Amen.

The stupid irony about this is that dudes who sit out and complain that they don't go because of some imagined offense to their masculinity are being whiney babies.

This is sort of what makes me bristle when Mark Driscoll rails on men. He gets so much right, and says so much that must be said and heard.
But at the same time, the problem with men on the periphery and inside the church is not that they aren't masculine enough; it's that they aren't godly enough.

I second Bird but I don't have the cool icon.

Well said, Jared! I think that might actually apply to both sides of this debate.

That's why we love you De!
BTW-Real men aren't afraid of flowers!
I don't have a cool icon but I agree with those dudes.

That was Milly not my son.

Hmmm... let me guess, I should feel:

Guilty? No.
Intimidated? No.
Inferior? No.
Stupid? Definitively NOT.

[Expletive deleted by the moderator] your aggressive religious stance.

Affectionately,

Nocturnal

Yeah, Bill, you should stop being so aggressive!
:-)

Yeah, I'm scary, no?

I would have deleted his comment - but he wrote it "affectionately" so I let it stand.

(doesn't mean that someone's pasty white behonkus didn't get banned from commenting last night for being a toilet-mouth) :-)

Ironically, the guy who's picture is in the thread directly below is arguably the world's most famous Christian non-church-goer.......unless you count the U2charist.

Bill, I love when you rant!

amen to the post.

Appropos of not much: In re-reading Nocturnal's comment, I've been wondering what I said that set him off. So I re-read my post.

I guess I can see how these inside-the-family type posts probably look pretty bad to outsiders. He has no context, really, into what I'm saying. Plus, I was ranting.

I guess at first I was baffled at why he took it personally - it wasn't directed at him. But evidently he took it that way.

Just rethinking my rants a bit . . .

Nah.

I took it as being for Christian men who don't go to church for whatever reason. Not as being for men in general who don't go to church.

I've never understood the attitude that says both a) I don't believe the claims of your faith are true, and b) I'm very upset about the claims of your faith.
You see this every time somebody calls a Christian intolerant for believing only those who have faith in Jesus will be saved. If you don't believe that, why in the world should it bother you what someone thinks? I don't give two craps about Muslims thinking I'm going to hell or Mormons thinking I'm not "saved" cuz I haven't been baptized in the LDS church.

Maybe it's that whole Lewisian "I was angry with God for not existing" type thing.

OK I'll bite...

I am a big fan of the Wild at Heart, WMHGTC and other books in the Church for men family. I even help run a forum for that theme. I am a man, and a former Pastor, but I hate going to church, I have tried it is pointless and boring. In most cases you are told to "Come in sit down shut up and hang on" It isn't because of things like flowers or how the walls are painted. It is the entire attitude it has been changed to more of a social club.

I think the church has been feminized much like the rest of our culture. I am not saying we should allow people to give up but trying to make changes inside of a church isn't always an option. So you end up with frustrated Christians who love Jesus but don't like the church.

I've been frustrated with the church myself. I've ditched it for a period of time.
Then I realized part of being a part of church is submitting to its bigger-than-me-ness. And it occurred to me that in saying I'm not going there, I was deciding I was too good for it.

And when you look at all the problems the early church had, this whole "feminization" thing seems like small beans.

I also think, despite some truth in it, the Feminization thing is a boogeyman.
The truth is, the Psalms speak very intimately at points, the Church is called a Bride, etc. And the reason the church is so chickafied at times is because dudes decided to stop leading spiritually at some point along the way and women overtook us in faithfulness. We can't reform church culture by disengaging with it.

I have been promising God that I won't get into any more flame wars on the internet -- and then along comes my biggest hot button of all. I don't know why men don't go to church. I doubt that it has anything to do with altar flowers. I am convinced, though, that in the evangelical mindset, there is no form of life lower than the middle-aged, middle class, wage earning father. He is invested with almost divine powers -- anything that goes wrong is his fault -- and is simultaneously believed to be completely incompetent. We bend over backward to explain that "wifely submission" really means that the wife can give her husband whatever kind of grief she wants to and that "husbandly authority" means that the man has to do whatever the wife says.

I was listening to an evangelical pastor give series of sermons on the whole submission/authority thing. The piece of wisdom he had for the men was, "Men, your wife may have, through her own selfishness or malice, completely destroyed your hopes and dreams. It doesn't matter. You are to love her as Christ loved the church." But for some reason, he didn't feel compelled to tell the women, "Your man may have done nothing in your marriage except sit on the couch and ask for another beer. You have to submit to him anyway." And then I was visiting a fundamentalist mega-church not too long after. The preacher was preaching on letting your light shine. In the middle of it, he says, "You know why our chuldren don't let their lights shine? They don't see any light at home. There aren't any fathers with wicks in their candles." (You don't like the metaphor? It was his words.) I wondered if he was going to let the mothers have it with the other barrel, but he just went back to his mani topic. I have a pretty good idea why men don't go to these two churches, and these two churches are pretty typical of evangelical/fundamentalist circles these days.

Show me ten men who are decent guys -- no drinking, no gambling, no cheating, they bring home the bacon -- but they have "abdicated their authority." I will guarantee you that five of them are dealing with families that are in total revolt and they have just run out of ideas of what to do. And the only help they got from their churches was "Accept responsibility, be a man."

Both sexes sin. Both sexes need redemption. Both sexes need help. Both sexes make choices, good and bad. Neither sex has real control over what their families do, even if the man does have authority. Both sexes need an occasional kick in the pants. Neither sex is all that much better than the other. If you think the women need all the help from a church, wake up: It's not 1955 anymore.

Here's a thought for you preachers: It's Father's Day this Sunday. How about being as nice to the fathers in your sermon as you were to the mothers a month ago? Or, if you really want to show what you are made of, how about being as mean to the mothers next year as you are planning on being to the fathers next week?

I will try to shut up now.

Jason, as a former Campus Crusade staff member for 12 years who dreaded going to church for years, I can definitely relate, but I eventually had to ask myself - how do I reconcile Heb 10:25? - do I have other venues in my life that provide me the opportunity to regularly assemble together with other believers?......and to Jared's point - is there a group or assembly bigger than myself to who's leadership I'm willing to submit? If not, I need to find one.....because, whether I like it or not, its a key way in which God wants to grow me and my family.

Bob: "I have been promising God that I won't get into any more flame wars on the internet"

I hope this doesn't turn into one. I don't expect it to because I don't think we're in disagreement on the fundamental issues here.

The purpose of this post is not to say there aren't problems. Our culture revels in the (Jared will love this) Ray Barone-ing of men. Men are almost always portrayed as passive, bumbling. We're portrayed as the problem, and the culture laughs along with it.

But, as another cultural icon, Homer Simpson, once said "It's funny because it's true".

So, for instance, my message to Jason would be twofold: a) don't back away from church just because you don't like it. Get involved with it and effect change. The church needs you! And b) You need to take Wild at Heart with a huge grain of salt. Read it carefully. Read it with a Bible in hand. Check Eldredge's theology out. Does it match with scripture?

Now - all that being said, I believe that Men are often treated more harshly than women in the pulpit because, frankly, God made us the leader. We should be able to take criticism. No matter how bad things are, we can't just give up. We can't abdicate leadership just because the culture and the world and even our own families stand against us.

And, Bob - I offer whatever encouragement I can here. I know it's hard. But I also believe that God can use you to change things.

And - for what it's worth - I was nodding in agreement to much of you comment. I just don't believe the battle's lost yet.

Centurion over at pyromaniacs has written a great series on why we need to go to church. If you aren't going to church or are thinking of church hopping you should go read it.

One other comment, though, which may not be popular. Bob, you wrote: "Both sexes sin. Both sexes need redemption. Both sexes need help. Both sexes make choices, good and bad. Neither sex has real control over what their families do, even if the man does have authority. Both sexes need an occasional kick in the pants. Neither sex is all that much better than the other. If you think the women need all the help from a church, wake up: It's not 1955 anymore. "

Absolutely true! And women shouldn't get off the hook. I personally think that most pastors are probably under a lot of pressure to not teach the Biblical doctrine of wifely submission - who wants picketers outside the church walls every Sunday anyway? Our culture just doesn't accept it anymore. Ironically, though, the church is the one place I can think of where submission is still at least given lip-service (and, yes, still followed at times).

But if you read Paul's discourse on Adam in Romans 5 you notice an interesting thing. . . Eve sinned first, correct? But Eve is not singled out by Paul. It's the sin of Adam that has spread death to all men. Adam was the man. He was supposed to be the leader. And he abdicated that role, to the ruin of us all.

We're just held to a higher standard. Our society sets the bar very low for men - the church should set the bar high! But then give its men every single resource they need to win.

But, back to my point, the church can't help men who have decided they don't need the church . . .

I don’t actually see where the church is becoming chickafied then again I’m CoC so what can I say. ;-} I see that the church is bending more to culture. I see where we are trying to look better and be more interesting. Look not many want to sit in a pew every Sunday to hear the same message being told by a monotone minister. We want to hear it told well and in a way that we can relate. I want to be able to open my Bible and think on what I heard then read. I don’t want to go home feeling like a huge weight has been dropped on me.

De was right these men need to step up and lead, because if they don’t we women will. I attended and led a women’s class for women who’s husbands don’t attend church. I’ve head all kinds of excuses for not going, all of them were just excuses. Someone wronged me was at the top of the list. My thought was “so what find a new place to worship with your wife.” When my husband stepped up it made a big difference in our marriage and our family life. The men need to stop whining and step up. If you hate the flowers get involved with those who put them there. BTW my grandfather was great with flowers and so is my dad. You can still grandpa flowers all over the town he lived in.

De,

Thanks very much for your gracious response. I don't really buy that men are held to a higher standard than women, which puts me in a minority, I know. I think this idea was the source of alot of injustice against women until about 1975 or so, and alot of injustice against men ever since. "In Christ there is no male nor female etc." But whatever.

Milly,

The men need to stop whining and step up.

I make no pretense of being able to speak to your particular situation. But for me, and the pretty decent guys that I know, most churches are telling us to step up ..... and to simultaneously sit down and shut up. As long as the latter is what brings us less trouble, that is what most of us will continue to do. (And BTW, if I hated flowers, my "involvement" with those who put them there would end in me being run out of town on a rail. :) )

The evangelical church may need us, but it doesn't seem to want us very much. The evangelical man trying to step up in church is fighting an uphill battle against the church itself, so I remain both an involved "churchman" and a committed whiner.

"The evangelical church may need us, but it doesn't seem to want us very much. The evangelical man trying to step up in church is fighting an uphill battle against the church itself, so I remain both an involved "churchman" and a committed whiner."

Heh - that last sentence is funny :-)

But here's where the cognitive dissonance kicks in for me. The evangelical church doesn't want men? Most evangelical churches I know, when it comes to their top leadership, are dominated by men. Many evangelical churches don't have women pastors or elders (or even Deacons). Men run the whole church.

In our church, every major pastoral position is held by a man, and our elder board are all men. I was recently on a pastor search committee - it was made up entirely of men.

I don't buy that the evangelical church tells men to sit down and shut up, or that it doesn't need men.

"In our church, every major pastoral position is held by a man"

And, I might add, freakin' manly men too. They all are avid hunters and our church offices are stuffed with more dead animals than you can shake a stick at.

But our altar (well, stage is a better term) is still rife with flora. :-)

Assembling together does not mean "going to church."

The idea of church being a place for teaching has been badly misplaced. Most people cannot remember Monday what they were "taught" on Sunday. Try that at the local High School! Oh, wait, that is how teaching is done at high school, too. :-)

Isn't the point of teaching for people to learn? People, listen: the 40 minute lecture is one of the poorest means of teaching ever conceived. And yet it is how nearly all churches "teach."

A finely crafted three-point sermon may be entertaining to some, gratifying to the speaker, and fill the allotted time, but it is not teaching anyone.

The "come in, sit down, shut up" passivity mode is just not effective teaching. The church isn't the problem, but the way it is structured is getting less-than-ideal results.

Just to come in from 90% off the axis here . . .

The thing that always gets me, as a student of history, about this whole discussion of why men don't go to church is that everyone assumes it's a recent phenomenon and ties it into all these things that happened in the last 25-50 years. Well, go back a century--seriously, go back to 1905, before "women's lib," before Prohibition, before women even got the right to vote--and you'll find the same issue and the same concerns. (You'll even find the early-20th-century version of Promise Keepers.) I don't know why so many men go to church--but I'm reasonably certain, from the historical trajectory, that it's a cause for the "feminization" of the church, not an effect of it.

I remember what was taught/preached last Sunday as my husband sat next to me after he spent the morning working on making sure things went off without a hitch.

Being in a CoC most things are run by men. We are a bit different from most CoCs so we do have a lot of women involvement we at one time had a woman as a youth minister. She did a great job and the teens loved her. We have women on committees at times when needed. Sure we have a lot of women involvement but the men lead a lot also.


It’s ok to do a bit of whining as long as you are trying to actually make a positive thing happen and aren’t just being a Debbie Downer.


Bottom line is that some men will always find reason not to go to church. My husband did, it was I have things to do and so on. Amazingly now he still is able to do all of those things and help out at the church. God provides.

What is the deal with flora??! God did make those plants doncha know! Our church is about as manly as they come. Sometimes it is too manly. If I have to hear one more sermon about golf.... We even built our new church on a golf course and kept 9 holes!! If that isn't catering to men I don't know what will. =^D
I think men aren't going to church because of their sins and the women in their life are going b/c of the the men's sinning. I can't tell you how many women I know who come to church who are married to men or have sons with alcohol, pornography, gambling, or other addictions because they need answers and need help coping. Most of my married friends whose husbands come to church still have these problems. My own conclusion is that satan knows if he gets the husband/man of the house he has a much better chance of dragging the whole family down.

I'm reasonably certain, from the historical trajectory, that it's a cause for the "feminization" of the church, not an effect of it.

AM, I agree.
It's not a recent phenomenon, and to whatever extent the church is feminized -- and as a sidenote, I'm not all that convinced it is, at least not in some crisis sense, because I think a lot of the critics don't know the difference between masculine and godly, and they aren't always the same -- I think it is the fruit of a long train of men bowing out and leaving spiritual leadership to their wives.
---

Absalom, I have no idea where your approach is coming from in terms of the real point of this thread, but I also think "the death of the sermon" is greatly exaggerated. In the nation's biggest churches, both good and bad, the teaching is done in a sermon format. The Bible itself prescribes preaching as the primary way the Church is taught and the lost hear the Gospel.

I don't know what the alternative is, but I do know that in my community, there are from time to time those who would like to transition the worship service I teach in from a sermon format to a discussion format. We do this in our small group time, and while we are planning ways to do workshop-type sessions in our weekly worship service, I don't think there's any substitute for a teacher teaching the Word of God.

I suspect the call for replacing "sermon" with "discussion" (or whatever) is really about avoiding submission to authority and fetishizing personal application.

But who knows.

What if you rearranged the altar flowers into the shape of Optimus Prime?

That would be awesome!

De,

OK, I'll let my thing about the church not wanting men go. I think it's more complicated than I can discuss right now. But my statement was clearly an exaggeration at best. However,

"In our church, every major pastoral position is held by a man"

And, I might add, freakin' manly men too. They all are avid hunters and our church offices are stuffed with more dead animals than you can shake a stick at.

It's weird -- pulpits are dominated by men, but the sermons and teaching materials are, in my not so humble opinion, anti-male. But I've come to think it's not so weird. I really think there is a behavior going on here that can be seen in any gorilla troupe. The silverbacks (i.e. senior ministry staff) want to be at the top so they spend their time beating up on the competition (i.e. the wage earning "secular" men sitting in the pews).

Many of the women eat this up. Many because, bless 'im, they really do have problems and desperately want to hear someone take their side in the many conflicts they have with the louses they find themselves married to. This is a reality, and an important one, and I don't mean to dowplay it. But many wives want to be in charge at home and they are more than happy for the pastor to supply them with one more stick with which to beat up on their husbands. Both sides of this are realities in evangelical churches, but only the first ever gets any attention.

What if you rearranged the altar flowers...

ah yes. The reason that I have problems at Easter. I'm allergic to Easter lilies and the churches are full of them.

As far as the gender role thing - I don't think there will be an improvement until both start holding the other with the Biblical support system that God built in.

I grew up with a dad who didn't go to church. He still doesn't, except on Christmas and Easter. He is Catholic. My mom has always faithfully attended non-denominational evangelical churches and is very active in several ministries.

I was supposed to be a Catholic. I was christened as a baby in the Catholic church. I have Catholic godparents. My Catholic grandmother took me to mass every time she had the opportunity.

I am not a Catholic because my dad didn't take spiritual leadership of our household. My mom did. I am very grateful, of course.

Men may argue it is possible to maintain their role as spiritual leader of their household, but not go to church. This stance, however, is dangerous---especially if the man in question expects his wife and children to go to church. His sons will wonder why dad isn't there, his daughters will grow up not expecting their husbands to attend church.

Over several generations, one can see what is reaped by this attitude. It is the ultimate in irony: church is for sissies, is boring, is too social. Gee, maybe if you were *there* all along it would be different and you'd have nothing to complain about...?

I believe there are two sets of guys that need to be encouraged and challenged to head on over to worship services (despite the flowers).

The first set is comprised of the wimpy, milque-toast, mamby-pamby guys who are pushovers to all things opposing. They do not have the courage to learn how to be more like Christ in His "manliness."

The second set is comprised of the guys who are so far from understanding the gentleness of Christ that the only thing they exude is harshness and "tough love". To them, it is somehow beneath a man to be gentle, compassionate, and nurturing the way Christ is.

I firmly believe that one of the things we men need MOST is to find Christ's balance between His gentle qualities and His boldness.

In the past, I have argued that the ones who most need to change are the "tuff guys" who must learn to incorporate into their characters the "feminine" qualities of Christ. But I no longer believe that to be true. Both sets of men need to do whatever it takes to learn the characteristics of Christ that are uncomfortable for them, whether boldness or gentleness.

The missing thing here is: What makes a man a MAN?
Is it the ability to hang dry wall, spit off a bridge, put a starter on a car?
Or is it a guy who provides for his family. By provides I mean takes care of the needs that they have it’s tucking the kids in bad and listening to those precious little prayers, going to church with him family, leading them in prayer at the table being like Christ in the home.

I see guys that can swing a hammer with the best of them but that skill doesn’t make them a man.

Women don’t want to do all the leading. We want respect and we want to stand beside our husbands. Yes I’m a Conservative Christian Feminist I want my man to help me hang that dry wall and take me to church on Sundays. I want to give my opinion to the minister directly (I do BTW) I don’t think that my minister gears his sermons to give women the ability to smack down our men. Sure there are ladies out there who want to keep their man down but I’d bet most of us want help in the leadership part. It’s too hard going it alone.

Bird,
You can E me if you want to listen to him to see. ;-} I'll send you his link for the podcasts.

to whatever extent the church is feminized -- and as a sidenote, I'm not all that convinced it is, at least not in some crisis sense, because I think a lot of the critics don't know the difference between masculine and godly, and they aren't always the same

I agree, Jared, especially with your last point. (And I'll admit, if part of the issue here is the kind of sermons the pastor preaches, I have a bit of a different angle on this, since I'm the preacher; I don't sit under anyone else's sermons very much.)

Assembling together does not mean "going to church."

Absalom, you're welcome to believe that, but I really don't think the Bible agrees with you. And as for the value of preaching--it depends what you're trying to accomplish. No, they aren't going to remember everything I say unless they take notes; but that's not the goal. The goal is for that one key point (as defined by God--it isn't always, with every person, the one I think is the key point) to catch in their minds and hearts and, by the power of the Spirit, work its way down. For that, preaching is a perfectly effective vessel.

De, I meant nothing personal by that comment. I'm just tired of people imposing their religion upon others, that's all. Religion should be specific to the individual, not others IMHO.

911 is a worst case example of what I'm talking about which turned me off religion for good as a result.

Sorry for the harshness.

Nocturnal

I agree with the over all post. I do think however when trying to reach non-Christian men we can help by being a little less girley in some of the things churches do. Lost men can't be expected to bereal men because they don't really know the truth yet.

If Christian men are using it as an excuse however it is a hogwash lazy excuse.

A thought on manly gentleness--I once heard gentleness defined as strength restrained. It is impossible, I think, to be gentle without having strength and power underneath--that's not necessarily gentleness, just weakness. The fruit of the Spirit start off with love and joy--strong, powerful things. Then we get onto peace, patience, gentleness, self-control, etc. It is masculine to be powerfull--it is even more masculine to be able to control your power.

To Absalom's point - perhaps it's not the preaching in itself that's the problem but the topics covered that are less than memorable. But that could be another blog post in itself...

To Absalom, I guess I agree that the statement "the 40 minute lecture is one of the poorest means of teaching ever conceived" is true for SOME people. However, I get A LOT out of sermons...that is the best learning style for me. So it's not correct for you to make the universal statement, "A finely crafted three-point sermon may be entertaining to some, gratifying to the speaker, and fill the allotted time, but it is not teaching anyone." I am taught better than way than any other way.

But I see the argument that it's not a good way for a lot of other people to learn.

I don't believe it is a recent development but I do believe it is an issue.

Although most churches are lead my men it is still mostly a 60-40 split and most of the 40 are either uner 18 or over 50. Some denominations are as bad as 70-30.

I haven't given up on the church but it is really hard for me to find one where I can agree doctrinally and not feel like I am wrong simply for being a man. Just compare the Mothers day and Fathers day sermons, as a rule mothers are highly honored and fathers day is a lecture on how we aren't doing things correctly.

I am really starting to see that traditional church models are not the best way to live our the command from Hebrews to not forsake our assembling together, but I am still working that out.

With a nod to Sara's comment, let me put in that the church and all our culture struggle with knowing what healthy masculinity is. I believe most men do not have a firm idea what it is to be a man or whether they really are men themselves. (We also suffer from the actions of men who simply refuse to be men.) That's why Eldredge's books have taken off. He tells men they've been set up for failure and how to get back on track.

Ideas like the one De ranted against are simplistic, more specifically behavioristic, and that is a philosophical error that can kill many good intentions. That may be where some of the down-on-fathers messages come from, the use of guilt or whatever ill-reason imaginable to get men to do what the pastor thinks they should do.

The big problems is American/western culture. Islam does not have a problem with more women going to Mosque. In American culture women pretty much get whatever they want. Just look at child custody disputes for example. So why should church be any different? It's just women getting more of what they want.