Thread: Purgatory: A church for men 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=001246
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
The Diocese of Oxford hopes to tackle the shortage of men who attend church... Superficial changes to church services, such as changing the hymns or reducing the number of flowers, amounted to 'rearranging the furniture on the Titanic'.... Many men needed 'a safe forum to work out what they think' in an environment in which 'they are able to swear' or express controversial views.
I read the above (in the Church Times) and thought it's all very well saying this, but how would you actually go about creating a church to specifically attract men. (Presumably one where women are not actually banned altogether, but one with men mainly in mind.) I think we're very good at it on the Ship (you can certainly swear or rail at God here, and nobody much minds, and there is plenty of room for discussion of controversial views) and we - consequently, or coincidentally? - do seem to have quite a large number of male posters. But how on earth would you replicate that in a real life church?
[ 05. January 2015, 23:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Reducing the number of flowers would not attract me more to a church if i were already attracted. It all sounds a little like superficial stereotyping. I wouldn't want as my church one that was mostly men or mostly women. I know women overall have a higher church attendance rate in general, which doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. As long as both had a reasonable representation; it need not be 50-50.
[ 19. January 2011, 15:37: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
Perhaps a few more of those 18th century memorials with *ahem* diaphanous draperies?
I wish I could remember where, but there's a church where the deceased appeared to not only have been the possessor of a truly magnificent right knocker, but also to be very, very cold.
AG
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Perhaps, following the pattern here, by allowing very spirited debate and discussion of issues - something the church doesn't seem very good or practiced at. That's good for everybody, both women and men alike.
Interestingly, BTW, I'm doing some work with Walter Frere's book "The principles of religious ceremonial" - and here's what he writes in his Introductory:
quote:
We have called ceremonial a general feature of human life, because in point of fact it is found everywhere. Court life has its ceremonial, but so has family life. It forms no small part of the attraction of gatherings and societies of one sort or another: the Order of Freemasons may be taken to represent this at one social level, and the Ancient Order of Foresters at another. It is one of the main safeguards of discussion wherever men meet to discuss, from the House of Commons to the 'Magpie and Stump.' It is called in to add solemnity to the administration of justice, and impressiveness to the Army and Navy. It is a masculine weakness, if weakness it be, rather than a feminine one; for it is the peacock, after all, who is most pleased with his appearance, and struts most bravely that all the world may know how pleased he is.
But if we inquire into the reason on which this general feature of human life rests, it is not a mere peacock's love of self-advertisement, but something much more inevitable. A task has to be done: then it must be done somehow. That 'somehow' may be good or bad; therefore prudence suggests that a method should be devised and laid down. Ceremonial has begun.
I obviously bolded the above. (Hey, it's Frere, not me....)
But seriously, folks: debate, questioning, discussion. I think that's where the church misses the point a lot.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I've always thought that the male/female divide in church attendance stems from the fact that, especially in "traditional" family structures and divisions of household labor, most men are typically giving up leisure time to attend church whereas many women are getting a respite from housework and child care. It's a matter of different opportunity costs, not the attractive power of church attendance in itself.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
At least in my own little neck of the woods, that's not so true. I personally don't know that many stay-at-home moms.
Of course that may be because i live in the "inner city" and work in a profession which is predominantly (though not overwhelmingly) female.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
To me, it's a bit of a problem that the church doesn't offer much in the way of an actual, concrete program, the way A.A. does. (There are lots of men in the rooms of A.A. - but of course, the motivation is a bit different there.)
I mean, we're supposed to "believe" and then "be healed." But how is that supposed to work, anyway? Does it work? Maybe for a small number of people - but what about the rest of us?
The church needs some Steps, that's all. Some coherent, concrete program that helps people get in touch with the breadth and depth of what living is. It's lost this, if it ever had hold of it. And there are some Steps that are known to produce these results, and also produce deep love and loyalty.
My $.02, anyway. A.A. is really better at a lot of things than the church is, sorry - but that's something that can be remedied. I'm working on it, anyway..... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
TubaMirum: that's an amazing reference to Magpie and Stump! How did I not know that Frere was from these parts?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
At least in my own little neck of the woods, that's not so true. I personally don't know that many stay-at-home moms.
Who said anything about "stay-at-home moms"? Even for couples where both partners are working housework and childcare still fall more frequently to women than men, a trend that's exacerbated by the "traditional family structure" I mentioned above. In other words, for a lot of men Sunday is a day off work. For their wives, Sunday is a day when they're expected to work another job.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
TubaMirum: that's an amazing reference to Magpie and Stump! How did I not know that Frere was from these parts?
Amos, I wasn't sure what that was! (Actually, what is it?)
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
But how on earth would you replicate that in a real life church?
The Revd Ben Norton in Bridlington seems to be doing a good job of it at XY Lads Church (more on the Fresh Expressions website here.).
From what I know of this church, openness and discussion is encouraged, and any ideas can be expressed. It seems to be built around the idea of discussion rather than teaching, so similar to the Ship in that way. For example, reading the FE website above, there seems to have been a row about who bought rounds in the pub - people got cross and swore and then things were resolved. A bit Hellish, perhaps?
Ben seems to do something similar with St Max Church, which isn't just for men.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The Diocese of Oxford hopes to tackle the shortage of men who attend church... Superficial changes to church services, such as changing the hymns or reducing the number of flowers, amounted to 'rearranging the furniture on the Titanic'.... Many men needed 'a safe forum to work out what they think' in an environment in which 'they are able to swear' or express controversial views.
Hmm. Interesting. Sounds a bit more like a debating society than a church. Mind you, I'm not sure if a debating society could be described as "safe".
If men are anything like me, then I suspect they get the most out of very small group discussions over what they think the meaning of their lives are. A bit like an informal counselling session. However, men will run a mile if there's any attempt to make them feel as though they ought to be grateful for this kind of service being provided for them; they prefer to consider it mutual. And men also won't like it if they feel that such discussions are being used to drive them towards some doctrine or ideology without taking their objections into account.
I'm curious to know how much of this takes place between men informally in the workplace, and in the armed forces.
I'm not sure how you'd create a church to cater for men in this way - but I don't think you do it by screwing about with the liturgy. Which I think fits with what TubaMirum has said.
If the opportunity to discuss what they think is truly safe, then men should not fear that they might be barred from the communion rail over it. Discussions and liturgical celebrations need to be kept separate. Sermons should be thought-provoking - but they should also be short. They certainly should not be the main focus of a liturgical celebration; it's better if the main focus is the eucharist. I suppose that'll be my Oxford Movement sympathies coming out there.
Perhaps the discussions could be had at a coffee shop. Or, better yet, a pub. But you need to be careful not to let them turn into big messy booze-ups too often.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
No, the real problem is what is men's special role in the church today?
I had this discussion with my minister one Sunday morning. We have the women's club, the United Church Women who rule the church kitchen with iron hands. The men get to use it occasionally but we're definitely guests. OK, some of the maintenance is male-dominated but nobody would bat an eye if their granddaughter came out to help us sweep the parking lot. Women have been eligible to be ordained clergy and join the Session since the 1930's.
So what is men's special role? Heck, I baked a communion loaf a few months ago because Head Office sent out a commemorative batch of flour for the United Church of Canada's 85th Anniversary. I turned a few heads during the Official Board meeting when I, the possessor of a penis, offered to bake it into bread. I turned even more heads when it actually tasted good and wasn't cardboard or some other form of freakery.
The problem is that we still have women's roles in church but we've eliminated the special men's role. How do men get to contribute and feel worthy in a manly way?
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Social events of the community. What do men like to do? Talk about mutual interests and do things that don't involve self disclosure. That's not everyone but a sizable group. We have a well attended men's breakfast where there is a speaker about interesting things. It's a meeting people where they are comfortable thing. The other thing that draws is a doing things group: everything from cooking the Shrove Tuesday pancakes to maintenance of some infirm people's homes.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
To me, it's a bit of a problem that the church doesn't offer much in the way of an actual, concrete program, the way A.A. does. (There are lots of men in the rooms of A.A. - but of course, the motivation is a bit different there.)
I don't see people as wanting 'steps' myself. People are more likely to rail against being told to do things in a certain prescribed way. AA isn't exactly popular - most alchoholics don't even go to it unless they've hit rock bottom - I don't think that's the best model.
Personally I think this forum is a better model, as others have said. Lively, free-wheeling discussion. No holds-barred, no one looking worried because you've said something you shouldn't have. Jacob wrestled with God, I think that's what some men are looking for.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I've always thought that the male/female divide in church attendance stems from the fact that, especially in "traditional" family structures and divisions of household labor, most men are typically giving up leisure time to attend church whereas many women are getting a respite from housework and child care. It's a matter of different opportunity costs, not the attractive power of church attendance in itself.
Do you attend a church? If a regularly-attending woman is getting a respite from housework and childcare, it is in exchange for the opportunity to host a coffee hour and teach Sunday School...
--Tom Clune
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
At our church it's physical labor that seems to bring the fellows around -- when we were building our addition we had heretofore marginal members of our congo showing up every day to help swing hammers or put up drywall or what have you.
Church council also seems to be a place where men feel at home -- we have about a 50/50 gender representation there.
Where we can't get men to serve is in worship other than ushering -- as lectors or presenters/servers. I'm not sure why men would think that reading Scripture aloud to the assembly or helping distribute the Eucharist is an affront to their masculinity -- especially since, until fairly recently in history, those roles were their exclusive province.
Is this really a crisis in the church, or is it just another attempt for zero-sum social conservatives to take a sideswipe at gender equity -- "Everything was fine until those uppity women took all the special jobs away from us!"?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
How to get more men in church?
Overthrow capitalism and patriarchy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ah, the annual "there aren't enough men in church" thread!
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How to get more men in church?
Overthrow capitalism and patriarchy.
What will that do?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, the real problem is what is men's special role in the church today?
I had this discussion with my minister one Sunday morning. We have the women's club, the United Church Women who rule the church kitchen with iron hands.
Maybe I just grew up in a very old-fashioned place but there was a time when men in church kitchens was a novelty not because the guys were bursting the doors down to get in and help with the cleaning and the catering, except the women were preventing them; but because nothing got cleaned or catered for unless it was a woman in the kitchen who did it.
Maybe your ladies are simply the inevitable remnant of established old habits of letting the little woman do all the crap kitchen work? And having been left to get on with it for centuries and consequently grown rather used to it are a little reluctant to hand it over? After all if one spends a few millenia telling women their place is in the kitchen it might take a little de-programming to reverse things. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Just a thought.
quote:
So what is men's special role?
I don't know about a special role but I'd be happy if some of our gentlemen would take on any role. The women quietly and without fuss manage to clean, decorate, polish the inside of the church year round without having to be begged or flattered into it. But the easily tended, flat graveyard round the church, which requires only two regular cuts during the growing season, is usually left to one or two over-burdened volunteers.
So I would everybody's special role regardless of genitalia is to do what needs to be done according to the gifts they've been given.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Do women have a "special" role?
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
At least in my own little neck of the woods, that's not so true. I personally don't know that many stay-at-home moms.
Who said anything about "stay-at-home moms"? Even for couples where both partners are working housework and childcare still fall more frequently to women than men, a trend that's exacerbated by the "traditional family structure" I mentioned above. In other words, for a lot of men Sunday is a day off work. For their wives, Sunday is a day when they're expected to work another job.
You are very correct there! Maybe the Church needs to do something to help correct or at least mitigate this situation. I don't have any quick answers but, if planned right, it seems like a good outreach opportunity.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It seems obvious that there are church services attended primarily by males--think of military chaplains.
Does anyone know if the imbalance of the sexes in church attendance is found widespread across national, class and denominational boundaries?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Anselmina:
I`m not arguing your point, in fact I agree with it. The but truth remains that the women still have their province while the men don't really have one anymore. At the present time there is a disconnect there.
So I like to bake. It turns many older lady's heads. Well, when you're a bachelor with a one-bedroom apartment and want a hobby, a kitchen is far easier to use and pay for than power tools and a workshop. Besides, if I want a steak dinner, I have to cook it myself.
And yes, there is a lot of patriarchy and sexism over the whole kitchen thing. So many men of my grandfather's generation were never bachelors living alone and never learned to cook. They worked outside, women worked inside. These same men do not look after themselves well when their wives die first.
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on
:
Well, there's always the Salvation Army - uniforms, ranks, a brass band, fire-and-brimstone preaching.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Contrast two different Bible study groups.
One sits in a rapt circle, waiting for the priest to tell us what to think, and is horrified as a group if anyone challenges anything. It is two-thirds older female.
The other actually has discussion and banter, loathes the "set books" with questions neatly laid out in stifling order, and poses questions as much as it finds answers. It is over half male.
Both my wife and I prefer the latter, BTW. It isn't JUST a gender thing. You have to have some form of involvement that doesn't bring up the Sunday-schoolmarm stifling any questions.
And the guys who do come also take more part in the Sunday service. But they won't take part if there is too much insistence on the exact liturgical form at the expense of the meaning and feeling of the service.
And the men will run away from things like flower arranging that have nothing to do with anything religious.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
The other actually has discussion and banter, loathes the "set books" with questions neatly laid out in stifling order, and poses questions as much as it finds answers. It is over half male.
Well, damn -- sign me up for that one too.
Seriously -- aren't you doing some gender stereotyping here?
I spent three years in lay ministry training precisely BECAUSE I wanted to escape the type of Bible study you describe in your first paragraph. I've never ascribed a gender component to the dynamics you describe; rather a timidity toward the Bible created by theological conservatism and lack of necessary educational tools that would empower the participants to discuss the Bible in an intellectually rigorous way.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the annual "there aren't enough men in church" thread!
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How to get more men in church?
Overthrow capitalism and patriarchy.
What will that do?
Stop the repitition of discussions like this?
And all sorts of other good things that I might get back to when I have worked out how to reboot this bloody Linux server....
AAAAAAARGH! POETIC JUSTICE IS SO FUCKING FAIR!!!!!!!!!!! SHIT!!!!!! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
And all sorts of other good things that I might get back to when I have worked out how to reboot this bloody Linux server....
Have you tried switching it off and then on again?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the annual "there aren't enough men in church" thread!
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How to get more men in church?
Overthrow capitalism and patriarchy.
What will that do?
I can't see how.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
- Don't hold it on a Sunday morning.
- Provide food that isn't (&^(*ing vegetarian or soup
- Have hymns you can belt out
For starters, will attract some women too.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
[*]Don't hold it on a Sunday morning.
Actually Sunday is th best time for adult men because other days they are more likely to be at work - which is why midweek services are almost exclusively attended by elderly women.
quote:
[*]Provide food that isn't (&^(*ing vegetarian or soup
Soup? Since when do churches do soup outside poncey Lenten fake fasts? Our oplace tends to vast quantities of spicy chicken legs and jollof rice.
quote:
[*]Have hymns you can belt out
We often do. Still three times as many women as men.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
[*]Don't hold it on a Sunday morning.
Actually Sunday is th best time for adult men because other days they are more likely to be at work - which is why midweek services are almost exclusively attended by elderly women.
OK perhaps the operative word is morning - if you have to get up at stupidoclock all week you want a lie-in at the weekend.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The church with the elderly ladies is also the one that has an annual pancake supper "put on by the men" - except that the lasies occupy all the key places in the kitchen since men obviously aren't competent to count out how many pancakes to put on plate.
The church with the discussion also has the men who help set up the potlucks and often cook the meals.
"Stereotype", you say. I say "observation"
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Anselmina:
I`m not arguing your point, in fact I agree with it. The but truth remains that the women still have their province while the men don't really have one anymore. At the present time there is a disconnect there.
:confused:You do rather seem to be saying one thing here but meaning another. The complaint is that you're prevented from doing what the kitchen women do (which does seem completely absurd); but you then conclude there's nothing 'special' for only men to do.
You even, in your first post, draw a kind of parallel that if women were allowed to be ordained then why aren't men allowed in the kitchen. That doesn't speak of a 'special' role, that speaks of an equal role.
So which is it? A specific exclusive role for men only; or a warm welcome into the kitchen confines for yourself?
Frankly, I think your church must be bananas. I can barely remember the last time I was in a church kitchen, or a church do where men weren't positively encouraged to get their fingers out and help. And if you headed in our direction, you'd have no end of 'special' roles that in all likelihood you would be the only and one person - never mind man - fulfilling.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
OK perhaps the operative word is morning - if you have to get up at stupidoclock all week you want a lie-in at the weekend.
But church has to be over in time for the football game!
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Our church choir is very popular with men (often more men than women) but I can't work out why. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Perhaps it's something to do with the fact we spend almost as much time in the pub after choir practice as we do at choir practice???
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
To me, it's a bit of a problem that the church doesn't offer much in the way of an actual, concrete program, the way A.A. does. (There are lots of men in the rooms of A.A. - but of course, the motivation is a bit different there.)
I don't see people as wanting 'steps' myself. People are more likely to rail against being told to do things in a certain prescribed way. AA isn't exactly popular - most alchoholics don't even go to it unless they've hit rock bottom - I don't think that's the best model.
Personally I think this forum is a better model, as others have said. Lively, free-wheeling discussion. No holds-barred, no one looking worried because you've said something you shouldn't have. Jacob wrestled with God, I think that's what some men are looking for.
Well, I said that, too - there should be discussion of whatever anybody wants to discuss. (That happens in A.A., too, BTW - that's what meetings are.)
Alcoholics don't want to go to A.A. because we don't want to stop drinking. We don't know anything about the Steps prior to arriving on the doorstep, believe me. Anyway, nobody in A.A. has to do the Steps, either - they are "the program," but they're entirely optional. Same could go in the church. But there should be more than "I believe." There should be something to do - a program of action.
Call it something else, if you like....
[ 19. January 2011, 21:17: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
My kinda choir! Yes it is very hard to get a good gender balance in choirs: good on yours!
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the annual "there aren't enough men in church" thread!
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How to get more men in church?
Overthrow capitalism and patriarchy.
What will that do?
Stop the repitition of discussions like this?
And all sorts of other good things that I might get back to when I have worked out how to reboot this bloody Linux server....
AAAAAAARGH! POETIC JUSTICE IS SO FUCKING FAIR!!!!!!!!!!! SHIT!!!!!!
Log in as root and type reboot. That's worked on all the Linux flavours I've tried since the early 90s. Maybe I was just lucky...
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(Maybe something like "the noble eightfold path"? But the Christian version - because I don't think the church is communicating well at all with its current approach. I mean, we don't often get the idea that the spiritual life is one of adventure and excitement - which is really too bad, since it is.
The "path to enlightenment" is an idea that people can understand and already have an intuition about; they do suspect, I think, that there's more to life than the daily grind and whatever's on sale at the mall. I'm not sure they understand the Christian story as a way to get to the "more" anymore.
So I think it's either some sort of concrete program - or else some really new way of getting the point across.
But, at the very least: offer good, interesting discussions about things like this.)
[ 19. January 2011, 21:40: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Maybe something like "the noble eightfold path"? But the Christian version - because I don't think the church is communicating well at all with its current approach. I mean, we don't often get the idea that the spiritual life is one of adventure and excitement - which is really too bad, since it is.
This would make some shippies happy -- the ones who complained about churches without an instant binary soteriology because they needed to know at all times how far along the path they were. (You know who you are, gentle readers.) If we had an 8-fold path and they had checked off items 1, 2, and 4 on their handy Heavenly Merit Badge Scorecard, they'd know they were 37.5% of the way to heaven.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I wonder how many churches actually ask the men who come into contact briefly with the church, eg. at the baptism of their children, whether there is anything they can think of to encourage them to visit more often. I'm aware from comments from young families that the church often thinks it knows what people want or need but often get it badly wrong - becuase they never ask.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Maybe something like "the noble eightfold path"? But the Christian version - because I don't think the church is communicating well at all with its current approach. I mean, we don't often get the idea that the spiritual life is one of adventure and excitement - which is really too bad, since it is.
This would make some shippies happy -- the ones who complained about churches without an instant binary soteriology because they needed to know at all times how far along the path they were. (You know who you are, gentle readers.) If we had an 8-fold path and they had checked off items 1, 2, and 4 on their handy Heavenly Merit Badge Scorecard, they'd know they were 37.5% of the way to heaven.
Well, and that's where the "12 Steps" come in! Because you do end up repeating them; just when you think you've got a handle on something, you realize you're a complete beginner and need to go back and start over again.
All with the very real experience you have accumulated, of course.....
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on
:
In work circles where I was known to be a church goer at weekends, most people (but particularly men) just didn't see the point of religion and church.
Their issues seemed to be lack of time and money to spend with / on their mates, families and other interests such as sport.
Therefore, what happens inside a church building on a Sunday morning (or at any other time) is irrelevant, since they have no interest. Wayside posters are ignored, as too obvious for any sort of consideration. Any sort of invitation to a special event would definitely be met with a "not interested" reaction.
I don't have any answers, just observations. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Actually I wonder how much the instant binary soteriology is to blame. Okay, I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, I'm saved now. Why should I keep going to church when I'm already saved and I'm not getting anything out of it anymore?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I still don't see a connection between male inactivity in church and "feminized" church activities. The ones people have described on this forum thus far don't sound "girly" -- they just sound lame and boring for anyone.
Now, if you insist that this is a gender issue, try this: Kick the fellows out. Say, "Good riddance."
At my university, when the women resisted an attempt by the school to take over the Student Union's venerable Women's Lounge and make it co-ed, the women rebelled and became even more territorial and intolerant of even casual visits by males...which in turn made the lounge utterly irresistable for men....they were getting dragged out of the place on a weely basis.
Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on
:
IIRC it was once said that by ordaining women in the CofE it would attract more men - NOT on the sexual element ie busty lady Vicar draws crowds, but that male Vicars put off men as they were a bit....well lets say not rugby types, so a female would be more accetable! Please not I don't agree with this, but it was put forward as a position. Clearly it seems that is not the case.
I have observed though, that in the RC Church the male/female ratio seems more equal than the CofE. Not sure what it means though!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The proportion of men in our congregation certainly went up when we first got a woman vicar, and has beem slowly rising since I doubt if there is any causality between the two.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Let me try this from a different angle:
This is directed to all readers who perceive this horrible groundswell of male discontent with church:
1. Presumably you think that there was a more healthy male-female ratio in church participation twenty or fifty or one hundred years ago. The same activities you complain are hopelessly feminized were part of church life back then as well. At least for many of us, the worship service itself is the same general form as it was in those past generations. So, with that in mind, what do you think has changed in the church that is supposedly such a turn-off to men? Why was church more tolerable, in your thesis, for men in my dad's generation or in mine than in yours?
2. My church has a quite healthy male-female ratio, and except for a couple pockets of female-dominated activities this holds true for church life outside service time as well. Okay? MY church is the way it sounds that you would like YOUR church to be. We don't have "men's ministries." We don't have gender-restricted service opportunities. We don't have a theology or praxis that is supportive of male "headship" or other male privilege. And our service is your basic middle-ish up the candle liturgical service with no manufactured excitement thrown in. Money question: To what, then, do you attribute our even gender distribution? Why is my church the way you wish your church was, but isn't?
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I have observed though, that in the RC Church the male/female ratio seems more equal than the CofE. Not sure what it means though!
In my experience playing tourist (about once a month, maybe more), while the priesthood of the RCC is exclusively male, the butts in the pews are significantly more female than male. As are those in leadership positions that don't need a collar.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
We read the daily offices at 8:30am and 5:30pm, with a congregation of between one and about six people - there are usually about 4 of us in the evenings. The only women present, ever, are clergy (the curate and/or myself). Is there something particularly masculine about Common Worship Evening Prayer? Is it about the words, the setting, the style - or just the timing?
Weekday evening Eucharists also have a larger proportion of men in the congregation - although for smaller overall numbers - than the main Sunday morning services. It can't all be about the lie-in can it?
Personally I can't imagine anything worse than a church service designed by some sort of committee in order to attract people like me - unless it was a congregation full of people like me. Real people vary a lot and I've always worked on the assumption that most men were nearly the same as real people.
Real people usually have a number of factors to consider in their choice of service. These factors will include the stuff 'we', as a church, can do something about - welcome, preaching, music, style of worship - and stuff we can't control - on-street parking, it's the church my Mum went to, distance from home - and that combination of factors will be unique for each of us, I think. I'm not sure that gender is the most important defining issue here.
Anne
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
So, with that in mind, what do you think has changed in the church that is supposedly such a turn-off to men? Why was church more tolerable, in your thesis, for men in my dad's generation or in mine than in yours?
LC, you make good points, and I generally agree with you. The only answer I can think of to the above is the seeming ubiquity of (faux) emotionalism and sentimentality and compulsory touchy-feelies (such as holding hands during the Lord's Prayer, or huddling around the altar holding hands during the EP). I know a lot of men (including me) who are just turned right off by that stuff.
[ 19. January 2011, 23:33: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Is this really a crisis in the church, or is it just another attempt for zero-sum social conservatives to take a sideswipe at gender equity -- "Everything was fine until those uppity women took all the special jobs away from us!"?
Yeah, that's my thought too. When I hear "church for men" that almost always is closely followed by either John Eldridge or Mark Driskoll-- neither one of which has much that sounds like good news for women.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Christian Vision for Men Is an organisation dealing solely with men's ministry, saying that "Over the last 20 years 38% of believing men left the church. In fact for men aged under 30, nearly 50% left in the same period of time."
I couldn't find anything snappy as to what CVM thinks the reason for this is, but I think it's broadly that there isn't much of an environment for men, who need to be given the chance to bond. Belonging can come before believing. ATST, all groups of people benefit from being and should be catered for.
Chorister probably has it right about the choir and the pub. The church I go to is having an evening in the pub/curry. Many men like the pub, you can have a chat and stuff. Connecting it with church is in my view a good idea.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Christian Vision for Men Is an organisation dealing solely with men's ministry, saying that "Over the last 20 years 38% of believing men left the church. In fact for men aged under 30, nearly 50% left in the same period of time."
Those are impressive numbers, but are they any different for women?
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
I don't have any very helpful answers, (certainly not to LutheranChik's very good questions), and part of the difficult is that we are dealing with general tendencies in each of the sexes (it is easy to let a small number of exceptions hide the general trend of behaviour). But it seems to me that the reason behind the low number of men in many congregations is that 'church' is seen as largely about relationships - relationships between an individual and God and relationships between the members of the congregation. The significance of relationships is there whatever the hymns and liturgy; it may be emphasized by particular styles of worship, but it is always there.
Women in general 'do relationships' better (certainly differently) than men, whether it is remembering the names of their children's friends, or keeping the Christmas-card list or whatever. From the "good morning"s on the way in to the chatting over coffee afterwards, church is largely about these relationship matters, and many men would prefer a situation that involved more 'doing something'.
If a notice went out that a church would be engaged in two activities, one a coffee morning with a chance to sit in someone's house and chat, the second taking secatuers, saws and spades to clear some waste-ground behind the church so it could be used for outdoor activities, I think very many men would opt for the latter, even though it could be described as 'work' compared with the 'leisure' of the former. It is 'doing something' and suggests that the men's presence is wanted and needed which, I think, men tend to react to positively.
Were things better fifty or a hundred years ago?. Well, it was a different world then, and church attendance more a matter of social obligation, in addition to a result of personal belief. But at times I think there was also an aspect for men, as 'head of the household' in maintaining the respectability and position of the family. Going to church was, in this sense, 'doing something' for which their presence was needed.
Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on
:
I've been interested in this subject for some time, but one unfortunate result of that is that I've lost all perspective on my own difficult relationship with church. I've read (too) many times about the idea that church has been feminised and that it is too feelings-oriented etc. and now I can't tell if that's why I don't feel comfortable in most church services. I prefer my quieter, easier home group for building relationships.
The honest reality is that Sunday morning coffee doesn't work for me because:
1) I've got stuff to do at home
2) remembering 100+ names for 10 minutes every seven days is really difficult
3) smiling through conversations I won't remember while shrill and unruly children make listening difficult isn't my idea of a good time
There is a very good chance that I am unloving and I need to change. I need to be transformed into His likeness and love these people.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I have often noticed (within wider society, never mind just church) that women's relationships tend to centre around conversation whereas men's relationships tend to centre around shared activity. Real-life example: my wife and I both spent some time with old friends recently. My wife and her friend did so by having a chat on our sofa, my friend and I did so by playing a few games of pool at the pub.
ISTM that church tends far more towards the first of those ways of relating to each other than the second. Maybe that's part of the problem?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
It can't all be about the lie-in can it?
Why not?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Interestingly, church youth groups (back in the days when more teenage lads went to church) used to have table tennis and pool tables available for use. I bet there are some still lurking, dusty and unloved, in the nether regions of the parish room store cupboard. Perhaps it's time to dust them off so the men can bring along a few cases of beer and thrash the hell out of the other dads. And perhaps bring along their sons for a game, as well.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
In trying to ascertain what it is that may make my church more man-friendly, if indeed that is the issue here (I'm still not convinced it is)...one difference we do have at our shack is that our pastor enjoys doing manly-man things on his own time -- taking cars apart; riding motorcycles; building stuff; volunteering as a local first responder. He's also a metal sculptor, so he's often welding. He's joked about his "garage ministry," involving neighborhood guys seeing him with his head under a car hood in the garage and coming around to talk to him about Deep Subjects while they're changing hoses or tightening bolts or whatever. (He once told me, in regard to these impromptu pastoral conversations, "Don't ever underestimate the inner lives of the men in our church.")
We don't have many white-collar professionals of either gender in our church; most of the congregation are people who work with their hands for a living. So perhaps the fellows in our neighborhood find our pastor more accessible, more able to speak their language and relate to them, than some non-handy, socially intimidating MDiv/DD who seems to have nothing in common with them.
Even if I'm on to something, I'm not convinced that this is an argument against females in church leadership positions. (Which I truly believe many people want to be true.) My DP has a similar rapport with the guys at our church...it's kind of cute to see her, during coffee hour, surrounded by men who want to talk sports or autos or home repairs with her -- because she's able to talk about those things to them. And she's "safe" for them to talk to without The Wife (either of them!) getting angry.
All of which is perhaps my circuitous way of observing...maybe this isn't about gender, but about helping both men and women feel socially "safe" and comfortable in a church situation; having church leadership that lives in the same world, so to speak, as the rest of the congregation.
Posted by Unjust Stuart (# 13953) on
:
To misquote Dean Acheson *
Men have lost an empire and have not yet found a role.
* not a Dean in the same way as Dean Swift...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hereweare:
I have observed though, that in the RC Church the male/female ratio seems more equal than the CofE. Not sure what it means though!
It means that in England the Roman Catholics are still to some extent an ethnic church, and participation in church is part of normal participation in the community or subculture.
As the children and grandchildren of Irish, Italian, Polish, or whatever immigrants come to think of themselves as English then they start reverting to English levels of church attendence.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
1. Presumably you think that there was a more healthy male-female ratio in church participation twenty or fifty or one hundred years ago.
No, absolutely not, it has been like this since at least the Middle Ages.
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
... there isn't much of an environment for men, who need to be given the chance to bond. Belonging can come before believing.
(a) no it doesn't, not for lots of people, and the insistence that it does might be one of the things that's wrong with the churches these days. I'd rather people were Christians than that they came to church. And when people are converted and become Christians they often take to going to church.
(b) being middle-aged, male, and having a full-time job I meet lots of men all the time anyway. I don't need to go to church to meet men. And not being gay I think I'd rather be doing less bonding with blokes and more with women, to be honest.
(c) I don't think it is the presence of women in church that puts men off. Really.
(d) church isn't a social club. If it tries to be one it will probably be a bad one. And real social clubs - and trade unions, and sports clubs and all sorts of voluntary associations - have been losing members and going bust anyway. And pubs are closing in their thousands all over England.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps it's time to dust them off so the men can bring along a few cases of beer and thrash the hell out of the other dads. And perhaps bring along their sons for a game, as well.
Why do you assume the missing men are all dads? More than a third of adult men are single. And loads of those that aren't either have no children or have children grown up and looking after themselves, or have only daughters.
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Log in as root and type reboot. That's worked on all the Linux flavours I've tried since the early 90s. Maybe I was just lucky...
I'd passed that stage about an hour before I made the post - I'd got through to "turn it off, reseat the disks and all cables and turn it on again" and was about to go on to "reconfigure the BIOS".
It works now. But it took about ten goes ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 20. January 2011, 14:14: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
The honest reality is that Sunday morning coffee doesn't work for me because:
1) I've got stuff to do at home
2) remembering 100+ names for 10 minutes every seven days is really difficult
3) smiling through conversations I won't remember while shrill and unruly children make listening difficult isn't my idea of a good time.
The honest reality is that Sunday morning coffee doesn't work for me because people don't seem to talk much at all at church and I quickly get bored and lonely and frustrated.
I know if I go to the pub I am far more likely to have a conversation, both with people I know and people I don't.
And for what its worth the conversations are more likely to touch on emotional or spiritual issues than ones in church.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Contrast two different Bible study groups.
One sits in a rapt circle, waiting for the priest to tell us what to think, and is horrified as a group if anyone challenges anything. It is two-thirds older female.
The other actually has discussion and banter, loathes the "set books" with questions neatly laid out in stifling order, and poses questions as much as it finds answers. It is over half male.
Both my wife and I prefer the latter, BTW. It isn't JUST a gender thing. You have to have some form of involvement that doesn't bring up the Sunday-schoolmarm stifling any questions.
This strikes me much more as a generational thing than a gender one. How many of those 'older females' are widowed? I've noticed a similar dynamic when we've had parish lent/advent groups. The attendees from our sister church tend to be the older women (many of whom I think are widows) and they much more have an expectation of the vicar as teacher and them as pupils, whereas those of us who are younger have much more a seminar model in mind with vicar as facilitator.
quote:
And the guys who do come also take more part in the Sunday service. But they won't take part if there is too much insistence on the exact liturgical form at the expense of the meaning and feeling of the service.
It depends on the guys -- some of the greatest liturgical pedants I know are men.
We're lucky at our church that we do have a pretty even balance and in fact our Tuesday evening services tend to be slightly more male than female. But I tend to see people as people not as men or women so don't ask me what works better for one than the other. Though I think there is a worry trend back to gender stereotyping in our culture at the moment.
Choirs are also an interesting point -- unfortunately boys tend to give up on choirs when girls are allowed as equals -- because singing then becomes sissy. This is a flaw in our English speaking society (I say English speaking because Welsh speaking attitudes to singing are very different)*
Carys
*How many halls of residence housing about 250 students could have a hundred strong choir with a 50/50 male female split?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Matter of fact, there actually already exists a concrete program of action designed to assist Christians in their quest for enlightenment (AKA, sometimes, "theosis"): it's called The Rule of St. Benedict, and it's about 1400 years old.
Obviously parts of it were meant to work on the problem of unrelated people living together in groups - but there is plenty there aimed at the individual and his/her soul. So the precedent exists, in fact, and it wouldn't be a strange idea to work out a Step-like program (which, BTW, also derives from Christianity) for churches.
Because the bizarre arguments we're having in religion these days just ain't the way, IMO. I'm getting fed up with the church myself, and am on the verge of leaving - and I'm one of those people who are kind of hard-wired for spirituality! And I'm fascinated by the Bible and love the Book of Common Prayer and the beauties of the liturgy.
So if the church seems like dullsville to me, imagine how it appears to people not already involved in it....
[ 20. January 2011, 14:39: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
He's joked about his "garage ministry," involving neighborhood guys seeing him with his head under a car hood in the garage and coming around to talk to him about Deep Subjects while they're changing hoses or tightening bolts or whatever.
It's no joke, it's exactly what I'm talking about. Shared activity - in this case car maintenance. Most men I know find it far easier to talk about Deep Subjects if they're doing something else at the same time.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
He's joked about his "garage ministry," involving neighborhood guys seeing him with his head under a car hood in the garage and coming around to talk to him about Deep Subjects while they're changing hoses or tightening bolts or whatever.
It's no joke, it's exactly what I'm talking about. Shared activity - in this case car maintenance. Most men I know find it far easier to talk about Deep Subjects if they're doing something else at the same time.
Ora et labora, baby. Ora et labora.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps it's time to dust them off so the men can bring along a few cases of beer and thrash the hell out of the other dads. And perhaps bring along their sons for a game, as well.
Why do you assume the missing men are all dads? More than a third of adult men are single. And loads of those that aren't either have no children or have children grown up and looking after themselves, or have only daughters.
Dude, it would have been awesome to have played pool with my dad at church. Daughters need bonding time with their fathers too, yaknow.
(My daddy, btw, is awesome. And he has two daughters, and he taught us to play catch and work on car engines and solve differential equasions.)
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Many men needed 'a safe forum to work out what they think' in an environment in which 'they are able to swear' or express controversial views.
I know plenty of women who don't go to church for this reason. Myself included - although I do go to church sometimes, and I like my church, still I have yet to find a church where I can feel free to work out what I think and express controversial views and not have to be careful to make sure my language doesn't include words that some may find offensive. Surely it can't be just a male/female thing.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Choirs are also an interesting point -- unfortunately boys tend to give up on choirs when girls are allowed as equals -- because singing then becomes sissy. This is a flaw in our English speaking society (I say English speaking because Welsh speaking attitudes to singing are very different)
My guess is that it tends to be a flaw the world over. Or at least a fact. What do we gain with denial, hand-wringing, crocodile tears, and waiting for it to go away?
quote:
Originally posted by Lutheranchik:
Now, if you insist that this is a gender issue, try this: Kick the fellows out. Say, "Good riddance."
Something of the kind seems to apply in reverse, at least. Today there must be a thousand coed junior choirs for every boychoir remaining in Christendom, but some won't be satisfied until every last one has bitten the dust.
This campaign doesn't serve the cause of music. It doesn't serve the Great Commission or the cause of church growth. And I doubt that it even serves the cause of feminism. Show me a random secular boy who is attracted into a choir at age 8 or 9-- especially if (as tends to happen) he is eventually confirmed into the church and (as also tends to happen) remains an active churchman-- and I'll show you a young man far likelier to go through life supporting equal rights for women, among other civilized values, than his culturally deprived, unchurched, tone-deaf brother hanging out on the street corner. If we want such outcomes, it's just a question of ends and means. Do we?
How we can scratch our heads ad nauseum over attracting males into the church, while neglecting a tradition that has worked so effectively to this end for centuries, boggles my mind.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
I always like it when Alogon makes his point about boychoirs.
Seriously: it's a good one. (And they operate under a concrete program of action, too, interestingly enough, via disciplines taught and learned. I'm just saying.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I always like it when Alogon makes his point about boychoirs.
Seriously: it's a good one.
Its a terrible one. Would you have a white choir for people who don't like singing with blacks?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I always like it when Alogon makes his point about boychoirs.
Seriously: it's a good one.
Its a terrible one. Would you have a white choir for people who don't like singing with blacks?
Actually, the voices are already - mostly - divided up by sex.
So sorry; that's not even close to being an analogy, let alone a good one....
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a terrible one. Would you have a white choir for people who don't like singing with blacks?
If they're kids and the experience will promote racial equality in the long run, you bet.
For me the cause of music and that of church growth handily trump some kind of agenda to stamp out any and all single-sex groups on the asumption that they are unjust or evil. Sorry to disappoint you and be a neanderthal, but I think you have your priorities mixed up.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
There are girl choirs, too, you know, Ken. And men's choirs and women's ones, later on. I haven't come across many (actually, any) that operate out of a distaste for singing with the other gender.
There are boys' and girls' schools, too. Mens' clubs and womens' clubs. Outraged about those, too? Not me.
[ 20. January 2011, 16:57: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I always like it when Alogon makes his point about boychoirs.
Seriously: it's a good one.
Its a terrible one. Would you have a white choir for people who don't like singing with blacks?
Are whites' and blacks' voices so significantly different that you can tell the sound of a highly-trained white choir from a highly-trained black choir? There's a reason music is tabbed SATB and not ROYGBIV.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are whites' and blacks' voices so significantly different that you can tell the sound of a highly-trained white choir from a highly-trained black choir? There's a reason music is tabbed SATB and not ROYGBIV.
It's a strange argument - although I suppose not so strange for little kids, when both boys and girls sing in (approximately? I'm not exactly sure) the same range.
Still, sex is way, way different than race in this case, because soon enough the voices of boys go haywire (as I understand it) and they have to drop out - or hang around with their voices all over the place - till they settle at some particular male voice.
And then of course the sexes just go in completely different directions after that - so sex/gender is actually a big factor in singing. Race simply isn't.
[ 20. January 2011, 17:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
Tubamirim, if it were just a matter of having a concrete program to follow, like the 12 steps, then Alanon would have the same sexual breakdown as AA. And trust me on this, it doesn't. Despite the fact that, or so I'm told by those who know, AA meetings around here are about 50/50 male/female, and that therefore logically as many men as women must be affected by someone else's drinking, all the Alanon meetings I've been to have had a huge preponderance of female to male members.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Tubamirum, I think we're agreeing with one another.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Tubamirim, if it were just a matter of having a concrete program to follow, like the 12 steps, then Alanon would have the same sexual breakdown as AA. And trust me on this, it doesn't. Despite the fact that, or so I'm told by those who know, AA meetings around here are about 50/50 male/female, and that therefore logically as many men as women must be affected by someone else's drinking, all the Alanon meetings I've been to have had a huge preponderance of female to male members.
That's usually true about Alanon, you're right. But then, I was speaking in a more general way, and not necessarily to the male/female issue. (AA and Alanon do have some issues particular to them; these are groups for people in specific states of crisis. Whatever we might come up with would not have to address only those issues.)
IOW, I'm not trying to "solve" the issue with that suggestion. I'm really more interested in the general exodus from the church rather than the gender split.
I can't for the life of me think why the church can't get the point across that the life of spiritual seeking is - while often difficult (and that's actually a plus) - an exciting adventure. That we all have depths - that living itself has depths - that we haven't really begun to explore, and that we ought to be getting around to that at some point. I just don't think it's doing a very good job in this area, that's all....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Tubamirum, I think we're agreeing with one another.
Yeah - I meant Ken's was a strange argument, not yours. Guess that wasn't clear, sorry....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Cheers.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
We're talking about worshipping God together, not setting up a social club.
Anyway the point of SATB is that they sing together, not apart.
But the main thing is I don't agree with the idea that mem avoid church because its full of women. Which some here repeat again and again.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyway the point of SATB is that they sing together, not apart.
You've missed the point. SATB is a four-part mixed choir. But there are also TTBB choirs, and women's choirs whose initials I don't know, and so forth. Each has a different sound, and it's based in part on the gender/sex of the singers. There is nothing at all analogous based on race or nationality or anything else other than age and gender.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ken wrote: quote:
But the main thing is I don't agree with the idea that men avoid church because its full of women
I don't agree with it either, but who is arguing that?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We're talking about worshipping God together, not setting up a social club.
And exactly how are we prevented from worshipping God together by having boys' choirs and girls' choirs? I can't see why this could possibly be a problem for the life of me....
[ 20. January 2011, 22:21: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
IME choirs are hard for men because:
a) Puberty takes you from being a treble to being a tenor or bass and the change is decidedly aharmonic.
b) Tenor and Bass roles are harmony roles which rarely get the melody. You have to learn to read music and listen well to be good at it. Once you are away from the melody it's so easy to go off.
c) Singing against so many sopranos and altos is hard.
I say this as a bass choir member.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Choirs are also an interesting point -- unfortunately boys tend to give up on choirs when girls are allowed as equals -- because singing then becomes sissy. This is a flaw in our English speaking society (I say English speaking because Welsh speaking attitudes to singing are very different)
My guess is that it tends to be a flaw the world over. Or at least a fact. What do we gain with denial, hand-wringing, crocodile tears, and waiting for it to go away?
But my point is that another culture (Welsh speaking Wales) doesn't have this stigma about boys/men singing. Now some of that may be because of male voice choirs, but there are also a lot of mixed choirs and so boys don't give up when girls join. I don't think that there are many Welsh speaking all boy or all girl choirs in Wales -- at that age they sing together afaik.
Singing is part of Welsh medium culture in a way that it isn't for many English speakers.
Carys
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
IME choirs are hard for men because:
<snip>
b) Tenor and Bass roles are harmony roles which rarely get the melody. You have to learn to read music and listen well to be good at it. Once you are away from the melody it's so easy to go off.
That's my experience too. If you try to form a mixed-voice choir and say anyone can turn up, then all the women with low technical ability become sopranos, and the men without technical ability have nowhere to go.
ETA: and if you insist on a certain minimum technical skill, then altos and basses tend to dominate because they don't have nasty high notes, and people who might be good singers with a bit of practice and experience don't have a chance to discover their talents.
[ 21. January 2011, 10:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
At least in my own little neck of the woods, that's not so true. I personally don't know that many stay-at-home moms.
Who said anything about "stay-at-home moms"? Even for couples where both partners are working housework and childcare still fall more frequently to women than men, a trend that's exacerbated by the "traditional family structure" I mentioned above. In other words, for a lot of men Sunday is a day off work. For their wives, Sunday is a day when they're expected to work another job.
The problem with this argument, at least from what I observed at my former church, is that most of the work of putting-on of services and the teaching of church school, to say nothing of all the other activities engaged in by the church, is also done by women. They still do all the setting-up and cleaning-up.
I remember getting to church very early one snowy Sunday, thinking I'd help shovel walks, and finding ladies there well ahead of me, ironing paraments for the altar and pouring grape juice and cubing bread.
So it's not much of a break from household chores(though it is a change of venue).
If church wants to attract more men, they should install more television sets tuned to major games, and set out cheese & crackers and peanuts instead of multi-color cookies.
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
In my church we have a monthly Pub Theology group. Not exclusively for men, but there's nothing like the lure of a pint and the numbers are about two thirds men. It's a good way to talk about faith issues in a relaxed environment and has helped some blokes on the fringe feel more involved. It has also proved a good event to bring unchurchy friends who want to talk about life issues in a faith context.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
In my church we have a monthly Pub Theology group. Not exclusively for men, but there's nothing like the lure of a pint and the numbers are about two thirds men. It's a good way to talk about faith issues in a relaxed environment and has helped some blokes on the fringe feel more involved. It has also proved a good event to bring unchurchy friends who want to talk about life issues in a faith context.
More and more I think it's a Good Thing to do things like this outside the churchy environment....
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
More and more I think it's a Good Thing to do things like this outside the churchy environment....
We sometimes have the barman and other pub goers listening in to discussion, and occasionally join us.
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
In my church we have a monthly Pub Theology group. Not exclusively for men, but there's nothing like the lure of a pint and the numbers are about two thirds men. It's a good way to talk about faith issues in a relaxed environment and has helped some blokes on the fringe feel more involved. It has also proved a good event to bring unchurchy friends who want to talk about life issues in a faith context.
This sounds like a Good Idea- I would definitely be up for an evening arguing theology and drinking beer!
Mind you, I imagine it would require a critical mass of men in the church in the first place. Otherwise it might just be me sitting in the corner wth a pint, mumbling to myself about liturgy. (Hang on, that's not too different from what happens already... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
I suppose the question can be split here: (a) what do we do to get more men into Church in the first place? (b) How do we cater to the spiritual needs of the men who are there anyway who don't seem to be enthused by the flower-arranging circle?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
In my church we have a monthly Pub Theology group. Not exclusively for men, but there's nothing like the lure of a pint and the numbers are about two thirds men. It's a good way to talk about faith issues in a relaxed environment and has helped some blokes on the fringe feel more involved. It has also proved a good event to bring unchurchy friends who want to talk about life issues in a faith context.
This sounds fantastic, Uriel! I might see if I can get something similar going with my church. Like you say, it's a great way of showing non-Christians or lapsed attenders that the Christian community is healthy and good to be a part of.
On the broader point, do you all think it's fair to say that many men don't like the 'sit down, listen well and be good' atmosphere in a lot of church services? Lots of men have energy, drive, passion and a desire to compete, and church activities don't often provide an outlet for these traits, do they? Marvin the Martian and LutheranChik's comments about men preferring shared activity rather than 'just' talking sound bang on the money for me.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
It starts to get tricky when there are as many different types of men as there are women - one of our best flower arrangers, for example, is male. Perhaps the women are just better at continuing to do what they've been told and, when they were younger, they were told to go to church.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
We have a discussion group in the pub once a month too; I can't say as I've noticed more men than women go, though.
M.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
In my church we have a monthly Pub Theology group. Not exclusively for men, but there's nothing like the lure of a pint and the numbers are about two thirds men. It's a good way to talk about faith issues in a relaxed environment and has helped some blokes on the fringe feel more involved. It has also proved a good event to bring unchurchy friends who want to talk about life issues in a faith context.
Funny, our Pub Theology meetings tend to be two-thirds women. But this is Portland, where good beer is not so much a drink as a lifestyle choice.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Funny, our Pub Theology meetings tend to be two-thirds women. But this is Portland, where good beer is not so much a drink as a lifestyle choice.
An opt-out, not an opt-in lifestyle choice.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
If you want to persuade young men to come to church, perhaps you should first persuade young women to do so. (There is a tropism involved.)
At the church services I attend, I see little old ladies (some married, some widowed), some married women with their children (and sometimes husbands as well), some teenagers, and a few old codgers like myself. If I were looking for someone to marry (something I do not by any means rule out), I would find few prospects at those services.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
In discussions of this sort I've noticed a common dichotomy. When an institution has trouble attracting women the problem is usually attributed to something wrong with women. (e.g. girls just can't do math/run a business/hold office) When an institution has trouble attracting men, the problem is with the institution. (e.g. this thread) It's as if there's some horror being expressed that there's any facet of society not set up to cater to men.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In discussions of this sort I've noticed a common dichotomy. When an institution has trouble attracting women the problem is usually attributed to something wrong with women. (e.g. girls just can't do math/run a business/hold office) When an institution has trouble attracting men, the problem is with the institution. (e.g. this thread) It's as if there's some horror being expressed that there's any facet of society not set up to cater to men.
Funny, I'd see that as a discrimination against and sexist evaluation of women and think the attitude wrt with men is the default; you seem to see both as an evil plot on the part of men.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Is anyone else not at least a little amused -- or irritated -- at the whingey premise behind all this handwringing? "I don't liiiiike it here. It's boooooooring. It's got girl cooties on it. I'm leeeeeeeaving if you don't make it the way I want it..."
Seriously? These are men unhappy with the "feminization" of church?
Pull up your big-boy britches...stop WHINING, fer Chrissake...then DO something in the church that alleviates whatever deficit you feel it has. You fellows have had control of the institutional Church for most of the last 2,000 years, and you don't know how to effect change in it? Really?
And what is that change, exactly? I mean, we've heard a lot of vague murmuring of flower arranging and liturgical Kumbaya that turns some of your off (news flash: It turns some women off as well)...those puny things, within the great scheme of the life of a faith community, can't be what's supposedly driving men off in droves, is it?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If you want to persuade young men to come to church, perhaps you should first persuade young women to do so. (There is a tropism involved.)
Well it certainly worked in our church choir - half the young men ended up marrying half the girls. Add the bellringers into the mix and we had a veritable marriage bureau.
I wonder what the 'critical mass' is in order to make this scheme work?
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If you want to persuade young men to come to church, perhaps you should first persuade young women to do so. (There is a tropism involved.)
Well it certainly worked in our church choir - half the young men ended up marrying half the girls. Add the bellringers into the mix and we had a veritable marriage bureau.
I wonder what the 'critical mass' is in order to make this scheme work?
Well, first you have to make sure all the young men and women you're dragging in are heterosexual...
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If I were looking for someone to marry (something I do not by any means rule out), I would find few prospects at those services.
Indeed. Few to none.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Y'all do know there are church plants out there designed specifically for twentysomethings to hook up, right?
They tend to want you to be a GLE and, once again, heterosexual.
Then once you pop out a baby, you're pretty much done and go somewhere else.
My friend, who was on the Husband Hunt, drug me out one Sunday. Her regular circuit was three different church plants, but she upped it to five that day for my sake.
Kind of wish she hadn't...
[ 21. January 2011, 22:06: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If you want to persuade young men to come to church, perhaps you should first persuade young women to do so. (There is a tropism involved.)
Well it certainly worked in our church choir - half the young men ended up marrying half the girls. Add the bellringers into the mix and we had a veritable marriage bureau.
I wonder what the 'critical mass' is in order to make this scheme work?
Well, first you have to make sure all the young men and women you're dragging in are heterosexual...
Not necessarily. Just so long as there are enough young men and young women to, um, cater to all tastes. Young CHristian gay men and women, I imagine, find it just as difficult as young christin straights to find suitable partners.
John
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
I mean, we've heard a lot of vague murmuring of flower arranging and liturgical Kumbaya that turns some of your off (news flash: It turns some women off as well)...those puny things, within the great scheme of the life of a faith community, can't be what's supposedly driving men off in droves, is it?
You know, I wouldn't think so. It is just the only thing I can think of (the touchy-feely liturgical kumbaya, that is). Honestly, I doubt that is the reason. While I stand by my experience that it really, really turns off a lot of people (not just men), something so small cannot be solely responsible for a 'mass exodus' of men from churches.
Frankly, I don't know quite what to make of it, but I am not terribly worried about it.
[ 21. January 2011, 22:52: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Is anyone else not at least a little amused -- or irritated -- at the whingey premise behind all this handwringing? "I don't liiiiike it here. It's boooooooring. It's got girl cooties on it. I'm leeeeeeeaving if you don't make it the way I want it..."
Seriously? These are men unhappy with the "feminization" of church?
Pull up your big-boy britches...stop WHINING, fer Chrissake...then DO something in the church that alleviates whatever deficit you feel it has. You fellows have had control of the institutional Church for most of the last 2,000 years, and you don't know how to effect change in it? Really?
And what is that change, exactly? I mean, we've heard a lot of vague murmuring of flower arranging and liturgical Kumbaya that turns some of your off (news flash: It turns some women off as well)...those puny things, within the great scheme of the life of a faith community, can't be what's supposedly driving men off in droves, is it?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
While church is just yet another interest group, there's no obligation for people of either sex to stay if it doesn't quite float their boat. I've come across people who have left all sorts of clubs or groups for all sorts of reasons, and suspect that what is happening in churches is similar. But if people have a strong desire to attend church based on some kind of underlying faith or wish for faith then they are less likely to drop out so easily if everything isn't just as they wish, surely? Rather like people who have a strong desire for education don't just drop out of college when the work starts getting hard or a subject area doesn't quite interest as much as the previous term's modules. Or the lecturer is a bit boring, or the method of learning too cerebral, etc. etc.
So, how to give people an underlying cause that would make them really want to attend church? Do women really have more of an underlying cause than men? Or is there more to it than that?
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Is anyone else not at least a little amused -- or irritated -- at the whingey premise behind all this handwringing? "I don't liiiiike it here. It's boooooooring. It's got girl cooties on it. I'm leeeeeeeaving if you don't make it the way I want it..."
Seriously? These are men unhappy with the "feminization" of church?
Pull up your big-boy britches...stop WHINING, fer Chrissake...then DO something in the church that alleviates whatever deficit you feel it has. You fellows have had control of the institutional Church for most of the last 2,000 years, and you don't know how to effect change in it? Really?
This might be the appropriate response if there were lots of men wanting to come to church but put off by the flower-arranging-kumbyaa-ness of it. However as far as I can see the men that are staying away are quite happy staying away. It's people already in the church noticing the lack of men that are wanting to attract them in.
Chorister I think asks the right question:
quote:
So, how to give people an underlying cause that would make them really want to attend church? Do women really have more of an underlying cause than men? Or is there more to it than that?
I really wish I knew the answer.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In discussions of this sort I've noticed a common dichotomy. When an institution has trouble attracting women the problem is usually attributed to something wrong with women. (e.g. girls just can't do math/run a business/hold office) When an institution has trouble attracting men, the problem is with the institution. (e.g. this thread) It's as if there's some horror being expressed that there's any facet of society not set up to cater to men.
Funny, I'd see that as a discrimination against and sexist evaluation of women and think the attitude wrt with men is the default; you seem to see both as an evil plot on the part of men.
You mean like this?
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
Things the rather large church I attend does to equally endorse the acceptance of both men and women, and with a reasonable amount of success...
1. Many options for strong community outside of the couple of hours people are at church around the time of a service.
2. Approving of doing church (i.e. the community of believers) in venues and manners that are not normally associated with church. This means for me it took approximately 45 seconds to get approval from the youth pastor to organise a night at the cricket this last week with my youth small group.
3. Providing financial, practical and promotional ways of supporting organically-organised community activities. This means we have tons of ways for people to get connected while doing things they actually want to do. There are informally-organised cycling, fishing and surfing groups, even a men's group doing their weekly Bible studies at the pub.
4. Cutting out the touchy-feely crap during services. Because the hate of that is not male-specific and it is a great way to scare off people checking out church for the first time.
5. Budgets for male-specific ministries and corresponding female-specific ministries to be exactly equal each calendar year. In practice the way this goes is that the main women's ministry blow their budget on the first 1-2 events of the year and have to cover costs by charging admission to the rest. The men's ministry tend to do simpler activities and have a good amount left for the last couple of things.
6. Quotas for vocalists leading the congregation in sung worship. In practice this is not always met, but in the cases where they are too short of men the week's worship leader is not allowed to just stack up to a full complement of only female singers and set a new norm of female singers only.
7. No spectators.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
Missed the edit window!
8. Pastors to be real people and participants in the community of the church rather than just doing official pastoral duties. This includes requiring as a part of their employment contract some kind of regular participation in a community not connected with the church. The most in-depth discussion I ever had with the previous Senior Pastor was while kayaking on the Coorong one summer when we came up one leader short for a youth camping trip and he got volunteered for it by his PA who asked his wife, efficiently organised everything for him and only then told him he was getting a three-day holiday just being a responsible adult!
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Replying to Carys, way upthread:
quote:
It depends on the guys -- some of the greatest liturgical pedants I know are men.
But the guys who are liturgical pedants tend to annoy the guys who want to do stuff. The pedantry defines a small club dedicated to "we do things better than you do, and anything you do is low class or undignified or Not Properly Organized".* Why would anyone want to take part if they are told up front that they aren't good enough?
*I've seen the same problem in schools, with teachers who turn kids off by snide comments about the ability to do Math or to write - less now than it was forty years ago, but still happening. It explains a significant part of the school drop-out rate.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
the giant cheeseburger, "7. No spectators." What does that mean? How do you make it happen?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
the giant cheeseburger, "7. No spectators." What does that mean? How do you make it happen?
Blindfolds?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
"no spectators" - some sort of opposite to the megachurch thing with a glorious choreographed music presentation, a minister preaching from the microphone on a stage,and theater seating, including drinkholders in the arms.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
the giant cheeseburger, "7. No spectators." What does that mean? How do you make it happen?
How about this?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Maybe it's like we still say but no longer take seriously in our liturgy, "Catecumens depart! Let all catecumens depart! Let no catecumen remain! Let us the faithful again and again pray unto the Lord...."
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
.... something so small cannot be solely responsible for a 'mass exodus' of men from churches.
There was no "mass exodus" specifically of men. Unless you mean the disciples who ran away at teh Crucifixion. Women were always more likely to attend church.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Getting the men to do things in church works - up to a point. The only trouble is, all of them can't do things every week, and then you get the tyrrany of the rota system, which you see with acolytes, lesson readers and many other 'take your turn' jobs in the church - people only turn up when they are on the rota. (But at least they do turn up sometimes.)
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
Isn't this more about the take over of faith by identity generally? People are often very quick to say "my kind of people don't go to this kind of church" before they actually know anything much about the activity or group in question. Once it's been identified that men don't got to church, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather like the attraction of gay men to theatrical liturgy - which of course I am. And am. Ho hum...
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
There was no "mass exodus" specifically of men. Unless you mean the disciples who ran away at teh Crucifixion. Women were always more likely to attend church.
I know; that is why I set it aside in quotes. I have not noticed any such exodus, but some people act like the friggin' sky is falling, and I don't quite know what to say about it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Getting the men to do things in church works - up to a point. The only trouble is, all of them can't do things every week, and then you get the tyrrany of the rota system, which you see with acolytes, lesson readers and many other 'take your turn' jobs in the church - people only turn up when they are on the rota. (But at least they do turn up sometimes.)
There's more than enough jobs to keep all your men busy 52 weeks a year if you just expand your vision of what they do. I've had great success getting men to work in the nursery, teach Sunday School, etc. once you get past the initial assumption this is something mom's do. All it takes is a few positive role models in that position to establish these aren't "women's only" domains.
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on
:
The reasoning my old (male) youth leader gave to teenage boys on why they should stay in church:
"There's lots more girls than guys in the Church. Do you know what this means? It means Christian men can pull way above their status! Just look at my girlfriend - she'd be way out of my league in any other context!"
Probably not the best way to tackle the men-in-church problem, but it amused me.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Being in an evil mood tonight (must write sermon, Don't. Want. To)--
If you want to see plenty of men in church, bring back persecution. Dunno why, but when it's dangerous to go to church, you seem to get more guys.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Isn't this more about the take over of faith by identity generally? People are often very quick to say "my kind of people don't go to this kind of church" before they actually know anything much about the activity or group in question. Once it's been identified that men don't got to church, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather like the attraction of gay men to theatrical liturgy - which of course I am. And am. Ho hum...
This may be the fist post on this thread that starts getting near characterizing what may be going on. Thank you, FooloftheShip.
While I'm here - has it always been this way, as some of you assert? I keep asking for evidence but I'm still waiting. Perhaps it has. But there are long stretches in the church's history in this country when that is far from clear. Churches in other countries don't see this. Heck, some churches in this country don't see it either. Why should I assume it has always been the way it is when it is not this way elsewhere?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
People are often very quick to say "my kind of people don't go to this kind of church" before they actually know anything much about the activity or group in question.
I'm not sure who "my kind of people" are. Its probably an overlapping set of loosely delimited groups. But whoever they are, they don't seem to to go to the church I go to. Or any churches, much.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Maybe more women like singing than men. On one of the 'things kids say' threads I posted something I overheard in church once - a boy who said, 'Mum I don't think I'll be a Christian when I grow up, I can't stand all that singing'.
Of course, it doesn't help if the songs you sing go like this....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Maybe more women like singing than men.[/URL]
Ever been to a football match?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Or a rugby club....
Or army marching songs....
So is it the type of singing that matters - big and beefy rather than weak and wimpy? Male choral music fans notwithstanding?
[ 23. January 2011, 19:29: Message edited by: Chorister ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If you're afraid you don't sing well, being anonymous in a large crowd belting it out where sour notes will be averaged out in the din is maybe the only place where you feel safe singing.
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
Good point. I have heard people say they were put off coming back to church (after visiting for the first time) by all the singing because they'd be embarrassed by their own voice.
This was both men and women.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
I'm not sure who "my kind of people" are. Its probably an overlapping set of loosely delimited groups. But whoever they are, they don't seem to to go to the church I go to. Or any churches, much.
Of course.
Or to put it another way, it's useless asking people here to extrapolate from their experience what the problem is. For a raft of different reasons, we won't have a clue. We go to church, mostly. Or largely I think.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
As a male, I'd like a church that:
didn't allow services to go over an hour
don't expect you to stay for coffee and gossip
didn't expect you t hold hands and look into the eyes of others during the grace
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As a male, I'd like a church that:
didn't allow services to go over an hour
don't expect you to stay for coffee and gossip
didn't expect you t hold hands and look into the eyes of others during the grace
As a female, ditto
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Anglicans Online has an editorial this week about the church for men idea, referenced within an article that talks about youth also. It rains on the parade.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As a male, I'd like a church that:
didn't allow services to go over an hour
don't expect you to stay for coffee and gossip
As a male I'd like a church that is relaxed about time, takes as long as it needs over the services, and doesn't really care about punctuality.
I'd also like one that had some proper social interaction and not just smalltalk. I coudl do with more of it not less.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
As a male, I'd like a church that:
didn't allow services to go over an hour
don't expect you to stay for coffee and gossip
didn't expect you t hold hands and look into the eyes of others during the grace
Here's another female agreeing with you. And although we're wobbly on your first point -- our pastor tends to preach "until he's done," or at least until his spouse starts pointing at her watch and frowning -- our church does neither of the other two things.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
The men I know seem all more 'Agnostic' than women on religion.
eg We can't possibly know so why bother attitude.
I note that the Aethists Club (aka the National Secular Society) seems to be run by women just as the Churches are.
Debate.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
As a man I want a church that doesn't just have a coffee hour after services but a full communal potluck meal. Every week. Where you can sit down across the table from somebody and actually talk about real things and not just stand trying to balance a coffee cup and a little paper plate with cookies and bleat smalltalk.
I think starting things with "As a man I want..." is daft. I want those things as me. Do I want them because I am a man? How would I know? How can I winnow out what I want because I'm a man, and what I want simpliciter?
If you ask one man what he wants you find out not what men want, but what that man wants. If you ask 10,000 men what they want, and 10,000 women what they want, you might start to see patterns. Or not.
[ 24. January 2011, 17:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
Men are quite happy to discuss 'Morality' say for example in sport.
Should a football player 'dive' to get a penalty or a batsman 'walk' when he knows he's out but the umpire doesn't give it.
Men are passionate about the war in Iraq, and whether it was both 'immoral' and impractical.
In discussing 'Morality' we are coming close to the concept of 'God's will', aren't we ?
Most church services are 'boring' and the sermons never ever say anything to offend everyone, or even challenge them.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As a man I want a church that doesn't just have a coffee hour after services but a full communal potluck meal. Every week. Where you can sit down across the table from somebody and actually talk about real things and not just stand trying to balance a coffee cup and a little paper plate with cookies and bleat smalltalk.
I think starting things with "As a man I want..." is daft. I want those things as me. Do I want them because I am a man? How would I know? How can I winnow out what I want because I'm a man, and what I want simpliciter?
If you ask one man what he wants you find out not what men want, but what that man wants. If you ask 10,000 men what they want, and 10,000 women what they want, you might start to see patterns. Or not.
It's always a feature of these discussions, MT. But I agree with you.
For all that these discussions are worthy in their own right (cringeworthy hymns, touchy-feely group hugs, etc. etc. all deserve criticising into something better), I just can't see that any of them provide sufficient horsepower to achieve the sex ratios we see in attendance. Sorry.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As a man I want a church that doesn't just have a coffee hour after services but a full communal potluck meal. Every week. Where you can sit down across the table from somebody and actually talk about real things and not just stand trying to balance a coffee cup and a little paper plate with cookies and bleat smalltalk.
Agree. That's why I like churches where people go to the pub for drinks/lunch afterwards.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I've always thought that the male/female divide in church attendance stems from the fact that, especially in "traditional" family structures and divisions of household labor, most men are typically giving up leisure time to attend church whereas many women are getting a respite from housework and child care. It's a matter of different opportunity costs, not the attractive power of church attendance in itself.
Do you attend a church? If a regularly-attending woman is getting a respite from housework and childcare, it is in exchange for the opportunity to host a coffee hour and teach Sunday School...
--Tom Clune
When our kids were small, Sunday was no respite. Getting them up almost as early as a school day, getting to church... keeping them something resembling civilised through the service, usually having one of them in an armlock... teaching Sunday School, doing a reading, intercessions, serving coffee after. Respite, such as it was, came Monday morning after I'd dropped them off at school.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
The desertion of the Roman Catholic Church by men was predicted by Cardinal Heenan (late Archbishop of Westminster) after his attendance at an early post Vatican II mass in the Sistine Chapel when he said "At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel we would soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children.
Gloopy sentimental modernism is the Kryptonite to male participation.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Men are quite happy to discuss 'Morality' say for example in sport.
Should a football player 'dive' to get a penalty or a batsman 'walk' when he knows he's out but the umpire doesn't give it.
Men are passionate about the war in Iraq, and whether it was both 'immoral' and impractical.
In discussing 'Morality' we are coming close to the concept of 'God's will', aren't we ?
Most church services are 'boring' and the sermons never ever say anything to offend everyone, or even challenge them.
Pax et Bonum
Plenty of sermons don't shy away from offending or even condemning someone or some behaviour. Very few of them offend anyone present though. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
I was amused to note that tonight at our midweek service we had 7 men and 2 women (the priest and me, who served).
Carys
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
This is getting stupid. Why don't men go to church? Because they don't believe in all that crap. It has nothing to say to them. They simply don't need it.
If you're going to get them back, you've got to convince them that the church has something relevant to say to them. Something that's better for them than staying in bed or taking the kids to Little League or playing football on a Sunday morning. Something that's worth obeying all those "thou shalt not"s for.
Good luck with that.
The thing is, modern life has got so damn comfortable and easy that people don't feel any need to be Saved. Christianity is a religion that preaches a very desirable hope to the slaves, the downtrodden and the desperate - it preaches Salvation from these travails and offers a sense that In The End, everything will work out all right. For most Western man, things are perfectly OK right now, so they don't need that. Maybe in the West the message of hope to the downtrodden still reaches something in women that it doesn't in men - true equality has yet to come about, after all - but sooner or later women will be as economically and socially independent as men and then they won't feel the need to be Saved either.
Christianity is a religion for the weak, for those who cannot manage by themselves, for those who need help. And while women are allowed to need someone else in their lives, to be a "True Man" in the Western world is to be self-reliant. These two things are not compatible. And if your solution to that problem is to try to convince men that they're not self-reliant, you're just going to drive them further away.
After all, if you can't get a man to ask someone else for directions on a car journey, how are you going to get him to ask someone else for directions by which to live his entire life? He's fine. He knows exactly where he is. He doesn't.need.help.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Oh am I supposed to go to church because I need saving? I've been going for all the wrong reasons, then. But if people really do think that, then I can see why there is a problem.
Maybe the working out of the Kingdom of God here and now on earth isn't attractive enough - if so, heaven knows what can make it so. (Apart from superficial solutions, I mean - and I bet many men, as champion bullshitters, can see through those.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Oh am I supposed to go to church because I need saving? I've been going for all the wrong reasons, then. But if people really do think that, then I can see why there is a problem.
I reckon more people throughout history have gone to church for that reason than for any other. The promise that justice will be done? The promise of paradise hereafter? Those are things worth following - and following rules for - if you're suffering from injustice and living through hell.
But seriously, why else would you want to go to church?
quote:
Maybe the working out of the Kingdom of God here and now on earth isn't attractive enough
What does that actually mean, anyway? Does it mean getting up early on Sundays to sing a bunch of boring old songs and listen to someone else prattle on for ages about how we should all be nice to one another? If so then no, it's not even slightly attractive.
quote:
if so, heaven knows what can make it so.
Hence the problem. The Church simply has nothing to offer to most men. Nothing they want, anyway.
[ 26. January 2011, 13:54: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Unjust Stuart (# 13953) on
:
quote:
If you want to persuade young men to come to church, perhaps you should first persuade young women to do so. (There is a tropism involved.)
Well it certainly worked in our church choir - half the young men ended up marrying half the girls. Add the bellringers into the mix and we had a veritable marriage bureau.
I wonder what the 'critical mass' is in order to make this scheme work?
All this is laudable, I'm sure, but it's hardly going to encourage the wife whose husband has been asked to join this hotbed of lavisciousness on the transparent excuse that "we need more men". Or the husband whose wife has been asked to "join the altos". Join the altos IN WHAT?
Sometimes a choir is just a choir.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christianity is a religion for the weak, for those who cannot manage by themselves, for those who need help.
So that's why so many early Christians went to the lions and why there were more martyrs in the 20th Century than in the rest of history put together.
However, I agree that much in British church life panders to the weak - we get mamby pamby stuff about healing services and 'those in need' while many churches do little to address those who are currently strong about ethics in the workplace, ethical investment etc.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I think Marvin is largely right.
Many men -- and many women -- and almost all people under the age of 25 simply cannot imagine why they would want to go to church. As a young atheist friend of mine says, the church only has answers to questions I'm not asking.
And the church hasn't, IME, even started asking how it can present its message -- whatever that message is -- to people who aren't aware of the concepts of sin or salvation or "the Kingdom".
I'd go so far as to say that those on the inside live in a world so removed from those on the outside that we're already in a dialogue of the deaf.
The norm today is not to go to church. And the fault lies with those in preceding generations (because it's taken a couple of generations to get where we are) who never gave their children a good reason to go to church. Because once a person stops going, s/he won't bring the children, who will grow up without any knowledge at all of what church is about or for. In England alone in the western world, it's possible for there to be a bit of a safety net.
In truth, what will bring those who don't now go to church into church is raw evangelisation -- not cute devices for luring back people who have a basic faith but are lazy or distracted -- but reasons that make sense in today's secular world to people who have neither prior knowledge or experience, many of whom simply don't care and don't see why they should be bothered, and many who likely also have an "anti" bias, based on what "everybody knows" about church, priests, preachers and christians.
Because "everybody knows" -- and frightening numbers of people, especially younger people -- know that the church is always against what they are for: the church is against fair treatment for gays and lesbians, the church believes in literalism and fundamentalism, clergy are all child abusers or embezzlers and so on. ANd if they know someone who isn't like that, why "s/he's the exception that proves the rule."
Fellowship and community can be one such reason, but -- again IME -- if that's both where the evangelisation starts and where it ends, in the end, the people who come for it will leave.
John
[ 26. January 2011, 19:28: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christianity is a religion for the weak, for those who cannot manage by themselves, for those who need help.
So that's why so many early Christians went to the lions and why there were more martyrs in the 20th Century than in the rest of history put together.
Yes, pretty much. The powerful ones were the ones with the lions. The powerless were the ones who got fed to them. Weak isn't the same as cowardly. If the martyrs had been in positions of power they wouldn't have been martyrs. They'd have been in charge.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You seem to be conflating being powerful and being in a position of power.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, why else would you want to go to church?
Order and structure to life of following a particular religious path. I'm under no illusions that, if brought up in a different culture, that might well mean a different religion. The future - after death - has never bothered me, so it's got to be a reason for the here and now. I'm very fortunate in that I enjoy singing in the choir, which means my churchgoing is part of an all-embracing hobby as well as part of a faith journey through life. But would I still go to church if there was no choir? Actually, yes (even though it might be harder) because of the previously mentioned structure and shape to life. The church's year is part of a rhythm that makes sense to me.
Perhaps others find this structure and shape through other means? or maybe don't even like structure at all?
Interestingly, though, I'm struck by how much other religions are followed by so many men. Aggressively, maybe - so there may be issues with that - but, with the women expected to be docile followers, it's usually the men who make so much noise and take it so seriously.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Hasn't the church always contained many more females than men? There's plenty of evidence from the first few centuries that this was the case - and so perhaps the situation a few hundred years ago where robust argument attracted a more gender balanced congregation - was the high water mark rather than anything easily replicable.
I also note that many of the churches which do have reasonable numbers of men generally have them as part of a married couple.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Chris stiles asked quote:
Hasn't the church always contained many more females than men?
That's the question I would be interested in seeing the answer to as well!
Beyond any doubt, there is evidence that at certain times - and I suppose in certain places - this has been true. It's easy to link these unrelated points up to assume it has always been that way. But has it?
For a start, there are also times when there seem to have been more men around than women (for example when there was a push to get the church back on track that resulted in the establishment of the desert fathers and mothers. There seems to have been a preponderance of the former). There are also long periods of time for which we have no data at all. But might this not be because there was nothing to say? A major reason for that might be that church was not deemed a particularly sexed institution, at least so far as congregations went.
Moreover, as I said earlier, some churches don't have this imbalance at present.
It seems to me that another explanation worth considering would be that the church may have seen a preponderance of one sex at certain times, but not necessarily all the time. It may have fluctuated. To be honest, I have only suggested this scenario because, quite frankly, I don't think the data is adequate to support the assertion that "things have always been this way". It may be correct, but if it is, I would like to see the argument based on fact rather than assertion.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps others find this structure and shape through other means? or maybe don't even like structure at all?
Yes, very much so. People get structure from work, from friendships, from sports, from hobbies, from family life, etc. And all those things are more productive, or more fun, than church.
The set of people who would go to church just for the bit of extra structure in their lives is vanishingly small, I would say. For a start they'd have to have nothing better to structure their life around, and how many of the non-churched would say that?
quote:
Interestingly, though, I'm struck by how much other religions are followed by so many men. Aggressively, maybe - so there may be issues with that - but, with the women expected to be docile followers, it's usually the men who make so much noise and take it so seriously.
So maybe the question should be: what are those religions doing differently that attracts so many men to them? What are they saying that Christianity isn't, and conversely what are they not saying that Christianity is?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to be conflating being powerful and being in a position of power.
Sounds fair enough to me.
Leo seemed to be conflating weakness with cowardice or indecision.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I think John Holding's post above pretty much sums up the main challenge and difficulty of the church's modern-day mission.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
I mostly agree with Marvin. Modern churchdom is too touchy-feely. Too wooly. It drives out not only the males, but also the more gutsy, independent-minded females.
Interestingly, in groups of "strong" (ie healthy, educated, and in responsible positions) Christians -such as the 'Mouvement des Cadres Chrétiens' here in France- you find that in meetings the males are often in the majority.
I know I ride on stereotypes here, but I wished we had some more 'masculine' churches: Where the sermons were on issues of pro-actively dealing with life, where after-church coffee included beer (why not? ...OK, at least for us European Catholics... ) and open discussion on politics, society, and God.
The Jesuits got it right when they proposed different masses for different kinds of people.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
In response to Marvin's points, which I think have some validity --
Of course church in the modern western world faces the problem of no longer being able to appeal to people's sense of desperation by promising them a reward in the afterlife. Nor do we have the deeply-ingrained sense of sin and guilt to which the church can offer a cure in the form of divine forgiveness (although I'm not sure why; it's not like we're any less sinful).
But that doesn't mean that comfortable modern people have no needs, only that the church needs to adjust its message to the needs people actually feel. Surely the need for meaning and a sense of purpose, not to mention the need for connection, both to other people and to something beyond oneself, are pressing and pervasive needs for most well-off Westerners (male and female)? Has the church nothing to say to the vague, nagging sense that getting up and going to work every day for forty years only to die at the end of it, is meaningless and without purpose?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
A couple of thoughts arising out of recent posts:
In answer to Marvin - it's interesting that you see it as either / or, whereas I see it as both / and. If you are the sort of person who likes order and structure a lot, you seek it out in all these - in work, in hobbies, in religion, in life.
Also, in a traditional Anglican setting, you often get men who went to public school, where church attendance was part and parcel of life; also many in the choir who learnt to sing as young boys in a school or major church choir. Perhaps people who do like structure are attracted to churches with formal liturgy and ordered activities such as church choir, acolyte duties and bellringing.
In answer to stiles: you make an interesting point about men often being in married couples if there are a lot of them in church. That is certainly so in my church - I'd not divided up the men into married and unmarried, I'd just noticed there were a lot of them. And family men, currently we have many where dad and mum come together with the children, whereas in many churches perhaps dad stays home and they come with just mum.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Of course church in the modern western world faces the problem of no longer being able to appeal to people's sense of desperation by promising them a reward in the afterlife. Nor do we have the deeply-ingrained sense of sin and guilt to which the church can offer a cure in the form of divine forgiveness (although I'm not sure why; it's not like we're any less sinful).
One of the by-products of the social rights movement was the idea that everyone is good, rather than the idea that everyone (or at least some people) is bad and sinful. It led to everyone thinking they're the bees knees regardless of what they do, and that in turn means a loss of the ingrained sense of sinfulness that you refer to.
In short, modern education is all about buiding up children's self-esteem. And then we wonder why they don't think they have anything wrong with them that needs forgiving?
quote:
But that doesn't mean that comfortable modern people have no needs, only that the church needs to adjust its message to the needs people actually feel. Surely the need for meaning and a sense of purpose, not to mention the need for connection, both to other people and to something beyond oneself, are pressing and pervasive needs for most well-off Westerners (male and female)?
I think that, whereas in the past it might have been a need for structure and purpose, the main need most modern people have is for affirmation. they don't want to be told to change, they just want someone to tell them that what they're doing is a-ok.
As for connections beyond oneself, people get those through friendship groups and clubs. "Church as a social club" is often derided, but maybe the problem referred to on this thread was caused by it ceasing to be true?
quote:
Has the church nothing to say to the vague, nagging sense that getting up and going to work every day for forty years only to die at the end of it, is meaningless and without purpose?
Not if people don't believe in the basic tenets of faith, no. Without that basic belief the church is just one more self-help group.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
Mass in the RCC seems to be closer to gender-balanced than reports here from services of other churches.
I think Marvin might be onto something here - although I believe he is mistaken in the matter of fact - in that modernist confusions have led to a rather namby pamby blur of shallow consolations and warm platitudes. It is not that Christianity is for weaklings, but that it is all-too-often presented weakly.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
It is not that Christianity is for weaklings
I didn't say "weaklings", I said "the weak". As opposed to "the powerful". Meaning people who are downtrodden, oppressed and dominated by others. Nothing to do with individual physical or mental strength at all.
Ken got it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Mass in the RCC seems to be closer to gender-balanced than reports here from services of other churches.
I think Marvin might be onto something here - although I believe he is mistaken in the matter of fact - in that modernist confusions have led to a rather namby pamby blur of shallow consolations and warm platitudes. It is not that Christianity is for weaklings, but that it is all-too-often presented weakly.
I think it's more (as another poster noted earlier) that we-- meaning all humans, not just moderns)-- have some really messed up ideas about power. We don't understand what it means to be powerful, because everything Jesus taught and lived about power is completely counter-intuitive to us-- the first shall be last, to save your life you must lose your life, etc. Walter Wink I think develops this well in his works.
It also comes down to your understanding of the incarnation. Do you understand Phil. 2:5-6 as "even though Jesus was in the form of God... he emptied himself" or do you understand it as "precisely because Jesus was in the form of God... he emptied himself". What does it mean to be "God"? To have the power of God? Does it mean being the biggest, strongest bad-a** on the block? Or does it means something quite different?
[ 28. January 2011, 14:43: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
Interestingly, though, I'm struck by how much other religions are followed by so many men. Aggressively, maybe - so there may be issues with that - but, with the women expected to be docile followers, it's usually the men who make so much noise and take it so
Do you actually have any evidence other than looking at the way things appear from the outside that other religious traditions attract more men than women? Because I was just wondering myself if this is a general thing, that maybe _in general_ women are more attracted to religion than men are. I can say this, a non-Christian looking at Christianity from the outside would probably not automatically see this sexual divide. A Non-Christian looking at Christianity would most likely more see it the way you are seeing other religions.
Remember, just because there's a hardcore militant wing of a religion, such as, for instance, Islamic terrorists, doesn't mean that mainstream mosques aren't filled with more women then men simply following the daily tenants. I have no idea if this is the case or not, but just looking at what we see presented in the media wouldn't tell us one way or another.
I'd really like some hard info on this, because I am really starting to wonder if in fact it's just simply that more women generally are interested in religion.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I would be interested to see more hard data on that too, nicolemrw. Certainly my impression of Islam from the outside is that there are either similar numbers or sometimes more men.
A couple of years ago we were invited to visit a madrassah in Oman. The main mosque in Muscat is in fact two mosques - they built separate ones for the men and women and the women's one is half the size. I was told the big one (men's) often overflows on big festivals.
But that is Hanbali Islam. How it works in other forms of Islam I don't know.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
No I don't have hard evidence, it's based on impressions from news coverage (which I'm well aware may be biased). But the situation is often one of war or threat - I wonder whether some men need a bit of danger in order to think it's OK to be seen in church? I've heard from forces chaplains that services are more popular during war or threat of war.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wonder whether some men need a bit of danger in order to think it's OK to be seen in church?
Probably, but historically one reason suggested for the predominance of women in church is that while they prayed, the men would stand guard outside, on the lookout for danger. This situation prevailed for awhile in Ireland, when Roman Catholic worship was proscribed; the need for quiet in such circumstances also explains "why Catholics can't sing" in the U.S. (where Irish is the ethnic and cultural heritage of parishes unless stated otherwise).
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
[qb]Has the church nothing to say to the vague, nagging sense that getting up and going to work every day for forty years only to die at the end of it, is meaningless and without purpose?
Not if people don't believe in the basic tenets of faith, no. Without that basic belief the church is just one more self-help group.
Sorry, I'm confused -- who are the "people" you're referring to, who don't believe in the basic tenets of the faith? If you mean people already active in the church, then obviously if they don't believe what they're supposedly teaching, they won't have much to offer to others, male or female.
But if you mean the theoretical audience -- the people, male or female, who are not being drawn towards the church -- then you could make the exact same argument against your own theory that church offers a promise of salvation to the weak, the oppressed, and those with a sense of sin. It only offers salvation IF YOU BELIEVE what it teaches -- if you're oppressed and struggling, the promise of salvation in the afterlife means nothing if you don't believe it's true. Likewise, the promise that your life is meaningful because you were created by a loving God who has a place in His plan for you, is hardly meaningful if you don't believe it. But I think if you do believe it, it's very powerful, and has a great deal to say to the needs of modern society.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Read a lovely little excerpt from one of Anthony Trollope's novels where the male characters are all giving their excuses for not attending the local church; as in it's not their usual habit and certainly not to go more than once if at all; and where the women are being chivvied into attendance whether they want to or not.
'Women seem to need more church than us,' observes one of the men. A view clearly not shared with at least one of the women characters!
The interesting thing was that it was perfectly acceptable for the men not to bother, whereas rather scandalous if the women didn't.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But if you mean the theoretical audience -- the people, male or female, who are not being drawn towards the church -- then you could make the exact same argument against your own theory that church offers a promise of salvation to the weak, the oppressed, and those with a sense of sin. It only offers salvation IF YOU BELIEVE what it teaches -- if you're oppressed and struggling, the promise of salvation in the afterlife means nothing if you don't believe it's true.
Part of my theory is the idea that weak and oppressed people who can concieve of no other way out of their downtrodden existence are more likely to cling to any hope for release. Belief itself is more likely when one is in that situation. If you desperately need a saviour, you'll reach out to any salvation that happens to present itself. If you're in that situation, you need to believe in some hope, some means of escape.
The comfortable and powerful don't have that need to believe - they don't have any major needs that belief can meet, there aren't any gaps in their lives for belief to fill. And there are a lot of comfortable and/or powerful people in the Western world today.
[ 29. January 2011, 10:52: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I went to a football match last night. And thought, not for the first time, that the demographics of football supporters are almost the exact opposite of the demographics of church attenders. At least they are in South East London. The missing demographic at our church is, roughly, white working-class men of working age - that is precisely the sort of people who most go to football matches.
The missing age group in church is from about 18 to 35. Maybe even 50. Football fans actually have a pretty smooth age distribution but I think young adults are probably slightly over-represented.
Men are over-represented among football supprters. I'd guess about four fifths of last night's crowd was male. About four fifths of our church congregation is female (a few years ago there were almost no men at all - more men have been coming since we have had women vicars - I infer no causality)
Black people are over-represented at church. Our church is about 90% black. The neighbourhood I live in is probably about 50% black, but most of our congregation live further away than me. Around 20% of the population of the boroughs from which our football team draws most of its support are black but the supporters are maybe 95% white. There are hundreds of black supporters at home matches, but not thousands. (This is not true for every football team in London - black people in south-east London or the East End often support Arsenal, rather than the immediately local teams. Possibly for good reason)
The class situation is more complicated. These days our smallish number of white church members tend to be either middle-class and university-educated, or else from the very poorest parts of society - there are homeless people, and alcoholics, and people in long-term psychiatric care. The middle is missing. This was not the case even twenty years ago, when the mainstay of the congregation was elderly women from what would once have been called the "respectable working classes" or possibly the lower middle classes. People with skilled jobs (or married to people with skilled jobs), often self-employed, earning a decent amount of money, but culturally working-class and unlikely to be university educated or to be anyone's boss or landlord. That description probably applies to most of our black members now, but not so many of the white ones. At football, on the other hand...
The other place I spend lots of time in company locally is the pub. That's an even more interesting crowd. It includes lots of football supporters, though its more ethnically diverse than the football crowd - lots of Irish and Jamaicans, which is typical of pubs in our area. And some of the men who go to our pub are in fact the husbands or boyfriends of some of the women who go to our church. Which leads to some conversations that sometimes end up with me knowing more about people's private business than maybe I ought to. People have different kinds of conversations in pubs than in church. And in my experience they are more likely to talk about personal problems or family trouble and such like emotional stuff in the pub than they are in church. Maybe its the beer, maybe they feel safer, or under less pressure to say the right thing, but you hear a lot of private details of people's lives in a pub that rarely get mentioned in church.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
So ... more beer and football in church, then?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
So ... more beer and football in church, then?
That would work for Protestants. We have too many candle stands to make it safe.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
my word, what a relentless shower of cliches!! Find me more than one man in a hundred who feels genuinely empowered in himself by all the social structures of power which are at best lent to him on the strict condition that he does not make a single solitary personal decision as to how or when to deploy them. They come with strict terms and conditions, which have to be followed on pain of painful and debilitating deprivation.
To me, the absence of men in church has a lot to do with the general state of masculinity: the current prevalent model has successfully encouraged to forget how to access most of their humanity. If it is preached at all well, the Christian invitation is to access our humanity more fully, which goes against this conditioning and scares people off.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To me, the absence of men in church has a lot to do with the general state of masculinity: the current prevalent model has successfully encouraged to forget how to access most of their humanity. If it is preached at all well, the Christian invitation is to access our humanity more fully, which goes against this conditioning and scares people off.
But this would only be the case if the low proportion of men to women in congregations was a new phenomenon. If the 'general state of masculinity' has deteriorated in some way, how do we explain that in general women have been over represented and men have been under represented in church congregations, in the UK at least, for many years, as has been described in other posts?
Just as it's a mistake to assume that the capacity of a church is a guide to the size of the congregation when it was built, it's probably a mistake to think that our nostalgic images of a golden age of pews filled with equal numbers of men and women ever reflected the truth.
anne
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Perhaps we need different types of church to connect with extraverts and introverts rather than with males and females (but which will result in more males attending by default). When a church changed from having a more introvert older vicar to a more extravert younger one, I noticed more younger males started to come along. Now is this due to the age, or the personality style of the vicar? I'm not sure - perhaps some of both?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Are you saying that more men are extrovert than women? I would have thought the opposite was true. Back when I had my horoscope read by the Myers Briggs coven, the only that rang true to me was the Extrovert/Introvery thing. If you were feeling tired would you renew your strength by seeing friends (Ex) or by doing something solitary (In)? All the complaints here about touchy-feely stuff would support the broad stereotype that men aren't into that sort of thing, don't want to discuss their inner feelings, and are happy bottling everything up. Classic Introvert, in my book.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
All the complaints here about touchy-feely stuff would support the broad stereotype that men aren't into that sort of thing
The men I am talking about who go to the pub or the football are being a lot more extrovert and noisy than the ones who go to church. They talk to each other. They jump up and down. They shake hands and clap each other on the back and sometimes even hug or believe it or not kiss on the cheek (though that would be rare). They talk, They shout. They even sing. Mostly very badly.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
The stereotype is that men will talk about things, but not feelings. The reverse for women. That makes the stereotypical man more Introvert than the stereotypical woman (as always, exceptions are plentiful).
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is getting stupid. Why don't men go to church? Because they don't believe in all that crap. It has nothing to say to them. SNIP
But I think similar things could be said about women. I think most men would at least respect a church that taught the faith clearly and firmly rather than dancing around it with trivial sermons about everything else.
Also, like it or not, many men do not like being preached at by women, whether they admit it or not. And more and more of the clergy in many churches are women.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is getting stupid. Why don't men go to church? Because they don't believe in all that crap.
So if it's crap, you're saying that women just aren't smart enough to figure that out, and men are?
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
I'm one of those men who doesn't go to church. To my surprise (though I'm unsure why I should be surprised by it) my advice to you is "Listen to Marvin". You may not like what he's saying but it makes a lot of sense.
Formerly churches/religions basically only had to compete with each other - it was largely a matter of taste/degree of religious preference rather than one of belief v. unbelief. Now much that was represented as fact is seen as silly and irrelevant.
In the past the churches told people what their needs were and then offered the solution. The combination of the advances of science, the spread of education, information availablity via the www and the adoption of similar sales tactics by organisations offering other products competing for the same income (starting with Pepsodent and including Listerine?) leaves christianity as a vulnerable brand.
Churches are selling a conceptual product in a material world. In the past it probably made sense to go along with the church as a form of insurance - it probably still does in less socially advanced parts of the world. Now, in the UK, unless it's part of your comfort zone the price isn't worth the candle. (sorry about that).
Most people will only buy a product that meets a perceived need - whether that need be real or not is irrelevant.
In other words you have to have a product that appeals to a market - Christianity is perceived as being rigid, old-fashioned and hierachical (Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever, funny clothes and rituals, headlines and images screaming antedeluvian attitudes to LGBT, abortion, medical research etc.) and that has appeal to some - but probably a decreasing proportion of Brits and generally not, I suspect, to those who feel strong and secure in a world of change. At a tangent - perhaps that's why some people whose income/status/power depend upon religious foundations seem determined to maintain social inequality?
Frankly one could argue that, as a product, christianity has had it's heyday and is on the downward sales path to oblivion. Clearly that is not true in large parts of the world but the process has started. Does your soft drink have the same formula as thirty years ago? Is it offering the same message to justify your judgement of its worth? Perhaps Christianity's problem is that it has boxed itself into a rigidity of product that precludes the sort of responsiveness to customer needs that other brands have taken. How would you feel about dropping the Creeds, forgetting about original sin and transubstantation, accepting that gender variations are a product of millions of years of evolution, losing the resurrection, rejecting the virgin birth etc? And if christianity did all that - what would be its raison d'etre?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Churches are selling a conceptual product in a material world.
This is an odd statement to me, as culturally speaking, the world is less "material" than it's ever been. This is the information age, and people are derided precisely for NOT having physical interaction with one another, but interacting entirely in an immaterial medium. And the material world is denigrated with such malphemisms as "meatspace".
The churches are selling a conceptual idea in a virtual world, it would be better to say. In the material world, in middle class English-speaking Telluria, many people spend their time goofing on the Internet, watching TV, and playing video games.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
All the complaints here about touchy-feely stuff would support the broad stereotype that men aren't into that sort of thing
The men I am talking about who go to the pub or the football are being a lot more extrovert and noisy than the ones who go to church. They talk to each other. They jump up and down. They shake hands and clap each other on the back and sometimes even hug or believe it or not kiss on the cheek (though that would be rare). They talk, They shout. They even sing. Mostly very badly.
But that isn't really 'touchy feely' in the same way that often happens in churches, is it? In a pub, it's more boisterous, more spontaneous, not all pious and sentimental. I see 'touchy feely' more as a sentimental thing, and involves being super sensitive to different people's sensibilities, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the expression. My sister stopped going to church as a teenager because it was too 'counsellor-like' - when our parents split up, people were always hugging her and asking if she was okay, and being all extra kind, and while she found it nice at first, she didn't want that continually happening. I went to a different sort of church where that didn't happen, so I guess it depends on the church too.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
My sister stopped going to church as a teenager because it was too 'counsellor-like' - when our parents split up, people were always hugging her and asking if she was okay, and being all extra kind, and while she found it nice at first, she didn't want that continually happening.
Similarly, of course, there are many people who have left churches because that DIDN'T happen -- they were going through a crisis and not enough people stepped forward to be obviously supportive and "touchy feely." Which just illustrates the difficulty churches have in trying to meet the needs of all sorts of different people, not just men and women.
As regards Marvin's points -- I think that's an irreconcilable difference between us then: if I'm reading you right, you genuinely believe modern people have no needs that can be met by Christianity, and that Christianity has nothing to offer and nothing to say in the modern world. Whereas I think Christianity still has quite a lot to offer, but since modern people may perceive their needs differently than people did in the past, churches need to adjust the way in which they proclaim the message. I think people are in as much need of a Savior as they ever were, but that they are aware of that need in different ways and would use different language to express it.
And then there's this ...
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Also, like it or not, many men do not like being preached at by women, whether they admit it or not. And more and more of the clergy in many churches are women.
How fortunate that all women always enjoy being preached at by men, so there's no need to adjust the way we do things.
The inherent sexism in this comment actually makes me want to do something I don't think I've ever done before, which is to use this ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
emoticon. However, since the ordination of women is a certified Dead Horse, I can't delve into the issue as I'd like to here. I just have to decide whether it's worth the effort of calling you to Hell or to Dead Horses to discuss it further, and if so, which.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Similarly, of course, there are many people who have left churches because that DIDN'T happen -- they were going through a crisis and not enough people stepped forward to be obviously supportive and "touchy feely."
Oh yes, definitely. I was illustrating my understanding of the term 'touchy feely' rather than saying that my sister's church was wrong to do this. And to be fair, she wanted this at first - she would share her feelings to get support. She wouldn't have liked my church, where people weren't touchy feely. It is impossible to be all things to all people. I'd say to some extent it's up to the individual to find a church which suits their personality and needs, rather than to criticise all the churches which don't, because different churches meet different people's needs.
It occurs to me that if there were several men who couldn't find a church to suit them but they wanted to worship, they could in theory set up their own worship - in someone's home or something.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
In destructive marriages or relationships social psychologists have often found something called the 'Demand/withdraw' cycle. This involves one partner placing demands on the other and that other partner then withdraws in response. This can become a downward spiral as the demanding party feels the need to demand even more following the withdrawal and so on...
Before moving on I should make it clear that it is possible for one party to withdraw in response to perceived demands.
It would be interesting to know (and I have absolutely no evidence) whether the Demand/Withdraw cycle can also have an effect on a larger social group. A set of people who share a common identity who subconsciously decide to withdraw. Of course at this level it would almost certainly be a perceived demand rather than an actual demand.
As a male I would apply the above theory to my own experience in the following way. Teen- I want to get drunk, have self indulgent sex and I want people to be intimidated by me. I perceive that I need to do these things in order to be safe and secure. I perceive the church as telling me that I need to place my self in an insecure situation by trusting in something that will cause me to be subjected to ridicule (the demand). In consequence I do not want to be associated with the church (the withdrawal). One day however I hear and understand the word of God and I realise that the reverse is true. It is 'society' demanding that I place myself in an insecure situation so that I can be used for it's own ends and that true security can be found in trusting in God's son. Of course I do not, or should not, respond to society's demands by withdrawing from society because removal of the source of my relational problems has begun.
[ 30. January 2011, 18:50: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
People certainly do withdraw from demands of the church - I've read on the ship many times that people feel jumped on if they do turn up and asked to do all sorts of jobs. Again this is not specific to men.
Marvin's notion that people don't come (or stop coming) because they don't believe is probably true. In which case we've probably got the message wrong. After all, people don't stop posting on the ship when they don't believe, they continue to post and feel able to declare that they don't believe or have trouble believing. Perhaps in too many churches people don't feel able to do this. And if you don't like pretending....
Maybe liberal churches, where it's OK to admit to such thoughts, aren't too good at advertising themselves?
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
There isn't really a place in the liturgy for doubts, is there ? One recites the articles of faith. The church affirms the wonder and goodness of God, you don't sing songs about the problem of evil. The sermon might cover some of these things once in a while, but more often it will tell you about things that are wonderful - or ways to pull up your spiritual socks.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
So maybe the churches need to find venues where people can express their doubts and worries, instead of just having places where the show at the front assumes that you don't have doubts or worries. An event where you are told to recite stuff you aren't sure of, that tells you to "have more faith" (how?) and that emphasises uniformity within the hive isn't necessarily worthwhile.
The "pub" (or whatever) venues sound like a pretty useful idea.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Maybe liberal churches, where it's OK to admit to such thoughts, aren't too good at advertising themselves?
I don't think this has anything to do with the theological position of the church. Doubting / exploring assumes that all options are open. I've been to several liberal churches where the one thing you are not allowed to doubt is your doubt!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It's no disrespect to the many suggestions above, which all merit discussion, but I increasingly feel that the danger is of over-analysing this. The fact remains that for whatever reasons, going to church has become sucked into the orbit of "gender". You don't need any more explanations once that happens - it's the explanation in itself and not a symptom.
There is still the matter of how it got there, and how we might get it out again, assuming we want to do that, though.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
[ 30. January 2011, 20:48: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Something in that. My wife and I agree more often on the doubts and worries and annoyances than we do on the "message".
We are both turned off by the same sorts of attitudes expressed in churches. Attending a particular church today because of an announcement by the bishop to be made there revealed to us a place that was more concerned about the choreography of the service than it was about the meaning of what they were doing. Not a happy-making place.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Also, like it or not, many men do not like being preached at by women, whether they admit it or not.
So some men are sexist bigots? What's new?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
Bingo.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Marvin's notion that people don't come (or stop coming) because they don't believe is probably true.
Actually, Chorister, Marvin said that men don't come to church because 'they don't believe in all that crap'; not that people don't come to church for that reason. Women apparently are still believing the crap.
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
For those men who find that a woman's voice in the pulpit is dislikeable, because it is a woman's voice (as suggested by another poster), little can be done on that score by the female preacher. I find my dislike in listening to any speaker - in or outside of church - lies in the content of what they say rather than their sperm count, but I daresay that's very biased of me.
The 'weaker sex' has managed to put up with endless millenia of listening to the male voice drone on from pulpit, lectern, woolsack, family table, head office and despatch box and managed to survive without emptying the building. Surely what is achievable by a mere girl is at least potentially within the grasp of the superior animal?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So many posts, and I still don't buy the thesis that men are fleeing the Church in droves because there is something "unmanly" about the Church. IMHO this is at heart an excuse cooked up by conservative misogynists in (mostly Protestant) churches as a passive-aggressive way to take a swing at women achieving or hoping to achieve gender equity in those churches.
From everything I've read, in general younger adults of both genders are fleeing churches because they find organized religion scientifically and socially backward and hypocritical...and unlike past generations who felt a certain social pressure to be at least nominal churchgoers, the under-40's of today have no pressure at all to keep up religious appearances -- not even in their teens, when they're still living at home. These people have simply said, "To hell with it all," and walked away.
And of course the holy folks wringing their hands over "not enough men in church" are not going to want to address this much larger issue, because many of the younger generations' complaints against Christianity directly attack their theological and social-policy sacred cows.
Bingo.
I'm not sure specifically what 'social policy sacred cows' LuthernChik is referring to but 'double-bingo' for the rest.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is getting stupid. Why don't men go to church? Because they don't believe in all that crap.
So if it's crap, you're saying that women just aren't smart enough to figure that out, and men are?
I phrased the comment exactly the same way most non-churchgoing men I know would answer the question "why don't you go to church?"
I imagine most non-churchgoing women I know would answer in a similar vein as well. But this thread is about men.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
OK, here's an idea. I'll think of a non-churchgoing male friend of mine at random (I have many to choose from), and you try to think of one thing church can offer him that he actually thinks he needs. If you're so sure church has so much to offer, it should be easy, right?
OK, I pick Alex. He's early 20s, in a long-term relationship (no marriage plans I'm aware of), from a reasonably rich family, and has never been a religious sort of person. He likes going out to clubs, holidays in Spain, football and cricket. What has church got that he's going to want? Anything?
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
Since this thread relies on stereotypes and gross generalizations about men, I'll go with that. A young (let's say 18-25 year old) Western heterosexual male probably is unlikely to see much value in church attendance or participation. That particular demographic might be more interested in education/job training, working, leisure activities, and getting laid. Churches usually don't offer much in the way of helpful access to education or work (scholarships, networking opportunities). Liberalish mainline denominations don't involve themselves with the relevant sports and leisure activities. Church as a place for easy hook-ups: it's certainly not organized or promoted as such. So there isn't much overlap with the stereotyped interests of Alex and his peers.
However, I have seen - I would even say often - that young men return to or start attending and participating in church upon becoming husbands, or especially dads. When the kids are 5-12 years of age, dads show up. The age 25-50 age bracket of men is not as absent from church in my experience as it is of ken's.
How could Christianity appeal to young men like Alex? Should we present the possibility of violent and glorious jihad? Access to social prestige? The youth group as jailbait? I don't find these possible, let alone palatable. So I guess we will need more imagination, or something, to appeal to Alex and his ilk; or we can just wait them out. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
After all, these very young men who have no business with "weakness" soon will. They will have infants, children, elderly parents, partners who become sick - all weak, all in need of compassion and help. Ayn Rand won't suit them forever, because they will (hopefully) come to realize that they are an anomaly in what they perceive as strength and self-direction. Not that Christianity should capitalize on that weakness (or let's call it brokenness, perhaps)... but I do think that people who have experienced brokenness are more open to the Christian message.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
No kidding. My congregation includes several custodial dads, several men providing primary caregiving to homebound elders or spouses.
Once again, I find the entire attempt to polarlize men and women over the issue of church attedance to be so much bullshit. And, once again, I find that the biggest proponents tend to be males who have issues with women in leadership positions in churches, who are projecting their own anxieties onto other men and onto the Church itself.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Alex is just the sort to be invited to an alpha course. The popular image of it, at least, is of well-off 20 or 30 somethings who will respond to a presentation by a lawyer to several people of similar background. I don't know if it's normal now, but there was a theory going round several years ago that some of the success was that they looked behind the apparent strength of such people and discovered a weakness in the past (eg. being abandoned at boarding school at age 7). The theme of 'healing past hurts' especially in the later stages of the course, eg. weekend away, was apparently rather effective at breaking down these barriers.
I must admit I don't like this philosophy much - and it can be found in other places than alpha courses; I've seen it on general church weekends away and at Saturday celebrations / study days - why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church? And what if they're broken down and can't be put back together again?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Interesting how "Alex" also falls into the demographic of those most likely to commit suicide (admittedly, that's looking at age and gender only, not taking into account factors like socioeconomic status).
I don't believe in "breaking people down" -- that sounds terrible -- but if it is true that everyone has a need for God and salvation (which is debatable, I realize, but I think it's true) then you do have a problem with the fact that some people are likely to be much more aware of that need than others are. Is it the job of the church to help people become aware of their need for God, to point out areas of need, pain, emptiness and sin in their lives which they may be in denial about? Or do we just sit back and wait till people's life circumstances bring them to the point where they do feel a need for God?
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church?
I did not say that, nor would I endorse that (if this was addressed to my post). I specifically said that Christianity should not capitalize on brokenness, but that people who had experienced brokenness were more likely to be receptive. If your church preaches that people ought to be "broken down" in order to be persuaded... uh... Run Away!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
No kidding. My congregation includes several custodial dads, several men providing primary caregiving to homebound elders or spouses.
Once again, I find the entire attempt to polarlize men and women over the issue of church attedance to be so much bullshit. And, once again, I find that the biggest proponents tend to be males who have issues with women in leadership positions in churches, who are projecting their own anxieties onto other men and onto the Church itself.
Yes. As I said early on, any time I've heard this question raised, the answer always seems to be some version of John Edridge/ Mark Driscoll's "muscular Christianity"-- one that elevates masculinity by diminishing women (e.g. Eldridge's every woman is a "princess-waiting-to-be-rescued fairy tale"). Everything that's been said so far on this thread seems to bear that out. If there's a reasonable argument to be made that there actually IS a decline in male attendees (rather than, as has been noted, a decline in overall attendance) and if that can be addressed w/o throwing women under the bus, yes, I'd be happy to hear it. But so far I've yet to hear it.
This debate reminds me of the recent furor around the "gender gap in higher education". Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates. This has been spun into a "war on boys" and all sorts of hand-wringing about how our educational system is "failing boys". Until more thoughtful statisticians looked more closely and realized that the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
Seems like the same thing may be at play here.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:- quote:
This debate reminds me of the recent furor around the "gender gap in higher education". Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates. This has been spun into a "war on boys" and all sorts of hand-wringing about how our educational system is "failing boys". Until more thoughtful statisticians looked more closely and realized that the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
If you google "gender disparity in college graduation" you'll get a ton of hits covering a wide variation in interpretation. Here's a couple written from different perspectives:
sees cause for concern
sees less alarming factors at play
Are you saying you don't have the same so-called gender gap ("so-called" because 56% doesn't seem like that big a gap) in the UK?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... why does someone need to be broken down in order to persuade them that they need the church?
I did not say that, nor would I endorse that (if this was addressed to my post). I specifically said that Christianity should not capitalize on brokenness, but that people who had experienced brokenness were more likely to be receptive. If your church preaches that people ought to be "broken down" in order to be persuaded... uh... Run Away!
I would just like to make it clear that my comment was not in reply to Leaf, or anyone else specifically. It was a general query, related in some part to observations made at a rather disturbing weekend I attended, plus comments from a fellow churchgoer who had been subjected to these techniques.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Having looked around a bit, I don't think the problem is "why aren't men going to church?" so much as it is "why aren't people going to church?"
I rather agree with the comments about stereotyping men. Women are just as likely to NOT go to church, although there may be some difference in the reasons.
"Church" doesn't offer much to people who don't even see the need the church would like to think is there. And "Church" speaks a language that is completely alien to the ears of over half of the population.
I recently attended a church which has shrunk to one-quarter of the congregation it had ten years ago. The solution? Better quality of chant in the sung Eucharist! That'll get them knocking the doors down!
Not.
Nothing like repeating what you've been doing, even if it has had negative results.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
...
However, I have seen - I would even say often - that young men return to or start attending and participating in church upon becoming husbands, or especially dads. When the kids are 5-12 years of age, dads show up. The age 25-50 age bracket of men is not as absent from church in my experience as it is of ken's.
...
After all, these very young men who have no business with "weakness" soon will. They will have infants, children, elderly parents, partners who become sick - all weak, all in need of compassion and help. Ayn Rand won't suit them forever, because they will (hopefully) come to realize that they are an anomaly in what they perceive as strength and self-direction. Not that Christianity should capitalize on that weakness (or let's call it brokenness, perhaps)... but I do think that people who have experienced brokenness are more open to the Christian message.
While I agree that the church has little or nothing to appeal to Alex and his friends, at least as the church now operates and teaches, I think you do them a disservice by referring to Ayn RAnd. Their opinions are not particularly based on her kinds of teaching, and I don't really think they are based on a disdain for or ignorance of weakness. THeir opinions are firmly based on what they think the church is and on what (little) they know (or misunderstand) about what it teaches. When my son was at a comparable age, his comment to me when I asked was that his friends "know" that the church is made up of literal fundamentalists or priests buggering little boys. You don't hve to be a follower of Ayn Rand to want to stay miles away from that.
As for "Well, they'll come back when they have kids of their own", that certainly used to be true. But it has largely stopped being true in much of Canada over the last 10 years or so. It's just that we're so used to relying on the reappearance of the late 20s and their families that we forget that many of them never "appeared" at all -- so there's going to be no "re-appearance". The critical change in attendance happened 30 years ago or more, when people now in their 50s and 60s stopped attending themselves, and stopped bringing their own children to church.
[ETA: For Canadians and some other inhabitants of North America: Reginald Bibby did a study several years ago in which he found that churches (all of us, of every stripe) retain or get back as adults one in ten of those who ever as children attended church, church school or a religious "day school". That's a maximum of how many we actually have in our tight grasp today aged 10 or under will likely "reappear"]
John
[ 31. January 2011, 21:52: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... When my son was at a comparable age, his comment to me when I asked was that his friends "know" that the church is made up of literal fundamentalists or priests buggering little boys. You don't have to be a follower of Ayn Rand to want to stay miles away from that.
In this card game, an anecdote beats a stereotype, and I don't have an anecdote to counter yours. Oh well. Whether or not individuals have read Ayn Rand and decided, officially and thoroughly, to adopt her philosophy - or whether they simply live in an "I'm all right, Jack" version of it - the effect is the same, no?
quote:
As for "Well, they'll come back when they have kids of their own", that certainly used to be true.
And may still be true as a kind of holdover effect among Lutherans, due to family and cultural pressures. But it's true that these pressures are rapidly evaporating. I agree, it's likely that that rate of return is diminishing and will probably continue to do so.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
My three sets of close friends who are atheists are very socially aware and responsible, and very good parents.
They don't go to church because they think it is superstitious nonsense, and because of the harm they see caused both now and historically by religious violence and intolerance.
Their non-attendance is not a product of lack of care for those around them, or inferior moral reasoning.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Marvin the Martian: I am not at all surprised by your choice of Alex, in demographic terms, as a person unlikely to attend church.
If you think I was cheating by picking him, I can pick friends from other demographics. How about Steve: early fifties, married with a kid, runs his own business, likes his golf? Or Dave: thirties, seven kids, casual employment? Or Tony: retired, grown-up kids, enjoys a tipple?
These are all real people, not stereotypes. I could give you their phone numbers if it wasn't completely unethical to do so.
The point is: none of them have any interest in church. What is church going to do about that: blame them for not liking it as it is, or blame itself for not being able to reach out to them in any meaningful way? I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm intrigued, too, by his assertion that there is nothing for men at church. Considering Church is still basically what it has always been from early times, a collaboration of men's institutionalism, men's theology, men's doctrine, men's liturgy and men's leadership, Marvin's claim is at least interesting if not revealing!
OK, here's an idea. I'll think of a non-churchgoing male friend of mine at random (I have many to choose from), and you try to think of one thing church can offer him that he actually thinks he needs. If you're so sure church has so much to offer, it should be easy, right?
OK, I pick Alex. He's early 20s, in a long-term relationship (no marriage plans I'm aware of), from a reasonably rich family, and has never been a religious sort of person. He likes going out to clubs, holidays in Spain, football and cricket. What has church got that he's going to want? Anything?
How would I know? Do I know Alex's inner spiritual life? No. Do I know anything about his ability to convince himself he don't need God or the friendship of Christ because he's got a nice car and goes clubbing in Ibiza? No. Do I think the church is about advertizing itself as a problem-solving machine to the world? No.
As I understand the OP it's about the distinction between why women do go to church and why men don't. And your Alex sounds exactly like many women of the same ilk.
So you tell me what's different about Alex's staying away from a place he doesn't believe can help him and Alex's girlfriend staying away from a place she doesn't believe can help her?
For my own part just because I don't believe a place or an institution can't help me doesn't mean it can't. Presumably Alex is a big boy who can make his own decisions. It may not be very evangelical of me but if that's Alex's grown up decision about religion, I would respect it.
For what it's worth, I've been telling people for years that declining attendance is exacerbated by the 'I've got everything I want, what can the church give me' attitude. I suspect that people have always felt this way, as materialism has been around since Adam ate the apple; but in recent times we don't expect attendance of 'respectable' people any more so people don't bother any more.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The point is: none of them have any interest in church. What is church going to do about that: blame them for not liking it as it is, or blame itself for not being able to reach out to them in any meaningful way? I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
The best thing they all have is a friend who is a Christian, who treats them like normal people, and who isn't just their friend in order to persuade them to come to church or to convert.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
"The war on Boys" spiel clearly comes from some sort of culture wars hinterland. But this sort of finding doesn't seem to track recent British stats. I have seen. Would you mind citing a reference for it, please? (I don't want to debate it, just get an idea for what is going on).
If you google "gender disparity in college graduation" you'll get a ton of hits covering a wide variation in interpretation. Here's a couple written from different perspectives:
sees cause for concern
sees less alarming factors at play
Are you saying you don't have the same so-called gender gap ("so-called" because 56% doesn't seem like that big a gap) in the UK?
Thank you for the links, cliffdweller. I'll take a look at them a.s.a.p.
To answer your question - yes, we see a similar "gender gap" here too - that wasn't what I meant. What I was thinking about was the following bit:-
quote:
the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
What seems to have happened here is that up to the end of the immediate post-WW2 period there was a substantial bias in the number of males going to university over females. Since WW2 there has of course been substantial progress made in rectifying this imbalance. This started well before the women's movement crystallised though of course they came to play an important part in due course.
It was what happened around the early '90's (IIRC) that kicked the current concerns off here. The general working assumptions we had were that boys and girls should have equal access to HE, and that was an early objective of first-wave feminism. However, as the percentages converged, instead of behaving asymptotically, as had been expected, the changes appeared to accelerate. Indeed, they crossed over and the year-on-year change seems to be accelerating still.
I have some literature on this - if you are interested I could probably locate it, but it may be worth a separate thread. However, the concerns certainly have nothing to do with conservative christians in the way you mean in the US context - it is a current hot topic in education and has been the subject of some anxious papers by the last Labour government, included funded research.
Back to your scheduled service...
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Yes, I do. What do you think that would be?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller: Within the last decade, the percentage of women going on to college has risen so that women now make up 56% of college graduates... the percentage of boys attending college has not changed much (especially when you allow for factors like the GI bill which goosed the post-WW2 figures). What has changed is the dramatic increase in the number of female college students. It's not "failing boys" it's the success of the women's movement.
Twenty years ago the word was that the schools were failing girls. Were they? At any rate, changes were made. Now that there's evidence that they are disproportionately failing boys, all kinds of excuses are made to pay no attention.
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them. Given this, doesn't it stand to reason that the percentage of boys going to college should grow somewhat as well? There's no preferential treatment for admission of girls. On the contrary, college admissions departments are beginning to worry that the ratio will begin to exceed 3:2, at which point both men and women find the campus atmosphere vaguely unpleasant and will prefer to attend one where this is not the case. The problem is a relative shortage of qualified male applicants. This can be due to one of two causes. Either boys inherently tend to be less qualified for higher education (read: dumber), or their school experience is somehow creating a handicap, either in their ability or their ambitions.
Which is it?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them. Given this, doesn't it stand to reason that the percentage of boys going to college should grow somewhat as well? There's no preferential treatment for admission of girls. On the contrary, college admissions departments are beginning to worry that the ratio will begin to exceed 3:2, at which point both men and women find the campus atmosphere vaguely unpleasant and will prefer to attend one where this is not the case. The problem is a relative shortage of qualified male applicants. This can be due to one of two causes. Either boys inherently tend to be less qualified for higher education (read: dumber), or their school experience is somehow creating a handicap, either in their ability or their ambitions.
Which is it?
While I agree with you in some of what you're saying, there is I think more at work here.
The fact is that men can get fairly high-paying work with a high-school diploma, in construction for instance. Males also become auto mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, firefighters, and truckers at a much greater rate than women do. Women with only high school degrees end up, instead, as cashiers at Walmart or caretakers of some sort.
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college. (Women can do these things, too, but we don't see their numbers rising here, either, as far as I know.) In fact, after the dot-com bubble, some of the guys I was working with at the time who got laid off wondered if it might not be better - and more steady in terms of career - to become plumbers. Not sure whether they did it or not.
[ 01. February 2011, 22:37: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
A combination of school experience and peer/social pressure is pushing boys away from further education.
There's quite a lot of research to show that preschool boys mature at a later age than girls, which means that their manual dexterity is worse, and there attention span and ability to sit is less developed. So, when they are found to be unable to colour between the lines or form letters, thay are marked as "substandard" educationaly, with "why can't you sit still like the girls do?" thrown at them far too often.
And then they get behind in reading level
And then they begin to react defensively
It also doesn't help that too many primary teachers are Math-phobic and science-illiterate, so the boys end up with fewer of the clues than they need in all sorts of ways.
AND, in all sorts of advertising, magazines, TV, Internet and parental attitude, guys are supposed to be yeling buffoons who drive ATVs through streams, who cavort drunkenly to show off (to hide their incompetence?), or who can't cook, or...all sorts of negative imaging, so they have even less incentive to sit up, pay attention and actually do the work.
Just look at the general societal attitude to geeks and nerds or other people who know anything, as expressed by politicians as well as by the actual party guys (who are pretty close to being bullies too much of the time).
Why would you expose yourself to open ridicule by knowing something, if you are at all uncertain?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
Yes, I think qualifications are different in different areas.
And actually 2-year colleges are another place you find a lot of guys who aren't planning to get 4-year degrees or more.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Yes, I do. What do you think that would be?
I'm the one saying it hasn't got anything relevant to say to them, remember? I'm interested in what you think the church has got that's so amazing they should be flocking through the doors if only they'd open their ears.
[ETA:] I mean, isn't that part of the problem here? People who are already in church are asking why others don't share their love of it. It's like they're saying "christianity is so amazingly wonderful, why doesn't everyone else want to be part of it?"
And I'm thinking, well I think railway photography is amazingly wonderful, but I don't expect everyone else to want to do it as well. It's just that religious peopole do expect that. It's like they find it hard to understand that perfectly normal people, with no particular reason to dislike the church, simply aren't interested.
[ 02. February 2011, 10:22: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The fact that many more girls are going to college now is partly attributable to university growth to accommodate them.
No, its entirely because girls on average get better exam results at school.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college.
Those jobs you just mentioned are not labouring jobs. They are all skilled trades. There is a difference. They are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout. And the time it takes to train for them isn't much different from the time you'd spend getting a degree.
The truth is that labouring jobs have almost disappeared. They hardly exist any more. And it is now typically harder for an unskilled or low-skilled man to earn money than it is for a woman in the same circumstances.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually firefighting requires a 2-year degree, at least in these parts.
Here it only needs a driving licence!
Not that that means they take anyone - they have thousands more applicants than jobs every year so they can pretty much pick who they want. And there is a lot of training involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There's quite a lot of research to show that preschool boys mature at a later age than girls, which means that their manual dexterity is worse, and there attention span and ability to sit is less developed.
Yes. Except you don't need research, its obvious to anyone who has ever met a child. And forget preschool, the difference in maturity peaks at puberty. Basically an average 12-year-old girl is at the same developmental level as an average 14-year-old boy.
So girsl get a head at school at that age because at that age they really are, on average, cleverer. And they really are more mature. So they really are capable of better work. So if other things are equal they get better marks at school. The boys typically catch up sometime between age 16 and 18 but by that time at least some of them will have become discouraged and dropped out. At least in their own heads, even if they are still turning up to school. Not all of them, not most of them, probably not even many of them. But easily enough to explain why more girls get in to college, and why more girls want to get into college.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Men, in other words, can earn a pretty good living as skilled laborers without having to go to college.
Those jobs you just mentioned are not labouring jobs. They are all skilled trades. There is a difference. They are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout. And the time it takes to train for them isn't much different from the time you'd spend getting a degree.
The truth is that labouring jobs have almost disappeared. They hardly exist any more. And it is now typically harder for an unskilled or low-skilled man to earn money than it is for a woman in the same circumstances.
You're not paying attention to what the topic is here, or to what I've said, either.
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Second: Yes, there is often an apprenticeship, or vocational training for these skilled jobs - but that's not the question here. Alogon's question is about "college applications and admissions."
Third: I totally agree that "they are not at all the equivalent of working on a checkout" - that's the whole point. "Working on a checkout" is what women with only high school degrees mostly have to look forward to. This article says:
quote:
Furthermore, entering the workforce or going to college are not the only options after high school. One option is apprenticeship programs, such as those for electricians, plumbers, contractors, auto mechanics, etc. The number of people in apprenticeship programs in the United States is difficult to find, but the breakdown in Canada for 2001 was 197,500 men and 20,060 women, or just over 90% men. (9) In the United States, women make up only about 6-7% of apprenticeship programs. (10) In 1999, men comprised 98.5% of carpenters, 98.5% of auto mechanics and 97.8% of electricians. (11) Men also make up the vast majority of police officers, firefighters and military personnel: positions that don’t necessarily require a college degree, but can be a very solid career path. In 2009 for example, 10% of male high school graduates who did not attend college were in the military at the age of 21. (13) Again, whether by social construct, biology, or undeniably a mix of the two, men tend to favor manual labor more than women. So it is no surprise that these fields have been and continue to be dominated by men.
So stop being . You haven't read what I've actually written here.
The point is that men often do something besides going to college, and can get paid pretty well for doing it. For women, on the other hand, college itself is the way to good pay.
[ 02. February 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
Once again -- I don't think any of this has anything to do with "There's no men in church because the church isn't masculine enough." I think that's utter crap. Bullshit. Bollocks. And so far I've not read a single post here that would lead me to change my mind...it's just so much regurgitated popular-whizdumb whineging from alarmist morning teevee.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
I think what's being argued here - and has been argued for awhile - is that this situation has reversed itself in the past 20 years or so. That, IOW, girls are getting all the attention in school now and boys are being left behind.
There may be some truth to this - but it's still sometimes true that girls "play dumb," I think. Not anywhere near as much as used to be the case, though. But of course, I don't have kids of this age so I'm not totally sure. (I've taught special-needs kids of high-school age, but that's a different sort of situation that might not say much about any other.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Then you contradicted it with "labouring".
You really weren't comparing like with like - those jobs are the equivalent of the sort of jobs you go to college for, not unskilled ones like a checkout.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The idea of slow, unmotivated boys just doesn't match my own experience in public school. In my classes the boys very often set the academic pace, while the girls -- even if they were very bright -- "played dumb" because of the family/societal/peer expectation that they do so.
Almost certainly the teaching was biased to favour boys. As it still is in most schools - teachers seem very very bad at realising they are doing it. Sexism is so ingrained in the ways most of people think that when we believe we are bing fair we are nearly always favouring boys over girls.
Which is why you need a to pay attention to boring measurable things to be genuinely even-handed. Treat the sexes equally, and girls start doing better.
Whern I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s they actually fixed 11-plus and A-level results in favour of boys - girls had to get more marks in the exams to get the same grade.
[ 02. February 2011, 13:21: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
First: I did use the word "skilled." See it up there?
Then you contradicted it with "labouring".
You really weren't comparing like with like - those jobs are the equivalent of the sort of jobs you go to college for, not unskilled ones like a checkout.
Perhaps a pond difference then; "Trades" and "Skilled Labor" are interchangeable here.
And I was specifically attempting to make a contrast, yes! Which was this: that women mostly don't have anything but the checkout counter to look forward to - they are only 9% at most in the "trades" - unless they go to college.
That WAS and IS my point in actual fact - the contrast itself!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This article says:
quote:
Furthermore, entering the workforce or going to college are not the only options after high school. One option is apprenticeship programs, such as those for electricians, plumbers, contractors, auto mechanics, etc.
We have some of those too. We call them "Poland" and "Lithuania".
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
With regard to girls and boys in school, there does seem to be evidence that, in general, girls' and boys' brains work slightly differently. Boys are slower to develop language, and are more likely to have a language difficulty. Girls find spatial thinking harder. So, as well as cultural influences, there are also biological differences that make girls more likely to excel at subjects like English and boys more likely to excel at subjects like maths.
Of course, that is a generalisation and won't apply to everyone - but with regard to churches, they do tend to be very language-based in my experience, so possibly something more visual/spatial or more about numbers would appeal more to men.
One church I attended where the men got really enthused was when the pastor decided to look at outreach from a business perspective.There was a new guy to the church who was a businessman, and the pastor put him in charge of this, and we had a meeting which was basically like a business meeting - using business jargon and sales jargon, and seeing outreach in terms of how to make our church appeal to people, how to make it sell. The men got very enthused, while the women disagreed with this approach. I didn't much like it, because I find business jargon annoying, and it seemed to be taking the personal element out of faith and looking it as a sort of business challenge - but maybe that technique could be combined effectively with the more caring touchy-feely techniques, to bring in a more objective perspective, and to cater for the different ways people's minds can work.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
..., they do tend to be very language-based in my experience, so possibly something more visual/spatial or more about numbers would appeal more to men.
Well, yes, but, except that the differences are statistically insignificant in adults. Yes, on average girls of a certain age are better at language then boys of the same age. But once we've all grown up there is hardly anything in it. Certainly not enough to explain the huge difference in things like churchgoing - or even football-match-going. The overlap between the two sexes on any measurable character is likely to be huge, so most people of either sex are in pretty much the same ballpark as most of the other sex.
Quite a lot of popular writing or journalism on the difference between women's and men's brains, or between teenagers and adults, is - to use the technical scientific term - bollocks. To a first approximation I'd say all of it is. Effectively all of it is either trying to sell you something or to scare you into agreeing with some political view. So when you read an article on it or see a TV programme the best thing to do is to try to work out what they are trying to mainipulate you into, not whether or not its true, because frankly it isn't. Popular science journalism is mostly crap when it comes to neurology, sex differences, and drugs. There are honourable exceptions - the Economist of course, and most of what the Guardian publishes (though not its sister paper the Observer) - but even the Telegraph or the BBC are piss-poor.
But some are specatcularly bad. The Daily Mail's medical and scientfic coverage is a disgrace. It varies from a joke to a lie. And its not even consistent, for example: Coffee makes your brain more alert and Coffee makes us less alert and Coffee causes Alzheimer's and Coffee protects against Alzheimer's and best of all, in today's issue: Coffee makes women's brains work better and men's worse.
Its impossible to imagine that their science editor even beleives this sort of shite - they look on it as a kind of humour I think, mocking the poor little nerds who dare to try to actually think for themselves and find things out about nature intead of believeing what the Great White Goddess tells them.
All is not lost however! There is an antidote available! Just read Language Log and The Daily Mail list of 'Things that give you cancer' (including cofee of course) and most of all Bad Science
[ 02. February 2011, 15:10: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
On the dumbing down thing, I wonder if we aren't in the middle of a flip-flop. It used to be that the girls were most likely to dumb down to avoid appearing "too smart". It seems, anecdotally at least and I realize that isn't research but it can point to places where research should be done, that more and more boys are doing this. It isn't "cool" in teen male culture to be seen as "too smart".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
tangent alert:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[QUOTE]
I have some literature on this - if you are interested I could probably locate it, but it may be worth a separate thread. However, the concerns certainly have nothing to do with conservative christians in the way you mean in the US context - it is a current hot topic in education and has been the subject of some anxious papers by the last Labour government, included funded research.
Back to your scheduled service...
I wasn't implicating conservative Christians in the hand-wringing, it is indeed a hot topic in academia here as well (I'm a univ. prof.). My point was simply that stats that are often read as alarming from a male pov simply reflect great strides among women. The same I suspect is true when it comes to men's involvement in church. Of course, in both cases (as in most things) it's more complex than that-- multiple factors, causes, at play.
Again, back to the scheduled discussion...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whern I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s they actually fixed 11-plus and A-level results in favour of boys - girls had to get more marks in the exams to get the same grade.
In Plymouth there are two grammar schools for girls but only one for boys. I cannot believe that pupils need exactly the same grades to get in - when the schools are full, they are full.
Actually, that's a thought - given how competitive many men are (and women too?) why not say the churches are full - there's nothing like being put on a waiting list to make people really keen to join something. (Church schools are a case in point.)
Of course, there's always the risk that they'll turn round and say, 'Oh well, I'll do something else instead then'.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
in all sorts of advertising, magazines, TV, Internet and parental attitude, guys are supposed to be yeling buffoons who drive ATVs through streams, who cavort drunkenly to show off (to hide their incompetence?), or who can't cook, or...all sorts of negative imaging, so they have even less incentive to sit up, pay attention and actually do the work.
Oh my, yes. Today, in cartoons and advertising it's usually the wife who outsmarts the husband and gets the last word. When I was young, it was usually the other way around: the husband lecturing the bimbo wife and setting her straight. Both stereotypes are demeaning and unfair.
quote:
Just look at the general societal attitude to geeks and nerds or other people who know anything, as expressed by politicians as well as by the actual party guys (who are pretty close to being bullies too much of the time).
Maybe it's just part of living in a university town, but I often hear "geek" or "geeky" as almost a compliment. Even if you don't want to be a geek, it can make life easier to know one. I also recall a report of research showing that the trait women most often value and seek in men is intelligence.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Oh my, yes. Today, in cartoons and advertising it's usually the wife who outsmarts the husband and gets the last word. When I was young, it was usually the other way around: the husband lecturing the bimbo wife and setting her straight. Both stereotypes are demeaning and unfair.
In terms of comedy entertainment, screwing up because of incompetence or foolishness is usually equated with "being the lead character". (Doing something in a smoothly competent manner usually isn't all that funny.) Given that understanding, complaining that men have more buffoonish roles in contemporary comedy is essentially complaining that there are too many men in leading comedy roles.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I DON'T live in a university town, ad the "nerds" and "geeks" tend to be the ones singled out for "attention" (in the negative sense)
And there is a university town about 40 minutes away, one that used to have two iron foundries as well. The town is still hierarchically split along "gown", "town" and "ewww, workers" lines, twenty years after the foundries closed. Rejection works both ways.
While the children of the "gown" get mobility from their education and go away, the children of the "workers" tend to get turned off education before they find the ticket out. That's the source of most of the "educated people don't really know anything, anyway" sentiment that the politicians love to spout.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
LutheranChik wrote: quote:
And so far I've not read a single post here that would lead me to change my mind...it's just so much regurgitated popular-whizdumb whineging from alarmist morning teevee.
OK - let's try again.
1. We need to be reasonably clear what we mean by "gender" here. Originally just meaning "a sort or variety" (as remains the case in grammar), as a result of feminist thought it has come to mean (helpfully I think) matters related to what different sexes do or think, apart from their reproductive functions, for which the word sex is retained. It is not a prissy euphemism for the word sex.
2. But let's step back a moment. Anthropology tells us that not absolutely all societies have developed ideas of gender that track sex. Most do, to be sure, but not all. Nobody would argue that the sex urge is not a powerful force. It seems that the need to to divide ourselves up into sorts is even stronger. We don't know of any society that doesn't divide itself up into genders, whether or not they are based on a sex template. In any event, ideas of gender and gender roles do track sex in all western countries and that is the way it works at present. Perhaps in some future world we might divide ourselves into sorts based on something else. But pretending we can construct unsorted societies looks like moonshine, until perhaps we evolve into something else.
3. As Ken has pointed out, there are indeed differences between the sexes that are not directly related to reproductive function, but in general their distributions are pretty well overlapped. As a simplistic criterion, they do not have the power to explain large divergences such as the ones cited in church attendance.
4. However, church attendance is hardly the only thing where sorting of the sexes takes place. It's too well known to bother citing many other examples. We need a strong explanation for things of this order of magnitude. Nobody is going to lose much sleep over the existence of old-men's boozers or all-women coffee mornings, but things that relate to the personal flourishing of the individual, and the economic wellbeing of society cannot be ignored that way.
5. So the thesis is this:- Men don't go to church in such numbers as women because they don't want to. It really is that simple. It's not that they are "afraid of women" or any hokum like that. It's just that they think church is not for them. It is meaningless to say that you don't believe this to be a gender issue - the sorting by sex is what gender is. For whatever reason, going to church - in a certain place, at a certain age - has become gendered.
6. We may wring our hands as to how this came about, why it continues, and how it can be got rid of, which is I think what most people are engaged in, to greater or lesser degrees. But in terms of understanding what is going on, all that is necessary to know is that this sort of thing is what humans do. Any - indeed close to every - topic under the sun could potentially be co-opted into ideas of gender. What constitutes appropriate gender roles varies dramatically from society to society (which is what we mean by it being constructed).
Well, there you go - you bewailed the absence of engagement with science in churches earlier - here is your chance to commit yourself to the scientific process of testing the theory. Do you have a stronger, more fruitful explanation? What criteria will you use to critique it? Will counterexamples be strong enough to discount the theory, or will they just be interesting exceptions?
And yes, I did post the basis of this earlier, and no, you didn't engage with it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
In point 6 above, "What constitutes appropriate gender roles..." should read "What constitutes perceived appropriate gender roles..." I'm certainly not arguing for these wretched things, just pointing out their existence.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ken wrote quote:
Almost certainly the teaching was biased to favour boys. As it still is in most schools - teachers seem very very bad at realising they are doing it. Sexism is so ingrained in the ways most of people think that when we believe we are bing fair we are nearly always favouring boys over girls.
WTF? You wouldn't like to explain the evidence and logic behind this string of assertions at the expense of the teaching profession, would you?
This was originally a thread about why men were not involved in something. What the hell is the use of a one-sided test that can only possibly detect one kind of bias - that being the opposite to that discussed? If certain teaching can favour boys (and I'm sure it can, and has been done), then other teaching can favour girls. Any real-life test that claims to be even-handed needs to be able to address either sort of bias. A one-sided test will only enable you to see one kind of bias - 100% of the time! And the other type will always be absent. Just fancy that!
Just as well, then, that I think teaching styles are a minor part of all this.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In terms of comedy entertainment, screwing up because of incompetence or foolishness is usually equated with "being the lead character". (Doing something in a smoothly competent manner usually isn't all that funny.) Given that understanding, complaining that men have more buffoonish roles in contemporary comedy is essentially complaining that there are too many men in leading comedy roles.
Yeah, like there's such great scope for character development in one-off newspaper cartoons and one-minute television commercials.
By your same argument, there were too many women in leading comedy roles fifty years ago. So you're trying to tell us that despite a generation of feminism, the relative power of men has since increased? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I have found out more about this while preparing a sermon:
The Diocese of Oxford did some work on the shortage of men who attend church and Tear Fund Tear Fund found that 35% of men left the church in last 20 years. Things that put many men off include:
Sentimental hymns – especially a worship song that includes the words: Jesus is my boyfriend
emotionalism and compulsory touchy-feely stuff
especially my pet hate – where you’re expected to hold hands and look into the eyes of others during the grace - cringe
‘church' is seen as largely about relationships
between an individual and God and between the members of the congregation.
Women in general 'do relationships' better (certainly differently) than men,
whether it is remembering the names of their children's friends, or keeping the Christmas-card list.
From the "good mornings on the way in to the chatting over coffee afterwards, church is largely about these relationship matters,
and many men would prefer a situation that involved more 'doing something'.
women's relationships tend to centre around conversation
whereas men's relationships tend to centre around shared activity;
a few games of pool at the pub
Above all, Christianity is seen as a religion for the weak
Church services are passive.
While women are allowed to need someone else in their lives,
to be a "True Man" is to be self-reliant.
There’s a men-only church called XY
They meet in a pub
Instead of listening to a preacher they argue, are allowed to swear
Any theology is linked to real life, like ethics in the workplace.
They say that, to be successful:
Don't hold it on a Sunday morning.
Provide food that isn't vegetarian or soup
Have hymns you can belt out
don't allow services to go over an hour
don't do coffee and gossip
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
I can think of two churches I've attended whose congregations were around 50% male.
The points in common between these two churches (both Anglican) were:
- formal structure of worship
- flexibility of church activities, with new ideas suggested and trialled on a regular basis
- good choir, comfortable with singing anything from Tudor anthems onwards
- very competent organist
- church building used for local secular musical groups during the week as well as church groups.
I'm honestly not sure which of the above may be significant.
I suspect most men won't put up with services that are banal in style or content, whereas many women will, for the sake of meeting friends, having a sense of community, or involving the children. It doesn't necessarily mean that women like the services that way, just that they've possibly had more experience of making the best of slightly tedious social situations.
Posted by QuietMBR (# 8845) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Contrast two different Bible study groups.
One sits in a rapt circle, waiting for the priest to tell us what to think, and is horrified as a group if anyone challenges anything. It is two-thirds older female.
And yet, at my church, the rote "pastor says" types are the mostly males who left to form their "own church" with said pastor. They appear to like being told how and what to think.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I can think of two churches I've attended whose congregations were around 50% male.
The points in common between these two churches (both Anglican) were:
- formal structure of worship
- flexibility of church activities, with new ideas suggested and trialled on a regular basis
- good choir, comfortable with singing anything from Tudor anthems onwards
- very competent organist
- church building used for local secular musical groups during the week as well as church groups.
Church I've been associated with here that hits the 50% or more male mark is quite the opposite-- large mega-church, American evangelical happy-clappy. No organ, and no secular musical groups during the week, altho lots of church groups during the week.
Not sure what the common ground is.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have found out more about this while preparing a sermon:
The Diocese of Oxford did some work on the shortage of men who attend church and Tear Fund Tear Fund found that 35% of men left the church in last 20 years. Things that put many men off include:
Sentimental hymns – especially a worship song that includes the words: Jesus is my boyfriend
Is there any worship song ever written that actually includes the words "Jesus is my boyfriend"???? Generally that's a term for the sappy lovey songs that sound like that, but I've certainly never heard any that went so far as to actually say it.
Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on
:
This was in reference to a Jesus is my boyfriend song,, doesn't exactly fit anymore,,
Here's one I wrote as I was making fun of praise music one day in the church office. Enjoy.
OHHHH Jesus is my Boyyyy Friend,,, What a friend is he...
He thinks I am speeecial ,, What a friend is he..
He saved my soul from DARRRKNESSS covrs all my sinnnnnnnn. (YAYYYY)
Jesus is My BOY Friend ,,, WHAT A FRIEND IS HE.
[ 22. March 2011, 03:52: Message edited by: jerrytheorganist ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is there any worship song ever written that actually includes the words "Jesus is my boyfriend"????
Sure there is. By the Reverend Gerald Ambulance. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
There is a treasure-trove of such stuff at TV Tropes and also some here on the ship
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
I should add that the two churches I mentioned above were from a limited sample; I've only included Anglican churches as I attended any other type far too long ago to recall the demographics.
(BTW, how would you work out that a "mega-church" had large numbers of men? Would you count as they came in? Or subtly introduce a song that required the men to stand for some verses and the women for others? Just curious, as I tend to avoid very large churches.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
(BTW, how would you work out that a "mega-church" had large numbers of men? Would you count as they came in? Or subtly introduce a song that required the men to stand for some verses and the women for others? Just curious, as I tend to avoid very large churches.)
Just a rough visual headcount, nothing official. Although they do often sing those songs that have the "men's part" and the "women's part" which does help you to hear how many men are present.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have found out more about this while preparing a sermon:
The Diocese of Oxford did some work on the shortage of men who attend church and Tear Fund Tear Fund found that 35% of men left the church in last 20 years. Things that put many men off include:
Sentimental hymns – especially a worship song that includes the words: Jesus is my boyfriend
Is there any worship song ever written that actually includes the words "Jesus is my boyfriend"???? Generally that's a term for the sappy lovey songs that sound like that, but I've certainly never heard any that went so far as to actually say it.
It's also apparently impossible to find a recording of "Be Thou My Vision" that isn't all 'girlied up' with boyband Irish vocals, plastic emotiveness and those awful panpipes.
Strange times.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Okay, so I will admit that I just looked at this thread for the first time and didn't read through the whole thing in full detail, but I found an article recently that I feel relates to the subject at hand so I thought I'd post it here: The Church with Balls!
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, don't you believe the church should have something relevant to say to them?
Yes, I do. What do you think that would be?
I'm the one saying it hasn't got anything relevant to say to them, remember? I'm interested in what you think the church has got that's so amazing they should be flocking through the doors if only they'd open their ears.
[ETA:] I mean, isn't that part of the problem here? People who are already in church are asking why others don't share their love of it. It's like they're saying "christianity is so amazingly wonderful, why doesn't everyone else want to be part of it?"
And I'm thinking, well I think railway photography is amazingly wonderful, but I don't expect everyone else to want to do it as well. It's just that religious peopole do expect that. It's like they find it hard to understand that perfectly normal people, with no particular reason to dislike the church, simply aren't interested.
So, (and I'm honestly asking here, not just trying to find a way to shove your friends into a church) do these friends of yours have spiritual lives at all? I fully accept the premise that a person can potentially live a fulfilled life on earth without ever delving into the spiritual realms, but my experience is that a good percentage of people want to know more about their own spirituality in some form or another.
I guess what I'm saying is that unless you met all your friends at the atheist club (which is cool, no judgment from me ) then statistically speaking (from my experience) at least one of them must be feeling less than whole without a spiritual life. Of course they can have that sort of life outside of a Church... however, I inferred from your post that they don't attend any sort of worship anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That all said, what a church should be providing to get them in the front door is a way to experience God. For different people this may be a different thing, for some it's a rock concert and lots of miracles (I don't recommend this if your friends are as cynical as I am, or as you appear to be), for some it's good teaching from the Bible, and for others it's a good liturgy. For others it's other stuff. There are certainly a good number of churches that don't produce anything of value as well.
Personally, I spend the past 20+ years scouring through Protestant churches of all sorts searching for something meaningful to me, and never found it. I never got out of Protestant Church what 1.5 years of Orthodox liturgy has given me. I resonate with much of the article I posted above.
Of course, I don't know your friends personally, so I don't know what they'd want out of a church (if anything at all), but I suspect if any of them are curious about the realm beyond this one, then there is a church to suit them. That's not to say they can't look into other faiths as well, but the thread is about churches after all.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I suspect if any of them are curious about the realm beyond this one,
That's the thing. They're not. It's not that they vehemently refuse to believe that such a thing exists (well, one of them does...), it's just that they don't care whether it does or doesn't. They're perfectly happy just doing their work, playing their sport and drinking their beer. Sufficient to the day the troubles thereof, and all that...
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I suspect if any of them are curious about the realm beyond this one,
That's the thing. They're not. It's not that they vehemently refuse to believe that such a thing exists (well, one of them does...), it's just that they don't care whether it does or doesn't. They're perfectly happy just doing their work, playing their sport and drinking their beer. Sufficient to the day the troubles thereof, and all that...
Well, that being the case then... I don't personally feel that it's the churches job to cater to those who have no interest in a noetic life. I believe that it's the job of the Church to provide a means for those who are interested to meet with God. So I guess what I'm saying is in as much as your friends are free from any obligation to attend church, I believe that the Church is equally free from any obligation to try and draw them in.
I still believe in Evangelism, but more as a tool to find those who are seeking God: not as a tool to guilt trip non-seekers into feeling obligated to fill a pew every Sunday.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0