Ship of Fools: Christian Vision for Men - countering romanticisation and feminisation of church?

Thread: Christian Vision for Men - countering romanticisation and feminisation of church? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020118

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Reported on the BBC R4 programme PM. PM 20.35 minutes in.

Apparently men need churches without doilies and flowers, but with nerf guns and bantz, because that's what men are like.

I didn't hear much religion in this piece, of any sort.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's for old men who go anyway.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I'm helping out at an all day Men's event this Sat. It's organised by the local RC church, but I join in. We've done a few - a good few fellas come, 60-80 maybe. Most are the more committed, charismatic members of their local congregations, and some travel a fair way.

We've shown films followed by discussion, had speakers on various subjects, done group bible study, this time they're looking at the heritage of the RC church (the Mass, Mary, Saints) which will be interesting for me and the other few prods who sometimes come.

People find them encouraging, I think - me included. Men talk more when their wives aren't there (and that's a generalisation which holds for these middle-aged and older mainly family men).

These 'men's days' accompany a monthly men's bible study which has a small and committed membership. I also lead a group of male ex-offenders in a music group, which works better now that it just so happens not to be mixed. I think there's a time for the sexes to be together, but a time apart is good too.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Oh it's religious all right.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Research shows that there are consistently more women than men in congregations - despite the patriarchal oppression that we claim to be endemic in the church.

Obviously, church culture tends to develop around the kinds of people who are already there (which of course refers to personality types, age, socioeconomic range, etc. as much as the ratio of men to women), and if everyone's happy with how things are, then raising this issue would be inconvenient or even troublesome.

But I can understand why some church leaders in some churches would be exasperated by the under-representation of men. The gospel is supposed to be for everyone, after all.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You don't think that they are worried that church will become like nursing, or being a waiter, or schoolteaching, or handling a sewing machine, or knitting stockings -- the 'pink-collar' industries. Once something is taken over by women it's inherently less respected and therefore less powerful. You can pay them less! A clear case -against- the female clergy could be made this way.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I can see some good and some potential (in my view) bad coming out of this.

I was reading an article about how men tend to lose friends as they grow older. Encouraging relationships between men is a good thing, if you want to avoid that.

On the other hand, some men's ministries in this country tend to embrace a view of masculinity that is, in my view, problematic. The Promise Keepers, for instance, as I understand them, preach the idea from Proverbs that your wife and children's happiness is a direct reflection of your own godliness and righteousness. If your daughter starts getting into trouble at school, it doesn't mean that you should ask her about what is going on and try to figure out what she is going through, it means that you need to consider how you have failed as a dad.

Encouraging men to develop social bonds in church seems like a fine idea. I'd just be very weary of any "man-focused" teaching that might embrace some of the more patriarchal elements from the Bible.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I think I'd withdraw if any kind of 'men ought to be like x' stuff came up in any of what I do. But even a group of very disparate men relate differently when it's just men - as I would imagine is true for women, too. I see making time for this as an enjoyable part of life's richness, not as a problem.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men. Groups like CVM who tell churches that they're too feminine because they have bad coffee and children's drawings up (because women just LOVE bad coffee, and it's good for men to not value children in church /s) miss the point.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I enjoyed the bloky sessions I went to. But that's all. I was in tension with the magical claims, the apologetics, "blokes givin' it a go fer Jesus" but there were often intelligent, amusing presentations. The web content less so. There was no overt paternalism, patriarchy. The grey and white and pink haired yearning for a golden age is there. I deliberately asked once what were we doing for our gay kids, that generated frowns.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Apparently men need churches without doilies and flowers, but with nerf guns and bantz, because that's what men are like.

Sounds like a something of a generalisation to me.

Gender stereotyping doesn't get top table position in the Gospels,(apart from the fact of women being socially disadvantaged at that time), and hasn't been my experience in 16 years of church life. It is not the characteristic of the Holy Spirit and His/Her method of working.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Although things have changed a fair bit in my life, I'm still not convinced that many men really 'get' emotional intelligence. That's something I've learned a lot about from women. Maybe that's why I find men-only church meetings uncomfortable. Perhaps they scratch some folks' itches but they don't scratch mine.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It's been a while since we've had this thread.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men. Groups like CVM who tell churches that they're too feminine because they have bad coffee and children's drawings up (because women just LOVE bad coffee, and it's good for men to not value children in church /s) miss the point.

This.

Look, if the men in church want to get together and drink good coffee/ complain about their wives/ bang drums/ play nerf guns or whatever rings their bell, fine. But I am so so tired of all this whining and moaning about the "feminization" of the church-- an institution where women still struggle to be given any voice or leadership capacity.

I wrote more but had to delete it because it was just to hellish.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men. Groups like CVM who tell churches that they're too feminine because they have bad coffee and children's drawings up (because women just LOVE bad coffee, and it's good for men to not value children in church /s) miss the point.

I did wonder what the simple changes that could be made to make churches more attractive to men they suggested on the web site might be - not having children's drawings up? Now just how does that fit with Jesus' reaction to the disciples trying to keep children away?

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

My limited impression of CVM (which is far from new)is that it's just an outreach aimed at men. It's not in opposition to anything particularly, or a rebuff to "feminisation", it’s just an attempt to plug a relatively clearly acknowledged demographic blip.

Personally it leaves me cold because it tends to a lot of male stereotyping AFAICT and is very "traditional" in that regard. Not a great fit for someone who has always preferred to knock around with women and men who are not "Yay! Sports!" all the time. However, I've got friends who have been to their events and benefitted greatly. Said friends are very much not knuckle dragging mysoginists.

I’m sure CVM is far from perfect (what isn't?), and it certainly won't suit all men (and may suit some women) but I don't think it's entirely fair to lump it with the kind of loopy Men's Rights approach to church. Unless it has,changed dramatically.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Some of the things CVM does is very good - helping men to be better Fathers for example.

A fair bit panders to stereotypes - camping in muddy fields with beer and BBQ's (appeals to the inner caveman ugh!); an unhealthy focus on sport (it's ok but some men don't live for the "footy"); cars (the Christian version of top gear ugh again).

The appeal seems to have shifted in some ways to supporting the more macho stuff. It's pretty hilarious for those of us who have worked in manual jobs seeing these new men think they're reinventing something.

Like many things it's a matter of balance. You wont find me at a CVM "gathering" but nor would you find me stopping others going. Much nicer than the seemingly short lived promise keepers.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

My experience is that when the church attempts to appeal to men it usually follows one or two routes. It is either cringe inducing and excruciatingly embarrassing or it is so ridiculously stereotyped as to be insulting to just about everyone. Amazingly, the church has a regular ability to combine both experiences.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

My revolutionary proposal would be that churches should welcome the expression all aspects of our humanity: in their culture, if not their buildings/worship. It is my firm belief that they would then be much more attractive places for all to be. Admittedly this might mean alienating some of their traditional constituency who come to church in search of the self-righteous buzz which comes from condemning as large a swathe of their fellow human beings to hell as may be achieved without condemning any of those they identify with to the same fate.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think there is a certain amount in what Pomona says above - when the church was a powerful institution there was a certain attraction to that in and of itself (though I think the degree to which this corrected the skewing of sexes is exaggerated).

Men can tend to cut themselves off and/or find the kind of socialisation-first approaches of many church activities to be a bit heavy going. But otoh I don't think it's all that difficult to create a 'mens' group - start off with an activity and relationships naturally form.

The problem in certain evangelical circles is that every activity has to be 'for' something. Which only really succeeds in either exceptional cases, or where the church itself has some kind of natural sense of mission (church plants as an example, or churches which are separatist in some way).

If one avoids the temptation to make everything artificially directed towards something emotional and spiritual it's not hard to build community.

Years ago I was involved in a forum - long since defunct - that was organised around some musical activities. At some point someone organised an meetup - as a kind of show and tell activity - this snowballed into annual meetups, regional meetups, and people who lived locally to each other just getting together and spending time chewing the fat. The original forum has mutated and migrated across platforms, people have come and gone, but a central core of people (mostly men) have stayed in contact with each other and grown increasingly close (and people have shared life across births, weddings, divorces, bereavements etc).

I think the problem is that many 'activities for men' organised by in churches tend to try and load things the other way - and that rarely works (except in the cases noted above).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

A fair bit panders to stereotypes - camping in muddy fields with beer and BBQ's (appeals to the inner caveman ugh!); an unhealthy focus on sport (it's ok but some men don't live for the "footy"); cars (the Christian version of top gear ugh again).

Indeed, of those three, the first could be OK as long as it doesn't involve just sitting in the mud eating and drinking (boring!) and the latter two would have me running for the hills. Sports and cars bores are the very worst types of bores because both of them seem to assume everyone else shares their obsession. At least if I try to engage you in conversation about the relative merits of different Star Trek series I will be open to the possibility you couldn't give a shit. No such luck with the football bore.

I have never watched Top Gear. The very concept is a massive turnoff for me.

[ 17. March 2017, 10:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The word feminisation was bandied around during the piece - or it wouldn't have occurred to me.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I've been to a couple of CVM events and am going to another one next Saturday and, in 'feel', they're kind of an extension of the traditional pie-and-a-pint typical men's church group social ie: a bit blokey but not consciously anti-feminine (although we all hate Jesus-is-my-boyfriend lyrics), a bit of chat about football but also Sci-Fi/ Fantasy (which, like Karl, is more my cup of tea) depending on who's there, with a bolt-on talk, which is either a God-slot on how to connect with God better or be better fathers/ sons/ brothers/ husbands/partners (eg: talks about porn addiction), or something on men's health (eg: erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer or alcoholism). I tend to like it although it can be a bit hit and miss.

[ETA- I think it meets a need, not just spiritual but also social - wasn't there a story in the media a few weeks ago about how men need this sort of thing to bond?]

[ 17. March 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

This has me wondering: what would be so wrong for any congregation to come together and talk about the church experience? What we like, what we need, how we can be community together even though different. Men and women, those with children, those without , younger people and older, gay, straight and transgender. Yes, it would take some good facilitation to avoid getting into thinking that there must be resolution of difference vs. living with differences. But isn’t living together in Christ our calling, so that we may serve the world in Christ’s name? We hear that we are the Body -- so then, how do our various limbs, tendons and sinews learn to coordinate so we can walk together in faith?

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Some of the blokes from a couple of churches around here clear off for a weekend once a year and.....we don't hear anything about it, beyond that they had a good time!

+ the information-giving in church notices is usually brilliant, if only because of their rules:

1) No one has to do anything that they don't want to.
2) Don't mess it up for anyone else.

It is noticeable that when the blokes all come back there is a lot of joking around and recollections of having' a laugh. Whilst the women obligingly roll their eyes a bit...

Interestingly, in our place there are advertised women's groups....but nothing (advertised anyway) for the men. Is this because there's still an assumption that men go out to work and women stay at home....?

Actually the men Do do stuff, ISTM that it's just less talked about.
.
.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

And Baby Wombat.....i think that your idea have value....certainly it would for some churches....

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

In really miss my village church mates. I was the token raving liberal and we all got on great. Impossible in my city church.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Interestingly.....CVM has nothing in our city.

Is this a village/ town... V ...city thing?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye. It only works for small congregations.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:

Interestingly, in our place there are advertised women's groups....but nothing (advertised anyway) for the men. Is this because there's still an assumption that men go out to work and women stay at home....?

Actually the men Do do stuff, ISTM that it's just less talked about.
.
.

Not at all - the Baptist Church ten minutes walk from us does Pints of View at the local for the men, the three CofE churches have monthly men's activities ranging from Curry Evenings to Pub Quiz Nights, and the Catholic Church has a Curry and Film Night for the blokes in the parish hall twice a year.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Our place has Bible Study for men (at 6am!), Bible Study for women (daytime and evening), social activities for men, social activities for women, and various activities for youth and children.

It completely sucks at having activities for "people". It tried having a "family night" for a while, but it turns out that what they meant by that was "shove the kids one one room with a movie while the parents have a Bible study in another room". That's not what I call a family activity.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No wonder Islam's the fastest growing religion.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men.

However, it might be argued that working class men in particular are less in demand in today's Britain than their womenfolk. If they have no factories to work in, have fewer soft skills for jobs in customer services, and are often towards the back of the queue in educational achievement should we treat them as a privileged, powerful group?

Bearing that in mind, ISTM that attempts to make church attractive to men are often attempts to appeal to particular kinds of men. Not usually the most powerful (although they may be attracted by other means.) Not necessarily the educated, bookish, high-minded men who are already in many mainstream pulpits (or posting on the Ship!).

If we realise that it's not really about all men everywhere then there's no need to complain about stereotying or division, etc. It's merely an attempt to reach out to a particular demographic, something that all churches do from time to time.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Ethna Albe:

quote:
Some of the blokes from a couple of churches around here clear off for a weekend once a year and.....we don't hear anything about it, beyond that they had a good time!

+ the information-giving in church notices is usually brilliant, if only because of their rules:

1) No one has to do anything that they don't want to.
2) Don't mess it up for anyone else.

It is noticeable that when the blokes all come back there is a lot of joking around and recollections of having' a laugh. Whilst the women obligingly roll their eyes a bit...

This kind of approach is what I've been thinking. Don't ask deep/stereotypical/ponderous questions about What Do Men Want? But get a bunch of guys at church to get together and let them decide what they feel like doing and applaud them when they do it. And if it worked out let them do it again with variations until they think up something else they like better.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

If it is true that women are generally more emotionally focused than men (a big if), it seems to me relevant that a lot of churches' theology is, um, rather emotional.

Not in the shallow sense of children's pictures and flowers, but in the more fundamental sense that repentance becomes equated with feeling sorry, and believing in your hear becomes equated with feeling convinced that Jesus is Lord.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If it is true that women are generally more emotionally focused than men (a big if), it seems to me relevant that a lot of churches' theology is, um, rather emotional.

Not in the shallow sense of children's pictures and flowers, but in the more fundamental sense that repentance becomes equated with feeling sorry, and believing in your hear becomes equated with feeling convinced that Jesus is Lord.

Mind you there's a world of difference between feeling sorry and actually being sorry (with a commitment to change and/or reparation). Too much of church focuses on the former yet repentance is not truly complete without the latter.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

The church I've been in for the last ten years has more women than men, but it isn't consistent across age groups and it's not at all the split you would necessarily expect. Under 18s are predominantly female. 18-60s are a fairly even mix of men and women. Over 60s are predominantly female.
The vicar and curate are both female. Evidently this doesn't put off young and middle aged men.
The older men (it's not a particularly well off area) tend to die sooner than their wives, or not be well enough to go out, which is the main reason why there aren't many. I don't know why there are few boys. It's probably something to do with Sunday School but I don't know what.
The men are more likely to make specific comments about what they think makes a good sermon and they appreciate it if they've heard one. I preach about once a month and they're good at giving clear feedback afterwards.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Why would a boy choose to come to church? Any late Gen Xer through Z?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Martin wrote:

quote:
Why would a boy choose to come to church? Any late Gen Xer through Z?

Well, I was born in 1968. After a childhood of NOT enjoying church, I got into attending mass on my own when I was in my late teens/early twenties.

Why? Well, I guess because I was religious, and I wanted to have the religious experience that goes along with attending mass. I'm not really seeing any big mystery there.

I will say that I liked attending mass on my own rather than with my family. It gave me a sense of social and religious independence, of coming into my own, spiritually speaking. I suspect that more(though maybe not a LOT more) kids could be convinced to attend church if it wasn't presented to them as one more coerced family outting.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Mind you there's a world of difference between feeling sorry and actually being sorry (with a commitment to change and/or reparation). Too much of church focuses on the former yet repentance is not truly complete without the latter.

Irrespective of sex, that gets a [Overused]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Our place has Bible Study for men (at 6am!) .

What sort of constituency are they aiming for there? Masochistic larks?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

KLB [Smile]

@Stetson, thanks, you're a rule proving exception as you implicitly acknowledge.

As am I via a different route.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Our place has Bible Study for men (at 6am!) .
What sort of constituency are they aiming for there? Masochistic larks?

Yes, I think so. In these parts, it's common to leave for work between 6:30 and 7:00, so they're aiming to attract people before work. There's no chance at all that I'm going to be awake and functional at that time of day.

Schools also start early - because the buses are shared between elementary, middle, and high schools, the starts are staggered: the local high school day runs from 7:30 to 2:30 (I find that insane) so there are school buses collecting kids before 7:00.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

There's a Blokes group at the church I attend. I don't really know what they do. From time to time various new blokes have come to the church via the group pop up and join the congregation.

One topic I have been told has been useful for the group members has been men's health and I think there has been quite a of of mutual support given in this area.

Huia

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Apparently men need churches without doilies and flowers,

It can be an age rather than a gender issue.

I remember a battle in one church where the younger women kept hiding artificial flowers, doilies, and those weird, unstable carved wooden pedestals found only in churches, with vases perched on top of them, but the older women kept finding and replacing them.

quote:
but with nerf guns and bantz, because that's what men are like.

My son and grand-son used to go to an a father-son weekend run by their church in which teams had to erect buildings using the scrap timber provided (no power tools, only hand tools) which were judged (on size primarily, no doubt, if I can risk a gender stereotype)) and then burned down on the last night.

It didn't appeal to me, and I questioned the waste of material and manpower which might have been used more usefully (eg fixing the house of some poor person in the congregation), but it was very popular.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My denomination has a man camp the first part of May at a former forest service camp in the Wilderness of North Central Idaho. Three days, starting on Friday and lasting until Sunday pm. I have gone twice but will miss it this year because of family commitments.

We do a lot of things up there. Some Bible Study, some worship, a lot of good food. Saturday is pretty open. You can fly fish; carve something with a chainsaw (I carved a bear the first year); ride down a mountain trail with a mountain bike, even shoot guns--about the only time I shoot anymore.

It is supposed to be pan-Lutheran, but it seems that last year a conservative group was heading the camp. It really got too Trumpian for my taste. I ended up expressing my concerns to the Director of the ministry. Can't say I got a satisfactory answer back.

Maybe it is good I am staying away this year.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Quote from Aravis
The church I've been in for the last ten years has more women than men, but it isn't consistent across age groups and it's not at all the split you would necessarily expect. Under 18s are predominantly female. 18-60s are a fairly even mix of men and women. Over 60s are predominantly female.
The vicar and curate are both female. Evidently this doesn't put off young and middle aged men.
The older men (it's not a particularly well off area) tend to die sooner than their wives, or not be well enough to go out, which is the main reason why there aren't many. I don't know why there are few boys. It's probably something to do with Sunday School but I don't know what.
The men are more likely to make specific comments about what they think makes a good sermon and they appreciate it if they've heard one. I preach about once a month and they're good at giving clear feedback afterwards.

That matches my experience. The male/female ratio varies across age groups. In 35 years’ membership of evangelical(ish) churches I’ve observed more men than women in the first decade of adult life, especially amongst single people. From late twenties up to about 40 it tends to be 50/50, then the proportion of males steadily declines.

The imbalance amongst young adults seems less pronounced now than a generation ago, now that more women attend university (are there any non-graduate practising Christians under 50?)

Reports from more liberal churches suggest a greater proportion of women in all age groups, And for black majority churches the imbalance is even greater.

I wonder how far a gender imbalance can go in a Christian group before it becomes a vicious circle, making the minority gender feel so uncomfortable that they won’t attend? I’ve seen it happen for both genders, and would put the critical ratio at about 70/30.

As others have said, the biggest mistake in men’s groups is to assume that men are a homogeneous group who all love sport and curry.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Reported on the BBC R4 programme PM. PM 20.35 minutes in.

Apparently men need churches without doilies and flowers.....

I better tell the head of our flower guild this. He'll be devastated.

There is a Men's Fellowship at this church, too. Pretty well attended. I don't think it's explicitly religious, though it is a church group. More about inviting interesting speakers on various topics. But it seems popular.

There seems to be quite a strong thing amongst many of the men here for good male friendships. It seems to be a good church for that. Same for the women, too. But those are informal, or naturally forming friendships, not 'groups'. Organizationally, there are two exclusively female groups, to the men's one; a Women's Guild and a Women's Institute. But the WI isn't a church group. And it has to be said, that many women don't want to belong to either of these groups.

The most popular church organizations are the ramblers and the bowls - both mixed.

I'm another one who doesn't understand this 'feminisation' thing that seems to provoke some delicate types to reach for the smelling salts. Maybe I just don't go to 'feminine' churches, or lead 'feminine' worship, whatever that would be?!

I have a feeling, too, that for some people 'feminisation' is just a lazy and derogatory descriptor for a service where maybe there was one more woman leading the worship than they were comfortable with. Or - horror of horrors - most or all of the principal leaders were phallically challenged! The only time it ever occurs to me how strange this still is to some folks is when someone makes a comment about 'girl power' because I was celebrating communion and our female reader preached.

Poor Julian of Norwich. You can just imagine the rolled eyes when she started banging on about all that girly 'Jesus our mother' stuff!
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:

As others have said, the biggest mistake in men’s groups is to assume that men are a homogeneous group who all love sport and curry.

Perhaps the assumption is that Christian men with more refined or arty tastes will simply join the non-gendered church groups (assuming that suitable groups already exist in the church).

But as I implied above, I think the appeal to 'sport and curry' men is more of an attempt to reach working class men rather than men in general. In some areas, or among particular cultural groups, such a focus would be justified, IMO.

Football appears to be a powerful marker of English, blokey ordinariness. I know of a Methodist minister who manages to get his love of a particular football team in every sermon he preaches. I've often wondered why he bothers, but I think it's his way of telling us that he's a 'normal' chap, that he's not an ivory tower intellectual. Or maybe he's just obsessed!

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

A Koala Stamp to Exclamation Mark for putting the idea of a Christian version of Top Gear in my head. It's got me thinking about who might be invited to drive a lap in a reasonably priced car. I have an image of some purple cloth sticking out the bottom of the driver's door as the Ford Fiesta zooms by.

The closest I've been to a Church in the last year is this place and joining a Father Ted appreciation group on Facebook. Oh, did you hear that Facebook has launched a new Fake News initiative called Facefacts?

What stops me going to church locally is that I work on weekends and often oversleep, missing not only the 9am Anglican service in my town, but also the 10am service in the next town. The Anglicans don't do a weekday service and the Catholics do one on Wednesday that doesn't suit.

I went to the Anglican mens group once and it was OK, but you know. I'm not very social, and when I am I usually over-share. I also like going to St Francis in central Melbourne when I go drinking with my mate. They have three services a day, and frankly that is what's needed from my perspective, not some attempt to pander to the latest fashion in church layout. That has never worked in Australia, not once.

Good Church for me involves checking that there's the usual number of cars at the Church, guaranteeing nothing freaky like a baptism, going to mass, eating the bread and drinking the wine and saying "Gidday George", "Hey Frank", "Nice to see you Chris", "Oh, hi mate." Then, at the very end "Nice sermon Nigella" and running to the car.

I'm not an Anglo-Catholic by the way. I'm a Catholic Anglican. I'm there because they do a good mass AND include women.

[ 19. March 2017, 22:47: Message edited by: simontoad ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why would a boy choose to come to church? Any late Gen Xer through Z?

Well I'm a clear case of belief following practice - age 36, forced to go to chapel at school, then didn't bother with anything at all at university. Then joined the navy and was forced to go every week again during training. That time, it "took."

Of course, it helped that by that stage I could recite great chunks of the BCP by heart and had a good working knowledge of Hymns A&M. Go through it for long enough without thinking about it and you might find by the end that you *are* thinking about it.

Basically, I was boiled like a frog. I'm the only one in my family who goes.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men. Groups like CVM who tell churches that they're too feminine because they have bad coffee and children's drawings up (because women just LOVE bad coffee, and it's good for men to not value children in church /s) miss the point.
This.

Look, if the men in church want to get together and drink good coffee/ complain about their wives/ bang drums/ play nerf guns or whatever rings their bell, fine. But I am so so tired of all this whining and moaning about the "feminization" of the church-- an institution where women still struggle to be given any voice or leadership capacity.

I wrote more but had to delete it because it was just to hellish.

The Salvation Army(my tradition)
Church of England
The Methodist Church
The Baptist Church

etc

You can moan about the Roman Catholics and some evangelical groups if you like, but here in the UK most churches have women leaders in abundance.

The Salvation Army has had them since 1860

Female Ministry - a Woman's Right to Preach

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Moreover, I think it's a mistake to confuse 'voice' and 'leadership'. A congregation will surely have have some kind of 'voice', although how much and what kind will depend on the denomination.

To suggest otherwise gives the impression that the laity are essentially 'voiceless' and that the clergy have all the power. This is a very disturbing idea (especially in Protestantism!) with implications that go beyond the issue of women in ordained ministry.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Look I'm an ordained clergy woman so obviously I'm aware that there is a (relatively) long and rich tradition of female ordination. And I do of course agree that laity have a voice and influence, as well they should. Yet as an insider I can say with assurance that female voices, both lay and oradained, do.not have the same hearing that male voices do in most denominations, even more progressive ones. For the most part I'm happy with my lot-- things are improving. It was only in this context that I'm comaining-- when you've got people in a place of privilege.whining about having to share seats at the table

[ 24. March 2017, 18:03: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I thought I might add something about the political angle of all this - which I know is important, especially perhaps to those whose context gives them a sense of being discriminated against by men - but which is, in my experience, rather orthogonal to whatever is going on at the 'men's event'.

This means the political angle of the OP 'reclaiming' this that and the other etc etc - sounds rather incongruous to this attender of men's events. IME they're not about that - instead they're about a bunch of mostly socially-awkward men finding time and space to talk to each other about their lives and Faith. This has been true in the Methodist events I attended a long time ago, and is still true in the RC ones I currently attend.

The absence of wives (there are some single men, but given the demographic it is mostly wives, and not unattached church-women, who are absent) changes the way men interact, in a good way. This is not (of course) to say that all these men wish they were perpetually single, though some may - but a day off with other men now and again, talking about God, does us good.

That's about it, as far as I can see. I don't see much difference in how men are with each other whether they're Methodist and very used to women in charge of the church, or RC and voluntarily subject to a male hierarchy.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yeah, it's mainly harmless twaddle. Apart from the opportunity cost.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an insider I can say with assurance that female voices, both lay and ordained, do not have the same hearing that male voices do in most denominations, even more progressive ones.

But the interesting question is why this is so, when women are in the majority in many congregations.

Some might argue that the minority status of men in some churches actually enhances their value, making female worshippers more acquiescent than they would otherwise be.

In other churches, though, the laywomen might be so used to dominating church culture, leading worship and doing things their own way so that the issue of men not 'hearing' them would be more or less irrelevant. I think British Methodism leans in this direction, although I have no idea how much discrimination exists higher up the ladder.

Personality and background are also factors, I should think. Churchgoing laywomen are statistically likely to be more 'traditional' than women at large (and also older, especially in mainstream denominations). Women clergy are less so, obviously so with regards to their own ordained status, so there may be a lack of sisterly pulling together in many cases.

I also wonder about the reasons why male clergy, or men in the church generally, might not be 'hearing' women in the church. As well as theology and culture I think there might, again, be personality issues at play.

For those who are interested I've come across an interesting and relevant dissertation about women and Biblical literalism in the the CofE, as well as a brand new book about the attitudes of elderly Anglican women who are the backbone of their church in Britain.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Christianity was originally a religion mostly for women and slaves and others with less power. As Christianity became politically powerful that changed, but I think it could be said that it is simply reversing that process. As Christianity wields less social power in the West, it holds less appeal for men. Groups like CVM who tell churches that they're too feminine because they have bad coffee and children's drawings up (because women just LOVE bad coffee, and it's good for men to not value children in church /s) miss the point.
This.

Look, if the men in church want to get together and drink good coffee/ complain about their wives/ bang drums/ play nerf guns or whatever rings their bell, fine. But I am so so tired of all this whining and moaning about the "feminization" of the church-- an institution where women still struggle to be given any voice or leadership capacity.

I wrote more but had to delete it because it was just to hellish.
The Salvation Army(my tradition)
Church of England
The Methodist Church
The Baptist Church

etc

You can moan about the Roman Catholics and some evangelical groups if you like, but here in the UK most churches have women leaders in abundance.

The Salvation Army has had them since 1860

Female Ministry - a Woman's Right to Preach

With the exception of your place - which I would agree were real pioneers in the area of women's leadership in the Church - and the Methodists, most mainstream denominations still have a vocal minority opposed to women's leadership and the ongoing issues with it in the CoE can't have escaped your notice. I think there's also quite a big difference between having women in leadership and being 'feminised'. The RCC may have only male clergy but women dominate the laity to a huge degree. Your average Catholic in the UK will be a woman. I think that is less true of some Nonconformist churches, even ones with women in leadership or who support it. Indeed, there are plenty of trad RCs who moan about the feminisation of the church and ban altar girls etc, despite having one particular woman in a very central place in the faith....!

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

I'm not sure that that feminisation is being used pejoratively here. I don't know what the situation is across the pond, but in the UK lots more women come to church than men. The effect of that is that activities and attitudes that women tend to prefer are more common in church life that activities and attitudes than men tend to prefer. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that church is more for women than men.

Now you could say, and I would agree, that mature Christian men should learn to appreciate the gifts of their sisters and get over church being different that they might have designed it to be.

However, I think it's a bit much to expect people who aren't Christians yet or who find Christianity a huge struggle to deal with the culture gap.CVM and similar groups are trying to bridge that gap, because lots of men don't like traditionally feminine pursuits. Stereotypes don't come from nowhere.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What are these Feminine pursuits that characterise the church? What would masculine pursuits be? Lots of generalities here but I'd be interested to know specific ways in which the church is deemed to be feminine.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure that that feminisation is being used pejoratively here. I don't know what the situation is across the pond, but in the UK lots more women come to church than men. The effect of that is that activities and attitudes that women tend to prefer are more common in church life that activities and attitudes than men tend to prefer. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that church is more for women than men.

Now you could say, and I would agree, that mature Christian men should learn to appreciate the gifts of their sisters and get over church being different that they might have designed it to be.

However, I think it's a bit much to expect people who aren't Christians yet or who find Christianity a huge struggle to deal with the culture gap.CVM and similar groups are trying to bridge that gap, because lots of men don't like traditionally feminine pursuits. Stereotypes don't come from nowhere.

It's absolutely used pejoratively by many. Lots of women don't like traditionally feminine pursuits either, but gendered hobbies/interests in churches and Christian groups don't make allowances for them. Gender stereotypes hurt everyone. There is nothing innately masculine about football and curry - neither is there anything innately feminine about book groups or flower arranging. Even from a biological essentialist perspective, there's nothing about having a penis or having a vagina that makes someone like curry or bellringing or books or sport. Maybe churches should be trying to challenge this kind of silliness rather than encouraging it?

[ 26. March 2017, 14:24: Message edited by: Pomona ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure that that feminisation is being used pejoratively here. I don't know what the situation is across the pond, but in the UK lots more women come to church than men. The effect of that is that activities and attitudes that women tend to prefer are more common in church life that activities and attitudes than men tend to prefer. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that church is more for women than men.

Now you could say, and I would agree, that mature Christian men should learn to appreciate the gifts of their sisters and get over church being different that they might have designed it to be.

However, I think it's a bit much to expect people who aren't Christians yet or who find Christianity a huge struggle to deal with the culture gap.CVM and similar groups are trying to bridge that gap, because lots of men don't like traditionally feminine pursuits. Stereotypes don't come from nowhere.
It's absolutely used pejoratively by many. Lots of women don't like traditionally feminine pursuits either, but gendered hobbies/interests in churches and Christian groups don't make allowances for them. Gender stereotypes hurt everyone. There is nothing innately masculine about football and curry - neither is there anything innately feminine about book groups or flower arranging. Even from a biological essentialist perspective, there's nothing about having a penis or having a vagina that makes someone like curry or bellringing or books or sport. Maybe churches should be trying to challenge this kind of silliness rather than encouraging it?

When I have heard the term used it most definitely has been used pejoratively. But it hasn't been used so much to describe ecclesiastical social activities. I don't think anyone has a problem with a group of church members, male or female, who likes sports/ flower arranging/ classical music/ slam poets/ ultimate frisbee organizing an outing among like-minded persons, as long as it serves some sort of goal (e.g. increasing fellowship/ friendship) that is consistent with the overall purpose of the Church.

But where I've heard the term "feminization" used in reference to the church, it hasn't been about social activities. It's had to do with core theological principles-- things like sacrifice, submission, collaboration, forgiveness, non-violence. These are things that our society labels as both "weak" and, not coincidentally, "feminine". It's there I have a problem with protests about the "feminization" of the church. These are essential core doctrines of the church. I believe they are labeled "feminine" by society not because women are inherently more prone to these attributes, but rather because these are attributes that are counter-cultural, and therefore not affirmed by the "strong" in our culture. Thus society seeks to marginalize these attributes by associating them withe the "weaker", more marginalized gender. I believe Jesus was very much aware that he was acting counter-culturally by advocating these attributes (and, perhaps not coincidentally, elevating women). If we want to call ourselves Christ-followers, we need to take these aspects of our theology seriously and now eschew them in the interests of getting more (male) butts in pews.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The first thing to say is that 'feminine' and 'masculine' are societal and cultural categories, not innate, physical ones. So this isn't a discussion about what makes a man or a woman in any kind of 'authentic' or biological sense.

So at a visible level we can see that the flower arranging, the creche, the young Sunday School group, the cake baking and tea sharing in the vast majority of churches will be done or staffed by women - and this is socially or culturally expected behaviour.

However, the truly 'religious' activities that are more subtle and presumably more gender neutral are still likely to involve more women than men. Research shows that societal expectations have to some degree encouraged the 'feminisation' of Christian activities or attitudes at certain points in the past; women have been expected to attend church on behalf of the rest of the family, to conduct devotions with their children, to be particularly devoted to the Christlike stance of caring, obedience, meekness, humility, and so on. And it's been argued that as modern women have pulled away from these 'feminine' characteristics they've also been less likely to attend church themselves....

Moreover, although we complain about the maleness of the ministry, clergymen haven't always been depicted as highly masculine figures. In fact, they've often been characterised as finicky, socially inept, sexually inadequate (and 'emasculated' RC priests aren't even supposed to have sex at all), more at home in the parlours of admiring ladies than with 'manly' men....

These may all be dreadful, outdated stereotypes, but the point is that in some way or another these or similar attitudes have influenced the church from within and without the church for a long time. Even the very modern arguments about gay clergy feed into this, I think. And although female clergy may not actively contribute to outdated traditional notions of Christian 'femininity', their increasing presence may be seen as emphasising church as a 'feminine' space.

It's easy to criticise conservative Christians for focusing on this subject (and this is an interesting series that's probably from such a stable) but neutral or non-Christian academics for example here and here have also become increasingly interested.

[ 26. March 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

But where I've heard the term "feminization" used in reference to the church, it hasn't been about social activities. It's had to do with core theological principles-- things like sacrifice, submission, collaboration, forgiveness, non-violence. These are things that our society labels as both "weak" and, not coincidentally, "feminine". It's there I have a problem with protests about the "feminization" of the church. These are essential core doctrines of the church. I believe they are labeled "feminine" by society not because women are inherently more prone to these attributes, but rather because these are attributes that are counter-cultural, and therefore not affirmed by the "strong" in our culture. Thus society seeks to marginalize these attributes by associating them withe the "weaker", more marginalized gender. I believe Jesus was very much aware that he was acting counter-culturally by advocating these attributes (and, perhaps not coincidentally, elevating women). If we want to call ourselves Christ-followers, we need to take these aspects of our theology seriously and now eschew them in the interests of getting more (male) butts in pews.

Whilst I recognise the split cliffdweller is making absolutely, and am entirely convinced that this is the core of the issue rather than wittering about flower arranging, I entirely and absolutely despair at what this leaves a "masculine" god looking like: a power-crazed despot with no possible expression of his being other than the crushing of an essentially inferior, weaker creation.

If we can't attract other men without worshipping a god like that, I'll be with the women at the foot of the cross.

But then I'm a poof, so that's no more than you would expect and I'm part of the problem not the cure.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It occurs to me that the 'masculine' man may well be a stereotype we're supposed to disapprove of, but the church is full of stereotypes of its own!

The idea that the mainstream churches, particularly in the West, are broadly going to start defying stereotypes, whether their own or anyone else's, strikes me as unlikely. But there may be more niche church fellowships to cater for the outliers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure that that feminisation is being used pejoratively here.

Given that the thread title seems to regard "feminisation" as something that requires "countering", I'd say it's portrayed as something negative and undesirable.

[ 26. March 2017, 18:39: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose it's negative to the extent that a balance of feminisation and masculinisation would be better for the health of the church.

OTOH, as with anything in life, there are those who benefit from things as they are and who might be disadvantaged in some way if church culture changed.

BTW, no one has yet referred to the other tricky word in the title - 'romanticisation'. The OP doesn't make it clear what this means, and I don't think the link to the BBC report refers to it either.

Romanticisation could be a reference to romantic worship music or to a 'Jesus is my boyfriend' atmosphere. I suspect that those who hate the criticism of feminisation would nevertheless be quite willing to condemn music and attitudes of of this sort....

[ 26. March 2017, 18:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it's negative to the extent that a balance of feminisation and masculinisation would be better for the health of the church.

To the extent that "feminization" and "masculinization" simply mean "social activities that appeal to the average woman in our culture" or "activities that appeal to the average man"-- sure, a balance is probably optimal. But again, that's not how the term is generally used. When it's used to refer to a particular, and I would argue, unbiblical, understanding of power, then no, I don't think there's anything healthy about subjugating the counter-cultural, revolutionary message of the gospel for the sake of peddling it to alpha males.

Yes, Mark Driscoll, I'm looking at you.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
for the sake of peddling it to alpha males

I understand that if one were out to peddle - in the sense of advertising - then conventional wisdom, presumably based on prior research, would depict 'alpha' males. Likewise makeup seems to get advertised by beautiful women. But I'd have to say that there's nothing very 'alpha' about the men who turn up to our events, and I think a speaker (a-la Driscoll?) who tried to appeal to such would meet a lot of raised eyebrows.

[ 26. March 2017, 21:51: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yep.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:
for the sake of peddling it to alpha males
I understand that if one were out to peddle - in the sense of advertising - then conventional wisdom, presumably based on prior research, would depict 'alpha' males. Likewise makeup seems to get advertised by beautiful women. But I'd have to say that there's nothing very 'alpha' about the men who turn up to our events, and I think a speaker (a-la Driscoll?) who tried to appeal to such would meet a lot of raised eyebrows.

I suspect yours is a bit closer to healthy, at least from a Christ-follower pov, then Driscoll's gatherings.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The first thing to say is that 'feminine' and 'masculine' are societal and cultural categories, not innate, physical ones. So this isn't a discussion about what makes a man or a woman in any kind of 'authentic' or biological sense.

So at a visible level we can see that the flower arranging, the creche, the young Sunday School group, the cake baking and tea sharing in the vast majority of churches will be done or staffed by women - and this is socially or culturally expected behaviour.

However, the truly 'religious' activities that are more subtle and presumably more gender neutral are still likely to involve more women than men. Research shows that societal expectations have to some degree encouraged the 'feminisation' of Christian activities or attitudes at certain points in the past; women have been expected to attend church on behalf of the rest of the family, to conduct devotions with their children, to be particularly devoted to the Christlike stance of caring, obedience, meekness, humility, and so on. And it's been argued that as modern women have pulled away from these 'feminine' characteristics they've also been less likely to attend church themselves....

Moreover, although we complain about the maleness of the ministry, clergymen haven't always been depicted as highly masculine figures. In fact, they've often been characterised as finicky, socially inept, sexually inadequate (and 'emasculated' RC priests aren't even supposed to have sex at all), more at home in the parlours of admiring ladies than with 'manly' men....

These may all be dreadful, outdated stereotypes, but the point is that in some way or another these or similar attitudes have influenced the church from within and without the church for a long time. Even the very modern arguments about gay clergy feed into this, I think. And although female clergy may not actively contribute to outdated traditional notions of Christian 'femininity', their increasing presence may be seen as emphasising church as a 'feminine' space.

It's easy to criticise conservative Christians for focusing on this subject (and this is an interesting series that's probably from such a stable) but neutral or non-Christian academics for example here and here have also become increasingly interested.

I am largely ignorant of the relevant Church history, but as an armchair historian I am guessing that part of what caused society to view church as feminine had to do with the development in Industrializing countries in the 19th century that men would leave the house to go to a place of work and women would stay in the house to raise children, cook, clean, etc., and if they had extra time in the day (as many middle and upper class women did), women began to become involved in volunteer organizations, which were often based around the church (previously, when most people lived in more agricultural settings rather than in cities and even those men in cities often plied a trade at home, the house and daytime non-paid-work activity was not seen as much as a feminine sphere). As wage-earning and the workplace became to be seen as more masculine and the home and volunteer work began to be seen as more feminine, the church began to be seen as a more feminine space. As women became more active in volunteering for church organizations, they began to enjoy more public roles and even more decision-making power at church, even when they could not themselves be ordained. Simultaneously, as the vast majority of men (at the time) worked at physically-demanding industrial jobs and the ideal woman (although many women did work in factories) was a domestic mother, manliness became associated with muscular labor and femininity became associated with nurturing and guarding morality even more than before. This probably led the church to be viewed even more as a feminine place, even when almost all ordained ministers remained male.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I say "guardian of morality" referring to the social view of women above in reference to childrearing and teaching children right and wrong. I do not mean having he authority to make theological or legal decisions about morality, because I am referring to the 19th century when women were denied this authority. However there was a 19th century cult of motherhood and of domesticity that stressed the moral purity of women and this is what I am referring to. I know that women then were also seen as emotional and irrational - so, again, I am differentiating symbolic guardianship of morality with actual legal authority.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

cliffdweller

There may be a pond difference here.

In the OP and in the British context generally, I'm not convinced that the 'alpha male' is a particularly interesting group for the British churches that worry about feminisation. As I've suggested above, I think the focus here would be more on the average working class male, who isn't really 'alpha' over anything (although he might like to be).

Why? Firstly because the anxiety in British Christianity is about the absence of the working classes in general. There's no real cultural equivalent of the American 'hillbilly' in his or her con-evo small town church.

Secondly, the alpha male here isn't really understood to be a hyper-masculine character, and the Donald Trump type of aggressive personality isn't particularly idolised in the wider population. British 'hard men' are perhaps too easy to parody - and if they're serious criminals very few churches will want to deal with them anyway (prison ministry notwithstanding)!

IMO the 'successful' British male, at least in public life, is expected to display at least some 'feminine' characteristics. In British church terms therefore, the upper middle class banker, sportsman or businessman, etc., has to be attracted to a church by somewhat more sophisticated means than football and curry nights. Maybe this is the kind of group that goes for male headship theology.

Or maybe the kinds of British men who attend male headship-type churches are more like wannabe alpha males than actual alpha males. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

[ 26. March 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Probably so, though I'd hoped we could talk about both. The amount of cross pond pollinization from Driscoll in particular would seem to suggest it's at least worthy of a mention. Especially since the language of the OP directly parrots his rhetoric

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Generally speaking men are different to women. In that I mean they usually have different priorities. I don't find any Church Service these days either acknowledges this or in any way or encourages men.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.

But where I've heard the term "feminization" used in reference to the church, it hasn't been about social activities. It's had to do with core theological principles-- things like sacrifice, submission, collaboration, forgiveness, non-violence. These are things that our society labels as both "weak" and, not coincidentally, "feminine". It's there I have a problem with protests about the "feminization" of the church. These are essential core doctrines of the church. I believe they are labeled "feminine" by society not because women are inherently more prone to these attributes, but rather because these are attributes that are counter-cultural, and therefore not affirmed by the "strong" in our culture. Thus society seeks to marginalize these attributes by associating them withe the "weaker", more marginalized gender. I believe Jesus was very much aware that he was acting counter-culturally by advocating these attributes (and, perhaps not coincidentally, elevating women). If we want to call ourselves Christ-followers, we need to take these aspects of our theology seriously and now eschew them in the interests of getting more (male) butts in pews.

Ok, we are talking about something very different here. I'm quite sure that CVM and organisations like them are not advocating a Christian manliness that gives people a free pass on sacrifice, forgiveness and collaboration.

What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end. The second involves sitting in a circle and talking, often very personally. My experience is that many men do not connect with either of these things well. Yes yes Pomona, I know some women don't too, but generally speaking these are ways of relating that women prefer and tend to be standard in church at least in part because churches are largely made up of women.

In my relatively thriving church we have just a single dad who comes with his kids without mum. We have loads of mums and grans who come with their kids without dad and grandad. I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Lep:

quote:

What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end. The second involves sitting in a circle and talking, often very personally. My experience is that many men do not connect with either of these things well.

Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever. I've also seen men sit in circles at bbq's, various meals, in pubs and at 'sheds' all talking very personally,

I'm actually beginning to think that the church has the weirdest attitude to the division of the sexes that isn't really present in the real world at all, and I do have to wonder if it has to do with the church having been one of the last bastions of maledom and what we see and hear from it in this regard is little more than the last death throes of an old fashioned misogyny because the church is now one of the few rare places where this kind of thing is given any weight or seriousness anymore.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I think Leprechaun makes a lot of sense, and Svitlana too:

quote:
Or maybe the kinds of British men who attend male headship-type churches are more like wannabe alpha males than actual alpha males. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

Well...the sin of pride is generally alive and well in all of us, and stereotypical male pride might be the 'yuck' to which some of us on this thread are reacting. But men encouraging each other in humility and mutual service can be a real thing, now and again. I've been moved by the testimony of men who can hardly put one word or foot in front of another, numerous times. Those tend to be the moments I take from our kind of meeting.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lep:

quote:

What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end. The second involves sitting in a circle and talking, often very personally. My experience is that many men do not connect with either of these things well.

Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever. I've also seen men sit in circles at bbq's, various meals, in pubs and at 'sheds' all talking very personally,

I'm actually beginning to think that the church has the weirdest attitude to the division of the sexes that isn't really present in the real world at all, and I do have to wonder if it has to do with the church having been one of the last bastions of maledom and what we see and hear from it in this regard is little more than the last death throes of an old fashioned misogyny because the church is now one of the few rare places where this kind of thing is given any weight or seriousness anymore.

You may, of course, be right. Find me the church with loads of men who just love singing and small groups I'll congratulate them. I can only say what I see in every single church that I know. Services and small groups are dominated by women and men say they don't like them.YMMV.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

The youngest Male in our Church is the Minister and he's over 50. Women outnumber men 10 to 1. It could be that they are mostly Widows, and all of the Men are with their Wives. But Mosques are full of men, Churches aren't. What has Islam got that Christianity hasn't ?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

I've also seen men sit in circles at bbq's, various meals, in pubs and at 'sheds' all talking very personally,

Those groups tend to be rather self-selective and self-filtering, more so as you get up to anything personal discussed.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's got a tried and tested culturally dominating formula GH.

[ 27. March 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever.

How many of them were singing love songs to another man?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever.
How many of them were singing love songs to another man?

At football matches? All of them!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever.
How many of them were singing love songs to another man?
At football matches? All of them!

Don't confuse hero worship and love. They're two very different things.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end. The second involves sitting in a circle and talking, often very personally. My experience is that many men do not connect with either of these things well. Yes yes Pomona, I know some women don't too, but generally speaking these are ways of relating that women prefer and tend to be standard in church at least in part because churches are largely made up of women....

In my relatively thriving church we have just a single dad who comes with his kids without mum. We have loads of mums and grans who come with their kids without dad and grandad. I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.

Oh, everything's about gender politics, really.
[Biased]

No, not really, I'm only kidding.

A few observations, though. I'm female, and I cannot abide love songs to Jesus type worship. Especially as the music is so weedy. Give me Guide me oh thou Great Redeemer, or And Can it Be? any day.

I like a bit of chitchat, with people I know, where I have those strong friendships - and the chitchat post church round our way is 50/50 male/female, ime. I couldn't stand the sitting in a circle and sharing (shudder) with people I don't know, just because they happen to go to the same church as me. I do do sharing at homegroup (50/50 male female), with some friends over coffee (female) and with different friends in the pub (male).

My point is that looking for activities specifically for men or for women limits opportunities quite a few people to enjoy themselves, and to form strong relationships. Stereotyping helps no one.

And as for why there aren't dads in church - well, here there are quite a few, but those that aren't there are usually coaching football, ferrying children to clubs or pursuing their own hobbies (MrJt9 is usually doing one of the latter 2, but then he's an atheist so he doesn't really count....)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I think Leprechaun makes a lot of sense, and Svitlana too:

quote:
Or maybe the kinds of British men who attend male headship-type churches are more like wannabe alpha males than actual alpha males. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.
Well...the sin of pride is generally alive and well in all of us, and stereotypical male pride might be the 'yuck' to which some of us on this thread are reacting. But men encouraging each other in humility and mutual service can be a real thing, now and again. I've been moved by the testimony of men who can hardly put one word or foot in front of another, numerous times. Those tend to be the moments I take from our kind of meeting.

Yes! This is so much better said than what I was fumbling toward, and a beautiful example of the way forward. Especially notable is the way it manages to affirm male spirituality without using "feminine" as a pejorative.

Yes, let's certainly care about why so few men are drawn to our churches. But let's do so in a way that resonates with the radical, counter cultural truth of the gospel rather than simply mirroring the culture.

[ 27. March 2017, 13:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Oddly, I've seen an awful lot of men sing in choirs, choral groups choruses and at football matches, rugby or whatever.
How many of them were singing love songs to another man?

Yeah, see, Leprechaun started out by disputing my contention that "feminization" complaints are really fighting core theological principles, but here you're both kicking against THE core defining belief of Christiainity.

[ 27. March 2017, 13:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end.

<snip>

I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.

Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials. I'm not sure how a Jesus-ambivalent (or even Jesus-hostile) Christianity would work.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's got a tried and tested culturally dominating formula GH.

This, from a Muslim:

Part 2: Why is Islam still popular

One of the obvious reasons here is that it is a religion. And once it has taken hold, it is always hard to remove, even from a seemingly rational person. But there are other reasons as well:

Go back to the inceptions of Islam. The central message that it carries is brotherhood and community. And a community is always formed among equals. At the risk of sounding like a communist, living in a community often means taking care of the weak. and No religion endorses this on a level greater than Islam. Muslims save a portion of their salary to be donated every time without fail. The only festival they celebrate is predated by a month of fasting, the food saved henceforth is also donated to the hungry. The same goes for Bakra-Eid, the meat is distributed among the needy.

This notion also leads to the creation of a closely knit community, what social psychologists often call a dominant ingroup. So it also survives in small packets.

Islam does not discriminate on the basis of birth in a particular race or community or caste. It generates a sense of equality among people to the same effect as described above.

Despite wide-spread belief, Islam does not survive due to Al-Qaeda or Ayatullah Khomeini, nor does it survive because it is hard to get out of [even although it is for multiple reasons]. Islam, like any other religion survives because people believe in it, it's ideals and morals. It survives, because, like all other religions, it gives people and assurance of a bigger meaning of life (true or false, none of us are fit to comment). It survives because in connecting within ourselves, it gives us a chance to be part of something bigger than ourselves.

[ 27. March 2017, 14:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end.

<snip>

I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials. I'm not sure how a Jesus-ambivalent (or even Jesus-hostile) Christianity would work.

bingo.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Garden hermit:

quote:

What has Islam got that Christianity hasn't ?

Faith. Unlike us, they don't chase after the wind.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials.

Loving God isn't the problem. The way that love is expressed is the problem. All that soppy "Jesus is my Boyfriend" crap that both feel and sound like we're supposed to be feeling romantic love for Jesus. I don't want Jesus to wrap me up in His loving arms and keep me safe from the storm, I want Him to redeem my sins, crack open a tinny and invite me to sit and eat with Him for a while.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials.
Loving God isn't the problem. The way that love is expressed is the problem. All that soppy "Jesus is my Boyfriend" crap that both feel and sound like we're supposed to be feeling romantic love for Jesus. I don't want Jesus to wrap me up in His loving arms and keep me safe from the storm, I want Him to redeem my sins, crack open a tinny and invite me to sit and eat with Him for a while.

So you're looking for a God whose behavior is more closely calibrated to your demands? Sounds reasonable.

Just out of market research curiosity, given how much complaining has been done so far about flower arranging, could a compromise be reached if flower arranging also included the occasional topless* female swordfight?

--------------------
*Despite what the later lithographs would have you believe, the participants in the von Metternich/Kielmannsegg duel only removed their upper body outer garments. They retained enough undergarments to be considered full clothed by modern standards.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The youngest Male in our Church is the Minister and he's over 50. Women outnumber men 10 to 1. It could be that they are mostly Widows, and all of the Men are with their Wives. But Mosques are full of men, Churches aren't. What has Islam got that Christianity hasn't ?

A 1500 year history of building Mosques where only men are permitted to worship, preside and participate authoritatively? Respectfully speaking, Islam can keep what it's got. Even at its most repressive and bigoted I'd still rather have Christianity with its 'in Christ there is neither male nor female' possibilities.

I don't understand what you mean about going to a church where the differences between men and women aren't taken account of, or where men's priorities aren't encouraged or acknowledged. What does that mean? What priorities does a woman have that are being affirmed and encouraged; over and against the priorities that a man has that aren't?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Just out of market research curiosity, given how much complaining has been done so far about flower arranging, could a compromise be reached if flower arranging also included the occasional topless* female swordfight? ...

Wow, a duel about flower arranging, and not just parasols at dawn.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Judging by the Newspapers (dangerous I know) they do seem to have numerous stories of 'British' men who convert to Islam especially whilst in prison. Are they ignoring Christian converts ? Perhaps these converts are attracted by the Discipline of Islam. I think many Men like 'rules' to know where they are. They don't like uncertainty, and go for groups with Uniforms such as Scouts and Military. Islam seems to fit that Bill.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials.
Loving God isn't the problem. The way that love is expressed is the problem. All that soppy "Jesus is my Boyfriend" crap that both feel and sound like we're supposed to be feeling romantic love for Jesus. I don't want Jesus to wrap me up in His loving arms and keep me safe from the storm, I want Him to redeem my sins, crack open a tinny and invite me to sit and eat with Him for a while.

So iow this is nothing at all to do about the so-called feminization of the church and just yet another rant about contemporary worship? A subject in which there are plenty of strong opinions on both sides from both genders, enough to fill a dead horses thread no doubt. But nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about here, since there Re plenty of staid hymn-singing love-song eschewing churches filled with nothing but blue haired old ladies. And fwiw the churches with more contemporary "emo" music tend to hVe more men, at least in these parts, for whatever reason.

[ 27. March 2017, 17:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I feel bombarded with 'Feminism' in Society in general. Women aren't paid as much as Men apparently. Yet every job I have had, Civil Service, BT, Buses, Care Work since 1965 both men and women had the same pay rates. As I had an equal number of good and poor Male and Female bosses, I can't see they weren't getting promotion either. At our local Schools where I help Voluntarily the (female)Teachers are keen to 'promote' Girls into Science and Engineering but don't say the same things to Boys regarding Nursing or Teaching, both of which have shortages and less and less males. Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Well - I guess talk of our 'loving heavenly Father' is pretty normative. Perhaps we don't even notice - I'm certainly very used to the language.

There seems to be a big temptation to get into a proud battle about who did what to whom. At the moment I'm favouring a degree of gender apartheid.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.

Hens sheltering chicks under their wings is a common image. Cockerels doing the same thing? Not so much.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.
Hens sheltering chicks under their wings is a common image. Cockerels doing the same thing? Not so much.

More to the point though, sermons, prayers, readings about God as a loving Father happen nearly every week. Yet garden hermit is annoyed that he had to endure one Sunday out of 52 hearing that God is a loving mother too. Boo

[ 27. March 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Well - I guess talk of our 'loving heavenly Father' is pretty normative.

Not for me - never heard that phrase.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end.

<snip>

I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials. I'm not sure how a Jesus-ambivalent (or even Jesus-hostile) Christianity would work.

Hmmm. Yes, so is the trinity. But we don't actually make Muslims assent to that and sing about how brilliant it is when they first ask a question about Christianity.

Christianity has always been a religion that adapts to the culture that it is trying to reach. The failure of people on this thread to acknowledge that most men operate in a culture entirely inimical to it probably goes a long way to explaining why it is mostly women in church. By all means, make it all about gender politics if you don't actually want men to come. CVM is just aiming a bit higher than that.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end.

<snip>

I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials. I'm not sure how a Jesus-ambivalent (or even Jesus-hostile) Christianity would work.
Hmmm. Yes, so is the trinity. But we don't actually make Muslims assent to that and sing about how brilliant it is when they first ask a question about Christianity.

Christianity has always been a religion that adapts to the culture that it is trying to reach. The failure of people on this thread to acknowledge that most men operate in a culture entirely inimical to it probably goes a long way to explaining why it is mostly women in church. By all means, make it all about gender politics if you don't actually want men to come. CVM is just aiming a bit higher than that.

What precisely is the point of all the sports-cheering, beer-swigging, nerf darts-playing or topless sword fights if, in the end, it doesn't lead to loving Jesus? What are we trying to get all those male butts in pews for, if not for the one theological distinctive that is what the whole thing is supposed to be about?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Where's the Gospel? You know, the one about the Kingdom, of Universal Social Justice? You know, loving God in Christ Jesus in some meaningful way?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What precisely is the point of all the sports-cheering, beer-swigging, nerf darts-playing or topless sword fights if, in the end, it doesn't lead to loving Jesus? What are we trying to get all those male butts in pews for, if not for the one theological distinctive that is what the whole thing is supposed to be about?

Well quite. But singing about loving Jesus is not really a very good place for many men to start. That doesn't mean they hate women or that Christian men don't want women to have a seat on the table. They just want non-Christian men to have a fighting chance of considering Jesus for themselves.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What precisely is the point of all the sports-cheering, beer-swigging, nerf darts-playing or topless sword fights if, in the end, it doesn't lead to loving Jesus? What are we trying to get all those male butts in pews for, if not for the one theological distinctive that is what the whole thing is supposed to be about?
Well quite. But singing about loving Jesus is not really a very good place for many men to start. That doesn't mean they hate women or that Christian men don't want women to have a seat on the table. They just want non-Christian men to have a fighting chance of considering Jesus for themselves.

The ultimate bromance?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs are mostly unsingable for two reasons: lyrics and pitch, and right now, I'd settle for a key I could actually sing in. And the worship leader is a man, just one with a really high singing voice. We've had words, but to zero effect.

New vicar is bringing in at least one actual hymn per service, and the pitch of those does seem a little lower, for which I'm grateful.

I was in a ConEvo CofE for some 25 years. Plenty of men in that, but it did also champion a theology of male headship and was volubly anti-gay. Which I (belatedly, and I'm ashamed of how belatedly) left over. I'm much happier in the new (10 years now) gaff - New Wine-y CofE - even if the worship doesn't actually do anything for me.

It makes it difficult to generalise over what men want. Perhaps they do want a stricter, more 'warrior-like' theology, but that also has casualties. Driscoll found that out himself.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What precisely is the point of all the sports-cheering, beer-swigging, nerf darts-playing or topless sword fights if, in the end, it doesn't lead to loving Jesus? What are we trying to get all those male butts in pews for, if not for the one theological distinctive that is what the whole thing is supposed to be about?
Well quite. But singing about loving Jesus is not really a very good place for many men to start. That doesn't mean they hate women or that Christian men don't want women to have a seat on the table. They just want non-Christian men to have a fighting chance of considering Jesus for themselves.

A nice theory, except that the churches that ARE having success at attracting men, both the horrid, obnoxious ones (yes, Mark Driscoll, I'm looking at you) and the more mainstream/ non-misogynist ones, are doing precisely that-- singing about loving Jesus, in a variety of ways (some emo, some not).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the one theological distinctive that is what the whole thing is supposed to be about?

Is it? I've started a separate thread for loving Jesus.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I feel bombarded with 'Feminism' in Society in general. Women aren't paid as much as Men apparently. Yet every job I have had, Civil Service, BT, Buses, Care Work since 1965 both men and women had the same pay rates. As I had an equal number of good and poor Male and Female bosses, I can't see they weren't getting promotion either. At our local Schools where I help Voluntarily the (female)Teachers are keen to 'promote' Girls into Science and Engineering but don't say the same things to Boys regarding Nursing or Teaching, both of which have shortages and less and less males. Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.

That would be for Mothering Sunday, I imagine, and with a perfectly proper Biblical passage to back it up.
I'm sure you get sermons on the Prodigal's father, and the good shepherd, and the good Samaritan on occasions.
I got left out as well. The Peace turned into children collecting flowers for their mothers, and then their grandmothers, and then people collecting flowers for the mothers whose children had grown up and weren't there, and then turning to the men to give them the peace because they care for the children too.
I didn't get the peace at all. Or to give it to another. Not did the friend I had gone with. Who cares for people he's not even related to. And I suppose my teaching might count, too.
But it was Mothering Sunday. It was about mothers. And it was Lady Day as well, or pretty close to it. Just once a year. We women are getting too uppity.

[ 27. March 2017, 21:59: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But we don't actually make Muslims assent to that and sing about how brilliant it is when they first ask a question about Christianity.

Christianity has always been a religion that adapts to the culture that it is trying to reach. The failure of people on this thread to acknowledge that most men operate in a culture entirely inimical to it probably goes a long way to explaining why it is mostly women in church. By all means, make it all about gender politics if you don't actually want men to come. CVM is just aiming a bit higher than that.

Definitely agree about adapting the form of our worship. That may mean singing a different style of music, or none at all, or to turn the sermon-monologue into more of a dialogue, or to change the way our gatherings look or the space we meet in.

But I think we also need to be careful about bait & switch, especially when it comes to content. Churches (especially evangelical churches like mine) are notorious for bait and switch-- come to this super-cool concert, hear this really funny speaker, come to this awesome activity-- then come back on Sunday to our church which is nothing at all like that. Didn't work with youth group 20 years ago, doesn't work now. They may come for the shiny fun "bait" but they're not going to stick around for the "switch".

There is no point in us presenting a gospel that is about something other than loving Jesus, because loving Jesus is essential to who and what we are. If that is counter-cultural-- and it is-- then so be it. We need to present, as honestly as we can, what we are about, without weighing it down unnecessarily with cultural baggage, but also without trying to present it as something it's not. Say what we're about, demonstrate it, and then let our friends, male or female, decide if it's something they want to explore.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs are mostly unsingable for two reasons: lyrics and pitch, and right now, I'd settle for a key I could actually sing in. And the worship leader is a man, just one with a really high singing voice. We've had words, but to zero effect.

New vicar is bringing in at least one actual hymn per service, and the pitch of those does seem a little lower, for which I'm grateful.

I was in a ConEvo CofE for some 25 years. Plenty of men in that, but it did also champion a theology of male headship and was volubly anti-gay. Which I (belatedly, and I'm ashamed of how belatedly) left over. I'm much happier in the new (10 years now) gaff - New Wine-y CofE - even if the worship doesn't actually do anything for me.

There are still churches around that prefer hymns rather than worship songs.

However, I don't think 'feminisation' is primarily about worship songs. The traditional hymns that some churches prefer don't automatically avoid the problem. David Murrow claims that masculine Victorian hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers' gave way to a more feminine turn by the beginning of the 20th c. 'In the Garden' from 1913 is the example he chooses:

I come to the garden alone,
While the dew is still on the roses,
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses.

Refrain:
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

He speaks, and the sound of His voice
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,
And the melody that He gave to me
Within my heart is ringing.

I’d stay in the garden with Him,
Though the night around me be falling,
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling.

Doesn't seem very masculine to me....

'Onward' is out of favour now, but Murrow says that 'In the Garden' is still widely sung. Not so popular in the UK but I have come across it.

Murrow proposes that rather than addressing our relationship with Jesus as something romantic, we could sing about our friendship, partnership, following or walking along with him. Of course, there are already many hymns of this type. I don't know how popular they are in charismatic churches.

Murrow accepts that 'Onward' is now unacceptable, but would like more modern hymn writers to 'fashion some songs that speak of battle, strength, and victory'. He thinks the Psalms should offer some inspiration.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I have this evil desire to sic Richard Crashaw the poet on those people who think that women are feminizing the church. Richard Crashaw

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't think it's a question of women feminizing the church so much as a process that's developed probably without much serious thought. Male clergy and theologians have surely had a lot to do with it, as a result of the concepts they've promoted, the choices they've made, having themselves been formed by those assumptions about church life, and in the end tailoring their ministry for the people in front on them.

[ 28. March 2017, 01:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are still churches around that prefer hymns rather than worship songs.

However, I don't think 'feminisation' is primarily about worship songs. The traditional hymns that some churches prefer don't automatically avoid the problem. David Murrow claims that masculine Victorian hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers' gave way to a more feminine turn by the beginning of the 20th c. 'In the Garden' from 1913 is the example he chooses:

...Doesn't seem very masculine to me.....

Certainly the vocal range isn't. It's too high and broad a range even for my mid-high alto range. As evidenced by a very nasty video circulating in dark corners of me officiating at a funeral where none of the petulant "mourners" (long story) were singing the hymn chosen by their dear departed, leaving me struggling to reach the high notes without busting a lung...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This moving account may change your mind about just how feminine 'In the Garden' is.

Maybe I'm just an old softy, but I heard Pastor Chen sing the hymn during his account of his time in prison, and it brought me to tears.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I have terrible trouble singing anything - all the hymns seem to high for my alto, and I frequently drop down an octave as the tune reaches its higher reaches. But down there, it's the right pitch for the men.

When I was young, we would sometimes attend Boys Brigade services as my father had some official status and it was his duty to do so. The effect of a church full of teenaged males singing with gusto about their anchor holding was tremendous. That mass male appeal has gone. I know there's Boys Brigade at our local church, but I never see them or hear them, as one used to, going to church parade.

I suspect the choice of someone to put young boys' football practice on Sunday mornings has had an influence on the male attendance, both keeping fathers away, and not showing the young the option of being at church. Following the original pattern of football clubs as church outreach might be an idea.

I'm not terribly happy about new hymns on a battle theme, though. Aren't there other things men do?*

*wicked brain - not lumberjacking, no.

[ 28. March 2017, 07:57: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There are plenty of things that men do. Pretty much everything that women do, in fact. They're involved in politics, run companies, are leading scientists, artists and musicians, cooks and fashion designers, writers and journalists.

There's nothing that men can't do if they put their minds to it.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

There is no point in us presenting a gospel that is about something other than loving Jesus, because loving Jesus is essential to who and what we are. If that is counter-cultural-- and it is-- then so be it. We need to present, as honestly as we can, what we are about, without weighing it down unnecessarily with cultural baggage, but also without trying to present it as something it's not. Say what we're about, demonstrate it, and then let our friends, male or female, decide if it's something they want to explore.

We do agree! I think what CVM is about is trying not to present people with the most difficult aspects of the Gospel to them first, examining our culture to see if we are creating needless barriers. Where I am, and i can only speak for that, one of the issues with the church being mostly female is that culturally a lot of what is natural to us seems to be offputting for many men.

When women who have been abused by their partners come to church, for example, they tend to have an extremely visceral reaction to "the Gospel as a wonderful love story" paradigm, so beloved in evo circles I move in, which are largely people who have very stable families. It's a similar principle.

The irony of all of this is that I HATE men's events. I hate sports and mountain biking and drinking whiskey and all of the other things the men's group in our church do. But lots of their friends like those things. I'm happy to see them drawn into our community and meet Jesus that way. They wouldn't have done that if their introduction to Christianity was hymn singing or small group discussions.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

CVM is an old man's outing. It never approaches the difficult aspects of the gospel just like the rest of church activity: radical, vulnerable inclusion. That's best left to women any way, through Messy Church on Saturday. Networking in to the community. Sunday is to recharge the core of that.

CVM makes miraculous claims about ministry, money and walking around Britain, Poland, the Caribbean carrying a cross. It proclaims piety. Engages in apologetics to the converted. It did when I went to events. On its website it champions using DIY motor racing, football to get alongside other working class men. A very poor man's Messy Church mainly spent driving about. I went to be with me mates from church. We talked as we drove. About a third of the presentations were better than expected. The hogroasts were good.

America is this on steroids in every way it seems.

I.e. nothing much to do with the Kingdom except at the invisible margins.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What I think is that the church is not so much feminine oriented as oriented to a particular type of person who perhaps, for reasons of cultural expectation, is more likely than not to be female.

It's a bit like that bit where Archbishop Edmund the Unwilling is advising Lord Graveney as he lies dying, trying to avoid him leaving his lands to the Church as that would result in the King killing him. He says "Heaven is for the sort of people who like the sort of things that go on in heaven. Singing. Talking to God. Watering pot plants..."

I think we've made Church a bit like Edmund the Unwilling's version of Heaven. Designed to put off people like Lord Graveney, regardless of their plumbing or gender identification.

Sports, Mountain Biking and drinking Whisky? Why are those activities for a Men's Group? Shouldn't they be for people who like Sports, Mountain Biking and drinking Whisky? You can sign me up for the last two, and I can't see why I'd object to the presence of more X chromosomes than people.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have terrible trouble singing anything - all the hymns seem to high for my alto, and I frequently drop down an octave as the tune reaches its higher reaches. But down there, it's the right pitch for the men.

Actually, no. Most blokes have exactly the same problem, just an octave down. The untrained male voice tends towards the bass, and since most people - especially newcomers and occasional attenders I'd imagine - tend to sing quite quietly those notes above middle C are quite a challenge.

Listen carefully during any hymn where more than two men are present and you'll probably hear someone very quietly singing the whole thing two octaves down.

Hymn pitches are set to be not too high for trained altos and basses (they seldom go above E which is in the alto/bass range), but not too low for trained tenors and sopranos. But the key word here is "trained". I mentioned the E just then - the one just above middle C for Bass and an octave above for Alto. That's a high note to reach if you're naturally a bass or alto but have no training or formal singing experience.

Really, for most congregations these days, hymns need dropping around a 2nd or 3rd, but I have a vested interest in that not happening because of my now fairly rare tenor range. Still, it'd quieten me down a bit...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The untrained male voice tends towards the bass

I'd have said that most male voices tend towards the baritone, though agree that much of the 'problem' is that most modern songs (and modern worship leaders) roll towards tenor.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The untrained male voice tends towards the bass
I'd have said that most male voices tend towards the baritone, though agree that much of the 'problem' is that most modern songs (and modern worship leaders) roll towards tenor.

The problem isn't that the untrained voice tends to any register but that without some practice most voices just don't have the range to handle many tunes. You have to use it or you lose it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The untrained male voice tends towards the bass
I'd have said that most male voices tend towards the baritone, though agree that much of the 'problem' is that most modern songs (and modern worship leaders) roll towards tenor.

I wouldn't know about them. But I do hear a lot of octave switching and dropping out as the tune approaches the higher side of middle C.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This moving account may change your mind about just how feminine 'In the Garden' is.

Maybe I'm just an old softy, but I heard Pastor Chen sing the hymn during his account of his time in prison, and it brought me to tears.

Maybe it would be a good idea if preachers told this story before announcing the hymn during services. It would certainly introduce a different atmosphere.

Regarding the problems of male hymn singing generally, I think it might help if male churchgoers were routinely taught how to harmonise.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This moving account may change your mind about just how feminine 'In the Garden' is.

Maybe I'm just an old softy, but I heard Pastor Chen sing the hymn during his account of his time in prison, and it brought me to tears.
Maybe it would be a good idea if preachers told this story before announcing the hymn during services. It would certainly introduce a different atmosphere.

Regarding the problems of male hymn singing generally, I think it might help if male churchgoers were routinely taught how to harmonise.

Don't want much in the way of complete cultural change, do you [Biased]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This moving account may change your mind about just how feminine 'In the Garden' is.

Maybe I'm just an old softy, but I heard Pastor Chen sing the hymn during his account of his time in prison, and it brought me to tears.

In one of his lectures Mark Noll commented on how 'In the Garden' is often used as an example of the kind of personalised spirituality that runs counter to the trust of much of what is Christian. He then related this story as a counterpoint (and on the occasion when I heard him speak he himself was obviously moved by the story).

Having said that, this story doesn't necessarily make the song more suited for congregational singing. Doing so would run the danger of making an experience 'non other had ever known' into a generalized principle for congregational worship.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

The problem isn't that the untrained voice tends to any register but that without some practice most voices just don't have the range to handle many tunes. You have to use it or you lose it.

Okay, so I should have said 'centred on the baritone range' and obviously practice will increase this marginally in both directions. The basic point remains the same, there's a large body of material on common vocal ranges, song-writers persist in writing songs outside this(ese) range(s) (especially so when they are writing for themselves).

Other things that don't usually work in congregational settings; time signatures other than common meter, excessive syncopation, melisma.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Hmmm. Yes, so is the trinity. But we don't actually make Muslims assent to that and sing about how brilliant it is when they first ask a question about Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But singing about loving Jesus is not really a very good place for many men to start.

I'm not sure that deception and misdirection are a good long-term strategy. It may work for unloading a problematic bit of real estate since you don't really care about the buyer two minutes after he's signed the papers, but it seems precarious for an ostensibly lifelong religious commitment. Eventually Muslims are going to figure out about the Trinity (and it seems likely that most Muslims living in predominantly Christian countries already have some idea of the concept) and being needlessly cagey about it just creates an impression of fraud. Likewise pretending that Christianity doesn't involve loving Jesus seems more likely to raise suspicions than to lull men into a false sense of acceptance. Most of them already know that Christianity is a big Jesus fan club. If that's "inimical" to men then Christianity would have to adapt a lot further than just having beer at services. Seems like the basic idea is to promote "Christianity" without all those boring, girly bits about that Jesus bloke.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Really, for most congregations these days, hymns need dropping around a 2nd or 3rd, but I have a vested interest in that not happening because of my now fairly rare tenor range. Still, it'd quieten me down a bit...

Another vote against from a tenor who can also sing unforced alto if required. Mind you, I don't half stand out in my small congregation. The other week on the way out I was complimented on my singing by a lady who had been sitting in the front pew. I habitually sit in the back one (still new to the village....).

[ 28. March 2017, 14:07: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]I'm not sure that deception and misdirection are a good long-term strategy. [...] Eventually Muslims are going to figure out about the Trinity (and it seems likely that most Muslims living in predominantly Christian countries already have some idea of the concept) and being needlessly cagey about it just creates an impression of fraud. Likewise pretending that Christianity doesn't involve loving Jesus seems more likely to raise suspicions than to lull men into a false sense of acceptance. Most of them already know that Christianity is a big Jesus fan club.

I don't think it's a question of 'deception' (or 'bait and switch', as someone said earlier).

The NT shows many ways in which people address and relate to Jesus. Many of them don't involve trying to make Jesus your 'boyfriend'.

The NT shows Jesus as friend, commander, king, leader, wise man, role-model, etc., and people are shown or asked to be ready to carry his burden, spread his message, labour in his field, follow in his dangerous path, die in his battle, speak out in his cause, and so on.

ISTM, then, that the songs we sing and the culture we create in church needs to reflect those images more, and Jesus as tender lover in whose protective arms we long to lie a little less.

But it's all the same Jesus, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I mean is this: our church structure involves 2 main contact points. The first involves corporate singing, much of it singing about love for a man, and casual chit chat at the end.

<snip>

I think it behooves us to think about not making dad and grandad sit through something totally alien to them to help them engage with church life within the bounds of what is essential to Christianity. In that sense, it is not, on this occasion, about gender politics.
Admittedly I'm an outsider on this, but I always thought that loving Jesus was one of the Christian essentials. I'm not sure how a Jesus-ambivalent (or even Jesus-hostile) Christianity would work.
Hmmm. Yes, so is the trinity. But we don't actually make Muslims assent to that and sing about how brilliant it is when they first ask a question about Christianity.

Christianity has always been a religion that adapts to the culture that it is trying to reach. The failure of people on this thread to acknowledge that most men operate in a culture entirely inimical to it probably goes a long way to explaining why it is mostly women in church. By all means, make it all about gender politics if you don't actually want men to come. CVM is just aiming a bit higher than that.

CVM is making it about gender politics too, just a more reactionary form of it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Regarding the problems of male hymn singing generally, I think it might help if male churchgoers were routinely taught how to harmonise.
Don't want much in the way of complete cultural change, do you

But I'm a Methodist, and Methodists do like a good sing, so it might work for them at least....

In another sense, this whole thread is about 'complete cultural change', isn't it? There are those who want churches to make themselves more attractive to 'curry and football' men; and there are those who think we should avoid sexism and stereotyping and focus on 'curry and football' men and women.

If we're honest, though, in very many Western churches both routes are somewhat unlikely.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Regarding the problems of male hymn singing generally, I think it might help if male churchgoers were routinely taught how to harmonise.

Our hymnals are all SATB. Anyone who can sing can choose to sing whichever line they prefer. I can't sing.

I do sing, in church, but although I understand in theory how harmonies work, given that the pitch that comes out of my mouth is usually a third or so away from the pitch I was hoping for, about the best you can hope for is something that goes vaguely up and down in about the right places.

(Lots of men at church just don't sing. Almost all the congregation's women will have a go, but the men are mostly divided into those that can sing (and are in the choir), and those that don't sing. There's an occasional man with a good singing voice who doesn't sing with the choir because he can't commit to practices, and the occasional man like me who can't sing in tune but sings anyway.)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

The problem isn't that the untrained voice tends to any register but that without some practice most voices just don't have the range to handle many tunes. You have to use it or you lose it.
Okay, so I should have said 'centred on the baritone range' and obviously practice will increase this marginally in both directions. The basic point remains the same, there's a large body of material on common vocal ranges, song-writers persist in writing songs outside this(ese) range(s) (especially so when they are writing for themselves).

Other things that don't usually work in congregational settings; time signatures other than common meter, excessive syncopation, melisma.

With that I agree unreservedly. Leading worship is one thing, performance praise another.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

If you want an example of how it's done, Greenbelt's Beer & Hymns is probably the best I've seen. Men, women, children, voices raised in gloriously imperfect harmony. (youtube link)

We did get better as the evening progressed... [Big Grin]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Eventually Muslims are going to figure out about the Trinity

Eventually, Christians are going to figure out Muhammad, pbuh.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Eventually Muslims are going to figure out about the Trinity
Eventually, Christians are going to figure out Muhammad, pbuh.

Most Christians have figured out that someone named Muhammad is a pretty big deal in Islam. Any attempts to win over Christians to Islam by downplaying or pretending Muhammad didn't exist is likely to falter for much the same reason a Christian outreach to Muslims based on denying the Trinity would.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The NT shows many ways in which people address and relate to Jesus. Many of them don't involve trying to make Jesus your 'boyfriend'.

The NT shows Jesus as friend, commander, king, leader, wise man, role-model, etc., and people are shown or asked to be ready to carry his burden, spread his message, labour in his field, follow in his dangerous path, die in his battle, speak out in his cause, and so on.

ISTM, then, that the songs we sing and the culture we create in church needs to reflect those images more, and Jesus as tender lover in whose protective arms we long to lie a little less.

But it's all the same Jesus, so there shouldn't be a problem.

This is exactly the point I was making earlier.

There are types of love other than the romantic "wrap me up in your loving arms, oh how I long for your presence, you are my everything and I adore you" type. There's the love between brothers, the love between comrades in arms, the love between friends, the love between a child and parent, and so on. What's wrong with using those forms of love when referring to Jesus in our services?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
CVM is making it about gender politics too, just a more reactionary form of it.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Eventually Muslims are going to figure out about the Trinity
Eventually, Christians are going to figure out Muhammad, pbuh.
Most Christians have figured out that someone named Muhammad is a pretty big deal in Islam. Any attempts to win over Christians to Islam by downplaying or pretending Muhammad didn't exist is likely to falter for much the same reason a Christian outreach to Muslims based on denying the Trinity would.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is actually a difference between saying "The Trinity isn't true" and "unless you sing our beautiful song of praise to the Trinity, asking questions about this Christian thing isn't for you."

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I feel bombarded with 'Feminism' in Society in general......<snip>.. Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.

Seriously? In a world where millions of women can't vote, refuse sex, choose her own husband, get divorced, get a job, have her own money, own property, drive a car, shop unchaparoned, have reproductive choices, have a lawyer to DEFEND her in court when she's the one who's been raped; YOU feel bombarded with 'feminism'? YOU'RE annoyed because Jesus used the picture of a chicken for God's nurturing care?

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, it was a FEMALE chicken. Well, that changes everything!

I don't share sexual organs with any of the principle characters in The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son, The Tenants and the Vineyard, The Shrewd Manager, The Sower etc, etc etc. If I can still just about deduce what were the points of Jesus's parables, despite this profound 'disability', don't you think it's reasonable that you might've got the point about God's mothering qualities without the necessity of your being covered in feathers and possessing the ability to lay eggs?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bliss.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Incidentally - and the finger points at me too - can I just say how illustrative of the gulf between Church and societal culture is the fact that we ended up diverging into discussion of voice type, pitch and harmony singing for quite a few posts. You know how much people talk about that sort of thing in the real world?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Incidentally - and the finger points at me too - can I just say how illustrative of the gulf between Church and societal culture is the fact that we ended up diverging into discussion of voice type, pitch and harmony singing for quite a few posts. You know how much people talk about that sort of thing in the real world?

You need a better group of people to eat lunch with. That topic came up at lunch last week. (The group of people I tend to eat lunch with are mostly not Christians, but I will admit are probably even less like the "real world" than the average Church.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Our hymnals are all SATB. Anyone who can sing can choose to sing whichever line they prefer. I can't sing.

Being able to sing and being able to read music are two different things.

There are many churchgoers who can't read music, but they could be taught to sing harmonies if this was considered to be important.

I should think it';s

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oops, sorry about that redundant half a sentence.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I'd like to offer up a [Overused]

for Anselmina's post on the previous page.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Last week in Church I had a very annoying Sermon on God being like a 'Mother Hen' caring for his Children. I wanted to shout out that Men cared for their Children as well. Caring wasn't just a 'female' thing to do.

Perhaps some bright and imaginative soul can figure out a way to balance the misleading message of that one annoying sermon by occasionally referring to or addressing God as "Father." I'm sure it could be done.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Hey, we've been having a go about 'Jesus is my boyfriend' lyrics. Here's one which has legs; you can find some male-voice versions out there on the web too [Smile]

(Personally I find the Picardy third a bit metro-sexual, but hey, I can be inclusive about my men's day praise-song choices [Smile]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Judging by the Newspapers (dangerous I know) they do seem to have numerous stories of 'British' men who convert to Islam especially whilst in prison. Are they ignoring Christian converts ? Perhaps these converts are attracted by the Discipline of Islam. I think many Men like 'rules' to know where they are. They don't like uncertainty, and go for groups with Uniforms such as Scouts and Military. Islam seems to fit that Bill.

If that's what they want they could always come and join The Salvation Army.
We have uniforms and rules.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Interesting point. I wonder the extent to which IS has replaced the SA as the final port-of-call for disaffected Christian men..

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The downturn in the SA's fortunes was when they let women in the brass bands!

(But you never heard that from me... [Smile]

)

[ 06. April 2017, 15:05: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Some research has been done recently regarding conversion to Islam among black British people, particularly African Caribbean men, from Christian backgrounds.

The reasons are complicated, naturally, but a perceived sense of racism in Christianity - or the Church - is obviously a big issue. The historical and ongoing sense of discrimination from the white world is experienced deeply by many black men, and unfortunately Christianity as it exists within the hierarchies of church life isn't always aligned with that sense of injustice.

By contrast, Islam benefits from certain advantages. Despite the longstanding Arab-led trade in African slaves it's perceived to be less of a 'white man's religion' than Christianity. There are apparently some Africans who played a prominent part in early Islam, and Islam had a much earlier and more regal presence in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa than Christianity.

I also think the prominence of the unorthodox Nation of Islam and of certain black Muslim figures in recent American history has increased the visibility of Islam as a viable religion for the African diaspora. Unfortunately there are no famous black diasporic Christians with the same kind of spiritual presence. There's Martin Luther King, but I think he's become a problematic, almost tokenistic character over time.

On a more basic and obviously gender-related level, black-led churches in the UK and elsewhere are often particularly feminised in terms of numbers, so that's a surely an unattractive factor for some men. Moreover, many observers have complained that (at least until recently) these churches have often been indifferent to social justice issues, and have therefore been unwilling to condemn the racism felt most systemically by young black men. 'White' churches have either been seen as colluding with racist attitudes, or simply culturally unable to value and incorporate aspects of black spirituality.

Regarding the Salvation Army, I don't know how it's addressed these issues. I don't know strong the SA's cultural presence in the Caribbean is, nor how it has tried to address racial and cultural issues both within and without its ranks.

Unfortunately, the main impression I get of the SA in my city is of withdrawal. I suspect that the SA is squeezed by the BME working class churches in the cities but doesn't have the resources to evangelise the dispersed and secular white working classes on housing estates and small towns around the country. Also, sadly, the brass band thing with the uniforms seems very unfashionable these days. Young men want to be where it's at, and Islam, despite or even because of its relentlessly bad PR moments, is urgently, pulsatingly now.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

As an Old Man, I need a Church with Good Toilets, good Amplification, Large print Books or Overhead Projection and Coffee afterwards. I'm easily pleased.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0