I have been thinking more and more that the modern church is marketed to and sustained by women. Women get their men in the doors. Women are the reasons why their husbands attend. So why not do anything you can to appeal to women?
Well if you look around, church attendance is at an all-time low. 80% of kids who go to college who are raised in the church will defect by graduation. That is an alarming statistic (which I got from Leonard Sweet). Small churches are fading fast and denominations are fading faster.
Coming from the perspective of someone who used to be in church leadership and is now sitting comfortably in church followership, I can see something in church I never saw before. It sucks. Everything in church is for women. Even the men's groups are designed to please women.
Ever since Father's Day this has been rolling around in my mind. The service for Father's Day at Kensington Community Church seemed more like an episode of The View than a service geared toward men. The four pastor's wives all sat around talking about how bad they are to their husbands and how they can behave better. No challenges for fathers or men. What a waste!
Men get bashed a lot in the world and I think that has carried over in the church. Every man seems to be created in the image of Homer Simpson rather than the image of the Living God. As ridiculous as I can be sometimes, I'm tired of being painted as th e cartoon-like buffoons that can't do anything right. It's not a very respectful image for my kids to look up to.
Just to show you, here's Mark Driscoll's idea.
Not only is it cheesy, it's offensive. I don't think the answer to anemic effeminate churches is being rude, condescending and arrogant about being men. Driscoll's view assumes a sense of entitlement that maybe isn't deserved.
Part of the problem with men not being respected in the church is that there aren't enough GOOD men in church. I agree that being meek doesn't mean being wimpy, but it doesn't mean being an asshole. The church doesn't need more assholes.
Part of the problem with men in church is that it is supposed to be a place where men can be authentic. What happens is that we are trying so hard to be nice we end up not being authentic and this rage builds up. When the rage builds up things like GOD MEN happen. Driscoll's idea is an overreaction, but at least it is a reaction. Maybe we need the extremists to get the opposite extremes and the middle-fence-riders to move a little.
What do you wimpy chicified church-going sissies think?
Posts
20 comments:
It is very easy to offend in talking about this subject, so I will try to tread lightly and not offend.
The church plant in Lansing in which we met in houses, small groups, focused on active love, and did not have a paid minister, was very difficult for many of the women involved to get into. Many of them did not view what we were being as church. I recall a couple of guys that wanted to come and be involved in our church whose wives just did not want to. I also experienced this in the last few months. I offered the idea of starting a simple church to a guy that shared with me frustrations about the church he attends. He was excited about the idea of using all our money to love people and to spend time as a community serving others. His wife put the kabosh on the excitement. Some women, and I know I am generalizing, do not like the idea of a church without all of the bells and whistles while men hate the bells and whistles and just want to get dirty serving. Maybe there is a happy middle ground.
When I struggled with the idea of planting a church, I focused, through prayer and seeking God's will, to plant a church for those, like myself, who did not like church the way it is. I find myself constantly frustrated with the way church is typically done, as if church can be done. I want a group of people to be the church rather than do church.
Men are interested in doing. I think tangible loving actions, otherwise called service projects, would be a better way of reaching men (through them being invited to participate, not being loved on) and showing them what it means to be a Christian and love others. Men are looking for an active faith, one that gives them a sense of adventure. People who call themselves the church should offer nothing less. Our spiritual journeys should be adventures.
So adventure. Knock out the bells and whistles. Service projects (a drastic oversimplification of what you said)... got it.
What would that look like in a more traditional church setting?
It looks like the GodMen program is a paradigm shift to a segregated service of some sort. Like a "youth group" for men.
If I was planning on reaching into a congregation of a Sunday Morning Community type of church (as opposed to a house church), what sorts of things could we change to captivate the men without resorting to being apes?
Strippers and wrestling midgets.
Seriously, I would not do anything with the current Sunday morning. Let the people who like church that way have the church the like. (wow, that comment just shedded some light on my current situation.)
But we are talking about trying to reach those that the traditional church have been unable to reach. I don't think it would work by just tweaking the traditional church. It is like trying to turn an automobile into a car. It might be able to be done, but wouldn't it just be better to design an airplane?
What is so sacred about the way we do Sunday morning that it could not be changed if we could be the church more effectively some other way?
If Christians across the nation started to do church differently (which I am happy to see happening ever more frequently), the traditional service and churches would not just disappear. They would still remain. But a new type of church for those not brought to Christ by the traditional way of things will develop.
So I can't really answer your question as to what should be done in the traditional church setting because I think it is the setting that is the problem, but I would be disgusted by youth groups for men if that is going to be the church fad for the next ten years.
I meant to say "It is like trying to turn an automobile into a plane." That ruined that whole analogy.
I think it comes down to your statements about authenticity.
The problem with authenticity in church is that a man is an active being and cannot be all that authentic sitting in a pew. He must be active. He must participate in the conversation rather than listen to a monologue. And many men just do not like to sing songs, yet he is expected to do this in church. Authenticity is not usually celebrated in church - silence and conformity is. Try to be authentic and you might just be kicked out.
That is my frustration with a lot of current Christian thinking. This willingness to just abandon those who are more comfortable with old thinking so you can do it your own way comes across as incredibly arrogant. It is a difference of philosophy. If you desired freedom from tradition and were solely concerned with reaching new people then it would make sense to take the path you've chosen. If leading the flock of current believers were your priority then you would concentrate more on changing the ways people practice in their current churches. If we left people to do things the way they wanted, how would they ever grow? Who will be there to challenge them? I understand that this may not be YOUR role in the grand scheme of things, Regen, but for a great deal of PASTORS and LEADERS that is function that they serve in. Moving large groups of people from point A to point B is the job of a great leader. There are lots of great leaders who will continue to work on things like church on a large scale because that is precisely what they are gifted to do.
The discussion I was trying to have had more to do with how churches (all of them as a collective whole) will respond to the emasculation of the church.
I agree Brandon. Since we are all the body of Christ, we are made with different gifts. A gifted leader, who is and made for moving and transforming the already existing church should be doing just that.
Maybe it's the old "different strokes for different folks" mentality. A house church aimed at getting dirty with servitude may engage some while at the same time overwhelm others with intimidation.
The church should look different everywhere. A good question to ask might be: What is it going to take to make the Church an active and engaging place - a place that screams PURPOSE with a megaphone? This will obviously differ, depending on region, the age of the attenders, their background, etc...
I'm not leaning towards a type of cultural relativism, (like everybody's fine and and we don't have any work to do). I believe all churches have their own speed bumps that keep them from going the speed they could be going.
There's a book called "Why Men Don't Like Church". It is helpful in understanding some of the things that need change in your typical Sunday Morning Community type of church. It's not amazing but I did find it helpful.
I like Regan's theory: Get them active. I'm not sure I agree that house church is the only or the best way to do that. I don't have the experience in house churches either, so I'm no expert.
I don't think you need youth group for men, though some men's ministry wouldn't hurt. You just plan ministry projects and watch how the men show up.
I guess I would just ask the question: what are some of the generic qualities of men that are largely not present in women? What are the gifts, the desires, the needs that men have that seem to be unique from those of women?
Find those, then figure out a way to meet them in a way that is consistent with our faith.
I think Regan is right... while you can't paint all men with the same brush, they generally like to be active, accomplishing something, fixing something. Service projects help with that. Other ideas that spring to mind are sports ministries and project groups that use rotating leadership (men like to be in control of their surroundings).
So is this Driscoll guy way off base then? It sounds like the answers are keep doing things the way we have. We have service projects. We have men's ministries. We have mission teams... Maybe everything is fine. I was hoping we could get a reformed church service to look like the MAN SHOW with Beer chugging and Juggies shakin it in the aisle as they pass the offering. Sermons by Adam Carrolla. Really? What else?
"This willingness to just abandon those who are more comfortable with old thinking so you can do it your own way comes across as incredibly arrogant."
I actually view it as the opposite of arrogant. Arrogant to me would be believing I am right and trying to lead, manipulate, or force people to be church in a way they don't need to. I don't view house church so much as I am "right" but as a valid expression of Christ's body here and now. I do apologize that I might come across as arrogant in defense of it being a legitimate example of Christ's body, a defense I wish I never had to make. Likewise, that house churches are viewed as illegitimate comes across as arrogant to me. There should be enough room in the kingdom for "house" and "sanctuary" churches.
A good leader would make the congregation want the proposed change by showing or creating a vision of what that change would create. I guess I am somewhat lazy and would rather start a church rather than try to change a church because I enjoy being in a group of like-minded people serving together without the struggle (although planting a church is a struggle of a different sort) of getting there. To me, changing a church is so much more difficult than planting a church. To others, I have heard the opposite. I would not confuse my character flaws of laziness and selfishness as arrogance.
Planting a church that does things differently to reach those, whether men or women, that are turned off by the current system while allowing those who participate in the current system to continue to do so seems very loving to me. There is enough room for everyone to worship and be the church the way they feel led to. My personal experience has shown that house church is an answer to the question asked on how men can find a love for being the church. When you ask how the collective whole can reach more men, I consider house churches part of that collective whole and a good answer to that question. If house churches reach more men, the Church as a collective whole has reached more men. I don't see that divide between "house" church and "sanctuary" church; both are part of the Church, just different expressions of Christ's body.
There might be other ways to reach more men. I just proposed the one I knew because you asked how it could be done; it is the only one I know because I have had the experience of more women and less men in all of the other churches I have been part of. I did not expect to have to defend house church again as being a legitimate way of being a church or as part of the collective community of Christ. I just tried, albeit apparently too confrontationally and ineffectively, to explain why I think that might be the case.
I agree that figuring out how to reach more men is a tough and important question. I am struggling with transforming a church right now. I am not really focused on reaching men but on how we can reach anyone. My not-so-novel conclusion is that it all has to start with prayer, but some times the cliches are right. My first proposal for a prayer group was shot down; me and another deacon are proposing it differntly this Sunday. I found it disturbing that anyone would reject a prayer group meeting in the church, but I think it is important enough to try again before giving up.
I also believe that no answer would be universal. There is no universal "men's ministry" that can be plugged into every church that would work. What might work in your church would probably not work down here. So if you are struggling with how the local church you are part of can reach more men, I would suggest starting a prayer group for discovering that ministry.
I hate the phrase "house church" because I do not typically refer to the other church as "sanctuary church." Both are just church, but for clarity's sake, I used the phrase throughout this post. I am also not currently part of a house church but think they are very effective at being the body of Christ.
You have to recognize that whether you like the terminology or not, "house church" is on the fringe, the innovative fringe maybe, but still...
It still appears that your only solution is things we already do (besides churches that meet in houses not called house churches). I was really hoping for something a little more revolutionary. Reinvent the wheel in a way that would reach more men. So far I got prayer and service projects (not to discount that, because that is right).
Maybe I'm off track. Driscoll wants to paint Jesus in a light that makes him into a brawling loudmouth with muscles and blood. He uses terminology like "a hippy queer that no one would live for let alone die for"
Do we need to reinvent Jesus the way Driscoll has. Is that anything different than what Deepak Chopra has done with his last book "The Third Jesus"?
No, that's the part that bothers me. Revere the Lord.
We have a confused sense of what manhood is in this culture, especially in this generation. That is an opportunity to define manhood by what Scripture teaches us about Jesus. We really miss the opportunity if we define Jesus by what we want manhood to be.
Prayer and service projects are good. Add these: 1. Develop male leaders. Men are more likely to follow other men. 2. Challenge them to do something revolutionary. I think that might be a big part of the appeal to house churches and even GODmen and Promise Keepers (not that I hold them in same regard). 3. Confront boldly. Men respect that.
How much of the problem of men not being involved in church do you think is related to men relinquishing control of the leadership to include talented women?
That would not be the case in my experiences. The leadership in the churches that I have been involved in that have many single women but no single men were very patriarchal churches. I think you might be on to something in moving the discussion into the type of leadership. People like to have a say in their destiny. If the leadership is inaccessible, secretive, and heavy-handed it would turn off some people.
I think Sam wrote a good post about women's role a while back:
http://chirholive.blogspot.com/2008/02/womens-role-in-church-part-2.html
Women who find themselves in leadership are, hopefully, just doing what they are gifted at doing. A good leader is a good leader no matter what gender they are.
I agree. I think men love leadership training. More could be done in the area of producing a learning environment for future leaders. Mentoring may be too structured, and finding capable mentors is never easy in smaller collections of believers. But an environment that gives people leadership opportunities in areas they would be successful in. Leaders know where to put new leaders in place to succeed to gain confidence.
At this late date, I might develop continuity better if I start from the last post and went backwards chronologically. Brandon, I don’t know any men who love leadership training - - I certainly never did. It always made me feel redundant and too insignificant for a heavenly Hero to bother with. But regardless of my feelings, I’ll beg the Lord to rekindle my trust that He will lead us into all truth. Time after time I have seen Him raise up the leader necessary to meet His challenge for our day, and bestow upon such a one the truth that he or she needed. I’m a natural-born worrier, I guess, but worrying about what the church leadership ought to be working on next is just ‘way beyond the horizon for me. So I commend you people heartily for picking up my slack. For my own ‘church’, I’m delighted that Jesus has provided people willing to bear the burden. Funny, they don’t characterize it that way (‘bearing the burden’) - - more like a ‘privilege and an honor to serve’. Go figure.
Now is perhaps not a good time for the ‘house church’ in the larger world. Let’s pray for them, especially for the ones in places like Ethiopia, and much of Africa, as well as the Middle East and the Far East. They are victims of horrible treatment. Sorry - - didn’t mean to blow off your own topic of interest, but keep these things blended into your pending perspective on it. We are all the same church He died to save.
I hope we can all listen to Him better as we go, which will sometimes require that we go out of our way to hear Him in the first place. I’m pretty sure that listening to Him is more difficult than telling you folks what to think, and I can only imagine it is for you, too. But we probably agree that His way is the way to go.
Ok Westy,
Thank you for invoking Him into the discussion. I guess He might have something to do with the issue (because He is clearly a Man himself).
I like what Shannon said about this being an opportunity to define manhood by studying what Scripture really says about who he was without fogging it up with our insecurities the way that Driscoll has.
But, when men in our church (big or small) ask us why we aren't doing the GOD MEN thing, what should we be ready to tell them (if anything)?
I would tell them what you have already said, about the fad leaders' curious insecurities, and encourage the asker to consider the Jesus of the Bible, who apparently left His machismo in a secret pocket of His robe while they "put a thorny hat upon Him, whipped Him, beat Him, spat upon Him".
Manly Christian behavior has its place. I recall Paul confronting Peter in what must have been an unpopular moment with his ex-compatriot Jewish mafia buddies. The Bible shows that it can actually work, too, as Peter later refers to his accuser as "our dear brother Paul".
I also remember Jesus ripping up the temple-defilers. And I also see His "guts" in John 18:19-23 as clearly as anywhere else, except at Calvary, where it was clearest of all.
Post a Comment