Book Review: “Why Men Hate Going To Church,” by David Murrow
This book is incredible. It is a brutally honest look at the Church’s relevancy to men, and it certainly does not pull any punches. Personally, it has put words to thoughts and gut feelings of distaste or discomfort that I have had long before I became a Christian.
As somewhat of a disclaimer and comfort to women who may be reading this, Murrow affirms the feminist movement in the last century as having been immeasurably effective in fighting for the rights of women everywhere. Every one of us deserve equal rights under the law, and courageous women have been fighting for those rights to this day. However, in many ways our culture has overcompensated, and this has had disastrous effects on the church and her relevancy to men.
It began during the Industrialization Era of this country (1910s-1930s), when men began moving to the city to live Monday through Friday to earn a living working in factories and centers of commerce. Back home in the more rural countryside, their wives raised the children and made up the vast majority of church congregations. This is why we still see the majority of churches in the rural areas of the country (particularly the Midwest). Naturally, the pastors of these churches refined their ministry to (rightfully) meet the needs of the women and children left at home for most of the week. Then, when the men came home periodically on the weekends, they increasingly found church becoming less and less relevant. At the same time, they spent more and more time in “unchurched” environments in the city, and sought fellowship in bars and public houses (“pubs”).
As this gap increased between the church and men, those in ministry sought to bring men back to the church not by changing how they reach men, but by enforcing a legalistic moralism, condemning the avenues in which men found solace and fellowship instead of providing that solace through ministering to their needs. I probably don’t need to point out how this strategy has played out today. However, I was surprised to learn how massive this “Gender Gap” (as Murrow calls it) is in the church today.
Only 39% of regular adult church attendees are men. I am ecstatic that so many women are attending church, and do not want ANY of them to not have that opportunity! But the church is doing a horrible job of reaching men. It’s hard not to agree with Murrow.
So what does the solution look like? How does the church once again become relevant to men?
Well, to begin with, the language we use is vitally important. Very few men want to have a romantic “relationship” with Jesus, but few would be opposed to following the dynamic leadership of Jesus or being in “partnership” with Him. Neither do men want to sing about “running into the arms of the Lord,” but many hearts would stir to a percussive song about following our King into spiritual battle. Again, neither Murrow nor I make these recommendations in replacement of what the church is already doing to reach women, but to supplement the existing ministry with these concepts.
Men must also be challenged. Every boy has a hero, and as we grow our heroes change but they never go away. I was raised on the legends of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Tales of heroism and overcoming impossible odds are ingrained into our very identity as image bearers. Men must be given a cause to fight for. Without a cause, without a purpose, men’s hearts rust and wither in the cobwebs of disuse.
Jesus understood this. He gathered 12 young men passed up as “inept” by the church and challenged them to grow spiritually in God. He said “Follow me,” not “come have a personal relationship with me.” He led from the front. He blew away their misconceptions, gave them opportunities to practice his teaching, and was there to support them when they fell. The result? Thousands came to faith in the first weeks of the Christian church. Today, 2 billion people consider themselves Christians.
In short, I highly recommend this book. It is paradigm-shifting and an absolutely necessary read if Christianity is going to return to relevancy.
Posts
Hmm, interesting.
Is that a good interesting, or a bad interesting?
I’ve heard that men are a lot more attracted to the Eastern Orthodox tradition than to evangelicalism. All the praying and fasting is like spiritual athletics…lots of men welcome a challenge! A lot of evangelicalism is too mushy even for me…ugh!
Braaaaaad, yes! Thank for posting this, man. People seem to talk a lot about “being a man,” but I often find an understanding of being a man lacking from those same people. To them it tends to be trucks and guns and “owning up to your mistakes.” So many boys and young men today do not have their idols to praise (in a non-religious sense), and they are not given any clue as to what being a man in our world really means! Of course there is no solid definition, but I’m talking basic guidelines or ideas, here!
I’ve just read a book that did the same thing for me and talks about the exact same subject, though not in reference to Christianity or religion.
Right on!
Thanks, Kyle! That’s funny you say that because I’ve had several friends have that same reaction with a really well known Christian book on masculinity (”Wild at Heart” by John Eldridge), who resented the fact that he subtly defined manhood in the Paul Bunyan sense while they work in cublicles. Murrow takes the general principle narrowly applied by Eldridge and illustrates the scope of the problem quite well. It is and EXCELLENT read.
What was the book you read?
I read Androphilia by Jack Malebranche, which explores issues of male sexuality and how that relates to questions of manhood and being a man.
Just out of curiosity, what are you guys going to do in the messianic age when swords are to be beaten into plowshares and all of that?
Why try to convince people that going to heaven will be some great thing when it seems to me that without any battles to fight, without war language, you guys will all be bored and want to go somewhere else?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like mush and gush either, nor do I have any interest in olam haba, but I am curious as to what is the appeal of heaven for Christian men, given the viewpoint stated here.
Good interesting.
First, I think this post makes me want to start interviewing my dad, my uncle, my brother, and my grandpa about their thoughts on men in the church. Hmmm….I wonder if their answers would confirm Murrow’s ideas in his book. I wonder if my male family members would even be able to pin point this area of frustration in their life, or if it would just be something indefinitely indefineable. Hmm.
Secondly, I consider that part of this stems from our own smallness of thought when it comes to “church”. When I think of church as merely Sunday morning worship– there have been times and seasons where church truly did seem like a lonely and isolated place to me, particularly during times of transition. The men I know now who are thriving in the church are very connected and have deep lasting friendships and relationships within the church itself. I consider the retired couple who takes students out to lunch regularly or the elder who volunteers in the nursery and always seems to have a baby in his arms.
Part of it, I would attribute to systemic abandonment, which describes the abandonment of our current youth by the adults in their lives. The breakdown of the family as a system is also contributing to people feeling abandoned and hurt, unable to establish healthy relationships with others…such that there is no model for healthy relationship…and how can we even think of loving God if we aren’t able to love each other? I immediately think of all of the guys that I know who don’t have a strong relationship with their father, and I think that if God’s call to discipleship would enable us to enter into strong relationships with others that guide, direct, offer counsel, lead, and protect–church would suddenly become a place infused with meaning, with connection, with love, and most of all, with ADVENTURE– because that is what we all crave, guys and girls alike!
Welcome Sarah!
And that is an excellent question. First, I’d say that this is only one example of one way to biblically appeal to men. Paul found the warrior motif appropriate when he encouraged the church in Ephesus to “don the Armor of God” (6:11-13). But there are other examples scripture to appeal to men.
Second I would say that, once the swords are beaten to plowshares, we will celebrate. The hope set before every warrior is victory and glory. An eternity of that spent with our King and Leader will be more than enough to appeal to men.
And beyond that, we are assured in scripture that we will want for nothing, and our hope will be fulfilled with His presence. That promise alone assures me that, whatever we find in heaven, it will be more than enough to overjoy any man or woman.
Again, I set this forth as an effective example probably most polar from what we are used to seeing in church, not as the only (or even one of a few) method.
Jen,
Your last paragraph in particular, wow. Just amazing. That is EXACTLY right! I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Brad,
But men seem to quickly become bored with victories and desire to move on to the next battle. If guys aren’t content with peace in church, why would an eternity of peace appeal to them? Yeah, it’s fun to celebrate but when football is over it’s time for basketball, right? Maybe men aren’t dropping out because church is unappealing, maybe the whole deal is unappealing.
If eternity with God is so valued by guys all by itself, then why are men so quick to drop out of churches as soon as women are more involved? It seems to me it’s more about having some kind of men’s club than it is about God.
I also say the same things about those synagogues where men are dropping out like flies. It makes me wonder about you guys and your God, I have to tell you.
My son and I were talking about this post as I drove him to school this morning. In Judaism the emphasis is on study, not on fighting wars and the guys seem to hang strong in those shuls where study is valued the most. But, our idea of study perhaps is more appealing to guys since we argue quite readily, no passive listening allowed! My memories of church were of one teacher and a lot of people nodding and saying amen……That probably doesn’t do much for venting all that male energy.
Yael bat Sarah (Yael daughter of Sarah) Just call me Yael. We talked a few months back on a blog somewhere.
Is there seriously a decline in the number of men at churches today? I’ve been to a couple recently, and there were plenty of men there.
And just as an innocent question that might very well sound provocative (and, okay, it is): why do I hear so many Christians (and Muslims) going on about the destruction or erosion of the family unit? Where do you (you being anyone at all, really) see this trend?
Yael,
“But men seem to quickly become bored with victories and desire to move on to the next battle.”
Absolutely. And until heaven, there will always be another battle to fight in the form of orphans and widows to care for, people needing shelter built for them, children to raise up to adulthood, etc.
“If eternity with God is so valued by guys all by itself, then why are men so quick to drop out of churches as soon as women are more involved? It seems to me it’s more about having some kind of men’s club than it is about God.”
I agree that church should be so much more than a mere club. I think many men are tentatively interested in helping with church, but many of those who drop out in attendance do so because of a lack of opportunity to exercise some of the more masculine giftings.
“It makes me wonder about you guys and your God, I have to tell you.”
So are you saying that it is God’s fault that He is not relevant enough to capture the attention of men? Or is it Men’s fault that we can’t discipline ourselves enough to do so? I’m not catching what you are trying to say.
The type of study that you describe would most definitely appeal to men. Men value challenge, we often need to wrestle verbally with a concept before we fully understand it (myself especially… hence my writing on this blog). In the realm of preaching, a simple twist of language would go a long way to communicating the same message with more relevancy.
And I do remember you now, and welcome you back.
Kyle,
I am mostly going off the 60/40 gender gap mentioned in the post, but the two videos I posted more recently also quote similar figures (including the one done by NBC Nightly News).
Hehe, now that is a good question. I plan on writing about it more in the coming weeks, but here are a few examples.
The divorce rate is rising everywhere. Fewer and fewer kids are growing up with both of their parents. Kids need their mom loving nurture to teach them how to express emotion and relate to others, and they need their father to teach them about responsibility and other boy-stuff. They need the whole package deal.
Another example would be the falling marriage rate. More births out of wedlock mean fewer kids are growing up with the stability of parents who are married, and do not learn how to trust or be vulnerable in relationships.
Divorce is a topic that I am familiar with through experience, and is thus most readily available. I am doing an independent study this semester on “Masculine Formation,” so as my research fills out these claims, I will readily share it for discussion.
Yeah. I come from a nuclear family. It’s unique, that is for sure.
I’m not like trying to argue here, but I’m not convinced that a rise in divorce rate is a sign of the erosion of the idea of family. My mother and father both married someone before they married each other, and both say their divorce was the best thing that happened to them. It wasn’t until my mother and father found each other that they really wanted a family. And then they had one. A big one.
I mean, plus………..well, you’re placing a whole lot of gender roles on the family system, and there is a whole crapload of research to suggest that all that really comes more from what society suspects and teaches us than actual biology (which is still valid; just not, IMHO, in a sense of absolute truth).
Also, I’ve been doing a lot of reading about history and a lot of reading people’s letters and journals from the past,and people say the exact same thing in the 20’s you are saying now. And then in the 60’s. then in the late 80’s/early 90’s. And definitely back before the Civil War. People have always been saying it.
Blah, regardless, I look forward to your post on the family, Brad.
Brad: Absolutely. And until heaven, there will always be another battle to fight in the form of orphans and widows to care for, people needing shelter built for them, children to raise up to adulthood, etc.
Yael: But, since Christianity puts almost all of the emphasis on the next life and not this life, what is there to convince guys that they’re going to be happy with no battles to fight ever again? Do you see what I’m saying? Your point is men want to fight, battle, conquer, and if religion doesn’t allow them to do these things, they’re going to hit the road. Then you turn around and talk about heaven where all will be at peace. If guys don’t find that appealing here, why would they find an eternity of it appealing? It seems to me that guys in cammies, slogging through the mud for Jesus, aren’t going to be all that impressed with being told their reward for this is that someday they’ll get to wear all white and hang out singing and worshiping Jesus for all eternity!
Yael: “If eternity with God is so valued by guys all by itself, then why are men so quick to drop out of churches as soon as women are more involved? It seems to me it’s more about having some kind of men’s club than it is about God.”
Brad: I agree that church should be so much more than a mere club. I think many men are tentatively interested in helping with church, but many of those who drop out in attendance do so because of a lack of opportunity to exercise some of the more masculine giftings.
Yael: I have to disagree. The men I see who drop out have no real interest in God at all. They don’t go on to some other religious undertaking where their masculine gifts could be used, whatever that means exactly, they watch football, play golf, remodel their houses, etc. To me that shows they only viewed the church as some kind of men’s club to begin with, not as a place to connect with God and a community.
Yael: “It makes me wonder about you guys and your God, I have to tell you.”
Brad: So are you saying that it is God’s fault that He is not relevant enough to capture the attention of men? Or is it Men’s fault that we can’t discipline ourselves enough to do so? I’m not catching what you are trying to say.
Yael: No, I’m saying that in my more cynical moments I have to wonder if God isn’t a creation of men for men and religion as well. God just seemed to lose a lot of importance to guys once women moved out from the church kitchens to a more active involvement. If God was their whole reason for being to begin with, why would it bother them if women started to get involved, too? And if they thought women’s influence had distorted the image of God or the message of Christianity, why wouldn’t they have fought to keep that from happening? I mean, they like battles, right? But, they can’t stand up to women and instead have to go off to some Chainsaws for Jesus Men’s Only retreat?
Because this is a Christian blog, I’m writing in terms of Christianity. Since tones are sometimes hard to tell on blogs, let me say I’m not anti-men. Most of my friends are men and I’m raising two sons who are my greatest treasures. Because of them I’m interested in guy issues with religion. I had a similar conversation with a Jewish guy a few months back but he wasn’t into God talk so I couldn’t put my questions to him the same as I’m doing here.
“But, since Christianity puts almost all of the emphasis on the next life and not this life…”
I will admit that many Christians overemphasize the next life. However, the faith itself and scripture definitely do not put “almost all” the emphasis on the next life. Between Jesus’ repeated exhortations to love your neighbor and Paul’s many epistles to the church to advise them of the here and now, the NT makes it very clear that we are not to just bide our time until heaven.
And the pop-culture heaven of white clad winged angels sitting on clouds playing harps is hardly scriptural. The depiction we see in Revelation (a massive city of gold) would definitely appeal to men. And I think you are focusing on a moot point because fighting battles is not the only thing of interest to me. We get to hang out with God. Seriously, what can even compare to that on earth?
“The men I see who drop out have no real interest in God at all.”
And I guess the point I’m trying to communicate is that, they have no interest in the God being portrayed by the modern church. The brief history I laid out in this post explains how churches began portraying God in a way that was relevant primarily to women. We haven’t readjusted to regain that relevancy to men. There are some men that this wouldn’t make a difference for, but I think the vast majority would find God something worth fighting for.
“And if they thought women’s influence had distorted the image of God or the message of Christianity, why wouldn’t they have fought to keep that from happening?”
And that is just it, they don’t know that it is a distorted image. They don’t know that it is even possible to change.
I appreciate all your questions and honesty. You are always welcome to pose them here, and especially in regards to this topic (one I am very passionate about, and always willing to discuss). Thanks again.
What are you supposed to do in a city of gold? It’s already built! I’m curious as to why this would appeal to guys. Sure it looks neat, but what are you going to do with it?
Sorry, for me I have no interest in spending eternity hanging out with God. My view isn’t at all like yours. I don’t know anyone I would want to be around constantly, nor who would constantly want to be around me. We all need our space and for me that space includes space from God as well. One of the reasons I have no interest in any after life is it all sounds way too boring.
So, do men only get their information from church? Don’t they study on their own to realize if an image of God is distorted or not? How could anyone miss such a thing? If men aren’t willing to take responsibility for their own learning, their own understanding, to me that seems to be a huge problem all on its own, totally separate from gender issues within an institution.
Thanks for your comments. I may drive you nuts yet but this is also an important topic to me, on many levels.
Yael,
I think…. I think we are somehow talking around a different point… and somehow we’re missing each other.
“What are you supposed to do in a city of gold? It’s already built!”
“Sorry, for me I have no interest in spending eternity hanging out with God.”
Any recommendations or ideas I write about here will be ineffective or moot because we aren’t matching up on the end result.
So could you explain a little more about where you are coming from? What about this topic is important to you?
OK. Let’s see if I can communicate a bit better here. I’m a religious person who thinks that it is best for people to be connected to religious communities. I read a study that said 70% of protestant teens will drop out of church by their mid-20’s. So, I’m assuming the men you’re trying to attract to church are guys who at one time attended church but saw it as being of little value and left or guys who have become bored with church and drifted off.
You say, or this book says, or both of you say, that church is unappealing to men because the church has become to feminine or has feminized. Men don’t like this, they need a more masculine setting with images that appeal to men, thus the active warrior vocabulary.
My observation is that it’s not just about church, or men wouldn’t be hitting the road. It seems to me if they truly believed God is real they would not abandon church but would push back against this perceived distortion of God’s image. If they truly believed in God but felt compelled to leave the church, they would be involved in other religious activities, find a different church, start a small group, study with their families, something. But, the men who leave church by far and large don’t do this, do they? So, I would say the problem is really a lack of connection to God in the first place.
You said they can’t push back against this feminizing of God because they don’t know the image is false. I commented that this points to a deeper problem then. If men only get their information from church and never study on their own, we’re back to that lack of connection to God. Don’t most people who feel God is a real part of their live take time to study and find out more about God?
And my last thing was if church is unappealing, what about heaven would appeal to men? Building a city of gold might appeal, but just wandering around one? Hanging around with God all the time along with everyone else? It’s not like there will only be a handful of souls around so they’ll be able to have some really great guy talks while fishing with God or something. Do you see what I’m saying? If the church doesn’t appeal so you work on changing its image for men, what are you going to do about the heaven piece? It’s not very masculine sounding either. It seems to me if there is an image issue, it’s with both.
Why does this interest me? Because I’m having it come at me from both sides in Judaism so I’m curious to see how you’re handling things on your side of the great divide. There are Jewish men who also blame women for the lack of men in some shuls and point out that where women are excluded from the public religious life, men are involved. Thus my point about the social club. How can someone claim it’s about God if women are not allowed equal access?
I wonder if you will go about handling this issue the same way, push the women aside, relegate them to the sidelines so that men will return? Or is it possible to find a balance where both men and women are active? My shul is that way, men aren’t running away, women aren’t staying home. But, I’m not sure what we’re doing to make it that kind of place. I’m curious. I’m raising sons who will grow up and go their own ways. I really don’t want them to fall in the disinterested men category, I have these kinds of conversations with them.
I am also having an ongoing discussion with some women who claim the opposite, that religion is all about men, that the images are all too masculine and that women need to have women’s groups where women’s images can be prominent. I would have to say there are relevancy issues for both men and women with our institutions! Guys don’t feel connected if women are involved, women don’t feel connected if men are involved, or so they both say! It seems to me the answer being offered from both sides is to fall into stereotypes of what women are supposed to like and what men are supposed to like.
There may be some truth in it all, but dividing everyone along gender lines has it’s own problems. Now men who aren’t into ‘guy stuff’ will feel excluded and women who aren’t into ‘girl stuff’ will feel excluded. I understand, people are drifting away, but I personally don’t think appealing to gender stereotypes is the answer either. Only I don’t have any answers either, just questions and observations!
JMO, I hope you now understand what I’m saying, where I’m coming from, and now I’ll keep quiet.
Yael,
Thanks for the synopsis and clarification, it definitely helps! And please don’t keep quiet, that’s the opposite of what we’re here for!
“I read a study that said 70% of protestant teens will drop out of church by their mid-20’s.”
I think I’ve read about the same study, and the numbers are staggering. So yes, I would be talking about both the groups you mentioned, but for women in the 20-something and 30-something age group as well.
“But, the men who leave church by far and large don’t do this, do they?”
That is a good question. I’m not sure at all what they are doing, but I do know that many do study on their own, or study with other guys… The small group my wife and I led had quite a few guys who probably fell into that category, but didn’t really feel like they were getting much relevancy out of their church. But for those who don’t take it upon themselves to pursue God in some way, I would say that it is because God has been portrayed in such a way that they don’t see God as someone worthy of following. And if God is who He is, how can they change Him or their perception of Him? It would just be a lie. Does that make sense? I’m not sure if I’m saying this very well…
And as far as heaven goes, yeah, I’d say there is some definite reforming to be done. You’ve made me want to treat that in greater detail in a later post, but for now I’d say that heaven will look a lot like life does here, but without all the pain and suffering. We will still have sports, but no injured roster. We will still have art and entertainment. We will still build and create as we have been created to do. There will be plenty to do in heaven.
“I wonder if you will go about handling this issue the same way, push the women aside, relegate them to the sidelines so that men will return?”
Oh good God, no! In no way shape or form would I, or any other author here, want to push women aside for preference of men. I want to continue doing the things that are relevant to women, and add relevancy for men without taking that away. The problem is not women in the church, the problem is having ONLY or MOSTLY (by a vast majority) women in the church. The fix is not to take women out, but to add more men!
“I would have to say there are relevancy issues for both men and women with our institutions!”
And I would agree on many levels! In talking about the lack of relevancy with men, I am speaking in the broadest and most general sense. There are houses of worship that are relevant to both, and many that are relevant mostly to men at the expense of women. Most are not like that, but in those cases closing the “gender gap” will look a lot more different.
“Now men who aren’t into ‘guy stuff’ will feel excluded and women who aren’t into ‘girl stuff’ will feel excluded.”
Also very very true! The book, “Wild at Heart” by John Eldridge is a great example of this. One guy in my small group loved the book because it was all about the outdoors, adventure, and blood, sweat and tears. But another guy hated it because what he considered “being a man” was VERY different, and he resented someone making that definition to his exclusion. So which one was right? Both, I’d say. But there are principles and general commonalities that will appeal to most men without using exclusively “guy stuff.” The examples I’ve used here are examples of very “guy stuff,” but are only a few options of many. I will try and use some more general examples to illustrate my point next time!
And thanks again for commenting so thoroughly and passionately. This is EXACTLY what we are here for, and why we love doing this. Again, please don’t keep quiet! That wouldn’t be any fun at all.
I think one of the issues behind the whole dilemma is the issue of sin. Genesis 3 has a lot to speak to the specific issues that men and women deal with in taking their lives into their own hands. I have written a paper that could help out clarify some of those issues in our resources page. Take a look and let me know any thoughts on the matter
Brad,
Jewish teachings are that we will continue to study Torah in Olam Haba. That is something that appeals to me, although I give little thought to any after life. I study constantly now but there’s never enough time….The thought of having unlimited time to read all the books I would love to read now, to have all the time in the world to ponder it all, that would be something to look forward to!
I imagine we have differing views on God. I won’t say God is different for each person, but certainly I would say each person has a unique relationship, a unique perspective on God and that it is up to each person to work out that relationship for themselves. When someone says all this God stuff just doesn’t work for them I encourage them to get back in the wrestling match rather than giving up on themselves and God. I don’t consider that I’m pushing a lie on anyone, I consider this a very practical way of learning to relate to God in ways that are meaningful to each of us as individuals. Much of my life is lived as part of a community, much of what I do is communal, but the wrestling is individual. And I don’t suppose any of what I’m trying to say is very clear, but I’m trying here.
Thanks for the invite to keep the dialog going. Probably with the gender issues I’m through, however. I’ll just put it on the back burner again to think about with maybe a couple other ideas tossed into the mix.
Mike,
I have to decline your invitation since I only comment on areas that might be common ground between our respective religions. Men leaving religious institutions is common ground, interpretation of Torah is not. I will instead leave it for others to comment. I have been blogging with Christians for a few months now and try to be careful with those boundary markers.
I know this is going to sound wierd to you coming from an apostate Christian (ex-Christian), but I completely resonate with this article. Good job. I agree with most of it except this bit:
“but few would be opposed to following the dynamic leadership of Jesus or being in “partnership” with Him”
On this I disagree. I don’t think Christain men want a business relationship with Jesus any more than they want a relationship with him. As a Christian, I related to Isaiah, who in a vision stood before the throne of God, and in all its awe and transcendence, Isaiah rent his clothing and wailed, ‘woe is me, for I am undone!” THAT is what I expect, what I want, what made sense to me. An infinite, unknowable, almighty being, with which I was ashamed to be seen against his glory and majesty. I needed YHVH. I needed a Savior, a rescuer and redeemer, not a friend and not a partner.
I know this might sound kind of strange coming from somebody who does not believe in God or a resurrected Jesus. But I actually root for a well-grounded church, and think there is relevence in a faith of some sort. If it helps make better people, and makes the world a more peaceful place, how can I be against it. But the relationship aspect just caused nothing but guilt-ladden neurosis in me. It was not healthy at all. Thanks for the article.
Yeah, a business parternship isn’t quite called far, so I hear what you mean…. There is no doubt that SOME kind of relationship (I can’t get away from that damn word) is described in scripture, but we’ve taken that way too far. I also love that description in Isaiah, and often see my role as a knight in sworn fealty to the King.
But God is BOTH transcendent and immanent. I think that’s why He is so often referred to as a Father. As a father, we have a picture of Him as having authority simultaneously with this familial, loving relationship. The problem with an overemphasis on transcendence is that it can lead to a legalistic perspective. But I hear ya. I have plenty of friends but only one savior. I’d prefer to appreciate that fact as well.
Thanks for the rooting. We could all use it.
Totally off-topic, but your reply there brought this to mind, Brad:
as compared to other religions, why is there such a lack of a feminine holy figure in Christianity? I suppose Mary can be seen as such, but she’s certainly not anywhere on the same tier as, say, Jesus. Or the Holy Ghost.
I know this discussion is more about men and their place in reference to church, but this is really something that doesn’t make much sense to me. Islam and Judaism (though Judaism less than Christianity and Islam) also seem to be missing this element.
I guess I’m talking more on a broad cultural level than a specific biblical level, though. Culturally speaking, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, unless the environment in which Christianity was shaped was entirely a patriarchal culture.
“as compared to other religions, why is there such a lack of a feminine holy figure in Christianity?”
Kyle, that is a GOOD question… I would say that the answer would be “the church.”
Ephesians 5:25-27, 32-33
“25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish… 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
The church is intended to be THE holy feminine figure, and significant “player” in this global drama. Now, that is NOT to say that all those in the church are to be feminine INDIVIDUALLY, but that the corporate body that is the church is to be feminine in the sense that it is unified 1st and foremost to God. And God plays the masculine role of separating Himself for sacrifice (Christ) on behalf of the church. The significance of marriage is that it mirrors this in our roles in unity/obedience (wife) and sacrifice (husband).
That may or may not be answering the question well, but remember that both Judaism and Christianity share female figures like Ruth and Esther.
“Culturally speaking, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, unless the environment in which Christianity was shaped was entirely a patriarchal culture.”
And you have a huge point there… It is really interesting considering how every nation around Israel since leaving (and including) Egypt were NOT patriarchal at all. Their Gods ranged from the “Mother Earth” feminine type to what I call the male “frat-boy” type (irresponsible, going from one indulgence to the other). The concept of a Father-God who is both ultimately authoritative and ultimately caring was… well… incredibly foreign.
I think that’s why we see a far more male-emphasized religion in Islam… in many ways, the culture dictated how their religion was practiced instead of the other way around. With OT Judaism (and early Christianity), we see a religion that was absolutely revolutionary in the way it treated and valued women compared to the culture(s) around them.
This answer is a very good one and thoroughly answers my questions.
However: “That may or may not be answering the question well, but remember that both Judaism and Christianity share female figures like Ruth and Esther.”
Laaaaame. I don’t mean to be insulting, but, seriously. This are hardly GREAT examples for women today.
Huh. I guess this question applies to men, too. hah! MODERN QUESTIONS!
hahahaha…. I threw them in there as more of an addendum. But still, especially Esther is a great example for women (and men for that matter). Comparatively, no they don’t play as significant a role as many of the male figures, but Ruth was deemed important enough to be listed in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew (1:5).
“Huh. I guess this question applies to men, too. hah! MODERN QUESTIONS!”
Huh?
Brad, you asked me a few days ago somewhere if you could link to or use or copy or plagerize one of my articles. I forget exactly what and where your request is, and I am too lazy to find it, but my answer to you is go ahead and use anything you want for any foul purpose you may have in mind.
EXCELLENT. I guarantee that you will be misquoted, misrepresented, and thoroughly taken out of context.
And of course I’d have to shoot myself afterwards, so instead I’ll just post the article in it’s entirety…. hehe, thanks.
Good post Brad, thanks for raising this