “I’m sick – on my way home. Will you preach for me today?” That seems like a rare example of a senior pastor giving preaching power away. I suppose they are very aware of how much the preaching influences a church and want to be very careful who gets to do it. But surely the downside of that is that it’s hard for new leaders to get preaching experience.
I’m not saying its not right to have but if I’m drawing on Morrow’s arguement that men are competative they know that this is someone elses territory and they are a guest on it, even if they are a warmly welcomed and cared for one. That said you kindly gave me the opportunity to guest post on your blog which is something i have thrived/enjoyed doing
That’s a great example of a leader giving power away, Paul.
– maybe its those examples of risk taking that we need more on a sunday – having a recongition of risk, action, excitement, acheivement? More mission less church services maybe :). And maybe some things outside of a sunday as well to make maleness more a welcome part of church life?
I agree and I think all these things apply to women also. It’s not just men who find that being all of who they are not welcomed at church. Historically and still in many churches today (but I know Vineyard does better at this than other churches) women who are leaders may as well forget being themselves at church. When they reach the door they need to put their ’submissive woman/wife’ to be welcomed, whether that literally means a hat or not.
In the historical context did people Peter, John, Paul see Jesus as a lover of their soul to whose bossom they wanted to fly?
Awesome question which lead me to one of my own – it was a man who wrote “Jesus, lover of my soul; let me to thy bosom fly”! What does Murrow do with that? It was also a man who wrote “Tune my heart to sing thy praise”. In fact, it was a man who wrote all those emotional Psalms and danced in front of the ark with such abandon that one of his wives – a woman! – was embarrassed watching him.
What does Murrow do with King David? I don’t think King David had many of the fears on Murrow’s list. And he was a man after God’s own heart.
So – is the problem that church needs to cater to men, or is the problem that men find it harder than women to get close enough to God’s heart to appreciate what goes on at church?
If the latter then I suppose I am in the same boat as the men, having said I share some of the 10 reasons men don’t like (I don’t think fear is always the issue) church. Oh well – hoist by my own petard… ;-)
Comment by Pul
12.08 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Hi helen, that’s a great idea, looking forward to reading your book on why women hate going to church too :)
On the music front Morrow arguyes that cos women make up the majority in church they got the tunes that they liked and the populariy of those tunes was perpetuated as women chose, played and sang them…
I don’t know if Murrow comments on King David, i’ve only heard the talk not read the book. My take on King David is that he never went to church so was not a problem for him – I’m pretty sure Eldridge and Wild at heart (which i recently blofgged more about here http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/08/wild_at_somethi.htm) does love the man after God’s own heart – but then David was a lot more than just a singer/song writer and i’m not saying either that men don’t like singing, just singing in public in groups… in the shower i rock lol… :)
Comment by Helen
2.16 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Paul, I know you’re not trying to be sexist and that you’re quoting someone else’s comments.
Do you see that when someone tries to answer the question “Why are men outnumbered at church?” they are asking “What is different about men and women that makes men like church less than women?”
Every reason given for why men don’t like church may be valid. However, no reason given is a valid answer to why men are outnumbered by women unless it only applies to men.
Therefore, as long as this discussion is about why men are outnumbered by women in church I think it’s very relevant for me to say “in my experience that reason not to like church applies equally to women – therefore it cannot be a valid reason why women outnumber men at church”
If you want this discussion to be simply about why men don’t like church, period, then, yes, it’s not strictly relevant whether women dislike church for the same reasons.
But – with all due respect – that wasn’t the blog entry you wrote. The one you wrote is comparative from beginning to end.
I could ask, why do more men than women post on Jason’s blog? Here is a wrong answer: because men like interesting discussions. Why is it wrong? Do men like interesting discussions? Yes. Do people who like interesting discussions like this blog? I think so. But it’s wrong because women like interesting discussions too – so it doesn’t explain why more men than women post here. It is a possible right answer to a different question – “Why do men post here?†Rather than to the question “Why do more men than women post here?â€
Comment by Helen
2.18 pm on 14 Aug 2006
(sorry – too much italics)
Comment by Paul
4.01 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Hi Helen, they are only suggested reasons from research, they can apply to women and they probably do as lets face it in whole numbers lots of women stay away too. However what if the reason applies to less women than to men – - in which case it would see the still show the same result less men then women. What if more women are less worried at about appearing competent and less competitive than men – agan same result more women less men. What if women come into church and experience an environment and a culture that they like more then men – same result they are more likely to stay?
Of course I am open to it being none of these factors and men not being able to articulate what the real nagging reason is – if someone asked me all i could say is church doesn’t grab me in the same way it seems to grab my wife – i could be atypical, typical or something entirely else…
Morrow’s work raising some hard Qs and i don’t think there is an easy answer and the danger is that people try to fix the outcomes rather than the system that produces them.
Comment by Helen
4.23 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Paul wrote: what if the reason [for staying away from church] applies to less women than to men
Paul I’m sorry – I really do understand that this is a legitimate line of inquiry. I hope I didn’t get in the way of exploring it – that wasn’t my intention.
My issues are with Murrow’s specific ‘reasons’ and his implication (so it seems to me) that these don’t apply to women. I think we should ask why less men than women go to church.
Maybe this is the problem (and maybe I didn’t state it well yet): my fear with analyses such as Murrow’s is that they will encourage churches to change to cater to male characteristics that aren’t necessarily Christlike. I see that as counterproductive in a church. By all means, let’s make sure that the church affirms what it means to be male in Christ’s image. Absolutely. But let’s draw the line there – let’s not do anything to change churches which would make them cater more to sinful tendencies in men.
if someone asked me all i could say is church doesn’t grab me in the same way it seems to grab my wife – i could be atypical, typical or something entirely else…
Paul, I’d love to hear your ideas about specific reasons why you find church less engaging than she does.
Sorry if you already posted these and I wasn’t paying attention.
Comment by marc
4.35 pm on 14 Aug 2006
I feel a lack empowerment for the male Christian was part of the problem in this particular church and there are several reasons for this:
1. I observed that some men jsut followed their wives lead at church. Men tended to know each other because their wives relationships not through sort out relationships.
2. There was very little in the way of male activities in the church with the majority of ministries running during the day by women whose husbands worked.
3. The attitude of the church was very middle class and if there were ‘men’s ministry’, in general it would cost a great deal of money (for example as Yachting holiday!). It was therefore unrealistic to expect many men who could not afford for their wives to stay at home and look after the children to be able to afford this type of thing.
4. The lack of any emphasis on community as a church was reflected to community within a church.
5. The church revolved around an American conservative model which basically ignores the culture and context that church is in.
Comment by Kate
4.52 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Before I even started reading the comments on this post, I had exactly the same reaction as Helen. I don’t like to check my brain at the door, I prefer excellence, etc., etc. It seems like a lot of the items on Murrow’s list are personality-based than gender-based. I do wonder where all the men have gone, but this list doesn’t really offer me a good explanation. A hearty “amen” to Helen’s last comment that included the paragraph beginning “maybe this is the problem…”
Thanks for getting this conversation rolling, Paul, it does seem like one that needs to be had.
Comment by Paul
5.27 pm on 14 Aug 2006
helen, no i really welcome your thoguhts and comments – its great to have thinking challenged, clarified, explored and viewed from differing perspectives. Please do keep on posting and keep on questioning as I really value it.
I also apologise if anything i said came across as sexist in the post to you, clumsy phrasing is not a good enough excuse so I am sorry for any offense caused.
I don’t think your thoughts have got in the way of the topic at all but helped to clarify it – those might be men’s fears but they are not exclusive to male or female although some may apply more strongly than others.
I don’t think Morrow is saying necessarily that the fears keep men away but that the culture of the church is more female orientated and that produces/causes such fears in men. Again I stress that I haven’t read the book so anyone who has feel free to jump in here :)
I did try and articulate very inadequately some of my gut feelings why church doesn’t grab me in the same way as it does my wife in comment no.4. Let me know if that doesn’t really answer your question and i’ll do some more soul churning :)
Ye Gads and cod fishes lol – i’m certainly not advocating some testosterone bender of a church service, all gung ho for God – it should never be a boys club or a gals club either for that matter. It wouldn’t fix the problem by changing the thermostat to one that was so male that everybody was now gone! Ummm I’m just curious Helen as to what sinful tendancies in men you think church might be in danger to catering too and whether for the prevention of me being accused of sexism by any male commentators whether you think that there is a danger currently of female sinful tendancies being catered for in current more feminine climate?
Comment by Paul
5.33 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Thanks Kate, i think that’s a very good point and reflects what Helen is saying as well that points on the list can apply to both men and women.
Comment by Helen
6.27 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Paul – yes, you did say quite a bit about what you don’t like about church in comment #4. I don’t think you particularly contrasted it with ‘why these things don’t bother my wife’.
Ummm I’m just curious Helen as to what sinful tendancies in men you think church might be in danger to catering too and whether for the prevention of me being accused of sexism by any male commentators whether you think that there is a danger currently of female sinful tendancies being catered for in current more feminine climate?
Well, my personal opinion is that not allowing women pastors caters to sinful tendencies in men to not want to see women as equally gifted (not as identical but as having with equally valuable, complementary gifts).
Women – well, churches that allow women to form cliques cater to their insecurity rather than encouraging them to be like Jesus and reach out in relationship to those not-like-them.
There you are – one of each ;-).
Comment by Timothy Wright
8.36 pm on 14 Aug 2006
A great number of the western churches are run by a group of post menopausal women who have no life at home and try to get it at church. I can’t blame men for not going to the local church. The big hope for them is the house church movement.
Tim
Comment by Paul
10.11 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Tim, interesting point, don’t pull your punches on our account now :). I haven’t seen any research that suggests that m/f ratio in house church movement is equal (Morrow is pretty clear that his research shows that what ever the name on the outside of the church there are always less men than women in it – with of course maybe some monastic exceptions :). so I am curious as you why you think that the HCM is the big hope (oh and btw what/how do you define the house church movement as its a term that means different things to different people?)? Thanks
Comment by Helen
10.14 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Tim, why are the male leaders of those churches letting women run them? Do those churches have no male leaders?
Comment by Timothy Wright
10.37 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Helen,
Beacuse they are NOT LEADERS, they are pastors and bookworms. Not real Leaders with the gift of leadership. People follow leaders not people in authority.
Paul,
Not a lot of personal experience with house churches, but I can’t imagine if there are many men involved doing something so counter cultural that they are just passengers in the cars driven by the women.
Tim
Comment by Helen
11.48 pm on 14 Aug 2006
Tim – how do these pastors qualify to be pastors if they don’t have the gift of leadership?
Comment by Makeesha
5.24 am on 15 Aug 2006
I agree with Helen on the point of disliking these kinds of analysis because the inference is that we should somehow change church to make it more appealing to men…I think that’s not only the wrong way to go but it’s a scary path to head down.
Male attendance at church is actually just as low (if I have my stats correct in my head) in American patriarchal churches as in more egalitarian churches so any shift that involves more power for men and a more machismo atmosphere still won’t solve the problem.
I also have to say that our service is made up of very young people and is actually more heavily male so I would be interested to see where the shift takes us generationally. My theory is that “younger” churches that continue to thrive will lead a shift in the female dominated church trend. In other words, I think this is a more “natural” trend in demographic that probably doesn’t warrant a book written about it.
Comment by Paul
7.53 am on 15 Aug 2006
Hi Helen, Makeesha, Kate
I am very interested to see you all have the same collective shudder to the idea of church being changed in some way to cater for more male characteristics. What I read from that is more a fear of oppression by men rather than of a mutual liberation? Would I be along the right lines or are there other characteristics/values that are important to you that you see might change if churches started to experiment with their thermostat/culture?
Maybe this collective fear highlights that there is something in Morrow’s analysis that the climate is now more female oriantated? Maybe if most churches are female dominated and women are comfortable in the enviroment created that there is no collective will to address the systematic issues for a fear of a return to the bad ol days? In doing so perhaps it does not encourage any change in culture and more men (then women) continue to not be engaged or come along?
I think the challenge/questions focus are on the issues that I raised in the last paragraph of my post – not how one sex can dominate a church environment but how can:
men and women find adventure in church? How can the thermostat be adjusted (other than Jase giving up his pink shirts ;)? How can men and women be engaged, excited, competent church practitioners? How can not only these fears (of either sex) be addressed but a balance found in the gender environment of the church?
Makeesha, you may be right that this will correct itself, the research suggests that it hasn’t for the last 200 years. I am glad though that you have more men in your church and that there are exceptions – do you have any thoughts on why you have the opposite issue?
Comment by jonny
9.48 am on 15 Aug 2006
Why is it asumed that men aren’t goint to church because of something in the church? could be that they have a problem with Christianity? They simply don’t believe the gospel as its presented to them. If thats the case I don’t think any machoism, fast cars, beer, football will ‘convert’ them (and that would miss the point) – because it would be a style issue but a content issue.
Timothy – I guess you are experiencing a specific situation of women over 50 are taking control of your church – at the expence of the pastor – I have to say I’ve never experienced that – and I don’t think you can make a general rule about it. But, judging by you reaction, it seems to be of great concern to you, I’m sorry to hear that.
On the whole men still dominate church leadership – certainly on a ‘profeesional’ level. It seems a sweeping statement to asume all these men in leadship are some how not being authentic and deliberately or accidently over emphasising a female biased spirituality.
Could it be that the problem is not that the church isn’t macho enough, but that we men aren’t talking to each other about the issues that really matter? Or that we’re scared to e vunerable? Could the problem be not with the church but with the male sterotypes we think we should conform to? …
… I’m over emphasising the point a little … I think the chances are mistakes are being made on all sides.
Comment by Timothy Wright
10.57 am on 15 Aug 2006
Helen,
They pass tests and get degrees like everyone else.
Johnny,
I have seen churches run by committees that are usually run by women who have their pet agenda’s just like I have seen churches pander to their male pastors and protect their incompetence.
As for the deep questions, I agree. Richard Fosters book, Money, Sex, Power says it all. If we don’t staright on address these issues, we are playing church.
In my experience with young male college students, there is an initial hesitation to talk about pornography, masturbation, promiscuity, etc,, but after one or two meetings they speak up and the guys who don’t want to talk about that stuff usually go home and imagine what a christian is and hope someday when they are sorted out they can talk from a point of total victory.
My experience has been Jesus meets us in our weakness, not our strengths. Too many men have image issues, I knew i did as a full time missionary, I hid some much junk in my life and I fell apart. That breakdown was the best thing thas has ever happened to me besides knowing Jesus. We all know we are all broken, I think men need a special context for them to be vulnerable and built up. The local church really doesn’t offer this kind of open environment. We are making it a go in our church with Small Groups, but mixed sex couples have their drawbacks.
Tim
Comment by Helen
11.25 am on 15 Aug 2006
Paul, you ask great questions!
What I shudder at is Murrow’s list. Let’s look at no. 1 again:
1. [Men fear] being outshone by women who thrive in the feminine climate.
When I read this, this is what I hear: men are sinners who struggle with pride, selfishness, insecurity and envy when they see women using their gifts and engaged at church.
Do you think Jesus became afraid when women used their gifts? Do you think he had to take the women aside who were part of his followers and say “Hey, I love you but could you act a bit more submissive? You’re freaking my male followers out!†Or do you think he was delighted to see them involved and engaged and cheered them on?
Instead of catering to men whose sin causes them to fear being outshone by women, let’s confront them on their sin. Let’s find men who want to be like Jesus, who will lead the way in role-modelling cheering women on; who will address this ‘problem’ not by whining about it and staying away from church, but by jumping in and saying “Hey guys – let’s make church as fun for us as it is for the women! How can we do that?â€
Next, no. 10:
10. There’s already an alpha male in residence called the pastor/minister/vicar – fears that he will never be able to use his own talents in any way that could possibly outshine the dominant male.
Again, this basically says men are sinners because they are driven to be the alpha male.
Do you see the real problem with this? Do you see how serious it is?
If a man has to be the Alpha Male then how can he honestly say that Jesus is the Alpha Male in his life? I can’t even see how such a man can claim to be a Christian.
Asking the church – a Christian community – to cater to such men makes no more sense to me than asking a church to eliminate all references to God so it can cater to atheists better.
The rest of the list:
2. Singing in public (look around next time the singing starts at the difference in engagement between men and women).
Fear of what others will think is a sin. Let’s confront it, not cater to it.
3. Having to check their minds at the door, not being able to ask questions or use their brains.
A legitimate complaint that is a problem for women as well as men, so it doesn’t belong on a list about why women outnumber men in church. And it’s sexist to imply it affects men more than women, as if women have less brain or care less about being able to use it.
4. That the church will brain washing their boys into becoming sissies.
To me this implies selfishness and laziness. Let’s not cater to this. Let’s find men who will confront the men who worry about this and tell them that if this happens, their passivity is to blame. Let’s encourage the men who are worried to be part of the solution by volunteering as Sunday school teachers of boys. Then they can teach their sons and other boys in the church – don’t they matter too? how to grow up to be a real man like Jesus. Or encourage the worried men to take the boys of the church out and do fun activities together in which they (hopefully!) can role model being real Christian men.
5. Having to become a super husband, their wives love Jesus who is already perfect so how can we compete with that?
Again I hear pride, insecurity and envy; also a failure in the church to teach grace in a way that is practically meaningful, if men are thinking they have to be perfect. Let’s teach grace and confront the sin. Let’s remind men that Jesus is not competing with them in their marriage; he’s as much on their team as their wife’s. Let’s teach them that simple things like cheering their wives on instead of being afraid of being outshone by them could turn their marriage around. (I just watched The Stepford Wives. Unfortunately for me, this is fiction; they’ll have to find other ways of having the marriage of their dreams ;))
6. Church is synonymous with homosexuality – from images in the media off the effeminate portrayal of clergy to sex abuse scandals and then we make man hug, sing and hold hands…
To me this implies homophobia. Homophobia should be confronted not catered to.
7. Getting less sex – church to them is portrayed as promoting a Victorian attitude towards sex and many Non-Christian men suspect that Christian mates get little sex as a result.
Church is not the reason why husbands don’t get much sex. And, by the way, their focus on this indicates selfish immaturity. People who have a mature understanding of sex realize it’s about giving as much as receiving. Let’s encourage husbands to start giving outside the bedroom by cheering their wife on instead of being afraid of being outshone by her. Very likely this will result in them getting more sex. (I hope they’ll try it and see.)
8. Having to get dressed up at the weekends – men like to be scruffy and not sure churches really allow that.
This is silly and sexist. It’s not men who have to wear uncomfortable shoes with high heels to work all week long. Why on earth does Murrow think this is a specifically male issue? But anyway, dressing up for church if you don’t want to is silly. People should dress as they like and stop obsessing over what other people think. If others make an issue of it, then go find a church where they don’t. That’s possible these days.
9. Men appreciate excellence and don’t expect to find it in a church.
A legitimate complaint but it applies to women too and shouldn’t be on this list. That it’s on the list is sexist.
Paul, does this help you understand why the list makes me shudder?
Comment by Helen
11.29 am on 15 Aug 2006
p.s. “unfortunately for ME” under reason 5. should have read “unfortunately for MEN”… oops
It’s fortunate, not unfortunate, for me (and all women)! :-)
Comment by Helen
11.32 am on 15 Aug 2006
Tim wrote: We are making it a go in our church with Small Groups, but mixed sex couples have their drawbacks.
You prefer same sex couples in your church?
(Don’t worry – I know that’s not really what you meant)
If men and women weren’t sinners and/or if the church didn’t make such a big deal of certain sins I think couples groups could work well. But the way the church is and people are I can understand why you say couples groups have drawbacks.
Comment by jonny
12.32 pm on 15 Aug 2006
great reply timothy, and i concur with your thoughts.
Thinking about single sex groups, in my experience male groups have tended to be a bit wierd, or have a strange culture that goes with them. But, having said that, i still value a place to be real will male friends. For me that tends to happen most with a close friend down the pub or over a coffee. so for me as long as that way of relating is valdated as part of church life – then i don’t see the need for extra specialised ‘ministires’.
Comment by Helen
2.19 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Jonny, could you elaborate on what is weird about single sex men’s groups, that isn’t weird about having a drink with a male friend?
Does this mean the answer to getting men in church is to take church down the pub and have it there?
I’m only half-kidding. There must be something about that which helps men be more real than the church environment (even in single sex groups, according to what you said)
Comment by Kate
3.19 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Paul, my shuddering is more general, in the sense that I don\’t want church to be molded in a way to cater to the insecurities of any specific group, male or female. If the church is, in fact, currently catering to female insecurity, that should be changed, but we should try to keep the pendulum from swinging to the other side.
Comment by Makeesha
3.38 pm on 15 Aug 2006
well stated Kate. I asked my husband about this since I, as a woman, might certainly be blind to feminine bias in the church. He thinks the whole “church caters to women” idea is bunk. He thinks that male attendance being lower (if indeed that is accurate)than female is the problem of the men, not the church.
He thinks some of it (and I tend to agree)has to do with “church women” typically being stay at home moms or older housewives who tend to have more time to attend to church stuff and more time to do midweek groups, prayer meetings, etc. so they feel more connected than the men and therefore don’t have the “playing hooky” problem that the men might have.
Women who have been home with kids all day welcome a small group in the evening while a man who has been away at work is more likely to want to stay home and relax.
Which is perhaps why services made up of younger childless couples and singes (like ours) don’t manifest the same gender inequality.
I guess what I was trying to say is that to me, church attendance is not necessarily the true root of the issue.
Comment by Timothy Wright
3.46 pm on 15 Aug 2006
I just read this at Steve McCoys blog:
For Mark Driscoll, being innovative as a church means getting young men into the church. Quotes…
The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of…chicks. It’s just sad.
We’re looking around going, How come we’re not innovative? Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck. They look at the church like that’s a nice thing for women and children. So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing.
Well Said
Tim
Comment by jonny
3.52 pm on 15 Aug 2006
re: Helen.
I just don’t think the church needs to turn every relationship into a project, a ministry or a group. can’t we just give people time to have friendships?
Groups can be stange things fullstop – but when the purpose of the groups is “male-ness” then it’s just more weird, either feels like a kids camp (’soo zany’) or feels like Acoholics Annonymous (’hi my names jonny and i’m a man’, ‘hmm, thank you for sharing that’) – (please take that with the pinch of humour with which it’s written) I don’t know if the same is true for womens minitries.
re: Tim
“How come we’re not innovative? Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck.” – that doesn’t sound very innovative to me at all.
Comment by Makeesha
4.04 pm on 15 Aug 2006
I agree jonny – I personally get tired of projects, ministries and groups within the church community as a way to solve problems…it hasn’t worked in the past and it’s not going to be the answer now.
I think a huge key is going to be the growing movement withing churches to be Jesus in each person’s sphere of influence. Removing the dualism that has seeped in is going to be huge. The shift away from institutionalized in-these-4-walls christianity is going to be a great thing for church in general but for men in particular. Which again is why I said I’m not sure that church attendance is the end all and be all of anyone’s vibrant faith including a man’s. I’m not sure male church attendance is a good barometer for anything. I think when the church gets serious about making christianity about reconciliation of relationships (all relationships) these problems will resolve.
tim – as for driscoll…he turns a good phrase but I honestly don’t think he actually SAID much of anything there. I got to the end and my only reaction was “wha?” and I think his comments about feminized men and chick church were asinine…but then again I don’t have much of an affinity for many things he says.
Comment by Makeesha
4.08 pm on 15 Aug 2006
oh, and if those things driscoll says are innovative…he’s very short sighted. My husband would argue that innovative men are getting together with other men and women of all ages and socioeconomic status to glorify God together and listen to His Spirit for how to solve the global AIDS crisis, how to feed the hungry in their own backyard, how to help the families that are breaking down in our own communities, how to touch the hearts of hurting girls getting abortions, how to love the street kids who hang out downtown every night….that’s innovative…men who work on trucks? please.
Comment by Helen
4.08 pm on 15 Aug 2006
johnny wrote:
Helen.
I just don’t think the church needs to turn every relationship into a project, a ministry or a group. can’t we just give people time to have friendships?
Sounds great to me. I love genuine friendships.
Groups can be stange things fullstop – but when the purpose of the groups is “male-ness†then it’s just more weird, either feels like a kids camp (’soo zany’) or feels like Acoholics Annonymous (’hi my names jonny and i’m a man’, ‘hmm, thank you for sharing that’) – (please take that with the pinch of humour with which it’s written) I don’t know if the same is true for womens minitries.
Christian women’s groups are afflicted with various types of weirdness. They tend to be way too much about color-coordinated tablecloths and being a submissive wife for me. (Not that I want to be a rebellious wife ;-) – just a partner, that’s all) I like to talk about theology but many women haven’t read the Bible enough to have a clue what I’m on about. Although that’s also true of many men, probably.
I liked Bible Study Fellowship (worldwide conservative evangelical parachurch Bible study; much bigger in the US than England; was started by an Englishwoman living in the US in the 1950s) – because it was very affirming of women having ministries and being leaders, even though they also uphold traditionalist men-over-women beliefs. Some mid-level leaders are men but all the top leaders in BSF are all women; I think they get around that being an issue with their beliefs by having some male board members ;-).
BSF is incredibly structured which some people hate. I think it can be good for women who can handle its idiosyncracies and not get messed up by them.
It’s the only women’s group I’ve been in which wasn’t so Christianwomensy that I felt awkward. The focus in it was on God, not in female-ness. Which was really great.
Comment by Helen
4.20 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Kate I think you said what I was trying to say in much fewer words! I should have waited for you to respond then I could have simply said “I agree with Kate”!
Tim, I don’t appreciate being called a ‘chick’ by Mark Driscoll. I don’t care if he’s a bigshot pastor or not. It’s derogatory.
Comment by Makeesha
4.22 pm on 15 Aug 2006
helen – amen on both accounts
Comment by Helen
4.32 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Thanks Makeesha. I’ve been appreciating your participation in this discussion even though I haven’t responded to you directly until now.
Comment by Steffen
6.25 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Hey all
Greetings from Denmark.
I’ll share some thoughts about Murrow’s book.
First of all: according to Murrow, masculine and feminine do not mean man and woman. Every man and woman have some of both, but generally speaking men have more “masculine sides” and vice versa.
The problem is that the churches generally speaking have to much of the “feminine spirit” (in Murrows words) and therefore men are leaving church.
To make his point Murrow uses two lists of words from “Men are from Mars, Women Are from Venus”. He finds that more than 95 percent chooses “venus values” as the best representation of true Christian values.
This includes among others- relationships, nurturing, feelings, sharing, relating, harmony, opposed to – achievement, skills, goal oriented, succes, results.
Can it be true that the values usually associated with masculinity are wrong or even sinful?
I think it is obvious that most churches are more “safe” than “risktaking” and that we (women and men still left in the church) have to take this very serious. I don’t blame the women for this, but I think that we need to let the people (men and women) with gifts to lead take the church into unknown territory.
And I don’t think it is helpful to ignore mens fears regarding church or say things like “those are silly unrational fears and men should change” (not that anyone here has said anything like that, but maybe I sense a little bit between the lines in some comments).
For the better of the church I hope to see more balance between “the masculine spirit” and “the feminine spirit” in the future.
In Christ
Steffen Boeskov, Copenhagen
Comment by Paul
6.29 pm on 15 Aug 2006
If you are interested in further resources/reading I have now added some links in the post above for David Morrow’s website which plenty of stats etc and this interesting article by Morrow where he sets out 7 of the principles from his book that could make church more fun for guys…
Comment by Paul
6.51 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Oh I see we’re getting some great husband/wife conversations going as well – for the record I asked my wife what she thought on the whole subject… her theory is that men like to be competent and therefore don’t like acknowledging let alone admitting they need any help – so going to church would be an omission that they are not self sufficient. Of the men that do come along to church she reckons that there are quite a few “wet” types who can’t cope even if they don’t like admitting it either…
Interesting choice of words and echos what Morrow says around the importance of comptence to men – who stay away and church instead attracts more men who seem to thrive in a more feminised mothered enviroment.
On the why she seems to get more out of church than I do, her thoughts are that I’m too clever so get bored whilst she doesn’t know so much so learns. She likes singing and the whole taking time out to wait for God/minsiter to each other but even she had to ask why all the women who shared possible words from God on sunday (no men btw) had to do whilst crying…
Comment by Paul
7.28 pm on 15 Aug 2006
I have now included a link to David Morrow’s website in the post (sorry for not doing it sooner) which has more stats, thoughts etc if you are interested. http://www.churchformen.com
>
> I have also added alink to an article by Morrow where he sets out 7 principles from his book about how church could be more male friendly – you’ll be pleased to know he doesn’t advocate lapdancers and beers on tap (oh wrong sort of sinful male tendancies:) http://www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=7978
Comment by Paul
8.24 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Kate, Helen, Makeesha
thank you so much for taking time out to explore snd unpack your collective shudder more in such an inciteful and helpful way.
Perhaps it might be helpful/reassuring/challenging to unpack those fears a bit and explore where men might be coming from? A bit more context might help as well…
Context
What Morrow points out that men’s disinterest in church is so consistent around the world that it can’t be explained by men being proud because that means that’s generic everywhere then, or sin as that’s generic everywhere, men have father son issues, well that’s generic everywhere. But of all world religions only Christianity has a consistent nagging shortage of male practitioners which is why he doesn’t think men are the problem he thinks that church is the issue.
It’s good to put this list in the context also of the law of cause and effect, every effect has a cause but the danger is to battle effects ignorant of the cause so the effect does not improve, be weakened or ever eradicated as we haven’t looked back far enough to see what actually causes it. A lot of effects are foliage but they are not the root cause. Interestingly going back to the talk again Morrow points out that men being less involved with the church is not even a modern phenomenon, he claims that this issue goes back at least 700 years, where men began to with draw from church life during the 13 century when a new bridal mysticism began to sweep the church, a call to weakness and passivity replaced the church’s historic emphasis on struggle and sacrifice. The virgin Mary took centre stage, mother church took care of her own and every spiritual thing. Medieval men simply attended mass, took the sacraments and paid their tithes and indulgences. Or New England Churches whose rolls go back to the 16oos show that the majority of members were always women. The gender gap became a yawning chasm in the 1800s where the great evangelist Charles Finney could write in the 1830 that “women comprised the vast majority of members in most churches. A trend that remains the same today across the church going population.
The list is also in the context of men who mainly don’t go to church or who have tried it briefly and given up. Attributing something to male sinfulness is not going to help them address it – that’s the point it – men won’t bother coming to church to find out more so stand less chance of learning that their fears are maybe misplaced or indeed coming along and confirming their fears and going again.
Is being fearful a sin? Can men not have fears even if they don’t often verbalise them? If you invite a man to church he’ll likely have an image of what that will be like for him shaped by his fears/expectations. It might not be pleasent for churh goers, we might think how can they be so dumb, it’s their problem, get over their testosterone fuelled competent loving competitive pride. Which is all fine but it won’t help more men come to church and stay and it won’t do nothing about changing the massive imbalance in the church as a whole between men/women.
I don’t think its cos women have more energy – certainly my wife who stays at home with the boys is a lot more knackered in the evenings and really values peace n quiet not going out to church… I don’t think its cos men are inherently tired from working if it is something that interests them and excites them then I’ll show up no matter how knackered I am. Being tired is an easy excuse for not attending – i know i have used it many times and now that I have kids I have them as well – usually what I’m saying is I really am not that bothered but too polite to tell the invitee…
Back to that list…
1. Men don’t feel that church is a level playing field for them to excel so they are uncomfortable in a female dominated environment. A guy who’s a bad golfer would rather spend a day playing golf badly than go to church cos at least he’s in control of his bad golf.
4 & 6. men worry about bring their boys to a church that’s led by a TV vicar – it’s a charicature that’s been around since the 19th century when vicars would hang out with women, take tea and cakes with them,counsel them – in fact since men were few in church or at work the image of the effeminate vicar was an easy one to portray – unthreatening to working husbands and beloved of church women. Anyone give me an example of a non-feminine male vicar on tv??
Men can still not be homophobic in terms of respecting gay people but still not want their sons to be in what they think as such a feminine environment. Just like I can be tolerant of other beliefs but not want my children to grow up to be muslim.
5. Super husbands as the church teaches that the man is the spiritual head, priest in their home, a role model to wife/children, a hero to their sons, the man of her dreams, financially successful, involved in church, preferably in church leadership and all these layers are placed on men who fear if they get involved in the church I could never be the superhero husband my wife thinks I’m going to become or thinks I should be. They don’t feel they can compete with the man their wives are in love with called Jesus. Rare that a man would word it like that, but that’s the feeling that their wives are married to someone else and that someone else that wife is having the affair with, as it were, is perfect and he’s called Jesus. The man thinks I can’t compete with Jesus so I won’t even try so we have absent from church fathers, husbands etc.
10. This just reflects a male fear that they won’t be valued/appreciated/have their talents used and indeed allowed in areas where they might exceed the pastor. A bit like a saul vs david situation – david a top role model of course as to how to deal with it but men outside of church are unlikely to have encountered it let alone see something modelled in church where power and influence is given away especially where it enhances excellence…
Getting a balance?
I agree with the point of not letting the pendulum swing back too far and I also think that there are examples out there of churches with strong male/female attendance where a balance has been found…
Comment by Makeesha
9.22 pm on 15 Aug 2006
paul – I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with the way the church does things – what I’m suggesting is that it’s not a problem unique only to men.
I appreciate your thoughts but really have nothing more productive to add. And for the record, I have no fears that need to be explored and we don’t have this problem at our church so I think we’ll continue doing what God is leading us to do and pray that the Spirit will bring illumination where it is needed. :)
Comment by Paul
10.36 pm on 15 Aug 2006
Makeesha, thank you so much for being part of the conversation, I have really valued your thoughts and insights.
I loved your thoughts on innovation, with church being about:
innovative men (are) getting together with other men and women of all ages and socioeconomic status to glorify God together and listen to His Spirit for how to solve the global AIDS crisis, how to feed the hungry in their own backyard, how to help the families that are breaking down in our own communities, how to touch the hearts of hurting girls getting abortions, how to love the street kids who hang out downtown every night…
If that is what your church is about doing then i can see why you would have no problem attracting equal numbers of men and women…so please keep on innovating and being like that!!
All the very best
Paul
Comment by Kate
12.31 am on 16 Aug 2006
Helen – what can I say? I am a woman of few words and I take a long time to get them out…
Paul – since other religions seem to attract women and men equally, perhaps we should look into what makes men in those contexts faithful (actually sounds like an interesting topic for a paper…hmmmm…seminary, here I come!). It’s probably worth considering how much of the attendance issue could also be tied into culture and culturally enforced gender roles.
To end on a more personal note: I know that at least three of the items on Murrow’s list apply to my own reluctance to attend church at times. Of course, I have been told at times that I react to situations much as a man would, so perhaps I am an anomaly.
Comment by Timothy Wright
12.35 am on 16 Aug 2006
Helen,
I agree with you. I would not want anyone being refered to as a chick. I didn’t editorialise because I am not in any way politically correct. Mark has opinions I have mine. Let them both stand.
Tim
Comment by Helen
1.42 am on 16 Aug 2006
Paul, I just don’t get it…
The change we would get if we cater to men’s fears isn’t a change that will make church treat men like real men. It will make church treat them like babies. It just doesn’t seem Biblical to me.
Jesus didn’t ‘baby’ his disciples. He said stuff to them like “O ye of little faith” and “How long must I put up with you” and “Get behind thee Satan”.
It doesn’t seem to me that these men on Murrow’s list would have lasted a day following Jesus.
If we’re talking about people who don’t know Jesus, then, fine. We have no expectations like Jesus had of his disciples. But I thought we were talking about people who do claim to belong to Jesus.
I didn’t think we were talking about evangelism and outreach, but, are we?
Comment by Helen
1.44 am on 16 Aug 2006
Thanks Tim. I realized it was Marc’s word and not yours. But I appreciate you saying you would not have used that term to describe women.
Comment by marc
8.28 am on 16 Aug 2006
That’s Mark Driscoll not me. He says these sort of thing fairly often, just for effect in my opinion.
They are quite effective though because I don’t listen to him anymore:¬)
Comment by Paul
8.32 am on 16 Aug 2006
Hi Helen
I don’t think we are that far apart, the majority of church treats men like babies, it mothers them, stifles them, teaches them about being meek and mild and good as he (Jesus). It’s why one of my favourite images in the last few years has been this one http://www.churchads.org.uk/campaigns/easter_99.html . It’s so the very opposite of the image of jesus in a white skirt carrying a lamb etc that i had on my wall as a boy. That was the Jesus that was modelled to me a nice guy with a beard who was into peace and love…
I think in contrast your last post hits precisely on the difference between what churches portray/model/teach/reflect on Jesus. I agre with you Jesus did not panderto his disciples is precisely the point i’m trying to make in terms of making their faith all comfy, cosy, soft and gentle….no group hugs, hand holding and comfort crying lol they were living an adventure daily… walking around across the country, surviving storms, fights with the authorities, feeding the hungry, heros of the people, hanging out as guys, getting cool nicknames, wandering (competively)who of them would get to be the greatest, when would jesus as mesiah kick the romans out, learning to kick demon ass and heal the sick – bring empowered and learning to do everything their leader did – the call was follow me not have a personal relationship with me. If church was like that then yes I agree with you, men would not have a problem…
I think the issues is men not coming to church and if they do come they don’t stay in the same numbers that women do. It is an evengelisivc one from that point of view but to label it as such is to miss the point again and to just do something to get guys to come to church to get saved and then they can be tamed afterwards once they know better…
whereas what i aam thinking is that we need images/references/styles that appeal to both masculine and feminine preferences.
Jesus was revolutionary in his treatment and empowerment of women and they were key part of his followers and yet he still was a magnet for men as well – its that sort of balance of compassion and courage that i’d like churches to have…
I remember a great book i once read a while back with the title of “adventures in missing the point” – even if we don’t agree this conversation has been an adventure in learning, listening and loving for me – so thank you for saying what you think!!
Comment by marc
8.53 am on 16 Aug 2006
Right have trawled through the dirth of mails there is a couple of points.
1. Mark Driscoll is talking nonsense in regards to men in church, you don’t have to be one of the ‘good old boys’ to be man or young man at church. Young men are not the sole heirs of the church, we all are. But men do need to be empowered within the church.
Jonny – Male ministries make me cringe because it seems so completely not part of the english culture or experience. When friendship becomes a ministry it can be seen as false and contrived however that is not to say that genuine friendships can’t arise from it.
Helen
I like to talk about theology and I now have my new buddy Paul to plague with my thoughts and questions as well as Jason:¬) but there aren’t many men who are that interested in it. I think the evnagelical church in some respects has dumbed down the theological or intellectual aspects of church.
Steffen – Maybe we have spent to much getting in touch with our feminie side?
Paul – If men are too stupid to acknowledge that they need help from God now and again then more fool them, it shows how little they know themselves…I get a lot out of church through teaching and through creative worship occasionally the standard sung worship, more so when i’m playing though.
I can understand what goody mayers saith, I need the stimulation of teaching from our pastor and there are not many others to discuss such stuff with. Are you too intelligent or is you preferred way of learning interaction/discussion as opposed to lecture?
Helen (again)
‘Men would be like babies’ but are we not all meant to come to Christ as children?
Comment by Helen
12.41 pm on 16 Aug 2006
marc wrote:
That’s Mark Driscoll not me [who called women 'chicks' in a recent interview]. He says these sort of thing fairly often, just for effect in my opinion.
Sorry marc – I apologize for inadvertently mispelling Mark Driscoll’s name so it might have looked like it was you who called women ‘chicks’.
They are quite effective though because I don’t listen to him anymore:-)
LOL good point!
Comment by Helen
12.48 pm on 16 Aug 2006
marc wrote: Helen (again)
‘Men would be like babies’ but are we not all meant to come to Christ as children?
Yes indeed.
I see this as the difference: babies are too immature to meet their own needs. They cry if they’re hungry or afraid/lonely and hope someone will feed or comfort them.
When Jesus said to be like children I’m convinced he did not mean – be immature and overly dependent.
I believe he meant, seek to retain all that is wonderful about being a child. Actually I do think this is very relevant to this whole topic because – see, if women run the church, women are mostly mothers and so their sinful tendency is to ‘mother’ people of all ages to an inappropriate extent. They can be over-controlling and prevent people taking risks. Which limits those peoples’ ability to have exciting adventures. And this limitation has already been pinpointed by Eldredge and others as a reason men aren’t very excited about church.
So, I do not deny that there may be things about church which turn men off and I do not deny that their being part of the church environment might be partly due to women having more influence on it – in practice, no matter who is nominally in charge – than men.
Comment by marc
1.09 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Helen – I do understand what you mean but I think God wants us to be very dependent on him but to use our brains also.
The thing is I don’t think women run the church and I don’t really agree with Eldridge.
I don’t think that women running the church if that were true is the problem. The church has been in decline since WW1 – women would not have been in any position to run anything – they could not even vote.
I think it is the image of fluffy, luvvy, dovey, Christians that keep men away. I blame the modern church and the media for that.
Think of all the vicars that are on TV, the one dads army etc – they are all wet fish, it’s a cliche but one that the media promotes and one that damages the iamge of the church making it look unmanly.
Comment by Helen
1.16 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Paul, I’m glad we’ve found some common ground.
Ok – so, church should not ‘baby’ men.
My problem with Murrow’s approach is that I think he is encouraging us to ‘baby’ men – by suggesting we need to cater to their fears without saying we need to address the sin which is causing some of those fears to exist.
And the alpha male reason still bothers me a lot because I don’t understand how someone who is bugged by not being The alpha male can honestly claim that Jesus is Alpha Male of his life.
There could be a host of reasons why men who say they are followers of Jesus don’t like church enough to go. I’m not trying to say, if my guesses are right, everyone else’s are wrong. I’m not trying to say that all fear is sin. I’m only trying to say – can we agree that some sin is based on fear? And can we agree that some of the reason men don’t like church is that, even though they claim to be followers of Jesus, they haven’t really ‘got it’ yet? Aren’t men who ‘get it’ set free by Jesus from obsessing over what others think and the drive to be Alpha Male all the time?
I think much of Murrow’s list describes men who don’t ‘get it yet’ and so what they need is conversion. And what is step 1 of conversion? “Admit I am a sinner”. Meaning, in this context: admit that some of these fears of mine are sin-based.
Men who don’t get it should feel uncomfortable in church because it should challenge and confront them with what Jesus is really all about.
I think Murrow has seriously confused ‘not getting it’ with what is appropriately part of being a male follower of Jesus.
The possibility that others may be influenced by his confusion into making the church more accepting of sinful tendencies in men, rather than more male-follower-of-Jesus-oriented deeply disturbs me. Yes, maybe there is a need for the church to change, for the sake of men. But for the most part I think appropriate change means going in the opposite direction from the one Murrow seems to be recommending.
By the way I see your point about the male Christian stereotype in the UK being sissy/’wet’ vicars who have tea with old ladies. Yes, that’s a problem. But let’s not replace it with sinful macho manly man. Let’s replace it with men truly sold out to Jesus, who are full of energy and passion – not to outshine women or be Alpha Male but to serve people and love people and bring the world one step closer to “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.
Comment by Helen
1.21 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Seeing if I can summarize what bugs me:
I think Murrow is saying “let’s change the church to draw men in by catering to male sinful tendencies” whereas I would say – “let’s change the church to draw men in by showing men how EXCITING it can be to be a man following Jesus with all his heart, mind, soul and strength”
I think these are very different directions and that’s why I’d hate to see the church follow Murrow, at the expense of where Jesus would like to take men.
Comment by marc
1.52 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Helen – sorry if i’ve missed this but what would you call men’s sinful tendencies?
Comment by Makeesha
2.45 pm on 16 Aug 2006
paul – I talked more with my husband about this last night and he agrees with something you said – the church needs to present Jesus FULLY, all facets of his character especially those that are fully masculine. He also recalled back to his childhood in the Lutheran church and recalled how Jesus was portrayed.
Comment by marc
3.04 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Makeesha – I think Jesus can be portrayed as very meek and mild, almost like a walk over, this seems to of been the predominant image because if you love everyone you will be meek and mild!!?!?
This of course is not true but how do we address it?
Comment by Helen
3.13 pm on 16 Aug 2006
marc wrote:
Helen – I do understand what you mean but I think God wants us to be very dependent on him but to use our brains also.
Fair enough. It was overdependence on other people that I was thinking was the problem.
I would love to see church be a place where using one’s brain is encouraged (regardless of the outcome)
The thing is I don’t think women run the church and I don’t really agree with Eldridge.
I don’t think that women running the church if that were true is the problem. The church has been in decline since WW1 – women would not have been in any position to run anything – they could not even vote.
I think it is the image of fluffy, luvvy, dovey, Christians that keep men away. I blame the modern church and the media for that.
Think of all the vicars that are on TV, the one dads army etc – they are all wet fish, it’s a cliche but one that the media promotes and one that damages the iamge of the church making it look unmanly.
All this makes sense to me. I’m not convinced women run the church and I do agree about the problematic stereotypes of men in the church.
The blog I host belongs to Off The Map, one of whose main emphases is “Doable evangelism: what if evangelism meant just being yourself?”
I think in the big picture, we need to present following Jesus as being fully yourself. Yes, that might look radically different from how you look now in some ways. BUT it’s still you; you have not been stripped of your individual passions and gifts.
Whenever ‘following Jesus’ is represented as ‘turn into someone else who isn’t you’ then that’s problematic, in my opinion.
Helen – sorry if i’ve missed this but what would you call men’s sinful tendencies?
Did you see my comment #27? I think they were in there.
Pingback by Kyrie Eleison » Why do men hate church?
3.39 pm on 16 Aug 2006
[...] Have you read David Murrow’s book? Paul Mayer has. Check this out: [...]
Comment by graham
5.19 pm on 16 Aug 2006
I’ve not read the book, but I generally hate lists like this.
Someone recently tried to sell me on the idea that Men don’t go to church because there’s too much singing. I guess they didn’t go to many football matches.
Then there’s people who assume that all men want to do is talk about Cars, Sports and Women. Well, I like Women, but you can keep the rest. Yet, do we really think we will lead men into a fulfilling life of discipleship and worship by tickling their “masculine” needs?
Paul, it’s an interesting question, but it seems to me that Murrow simply engages in too many stereotypes.
Comment by Paul
6.55 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Hi Helen
I am in 99% agreement with you, excitement not sin indulgence, so heh make that 100%. Maybe it would help if I flipped that list of 10 fears and showed you what I think Morrow is driving at when he talks about addressing those fears…
1. No need to be outshone any longer now we can all shine together – the church needs men and women, each have unique talents and abilities and we did those all to be expressed in a healthy whole community. We need courage and compassion, strength and kindness, passion and peace, strength and beauty, action and adventure, listeners and doers, heros and heroines, boldness and tact.
2. Yes we sing but we don’t just sing about love we also sing about mission, we sing about being and we sing about doing. We also sing in a key that everyone can reach and you don’t have to if you don’t want too. We use visuals, we use images, we use interactive ways of engaging with God and we talk about worship being living a life of sacrifice of looking out for others as well as number 1, of taking action, in using all our talents and abilities, mind, soul, body…
3. We are all, men and women, asking questions, together being seekers, explorers, adventurers not afraid to think, reflect and find mystery. We want to learn to love God with all our mind’s capacity, to not have a theoretical faith but where what we learn together helps us live lives in our communities.
4. we are a church which teach our kids about the heros and heroines of the faith of the past and try to model for them today what it is to have an honest faith. To teach honesty, courage, support, adventure. That following God is not an easy life but it is an exciting one.
5. husbands you love your wife, wives you respect your husbands and we want to help support each other have marriages that are full of love and adventure and lasts a lifetime.
6. There is no need to hug anyone, cry with anyone, hold hands with anyone – we respect each others emotional space. We respect that God has given us a unique identity and character, that we are all individuals made in his image and that we have the opportunity to find and express who we are created/called/shaped to be, to find purpose and have a good time along the way sharing that purpose with the world around us…
7. less sex is a reflection of church not engaging with this subject – well this should be something the every church addresses – sex is a great good wonderful thing which is a vital part of healthy committed relationships. Sex is also an issue for many people, especially those who have been hurt by/through/because of sex and again the church needs to address this with compassion, prayer, wisdom etc. Sex if we are interested in listening to God’s wisdom on the subject can be a battle whatever our sexual orientation, if we’re married we have to stay committed to our partner, if we’re single or gay then there is the challenge of not having sex. If we go against the grain of that wisdom we can expect to pick up splinters so we’ll need love, help, challenge and accountability. And maybe some more teaching from song of Solomon.
8. Where whatever is comfortable for you.
9. We value your comments and your contribution to making church an excellent experience for everyone – if you see something that needs doing and have the talents to do it then we want and need you. Please be constructive and loving in your feedback and be ready to be part of the solution.
10. Interestingly Jesus did not tell his disciples off when they got all competitive and wanted to know who was the best amongst them, or tell James and John off for their ambition to be get the places of honour on his left and right. What Jesus did do was to remodel their for them what greatness was, explain what honour looked like in the kingdom of God and then point to his life of service and sacrifice, calling them his friends and laying his life down for them. Men may be competitive or ambitious but if male leaders model Jesus’ courageous, risk taking, empowerment through service, through giving away ministry, through active discipleship then I can not see this being a long term problem. Men and women will be engaged excited empowered participants – agents of action on a mission of love and service.
Ok this list probably needs some feminine factors incorporated into it as well as no doubt I have overplayed the male aspects. But a church which was like that I would see as not only addressing those fears of men but modelling healthy hopeful kingdom life which would fully involve men and women.
Comment by Tim Butt
7.10 pm on 16 Aug 2006
just an observation and take from it what you will – it’s interesting that the bulk of the comments on this thread have been written by women.
Comment by Makeesha
7.33 pm on 16 Aug 2006
I have some more thoughts but I don’t want to write a novel here so I’m going to put them on my blog. inhiscourts.blogspot.com
This has been a good discussion and has sparked some great dialogue with my husband and our ministry leaders.
Comment by Tim Butt
8.01 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Might I dare to suggest that, perhaps, one of the reasons that men stay away from church, is that if they engage in a discussion, as men, there’s always a woman waiting to jump in and say her piece.
I want to make clear that I am not at all intending to take a swipe at anyone here and I know that this comment sounds dangerously close to my doing that. But I do feel that there is a problem of men not being allowed to sit back, risk saying things that (if said elsewhere) might be deemed offensive and work out where they’re at and where God is in that. I suspect that men being the creatures we are, that might, at times, not look too nice. As Helen rightly says, it’s about dealing with issues of sin in our lives.
Broad-brush statements are always contentious, but they do at least offer a starting point. On that basis, I think we’re foolish to quickly rubbish or dismiss them.
Ultimately, I’m struck by the fact that, as a community of those trying to work out how to be disciples (not ‘in relationship’ or any other contemporary slang – let’s be biblical in our terminology, as someone pointed out earlier) and faithful ones at that, we’re trying to acknowledge our need of, receive and apply God’s grace in our lives. The reality seems to be that, although there is overlap between sexes, the application of God’s grace may look more similar in our own sex and less so in the opposite. Therefore, churches that offer more opportunities to receive and apply God’s grace in ways that are accessible to one sex may thereby make themselves less accessible to the other.
Could it be that the often predominant stylistic features of churches that might be deemed more feminine serve as indicators that these are places where women will be most able to receive and apply God’s grace in their lives?
Comment by Helen
8.21 pm on 16 Aug 2006
Paul – I love it!
All I would say is – all this needs to be role-modelled to be effective. Saying it to men wouldn’t be enough.
So, for example – a man who comes to a service needs to see scruffy men there to understand it really is a ‘wear what you want’ church. And so on.
Comment by Makeesha
8.28 pm on 16 Aug 2006
paul – good stuff
tim – I don’t think that holds water (men being tired of women jumping in). because men’s ministries and men’s bible studies are classically under-attended too. And those are just men so there are not women waiting to jump in.
plus, that might go on somewhere but certainly not in my experiences. In fact, since most churches are still very strongly complementarian or even patriarchal, they aren’t even given a voice in the church in mixed gender company.
Comment by Helen
10.23 pm on 16 Aug 2006
graham wrote:
it seems to me that Murrow simply engages in too many stereotypes.
I agree.
Comment by Steffen
3.02 am on 17 Aug 2006
Helen: I have to ask: Have you read the book?? ‘Cause if you have, we haven’t been reading the same book.
I think a statement like: “I think Murrow is saying ´let’s change the church to draw men in by catering to male sinful tendencies´ ” is a gross misrepresentation of what Murrow is saying in his book.
In Christ
Steffen
Comment by Paul
6.47 am on 17 Aug 2006
Yes I agree Helen the list needs to be modelled, expressed in living it out and loving it out as well in our learning about…
Graham made a point about stereotyping – maybe Morrow does this but then if he’s interviewing/researching men the broad trends are likely to be stereotypical. I don’t think that is a bad thing (and nor do millions of self help book writers on gender issues e.g. men are from mars/women from venus being a whole book written on stereotypes). I think there needs to be sensitivity to the fact that not everyone conforms to a stereotype and force people into a one size fits all jacket but learn instead something about tayloring around a classic cut of cloth like the suit jacket is :)
Just a thought on Driscoll – no doubt he is being deliberately provocative in his use of language but maybe that was his point – he wants people to push back the way we’ve all been pushing back in these comments, to think about the issue rather than it getting lost in the stats of life. In which case well done to him, certainly made me stop and think even if i didn’t agree with everything he said.
Comment by marc
9.16 am on 17 Aug 2006
Helen I agree with much of what you say but a few bits and pieces.
1. [Men fear] being outshone by women who thrive in the feminine climate.
When I read this, this is what I hear: men are sinners who struggle with pride, selfishness, insecurity and envy when they see women using their gifts and engaged at church.
Helen, (playing devils advocate here) you could say that but then you could say women are sinners for not being submissive and supporting their men who find it hard to live up to the biblical model of leadership.
Do you think Jesus became afraid when women used their gifts? Do you think he had to take the women aside who were part of his followers and say “Hey, I love you but could you act a bit more submissive? You’re freaking my male followers out!†Or do you think he was delighted to see them involved and engaged and cheered them on?
I don’t really think you can use this as argument because the cultural context of the time was completely different.
Instead of catering to men whose sin causes them to fear being outshone by women, let’s confront them on their sin. Let’s find men who want to be like Jesus, who will lead the way in role-modelling cheering women on; who will address this ‘problem’ not by whining about it and staying away from church, but by jumping in and saying “Hey guys – let’s make church as fun for us as it is for the women! How can we do that?â€
It should be fun for both but the roles of men and women in many churches are defined by interpretation and tradition, we should be catering for all. It is also what you define as what you need to have fun – what would do that for you?
Next, no. 10:
10. There’s already an alpha male in residence called the pastor/minister/vicar – fears that he will never be able to use his own talents in any way that could possibly outshine the dominant male.
Again, this basically says men are sinners because they are driven to be the alpha male. Do you see the real problem with this? Do you see how serious it is? If a man has to be the Alpha Male then how can he honestly say that Jesus is the Alpha Male in his life? I can’t even see how such a man can claim to be a Christian. Asking the church – a Christian community – to cater to such men makes no more sense to me than asking a church to eliminate all references to God so it can cater to atheists better.
Maybe the alpha male is part of a mans calling, a desire within us planted by God. Something that pastors/vicars that we feel we have to live up, maybe a product of Christian society and culture. Helen, the thing about church is that everyone is broken and everyone has their problems be it a leader/pastor whoever. If you start to dismiss people because you suppose them to have the sin of being an alpha male, where do you stop? We could then move on to anyone else who we judge does not have Jesus at the centre of their lives, it’s a slippery slope,…then of course there would be no church. Maybe it would be wiser to support and help people to grow?
Singing in church.
Fear of what others will think is a sin. Let’s confront it, not cater to it.
It’s not being vain its just being shy and that is not a sin.
5. Having to become a super husband, their wives love Jesus who is already perfect so how can we compete with that?
Again I hear pride, insecurity and envy; ….
again I don’t hear compassion, grace and understanding…:¬)
Has it ever occurred to you the pressure men are under with regards to the role of the super husband and loving your wife as the Jesus loved the church? In our society this is completely alien; we have to learn how to do this, I don’t see it competing with Jesus but it’s a very hard to live up to being Christlike and enormous task.
Paul, does this help you understand why the list makes me shudder?
I certainly do – some of things are ridiculous. The trouble is people read it and think it true!!!
Comment by Simone
10.42 am on 17 Aug 2006
So what if ‘Murrow simply engages in too many stereotypes’? He made an observation, tried to give some solutions and I’m sure it speaks to men all over the world. God made all of us unigue didn’t He? Just as I might be described as being on the one extreme of ‘feminitity’ in that I am a housewife and look after my kids at home and really enjoy it, so other women want to be in a different role, some men are ‘in touch with their feminine side’, other men are super duper masculine(more of them pelase! ;-). Chewing this kind of stuff over helps men like my husband, and many of my other male friends in our church. I want to let them. If it offends some people, so be it, a lot of what I do offends men, let’s all work out our place in the Church and in God’s Kingdom. If that means adjusting some stuff in our Sunday meetings, I am more than happy to do that.
I think talking about sinful tendencies is very patronising and very very wrong. Surely there is stuff in our Sunday meetings at the moment that might cater to women’s sinful tendencies. We are all sinful beings trying to get closer to God and finding the best way to do that.
I have two kids, a boy and a girl. When it goes quiet downstairs, 9/10 times Elijah is naughty, 9/10 times Lydia is quietly reading a book. that does not make her superior. When Elijah is crying, 9/10 times it’s because Lydia is being bossy or is teasing him.
Comment by Helen
11.00 am on 17 Aug 2006
marc, thanks for your detailed response.
marc: Helen I agree with much of what you say but a few bits and pieces.
Helen: 1. [Men fear] being outshone by women who thrive in the feminine climate. When I read this, this is what I hear: men are sinners who struggle with pride, selfishness, insecurity and envy when they see women using their gifts and engaged at church.
marc: Helen, (playing devils advocate here) you could say that but then you could say women are sinners for not being submissive and supporting their men who find it hard to live up to the biblical model of leadership.
Actually I couldn’t say that because I disagree with complementarian interpretations of mens’ and womens’ roles. However, I would be happy to say that to the extent women are sinning in their attitudes about male success/visibility/involvement they should address that just as much as men should address such sin.
Helen: Do you think Jesus became afraid when women used their gifts? Do you think he had to take the women aside who were part of his followers and say “Hey, I love you but could you act a bit more submissive? You’re freaking my male followers out!†Or do you think he was delighted to see them involved and engaged and cheered them on?
marc: I don’t really think you can use this as argument because the cultural context of the time was completely different.
I agree with looking at cultural contexts but in this case I don’t see how looking at them makes any difference to the fact that Jesus cheered women on who were out there following him rather than saying “could you do a bit less because of the men†and therefore so should we. If anything, the cultural context then made it harder to affirm women than it is today and so that emphasizes how important it is to do it even when prevailing opinion in a subculture is not in favor of it.
Helen: Instead of catering to men whose sin causes them to fear being outshone by women, let’s confront them on their sin. Let’s find men who want to be like Jesus, who will lead the way in role-modelling cheering women on; who will address this ‘problem’ not by whining about it and staying away from church, but by jumping in and saying “Hey guys – let’s make church as fun for us as it is for the women! How can we do that?â€
marc: It should be fun for both but the roles of men and women in many churches are defined by interpretation and tradition, we should be catering for all. It is also what you define as what you need to have fun – what would do that for you?
I don’t really understand the question. If it helps I was using ‘fun’ not to mean ‘self-indulgence’ but rather ‘free to enjoy serving because those unnecessary things which limited my enjoyment of it, or limited me from serving as best fits my passions and gifts , have been taken out of the way’.
Helen: Next, no. 10:
10. There’s already an alpha male in residence called the pastor/minister/vicar – fears that he will never be able to use his own talents in any way that could possibly outshine the dominant male.
Again, this basically says men are sinners because they are driven to be the alpha male. Do you see the real problem with this? Do you see how serious it is? If a man has to be the Alpha Male then how can he honestly say that Jesus is the Alpha Male in his life? I can’t even see how such a man can claim to be a Christian. Asking the church – a Christian community – to cater to such men makes no more sense to me than asking a church to eliminate all references to God so it can cater to atheists better.
marc: Maybe the alpha male is part of a mans calling, a desire within us planted by God.
That needs a lot of unpacking before I could agree with it. Specifically might God call a man to be an alpha male in a group? Yes. But if so then surely God is also calling the other men in the group to accept his role. If that isn’t happening then maybe the alpha male has labeled his own desire for power and control as “God’s callâ€. I believe that everyone (not just men, so again this if not carefully navigated is going to be sexist) desires power and control. If we think God says “sure – go get it†– wow, it’s rather convenient that God agrees with our desire for it: how can we be sure that was really God? I think there’s much less danger in attributing something to God’s will when it doesn’t tie in so well with natural human instinct. Yes, it could be a real call from God; but how can we be sure?
marc: Something that pastors/vicars that we feel we have to live up, maybe a product of Christian society and culture. Helen, the thing about church is that everyone is broken and everyone has their problems be it a leader/pastor whoever. If you start to dismiss people because you suppose them to have the sin of being an alpha male, where do you stop? We could then move on to anyone else who we judge does not have Jesus at the centre of their lives, it’s a slippery slope,…then of course there would be no church. Maybe it would be wiser to support and help people to grow?
I didn’t mean – dismiss them. Sorry if it came across that way. I meant, let’s treat them as not Christians. Since their trouble with someone else being alpha male implies that they’ve missed the point about Jesus being alpha male in their lives. And if people aren’t Christians , we’re called to take the love of God to them and hope they respond, rather than assuming they share our values and challenging them if they don’t live up to them.
Helen:Singing in church.
Fear of what others will think is a sin. Let’s confront it, not cater to it.
marc: It’s not being vain its just being shy and that is not a sin.
Ok, I was too dogmatic. I still think it can be a sin. Is it ok with Jesus if I never share my faith because I’m shy? Or now, has my shyness become sinfully controlling in my life?
Helen: 5. Having to become a super husband, their wives love Jesus who is already perfect so how can we compete with that?
Again I hear pride, insecurity and envy; ….
marc: again I don’t hear compassion, grace and understanding…:¬)
Has it ever occurred to you the pressure men are under with regards to the role of the super husband and loving your wife as the Jesus loved the church? In our society this is completely alien; we have to learn how to do this, I don’t see it competing with Jesus but it’s a very hard to live up to being Christlike and enormous task.
I didn’t mean to come across as graceless. What concerns me is that the challenge of Jesus seemed missing from the list. Sometimes grace means – I love you too much to say “good job of being a husband†when I see that you’re messing up your marriage with your selfishness.
I’m happy with the idea of teaching men to be better husbands. There is some of that in the US (where I live). Maybe more than in the UK (not sure where you live)
Helen: Paul, does this help you understand why the list makes me shudder?
marc: I certainly do – some of things are ridiculous. The trouble is people read it and think it true!!!
marc thanks again for your response. I realize I can get overly dogmatic when I’m frustrated. Thanks for calling me on it.
Comment by Helen
11.12 am on 17 Aug 2006
Paul wrote:
Yes I agree Helen the list needs to be modelled, expressed in living it out and loving it out as well in our learning about…
Thanks, Paul.
Graham made a point about stereotyping – maybe Morrow does this but then if he’s interviewing/researching men the broad trends are likely to be stereotypical.
He’s interpreting and analyzing data. Lots of people are very bad at keeping their own biases out of their analysis and interpretation. Because of that “I based this on real data” means nothing unless you can trust that person to analyze the data without bias. I can’t trust Murrow to do that. He’s way too opinionated (as are many Christians, unfortunately – for some reason Christians often affirms inappropriate certainty rather than calling other Christians on it)
I don’t think that is a bad thing (and nor do millions of self help book writers on gender issues e.g. men are from mars/women from venus being a whole book written on stereotypes).
Arguing by numbers is fallacious. The majority is often wrong. Jesus agrees – he never would have said this if the majority is always right:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” — Matt 7:13-14
I think there needs to be sensitivity to the fact that not everyone conforms to a stereotype and force people into a one size fits all jacket but learn instead something about tayloring around a classic cut of cloth like the suit jacket is :)
Thanks – great point!
Just a thought on Driscoll – no doubt he is being deliberately provocative in his use of language but maybe that was his point – he wants people to push back the way we’ve all been pushing back in these comments, to think about the issue rather than it getting lost in the stats of life. In which case well done to him, certainly made me stop and think even if i didn’t agree with everything he said.
I think about what people said who I disagree with, even when they use derogatory language. But there’s no way I would ever say “well done” to someone who thinks its fine to call women chicks.
Comment by Helen
11.18 am on 17 Aug 2006
Steffen wrote: Helen: I have to ask: Have you read the book?? ‘Cause if you have, we haven’t been reading the same book.
Admittedly I haven’t – I’ve read what Paul wrote and I did go to Murrow’s own site, which indicated to me that Paul has indeed portrayed Murrow’s views accurately.
But even if I had read it we might well disagree (I suspect we would). I’ve read the whole Bible and so have tons of other people and I often think “we haven’t been reading the same book”. Yet we have.
So, I’m used to reading books other people read and seeing them differently. Maybe it means I always get the wrong end of the stick. Maybe not.
I think a statement like: “I think Murrow is saying ´let’s change the church to draw men in by catering to male sinful tendencies´ †is a gross misrepresentation of what Murrow is saying in his book.
I respect your opinion but in my opinion (yes, that’s all it is) Murrow himself is hardly in a position to have clarity on what sinful male tendecies are since he himself seems to have fallen prey to a sinful level of sexism.
Comment by Helen
11.25 am on 17 Aug 2006
It seems to me that some people here are rather touchy about me calling things ’sin’.
I don’t get it. I thought the whole point of being Christians was, now we can be honest about how sinful we are because Jesus made provision for all of it.
Why do we ever need to say “it’s not that bad?” Is it because even though Jesus can handle our sin, we can’t handle ours/each others?
And why does it have to be an either/or where, either we’re honest about how bad our sins are or we’re showing grace and compassion? Doesn’t Jesus want us to be doing both?
Comment by Simone
11.31 am on 17 Aug 2006
The question is not whether or not sin is sin because it is. I’m understanding that this book is all about how to address issues that men struggle with and want to discuss and then finding a suitable environment for it, which, at the moment, doesn’t seem to be church. The question is why it isn’t the right environment and how can we change it to be the right environment.
I think for a woman to tell men that the issues they feel they need to address is sin is probably the most unhelpful thing you could possibly do. If we trust our men to be godly and if we trust the Holy Spirit to work in them, let them find the best way.
I quess we should all go away and read the book!
Comment by Steffen
11.46 am on 17 Aug 2006
Helen: Ok – fair enough. I guess it’s at least partly a question of readings. I read Murrow with his “disclaimer” in mind: that it’s not per definition a question of men vs women but masculinity vs feminity.
Also, I’m positive from the beginning since I see the problem Murrow is describing and therfore I read him “friendly”.
Simone: Well said!
In Christ
Steffen
Comment by marc
11.59 am on 17 Aug 2006
I don’t really think you can use this as argument because the cultural context of the time was completely different.
I agree with looking at cultural contexts but in this case I don’t see how looking at them makes any difference to the fact that Jesus cheered women on who were out there following him rather than saying “could you do a bit less because of the men†and therefore so should we. If anything, the cultural context then made it harder to affirm women than it is today and so that emphasizes how important it is to do it even when prevailing opinion in a subculture is not in favour of it.
When you say Jesus cheered women on what do you mean? None of the disciples were women; I think Jesus may have tended to treat women different than the cultural norm at the time, but to what extent? He treated them as people but there were no female disciples.
Re: fun
I don’t really understand the question. If it helps I was using ‘fun’ not to mean ‘self-indulgence’ but rather ‘free to enjoy serving because those unnecessary things which limited my enjoyment of it, or limited me from serving as best fits my passions and gifts , have been taken out of the way’.
These questions came into mind when I read the above. Do you think you are limited in your ministry by men? And do you think that you should be able to do the same as a man in the context of a church?
I believe that everyone (not just men, so again this if not carefully navigated is going to be sexist) desires power and control.
Clearly that’s not true or everyone would be fighting all the time in churches across the land. I know many Christians who are happy to be part of the crowd and have no desire for power or control over anyone but are willing to serve.
If we think God says “sure – go get it†– wow, it’s rather convenient that God agrees with our desire for it: how can we be sure that was really God?
That will be the point you ask for discernment from others you trust
I think there’s much less danger in attributing something to God’s will when it doesn’t tie in so well with natural human instinct.
God is supernatural so our natural instinct doesn’t really do a great deal of good. How can we be sure if it’s from God? As I said before talk with those you trust ask then to pray about it and see what happens.
I didn’t mean – dismiss them. Sorry if it came across that way. I meant, let’s treat them as not Christians.
That in my opinion would be an awful thing to do. To treat someone who is broken as if they didn’t believe. We would then sit in judgement of their faith and relationship when maybe we should extract the plank from our own eye. None of us are perfect but that does not make us Christian it just makes us human of which Christ was and he well understands that.
It’s not being vain its just being shy and that is not a sin.
Ok, I was too dogmatic.
I still think it can be a sin. Is it ok with Jesus if I never share my faith because I’m shy? Or now, has my shyness become sinfully controlling in my life?
I think you’ll find that Christ knows the hearts of these people you might see not singing. They may be singing in their head, they may not. In fact there is no need to sing in worship if you choose not to or are too shy. We worship in many ways. Shyness may be a problem for some but it is not sinful to be shy.
I didn’t mean to come across as graceless. What concerns me is that the challenge of Jesus seemed missing from the list. Sometimes grace means – I love you too much to say “good job of being a husband†when I see that you’re messing up your marriage with your selfishness.
I’m happy with the idea of teaching men to be better husbands. There is some of that in the US (where I live). Maybe more than in the UK (not sure where you live)
I’m in the UK – our cultures are very, very different believe me!!
Comment by marc
12.11 pm on 17 Aug 2006
It seems to me that some people here are rather touchy about me calling things ’sin’.
I don’t get it. I thought the whole point of being Christians was, now we can be honest about how sinful we are because Jesus made provision for all of it.
Helen the point of being a Christian is to try to grow to become more like Christ not to point out other peoples faults when i’m sure we have plenty of our own to deal with.
I’m sure you don’t mean it but it does come across in a very judgemental way.
Comment by Makeesha
2.14 pm on 17 Aug 2006
I think it would be helpful to recognize that this conversation is no longer just about the book but more about the perceived problem of women outnumbering men in churches, what people think about that and what, if anything, needs to be done about it.
It’s really not productive to argue about the author’s intent or whether or not someone read the book because that’s really not the direction of the current conversation.
I think it also might be good to try to assign possitive intent to people’s words and recognize that things don’t always come across as we intend.
What I hear Helen saying is that she is concerned with the direction decisions would take if a church were trying to “get more men in the door”. And looking at the outcome of seeker sensitive philosophy, I don’t blame her for having some apprehension. Any time you change church to appeal to any one group of people or person, or make decisions out of fear of offending or fear of losing folks, or fear of an attendance trend you’re going to lose in the end.
What I hear Helen saying is that catering to men’s insecurities about church might not be the right way to go. If I’m misrepresenting your position Helen, feel free to correct me.
Helen and I are not complementarians – I don’t know her but that’s pretty clear from our conversation thus far. So we’re not going to subscribe to the theory that if women would “just shut up and submit” and stick to their “roles” men would feel more comfortable in church. But I don’t think the complementarian debate is useful in this conversation anyway.
I think talking about the issue and the issues within the issue is a good thing but it’s helpful to keep in mind that just because Helen says she doesn’t like the idea of placating men in their sin nature doesn’t mean she’s setting anyone up as a perpetrator of that offense…just that she’s concerned that that’s the direction this problem solving will take if we go that route. A fear I share btw.
Comment by Helen
2.44 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Helen: It seems to me that some people here are rather touchy about me calling things ’sin’.
I don’t get it. I thought the whole point of being Christians was, now we can be honest about how sinful we are because Jesus made provision for all of it.
marc: Helen the point of being a Christian is to try to grow to become more like Christ not to point out other peoples faults when i’m sure we have plenty of our own to deal with.
I’m sure you don’t mean it but it does come across in a very judgemental way.
I respect your opinion but I don’t see why I’m coming across as judgmental unless it’s because a) Christians are more touchy about admitting they’re sinners than they should be in view of the gospel b) I’ve been setting myself up as sinless, which I wasn’t aware I was, because it’s certainly not what I believe.
Why is it ok for a guy to stand behind a pulpit and be direct about sin but it’s not ok for a woman on a discussion board?
Comment by Helen
3.02 pm on 17 Aug 2006
p.s.
marc: Helen the point of being a Christian is to try to grow to become more like Christ not to point out other peoples faults when i’m sure we have plenty of our own to deal with.
I’m sure you don’t mean it but it does come across in a very judgemental way.
So now I’m confused because…didn’t you just point out one of my faults to me in the next sentence after saying it’s not the point?
Yet again Christianity is confusing me more than it’s helping.
Comment by Helen
3.15 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Simone: I think for a woman to tell men that the issues they feel they need to address is sin is probably the most unhelpful thing you could possibly do.
If so then why is ok for a man behind a pulpit (or one-one-one) to tell women that what they feel they need to address is sin?
In my experience lots of men feel very ok about that.
Comment by marc
3.49 pm on 17 Aug 2006
marc: Helen the point of being a Christian is to try to grow to become more like Christ not to point out other peoples faults when i’m sure we have plenty of our own to deal with.
I’m sure you don’t mean it but it does come across in a very judgemental way.
I respect your opinion but I don’t see why I’m coming across as judgmental unless it’s because a) Christians are more touchy about admitting they’re sinners than they should be in view of the gospel b) I’ve been setting myself up as sinless, which I wasn’t aware I was, because it’s certainly not what I believe.
No one person or one group are sinners, we all sin, we are all sinners, that is our fallen nature. Declaring people sinful will give the impression of someone who does not sin. One of the biggest problems is that the church set itself up as the great moral guardian and it came crumbling down with allsorts of scandal, adultery and paedophilia are to name but a few.
We need to use tact and diplomacy which can be sadly lacking in the modern evangelical church, telling someone that they have this sin or that sin will do nothing in my experience except upset them and possibly alienate them unless you have authority over them. For instance the Catholic Church has confession in with priests in private because they believe the priests carry the earthly authority of God and of his forgiveness, it is between the confessor and God.
It has nothing to do with you being a woman; it has to do with authority, tact and kindness. The man in the pulpit at my church is my pastor and I give him authority over me. He will let me know if I am sinning, chances are I will tell him before he needs to mention it to me.
For some it’s much more difficult than that, for some what we perceive as sin they are dealing with and confronting them about it can make it much worse. I have to trust God to guide me on these matters.
If so then why is ok for a man behind a pulpit (or one-one-one) to tell women that what they feel they need to address is sin?
In my experience lots of men feel very ok about that.
In my experience we all need to address our sin – I’m sorry for you if your pastor is only addressing sin in women.
Comment by Paul
4.15 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Just my take but I think i can see where the whole sin thang comes from in relation to this topic – afterall there is a history of men repressing women – we can argue whether that was sin or cultural context to the cows come home, women were still feeling repressed/surpressed/stressed. So to me I read some of the comments on here posted by both men and women as a worry that a more masculine church would be so by surpressing female needs in church – i paint with a broad brush so forgive me – but i think we need to hear the pain and struggle with everything from head coverings to ordained women that has happened and is still happening. I have my own bit of guilt about that back when i was young evengelical conservative pharisee I ripped a friend to shreds over the issue – ouch – and have been on a long journey of my own which is pretty much a whole 180 degree turn around.
Personally I don’t find it healthy to get into a debate around i sin/you sin/men sin/women sin not least cos we all sin… it ends up leaving me at least a)worrying about specks in other people’s eyes b)not examining me c) leaving me open to someone using the same things against me d)and they’d/you be right.
Now the moment you hear me being unjust, unfair, unkind, repressive, proud, injust etc please send me an email and tell me, if you could coat the truth with love and support for me so much the better…
Possibly a better way is to instead own our fears as our own and then ask the question is what i fear being proposed? is someone really asking me too lose my rights here as either a man or a woman? Do I need to be more generous, more gracious, to think the best rather than the worst. Too long i have seen christians tear each other apart like some macarthy witch trial looking for sin, for error, exposing a lack of orthodoxy, too long i have been part of that – and I’m tired of being able to prove people wrong so I feel (self) right(ous)…
I posted here some thoughts on contructive self criticism in a less contriversial but more profound post I tink here: http://www.jasonclark.ws/2006/08/11/critically-self-aware/ I just want to stop comparing my best to others worst and be self aware of my own blindspots, biases and baggage. It’s one of the great things about this conversation is how you have challenged my thoughts and shared your own, have helped me see where I am blind, biased or just toting some baggage that I need to lay down, rethink or re-express…
Comment by Simone
4.18 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Helen, I believe it’s a totally different scenario. If a male leader was to point out somehting that I was doing that was sinful, may be to the extent that it would compromise his ability to lead, I would have to take notice. If a female leader (whether I agree with that or not) was to do the same, the man would have to honour his leadership.
This is a book discussing an issue mainly to do with men. Let men discuss it, just like we, as women, would discuss other issues without the imput of men. I think to barge in and tell men to sort out their sinful tendencies is out of order and unhelpful
Comment by Makeesha
7.10 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Simone, I disagree. Men and women both need to be discussing why men aren’t going to church and what, if anything, we should be doing about it. As a pastor, I can’t just sit back and say “well, I’m a woman, I’ll just let the men work it out” – that would be irresponsible. Women have a perspective that will be helpful and they need to hear men’s perspective on it. Women have wisdom and an “outsider’s peek in” that the men might be blinded to beacuse it’s so close to home.
I think the whole idea of women keeping quiet because this is a man’s issue is unwise and insulting to both men and women.
Comment by Helen
7.48 pm on 17 Aug 2006
marc, Paul, Simone, thanks for your responses.
Ok, I realize I’m not going to persuade the complementarians here to change their minds.
I didn’t realize this was a complementarian blog.
I thought it would be egalitarian since Jason and his wife are co-pastors.
Comment by Makeesha
8.11 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Paul – wouldn’t you agree though, that to change church for the purpose of getting more men int he door is not a healthy proposition? At the least you’re going to risk turning away some people like women, men like my husband who Driscoll would probably call a sissy feminine man. Don’t you think a better approach – even to writing a book – would be more holistic and inclusive in our thinking? Still taking into consideration the issue of the low attendance of men but addressing more the church at large and what it is that we’re doing that is turning all manner of people off to church?
Comment by Makeesha
8.12 pm on 17 Aug 2006
helen – I think Jason is pretty egalitarian but obviously on any blog you’re going to get posters of all persuations in all different issues. And no, I doubt we’re going to flip the complementarians ;)
Comment by Helen
8.30 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Makeesha – fair enough.
I think it’s up to Jason and Paul whether this discussion is open to women. If one of them said “I’d like this to be a men-only discussion” I would respect that.
Comment by Makeesha
8.35 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Helen, What led to that commment? did it ever come up that women weren’t welcome in this discussion?
Comment by Helen
9.21 pm on 17 Aug 2006
Makeesha – maybe it hasn’t, except for what Simone said.
Anyway has anyone gone to Murrow’s site and read the article about having a regular “Go for Guys” Sundays in order to attract men?
http://www.churchformen.com/GoForTheGuysSunday.pdf
I’m not necessarily going to comment on it myself – I think I’ve probably said more than enough about my views on Murrow.
But I would be interested to see what others think of this as a practical suggestion of how to get more men to your church. Would you try it in your church? Do you think it would help?
Comment by Makeesha
9.54 pm on 17 Aug 2006
I’ll be blunt – I think it’s hokey. And I think that the comparison to reaching out to immigrants is errant. Again, it comes down to the purpose of church. And if we continue down the destructive institutionalized dualistic church model where we live our lives and then come to church instead of BEING THE CHURCH IN our daily lives these counter productive activities will continue.
But my feelings about that are also why I’m not a big fan of evangelism carnivals.
To answer your other question – I will consider everything. I’m very open and certainly willing to take risks. But I can pretty much guarantee that no one in our leadership would be interested in doing this nor would it be effective if we did it.
Comment by Paul
7.45 am on 18 Aug 2006
Ok I confess I have no idea what a “complementarian” is… i have a limited idea of what an “egalitarian” is… If we can all agree on an interpretation of what those labels mean and demonstrate consistent application them in our lives then i’ll be happy to tell you what I think I am?
As to the question “should men only respond to this post” my answer is a straight no. I don’t think that is the way forward, men and women need to own their fears, talk about them, encourage each other and come up with ways in which to follow Christ together.
I have found my own thinking really helped by the posts from everybody who has posted (men and women)- in fact so much so that I wrote my take on addressing the fears in my original post in comment #65. In doing so i was trying to imagine a church that would appeal to men and women and addressed those fears that Morrow’s research said existed.
I accept that Morrow’s view is biased (but show me someone’s who is isn’t:) but i am going to assume he has good intentions, that he is honestly trying to grapple with a question that concerns him and treat his thoughts with an open minded generous thinking approach of my own.
I think it is also right that men and women who have posted here have owned their fears e.g. of changing church in some way that would oppress women, or having to conform to some macho stereotype. I would share those fears if that is what I thought Morrow was proposing as to retreat like that might treat the effect but would leave the cause untouched and in the long term just offend and alienate more people – supression/opresion/injustice by one group over another is never right in my opinion.
So I also welcome those who read Morrow’s comments and fear that nothing will be done, who identify with them and say heh yes this is my experience. I think those fears are equally valid and worthy of expression if they are owned and again if nothing else I think they help me to think that this is a real issue, maybe not in my church context, but in the context of the wider church. I want to engage in a constructive dialogue and explore what that means for the church and for me as a fellow human…
I do recognise that I can react out of fear, that I can be blinded by fear, that my own baggage can be my own fear drag anchhor… so i appreciate those who challenge my fear, who ask me to see if I can see a way forward that would address my fears too. I can also be unthinking and accepting and not self-critical enough so again I thank everyone for challenging my thoughts in such a gracious way.
I am not looking for a consensus for everyone to take comment #65 as their mantra and I value your freedom of expression (ok there are some ground rules i think about owning what we write, assuming the best of each other, trying to be generous and gracious, asking constructive questions, a posture of humble learner etc) – this is not my site I am a guest here but i take Jason’s strapline seriously that this is a place for healthy and diverse conversations about church so that is the ethos I am trying to promote.
Makeesha asked whether I thought changing the church for getting more men in the door was a healthy proposition or not? I think if its a change that deals with the effect but not the cause then yes it would be unhelpful. Do I think a change that deals with causes and would get more men and women into church and hopefully a relationship of following Christ, then yes I do. I think Morrow is helpful to identify an effect – less men in church and then suggest some causes. Churches are so diverse it is one of the brilliant things i love and value about them – how churches therefore respond to the causes, how they interupt them in their own context is limitless, my suggestions in #65 are just that ny suggestions. For some churches Morrow’s suggestions for a “go for men” sunday is going to be so spot on and helpful for others its going to be hokey – I have read Morrow’s suggestions and some are very alien to the UK context so wouldn’t work and some of his suggestions though could be reimagined. reinterupted in my cultural context – for example i loved his archery in church illustration but wearing a flak jacket maybe not…
I did a post here called the great conversation http://www.jasonclark.ws/2006/08/12/the-great-conversation/ where i sat out to me the value of exactly this sort of conversation and I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in this one.
Comment by Simone
9.38 am on 18 Aug 2006
I’m not saying women shouldn’t comment. I’m a woman, and I’m commenting. All I’m saying is that some issues are best worked through in same sex conversations. I was more open sharing about my childbirth experiences in an all female group.
I got this off wikipedia: Complementarianism is a view of the relationship between the genders that differs from gender equalism, in that it believes that both men and women are equal in status, but can have different and complementary roles
Is this definition right? If it is what’s wrong with it?
Comment by Tim Butt
9.42 am on 18 Aug 2006
Unless any of us have totally missed the crucial, underpinning notion of church as the whole family of God, there’s really no argument to be had over emphasis on one group as opposed to another. Young, old, male and female all have equal place and I think a few too many of our thoughts and comments here and Morrow’s inferences in the work we’re discussing sound dangerously close to arguing for one over another.
Simone happens to be my wife and I understood what she was getting at in her comments because we’ve been discussing this topic these last few days. She gives me permission to do stuff, deal with stuff and take ownership of stuff in the ways that I need to and at the times that I need to. She does that out of love. Hence, she has no hang ups about a bunch of guys getting a male-huddle going. However, out of my love for her, I’m conscious of my responsibility to respect and treasure her and to take seriously the cost to her of giving me that space or, as I just called it, permission. And in turn, I do likewise for her. Furthermore, there’s more time than not when we do stuff together, male and female. To my mind, healthy equality recognises the value of being both together and apart.
So when we look at a church and see that it’s lacking numbers in a particular grouping, out of love, we are prepared to make space, to give permission and to do so, if necessary, at cost to ourselves. In the last 10-15 years, that’s what’s been going on with youth and kids work where older generations have given, at cost to themselves, to address the absence of kids and young people from churches (a generalised comment, I know, but stands up in the UK scene). Perhaps what Morrow usefully highlights is that, for a time at least, there might be a need for some groups in churches to give, at cost to themselves, in order to address the absence of men.
I think that what should mark our discussion the most when we talk about any group that is missing from our churches is a tone of giving. In that way, our tone of giving begins to mirror God who gives so freely in the first place and does so out of the love that He intends to have mark the Church.
Comment by emergingblurb
11.47 am on 18 Aug 2006
This question surfaced a little while ago on some Australian blogs and agreed the church has feminised itself…Jesus has become our boyfriend. But I don’t think the answer is to make church more blokey (that would be trying to market something) but rather we need to becomeless ‘churchy’.
Comment by Helen
12.06 pm on 18 Aug 2006
emergingblurb wrote: This question surfaced a little while ago on some Australian blogs and agreed the church has feminised itself…Jesus has become our boyfriend. But I don’t think the answer is to make church more blokey (that would be trying to market something) but rather we need to becomeless ‘churchy’.
I agree.
Simone wrote:
I’m not saying women shouldn’t comment. I’m a woman, and I’m commenting. All I’m saying is that some issues are best worked through in same sex conversations. I was more open sharing about my childbirth experiences in an all female group.
I wouldn’t want to inflict childbirth experiences on men ;-). However if a man has something to say about whether I’m recovering from mine in a Christlike way, I’m open to hearing it. I wouldn’t say “stay out of this:you’re a man not a woman, so you don’t know what it’s like and you can have nothing relevant to say”.
I got this off wikipedia: Complementarianism is a view of the relationship between the genders that differs from gender equalism, in that it believes that both men and women are equal in status, but can have different and complementary roles
Is this definition right? If it is what’s wrong with it?
I find it somewhat true and somewhat misleading. It’s not that men and women can have different roles – that implies people may choose different roles if they want to. It’s rather that because of beliefs about male headship, women are forbidden to have certain roles that men may have, whereas there are no restrictions on mens’ roles.
Comment by Helen
12.22 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Paul wrote:
Ok I confess I have no idea what a “complementarian†is… i have a limited idea of what an “egalitarian†is… If we can all agree on an interpretation of what those labels mean and demonstrate consistent application them in our lives then i’ll be happy to tell you what I think I am?
Paul,
Basically if you think women shouldn’t be pastors and the husband is head of the household then you’re a complementarian. Otherwise you’re somewhat egalitarian at least.
Anyway, I always like to go to the source and see what a group has to say for itself – so, here’s a site defending the complementarian position:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
and here’s one defending the egalitarian position:
Christians for Biblical Equality
Each group would say their position is the most Biblically defensible one – they are all Bible-believers.
I accept that Morrow’s view is biased (but show me someone’s who is isn’t:) but i am going to assume he has good intentions, that he is honestly trying to grapple with a question that concerns him and treat his thoughts with an open minded generous thinking approach of my own.
For some churches Morrow’s suggestions for a “go for men†sunday is going to be so spot on and helpful for others its going to be hokey
Paul, I’m happy to be generous about Murrow’s intentions.
I don’t see that that means I have to withhold all value-judgment on his analysis or recommendations.
Sometimes it’s appropriate to say “sure if that works for your church – even though it wouldn’t work for mine”. Free ice water would work way better where it’s hot than where it isn’t.
At other times we need to make Biblical/moral judgements and say “I do not believe that will bring any church closer to what Jesus wants – in fact I am concerned it would take it further away”.
Evidently you view Murrow’s suggestion of “Go for guys” Sundays in the former category and I view it in the latter.
Generosity is not the issue. It’s whether we’re in the realm of “do what works for you” or not.
I assume that if someone said “Let’s have a go for Hindus” Sunday and have a Hindu service once a month, to attract Hindus, you wouldn’t say “that will be so spot on for some churches”. In other words I expect you do draw the line at how far churches should accomodate people who would prefer church to be different from how it is most Sundays.
Evidently we draw it in different places.
By the way, I don’t understand this about “Go for Guys” Sundays and maybe it’s because I haven’t read the site enough. If a church limits their service to an hour and decorates with cars only on Go for Guys Sunday, won’t guys who come back on a regular Sunday find church as unmasculine as ever? So won’t they still have as many problems with church on on-Go for Guys Sundays as they ever did?
Comment by Nanci Hogan
12.28 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Just wanting to chime in a little in this conversation. I don’t have answers. In response to Simone, the wikepedia definition of what constitutes the complimentarian approach to gender relations in the church is correct. It is a theology of men and women that is ’separate’ but equal. Complementarians believe men are leaders and preachers but women have equal value, but are primarily mothers and wives and not leaders of the church. John Piper would be an example of complementarianism and there is a network of these people called Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood or some such.
There is another group, Christians for Biblical Equality, which are egalitarian, meaning men and women equally can fulfill all the spiritual gifts and ministry of the church including preaching and teaching and that husbands and wives don’t fulfill complementary roles but equal roles in the family.
I will send this for now and then comment on the rest of this discussion. The key is that there is no ONE Christian perspective on gender relationships and gender justice–there are many different interpretations of the scripture and books are written on them.
Comment by Helen
12.37 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Sorry, one more thing…
Don’t any men here find it a little patronizing having reasons not to attend church labelled as ‘fears’?
Why not call them ‘reasons’ instead of fears?
I think fear is a misnomer when referring to, say, a man’s dislike of having to check his brain at the door if this is based on previous church experience which demonstrated that using his brain was not welcome there. It’s not a fear, it’s an evidence-based reason. I don’t think he feels afraid at the thought of going to church. He just thinks “Why inflict that on myself?”
Some of the reasons men don’t want to go to church may be fears but I don’t think they all are best described that way. It’s too much of a blanket attribution, imo, to refer to them all that way.
Btw yes, I’m not a man, but my no.1 reason for not going is, it’s a waste of time. It’s not a fear, it’s simply a demonstrated reality in my life that an hour in church does nothing for me at this point in time. I’d much rather have the almost two hours (service plus time of getting there and back) with my family. Sunday morning is premium family time with my husband gone a lot during the week, due to business travel.
Comment by Nanci Hogan
12.38 pm on 18 Aug 2006
This is a fascinating conversation and I haven’t read all the blogs. It is asking an important question. The irony is that although church is more ‘female’ friendly, it is still primarily a hierarchy run by males (although this is slowly changing). So we have the women and children ‘plonkers in the pews’ (as someone so delicately put it! :-) ), but men basically in charge of running the show. So if men are in charge of running the show, why is the church still more ‘female/feminine?’
One thing I want to throw out there is that some of the hassle comes because we have a gender-based language in which God is characterized as ‘he.’ God is not male nor female, but encompasses both male and female. Perhaps some of the uncomfortable thing that men have in dealing with church is that God is seen as male and sung to as a male….If we could get beyond the ‘maleness of God’ perhaps that would help. Dunno….
Another thought is that current forms of church aren’t working for large swathes of people and how do we make it more meaningful for various groupings of people who don’t feel comfortable in the current set-up? I am not trying to detract from the importance of men needing to think how would church be more meaningful to them as this is very important.
And how did church get so ‘feminised’ and why do we see femininity as an inferior thing anyway….??? If some of the qualities that are viewed as soley female were viewed more as human and given more weight perhaps men would feel more comfortable.
I don’t like singing songs to Jesus as my lover either. It’s soppy and I don’t like singing he’s so beautiful and all that mushy stuff. I also want to sing songs about action and justice and about making a difference in the world. I am a woman and I care about nurturing but I am also an activist and wanting to get out into the world. Both qualities are human, not exclusively male or female.
Okay, there are my random thoughts. I’m just musing and thinking aloud. I enjoy reading all these thoughts and am grateful for a space like this to chat.
Nanci
Comment by Makeesha
2.01 pm on 18 Aug 2006
emergingblurb – very well stated and precisely my feeling.
Nanci said: “So if men are in charge of running the show, why is the church still more ‘female/feminine?’”
excellent question and one my husband asked last night.
“And how did church get so ‘feminised’ and why do we see femininity as an inferior thing anyway….??? If some of the qualities that are viewed as soley female were viewed more as human and given more weight perhaps men would feel more comfortable.”
when I started this conversation wiht my husband he brought up this very point as well.
Comment by Helen
2.11 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Yes, thanks Nanci – you raised several good points.
I may be wrong, but I’m guessing that those who believe in male headship will always want to call God ‘he’ because supreme authority can only belong to a male.
I think the headship issue factors into this whole debate in ways that are somewhat subtle and complex. For instance, that may be why women like trying ‘masculine’ stuff and are ok with it but men are reluctant to try ‘feminine’ things are are not ok with them (if Murrow is correct about that – I just read that in his “Go for the Guys” Sundays article.
Comment by Paul
3.08 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Thanks for the definitional research, in that case in my western cultural context I am egalitarian. My personal view is that the new testament put everyone’s rights subject to the gospel being proclaimed, hence all those head covering or silence passages which reflected what was offensive in certain cultures. Today in my western culture, I think it would cause more offense to the gospel not to treat women as equals and personally I can see no case from barring women from any role/ministry/activity/leadership position etc in the church.
The point about a feminised church if men still hold the majority of leadership positions is a good one – the suggestion is that with women making up the majority of church goers, church volunteers etc that overtime the message/activity/perception is one of increased femine feeling church.
I see feminity as a good thing and therefore I am not arguing against it. I think the issue is that we need to balance feminine and masculine and maybe at present more men are less engaged by church then for women.
I don’t mind if the reasons Morrow lists are called fears/reason/excuses/feelings/assumptions etc – i think that is missing the point – its not what we call it its the impact that those issues have, namely men staying away from church.
Comment by Paul
3.18 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Helen,
you said your number 1 reason for not going to church for you was cos you felt it was a waste of time (especially compared to the value of family time on a sunday) -i wondered if you could please expand on it – i’m getting a little bored with focussing on why guys don’t go to church and would love to hear more from you on this?
Comment by Helen
3.20 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Paul wrote:
I don’t mind if the reasons Morrow lists are called fears/reason/excuses/feelings/assumptions etc – i think that is missing the point – its not what we call it its the impact that those issues have, namely men staying away from church.
I think it has some relevance what we call them because it influences how we address them.
If your child was afraid of the dentist would you address that exactly the same way as if he/she disliked the dentist? Would it make any difference whether your child had actual previous experience with the dentist that had been difficult/painful?
I think part of solving a problem is accurately diagnosing it. And I see whether something is a fear or a dislike and whether it’s based on actual experience or imagined problems as part of accurate diagnosis.
Comment by Helen
3.38 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Paul I’m not sure how to expand on that I think going to church is a waste of time except to say its an hour I get nothing out of.
It would help if you said “Don’t you get this out of it?” and then I can say “no, I don’t” – unless you hit on some benefit of it I’ve overlooked.
Comment by Simone
5.11 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Don’t we go to church to worship God and. along with other believers, be in his presence. Church isn’t about what we get out of it, it’s what God gets out of it, it’s about what we can give to Him and to others.
Comment by Makeesha
5.38 pm on 18 Aug 2006
I don’t think it’s one or the other Simone I actually think Church is more multifaceted than just what “God gets out of it” –
but don’t you see how your point makes a strong case against changing church to make men feel more welcome? To use your argument, church isn’t about feeling welcome, or comfortable, or manly or womanly it’s about worshiping God with other believers – so, following that line of logic, why should men care if church is a little more feminine than what they would like? Why on earth would we make changes to favor men (and possibly turn others off in the process) when chruch isn’t about that anyway?
Of course, I still maintain that the argument for the feminization of the church would have held more water 20 years ago and that we’re going to see this trend lessen because of changes in church across the board, not just changes to make men happy. In other words, I think this book is late in coming and those of us on the front lines of changes in the church aren’t going to see what the author sees.
Comment by Helen
6.23 pm on 18 Aug 2006
Simone wrote: Don’t we go to church to worship God and. along with other believers, be in his presence. Church isn’t about what we get out of it, it’s what God gets out of it, it’s about what we can give to Him and to others.
I do understand what you’re saying, but a) the sermon is clearly for the benefit of the humans there and it takes up about half the service I’ve been at lately b) if I’m bored I can’t imagine God is feeling very blessed by me being there. The Bible says he’s not interested in people praising him with their lips only.
At this time in my life, offering God my heart means being out there loving people, rather than in a church service singing songs and praying. Being out there loving people includes being with my family.
Comment by Simone
7.44 pm on 18 Aug 2006
I totally hear what you are both saying. As I was writing the comment I realised that it ‘makes a strong case against changing church to make men feel more welcome’.
It may be the case that when our hearts truly change to be more like Jesus, we come together on a Sunday because we want to worship, give and love others and church might automatically change to get the balance of masculinity and feminity just right.
I think we mustn’t be afraid of change. I think the point was made earlier that we shouldn’t favour any group of people (Tim, I think?) If church is too feminine now, it favours women, if church then becomes to masculine, it favours men. I think the balnace must be just equal.
To end with though, we are all sinners and al fall short of the Glory of God. There will never be a perfect Church until we’re in heaven, in Glory with our Father, where gender is no issue because the balance will be perfect.
Helen: ‘At this time in my life, offering God my heart means being out there loving people, rather than in a church service singing songs and praying. Being out there loving people includes being with my family.’
Fantastic stuff! That would be a fantastic contribution to the whole of the church family! ;)
Comment by Makeesha
7.50 pm on 18 Aug 2006
since I keep talking about my husband’s comments without him actually participating you might all think he’s in my imagination ;) he just posted to my blog and I really like what he had to say. http://www.inhiscourts.blogspot.com
Pingback by Journeyfiles » Blog Archive » Wo sind eigentlich die Männer hin?
8.17 am on 19 Aug 2006
[...] Wo sind eigentlich die Männer hin? Jason Clarke schreibt in einem Artikel darüber wo wie Männer hingegangen sind. Zur Kirche gehen sie jedenfalls nicht. In den USA bestehen Gemeinden zu 60% aus Frauen, in Europa wäre meine Schätzung ebenfalls 3:2, wie Jason das auch in seiner Gemeinde beobachtet. Warum ist das so? Schon in meiner Jugendgruppe damals und auch in der Baptistengemeinde, die ich besucht habe ist es mir aufgefallen: Weniger Männer als Frauen. Die Gründe, die Jason in seinem Post nennt sind einleuchtend, wenn auch stereotypisch: The church culture thermostat is set to feminine (Das Kulturelle Klima der Kirche ist auf “weiblich” eingestellt.) [...]
Comment by Helen
10.51 am on 19 Aug 2006
I liked what your husband had to say too, Makeesha.
(Btw – some of you may be happy to hear this ;-) – I’m going on vacation this morning and will be offline until August 28.)
Comment by Paul
11.51 am on 19 Aug 2006
Hi Helen, we have to stop agreeing like this ;) but I concur, great post by Makeesha’s husband/alter ego ;)
Have a great vacation and thank you so much for all your thoughts, feelings and insights – I have very much appreciated them!
Comment by Helen
1.06 pm on 19 Aug 2006
Thanks Paul
Comment by Susan
1.33 pm on 22 Aug 2006
I had the interesting fortune to sit through a sermon on the the Jezabel spirit last Sunday. A humdinger that hung all the problems of feminisation of the church and likewise the world on the rise of a spirit of power to the woman because of lack of godly standing in men – a la Ahab. It has generated much discussion among me and a few friends. I would love to hear others thoughts on this one.
BTW I am of the opinion that emergingblub and other people from Oz my country of origin have it right when they say church does not need to become more blokey but less churchy. And we need to keep our brains in gear not leave them behind as we enter church.
Comment by Paul
6.03 pm on 22 Aug 2006
Jezebel may be an awesome example of the art of manipulation but i would be uncomfortable slapping a label like “a spirit of jezebel” onfeminism, afterall she let ahab be king she just knew how to yank his chain and get what she wants. Maybe we should call it a spirit of ahababsentism for not being so weak. Heck why not go all the way back and blame adam and eve :) I think feminism is a good thing in terms of promoting the equality of women and I see no reason biblical or otherwise that stops women from doing the same sorts of things as men in our western context.
Comment by Makeesha
7.09 pm on 22 Aug 2006
I’m not too keen on that phrase either, it’s always kind of bugged me especially because it seems to be assigned to any woman who isn’t a mouse…probably why it bugs me since I’m far from being mouse-like ;) And I am in charismatic circles so it comes up quite a bit unfortunately. It seems like that phrase is almost used in a manipulative way to keep women under control and encourage men to “take charge” of their women. GAG
Comment by Paul
6.50 am on 24 Aug 2006
Jezebel spirit or a case of ahabsenteeism: is a conversation that Susan and I have been having following her comment #123 – to take part in the conversation please head over to http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/08/a_jezebel_spiri.htm
Pingback by Jason Clark »
12.31 pm on 25 Aug 2006
[...] Alan Scott – Hi Paul, Our experience is that signs and wonders accompany… “Where have all the good men gone..?” [...]
Comments are now closed.