I have a lot of respect for the man who first called my attention to the feminization of the church and society. I’ll call him T. We dated briefly last winter and have remained friends. He lives a few hours away from me now but I still call him with my theological and computer questions. I ask T questions like, “what is the difference between amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism, and preterism?” Or “how do I make my laptop not read an accidental tap on the touchpad like a mouse click?” The man is a saint!
I grew up in a traditional home with a stay-at-home-mom and never considered myself a feminist but some of the ideas he presented were very surprising to me. Like most Christians I had noticed that there seemed to be more women than men in church but had no idea why that may be. Being a woman I am comfortable in feminine surroundings, so comfortable in fact that I didn’t even notice the surroundings were feminine, let alone that this feminine edge would be alienating to men. When I challenged T’s ideas he patiently tried to explain them to me. I am very thankful for his willingness to do this. In fact, there are lots of things we have talked about that still have me thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Paul Coughlin, David Murrow, and John Eldridge are some authors to start with. Also the book The Church Impotent - - author not immediately recalled by me, for a Roman Catholic perspective on the same question.
Hi SingleChristianMan,
Thanks for the recommendations. I read Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church and found it very helpful though I am still trying to translate my understanding of some of it into "real life". I believe the Roman Catholic author you are referring to is Leon Podles. I hope to read his book when I get a chance.
Interestingly, I read Eldredge's Wild at Heart back when it was first released (2003ish?)but I did not "get" some of his message at that time. I have been thinking of re-reading it.
There seems to be an idea afoot these days that feminism has caused women to take over the church, causing men to stay away. Don't believe it for a minute.
The fact is that with the exception of certain hobby groups that focus on interests particular to men (like model trains), men today just aren't joining much of anything. Some will attribute this phenomenon to anti-discrimination practices requiring that women be allowed to join groups that were once for men only, like Rotary and Lion's Clubs (thus blaming female participation for the decline in male membership). But that's pretty simplistic. So's the idea that women have taken over the churches and scared men away.
The fact is that there's always been somewhat of a shortage of men in church, even as early as Colonial New England. There's also been some research suggesting that men who attend seminary, on average (but not always, of course) rate lower in measures of masculinity. So churches tend to be led by men who might not be altogether aware of the needs of the average "manly man".
Should we work to make churches more sensitive to male seekers? Absolutely-- even if it means that the women might have to make adjustments. But don't hold your breath thinking those adjustments will make much difference. It's men who need to find the solutions to men's problems.
Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for your comment. I believe that both the American culture and the Christian church culture have indeed been feminized, not because I have been deluded but because my investigation into the matter has convinced me. It was because I opened my mind to considering that my filter (as an American Christian woman) for perceiving things may not be entirely accurate. Once I came to that realization the extent of and results of feminization in the culture and the American church all but slapped me in the face. It was undeniable for me.
I also don’t think feminization in the church is a “men’s problem”. While I agree men need to lead in this issue (and men are) I believe It is an issue for all believers to grapple with. The body of Christ suffers when our brothers in Christ and men who need God are alienated.
This is not just a “men’s problem” and men have not been “scared” from church. That sort of loaded language (whether it is intended to or not, I won’t suppose your intent) is patronizing and belittles men. And yes, I am aware that some men patronize and belittle women sometimes too but that doesn’t help either sex deal with the other with respect and compassion so I propose we let go of it.
A larger question (but part of the whole elephant) is to look at why church for anyone?. Men are instinctively tuned into Adam Smith's invisible hand, as women are too.
Men who have concretely seen the leading of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives, or in some event, act like the stars are falling from the sky. The same for men who have seen themselves delivered out of a sinful bondage, or from great pain.
These very same men will act a lot differently at an evangelical tea party or an evangelical groupthink session. Powerlessness and lack of relevance (intellectual and otherwise) is part of the problem, both for men and women. Perhaps it is more so for men who are not quick to be "joiners."
We should always remember the forest vs. the trees: Getting men to hook up with God, not with churches. The rest will come, or not, or manifest in some way (like praying in bars, and talking about the word in same) that looks different. But the "church" is not the Master, here.
Your comments about men being aliented from God show you're on the right track.
Anon: God has a solution to men's problems. If we acknowledge this and think we know it, we must not then obscure the view.
Hi Single Christian Man,
I am unfamiliar with Adam's Smith's invisible hand so I googled it but I am still not sure how it applies to the church...could you elaborate?
"quid pro quo" -- something for something. The church asks commitments of membership and money, and what do they get? Do they get help that is really helpful for what really is ailing them?
They may not think it through this way, but they will just walk away from something that is not "profitable" -- I'm using "profitable" in a very broad sense here.
SCM,
I understand, thanks for clarifying.
Learner,
You said: "I believe that both the American culture and the Christian church culture have indeed been feminized, not because I have been deluded but because my investigation into the matter has convinced me."
I wasn't challenging whether or not the church has been "feminized". We all agree that there is a surplus of women in the evangelical church (which of course, inevitably leads to a more feminine climate) and that we need to work to make churches more sensitive to male seekers. The issue raised was whether or not feminism in the church is the source of this feminine climate. I think not.
"This is not just a “men’s problem” and men have not been “scared” from church. That sort of loaded language (whether it is intended to or not, I won’t suppose your intent) is patronizing and belittles men."
Before you shoot the messenger, I did not say that men have been "scared from church", I said that there's an erroneous idea afoot that women have scared men away from church. If you don't believe this idea exists among many of the men on the Christian MRA blogs you've been posting on, then maybe you should have taken a closer look at SS's "Et Tu Josh Harris" thread where a poster talks about men "running for the exits".
It seems that you're trying to encourage MRA's to speak out by handling them with kid gloves, admonishing anyone that challenges any of their extremes. It's as if you're buying into their presentation of themselves as victims of politically correct censorship, when in fact, the church has been critiquing feminism for years. As such, the dialogue you're shaping here really isn't quite as unbiased or "balanced" as the blog name suggests.
Anonymous,
Well, I just spent entirely too much time (so hopefully I am still coherent) trying to find a comment on the Josh Harris post you referred to and all I could find was this one:
…Churches adopted the pop culture perspective that women have been ruthlessly oppressed - and that men need to change dramatically.
All these organizations have seen men running for the exits. There are no institutions which are all male. No spaces where men lead or predominate. Women integrate, the institution slowly dies.
Society and the Church are making war on masculinity. Men cannot change the leftward, feminine direction of their world or the Church, so they simply withdraw.
If the distinctiveness of men, their masculinity is considered threatening or abusive by the Church, men will simply walk away. And they have been walking away….
I take it from this statement of yours; I did not say that men have been "scared from church", I said that there's an erroneous idea afoot that women have scared men away from church. If you don't believe this idea exists among many of the men on the Christian MRA blogs you've been posting on, then maybe you should have taken a closer look at SS's "Et Tu Josh Harris" thread where a poster talks about men "running for the exits" that you think this guy is saying men are running for the exits because they are scared? It doesn’t sound to me like this guy is saying men are running out of fear…it sounds to me like he is saying that men will withdraw from places where they feel unwelcome. How did you get the concept of “scared” from that guy’s comment? If this was not the comment you referred to, please specify which one it was.
After reading through all those comments it seems fairly obvious that you posted a good bit to that thread anonymously as well. You seem to hold your views very strongly so why not own them? Why not use a name that people can know you by so that you can assert your point of view in a more collective manner?
The issue raised was whether or not feminism in the church is the source of this feminine climate. I think not.
And I think feminization is not just about femininity, or mauve banners, in the church. It is also about the infiltration of feminist ideas into the church. And yes, it is entirely possible for an institution to hold attitudes that it criticizes.
It seems that you're trying to encourage MRA's to speak out by handling them with kid gloves, admonishing anyone that challenges any of their extremes. It's as if you're buying into their presentation of themselves as victims of politically correct censorship, when in fact, the church has been critiquing feminism for years. As such, the dialogue you're shaping here really isn't quite as unbiased or "balanced" as the blog name suggests.
I am encouraging MRAs to speak out and admonishing anyone that challenges any of their extremes? I find this pretty funny actually. I have asked some questions and engaged in some discussions because I want to understand (that is what I do when I want to learn…I ask questions and discuss things). I challenged the author of Scripturally Single about the validity of some of his arguments and I did so to promote a less contentious discussion of important issues. Anakin Niceguy “spoke out” long before I ever made a comment on his blog and I am sure will continue to do so regardless of anything I have said or will ever say.
And “admonishing anyone that challenges extremes in MRA?” What are you talking about? I suggested one anonymous poster (was that you?) on Scripturally Single may want to turn the snark down a notch for the same reason I initially posted on Anakin’s blog…to promote a less contentious discussion, yet neither of these seems to please you. I find it interesting to compare the responses I received in both of those instances.
I selected the title of my blog because the concept of learning to balance has multiple applications in my private life (and actually anyone who knew me would find it quite funny because of one of the reasons), not because I claim a “balanced” view of anything. Learning to Balance… get it?
I welcome your comments but please stop talking down to me and insulting my intelligence by telling me things like “Don’t believe it for a minute.” Or “It's as if you're buying into their presentation of themselves as victims of politically correct censorship”. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions on the subject.
And I think feminization is not just about femininity, or mauve banners, in the church. It is also about the infiltration of feminist ideas into the church.<<
I am not so much the wordsmith, but this is what I think would be an example of "feminist" thinking:
"Men are always at fault if there a relationship problem"
This sort of idea is bad and self-evidently feminist, but it is easily (or at least easier ) to remedy. In fact, swings in popular culture, or if you will pardon a pagan term, the zeitgiest in the evangelical world, can correct for this sort of thing.
I'm not sure how exactly to label it, but what I will call feminized ideas -- I understand up front that I am close to tagging some things as "womanly" in a way that is close to saying they are "bad" -- and I don't want to do that -- but feminized ideas are more subtle and more pernicious.
An example: To make something into a relational matter that is not a relational matter. The editor of boundless on several 'blogs has expressed ideas to the effect that our disputation with him is personal - on my blog, for example, telling me that I wouldn't be so hostile to him, or words to this effect, if I read his personal blog. ? I was disputing the ideas of Maken. A like example: When I was obsessing over finding a hermaneutical and exegetical support for the idea that God commands tithing for today, one local pastor was flummoxed when I kept pressing him to go back to the scriptures .. he wanted to talk about how I felt . At the end of it I was accused of making my mind up .. but really all I had done was disallow him to decided for me what the question was, and it wasn't about my feelings, or about his.
Now, women not only come in all shapes and sizes, they come in all different kinds of temperments, too. Look at Maggie Thatcher -- a real leader. I bring her up here in this dialog because I am trying to describe how I cannot be certain that these two little incidents I describe (events writ small, yes; but they are everywhere) are necessarily the result of the over-influence of women. It may rather be a generalized kind of sloppiness, or something else.
So, anon, hear my heart: I am not saying that having more men around is going to fix intellectual disengagement (something that affects both men and women in the church). I am saying that it seems to me that the preponderance of women has sort of tilited the axis a bit in such a way that we are unsteady on our feet (to use a metaphor from dance).
I don't know how to express it better, yet, but I'm working on that.
http://singlechristian.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/anti-male-vs-anti-masculine/
Was an earlier attempt at trying to explain this. The concept still needs work.
Single Christian Man,
Thanks for your examples. Sometimes I wonder if it is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" sort of thing. Is it that men and women are intellectually disengaged with the church because of some change in culture or some other cause.... or is the intellectual disengagement due in part to less masculine influence in the church?
The institutional church in America certainly has many problems so I agree with the question: Is the goal really getting people into church? (with church here I mean a building or the congregation down at "First Baptist", not the body of Christ necessarily). I agree, the vital part really is about engaging with God.
Learner:
"I take it from this statement of yours...SS's "Et Tu Josh Harris" thread... where a poster talks about men "running for the exits" that you think this guy is saying men are running for the exits because they are scared?" NO. You're hung up on the word "scared" and missing the point: I was talking about the erroneous idea that the reduced number of men in church was because of the women (feminists in particular) were driving them away (is driving an "okay" word here?). Even if there are vestiges of feminist thought here and there in the evangelical church, men are avoiding church for their mainly for their own reasons that have nothing to do with the women there. Nevertheless, I think that the women should still be willing to make adjustments to make the church more accommodating to men-- on that I think we do agree, do we not? Or maybe you'd rather engage in the classic feminist pastime of arguing over word choice-- ;).
"After reading through all those comments it seems fairly obvious that you posted a good bit to that thread anonymously as well. You seem to hold your views very strongly so why not own them?" Uh...I don't see YOUR name posted anywhere. People use aliases in the blogosphere for any number of reasons, so this is something that really doesn't require explanation. You can always disallow anonymous comments, if you like.
"I welcome your comments but please stop talking down to me and insulting my intelligence by telling me things like “Don’t believe it for a minute.” Or “It's as if you're buying into their presentation of themselves as victims of politically correct censorship”. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions on the subject." Suit yourself. But I think you're enabling these guys in their belief that feminism plays a larger role in their troubles than it really does.
SCM said: "So, anon, hear my heart: I am not saying that having more men around is going to fix intellectual disengagement (something that affects both men and women in the church). I am saying that it seems to me that the preponderance of women has sort of tilited the axis a bit in such a way that we are unsteady on our feet (to use a metaphor from dance)."
BINGO, SCM. You hit the nail right on the head. The mere existence of more women than men is bound to lessen the probability that men will become involved in almost anything. There is some truth to the idea that much of what defines "masculine" is "not feminine" (btw- that's an observation, not a complaint), such that it doesn't take much to turn men off with a touchy-feely, how-do-you-feel-about-that kind of approach. But anything that is defined as "not x" will inevitably have some conflict when confronted by that which is "x".
So then, what are women to do when it comes to making space for men? Just by being feminine (and perhaps the more feminine they are-- as they are encouraged to be by church leadership), any space women inhabit in large numbers will have a perceptibly feminine climate -- simply because they showed up. If more women show up than men, then of course, the cream will rise to the top and the women who can fill in the gaps, indeed, will. Are they not supposed to, so men will feel so empowered to fill in those gaps? Doesn't that patronize men more, for women to act as if they have less to offer than they really do? Especially when there's a need for those gifts.
I'm not sure if your example of "feminist" thinking (that "Men are always at fault if there a relationship problem") really captures what feminist thinking is really about, which in my mind is about letting women, as well as men, actualize their potential. An idea that isn't exclusively feminist either (1 Cor 12). Obviously, thinking that the other sex is at fault if there's a relationship problem isn't good for either sex to do, unfortunately, many examples of this kind of thinking can be found among both genders on the edges of the extremes.
Well, obviously there is a difference between "gender feminism" and "equality feminism." It is the spiritual version of "gender feminism" which is being observed and discussed by those most keenly attentive to this question.
Hi Anonymous
"I take it from this statement of yours...SS's "Et Tu Josh Harris" thread... where a poster talks about men "running for the exits" that you think this guy is saying men are running for the exits because they are scared?" NO. You're hung up on the word "scared" and missing the point: I was talking about the erroneous idea that the reduced number of men in church was because of the women (feminists in particular) were driving them away (is driving an "okay" word here?).
Anonymous, you missed my point. I understood what you meant. It was the choice of the word “scared” that I objected to because it is a loaded word that implies that men who feel alienated in church feel that way because they are afraid of women. If you think it is just fine to accuse men of “running scared” and don’t see that as a “loaded statement” and counter productive to a discussion that is your choice. I would wonder, though, what your goal is in making such statements. Do you think they further the discussion?
Nevertheless, I think that the women should still be willing to make adjustments to make the church more accommodating to men-- on that I think we do agree, do we not?
I agree that women should be willing to make significant changes in the way “church” is done, yes…..and, not just to help men with “their problem”.
"After reading through all those comments it seems fairly obvious that you posted a good bit to that thread anonymously as well. You seem to hold your views very strongly so why not own them?" Uh...I don't see YOUR name posted anywhere. People use aliases in the blogosphere for any number of reasons, so this is something that really doesn't require explanation. You can always disallow anonymous comments, if you like.
You missed this part of my comment to you that came right after the part you quoted above: “Why not use a name that people can know you by so that you can assert your point of view in a more collective manner?” I didn’t suggest you use your real name, I suggested that you use a consistent name (or in your word “alias”) so that people know it is you. I think it would be much easier to present your views that way. If not, that is your choice but again, I wonder why not? I have no intention of disallowing anonymous comments though it would be more productive for the purposes of the discussion to be able to keep straight who is “speaking”. It isn’t hard to use an alias.
I think you're enabling these guys in their belief that feminism plays a larger role in their troubles than it really does.
Yes, it is clear that you think that and have the right to your opinion. Again, I have not come to this conclusion on a whim. It was not an easy thing for me to consider that how I perceived things was not entirely accurate.
Anonymous,
I am curious, have you read David Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church?
"If you think it is just fine to accuse men of “running scared” and don’t see that as a “loaded statement” and counter productive to a discussion that is your choice."
WHAAAAAT????? I just spent the past three posts trying to say I do not think it's fine to say that men are "running scared" from church (because I think that's not true, rather, I think men understandably don't find what's happening there to be particularly meaningful). So I'm not sure why you're trying to pin this on me.
And yes, I've read "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and recommend it every chance I get. It's Murrow who takes the balanced approach of attributing the "feminized" climate of churches, not so much to feminism but more to the fact that there are simply more women who attend than men. It's bound to happen that the climate will be more feminine.
Hi Anonymous,
First I want to say that I should not have said “If you think it is just fine to accuse men of “running scared”. The word “accused” was a poor choice on my part and I apologize for that. I have been attempting to point out what appears to me to be a supposition on your part, and apparently I have not been successful in that regard. I am going to try and explain it one last time. You may feel that I am “stuck” on the word “scared” but my issue is not just about the word (though I think words are important because they do have meaning, and even more so in this medium where we do not have other cues such as tone of voice or facial expression to rely on) but also the thoughts and ideas behind the choice to use the word. Of course you are free to respond to this in any way you wish but I don’t know what else I can say to explain it so I will likely not attempt to do so again. Anyway…here is my last attempt.
Your original comment on the subject: The fact is that with the exception of certain hobby groups that focus on interests particular to men (like model trains), men today just aren't joining much of anything. Some will attribute this phenomenon to anti-discrimination practices requiring that women be allowed to join groups that were once for men only, like Rotary and Lion's Clubs (thus blaming female participation for the decline in male membership). But that's pretty simplistic. So's the idea that women have taken over the churches and scared men away.
You chose to use the word “scared” here. You described a position that men are leaving church because they have been scared away by women. Yes, you did say you thought it was a simplistic position, but you still chose to use the terminology “scared men away” to describe it. I understand that it is your position that this is not “your word” or idea. But, if it is not your word or idea, where did it come from? You addressed that in your next comment:
Before you shoot the messenger, I did not say that men have been "scared from church", I said that there's an erroneous idea afoot that women have scared men away from church. If you don't believe this idea exists among many of the men on the Christian MRA blogs you've been posting on, then maybe you should have taken a closer look at SS's "Et Tu Josh Harris" thread where a poster talks about men "running for the exits".
Here you say that the idea that men are “scared” away from church is not your idea, but rather you are just repeating what men have already expressed including in the comment you referred to in the Josh Harris post on Scripturally Single. But that guy didn’t say men were running scared at all, so you could not have gotten that idea from him. Where did you get that idea? Where did you see a MRA saying that he was “scared away” from church that you repeated this idea? Is it at all possible that you may have inferred that? Or did you read this idea elsewhere and that led you to infer or suppose it was the position of some men that women have scared them away from church?
I wondered if you read Murrow’s book because of this comment of yours:
Should we work to make churches more sensitive to male seekers? Absolutely-- even if it means that the women might have to make adjustments. But don't hold your breath thinking those adjustments will make much difference.
I wondered because Murrow is very hopeful that making these changes will make a difference.
So…in the interest of understanding would you be willing to answer a few questions for me? If so:
-Do you consider yourself a feminist? If so how do you define that for yourself (besides that it is about letting women, as well as men, actualize their potential)? How about some practical examples of how that plays out?
-Is it your view that the feminine edge in many churches today is simply the natural result of there being more women than men in church? Do you think there is anything else other than women’s natural femininity that is influencing this?
-If making adjustments won’t make much difference is there anything that you think would make a difference?
Thanks for the apology, but what then is the point in debating the nuances between "running for the exits" and "running scared"??? It just seems like you're splitting hairs here, and no one seems to care but you! I don't hear any of the guys here objecting to the use of the word "scared", as if "running scared" is a metaphor that's belittling to their masculinity or something. I think they got it the first time. So let's drop it.
"Do you consider yourself a feminist?"
No. I don't know any evangelical who calls herself a feminist, although I'm aware there are some out there.
But, in reference to your question "How do you define that for yourself (besides that it is about letting women, as well as men, actualize their potential)?" I will say that even though I'm not a feminist, that doesn't mean that I think that all aspects of feminism are/were bad. Nor do I buy into the idea that the good goals of feminism (many of which are shared with the church) have been entirely achieved. For example, I do think that some things are sexist and hurtful to women, such as pornography and other ways in which women get objectified. A notion that was flatly dismissed by the guys over on SS.
"Is it your view that the feminine edge in many churches today is simply the natural result of there being more women than men in church? Do you think there is anything else other than women’s natural femininity that is influencing this?" First question: mostly, yes. Second question: some have brought up effeminate pastors as another explanation, but I think we expect an awful lot of them. Finding innovative new ways of drawing men to church is a monumental challenge. Men are instrumental --it's hard to convince them to put a lot of time and energy into something unless there's a concrete purpose with direct results. Not necessarily a "what's in it for me?" mentality, but "what are we doing here?"
For example, contrary to what some might assume, men will volunteer with helping the less fortunate, but are only likely to do so if their help truly does make a difference. Not that a woman wouldn't think the same way, but women are more likely to be drawn to the "feel good" aspect of helping, as if the means is as meaningful as the ends. For men, if the end isn't meaningful, the means won't be either. And it can be a hard sell to convince men of either when it comes to highly subjective, intangible things, like serving God.
"If making adjustments won’t make much difference is there anything that you think would make a difference?" I said that making adjustments won't make MUCH difference. I didn't say that it wouldn't make ANY difference. And if it makes a small difference, it's worthwhile. But we need to be honest about what we are really dealing with here, and so the notion that we have all these problems "because of feminism" (as if the cure is to get rid of anything that is feminist or feminine) is just a distraction from why we have these problems and how they need to be addressed.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the apology, but what then is the point in debating the nuances between "running for the exits" and "running scared"???
The apology had nothing to do with the excruciatingly obvious difference between "running for the exits" and "running scared”, it had to do with my use of the word “accuse” as I clearly stated
It just seems like you're splitting hairs here, and no one seems to care but you! I don't hear any of the guys here objecting to the use of the word "scared", as if "running scared" is a metaphor that's belittling to their masculinity or something. I think they got it the first time. So let's drop it.
Oh, I see…I should only care about things if other people care about them. Interesting way to decide what I should talk about on my blog…what other people care about…hmm. For the record I was never concerned about “them” (who is them anyway?) getting it…I was concerned about you getting it. And as I said before I am fine with no longer attempting to explain this to you and I accept your agreement to drop it.
I will say that even though I'm not a feminist, that doesn't mean that I think that all aspects of feminism are/were bad.
You do not consider yourself a feminist. Do you think that you share any feminist values?
What if any aspects of feminism do you think were/are bad?
Nor do I buy into the idea that the good goals of feminism (many of which are shared with the church) have been entirely achieved. For example, I do think that some things are sexist and hurtful to women, such as pornography and other ways in which women get objectified. A notion that was flatly dismissed by the guys over on SS.
I read that thread before. I can’t seem to locate it now so I have to just go on my memory of what was said. I perceived that what some of those guys were saying was that porn is bad because it is harmful to men (I believe the reason was because it causes men to inappropriately idolize women though as I said I am going on memory). I think porn is bad for other reasons as well but I am fine with that…after all the blog is from a man’s point of view. Beyond that pornography isn’t something that feminism in all it’s many forms has uniformly condemned.
But we need to be honest about what we are really dealing with here, and so the notion that we have all these problems "because of feminism" (as if the cure is to get rid of anything that is feminist or feminine) is just a distraction from why we have these problems and how they need to be addressed.
Do you think femininity and feminism go hand in hand with each other? Meaning is femininity more like feminism or is femininity more unlike feminism? Are the two words synonyms or antonyms?
Why do you think we have these problems and how do you think they need to be addressed?
Post a Comment