Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Are Protestant denominations too girly?

Thread: Purgatory: Are Protestant denominations too girly? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001018

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :

I ran across this topic on craigslist.org and thought it was too funny.
Authotr contends that churches neglect men
perhaps if they wanted to attract more men maybe dark panneling, large plasma TV?

[Thread title edited for Limbo.]

[ 08. February 2006, 19:24: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

What I have seen it is that all churches are too girly unless they also bound up with a particular culture in a foreign place. So an Anglican church in Germany was men and women in equal proportions and in the UK a Greek Orthodox church was 50, 50.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm suspicious about the numbers. The article mentions that men make up only 40% of some denominations (I think -- 40% of exactly what wasn't exactly clear), and further that a lot of the churchgoers are older women.

Um, don't women tend to outlive men? If the congo is primarly older people, you would expect more women than men.

I'd like to see some more nuanced studies and polls.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is good statistical information to be found in Dr Peter Brierley's book "The Tide is Running Out" - but it relates to the church in the UK. I know of no equivalent in the US.

From memory (my copy is out on loan), the 60/40 percentage is consistent with Dr Brierley's findings. The book also includes information about attendance by age, denomination Uk region etc. I've tried to find some online extracts from the book, so far without success - but others are welcome to try.

I agree with Mousethief - the statistic is far too general to provide helpful information about the means of proclamation. We need to do some hard work to understand trends and their significance, rather than jumping to conclusions on the basis of a headline statistic. I haven't read David Murrow's book, but on the basis of the "blurb" I doubt whether it is a very balanced or helpful view.

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

Considering the number of elderly widows at church, I'm inclined to think it IS a matter of men dying sooner.

Posted by Tabby.Cat (# 4561) on :

We had a discussion about this not long ago, I think. With a few accusations of sexism flying around...

Things like this do make me a bit annoyed (from the OP article):

quote:
One of his success stories concerns a church that changed the decor of its prayer room. It replaced lavender paint and lace curtains with a spiritual warfare theme, using swords, shields and tomahawks as art.

[...]

Mr. Murrow believes churches are designed for the older women who fill their pews, so they emphasize comfort and security. But men want to hear about challenge, risk, change and reward.

But the article is quite interesting and worth reading to the end. Apparently

quote:
Concerns about the feminization of church have arisen cyclically since the Victorian era, says Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University.

Anybody know anything about this?

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

And "girly" [Disappointed]

It's that stupid idea that only men are tough and feisty and only women are carers. [Roll Eyes]

There are a lot of young men (proportionally) at our church - and of course, a bunch of elderly surviving women!

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :

I don't agree with every word he has written, but I think there is an awful lot of truth in the observations and analysis.

Gender imbalance in UK churches is not just women's greater life expectancy, it is 60:40 in all adult age groups.

Most churches do have more ministries with a traditional feminine bias. For many churches this is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It's a topic that has merit in my opinion. And it's a growing concern - as well as the website of the guy who wrtote that article, there's Geezers for Jesus which was set up recently to look at this very issue.

quote:
"We like to talk about nurturing things, about giving something care, and tending it, and making it grow as a flower would," he says. Outside the church, he says, no one would approach a man and say, "Would you come over here and help me nurture something?"

Mr. Murrow believes churches are designed for the older women who fill their pews, so they emphasize comfort and security. But men want to hear about challenge, risk, change and reward.

This is quite accurate IMHO. The language used in church is very feminine...

quote:
According to Mr. Murrow, the church abounds in feminine language about Jesus. He is meek and mild, with long flowing hair, and he is often described as "beautiful." Popular hymns speak of walking with him in a rose garden, listening to his "sweet" voice.

Yep, the dude's definitely got a point. How girlie is that?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
...it is 60:40 in all adult age groups.

I doubt this very, very, very much. The odds are astronomically against it, particularly given the elderly widow issue already raised. Do you have any sources for this claim?

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

From an article I recently wrote:

Sitting with a friend drinking coffee, my heart sank as I heard another variation on what had become a familiar complaint; “Don’t get me wrong, I love Jesus, it’s just the church I can’t stand. It’s not a place that I belong.” It seems I’ve had a few conversations like this and all of them with guys who I know have come into some kind of relationship with Jesus, and so I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the role of men in the church.

As I look around the church I see that there are often nearly twice as many women as men, and the common reason I hear for this seems to be that somehow women are more spiritual than men. I wonder if that’s true, and I wonder if the problem is that church fits women better because it is shaped around a feminine spirituality. I’m coming to the conclusion we need to learn how to express masculine spirituality too.

In the eyes of many men I speak to, church seems primarily geared up for women. I think it’s to the church’s credit that in a world that has neglected and undervalued women’s opinions and work we have created an environment that reflects so well feminine spirituality, something I’d characterize as having a strong emphasis on nurture, care, relationships, love and beauty, all things that are celebrated and encouraged in church life.

We sing our love songs to Jesus, place nice flowers around to brighten the buildings up, and run mid-week programmes that are designed to facilitate support, care and nurture. This is all good, and I would hate to see any of it stop, but it seems to have got a bit unbalanced. All this fits the feminine side of us well, but what is there for the masculine part of our character, the part that men especially need to have ministered to? We’re good at expressing feminine spirituality, but what about masculine spirituality?

What the Church needs is a balance of both the masculine and the feminine, and I deliberately use the term masculine as opposed to male, because I think that to some extent we all have a blend of what could be described as masculine and feminine characteristics. Just as much of what we do now reflects our feminine side, there are activities and approaches that would be more masculine.

I think that there are a number of factors also that make it more important that the church thinks about the subject of a masculine spirituality. With the evolving role of sexes many men find themselves adrift in an ocean they don’t understand, with the traditional, familiar landmarks missing. There has been a change in the role models for men that has become confusing for some, with men who describe themselves as “metrosexual” like David Beckham being held up, and traditional role models frowned upon. Whatever the judgment about the rightness or otherwise of this, men are struggling to know their place in a changing world and church.

So, a masculine spirituality, what could it look like? Well, it might be a spirituality that has an emphasis towards action rather than dry theorising. It is likely to be involved at the conflict end of the Church’s mission to the world.

People who prefer masculine spirituality would find inspiration in Jesus’ words about laying hold of the kingdom with violence. This speaks to them of the direct action that is needed to oppose social injustice, expose abuse and hypocrisy, and to fight for the rights of the downtrodden.

A masculine spirituality is likely to work out its theology by a process of argument and discussion based on concrete experience rather than contemplation and reflection. A church that was serious about encouraging masculine spirituality might need to ask whether traditional preaching works. Asking men to sit and listen to a lecture without giving an opportunity for reaction, questioning and the sharing of an alternative viewpoint encourages passivity, not something one equates with masculinity.

Men I speak too often seem to be looking for a place that has an emphasis on brotherhood and loyalty, a place where they can share true accountability and enjoy lively friendship. Geezers for Jesus phrases it this way “It’s ok to be serious about God and still enjoy fast cars, beer, football and curry”. A faith that works in the realities of everyday life, rather than a faith that works on Sundays only seems to be needed.

Another fundamental difference would be the way that we understand Jesus. Far from the image conjured up by many “Jesus is my boyfriend” type songs, the masculine approach to Jesus may be to see Him as a man who didn’t shy from conflict with those he disagreed with, who was clear about his mission, took care of the downtrodden, and didn’t flinch from a violent end.

I wonder how different church would be, how many fewer of those desperate conversations I’d have, and how fuller an expression of the kingdom we’d see if were able to find the right balance.

Regards
M

Posted by Tabby.Cat (# 4561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
What the Church needs is a balance of both the masculine and the feminine, and I deliberately use the term masculine as opposed to male, because I think that to some extent we all have a blend of what could be described as masculine and feminine characteristics. Just as much of what we do now reflects our feminine side, there are activities and approaches that would be more masculine.

Maybe I'm just a raving feminist, but I wish you wouldn't use the words masculine and feminine in this context either. It can't help but sound like manliness and womanliness.

I suppose I just don't believe I have a feminine side and a masculine side. I don't believe I'm being feminine when I'm thinking loving thoughts and masculine when I run around killing things in a role-playing game. And as I said in the last thread, my boyfriend is in no way being feminine when he tells me how much he loves me.

If those words weren't used, I'd probably agree with most of your article, Matrix. But that probably sounds like politically correct censorship or something [Smile]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
What the Church needs is a balance of both the masculine and the feminine, and I deliberately use the term masculine as opposed to male, because I think that to some extent we all have a blend of what could be described as masculine and feminine characteristics. Just as much of what we do now reflects our feminine side, there are activities and approaches that would be more masculine.

I sort-of agree, but why bother with the masculine / feminine distinction at all? Yes, the Church needs to emphasise both "caring" and "conflict", but ISTM associating one with femininity and one with masculinity is a needless generalisation.

[Bah! Cross-post with Tabby.Cat, who said it better.]

[ 22. December 2005, 08:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

In my experience, conservative evangelical churches are much nearer 50/50 than most of the rest are.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

What words could you use instead to get the same point across?
[cross-posted with everyone - replying to tabby.cat

[ 22. December 2005, 08:44: Message edited by: quantpole ]

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

The only church I've been in that had a 50/50 congo was one that preached "fighting talk" and challenges. It also had a male music group that was very "in yer face"! (Especially the drummer [Eek!]

)

There were very, very few elderly - men or women, it was very family orientated.

Posted by Tabby.Cat (# 4561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
What words could you use instead to get the same point across?

Well, perhaps Matrix and others wouldn't see it as the same point, but to me his article would have made more sense with the references to masculinity and femininity just taken out! No need to replace them, just "here are some aspects of spirituality that need to be played up a bit - I think they will attract more people."

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tabby.Cat:
Well, perhaps Matrix and others wouldn't see it as the same point, but to me his article would have made more sense with the references to masculinity and femininity just taken out! No need to replace them, just "here are some aspects of spirituality that need to be played up a bit - I think they will attract more people."

I agree with this.

I'm very interested in why the gender balance in church is the way it is. But I get uncomfortable with the gender stereotypes. As a woman, for instance, I'm not interested in "dry theorising" either and I don't really like having that stereotype pushed onto me.

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

I see what you are saying, Tabby.Cat. But it sort of sidesteps the issue of where the men aren't and why not. I think the issue you raise is probably more to do with making archetypes into stereotypes, and none of us fit stereotypes. It's a pointless activity. But then so is decrying archetypes if they convey something.

Yes we have discussed this several times. I'm not sure the other times have been archived, but IIRC there are some quite detailed statistics available, though I don't have them to hand. Ken may well be your man for the UK stats. I have a feeling that in the UK, baptist churches managed closest to the 50/50, others were more biased towards female predominance. 60/40 gets quoted quite often. There are figures analyzing the ratio by age class and I'm pretty sure that the predominance is independent of that, i.e. if you strip out the oldest age classes, there is still a predominance of women.

But I'm quoting from memory here. I'll see if I can find the figures.

Ian

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

Our church is CofE its just off a quayside, an old stone building with wooden pillars and a display of flags hung from the balcony, it reminds me much more of a ship than of a girly room or a male lodge -it does have some wonderful cross-stitch kneelers but the paint is blue and gold and the feeling is far from fluffy.
The songs we sing speak both of how wonderful Jesus is, and of God as armour and weaponry. We have women's fellowship and men's breakfasts, but there are still a few more women than there are men because we have a lot of elderly people, and their husbands die first.

I don't think I've ever come across a church that was particularly masculine or feminine and I don't think I understand how one could exist... is this something to do with an old-fashioned view that men can't express emotions, or that pacifism is sissy?

Christianity is sissy if you want to believe that showing emotion, love and kindness, charity-work and worship are sissy... but that kind of shallow misunderstanding of life leads to little boys stealing cars to impress their mates; kids getting drunk to show how 'hard' they are and people starting fights to prove they're not chicken... there is nothing noble or honourable about being aggressive or violent; or wielding whatever power you have destructively...

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

I don't think it's about that so much Birdseye, but your last paragraph may have touched on the opposite side of the issue.

Ian

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

As a bloke (last time I checked which was in the shower this morning), it really depends on what sort of mood I'm in as to whether I enjoy church (that raises the whole other issue as to what extent church exists for our enjoyment and entertainment): if I've had a hard week and am feeling down and threatened, then I tend to embrace, or let myself be embraced by, the caring, sharing, nurturing, comforting nature of the service and surroundings; if I'm more full of life, the I would prefer a more 'theological debate style' approach to preaching, something a but more punchy and aggressive even.

Whatever mood I'm in though, I really can't stand singing 'Jesus is my boyfriend' worship songs [Projectile]

and I wish we didn't have them

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

I wonder whether its more that some women put up with crap longer than men, rather than it being geared to woman. I take exception to quite a lot of matrix's points actually.

quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
From an article I recently wrote:
“Don’t get me wrong, I love Jesus, it’s just the church I can’t stand. It’s not a place that I belong.”

This is something thats happening amongst men *and* women - something groups like "emergent" (gah i hate all the pomo lingo) and co are trying to address. Tons of people, men and women are leaving churches - aka "churchless faith" and all that. Just cos you regularly speak to men, doesnt mean its equally a "womans" point.

I do agree that a lot of churches are geared towards family, but this alienates the single woman as much as macho men.

I do agree that men are questioning identity, what it means to be a "man" etc, although isnt this true of christians and non-christians?

quote:
So, a masculine spirituality, what could it look like? Well, it might be a spirituality that has an emphasis towards action rather than dry theorising.

Its mainly **women** doing dry theorizing? if anything Id have thought it was often the other way around - look at the stupidly high proportion of male accademics, male preachers, etc (Im unusual in that im a woman who would love to study more theology)

quote:
A church that was serious about encouraging masculine spirituality might need to ask whether traditional preaching works.

Just remove the word "masculine" from that sentance and youd be fine.... Ive regularly questioned the fact that hours and hours go into a sermon that very few people remember, and really doesnt impact that many. Just because theres women in church it doesnt logically follow they like the sermons. Perhaps they are there to connect with others?

quote:
Asking men to sit and listen to a lecture without giving an opportunity for reaction, questioning and the sharing of an alternative viewpoint encourages passivity, not something one equates with masculinity.

Again - this is blatant sexism. Youre saying women are passive? Sitting and listening to a lecture is something ive not really managed, and as a teacher is something i never do - its about learning styles.... not men/women.

quote:
Geezers for Jesus phrases it this way “It’s ok to be serious about God and still enjoy fast cars, beer, football and curry”.

Fab - one thing i can agree with! but youre mistakingly equating that with questions of theology and practice. I *so* believe men and women are different in many ways, and having "lads time" is a good thing. But to say women are passive, unthinking, but also dry theologians is really odd.

It seems to me youve taken all you dont like about church and lumped it together as "feminine".ANy issues there??!!
(hmmm better coding?)

[ 22. December 2005, 09:31: Message edited by: Emma. ]

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :

Originally posted by IanB:

quote:
I see what you are saying, Tabby.Cat. But it sort of sidesteps the issue of where the men aren't and why not.

Yeah - but the reason why I agree with Tabby.Cat is that framing certain activities as 'masculine' or 'feminine' ITSELF sidesteps the issue of where the men aren't and why not.

How do we know that women aren't also going [Roll Eyes]

at some of the stuff that happens at their churches, but just putting up with it anyway (for example)? How do we know that men are staying away from church at all without a better citation, and if that's true, how do we know that it's because church is too pastel and frilly for them?

What would help is a real and solid study of reasons men and women give as to why they go to church or stay away.

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :

I've heard Callum Brown argue that churches are better attended by females than males because females are more likely to be the family maker. And subscribing to communities, especially communities which teach "family values", gives the mother of the family at worst a chance to learn effective ways to influence her family, and at best her family might join her in the community.

And then there's also the argument that Billy Graham was a sex god. And it was he who filled the churches in the 50s.

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :

Na, quite the reverse.

Protestant men, having fire in their blood, are just as likely to be out watching or playing football as to be sitting in church.

Non-protestants are the girly ones as they just sit meekly in their seats.

C

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
Christianity is sissy if you want to believe that showing emotion, love and kindness, charity-work and worship are sissy... but that kind of shallow misunderstanding of life leads to little boys stealing cars to impress their mates; kids getting drunk to show how 'hard' they are and people starting fights to prove they're not chicken...

But that's the culture a heck of a lot of us live in. You call it a shallow misunderstanding, but that's because you're not part of that culture.

For a lot of us it is bad to be a coward, or a weakling, or a sissy. Often the three go together, so showing signs of one is automatically a sign of the others. And Christianity is percieved as a very sissy thing, mostly because of all the "don't fight back" and "be meek, mild and submissive" stuff that is seen coming out of it...

quote:
there is nothing noble or honourable about being aggressive or violent; or wielding whatever power you have destructively...

Again, you're only saying that because you're not connected to that culture. There is honour in violence - the honour that comes from being able to defend yourself.

I think the word we're all skirting round here is "macho". It's a desirable trait for men to have, but it seems pretty incompatible with a great deal of Christianity (those wrestling dudes notwithstanding - now there's masculine spirituality!!!)

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :

Following the link the mission statement of this guy's website church for men is worthwhile. I'm currently part of a kind of 'men's ministry' that is being lead by one of our church members. I think the critique of 'traditional' men's ministries things that kind of 'glued on' to real church has some mileage. I'll to be honest and say that our current men's ministry is just that: glued onto church.

However, some of the stuff he says is b*llsh!t.

[ 22. December 2005, 10:23: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :

That post doesn't make sense. Sorry. And the link doesn't work [Frown]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

I'm in full agreement with Tabby.Cat and Emma. on this.

I was reading your article, matrix, and just couldn't identify with the distinctions you were drawing. You readily admit that each of us a blend of the characteristics that you list, and so I wonder what leads to your classification of some of them as masculine and others as feminine.

I felt the same thing when you started the thread about the use of the term "geezer", (which I still have never heard other than in a disrespectful manner by younger people or in a jesting, self-ridiculing manner by elderly men). I visited Geezers for Jesus and just couldn't see what it was about beer, football and fast cars that was specifically masculine. It was just a turn off, to be honest.

I loathe and detest the "Me and my little pony" songs that you mentioned above. My focus is on the majesty of the omnipotent, eternal God, but who condescended in a way best described in the well-known Christmass carol, The Great God of Heaven is come down to earth:

quote:
O wonder of wonders! which none can unfold:
the Ancient of Days is an hour or two old,
the Maker of all things is made of the earth,
man is worshipped by angels, and God comes to birth!

I see that as a result of my Catholic focus on the Incarnation and not as a masculine or feminine trait. Likewise with many other things that do and don't work for me in church.

I also agree with Emma. about what appears to have happened in your article. It seems to the reader that you have categorised things at church into things which do touch your spirituality and things that don't, and then decided that because you are male and consider yourself masculine (to use your preferred terminology), that those things that work for you are masculine and those that don't are feminine. I was about to say that I would classify these things differently, but I started and realised that the masculine-feminine dichotomy just doesn't work for me at all.

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

I think, Telepath, if you re-read my original post, you will see that I was making exactly the first point that you seem to be making:

quote:
none of us fit stereotypes. It's a pointless activity.

Of course there will be women who are not going to church because of something or other there. In fact there is at least one thread on the go at present that raises some of those issues. The issue here is one of differentials though - why more of one than the other? Does God call women more than men?

Frankly, the "pastel and frilly" thing is a bit of a diversion. I've never been in a church that's pastel and frilly - neither for that matter have I been in one that decorates itself out with the Artillery of God. But other things may be more appropriate to discuss.

Ian

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

From my lesbian perspective -- snort.

I get so sick of this ridiculous "Men Are From Mars, Girls Are From Venus" gender stereotyping.

My church is pretty 50/50 in terms of gender ratio. (Except for the LutheranChik household.) Go figure.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
From my lesbian perspective -- snort.

I get so sick of this ridiculous "Men Are From Mars, Girls Are From Venus" gender stereotyping.

It's nonsense, isn't it?

There are some traits that some men may have in common, perhaps more so than some women do those particular traits. Then again, some other women may share those very same traits with each other, more so than some other men may.

How do we just decide that a, b & c are masculine but that x, y & z are not? And how can catering for people who display particular traits be said to be catering for people's "masculine" or "feminine" sides?

It's something I'm really struggling to relate to at all.

[ 22. December 2005, 10:58: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Does anyone like those 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs, or is it just because I'm a heterosexual male that I hate them (do female and gay shipmates like them, for instance?)?

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

From what I've read, the more conservative (whether evangelical or other traditional) the church, the more men attend. My take on this is that where the traditional male-female hierarchy is preserved, men feel more comfortable.

If women in positions of power in the church is what's putting off men, I have to say I'd rather go to an all-female church. Perhaps those men who feel the need for traditional structures could then form their own, all-male church? Except, of course, men-who-feel-the-need-for-traditional-structures would probably also feel the need to tell everyone they were right and represented the One True Church, so then people who didn't go to church would think all Christians were like them, so perhaps that's not such a good plan.

And I'm also with Tabby Cat on feeling very negative towards descriptions of A as masculine and B as feminine. I would prefer to have my actions and inclinations described as human, without some of them being labelled as feminine (and therefore correct, given my gender) and some as masculine (and therefore the opposite). But if people are going to decorate my church with images of war, it's going to put me, personally, off going to church. So perhaps the ratio of males to females would be changed, but because people like me have left.

ETA: Matt, I hate them too - and hated them when I was unmarried and supposed to be viewing Jesus as the love of my life...

[ 22. December 2005, 11:03: Message edited by: chukovsky ]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the word we're all skirting round here is "macho". It's a desirable trait for men to have...

Actually, it's a big turn-off.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the word we're all skirting round here is "macho". It's a desirable trait for men to have...
Actually, it's a big turn-off.

Vote from a straight female who also thinks it's a turn-off, and I'm sure lots of my straight female friends would agree.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does anyone like those 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs, or is it just because I'm a heterosexual male that I hate them (do female and gay shipmates like them, for instance?)?

I'm not sure it's a matter of sexuality, but simply taste. Some people have it; some people don't.

This gay shipmate can't stand them.

ETA that I'm glad Chukovsky agrees. I didn't make clear that I was meaning it's a turn off in a wider sense than as a prospective partner, but also in prospective friends and social acquaintances. Just thinking about the one person I really couldn't stand at a former place of work, he was someone who felt the need to show he was angry by putting on the "angry face" and storming out. He would aggressively challenge people who had upset him, without trying to ascertain first whether he had understood correctly (which often, he hadn't) because to do otherwise would make him appear weak. This made him an unattractive person, and not many people got on with him, I'm guessing, as a result.

[ 22. December 2005, 11:10: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

In general more women attend church than men. In general men have characteristics different to women (e.g. when men meet up it tends to involve actively doing something - playing sport, drinking at the pub etc - and are less comfortable just going round to someone's house and chatting). This doesn't charicature all men as liking football and women liking sitting around drinking tea, but does mean that at a statistical (rather than individual) level there are differences between the sexes. It is important to recognise this.

However, what it shouldn't mean is that the statistical generalities are applied at an individual level. I've heard of conferences where they've split up for mens and womens socials - the men to play football and women to have a makeover. That, I think, is demeaning to both sexes.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the word we're all skirting round here is "macho". It's a desirable trait for men to have...
Actually, it's a big turn-off.
Vote from a straight female who also thinks it's a turn-off, and I'm sure lots of my straight female friends would agree.

Well there seems to be a fairly large market for it round where I live, especially among the younger folk.

I'm wondering if the reason these views aren't popularly held on the Ship is because the Ship is mostly made up of regularly-churchgoing Christians, the group one would most expect to not share them if it's true that church is an inherently "girly" place. The group that may be inadvertantly selecting against those who hold to traditional ideas of what being "manly" is about (and no, that doesn't have to include the subjugation of women, before you even start).

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Does anyone like those 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs, or is it just because I'm a heterosexual male that I hate them (do female and gay shipmates like them, for instance?)?

No, I detest them as well -- not only the contemporary ones but the smarmy 19th-century I-come-to-the-garden-alone variety. Our ELCA hymnals avoid them, but we do have a small faction of elderly folk in our church -- people who seem to have come into our church by way of more "Protestant" churches -- who just wuv them; at one point they even self-published a little booklet of them that we pull out a couple of times a year to humor them. And then I go to my happy place and mentally chant a Psalm or something until it's over. [Biased]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

I should add that, as a gay man, most of whose male friends are straight (I like it that way, honestly [Biased]

), I am quite sure that being macho, being seen to be defensive and an obsession with avoiding being seen as weak are not synonymous with maleness. Likewise, being emotionally sensitive, mild and willing to allow the other person the last word are not signs of a diminished maleness.

This isn't just about church.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think a lot of this has to do with the cultivated homophobia in a lot of churches. I used to live in close proximity to a family of fundamentalists, and it seemed that every church activity was strictly gender-segregated, with a big emphasis on "being a godly man" vs. "being a godly woman." And, in my college years, I worked in a Christian bookstore -- actually a nice one, run by Anglicans [Biased]

, with a truly catholic assortment of books -- and would constantly be running into fundamentalist books about "biblical manliness" or "biblical womanliness" that were quite comic; I recall one of them warning parents not to have boys tagging after their moms in the kitchen, or have girls helping Dad with chores, lest the children experience "gender confusion" and -- horror of horrors -- turn gay. [Killing me]

I suppose after listening to this indoctrination week after week members of those churches are going to be absolutely paranoid about preserving their machismo, or the delicate flower of their womanhood, according to their own highly stereotyped (and silly) criteria.

I guess I don't understand the mentality of people who allow, or expect, their churches to natter at them like this, about their sexual identity or anything else. My own faith community treats members like competent adults.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Does anyone like those 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs, or is it just because I'm a heterosexual male that I hate them (do female and gay shipmates like them, for instance?)?

Blooming stereotypes. Contemporary Christian songs mirror the Psalms. Some are personal, some are corporate, some are praise, some are love songs, some are pleading, some are lament. Though we also sing traditional hymns, the majority of the songs sung at my local church have been written since 1975. In terms of range, depth and variety of expression, they are as various as the traditional hymn books. "Jesus is my boyfriend" has replaced "happy-clappy" as a term of abuse. It really gets my goat. Another "straw man".

Actually I think this whole thread is based on a straw man. Others' reactions against this sort of gender-stereotyping are the same as my own. My local church, which about as non-conservative evangelical as I know, is growing very rapidly, seems to be about 50/50 men and women and is attended by large numbers in their teens and twenties. We're all quite pleased about this but would not claim that it has very much to do with styles of either churchmanship or worship. What seems to have made the big difference has been the consistent application of a vision to help and support the local community, which is quite deprived. Looking for solutions which reinforce gender-stereotyping, or worship-stereotyping, seems to me to be looking in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I suppose after listening to this indoctrination week after week members of those churches are going to be absolutely paranoid about preserving their machismo, or the delicate flower of their womanhood, according to their own highly stereotyped (and silly) criteria.

It ain't just people in churches, it's a lot of the secular world as well. At least for men - you tend not to get so many "delicate flower of womanhood" types these days...

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the word we're all skirting round here is "macho". It's a desirable trait for men to have...
Actually, it's a big turn-off.
Vote from a straight female who also thinks it's a turn-off, and I'm sure lots of my straight female friends would agree.
Well there seems to be a fairly large market for it round where I live, especially among the younger folk.

I'm wondering if the reason these views aren't popularly held on the Ship is because the Ship is mostly made up of regularly-churchgoing Christians, the group one would most expect to not share them if it's true that church is an inherently "girly" place. The group that may be inadvertantly selecting against those who hold to traditional ideas of what being "manly" is about (and no, that doesn't have to include the subjugation of women, before you even start).

None of my family and only about 1 colleague goes to church, and macho behaviour is not valued in either of those circles.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Maybe we don't have many Sun-reading, football-obsessed, 15 pints-of-lager and 3 shags of a Friday/Saturday nighters on board which could be the constituency Marvin alludes to. There are stacks of them in Newport alone.

[ 22. December 2005, 12:09: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Quantpole said:

quote:
In general more women attend church than men. In general men have characteristics different to women (e.g. when men meet up it tends to involve actively doing something - playing sport, drinking at the pub etc - and are less comfortable just going round to someone's house and chatting). This doesn't charicature all men as liking football and women liking sitting around drinking tea, but does mean that at a statistical (rather than individual) level there are differences between the sexes. It is important to recognise this.

You mean men drinking in a pub are doing something, whereas women drinking tea in a house are not?? [Confused]

More stereotypes, I'm afraid. Which add nothing to a proper discussion of the OP.

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :

Barnabas62 wrote

quote:
Looking for solutions which reinforce gender-stereotyping, or worship-stereotyping, seems to me to be looking in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

Precisely. Though there is a certain irony in the fact that all the loud protestations of stereotyping never seem to move on to the next stage - which is actually looking in the right place. Or maybe people don't think there is any problem at all so there's nothing to look for?

Ian

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

[snark on] Well, maybe for the Sharing of the Peace, males feeling defensive about their masculinity can punch each other instead of extending a hand. Yeah! That'll show 'em all I'm a manly man! [snark off]

I'm sorry, but WTF is this mentality all about? I don't get the insecurity.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
You mean men drinking in a pub are doing something, whereas women drinking tea in a house are not??

More stereotypes, I'm afraid. Which add nothing to a proper discussion of the OP. [/QB]

Maybe 'doing something' is too vague - men seem to prefer to have distractions around when they meet whilst women appear more at ease just to be in each other's company (and yes, I am generalising). My point is that men and women, statistically speaking, prefer different things. What's the harm in recognising that?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

About a decade ago, there was a serious historical examination of religion in the antebellum southern US. It dicumented that Methodists and Baptists consciously chose to mute their anti-slavery message because they saw themselves becoming churches dominated by women and slaves. There is a real value in looking at history -- it gives us some perspective on our worries and responses to our current situation, ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :

Originally posted by IanB:

quote:
think, Telepath, if you re-read my original post, you will see that I was making exactly the first point that you seem to be making:

Yes - we seem to be saying roughly the same thing, but I also seem to have given the impression that I've misunderstood you. I don't think I have, I think we're agreeing mostly.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
My point is that men and women, statistically speaking, prefer different things. What's the harm in recognising that?

There isn't, as such.

The point is that the tendencies (and that's all that they are) aren't just across a male-female divide. I'm speculating that the same distinction between those tendencies can be found to different degrees in homosexual and heterosexual men, in homosexual and heterosexual women, in young man and older men, in young women and older women.

To label these tendencies as being masculine and feminine is misrepresentative. It just doesn't work.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

In my church the women's group and the men's group both "do things" (I assume this means physically active things, rather than just sitting around sharing tea and sympathy.) In what church do groups not do things?...

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

I repeat

quote:
My point is that men and women, statistically speaking, prefer different things. What's the harm in recognising that?

Do you disagree?

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I repeat
quote:
My point is that men and women, statistically speaking, prefer different things. What's the harm in recognising that?
Do you disagree?

I'm not sure whether you were responding to LutheranChik or to me, but I'm certainly not saying there's any harm in recognising that, statistically speaking, men and women generally prefer different things. However, I'd want to ask how do we act on that and, at the same time, recognise that gay men and straight men, statisticaly speaking, prefer different things, and that older people and younger people, statistically speaking, prefer different things, and that young children and teenagers, statistically speaking, prefer different things?

What are we, as churches, supposed to do about all these tendencies that exist within and without our communities?

Church isn't about us and our likes and dislikes. It isnt entertainment, to be tailored specifically to our wants. We need to just accept that and get on with it.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Quantpole: First of all, I don't agree that some parts of worship appeal more to men than to women, and vice versa. Secondly, even if you are correct, how do you see your assertion playing itself out in the structure of worship?

I know I'm going to get sent to Hell for this, but...oh, well, first time for everything:

My church is in the broad catholic tradition of Christianity. We're not going to jettison almost 2,000 years of Christian worship praxis -- which, BTW, seemed to be just fine for generations of males -- and turn Sunday mornings into gender-segregated, ridiculously stereotyped Does and Stags confabs because of some whingeing subgroup of insecure individuals who evidently can't define themselves otherwise.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

I was replying to LutheranChik, sorry should have said!

I do agree with you. I think we need to recognise when we have disproportionate groups of any kind in the church, be that male/female, gay/straight, old/young. The hard part is finding out why these variations exist, and if we are unwittingly excluding people with certain tendencies that should be addressed.
[cross-posted with LutheranChik]

[ 22. December 2005, 13:16: Message edited by: quantpole ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Quantpole: First of all, I don't agree that some parts of worship appeal more to men than to women, and vice versa. Secondly, even if you are correct, how do you see your assertion playing itself out in the structure of worship?

I know I'm going to get sent to Hell for this, but...oh, well, first time for everything:

My church is in the broad catholic tradition of Christianity. We're not going to jettison almost 2,000 years of Christian worship praxis -- which, BTW, seemed to be just fine for generations of males -- and turn Sunday mornings into gender-segregated, ridiculously stereotyped Does and Stags confabs because of some whingeing subgroup of insecure individuals who evidently can't define themselves otherwise.

I don't know what to do about the problem. What I do know is that the first step is to recognise the problem exists.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
What are we, as churches, supposed to do about all these tendencies that exist within and without our communities?

Incorporate elements of all of them, rather than just one or two of them, within the message we're sending out.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Why was this "problem" not a problem for the Church until recent history?

Maybe -- just an idea -- it's a manufactured problem, by people who have a vested interest in maintaining rigid ideas about gender roles, and/or by marketing-driven Christians who have a compulsion to "sell" Christianity in the same business-model, market-segmented way that one sells dish detergent or cell phones.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Why was this "problem" not a problem for the Church until recent history?

I'm not a sociologist. No doubt Ken will be along in a bit to tell us...

As B2F has said it's more than just male/female. I doubt very much that up until 100 years ago the church was the epitomy of incusivity.

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

I'm not sure preahing is always passive, or that bible studies and the like are very masculine. Discussions in churches can be very touchy feely friendly (to use a completely unbiased term, but the only one I can think of) while with preaching can be strong and assertive.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I doubt very much that up until 100 years ago the church was the epitomy of incusivity.

That is going into the quotes thread!

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Again with the stereotyping.

What the heck is a "masculine" or "feminine" sermon or Bible study?

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
What are we, as churches, supposed to do about all these tendencies that exist within and without our communities?
Incorporate elements of all of them, rather than just one or two of them, within the message we're sending out.

Isn't the Gospel already riddled with various personalities? Surely, there's at least someone who can identify with some one from there, without us having to alter what we do on Sunday mornings to cater for the preferences of every single person? As I said, Church, mission, worship aren't about entertaining and catering for preferences. That isn't where our focus should be.

Now I know that this thread is specifically about the protestant tradition, and I can't comment much on that from experience, but I wonder if that has something to do with why I'm failing to understand why this is being given so much prominence. In the Catholic tradition, the New Covenant community receives grace and strength through the Sacraments, in which, in our theologiocal understanding, heaven and earth literally unite. God's heavenly grace comes to us, and, as is said in the Western Rite:

quote:
Through Jesus Christ our Lord; by Whom the Angels praise Thy Majesty, Dominions adore Thee, Powers tremble, the Heavens and Heavenly Hosts and the Blessed Seraphim join with one glad voice, extolling Thee. Together with whom we pray Thee suffer our voices to have entrance, humbly confessing Thee and saying...

The focus is very Incarnational and Sacramental, it is that around which the community gathers and the worship is based on that, as being united with the worship of heaven (I mean this literally and not just symbolically). Individual wants and preferences are largely left at the door. In the Eastern Rite, in the Cherubic hymn, we sing:

quote:
We, who in a mystery, represent the Cherubim and join with them singing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity, now lay aside all earthly cares, lay aside all the cares of this life, that we may receive the King of all, invisibly escorted by the angelic hosts! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

From conversations on the Ship, I know that this sort of Sacramental undersatanding largely doesn't exist in most protestant circles, and where it does, it is nowhere near on the same scale - it certainly isn't the centre around which the worship is based. I'm guessing, therefore, that a very different approach is taken to worship, what it means, and how it is planned and carried out. Could this be why more emphasis is place on where individuals are coming from?

I'm not asking this to be in nay way insulting to the protestant tradition, but rather because I'm aware, in light of what you and quantpole have said, that I may be coming across as dismissive of what your concerns are. This is mainly because the concerns being raised don't have much significance in the context of the Catholic understanding of what church is all about, whether for men, women, gay, straight, old young, fat (like me) or skinny. I just don't see why it matters quite so much, but I realise that the OP was asking about a tradition other than my own - one which I perhaps don't understand as well as I could.

Perhaps if someone could explain the concerns about the possible unwitting exclusion of certain groups within the context of what worship means in protestant churches, it would help.

Many thanks.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Back-to-Front, I share your understanding of "being the Church," and of Word and Sacrament grounding our experience of life together in community. So -- I must lead a sheltered life -- I too really do not have a grasp of what the rest of you are talking about. If your faith community's focus isn't on Word and Sacrament -- what is it on???

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sorry, Barnabas, but I really don't like those twee worship songs - and from what I can gather here I'm not alone and it has precious little to do with my gender or sexual orientation - I dislike them because, although in some cases they may be 'Scripturally correct', I find them extremely naff and find myself frankly embarassed to be singing them; I'd find it difficult and cringeworthy to say some of those words to my wife, let alone to the Divine - and I'm far from being a wholly unromantic hardnosed unfeeling git.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Matt

There is a decent Dead Horses thread on this subject and I don't want to derail the current thread. Maybe if you give me an example there of some "twee" songs I'd know more clearly what gets your goat.

What gets mine is the "lumping together" of the trivial and the profound; I've found lots of "gold" in the contemporary genre.

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

I hope that people can see that I am arguing for a balance. I applaud (fwiw) the fact that the church has ministered well to certain sections (that yes, i choose to label feminine, not female - you are free to disagree, if we start a different thread i'll be happy to share why i make a distinction)of our society.

My assertion is not that we should give up any of those things, or downplay thier importance in having a full picture of the Gospel's effects on humans and thier relationships. My assertion is that we should now be placing extra emphasis on those charateristics that are weakly represented, or reflected in our churches.

I do believe in both genetic and sociological differences between men and women, and I genuinely think that, whatever the cause, churches seem to be places where men feel sidelined or irrelevant. I'm sure that many women do too, and often for the same reasons, but my concern is that in the UK amongst every age group, females outnumber males 3:2 in the church. This is not solely a problem of women living longer, there's something else going on.

M

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Matt

There is a decent Dead Horses thread on this subject and I don't want to derail the current thread. Maybe if you give me an example there of some "twee" songs I'd know more clearly what gets your goat.

What gets mine is the "lumping together" of the trivial and the profound; I've found lots of "gold" in the contemporary genre.

Well, how about

"Jesus take me as I am,
I can come no other way
Take me deeper into you
Make my flesh life melt away"

or

"Jesus, lover of my soul,
Jesus i could never let you go..

I love you, I need you,
and thought the world may fall i'll never let you go"

or

"In your arms of love,
in your arms of love,
holding me close, holding me near
in your arms of love"

M

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

...or howabout

"I have felt your touch
More intimate than lovers
It would break my heart
To ever lose each other"

Those lyrics could be from any crap pop song, especially from c.1975

[ 22. December 2005, 14:42: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Those in particular from What a Friend I've Found. I have, on occasion, enjoyed singing it. Maybe I was in an odd place [Ultra confused]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Was the Good Samaritan girly?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'll post in the Dead Horse thread, for any who want to follow this tangent.

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

and all songs written by men, or make groups, and performed by men....

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Those in particular from What a Friend I've Found. I have, on occasion, enjoyed singing it. Maybe I was in an odd place

That was the one I was trying to quote from above. Without the chorus, you'd be hard pressed to know it was Christian and distinguish it from the average pop song.

Hardly Martin Smith's finest hour IMO.

[ 22. December 2005, 14:52: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Rinse and repeat: If your faith community's focus isn't on Word and Sacrament -- what is it on???

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Rinse and repeat: If your faith community's focus isn't on Word and Sacrament -- what is it on???

Service*?

*in the sense of, helping people

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

But why do you perform the service if not in grateful response to the grace given to you through Word and Sacrament?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But why do you perform the service if not in grateful response to the grace given to you through Word and Sacrament?

1. In grateful response given to you through some other vehicle?

2. Because it's the right thing to do?

[ 22. December 2005, 15:15: Message edited by: Mousethief ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

And, anyway, the way I'm interpreting some of the posts above, service would seem to be one of those girlie things. How limp-wristed of our Lord to be going around serving people instead of beating the crap out of them and then bragging about it over pints with his Apostles down at the local while wagering on arm wrestling.

Oh...could I be stereotyping ?...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And, anyway, the way I'm interpreting some of the posts above, service would seem to be one of those girlie things. How limp-wristed of our Lord to be going around serving people instead of beating the crap out of them and then bragging about it over pints with his Apostles down at the local while wagering on arm wrestling.

You missed out the lap-dancers...

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Ooops. Crosspost. This is to LutheranChik.

I'm on your side there. As I asked above (not of you, but of those who claim there's excess of girliness), was the Good Samaritan girly? Was our Lord girly when he wept outside Lazarus' tomb? Or when he went meekly to his death, even praying for the forgiveness of his tormentors?

If our society defines these things as "girly" then the answer, it seems to me, isn't to eject them from the church, but to challenge the society's definition. (And, of course, the society's degradation of things that are "girly" -- why are things that are throbbing-cockly somehow more worthy than things that are girly?)

[ 22. December 2005, 15:20: Message edited by: Mousethief ]

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And, anyway, the way I'm interpreting some of the posts above, service would seem to be one of those girlie things. How limp-wristed of our Lord to be going around serving people instead of beating the crap out of them and then bragging about it over pints with his Apostles down at the local while wagering on arm wrestling.

You missed out the lap-dancers...

And the racing cars, and the kebab..please try and keep up.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Belching...can't forget the belching. And other rude noises. Harrassing the serving wenches.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
In my experience, conservative evangelical churches are much nearer 50/50 than most of the rest are.

Bingo. The churches I have attended (Protestant-type, but more evangelical...) have had a 60 to 40 ratio of women to men I could see.

When I decided to go more hardcore Reform, I found those type of churches to have a 60 to 40 ratio of men to women, including the one I attend now.

We tend to be a "scholarly" type of church, a lot of teaching on topics like Sola Fide...bible verses etc versus the churhes I went to that were more "come as you are and sit in a comfortable chair...here is a latte!".

People tend to carry on about John Piper, John MacArthur Jr., J.R. Packer, R.C. Sproul & the like while in the more seeker-oriented-type churches Rick Warren, Billy Graham were more popular guys to carry on about.

Anyway, you have strong leadership classes for men, you get a strong church. This lady in my church when it first started told me she was asked to start a Women's Ministry. She refused, said "you start a Men's Ministry & then I will start one for women". After they finally had a Men's Ministry, she started the one we have for Women.

I don't mind the gender stereo-types. I find that men and women for the most part are different and celebrating those differences is a good thing, IMHO.

My 2 cents. Carry on...

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Harrassing the serving wenches.

God how I love that bit. <urrrrrp>

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

I don't mind the gender stereo-types. I find that men and women for the most part are different and celebrating those differences is a good thing, IMHO.

I actually think this is deeply unbiblical. Clearly there are a lot of women "serving" and men "fighting" and "leading" in the Bible but I don't think there's any evidence Jesus "celebrated differences", and plenty of anti-stereotype role models in the Bible - non-macho men as well as non-feminine women.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

I've seen loads of churches that run men's breakfasts, and women's coffee mornings. There is nothing new in this idea of giving different groups of people (however they are demarcated) different things - its a simple case of working out your audience and then giving them the message you need to give in a way that they can understand and respond best. Sort of like being all things to all people.

If there is a macho-ness in men that you are trying to outreach to, then doing so in a nice pink church with lots of candles and flowers with a 'Jesus wants to be your boyfriend' message is not going to work.

Perhaps when you take away all of the guff, this is just about meeting people where they are.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yep. What about Deborah and Barak?

[ETA - reply to chukovsky]

[ 22. December 2005, 15:39: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

I don't mind the gender stereo-types. I find that men and women for the most part are different and celebrating those differences is a good thing, IMHO.
I actually think this is deeply unbiblical. Clearly there are a lot of women "serving" and men "fighting" and "leading" in the Bible but I don't think there's any evidence Jesus "celebrated differences", and plenty of anti-stereotype role models in the Bible - non-macho men as well as non-feminine women.

I disagree with your premise here. I never said that women did not serve or should not serve in church.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yep. What about Deborah and Barak?

[ETA - reply to chukovsky]

That is a dead horse guys so I will be glad to join you in that thread if you have a bone to pick about it. I was answering the OP.
click

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
a nice pink church with lots of candles and flowers with a 'Jesus wants to be your boyfriend' message is not going to work.

What church does that?

In my church, if you want to serve by leading, you can do that, and if you want to serve by serving you can do that, and we don't check panties as a prerequisite for either.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

The amount of candles and flowers has not changed significantly since the 19th century, and probably even less so since the 15th, when I assume the proportion of male to female congregants was more equal. Never come across a pink church...

What has changed however is the proportion of men to women in leadership/leading positions. Even in churches where women are not ordained this also seems to be true, as I understand it: there are now altar girls in RCC churches, whereas 100 years ago it was only boys.

No amount of window dressing is going to alter the basic change, which from between-church evidence currently is what is putting off men. Perhaps (gosh!) the men need to change, and those who can't cope with church as it is in the 21st century need to get used to women standing up at the front?

I've actually just remembered a slight tangent which we've discussed a bit before: particularly tech-y alt-y churches tend to have both more young people and more men. Of course, given that more elderly people are women than men, this could just be a restatement of the same thing. But these are about the only churches where men and women are in fairly equal numbers, but whose theology is pretty liberal. Perhaps it's not "will only worship were men are In Charge And Up The Front" but "won't worship where women are ICAUTF". Or perhaps we need to have more alt.worship.

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Again with the stereotyping.

What the heck is a "masculine" or "feminine" sermon or Bible study?

DO you have anything useful to add to this thread? Your every response seems to consist of "I disagree with the question in the OP", in which case, say so ONCE then stay out of the discussion.

I recall a similar thread not too long ago (I think under a title like "why are there more women than men in church?" where one or two people kept saying "that's a sexist stereotype" in response to any attempt to answer the OP, slowing down the discussion and contributiong zilch. We're well aware that these generalisations are not true in every instance but, unless you have some way of only making statements that hold for all induviduals across all countries and Protestant denominations (good luck) we will continue the discussion in such terms.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

Why would we, Zwingli, if the stereotypes are not going to answer the questions posed in the OP?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Your every response seems to consist of "I disagree with the question in the OP", in which case, say so ONCE then stay out of the discussion.

And you became the boss of me when ?

One more imperious statement like that and you are being summoned to The Other Place.

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :

I've heard all the arguments time and time again.

All I can say is, calling anyone (male or female) 'girly' is fighting words. Especially since I'm a little bleary this morning from stopping in at the pub last night on my way home from the comic store (a real pub, too! In Portland! Who would have thunk it?)

I can also add that while my parish has a female priest, we've also got an all-male acolyte crew (it just worked out that way), and in the Young Adult group I'm (currently) the only girl.

I really wonder if anyone's ever done a study of inclusive churches vs. exclusive churches and their (apparent) gender divide. I put 'apparent' in parenthesies, because you don't know how many transsexuals/transvestites are sitting in the pews, now, do you?

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
I've seen loads of churches that run men's breakfasts, and women's coffee mornings. There is nothing new in this idea of giving different groups of people (however they are demarcated) different things - its a simple case of working out your audience and then giving them the message you need to give in a way that they can understand and respond best.

And that confirms my suspicions.

Nobody has so far answered my question about why any of this really matters as much as it seems to matter to some people. I explained the Catholic understanding of church that a few of us here are coming from, and why we are perhaps struggling with getting a grasp of why the individual's wants are so important in light of that. I asked what it was about the protestant understanding of church and worship that makes them depend on these things so much, and LutheranChik has re-phrased and asked again, and nobody has provided anything approaching an answer.

I'll be honest. My suspicion is that the focus is too heavily on the individual. I know that this is one of the main problems that I have with the way theology is worked in in many protestant traditions (and it is actually how the protestant tradition came about in the first place), but I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that this sort of individualism was what was causing this unease of certain groups in church without discussing it first.

Fr Alex, on another thread, noted the trend he has noticed of what he called the church of I - I want, &c.

I'm trying to avoid jumping to the conclusion that that is the mentality behind the concerns raised here, but I've asked and nobody has attempted to explain otherwise. Now PhilA's post very much conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.

If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but someone please tell me what the actual understanding of worship is from a protestant perspective, so that people like LutheranChik and me can understand why "masculine", "feminine", "old", "young", &c. preferences are so much depended on to make people feel that going and taking part in it is worthwhile.

[ 22. December 2005, 16:02: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I have to say Zwingles hit the nail on the head for me on why I don't post as much in these type of threads usually.

ETA: B2F, What you describe to me is a Seeker type church. Focusing on the Word of God to me is never "me oriented", if anything, it is about serving and rolling up my sleeves for others. The great Commandment & also Great Commission emphasize this...putting the LORD first and then serving one another.

[ 22. December 2005, 16:05: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

B2F, I don't see a huge thing about individual wants at my church, or for that matter others I've been to. People do seem to be genuinely trying to 'do' church in the best way for everyone (which of course will never work, but we've got to try).

The problem is that there are large groups of people who aren't coming along and it would be really rather nice to work out why.

[ 22. December 2005, 16:10: Message edited by: quantpole ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
I recall a similar thread not too long ago (I think under a title like "why are there more women than men in church?" where one or two people kept saying "that's a sexist stereotype" in response to any attempt to answer the OP, slowing down the discussion and contributiong zilch. We're well aware that these generalisations are not true in every instance but, unless you have some way of only making statements that hold for all induviduals across all countries and Protestant denominations (good luck) we will continue the discussion in such terms.

If people keep on making statements that perpetuate sexist stereotypes or are based on them, others will keep on objecting. Ditch the stereotypes and this discussion might move forward. The problem is not simply that these generalizations are "not true in every instance" but that they are inadequate characterizations of large groups of people.

It does not serve the football-watching, beer-drinking, curry-eating, fast-car-driving men to label their behavior as "masculine" or "macho" and then try to figure out how to get them into church on that basis. I think it's the stereotypes that are keeping these guys out of church.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.

I think you've hit on something here. I think that, unlike in churches with a sacramental understanding of worship, other churches tend to see church as an evangelistic tool.

Historically, becoming fully integregrated into the life of a faith community happened after someone was drawn into faith - hence the dismissal of catechumens before the Eucharistic part of the service, etc. I'm not saying that that's a particularly desirable thing to return to, but I am pointing out that,in the beginning, worship services were for worship by the Christian community and not for hooking in converts. The conversion process was assumed to be happening through Christians' interactions with others throughout the rest of the week , and the non-Christian community's observance of Christians' behavior (the "Look at how they love one another!" -- which really did seem to make a mark in pagan antiquity).

I would argue that that is the model that we should follow -- not using worship as a sales pitch to the outside.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I've heard that the hardest people to sell anything to is young men, and that much of advertizing is therefore directed their way.

I don't know if I buy that [Biased]

, nor do I see any confirmation from google. So it may be wrong.

The relevance here, if true, is the idea that churches can only succeed if they succeed in selling themselves to young men. Young women are supposedly an easier sell.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

but someone please tell me what the actual understanding of worship is from a protestant perspective, so that people like LutheranChik and me can understand why "masculine", "feminine", "old", "young", &c. preferences are so much depended on to make people feel that going and taking part in it is worthwhile.

A church I used to go to had a group that catered for people that liked dressing up and getting ritual correct they were called servers. Another church I want to had bell ringers and they had a wild social life. I went to a group, when I was into that kind of thing, that said the used the Rosary an silence for an hour and then went to the pub. Many churches have choirs who consist of people who like singing.

None of these seem like particularly protestant activities to me.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My church is in the broad catholic tradition of Christianity. We're not going to jettison almost 2,000 years of Christian worship praxis -- which, BTW, seemed to be just fine for generations of males -- and turn Sunday mornings into gender-segregated, ridiculously stereotyped Does and Stags confabs because of some whingeing subgroup of insecure individuals who evidently can't define themselves otherwise.

And I like both "macho" guys and at least the concept behind those "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs!! [Axe murder]

But then I see that as being quite orthodox theology of Christ the Bridegroom and us the Bride. (The question of lyrical or musical value in any given song is another matter.) I think this is a point of Christian doctrine which, if it is an obstacle to men coming to church, they will have to understand sooner or later, whether here or in the afterlife.

David

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

duchess and quantpole, thank you.

At my church, we aren't a large community. Our Sunday attendance can vary between 8 and 30, although there are a few other people associated with the parish. We have Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians. Now as Orthodox churches are hardly to be found on every street corner, I can hardly use that as evidence in the point I'm making.

However, we also have a married couple - the husband, Nigerian and the wife, English - we have elderly and young people, we have two male and one female professional musicians, we have a female teacher and a female counsellor, a male social worker, we have two new people who are preparing to be received - both men - one of whom is gay and the other of whom has no church background whatsoever. We have another relatively new person who is a recent immigrant from one of the non-English-speaking Caribbean Islands, where Orthodoxy is unknown. She can manage only a handful of words in English and yet she comes along too.

The point I'm making is that we don't alter what we do to tailor it to the preferences of any of these people. We just teach the Orthodox Faith and worship according to the Orthodox way, which is solidly Trinitarian and God-focussed, and the people come. It is the Faith that we have in common: the teachings and worship that are central to what we do and the Sacramental grace received therein. We focus our efforts on that and we try to do it well.

Over coffee afterwards, yes, of course when socialising we try to be as open as possible to each others' backgrounds and varied situations, but that doesn't amount to tailoring church to individuals or groups: that's just us exercising basic social skills over tea and scones.

I think there's something in what RuthW has said about the sterortyping being a possible deterrent. Making a particular effort to "reach out" to a particular group by playing on what we think that group will like, usually stinks to high heaven of "gimmick". I remember this from my recent teenage years, when everybody seemed to know what "young people" wanted in church, as though we were some sort of homogenous group. One result was a service in Manchester Cathedral, where the penitential rite involved people walking round with wheelie-bins, singing "Put your sin in the bin: give it to the Lord", while we put bits of (a rather nice, satin) fabric in said bins.

Now I'm not suggesting that anything of that vomit-inducing scale would happen in trying to cater to men, but I still don't see what is lacking in the worship that altering it it to suit our perceived ideas of the tastes of particular groups is seen as necessary.

[ 22. December 2005, 16:45: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm trying to avoid jumping to the conclusion that that is the mentality behind the concerns raised here, but I've asked and nobody has attempted to explain otherwise. Now PhilA's post very much conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.

Its based on 1 Corinthians 20:23 for a start, but also on plain common sense.

As it says in the OP, this is about 'attracting men'. Not just how the services are run on a regular basis. If some people on the thread are talking about how to run weekly services, and some are talking about outreach, and others that don't differentiate between the two, then we will never get close to talking to each other, let alone learning anything from what each other is saying.

As I said in my post you quoted it is not about changing the message for different groups of people, but it is about putting the message across in a way that is best understood by those listening to it so they can respond knowing what it is they are responding to.

I don't see thins as individualism at all. I see it as plain common sense.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

A great book on this topic is Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down by Dr. Marva Dawn, a theologian specializing in the theology of worship, and a church musician as well. Among the issues she tackles is "What is worship for?" and the pitfalls of imposing a marketing model on the worship service.

As a matter of fact, Dawn has a number of good books on this topic.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:
conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.

I think you've hit on something here. I think that, unlike in churches with a sacramental understanding of worship, other churches tend to see church as an evangelistic tool.

Historically, becoming fully integregrated into the life of a faith community happened after someone was drawn into faith - hence the dismissal of catechumens before the Eucharistic part of the service, etc. I'm not saying that that's a particularly desirable thing to return to, but I am pointing out that,in the beginning, worship services were for worship by the Christian community and not for hooking in converts. The conversion process was assumed to be happening through Christians' interactions with others throughout the rest of the week , and the non-Christian community's observance of Christians' behavior (the "Look at how they love one another!" -- which really did seem to make a mark in pagan antiquity).

I would argue that that is the model that we should follow -- not using worship as a sales pitch to the outside.

Incidentally, my church still dismisses the catechumens, and it isn't just a token gesture. We are actually expected to leave.

quote:
Originnaly posted by Nightlamp:
A church I used to go to had a group that catered for people that liked dressing up and getting ritual correct they were called servers. Another church I want to had bell ringers and they had a wild social life. I went to a group, when I was into that kind of thing, that said the used the Rosary an silence for an hour and then went to the pub. Many churches have choirs who consist of people who like singing.

None of these seem like particularly protestant activities to me.

Or to me.

Regarding the servers and Rosary group, these examples don't work. I'm guessing that they weren't a bunch of people, all from one particular grouping, who had come to the church because their grouping was targetted. I rather suspect that they were a different people, more than likely from diferent backgrounds, who came along and bypassed those differences to engage in the worship of the church, exercising a particular type of ministry therein. The same goes for the choir. Did the church in question specifically target people who were musical or did people who were musical come along and volunteer to take part in the worship that bypassed the differences in the backgrounds of the people in the church?

As for the bell-ringers, it sounds to me that much of what they did were social activities engaged in by people who happened to know each other from church. While I think that social activities are a good way to get to know each other and to build a community, socialising and church are not the same thing.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I have to say while my faith is different than B2F's, we have the same mindset of not selling it to a particular group of people. We have different races (and some Russian families too [Big Grin]

), married, single, divorced...etc. Old and young. The Gospel is preached from the Pulpit the same no matter who is attending. God's Spirit speaks to each person with Scripture, there is no need to water it down, or tweak it. The examples given to explain things may be American/Californian/Male since the elders are all male Californians however we have had visitors who live all over the world speak and they say the same type of things, just use different stories/examples to explain something.

I have a hard time with the American marketing approach which is why I left the Seeker-type churches. The ones I attended were so into making things comfortable and not stepping on toes that no accountability was given. There were programs to be had but little structure

[ 22. December 2005, 17:09: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I'm trying to avoid jumping to the conclusion that that is the mentality behind the concerns raised here, but I've asked and nobody has attempted to explain otherwise. Now PhilA's post very much conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.
Its based on 1 Corinthians 20:23 for a start, but also on plain common sense.

As it says in the OP, this is about 'attracting men'. Not just how the services are run on a regular basis. If some people on the thread are talking about how to run weekly services, and some are talking about outreach, and others that don't differentiate between the two, then we will never get close to talking to each other, let alone learning anything from what each other is saying.

As I said in my post you quoted it is not about changing the message for different groups of people, but it is about putting the message across in a way that is best understood by those listening to it so they can respond knowing what it is they are responding to.

I don't see thins as individualism at all. I see it as plain common sense.

I think I misunderstood your post because of a preconception I had in mind while reading it.

If we're talking about interacting with people in our day-to-day lives, and even in our preaching in church, then yes, it is common sense. Upon re-reading your post, it seems that that is precisely to what you were referring.

Because my reading of and posting to this thread had been in the context of worship, I misread you to be advocating tailoring the worship to individual or group preferences. I understand now that that isn't what you were saying and I apologise if I misrepresented your position.

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
Sitting with a friend drinking coffee, my heart sank as I heard another variation on what had become a familiar complaint; “Don’t get me wrong, I love Jesus, it’s just the church I can’t stand. It’s not a place that I belong.”

I'm a girl. And your friend's complaint is exactly how I feel. It is annoying in this thread to be told, "Well you're female. So obvliously you like church and those lovey-dovey songs..." Not.

I think there's a lot more problems with the church then the absense of a testosterone-packed atmosphere.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Young women are supposedly an easier sell.

? I just don't know what to say to this.

[ 22. December 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
a nice pink church with lots of candles and flowers with a 'Jesus wants to be your boyfriend' message

AAAGGGH!!! [Eek!]

Barbie's Dream Church! [Killing me]

No, never encountered that at all, myself. Well, yes I have, but not any church, more the glurge department of the local religious bookshop.

I have to ask one possibly relevant question --

How do we know that the uneven numbers of men/women at church have to do with the church not attracting enough men? What if it's more a matter of the church attracting too many women for the wrong reasons?

This is just a hypothesis, but it occurs to me that it's a tenable one. The assumption that what is needed most is to fill the most pews is perhaps false. Maybe there are indeed men (and women) who are called to be Christians and attend church who aren't doing so, but why might it not be women (and men) who are going to church for some cultural, non-religious reason? Say someone who otherwise might not bother with prayer and faith but loves being on committees and so on? In that case then making more groups to attract men for cultural reasons would be just the wrong thing to do. It might even be better if fewer people of either gender attended church, and reached out to the people most in need, rather than some elements of churchy culture which might really be the main factor at work.

And while we don't want to put a stumbling-block in anyone's way, in some ways Jesus Himself is a stumbling-block for people, and if His being loving and kind (there's a whole thread on God and gender here in Purg which I'm kind of fatigued by right now, myself, but going on) is considered too "feminine" then, well, maybe that's just something for those "macho" guys to get over -- or redefine their understanding of what manliness means -- as part of their Christian journey.

David

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

PS: Not that cultural things and faith are at all mutually exclusive; I am thinking of those people who might be going to church only because their family did, or who like committees, or for whom church is the place they have always socialized, but not with real faith.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Agh, edit post ran out before I could finish this addition:

Hmmm. I just asked myself why particularly women would like church committees all that much and immediately thought, "Well, some years ago, that was the only place they had any power or respect, wasn't it?" So perhaps that might be a factor, but again not one connected to finding ways of getting men to join church, unless one proposes disenfranchising men from political and economic power in the secular world so church becomes more attractive.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Our church council is pretty evenly split male-female, and our worship committee/quasi-diaconal team is moving in that direction after being mostly female. So gender equity is how we do things. And even when our worship committee was all female except for one layman and the pastor, I cannot think of any pink-and-girly worship modalities in our church.

I really must live in a sectarian ghetto, because I'm just not visualizing what the great problem is here.

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :

I was just told that I'm not a serious Christian because I don't 'temper my language' (i.e. I cussed).

I'm a girl, the person telling me this is a guy who used to be a Baptist preacher.

I'm going to have to say right now that I think his church was probably too girly for me.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

[Big Grin]

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So perhaps that might be a factor, but again not one connected to finding ways of getting men to join church, unless one proposes disenfranchising men from political and economic power in the secular world so church becomes more attractive.

Hmmmm.....

Just kidding. [Big Grin]

Hey, is this common? I just realised, yes, I know I've only been an Episcopalian for a whole three years, but I've seen three seperate parishes and four vestrys-- and in three of the four there was a female Senior Warden and a male Junior Warden.

Do I just pick the wierd parishes, or what?

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :

Matrix's original post was v. good IMHO.

Personally I think duchess has a point: whingeing about gender stereotypes too much can be unhelpful - and I say that as a female who doesn't fit the psychological stereotypes in every sense (but in some ways I probably do). Most people do to a certain degree though, and therefore I think the stereotypes are helfpul in that they can attract the majority of people into a community. After all, Christianity is supposed to be a faith that is open to all people, right ?

I also think it's true that in terms of conversion, people might be more likely to be reached by someone of the same sex. Hence men are more likely to be reached by men.
If anybody here watched 'The Monastery', one of the interesting things about that was how these men were drawn closer to the Christian faith by being in an all-male community of monks. None of the single men there could get away with hoping that a woman would solve their life-problems and rescue them, or be a mother or a therapist to them. They had to reckon with other men. They weren't becoming interested in a commitment to Christianity in order to please women but because they realised the Christian faith had something to offer them. I'm sure there's a lesson there somewhere for churches.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Coming late to this argument, I just read the article linked in the OP.

The author makes the point that, while mainline Protestant groups have higher-proportion female attendance, but other groups, such as synagogues and mosques, have higher-proportion male, and so don't have "the problem".

In other words, a "true" religious group (or, at least, one "without problems") is one with a preponderance of males.

I sense the same problem that exercised St. Paul- women who can be seen, or, even worse, women who might have an opinion!

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Well, we all know that men are the

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :

one's who like to complete other people's sentences? [Biased]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Well, that...and...

No...I must have hit the enter key too early. Now I've ruined the punchline. Nevermind. [Hot and Hormonal]

Although maybe someone can start this over on the games forum and everyone can play "finish the sentence." [Biased]

Posted by andrewschmidt (# 10822) on :

In my church we do a kids church/ kids sermons sometimes and try to help children learn to worship as adults, but at the same time to worship as kids right now. This is I suspect partially to help increase church attendance amongst younger people. No-one seems to be saying that that is bad.I am also faced with the statistical (sp?) reality that our diocese wishes for a 60/40 split, I am told it is closer to 70/30. We still have a larger number of men ordained than woman, but that is changing. My question is why (I am aware of some historcal factors) and far more importantly what should I be doing about it, if anything. p.s. the 70/30 split is not reflective of the demographic of the region.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

I'll be honest. My suspicion is that the focus is too heavily on the individual. I know that this is one of the main problems that I have with the way theology is worked in in many protestant traditions (and it is actually how the protestant tradition came about in the first place), but I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that this sort of individualism was what was causing this unease of certain groups in church without discussing it first.

Fr Alex, on another thread, noted the trend he has noticed of what he called the church of I - I want, &c.

I'm trying to avoid jumping to the conclusion that that is the mentality behind the concerns raised here, but I've asked and nobody has attempted to explain otherwise. Now PhilA's post very much conjures up the image in my mind that worship of God is reduced to putting on a show for an audience, catering for the audience's tastes and personal preferences.

If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but someone please tell me what the actual understanding of worship is from a protestant perspective, so that people like LutheranChik and me can understand why "masculine", "feminine", "old", "young", &c. preferences are so much depended on to make people feel that going and taking part in it is worthwhile.

I've gone back to this perceptive observation, because I think it contains the essence of the issue. I also want to avoid the classic proskuneo/latreo debates if at all possible, because in the context of this thread, they probably represent a digression.

Worship is for God. It may be offered communally, or individually, but it is essentially, a sacrifice of praise, not only with our lips but with our lives. It also contains the notions of encounter and invocation. Encounter in the sense expressed in Psalm 100 (metricised for effect)

"O enter then his gates with praise
Approach with joy his courts unto"

Invocation in the sense that God inhabits the praises of his people. A classical illustrative scripture would be 2 Chron 5 v 13-14.

This is the sense in which I understand worship as a sacrament (and it may not be precisely the same as LutheranChik's understanding). If worship is evangelistic, it is so incidentally. If worship degenerates into performance or entertainment it is at best a delusion and at worst a blasphemy.

A classic modern formation in the renewal movement is to say that worship is for an audience of One (that is the proskuneo understanding) and the correct posture is "face down". I think this meaning of worship has been rediscovered in the protestant renewal movement, but has often been distorted as well.

Within this understanding, the notions of catering for tastes, or gender distinctions, or musical preferences, get put into a proper perspective. The consumer approach to worship is not necessarily protestant, or catholic, or orthodox. It is the prevailing spirit of the age and it therefore affects the way we are together. Viewed correctly, worship is actually the complete opposite of self-satisfaction.

I do not claim this to be the prevailing protestant view. It is my best understanding, as a protestant, of a good view of worship.

Posted by ladyinred (# 10688) on :

I'm not sure if this really belongs here or in the '72 virgins' thread, but I think it's probably more a purgatorial-style musing so I'll put it here...

Recently an edition of 'le point' came out in France called 'Christ et Mahomet: le grand affrontement' (Christ and Mohammed: the great confrontration) which I decided to read just to find out what it was about

There was a very interesting article in there by a Muslim guy explaining why he considers Islam superior and more appealing religion to Christianity. His main reason is that he considers Islam to be a more manly and virile religion. The things emphasised in Christianity are all things that he said Islam considers a bit effeminate - serving, letting your enemy slap you back etc.

Mohammed on the other hand (in this guy's description) was a proper manly type of chap who had wives, permitted holy war and the like, unlike Jesus who ended up with the ultimate disgrace of being crucified

Not sure quite what my point is here, but certainly in this guy's PoV, Christianity as a whole is a bit woosy and real manly men become Muslims ...

Red x

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

Regarding the servers and Rosary group, these examples don't work. I'm guessing that they weren't a bunch of people, all from one particular grouping,

Of course they were, they were people who liked a particular kind of ritual and not unlike a mens group that liked curries or the mothers Union. It seems to me that in your mind that you have good catholic kind of groups and bad groups and I can see no difference. Just groups that get together as part of the church some organised and some not but all involved in some way in the mission of the church.

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

who had come to the church because their grouping was targetted.

I thought 'Father' asked us to become servers.

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

At my church, we aren't a large community. Our Sunday attendance can vary between 8 and 30, although there are a few other people associated with the parish. We have Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians. Now as Orthodox churches are hardly to be found on every street corner, I can hardly use that as evidence in the point I'm making.

It is evidence of small church dynamics I have seen it in a small pentecostal church on an estate.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Of course they were, they were people who liked a particular kind of ritual and not unlike a mens group that liked curries or the mothers Union.

I want to join the men's group that likes the mothers Union. Are they still accepting applications?

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Regarding the servers and Rosary group, these examples don't work. I'm guessing that they weren't a bunch of people, all from one particular grouping,
Of course they were, they were people who liked a particular kind of ritual and not unlike a mens group that liked curries or the mothers Union.

I'm not sure I made clear the point I trying to make. These people who became servers were already part of the church, no doubt. I'm guessing the church in question didn't specially tailor the worship for people who like a certain type of ceremonial so as to target that group of servers. They became servers after they were already in the church, as part of exercising their ministry within it. It wasn't used as some gimmick to attract them.

quote:
It seems to me that in your mind that you have good catholic kind of groups and bad groups and I can see no difference.

I'm sorry, Nightlamp, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say here.

I'm drawing a distinction between what we're talking about on this thread, which is tailoring church to particular people's (specifically, men's) tastes, and some of the situations you cited, which were not examples of this, but were rather examples of people who wwre already in the church just exercising their ministries and spirituality. As I saw it, those examples were a red herring.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
who had come to the church because their grouping was targetted.
I thought 'Father' asked us to become servers.

Some people are asked to perform a particular ministry within church; others volunteer. I've never been asked, and I was a server for years. That wasn't a hobby - it was a part of the worship of the church for which people were required, and I was able and willing to do it, so I did. I still don't see what any of this has to do with changing what church is about to cater for people's tastes.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
At my church, we aren't a large community. Our Sunday attendance can vary between 8 and 30, although there are a few other people associated with the parish. We have Russians, Greeks and Ukrainians. Now as Orthodox churches are hardly to be found on every street corner, I can hardly use that as evidence in the point I'm making.

It is evidence of small church dynamics I have seen it in a small pentecostal church on an estate.

I don't have enough experience of small church communities to comment, but it's interesting to know and bear in mind for my future visits to other parishes. Thank you.

[code]

[ 23. December 2005, 18:41: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Worship is for God. It may be offered communally, or individually, but it is essentially, a sacrifice of praise, not only with our lips but with our lives. It also contains the notions of encounter and invocation. Encounter in the sense expressed in Psalm 100 (metricised for effect)

"O enter then his gates with praise
Approach with joy his courts unto"

Invocation in the sense that God inhabits the praises of his people. A classical illustrative scripture would be 2 Chron 5 v 13-14.

This is the sense in which I understand worship as a sacrament (and it may not be precisely the same as LutheranChik's understanding). If worship is evangelistic, it is so incidentally. If worship degenerates into performance or entertainment it is at best a delusion and at worst a blasphemy.

Thank you, Barnabas62. I agree with you entirely. I especially like this line:

quote:
If worship is evangelistic, it is so incidentally.

quote:
A classic modern formation in the renewal movement is to say that worship is for an audience of One (that is the proskuneo understanding) and the correct posture is "face down". I think this meaning of worship has been rediscovered in the protestant renewal movement, but has often been distorted as well.

Within this understanding, the notions of catering for tastes, or gender distinctions, or musical preferences, get put into a proper perspective. The consumer approach to worship is not necessarily protestant, or catholic, or orthodox. It is the prevailing spirit of the age and it therefore affects the way we are together. Viewed correctly, worship is actually the complete opposite of self-satisfaction.

I do not claim this to be the prevailing protestant view. It is my best understanding, as a protestant, of a good view of worship.

Having read what you've said, I think you're right. My assumption that worship=individualosed/entertainment was a protestant phenomenon was mainly because of the context of this thread from a protestant perspective, and its marked difference between what was being discussed and my own (non-protestant) experience. Having now thought about it some more, I think you're quite right in that there are elements of it elsewhere.

This is one of my main objections to Mass "in the round" or with the priest gazing at the people across the altar. The main focus ceases to be God and, unwittingly, becomes the priest and the gathered community.

"We're all going to gather together in our little circle, because we're the Christian community and God is in our midst. Therefore, we have to see everything that's going on at the altar otherwise we'll feel excluded, and we don't like it when the priest says those private prayers because we can't hear it, and, after all, it is really all about us, isn't it?"

This is, of course, an exaggeration and many a priest will be able to sensitively perform the liturgy so as not to create this image. However, this is what comes across to me a lot of the time, and it becomes all the more apparent when one regularly worships in a largely eastward-facing context and then goes back to westward-facing and notices the difference in emphasis throughout. I can't help but feel that it's very much a part of the same "us" mentality, existing in Catholic circles perhaps as much as elsewhere.

PhilA earlier made me realise the significant difference between the appropriateness of tailoring evangelism to individuals' needs and the inappropriateness of tailoring worship to individuals' wants, and we need to find a right balance, especially in places where a sermon is customarily used as a break from worship time.

I really do think it's a much bigger issue than what men and women prefer in church.

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :

I think there is much that is good and much that is bad in all this.

A protestant church is usually seen as a mixture of a missionary church, a pastoral chapel and a worshipping body. So this would be the view of a church existing for its non-members, with the primary example being the sight of how its members love each other.

If I understand the more catholic/orthodox view here it is that the role of the church as a worshipping body is sometimes neglected [in protestant churches], or appears to be neglected from the perspective of outsiders, compared to the other two. This is the case in some protestant churches, but I don't think it is necessarily the case.

There is more of a culture in protestant churches of shopping round for a church that suits me, though there are plenty of RCs who travel out of parish too. That does not have to be about the individualistic materialism that gives me a thrill or control, but the best place for an individual to serve. I am sure it often degenerates into selfishness but that is because the individuals are selfish rather than the church promoting it.

[eta]

[ 23. December 2005, 18:58: Message edited by: Jonathan the Free ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I am sure it often degenerates into selfishness but that is because the individuals are selfish rather than the church promoting it.

This is helpful in the overall context of this thread. It is not wrong for any church community to look critically at what it does, taking into account both continuity and accessibility. But I dont reckon much to pandering, to the selfish or anyone else. What does it profit any of us to "gain the world" at the cost of our collective "soul"?

In this context, I liked ladyinred's post, particular this gem.

quote:
The things emphasised in Christianity are all things that he said Islam considers a bit effeminate - serving, letting your enemy slap you back etc.

Mohammed on the other hand (in this guy's description) was a proper manly type of chap who had wives, permitted holy war and the like, unlike Jesus who ended up with the ultimate disgrace of being crucified

Bring it on! I'm very happy to proclaim to the warlike, in season and out of season, the "folly and loss" of Christ crucified. We're talking "Prince of Peace" here, not "Prince of War". (It also gives me a chance to say what real folly I think the crusades were.)

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
There was a very interesting article in there by a Muslim guy explaining why he considers Islam superior and more appealing religion to Christianity. His main reason is that he considers Islam to be a more manly and virile religion. The things emphasised in Christianity are all things that he said Islam considers a bit effeminate - serving, letting your enemy slap you back etc.

I guess our loss is their gain, then.

Maybe he can convert some of the whining Protestant he-men who can't bear "peace, love and understanding" either. Line forms on the right. 'Bye! [Snigger]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

[tangent] When my step-aunt died (a Shiite Muslim), I had the horrible experience of going through the whole Muslim death viewing-burial-memorial thang.
IT SUCKED.

Not only did I have to deal with her death, my step-mom's intense pain, seeing her smallest kidlets asking my step-sister to "be my mommy since my mommy is dead" but I had to deal with quaint Muslim customs. I will list them here:
1) Seeing my aunt's body, her face twisted towards Mecca. Beautiful lady, that was her spaceship, not her as I remember her.
2) Being forced to move since I was in the way of Mecca on the grass during burial at Islamic gravesite (not making this shit up)
3) My step-mom not being allowed to participate in the symbolic act of throwing dirt on her coffin since she is woman, but AH she did not step aside and definantly went up there (me and my sister-in-law started cheering way in the back and clapping)
4)Being forced to hear the Koran song (they sing it LOUDLY) for hours
5)The Iman told us "we believe just like you Jews and Christians, no different. Jesus was a prophet, a man."
5)Last but not least, my favorite, being ostracized for going up after the memorial was over and helping myself to food. Why? Because I am a woman! I am supposed to "wait until the men serve themselves first, then the women can go up".

No, again, I am not making this shit up. [/tangent]

[eta: My sister-in-law, a bleeding-edge-Liberal was even pushed over the edge. To make her feel better, I suggested alcoholic drinks at the Elephant Bar & pork sandwiches. It was very theraputic.]

[ 23. December 2005, 21:52: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

What is any of that stunning display of cultural bigotry supposed to prove, duchess?

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What is any of that stunning display of cultural bigotry supposed to prove, duchess?

What I have seen of Islam is for more demeaning to women than anything I have seen from other religions and I find it a macho religion. [Sorry for hellish tangent, RuthW, in purgatory.]

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
This is, of course, an exaggeration and many a priest will be able to sensitively perform the liturgy so as not to create this image. However, this is what comes across to me a lot of the time, and it becomes all the more apparent when one regularly worships in a largely eastward-facing context and then goes back to westward-facing and notices the difference in emphasis throughout. I can't help but feel that it's very much a part of the same "us" mentality, existing in Catholic circles perhaps as much as elsewhere.

PhilA earlier made me realise the significant difference between the appropriateness of tailoring evangelism to individuals' needs and the inappropriateness of tailoring worship to individuals' wants, and we need to find a right balance, especially in places where a sermon is customarily used as a break from worship time.

I really do think it's a much bigger issue than what men and women prefer in church.

BtF and Barnabas62, [Overused]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
What I have seen of Islam is for more demeaning to women than anything I have seen from other religions and I find it a macho religion.

And how much of what you saw can you be sure stemmed from religion and how much from culture?

This is not altogether irrelevant to the main thrust of the thread, either, as I continue to think that what we're talking about are cultural things, not religious or spiritual things.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
What I have seen of Islam is for more demeaning to women than anything I have seen from other religions and I find it a macho religion.
And how much of what you saw can you be sure stemmed from religion and how much from culture?

This is not altogether irrelevant to the main thrust of the thread, either, as I continue to think that what we're talking about are cultural things, not religious or spiritual things.

I do not know how much honestly is culture or religion...or cultural interpetation of religion. That is a question I have thought about before.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

RuthW

I suppose when "stunning displays of cultural bigotry" occur, they will invariably wound some. of them. Woundings which occur in this way always remind me of some lines from "The Boxer". We carry the reminders of every glove that laid us low, or cut us, and we cry out, in our anger and our pain. I feel a real sorrow for duchess and her sister-in-law.

Deep in our roots, there is an understanding of repaying evil with good. By extension, I guess one can apply it to these sorts of insensitivities. The alcohol and pork sandwiches offer might not have been exactly "good" in any conventional sense but I have a suspicion that it probably did duchess's sister-in-law some good.

If I may throw in an analogy, not 1000 miles away from the point of the OP, a good friend of ours was discussing recently the effect of unconsciously sexist language in a church service to which she had taken a non-churchgoing friend from work. Her friend, used to a a fairly typical PC work environment, read into the words a whole load of Neanderthal attitudes to women which were actually not typical of that church at all. They had a very long conversation about it all afterwards.

Cultural sensitivies cut both ways. In considering the meaning of the things we do, there can be a very thin line between "making accessible" and "pandering". The one thing which was very clear from duchess's painful story was the extent to which her presence as a mourner, and her unfamiliarity with what was going on, were NOT taken into account by those who were responsible for the rite of passage. I've seen that fault demonstrated on a few occasions at Christian funerals.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ps - omitted to delete "of them" and just noticed. No mystery, just crap editing.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Headmaster Richard A. Hawley believes that when a society's concepts of manly and womanly have gone awry, a society will obsess over those issues just as miners will obsess over their breathing when the air has gone bad.

That this thread has burgeoned to three pages in less than two days might be Exhibit A.'

I'd suggest as Exhibit B: a search of these pages, as well as of the article provoking the OP, for the word "boy" turns up only the irrelevant equivocation "boyfriend."

Churchmen begin life as boys. Dirty word.

For centuries, boychoirs were the rule in the church. They were the original youth movement. The structure of a scout troop descends from the antiphony between cantoris and decani. They were customary, too, throughout the U.S. in the days (yes, they existed) when it appeared that the Episcopal Church would sweep all before her.

But then she lost her nerve. In the 1960s and later, minutes of the meetings of any organization in ECUSA mentioning boychoirs would probably be considering them not as groups of young people exemplary in their dedication to the glory of God, but as a problem of some kind: how do we get rid of them?

A parish in my locale succeeded, after a lengthy campaign (I know one of the former choirmasters) in killing off its choir of men and boys almost on the morrow of its 100-year anniversary. A few years later, the beloved, long-tenured rector died of cancer. In the search for his successor, the parish profile bemoaned not only the state to which the music had fallen, but the lack of a youth program. What has happened? The new rector must address these problems.

One thinks of the proverbial deliquent who has killed his parents and then commends himself to the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

An interesting thought, Alogon. Church choirs certainly increased the numbers of boys in churches, but so - arguably - did boys' brigades (I don't know enough about them to know if they are still going).
Interestingly, for the ten years that I've been attending my present church, the youth group has almost entirely been made up of teenage boys. And a large majority of the youth group are also choir members. There is some sort of loyalty to the church which appeals to boys going on here and which needs to be carefully nurtured into the future.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
It seems to me that in your mind that you have good catholic kind of groups and bad groups and I can see no difference.
I'm sorry, Nightlamp, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say here.

I'm drawing a distinction between what we're talking about on this thread, which is tailoring church to particular people's (specifically, men's) tastes, and some of the situations you cited, which were not examples of this, but were rather examples of people who wwre already in the church just exercising their ministries and spirituality.

Sorry if it is unclear you seem to be saying that,
Good groups are; Servers (people who like ritual) choirs (people who like to sing) Mothers unions and a Rosary group and Bell ringers.

Bad groups are for instance, men's discussion groups, women’s prayer breakfasts, support group for the depressed.

I struggle to see any difference between them for they all providing something for sub-groups within the church and each one is tailored to differing people's interests. The only conclusion is that you feel the church should not provide for certain sub-groups which seems a little weird.

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
It seems to me that in your mind that you have good catholic kind of groups and bad groups and I can see no difference.
I'm sorry, Nightlamp, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say here.

I'm drawing a distinction between what we're talking about on this thread, which is tailoring church to particular people's (specifically, men's) tastes, and some of the situations you cited, which were not examples of this, but were rather examples of people who wwre already in the church just exercising their ministries and spirituality.
Sorry if it is unclear you seem to be saying that,
Good groups are; Servers (people who like ritual) choirs (people who like to sing) Mothers unions and a Rosary group and Bell ringers.

Bad groups are for instance, men's discussion groups, women’s prayer breakfasts, support group for the depressed.

I struggle to see any difference between them for they all providing something for sub-groups within the church and each one is tailored to differing people's interests. The only conclusion is that you feel the church should not provide for certain sub-groups which seems a little weird.

Thanks for clarifying, Nightlamp.

All I can say is that my intention isn't to distinguish between "good" groups and "bad" groups. In fact, that distinction isn't part of what my argument is about at all.

If a group of men from church wanted to start a social group where they met up every fortnight to go to the pub or play the football or something of the sort, I would see that as nothing but a good thing. The point I'm making is that that is simply a social activity which stems from, and perhaps contributes to, having a healthy community, of any sort, church or otherwise. Their forming such a group would not be an example of what I am arguing against, which is amending the worship of the church to pander to people who say it's too "girly".

Altar servers, on the other hand, is a whole other kettle of fish. They aren't a social group of people who meet because they like ritual. They are individuals who exercise a particular ministry within the worship of the church. The worship isn't amended to pander to their preferences as a group. Rather, thay are individuals who are taking part in the worship of the whole in a particular way.

This good group/bad group distinction that you have perceived really doesn't feature at all in anything that I'm saying here. I honestly don't see how you've got that impression. If I've said something to inadvertently imply that, I apologise.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The trouble with Alogon's fantasy about the Good Old Days and nice choirs of little boys is that there have been more women than men in churches in this country since the days when the only places that had choirs were a few cathedrals and posh chapels.

And in other countries in Europe as well. Including ones the Reformation never got to. It seems pretty universal.

Maybe women are just more Christian than men.

And I still think the idea that there are such things as "masculine" or "feminine" spirituality is <words I get told off for swriting in this forum>

[ 26. December 2005, 00:33: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

And I still think the idea that there are such things as "masculine" or "feminine" spirituality is <words I get told off for swriting in this forum>

Preach it, ken. Forgetting about the use of this scripture in consideration of roles, Galatians 3:28 provides a pretty good touchstone for arguing that equality of worth "in Christ" has nothing to do with gender (or race, or social status). So drawing distinctions of spirituality for these reasons is mistaking shadows for substance.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I am lost as to why people keep talking about "worthless" people due to use of language or positions of church. Race? Gender here has been debated on position in church (ie the old priest/pastor/minister/elder thang).

I am quite aware that all are equal in Christ. What you are worth has absolutely nothing to do with your job title, or your purpose in life. God's children are all equal in God's eyes since He loves us because of who He is, not because of anything we do or don't do.

[eta: trying to stick to op so edited out a paragraph]

[ 26. December 2005, 06:30: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The structure of a scout troop descends from the antiphony between cantoris and decani.

I'm confused here.

Scout troops didn't start in church - they were secular educational organisations set up by Baden Powell and his mates.

Their structure and organisation was based on military ideas mixed with some Kipling. With some hangover from the Boy's Brigade - a specifically Christian and evangelical organisation that came out of the Scottish Presbyterians and was itself at least party inspired by the Salvation Army. The Scouts were founded to take that sort of boy's club away from the church and make it more nationalistic and less reglious.

Now in those days lower-middle-class English life had a strong Anglican veneer, and education especially was very associated with the church, so they soon got involved in their local churches. And some of the early boy scouts would also have been choirboys. But thats not where it came from.

Posted by Caleb Woodbridge (# 4578) on :

I think that the so-called "masculine" side of Christianity probably is neglected in parts of the church. There may well be a problem that "today’s gospel is all about finding a happy relationship with a wonderful man", but the problem with that is not that it's supposedly "feminine" but that it doesn't do justice to what the Gospel message actually is.

One of the wonderful and beautiful things about Church should be the way that people of all different ages, gender, race, class and whatever category you care to name, can come together united by faith in Christ. It's a mistake to go chasing after one particular group, or fragment the congregation down into subgroups.

I think the answer is simply to seek to live and preach Gospel in all its fulness and glory, not chasing after different demographic segments.

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:

I think the answer is simply to seek to live and preach Gospel in all its fulness and glory, not chasing after different demographic segments.

And the piont that I was attempting to make is just the same, and so if we spot that a certain group is underrepresented then we need to check our balance, no? Not that we chase after them, but that we seek to include them as well as we include others.

M

Posted by TheoM (# 2318) on :

I wonder whether we need both the stereotyped and the non-stereotyped groups. For example, I'm not a terribly blokey bloke and would feel quite happy at a women's group apart from the fact that I'm excluded. But maybe the women wouldn't feel comfortable about me being there. Perhaps there's an aspect of creating a space for those who find the stereotypes helpful as well as those who don't?

This is helped by there being enough groups that feeling excluded from one isn't a big deal as there are others. The caveat being that we end up with so many groups that they're unsustainable unless we're in a mega-church.

Posted by Br. Scapular (# 10820) on :

What an interesting thread. This is obviously a complex and loaded discussion! I scarcely dare to add my two cents here, but here goes.

I would see a church meeting on Sunday as primarily a Worship Service (even a Eucharistic one). I am a lifelong ECUSA member, and so I have an understanding of what’s happening on Sunday that’s similar to my Orthodox/RC/Lutheran sisters and brothers. So perhaps, indeed, I don’t have much right to comment on what’s going on in an Evangelical or Fundamentalist church. However, my thoughts about whatever portion of any church service is worship might be relevant there as well.

Worship, whether it’s of YHWH, Jesus, the Bible, Allah, Krishna, Siva or Buddha, implies a relationship between the worshipper and the Worshipped. This relationship is one of, say, creature to Creator, sinner to Redeemer, ignorance to Truth, illusion to Reality, and so forth (depending on the religion or one’s definitions of God). We are told, by Jesus in the Gospels, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” This denial of self is partly expressed in worship, though it is of course also expressed in many other ways. Contemporary culture and our developing understanding of what’s “manly,” affect our ability to come to terms with this “self denial” bit. Psychology and culture give us to understand that we all have personality aspects that include what was traditionally attributed to only one sex or the other, and while many churches accept this, others find this threatening to the gender-specific roles that they believe integral to their Christian understanding. Issues about masculinity can get hung up on not only differentiation from what’s feminine, but also by what might be considered “effeminate,” (which I’m using as a code-word for gay).

It threatens our egos to “deny ourselves,” to be in the position of worshipper, creature, sinner, etc. Women and men are in the same boat here. Traditionally, however, women have more often been put in the position of the one who must defer to the man as head of the household, so for men, bless their little hearts, it’s seen as doubly difficult to be in second place (even to God) as this is somehow not a masculine or macho role. The issue of same-sex relationships and of gays in the church has only made this more difficult for the traditional male ego, which now must take a kind of double draught of “not only might it be woman-like to submit to God, it might even be gay-like” (seeing something it considers effeminate and blending that with presumed gayness).

While the traditional liturgical churches might seem to have less (or more, depending on one’s perspective) of a problem with the effeminate issue, what with men in various degrees of dress-up performing relatively highly choreographed roles in the context of the liturgy, I’ve seen exactly the same issue played out in at least one of the churches I visited in my area. The priest, clearly a married man and wearing a wedding ring, seemed so uncomfortable with his potentially gender-effacing garb and role that he seemed to go out of his way to emphasize something like “you can see I’m not a woman, but just to be sure you don’t think I’m gay” -- double-time march down the aisle for the procession, alb hitched up high enough that you couldn’t miss the trousers underneath, awkward gestures for the sign of the cross or the required manual acts at the words of Institution, and so forth. (I’ve often seen many married, presumably heterosexual, as well as gay priests, who were graceful in presiding at the liturgy, and neither they nor their congregants would imagine, from anything I could tell, that they were doing anything other than performing their required liturgical function; for both men and women, it’s possible to recognize that it’s the priestly role that’s required, not “femininity” or “masculinity.”)

As a Church, it seems to me that we need to understand that “just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy Blood was shed for me” is not the same thing as creating an image of God that happens to best match my own sex, personality type and consumer choices. We can, of course, relate to some folks better when we have something in common with them, but Church should help us become larger, more compassionate and forgiving. Liberation, Feminist and gay theologies can enrich our understanding of God’s ways, but if we’ve swung so far in the dialectic where traditional male theology needs re-asserting to get the balance back, then so be it (I’m not yet convinced). We all must answer that same call to “deny oneself and take up the Cross,” but the crosses and denials that are asked aren’t usually the ones of our own choosing.

On a lighter note, how about a men’s singing group of something like “Troubadours for Mary.” They can sing all the variants of “Mary is my Lady,” to counterbalance the “Jesus is my boyfriend” crowd. Oops, guess that won’t work without radical theological change for my Evangelical and Fundamentalist brothers and sisters. But hey, the Middle Ages, there’s where we can find some gender roles that had some teeth (or can we?).

(Uh oh, it’s only my second post; of your charity don’t drive the nails in too hard.) Peace.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Br. Scapular:
(Uh oh, it’s only my second post; of your charity don’t drive the nails in too hard.)

No nails here - I thought that was a marvellous summary of some of the issues facing 'traditional' (for want of a better word) men in the Church. [Smile]

I'm not so sure about your "Troubadors" solution though... [Biased]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Br. Scapular:

It threatens our egos to “deny ourselves,” to be in the position of worshipper, creature, sinner, etc. Women and men are in the same boat here. Traditionally, however, women have more often been put in the position of the one who must defer to the man as head of the household, so for men, bless their little hearts, it’s seen as doubly difficult to be in second place (even to God) as this is somehow not a masculine or macho role. The issue of same-sex relationships and of gays in the church has only made this more difficult for the traditional male ego, which now must take a kind of double draught of “not only might it be woman-like to submit to God, it might even be gay-like” (seeing something it considers effeminate and blending that with presumed gayness).

That is a really effective summary. It put a lot of flesh on the bones of my earlier idea that worship, properly considered, is the opposite of self-satisfaction. The "putting to death" of selfishness is not the same as the "putting to death" of maleness - but there are plenty of aspects of "macho" that are basically selfish and worthy death. Well said Br Scapular - and welcome.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:
It seems to me that in your mind that you have good catholic kind of groups and bad groups and I can see no difference.
I'm sorry, Nightlamp, but I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say here.

I'm drawing a distinction between what we're talking about on this thread, which is tailoring church to particular people's (specifically, men's) tastes, and some of the situations you cited, which were not examples of this, but were rather examples of people who wwre already in the church just exercising their ministries and spirituality.
Sorry if it is unclear you seem to be saying that,
Good groups are; Servers (people who like ritual) choirs (people who like to sing) Mothers unions and a Rosary group and Bell ringers.

Bad groups are for instance, men's discussion groups, women?s prayer breakfasts, support group for the depressed.

I struggle to see any difference between them for they all providing something for sub-groups within the church and each one is tailored to differing people's interests. The only conclusion is that you feel the church should not provide for certain sub-groups which seems a little weird.

I do not know where `support group for the depressed' came from in the list of `bad group' as I do not recall such a thing being mentioned in this thread, but I for one see a difference between `servers, ringers, choristers and a rosary group' and `men's discussion groups and and women's prayer breakfasts'. Servers, ringers and choristers meeting together to contribute something to the worship (calling people to it in the case of the ringers)* and the gender of the people involved is not an issue.** A rosary group enables people who find that particular devotion helpful to come together and pray. Having groups which are specifically 'men's' or `women's' groups strike me as different because they focus on gender not on the point of the group. I omitted the MU from the first group because gender was an issue here, although originally it was aimed at mothers specifically. These days, I believe, men can join too though.

Having just read through this thread, I like others was surprised at the gender stereo-typing that was happening, when I thought our culture was moving away from those stereotypes. But, Sioni Sais' mention of

quote:
Sun-reading, football-obsessed, 15 pints-of-lager and 3 shags of a Friday/Saturday nighters

is I think pertinent. However, as I was reading the thread, my brother's fiancé read a statistic from the newspaper that there had been an 80% increase in women arrested for violence in the last five years, particular amongst young women which possibly implies that that particular cultural group is not just male! This Laddish culture exists but it is not just about gender stereotyping but about other cultural factors. Historically, scholarship was a manly pursuit, but that's certainly not seen as macho in our anti-intellectual culture.

Carys

*Maybe I'm biased as a ringer and server who has been a chorister!

**Ignoring those places which do not allow women to serve and choirs of men and boys for now.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0