Men: “Few in the Pews”
Wow. Much thanks to Anthony Bradley for drawing attention to a recent article in USA Today on the glaring lack of men in church. I told you all that I was not crazy, that this is not an imagined problem. Anthony has been harping on it for years, and I’ve been writing about it for months. It’s sad to see that the majority of responses are either “You’re crazy, there is not problem,” or “That’s the way it should be, women are finally getting their due.” The pendulum swinging too far in the other direction is still too far. When will people actually respond to this problem instead of merely reacting to it? This article is jam-packed with some very disturbing statistics about the plight. Here are a few excerpts:
Women outnumber men in attendance in every major Christian denomination, and they are 20% to 25% more likely to attend worship at least weekly.
Although every soul matters, many pastors say they need to power up on reaching men if the next generation of believers, the children, will find the way to faith. So hundreds of churches are going for a “guy church” vibe, programming for a stereotypical man’s man.
Warm, nurturing congregations ignore men’s need to face the epic struggles of living for Christ, writes Murrow, of Chugiak, Alaska, on his website, churchformen.com. He trains leaders for Promise Keepers and writes on his website: “We’ve wrapped the Gospel in this man-repellent package.”
I do not argue for a switch in tone to make church relevant for men, but to restore a gospel-centered balance and relevancy that is evident in scripture and intended to be modeled by God’s people. What do you all think? This article is not another Christian whine-fest, but a mainstream newspaper. Why does our culture react so negatively when men are advocated for? I’m so tired of this ultra-sensitive perspective that men cannot be encouraged, promoted, advocated, or helped without somehow marginalizing women’s issues.
By the way, the image used for this post was (literally) the very first image that came up when I googled the words “men” and “church.” Coincidence? Not likely.
Posts
With respect, it is Newsweek. It’s still sort of a Christian whine-fest…..ha…….ha…….
I agree with you on most of this, Brad, but please don’t tell me that you can’t take a few guesses as to why people respond to strongly to all of this. Between gender inequality (women still make about $1 less than men in the work place) and questions about sexuality (what does it mean if a man is gay? is he femme? do men really like sex more than women?) alone, this discussion is totally obfuscated with all kind of debris.
Pick words carefully, or you’ll have people thinking that you believe men are oppressed everywhere by women. hehe.
the kingdom of God has both Man and Woman in it… however Paul says that in Christ there is no male or female… so given that, i think that it’s time for a new framework for gender issues… one that is not Either MALE or FEMALE but a BOTH/AND model that allows a full transcedence and realization of both genders. can we say “women make less than men” without having males get guilty and defensive? some feminists will tell you no, but that’s kind of like poisoning yourself and hoping your enemy will die.
the feminists who are less militant and subscribe to a both/and model will tell you that women will never be on equal pay until the men are healed. so let’s work towards that. and i agree with Kyle, word choice is essential in these matters.
Kyle,
I would never argue that a perfect balance has been struck between gender equality. There are differing areas where the imbalance tips the scale on either side… but just because women are being paid $1 less than men, does not mean that men are not victims of inequality in other areas. This article shows one of those areas, and makes no comment either way on the topics you bring up.
“Pick words carefully, or you’ll have people thinking that you believe men are oppressed everywhere by women.”
Huh? How so? I’m just talking about the church’s irrelevance to men, and (in other articles) an increasing culture of masculine marginalization. I’m all about equality, 100%, but am very skeptical about HOW we go about accomplishing it.
Luke,
“however Paul says that in Christ there is no male or female…”
Wha? Where? Aside from that comment, I can agree wholeheartedly.
As I type this, my wife is sitting next to me reading “Why Men Hate Going To Church,” by David Murrow. Here’s her perspective:
“It was a fundamental right in our democatic society for women to vote. That debate had nothing to do with a man’s vote and everything to do with what the women needed and deserved. The same goes for this issue. The issues do not need to be at odds with each other. Women need to feel loved, accepted, and create lasting supportive relationships (her greatest fear is to lose these things). Men most fear: “engulfment, and anything that threatens to rob [them] of power and control… In this way, [modern] churchgoing shields a woman from her deepest fear, while it forces a man to encounter his deepest fear’ (Murrow 115). The church should recognize the needs of both men AND women and seek to communicate in a way that most clearly speaks to their desires, motivations, and hearts.”
Isn’t she awesome? Luke, to talk about men in the church in the way that we are, IS a both/and approach. There is nothing about focusing on men that automaticall excludes women. That’s a significant part of my point.
A while back I wrote a post on this entitled
I found out what is wrong with Christianity: It’s been Feminized!
It lays out this problem and the fix: Making church more masculine.
Check out the link to the site “Church of Men” quoted in that post.
Paul
Paul,
Hey man, long time no talk.
So, what is wrong with a church appealing to those qualities listed on there? Church for Men is the practical (although very parachurch) outworking of Murrow’s book. What’s wrong with adventure, leadership, and following a higher calling? He’s not saying that the qualities of sensitivity, tenderness, etc. are BAD, only that they are an incomplete part of the picture.
So what’s wrong with that?
you couldn’t see my face as I typed that, Brad.
Imagine me chuckling, leaning toward you and saying, “Pick words carefully, or you’ll have people thinking that you believe men are oppressed everywhere by women. hehe.”
I’m just saying it is a hot topic, which doesn’t make it any less ripe for discussion, but it does make the very words you write/speak a minefield for communication. There’s no clear talking, especially over a blog.
it says that in Galatians 3:28, “Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.”
i LOVE the Murrow comment, that perfectly states it! I just didn’t see that at first in your intial post, i’m glad you’re taking an both/and approach. i’m a tad slow sometimes
peace dude!
Brad,
There’s nothing wrong with a church appealing to it’s target audience. That’s good marketing. Churches have all the game systems in youth groups now so the youth will show up. If a church wants to find ways to appeal to men, more power to them. However, I totally disagree with their premise that community, relationships, being gentle, etc. are qualities of women and why men don’t go to church. Being a Christian should be about walking in the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, meekness, etc.) Those aren’t “feminine” qualities, they should be “human” qualities.
Paul
Pardon me for interjecting here, I was sort of directed from another site. I don’t quite know what is meant by “What’s wrong with adventure, leadership, and following a higher calling?” What kinds adventures did you have in mind for the men in a church service? Are you going to organize white-water rafting trips, hunting parties, get ‘em all in the fellowship hall to watch wrestling? I think they’ve got the leadership thing covered, since most churches are run by men. And I’m completely lost as to what is meant by “following a higher calling” here. What is it you do now? As a non-Christian, perhaps I shouldn’t be here, but I am truly baffled as to what you think the purpose of church services is?
Dame,
Welcome! You are not interjecting at all! This is absolutely open for discussion for anyone and everyone. And you ask some great questions.
“What kinds adventures did you have in mind for the men in a church service?”
It’s not necessarily a change in the service itself or even extracurricular activities. It is restoring the “higher calling” I mentioned. That higher calling, in a word, is “love.” We are called to love God and to love people sacrificially (Matthew 22:37). This happens during a church service, but it is also intended to empower, encourage, and equip believers to further live that out Monday - Saturday.
In many churches, “being a good Christian” is relegated to going to church once a week, sitting next to your family in the pews/seats, and maybe going to the random Sunday school class. That’s it. For men, that’s just not all that exciting or motivating. Men need to be reminded that they are a part of something bigger and infinitely more significant than merely church attendance.
I’m in the military. Men are motivated by many things: their buddy next to them, their country, the family, etc. All of those work to empower them to complete their mission, to do their job. If it was merely to earn a paycheck…. well… I can think of MANY more enjoyable and comfortable ways to earn a living. It is that “higher purpose” or “higher calling” that they are so eager to serve.
So does that make a little more sense?
Paul,
“That’s good marketing.”
But it’s not just marketing… Getting men in the door is just a first step. The “gender gap” (using Murrow’s term) is just a symptom of the problem.
On d-C, you guys (often rightfully) talk about the Christian’s failure to practice what they preach. I have often agreed with you guys that there are a lot of problems in the church. If more men were exposed to the gospel and took up the call to love others sacrificially, many of those problems would not exist! Don’t you see that this is a solution (not THE solution) to the problems you guys blog about so often?
“However, I totally disagree with their premise that community, relationships, being gentle, etc. are qualities of women and why men don’t go to church. ”
And I do not mean to say that they are. Those things are qualities of men as well, but in many ways they are MORE valued or pursued by women. It is not an issue of “either/or” but an issue of degrees. As my wife mentioned, relationships are often difficult for men and sometimes are a great fear. What will encourage/motivate men to face that? Well, standing in a circle while holding hands and praying most likely will not… However, a man may more easily accept and understand the concept of relationship in the context of this “higher calling” of self-sacrificial love.
“Being a Christian should be about walking in the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, meekness, etc.) Those aren’t “feminine” qualities, they should be “human” qualities.”
ABSOLUTELY! I agree! But we must recognize that those qualities are going to be expressed differently from person to person, and that includes differing between women and men. When men are told that the only option of expressing those qualities is a “feminine” way, then they probably won’t be rushing to jump on that bandwagon.
Luke,
Ahhh… gotcha… I was nervous because I’ve heard that used to justify things I would disagree with… but Paul was illustrating that God sees only Christ and his holiness when he looks at us. It doesn’t erase gender, or the reality of our differences on earth, only that before God we are all “sons” (v. 26).
And yeah, Murrow is really really helpful. I highly recommend picking it up. Blogging about this stuff (as Kyle so rightly points out) can be VERY difficult to communicate the whole point across.
Kyle,
Ahh. Gotcha… and yeah, I’ve been…. uhhh… “shown the error of my ways” because of a verbal misstep on more than one occasion.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your response. I’m still a little fuzzy on how exactly this would play out in real life:
“It is restoring the “higher calling” I mentioned. That higher calling, in a word, is “love.” We are called to love God and to love people sacrificially”.
I’m trying to jump on your thought train here, but can’t seem to quite catch the handle. I think you’re saying men need some sort of task to follow, some kind of direction? I just don’t get what “sacrificial love” means in day-to-day terms. You need to go kill something? I’m hoping fighting wars is not the only thing that motivates men.
You also said: “Men need to be reminded that they are a part of something bigger and infinitely more significant than merely church attendance.”
I guess I’m looking for some kind of concrete example of what you have in mind here.
Dame,
OK well… the world we live in… It’s pretty messed up. There’s a lot wrong with it, and we who live in it. The Christian belief is that this jacked up world will be rescued and redeemed by God. Out of love, he came into this world as a man (Jesus) and put his life on the line for it. God, who was the only one “in the right” sacrificed himself for his people. This sacrifice was, in essence the “killing blow” that defeated sin (the cause of all the mess in this world). His resurrection is the foreshadowing evidence of that defeat: Because sin ultimately causes death, death itself is also defeated. Until Jesus comes back, we are agents and examples of that life-giving, self-sacrificial love.
In a way, it is a direction and a task… But it is also really good news. That good news is that we (men and women) have the assurance of ultimate and eternal love and safety. No matter what happens, no matter what we do or what anyone does to us, we are “rescued” by this act of God. Because it’s so good, we naturally want others to enjoy it also, so we live our lives to be a window into that light, to shine that light into the darkness of a jacked-up world.
Being that “window” will look different day-to-day and person-to-person. But that is the “higher calling.” Now, if we limit “being a window” to just being a hole in the wall… we’re missing something, right? Windows can be bay-windows. They can have blinds or curtains. They can have clear glass or stained-glass. They can be different sizes and shapes.
“I’m hoping fighting wars is not the only thing that motivates men.”
As a soldier, I fight for my country. As a husband, I fight for my wife’s heart. Obviously (hopefully!) those two will look dramatically different, but in both cases I am fighting against selfishness and for the well-being of others. I am not saying that men should fight wars, but they should fight to love selflessly and not surrender their hearts to self-centered living. That is the war that must be fought, and couching that fight in terms of war is very helpful for men to understand what is necessary to win that fight.
That was a really really long response… Am I getting anywhere close to answering your questions? haha… I appreciate your feedback and am welcome the discussion. This is challenging me to really learn to explain this in more helpful ways.
Men not attending church in droves anymore - saw that one coming (as someone that does not attend church anymore for a variety of reasons - none of them have anything to do with masculinity).
To be honest, men do run the church more or less - so I am not sure why masculinity is on attack here - unless men are generally berating themselves in the churches. It’s not like women hold many positions of power in the church to make this environment possible…unless we are all ready to admit women truly do run men’s lives? I have no problem with that - my wife is awesome and if she ran things - things get done pretty nicely.
Men leave church because:
(a) it is boring
(b) it is monotonous
(c) it leaves many men little to do
(d) it lacks real community structure
(e) it becomes a ’show’ after a while - and less sincere than what it once was
Men are leaving for many reasons - as I have talked to my men friends on why ‘we’ all left. Bad leaders find a way to not incorporate and make men feel ‘part of the team’ or ‘community’…and that’s the actual issue in my opinion. If the church had more things for more men to be involved in - don’t you think they might actually stay? That’s what I think is lacking - the men being not used for anything except pew warmers.
I know when I attend church (did for a month this year and 2 months last year) I find I have nothing to do. I am not really involved in anything of any real meaning to me…I just kind of sit, like most others, and enjoy the show. Community is not bolstered per se and everything is about a focus on God - not on us and our need for repair one with another. God is everywhere - as a church community we meet what - once a week?
I think men are not being used by the church in a productive manner - which seems to be at the core of most men I know - that need to be meaningful to your friends or family. Maybe they have no meaning in the church - so they leave and join fantasy football leagues and watch football all Sunday? I know I do.
Dame,
I have been also wrestling with how the concept of a more masculine service translates practically. I havent made it very far, but I do feel I have a practical example as it relates to worshiping in song:
Many of the songs we sing in Christian worship today lack lyrical depth and substitute it for a chorus/refrain that evokes an emotional response. This appeals to women and alienates men. To make musical worship more masculine, we need to return to the lyrical depth found in the hymns in order to intellectually challenge men. This doesnt mean that we neglect emotionally stimulating music, after all, men are emotional beings too. But as it stands, men are being over-emotionalized. This also has the drawback of neglecting the women’s need to be challenged intellectually. This is where we get into the both/and that Brad has been talking about. Both men and women need to be challenged, and by making services more masculine (without sacrificing or over-compensating against the feminine aspects) we all draw closer to God in musical worship.
Does that example help to put feet on this kinda vague concept?
As a female (and feminist) seminarian it’s interesting to read the discourse about why men are lacking in church. An asside–they are not merely missing from church pews, they are notbaly outnumbered at seminarians and divinity schools as well, but I digress.
It seems to me the real question isn’t about why men aren’t at church and why women are or why the church has female values. Seems to me like the real question is how do the church’s ”call” or purpose resonate with men and women? Does the church’s call resonate differently with men and women? If the church’s purpose doesn’t resonate with modern men, why not? Is there a part of what it means to be the church they we have forgotten?
Rather than being about white water rafting, promist keeping, or hunting, I’d like to believe that there is something more that men feel lakcing from church like a place to truly wrestle with the complex issues of our time. What are issues that men of today wrestle with, and do our church’s speak to this?
I think so. Interesting that the music is so uninteresting to men, I thought most of it was written by men. I did hear of a study awhile back (which of course I can’t find right now) that demonstrated that men perceive sound differently than women do, that drumming and deep sounds (think heavy metal), is more to the liking of men. Maybe you should consider some Ozzie for the service
“ It doesn’t erase gender, or the reality of our differences on earth, only that before God we are all “sons” (v. 26).” -Brad
i hope you see the inherent fallacy of God viewing us as all “sons” as that weights on gender over another, although it’s quite fitting for Paul to say that. We’re not all “sons” we are the sons and daughters of God called to be just that… sons and daughters of God in a fully realized gender sort of way.
i’ll refer you to Megan’s post (my fellow seminarian here) as i think her comment nails it… namely “What are issues that men of today wrestle with, and do our church’s speak to this? ”
in otherwords, are we still relevant to men? then answer is no… and not even to women as the latest stat on churching going attendence in this country (defined as at least ONCE a month) is 17% (stats found in a June USA Today article and echoed in a Time Magazine article from the same month).
Talking to a few buddies on this issue… here’s what we came up with:
Mary is the impossible goal for women in the church — have a child without the benefit of sexual intercourse. My guess, and it’s a guess, is that the Church Father’s slowly began to formulate a Christology and Ecclesiology that belittled women’s roles in early churches and the Mary Virgin Birth became part of this whole move to a male dominated orthodoxy. The Virgin Birth is an amalgam of Matthew’s defense of Jesus as not a bastard and pagan mythologies of miraculous births — such as Athena coming out of Zeus’ head (Athena’s too smart to come from Hera. Mary mother of Jesus along with Mary of Magdala had high standing in the early church as brave female compatriots and as the first Christians (first people to attest to a risen Christ), so in the move to orthodoxy, these gals had to be put in their places as the perfect, virgin sorrowful mother (like Gea/Demeter crying over her lost daughter Perosphone) and the saved harlot, respectively. So the Marys we have inherited signify a whitewashing of these awesome women.
I looked at the posts about a macho church and was truly disappointed. Women want love and safety, while men crave adventure — what a load of Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus crap!!! Men and women are not biologically programed to Marines and Wet nurses. As Mary Wollstonecraft put it almost 250 years ago, we are trained like soldiers to behave in socially acceptable ways. An 18th c. woman was a coquette because she was trained from birth to be that way. I believe that we can deprogram an amount of worldview, of behavioral modifications, but fighting culture is difficult. I imagine many men would like to see more of a Rambo Jesus, although I would like to see more of a Rimbaud Jesus.
Men are not TOTALLY programmed to be knuckle-dragging boneheads, but culture has us before we have it
Luke, you wrote a lot of things there that resonate with me.
I’m not a Christian, but I find the intense discussion about gender and the need to recognize our differences a very hard pill to swallow because of my personal views about gender and sexuality.
How does all of this apply to a bisexual like me? I’m not denying my manhood (I like being a man), but, for me, the gender dichotomy is non-existant.
(CAVEAT: I’ve read enough around here to know that you are not trying to carve up the genders, Brad. I’m just trying to understand how this applies when I don’t think of the genders as needing totally different things)
Luke,
Marian theology is a very touchy subject, and one that I honestly do not know enough about. Your points are entirely possible, particularly during the early formation of Mary’s veneration. However, Leon Podles (a Catholic) has done some amazing historical research on how the veneration eventually descended into an extreme identification with her, often over and above that of Christ. I don’t have the book in front of me right now, but he lists examples of monks, nuns, and other theologians who have written disturbing (borderline erotic) material. This led to what he calls the “emasculation” or “feminization” of the church.
Kyle,
No worries, I understand what you are getting at, and I don’t blame you. I agree that gender roles and sexuality are significantly reinforced, distorted, and affected in all sorts of ways by culture. And it varies from culture to culture. I don’t mean to say “This quality is strictly or merely feminine/masculine.” All the values and qualities I’ve mentioned are absolutely shared, with neither gender having a monopoly on any of them.
That said, surely there are degrees in this discussion…? The genders are clearly different on many levels, and I would agree that society puts unnecessary restrictions and expectations on each. There is a lot of gray area in this discussion. I wouldn’t say that genders need “totally” different things… there are many aspects that appeal to both, in varying degrees. So I guess my question is… How do we discuss differences while also discussing the cultural/social expectations forced on gender roles?
For example… I HATE how the implicit (and often explicit) statement that some of the more extreme women’s rights groups make about the value of stay at home moms. I’m ALL FOR women having the freedom and equality to work in whatever job they are qualified and wanting to work in. But to insinuate that women who do not choose to enter the workplaces are somehow a second class woman, or stems from an inability to work…. It absolutely infuriates me.
Or here’s another example. A buddy of mine and I decided to serve our wives by going to Time For Dinner (http://www.timefordinner.com/) to prepare a few weeks worth of really nice meals so they didn’t feel like they had to. I was asked how long we have been together… Not my wife and I, but my friend who came with me. Why were we automatically thought to be a gay couple? I do 90% of the cooking and cleaning in our home because my wife works and I’m a full time student. That isn’t less masculine… If anything it is MORE masculine because I am truly trying to love my wife selflessly (I HATE cleaning).
This knife cuts both ways.
“This led to what he calls the “emasculation” or “feminization” of the church.” Brad
are you kidding me? The catholic church is anything BUT feminized. seriously? for reals? there’s no way that’s possible no matter which what you cut it.
“are you kidding me? The catholic church is anything BUT feminized. seriously? for reals? there’s no way that’s possible no matter which what you cut it.”
Uhh…. could you back that up? Why do you say that?
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Leon Podles, author of The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, believes the Church has created barriers which cause men to view the church as a strictly feminine institution. Podles traces this trend to the Middle Ages when Bernard of Clarveau personalized the metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Thus, each individual was essentially feminine before God. This has only been compounded by an Aristotelian understanding of gender, where submission is the primary trait of femininity. Podles feels that obedience is a masculine trait in the Scriptures. Biblical masculinity must combine the fruits of the spirit with strength in order to protect the weak. The Church must come to understand this and not eschew but correct masculinity.
And check out the reviews of his book on Amazon.
I think the question you are posing, Brad, is something like like this: “How can I separate the actual biological differences in gender from the social and cultural differences?” Meaning: it is probably not possible to discuss one w/o the other.
I can agree with that.
I’m reminding myself that this whole discussion stemmed from the issue of how some men feel very alienated by many modern Christian churches.
And the question you should be asking yourself there, my friend, is why was it assumed you two were any kind of couple. Would it be more likely for you to have been a couple if you were a man a woman? Or two women?
And it makes sense to assume any two people coming together to a class like the one you mentioned might be a couple or on a date or something like that. Now if those people repeatedly insisted that you must be a couple and not friends….that is a different story. Yeah, then they would be pretty ridiculous people.
i’ll restate: the church isn’t feminine and what’s with this fear OF the feminine? Women want love and safety, while men crave adventure — what a load of Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus crap!!! Men and women are not biologically programed to Marines and Wet nurses. however, culture has us before we have it.
Kyle,
I really appreciate that. This conversation is so stale with tired either/or rhetoric. It’s just not sufficient enough to discuss the real issue.
Luke,
Dude. Come on. If you are going to make a claim like that, you have got to back it up. You are making an assertion that MANY people would disagree with… Many would agree, too, no doubt… but the burden of proof still lies with both sides.
“Men and women are not biologically programed to Marines and Wet nurses. ”
Straw man. Who said that? Contrast is helpful in discussing differences, but they are not necessarily universal truths (at least in degree).
okay i’ll back it up… i was raised Catholic and although there is a good deal of respect for mary, she is denied what it means to be a woman… mainly sexual reproduction. in the male exegesis of the bible you get either virgins or whores… the Roman Catholic church is THROUGHLY male and i can attest in many varied ways.. here’s the latest:
a marriage of 15 years is ending.. the man is a devout roman catholic who wants an annulment despite having two kids ages 12 and 7. so he petitions the priest and pays $750 to the tribunal and they start questioning the family.. these questions are a witch hunt that asks things like “was the man coerced into marriage?” and “does she have a sexual partner on the side” and things like that, never once asking anything about the dude. (who IS having an affair). odds are the dude will prolly get the annulment.
i don’t think you can blame no men in the pews on the church being feminine. men are catagorically withdrawing from all social clubs. how do i know? i was a member of the Jaycees, 85% of the business groups i was in in DC were female, and out of all of myh.s. and college buddies, i’m the only one who goes to church and/or a social group… where are all the men? watching movies and playing video games from my perspective.
saying things submission is the primary trait of femininity and obedience is masculine is rather pointless as those two words are synomyns! “submission - the act of submitting; usually surrendering power to another
compliance
group action - action taken by a group of people
obedience, obeisance - the act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior with respect to another person
prostration - abject submission; the emotional equivalent of prostrating your body”
i would restate what Megan said in comment #18… the church is not relevent, why is that? It’s not just to males! it’s females too! only 17% of the population of the US goes to church once a month! (see comment #20)
Luke,
1.) Your example is absolutely tragic. It sounds like there are more issues playing into it than a male-dominated clergy.
2.) The two extremes of sexuality you discuss are tragic, but it has also seemed to affect men. Priests are not allowed to marry. The scandals rocking the Catholic church seem to represent the other extreme you mention, but for men as well. Is it possible that this false dichotomy is affecting more than just women?
3.) In Re: to social clubs… I agree! I’ve been saying for months now (and we have discussed it) that masculinity across our culture needs some serious healing! Why is pointing out the lack of men in church a problem? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make with this.
“saying things submission is the primary trait of femininity and obedience is masculine is rather pointless as those two words are synomyns!”
Then we are in agreement! That is the point! But discussing it is not pointless by any stretch. The Aristotelian view is that compliance/obedience/submission is ONLY feminine, thus it should be expressed in a feminine way. Podles seeks to restore the idea that men are also capable and called to do so, yet in a way that is masculine specific.
Luke, I feel like this is a very charged subject for you, understandably. I feel like we are arguing about points on which we actually agree. I HIGHLY encourage you to check out Podles book, because it isn’t half as antagonistic as it sounds. He is actually quite helpful and reconciliatory.
“i would restate what Megan said in comment #18… the church is not relevent, why is that? It’s not just to males! it’s females too! only 17% of the population of the US goes to church once a month!”
I agree also. This is a sub-category of that larger problem. One that, if addressed, would go a long way to restoring relevancy to the church. David Murrow presents some startling statistics that showed how much American churches take the “Happy-Meal” approach to relevancy: Attract the kids, bag the whole family. The problem? Only 12% of families become Christian once their children do. But 92-95% (can’t remember the exact figure) of the time a man comes to Christ, his family follows his faith.
This discussion is VERY relevant to the larger issue… Indeed, it is key.
gotcha
upon further reflection of this topic, i see where we’re missing each other. here’s another lens to view the “loss of the Church”.
i tend to view things from a socio-economic lens. so the question here is “Why is the Church loosing members, esp males?” your answer is “Because the church is too feminine and men can’t be men.” my problem with that is who defines masculinity? culture… so there’s more than one way to view male and female… heck, i’m the one who cooks in this household and my wife LOVES the Green Bay Packers.
here’s my answer/view/opinion on the question: The church is loosing members due to the erosion of community. in the 50s to 70s the “mainline” church was booming, why? people didn’t have internet, video games, or netflicks to keep them inside. plus the demographics of the period were that 60% of the population stayed within a 60 mile radius from where they grew up (source: Casting for Big Ideas by Andrew Jaffe) i would say that the reason why churches and community organizations are loosing is because it’s easier to stay inside your house now more than ever… what are your thoughts?