Thread: a 'man-friendly Christmas' Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029927
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I didn't think I could read worse tripe on men and the church than Carl Beech's ministry, but worse luck there's some Anglican guff[host edit - link broken, try here instead] on it too. I have the misfortune to have mutual friends with this man so I shouldn't be surprised that he wants to infect a feast LITERALLY ABOUT BABY JESUS with action film clips and nonsense about Christ the Warrior.
If he wants all-male clergy, perhaps he should try Pusey House? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 03. December 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I'm not at all sure Christmas is adequately woman-friendly - I mean, when did you last hear a sermon on the all-important topic of packing a capsule wardrobe for those midwinter donkey rides across the Near East? Or anything about Nigella's fabulous chocolate and frankincense fondants?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The Christmas Eve service is the most popular with men in the church's year, so in order to attract men we'd better change it?
I thought men were supposed to be logical ...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Ooops, I just posted this in purge not having seen this thread; sorry. When I first read it I thought it was a joke in poor taste, but sadly I don't think it is. When I realised I wasn't reading The Onion or something similar and instead this was actually something promoted on an official diocesan website I went a bit slack jawed. It came up in my Twitter feed as a joke that everyone was laughing at.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If he wants all-male clergy, perhaps he should try Pusey House?
I'm not sure Pusey would want him.
OTOH, I once went to a Pusey House Mass of the Passion during the Triduum at Ascot Priory where the detail of the crucifixion (nails driving through sinews and biologically/chemically what that does to pain receptors, etc, that sort of thing) in the sermon was so graphic that one of the congregation had to go and throw up before it had finished...
The preacher was however not a Priest Librarian of the Pusey chapter.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
In addition, I suppose if you're going to be the Diocesan Missioner (Unreached Men), then this is probably the sort of thing you have to write.
Some of it goes a bit far for me, but thinking about it, it's one of those things which ought IMO to be considered (how to reach men as an underrepresented demographic in congregations) so I'm going to very unhellishly say a qualified well done to my diocese on this one for at least having a point of view and a go at an answer.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Pomona - this touches on one of my big bugbears with the church.
"We have more women than men in the church. We need to attract more men" - although apparently the same doesn't apply to, say, LGBTI people, or single parents, or people with a middle name of Earnest.
"Lets do 'manly' things - that will attract them" - except, of course, most church people a) have no idea what 'manly' things are; b) even when they do, they are crap at them; c) it tends to exclude things like admiring the ladies, getting drunk and swearing.
And the big problem with all of this is that the church only ever does "programmes" to attract a certain group of people. There is never a fundamental change to the way things are done. It is about attracting people in to support the church as it is.
There are so many questions that are not asked in this sort of approach:
1. What do those people we want to attract actually want?
2. What do those people we will neglect by targeting these people think about this?
3. What is the fucking point if we don't change what we do in a fundamental way or look after those who are already part of our community?
4. WTFWJD? If the answer involves putting on special services and programmes then maybe you have lost the fucking plot.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The Christmas Eve service is the most popular with men in the church's year, so in order to attract men we'd better change it?
I thought men were supposed to be logical ...
I assume this is irony. Otherwise you're piling misandry* on misogyny, and doubly reinforcing the Patriarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There are so many questions that are not asked in this sort of approach:
To your list of eminently reasonable questions I would add:
5. Is there really a problem that is suggested by current statistics regarding church attendance/membership?
6. If so, what is it?
7. What are its causes?
7a. [corollary] Is there anything wrong with what we're doing that has brought this about?
8. What, if anything, can WE do to ameliorate those causes so as to bring things to rights?
9. Are those things in keeping with the Gospel we're meant to proclaim and live?
10. What would be the cost of implementing any changes that have made it through this vetting process? Can they be justified?
_____
*which in this case really is misogyny, as it holds the unspoken thought that women are not logical.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Churches are so female on their style that more needs to be done to redress the balance towards males.
Crib services and christingles with gushing mummies are particularly alienating to many men - i avoid them both.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Churches are so female on their style that more needs to be done to redress the balance towards males.
Crib services and christingles with gushing mummies are particularly alienating to many men - i avoid them both.
Translation please: "I've heard of christingles, but what exactly is a "crib service"?
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
Someone in the Diocese of Oxford with web admin rights might be reading this, because the link in the OP no longer goes anywhere.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Perhaps it was so 'man-friendly' that it was linked to a porn site or to endless repeats of Top Gear?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
'Man-friendly' ... what the ...?!
I knew a woman who used to go into bookshops and sabotage the 'Women's Interest' shelves by mixing the books up with those on other, non-gender specific shelves.
The idea of a 'man-friendly' service makes me want to go out and join her - jumbling up the books so that they don't fall into gender stereotypes.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If he wants all-male clergy, perhaps he should try Pusey House?
No worries: I'm sure Mark Driscoll is planning a very manly resurrection of his failed Alpha-male ministry any day now.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A 'crib service' is one held around the crib - a representation of the manger where they laid the ickle baby Jesus ...
I don't think I've ever been to one, but I've been in services where they've gathered the kids around the crib for a short pep-talk/observations as part of the service.
At the more 'catholic' end of the Anglican spectrum is customary to involve the kids in setting out the plaster figures of the Holy Family and the shepherds and Magi etc and the oxen and asses and so on (if the church has such things or soft-toy equivalents) in the services running up to Christmas and to play a part in taking them down at Epiphany ...
I suspect this is the sort of thing leo is describing. Of perhaps he has something else in mind that is more off-putting to a certain macho male sensibility ... ?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Churches are so female on their style that more needs to be done to redress the balance towards males.
Why do you suppose that is, given that the majority of clergy are male? It's something I've often heard, but I can't quite see where the feminine style is coming from, as women in positions of authority are in the minority. Moreover, it's something I first heard many years ago, when there were even fewer female clergy than there are now.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Church leadership is male dominated. Church membership is female dominated. I can't see any way in which this should be a problem, should it?
The last church I left had this sort of problem. The majority of the internal church leadership was female (but the Vicar was male, and they were not really sure about women vicars). So, of course, they wanted to attract more men - as long as it didn't involve changing anything.
This is almost worthy of the @BibleStdntsSay twitter feed. I sometimes wonder if 2000 years of history, consideration and theological thought are going to be lost by the next generation.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by leo:
Churches are so female on their style that more needs to be done to redress the balance towards males.
I keep hearing this. Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but what is it that makes church male or female in style? Can you give some concrete examples?
quote:
Crib services and christingles with gushing mummies are particularly alienating to many.
Perhaps this is more accurate?
[ 02. December 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
North East Quine
Some say that Christianity has certain inherent qualities that mesh conveniently with the culturally constructed desirables of heterosexual femininity. For example, the religion emphasises service, self-abnegation, sexual purity, the dissolution of the self into a male God, and so on.
As for the ordained ministry, the RCC has an exclusively male priesthood, but these men are all expected to be celibate, hence defying the sexual potency that most cultures expect of the ideal masculine male. And although men may run churches, for centuries popular Western culture has seen the male clergy as somewhat deficient examples of heterosexual masculinity. Muscular Christianity and the authoritarian evangelical preacher may be attempts to challenge this image, but they haven't entirely succeeded. In fact, the muscular Christian leader is still sometimes suspected of being gay.
Church life is also considered to offer particular benefits that may be more important to women; a warm, supportive community, assistance in raising and training children, etc.
There are some interesting essays on this subject, e.g.:
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol20/women_walter.pdf
http://faculty.cua.edu/sullins/SOC241/walter%20and%20davies%20women%20and%20religion.pdf
Women and secularisation is another topic that people are looking at now.
There are also books, including the infamous one by David Murrow, 'Why Men Hate Going to Church'. Two I haven't yet read are Leon Podles, 'The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity' (the author is RC) and Steve Bruce and Marta Trzebiatowska, 'Why Are Women More Religious Than Men' (the authors are non-religious, I believe).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose I should add that 'of course' God is not exclusively male, or not male in the human sense. But that's a theological point that neither our language about God, nor our Holy Scriptures, nor our popular religious culture, nor our church life emphasises.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Crib services and christingles with gushing mummies
Oozing vampires and positively deliquescent zombies. Issue the men with plasma rifles and tell them they have until the benediction to clear the level. Problem solved.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Maybe they could just replace the Communion wine with beer.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It's a sort of tangent, but related, but I had an icky moment today.
I was in the Sevenoaks Oxfam secondhand bookshop browsing the religion shelves, and spotted a pristine book in that very shiny style used by a certain sort of Christian publisher, entitled "God's Design for Women". (This was a laid out in the very long comment under that blog about the Oxford piece linked to on the Purg thread). It had a particular view of men's and women's places in churches, where there should be no problem in having an obvious male presence in leading the services. (I went away wondering why the use of "design" rather than "plan", since design has that other meaning which leans towards cunning and manipulation which is not godlike.)
It's a bit of problem when the solution to men in church seems to be even more self-abnegation by the women. Part of the opening of the book was about God designing the different functions of men and women (who are both fully in His image, right?) to represent the relationship of Christ and the Church. It cunningly avoided pointing out that this meant that male Christians have to adopt a relationship to God that is, if their logic is followed, analogous to that of a woman to her husband (which they all have, of course).
[ 02. December 2015, 16:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I assume this is irony. Otherwise you're piling misandry* on misogyny, and doubly reinforcing the Patriarchy.
Yeah, I was trying to be a smartarse and only got the arse bit right. The article is a bunch of masculine stereotypes cobbled together. I was suggesting it nonetheless fails in the masculine stereotype which is Logic.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A 'crib service' is one held around the crib - a representation of the manger where they laid the ickle baby Jesus ...
I don't think I've ever been to one, but I've been in services where they've gathered the kids around the crib for a short pep-talk/observations as part of the service.
Thanks Gamaliel.
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:
posted by leo:
Churches are so female on their style that more needs to be done to redress the balance towards males.
I keep hearing this. Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but what is it that makes church male or female in style?
I've heard it too, at least on the internet and in articles—I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone say it in person.
I'm aware that if one looks at membership numbers, there are more females than males, and there are always some women who attend without their husbands. Statistically, there are likely to be more widows than widowers as well.
But in practice, I've never noticed any significant difference in actual attendance or involvement by women vs. men, either in congregations I've been involved in or in neighboring churches.
Is this maybe something that's experienced differently in the UK (or in other parts of the US) compared to the American South?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
My new local mega church has this all sorted. My curious visit the other day led me first to the snack counter where we could all get donuts and coffee to take with us into the "sanctuary" which was more like an auditorium with comfy seats and cup holders.
A ten piece band gave us some rock music with Jesus' name substituted where "baby," might once have been. Then we had a short sermon by the junior pastor. It was all about soccer, illustrated on the giant screen with a clip from a real game. More rock band, then the main sermon from the senior pastor: all about the team spirit in football,(kind of like the disciples, you know) illustrated by clips from a Big Ten game.
It all must be working. I stepped inside the local supermarket today and there was a huge Christmas tree decorated entirely with small footballs and mugs with team logos.
Twilight, coming to you from the Columbus area where we all worship Ohio State Football.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have actually sat in the church when the priest (in the Prayers of the People) prayed aloud, "And Lord, we trust it is Your will that the Washington Redskins will triumph in this afternoon's playoff game." The congregation chorused "Amen!" with energy, but alas, the Lord was a Steelers fan...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Someone in the Diocese of Oxford with web admin rights might be reading this, because the link in the OP no longer goes anywhere.
Oh good, I tried to link to it and couldn't, so thought it must be becos I is a woman....
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
A shame I missed the link in the OP. Rather than guff culled from 'Ford' and 'Gillette' adverts (which is what I think it might have contained), I wonder if instead it encouraged churches to run straight, un-adorned services with lots of loud congregational singing? Perhaps keeping a bunch of male stewards on-hand to engage newcomers in conversation, who specialise across a range of traditional (DIY / motors / football / gardening) male subjects, perhaps with some correspondents for more minority (bonsai / sculpture / barbershop) interests held in reserve? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I get a lot out of a church men's group - this is a subject which can be addressed sensibly, even if on this occasion, that didn't happen.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Quick summary, for those who missed it: men attend Christmas Eve services, but don't come for the rest of the year. This must be because church is unappealing to men. So, to make your Christmas and January services appealing:
—Keep sermons short, under 15 minutes (probably good advice) and on "man friendly" topics (WTF are those?)
—Pick hymns men will know (which you probably do at Christmas anyway), and keep them in baritone-friendly keys, so nobody goes to A&E straining for high notes (aren't those also alto/untrained congregational singer friendly keys as well? Isn't this just good advice?).
—Plan a sermon series in January on a "man friendly" topic (again, WTF?), and advertise it during the Christmas service (what, like I'm coming back for sermons? Friggin' hate sermons).
—Deemphasise the infant in the manger; rather, emphasize the active manhood of Christ (it's...Christmas. Um, the baby's kinda the point).
—During the sermon, use sports analogies, and play clips from an action movie or football game (frankly, I'd prefer Father Ted, Firefly, or 'cross racing, but What Do I Know?).
—Keep the wee ones at bay; women dote on Little Angels, men can't stand 'em (strange, my dad seemed to tolerate me for the most part).
You get the idea.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
—During the sermon, use sports analogies, and play clips from an action movie or football game (frankly, I'd prefer Father Ted, Firefly, or 'cross racing, but What Do I Know?).
I would suggest clips from Monty Python. (The Nativity scene from "Life of Brian" would be appropriate, but maybe too baby-oriented.)
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Crib services and christingles with gushing mummies are particularly alienating to many men - i avoid them both.
Well, this could be because you're an alpha-male type.
Or it could be because you don't have children.
Or it could be because you don't 'do' cute.
Or it could be because you feel it's kinda patronising and/or majesty-reducing to take such an approach to the birthday celebrations the Lord of the Universe.
Or it could just be personal preference. I'm pretty sure that's what it is in my case.*
It does seem a bit reductionist to align your dislike of a particular kind of church service with your possession of a Y chromosome.
*I am not in possession of a Y chromosome, so it can't be that.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
My man doesn't like coming to church and has a variety of excuses:
1. I can't sit in the seats as I can't stretch my legs out.
2. It's too long to sit as I like to be able to move around (same excuse for refusing to go to the movies).
3. I don't know the hymns (of course he doesn't as he never comes to church to learn them).
4. My mates don't go
5 Sunday is the only time I have to do the garden, wash the car etc.
6. I don't know anybody
7. I don't like listening to someone talking at me as I want to be able to argue back.
I could go on and on with his excuses. I'm sure people can come up with many more.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I suspect "I'd rather wash the car" is a more polite version of "I'd rather stick needles in my eyes." And what about the possibility of #8: Atheist / Agnostic, and not going to waste half a day on Pascal's Wager?
Seriously, excuses are excuses. If people don't want to go to church, it's probably because they think it will be two hours of their life they'll never get back and nothing more. Plus at Christmastime, you're expected to believe in virgin births and kneeling animals and a supernova that just happened to blow up so the three astrologer-kings would see it at exactly the right moment millions of years in the future and decide to go check out what was "under" something that is actually millions of light-years away.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
Nothing is ever really deleted from the internet...
Cached link from the OP. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
.... gushing mummies...
Or to use another term for them, parishoners.
Honestly, what is it with all this "church is too female" bullshit?
Church services are still overwhelmingly run by men. Men are still usually the ordained ones (unless it's NSM / locally ordained ofc, in which case it's free! So let's have a woman do it).
The church doesn't have breasts or a uterus. What are these supposedly female characteristics which are sneered at? Eh?
Yours,
Angry feminist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Not all men are the same, nor all women but in general, women tend to talk intently about feelings, face t face.
Men tend to talk side by side, often while they are doing something.
I think there are different spirituality styles styles for each gender, just as there are different learning styles.
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
For the love...are you SERIOUSLY saying these things? SERIOUSLY?
I'm really, really hoping against hope, history, and every appearance that this is perhaps the one documentable case of an American (me) not getting British wit, sarcasm, and irony.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not all men are the same, nor all women but in general, women tend to talk intently about feelings, face t face.
Men tend to talk side by side, often while they are doing something.
I think there are different spirituality styles styles for each gender, just as there are different learning styles.
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
The only true bit of this is the bit of the first sentence that ends at "women". The rest of it is unmitigated bollocks.
Different people may well have different spiritual styles, but their sex has nothing to do with it. I like listening to some sermons. The good ones, that teach me stuff. I don't like talking about my feelings to people face to face, with a very few exceptions (my husband, my closest friend). When I talk to my eldest daughter about her feelings, the idiots at school* and her mental health problems, we tend to do it whilst doing aerobics or watching Sherlock, so we don't have to make eye contact.
This "men do this" "women do that" nonsense is just that, nonsense. And the danger of it is that both men and women are hurt by it because they're expected to behave in a certain way. Women who don't sit and listen passively to sermons (code for the last God knows how many years for "sit down and shut up, little woman") get into difficulties at their church because they're not behaving as they're expected to.
*While we're at it, a significant cause of her current distress is the shit she gets from her classmates for not doing the things that girls are "supposed" to do. So let's not pretend that this is harmless.
[ 03. December 2015, 12:57: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
[ 03. December 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
If men don't like "passively listening to sermons" then why has a church dominated by men over many centuries evolved this type of service?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
Hasn't it occurred to you that men (and women, and children) do not go to church to learn?
It may happen. I'd say it is a desirable outcome (provided that what they are taught isn't bollocks). But it should not be the primary objective.
eta to NEQ,
If men don't like "passively listening to sermons" then why has a church dominated by men over many centuries evolved this type of service?
They might not like to listen but they do like to be listened to.
[ 03. December 2015, 13:31: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
And even if there were supposed gender differences in learning styles (and by extension, worship styles), how do we know how much is innate, and how much is socialised? Learning styles have their place, but they can be restrictive if children are only able to see themselves as a certain type of learner (also, worshipper).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
—Keep sermons short, under 15 minutes (probably good advice) and on "man friendly" topics (WTF are those?)
—Plan a sermon series in January on a "man friendly" topic (again, WTF?), and advertise it during the Christmas service (what, like I'm coming back for sermons? Friggin' hate sermons).
—During the sermon, use sports analogies, and play clips from an action movie or football game (frankly, I'd prefer Father Ted, Firefly, or 'cross racing, but What Do I Know?).
Maybe it's just us American evangelicals, but personally, I can't remember a sermon preached by a man which wasn't all about Alpha male interests. If I hear one more lame sports-team analogy (the church is like a team... the pastor is like a coach... the Holy Spirit is the... etc etc etc) I just might chuck a football thru a stained glass window. Which would be bad since, being a pre-title IX female, I'll probably miss and bonk some poor blue-haired granny in the head.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
If only ken were still here to answer this. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
If only ken were still here to answer this.
I did try, but I thought the same ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
My man doesn't like coming to church and has a variety of excuses:
1. I can't sit in the seats as I can't stretch my legs out.
2. It's too long to sit as I like to be able to move around (same excuse for refusing to go to the movies).
3. I don't know the hymns (of course he doesn't as he never comes to church to learn them).
4. My mates don't go
5 Sunday is the only time I have to do the garden, wash the car etc.
6. I don't know anybody
7. I don't like listening to someone talking at me as I want to be able to argue back.
I could go on and on with his excuses. I'm sure people can come up with many more.
I'm with your man!
1. If I can't stretch my legs out, my knees start hurting awful after about 15 minutes and the pain gets worse with more time.
2. I've NEVER been comfortable just sitting in one position, need to move!
3. I used to know the hymns but they ditched the hymnals, and change the modern songs so frequently I never do catch on. (Music leader said we are supposed to know the latest songs from the radio. I don't sit around listening to "Christian" radio.)
4. Most of my friends don't go to church. If I have to choose between church or renewing a friendship at refreshing event like gospel brunch or an all day hike, church isn't even in the running. (Church is not at all refreshing or renewing for me.)
5. For my Dad Sunday morning was his only time all week to be alone, as an introvert he desperately needed that refreshment. The family, the car pool, the work place, the car pool home, the family - not a moment of alone quiet except Sunday morning. Some people thrive on being always surrounded by people, some need alone time.
6. For non outgoing people, it's hard to meet people and get to know them. Also, depends on the church but one friend said to me "5 years in this church, in choir, on committees, but people barely say good morning at coffee before turning away to be with their friends." Nice guy, but in some churches if you weren't born there you are forever invisible.
7. I hate being lectured like a school kid as if the lecturer is the only one with anything useful to say and we ADULTS can't possibly have a valid thought question or disagreement, just shut and listen and don't question. Might made made sense centuries ago when only clergy and royalty could read, not today.
It's not men, it's that church is designed for a narrow range of personalities.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
If only ken were still here to answer this.
Suffice it to say that a quick Google search reveals mostly people pointing out that the evidence does not support the idea. Sure, some people like doing some things more than others, but that doesn't mean it feeds into learning outcomes.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Ref, Leo's post. I'm amazed that rational people are still plugging conclusions about a patriarchal institution, executed under an almost exclusively male-leadership and male-theology for the past 2,000 years, being 'so female', and therefore in need of 'redress'. It's as if the last two millenia not only didn't exist but didn't even have a glancing influence on present day religion. When are we going to not only acknowledge our history, but learn from it?
And even if it were true that there was something significantly feminine - even female - about the institutions and characteristics of the Church (or the Bride of Christ as she has been known to be called) I'm wondering why this is usually a term used so perjoratively? 'Oh good grief, this is so female! Quick, let's get a big dose of testosterone, so we can get things back to NORMAL!'
As for crib and christingle services. They require a lot of hard work, and quite specific worship-leading skills to make them into successful and ejoyable acts of pastoral/outreach centred worship. The fact that they can be a bit hit or miss, too, makes them a little too risky for some clergy to want to spend the effort; and I have a lot of sympathy for that view!
Many ministers feel exactly the same way about liturgical, or choir-led services, of course.
Special Christmas services like cribs and Christingles are tough options, but can be very worthwhile in helping young families and children - largely unchurched - to relate to Christmas as a religious festival. Often their only opportunity to do so. But it could be argued you've got to know what you're doing, and be positively responsive to the constituent congregations. As with any style of worship, I suppose.
And, leo, I notice that Daddies (and grandaddies, brothers, uncles, grans, aunties etc) often attend, too. Can't say I find either sex of parent 'alienating'. But maybe I've just not experienced the level of female 'gushing' that seems to offend you so much? Or maybe male 'gushing' is so much more acceptable? Or maybe men are just too manly and masculine to 'gush' at all; 'gushing' being solely some alienating thing only mummies do? One hopes Jesus' mummy had the good sense not to gush over her first-born. How alienating would that have been. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Of course, one could always counter-balance all this huge weight of inappropriate female-ness in a religious setting (oh, scandal!) by simply reminding people it's all about the SON of God; a God who generally, I believe, is still 'He' in most of our minds and language? Or are babies, of both sex, too alienatingly feminine, too, to be taken seriously?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Nothing is ever really deleted from the internet...
Cached link from the OP. [Big Grin]
Hey, thanks. Well, if you want to reach men who don't come to church much, nothing there strikes me as particularly bad advice. It's not half as bad as I was expecting...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
All men are not identical. Neither are all women. In every physical and psychological feature (except genitalia), there is a huge variation within each sex, and a considerable overlap between the sexes.
Some women are physically stronger than some men; some have lower-pitched voices, etc.
Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.
Moo
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.
Moo
That's all very well, but unless the solution is for everyone to belong to a church of one, how can a gathered church meet the needs of a vast number of very different members and potential members?
Churchfolk mostly try to be helpful to everyone who crosses their path, but the reality is that there's a tendency in churches for particular groups to be catered for better than others. Maybe it's by default rather than design, but it still happens. Just saying we should all be treated as individuals won't change this.
[ 03. December 2015, 21:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Churchfolk mostly try to be helpful to everyone who crosses their path, but the reality is that there's a tendency in churches for particular groups to be catered for better than others. Maybe it's by default rather than design, but it still happens. Just saying we should all be treated as individuals won't change this.
No, but it's a mistake to assume that all men constitute one homogeneous group and all women constitute another.
Moo
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The vicar in question knows that all men are not the same. He's a man, but I suspect his intention is to reach out to men who are rather different from himself. He could probably have made this clearer in his message, though.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
A paper reported in New Scientist today:
No such thing...
[ 04. December 2015, 18:59: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
No such thing as a 'male brain'....
The vicar isn't a scientist, and neither am I, but the interesting question is how we've ended up with a situation where men and women are exactly the same yet women are consistently more likely to attend church as laity and men are consistently more likely to attend as ordained clergy.
It may largely be nurture over nature but in any case, we've begun to deal with the absence or undersupply of female clergy, so I think it's only reasonable to deal with the undersupply of men among the laity too.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.[/QB]
"I'm not!" is the only possible answer to that... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I don't think that it's possible to meet everyone's needs - just that we should realise they exist. I don't know how we solve the problem of men (not) being in church. I was told in one parish that the men send their wives to church in their place, except at Easter and Remembrance Sunday (not Christmas, apparently). I think it's more (many) churches' failure to attract anyone beyond their existing 'customers' that is the problem. It's just that the absence of men is very obvious.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
One reason why focusing on the spiritual nurturing of men is important is that it has an impact on faith transmission in the family in general. Parents are role models, and where only one parent is a Christian the faith is only 25% likely to be passed on. With two parents it's 50/50. A nominal Christian identity may be passed on by a non-religious parent, but this appears to be less and less likely.
Also, there seems to be a little research (not British, though) indicating that, surprisingly, fathers rather than mothers are frequently the key to successful faith transmission.
Of course, we're free to raise our children as we want, and religiously tolerant parents in our culture routinely choose not to urge their children to follow them into a particular faith tradition. We're very individualistic, and we accept that what's spiritually useful for us may not be spiritually useful for our offspring. Nevertheless, without members and attendees our churches, and consequently our religion, may have no future. If both fathers and mothers are important to transmitting faith it's important to encourage and nurture both of them, not just mothers.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The last link I posted may be too conservatively evangelical for some tastes, but it refers to this research, which is presumably more neutral:
“The Demographic Characteristics of the Linguistic and Religious Groups in Switzerland” by Werner Haug and Phillipe Warner of the Federal Statistical Office, Neuchatel, Switzerland in Volume 2 of Population Studies No. 31.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Lay work is hard work, unglamorous work, and very often thankless work. As are nursing, caregiving, and childcare. Isn't it funny how jobs that fit this description are deemed to naturally fit woman nature?
The problem isn't gender, per se, it is the way we have attached prestige to different types of work and who has enough social capital to score the prestige work. My observation is that in churches where gender roles are reatively equal, the women in prestige positions simply start adopting the same attitudes as their male counterparts. (I speak in huge sweeping generalities, of course.)
My home church shares space with a Cantonese congregation. Theey have no lack of male participation. I wonder if that is beecause there is more of a cultural baseline of pride in what you accomplish corporately rather than what you get credit for personally. Because activity-wise, they seem to freaking move mountains.
[ 05. December 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
My observation is that in churches where gender roles are relatively equal, the women in prestige positions simply start adopting the same attitudes as their male counterparts.
In our house, someone is frequently ambitious, perhaps struggles with pride around their career / issues of recognition etc, works long hours, and as often goes with all that is sometimes absent from the lives of the children.
Someone else can struggle with pride around their sense of being overlooked and under-employed, fails in parenthood where this leads to resentment, tends to grudge-bearing about issues of time keeping, presence and absence etc etc.
These roles seem to play out effectively regardless of genitalia; unfortunately for us, 'sharing' work and childcare didn't work out.
Actually, for us I think it's better with me in the pinny - but that's irrelevant to my main point, which is that work tries to turn one into a work-wanker, and housekeeping tries to turn one into a housekeeping-wanker. I guess that's sin for you.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
Just because "learning styles" are a thing, doesn't mean that "men are more kinaesthetic" are a thing.
My husband will quite happily sit still and listen to a sermon. I, meanwhile, am kinaesthetic as anything, and need to walk around the back of the church while the sermon happens - or else take my crochet. Otherwise I can't pay even the slightest bit of attention.
As Jemima the 9th says:
quote:
Different people may well have different spiritual styles, but their sex has nothing to do with it. ... When I talk to my eldest daughter about her feelings, the idiots at school* and her mental health problems, we tend to do it whilst doing aerobics or watching Sherlock, so we don't have to make eye contact.
This "men do this" "women do that" nonsense is just that, nonsense. And the danger of it is that both men and women are hurt by it because they're expected to behave in a certain way. Women who don't sit and listen passively to sermons (code for the last God knows how many years for "sit down and shut up, little woman") get into difficulties at their church because they're not behaving as they're expected to.
I can't make eye contact and talk about my feelings either. If you want to get good conversation out of me, we need to be doing something with our hands, and looking at that rather than each other.
I am thoroughly sick of people raising their eyebrows at me because I'm not a demure eye-contacty lady who can sit still during the sermon.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Utter nonsense.
Educational research and OFSTED observations avout learning styles are quite extensive.
Umm, culture? Ever hear of that? Our culture teaches behaviour and this will influence such studies.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My observation is that in churches where gender roles are reatively equal, the women in prestige positions simply start adopting the same attitudes as their male counterparts. (I speak in huge sweeping generalities, of course.)
Some British scholars of the psychology of religion have done some research which suggests that ministry in Anglican and Methodist churches may attract women who have personality traits that are (stereotypically) associated with men, while male clergy have more traditionally feminine characteristics. On Google I've also just come across a book which suggests that female ministers in Pentecostal churches are more 'tough-minded' than male ones.
It could be that, as with politics and big business, many women in leadership roles have to try harder than men to be taken seriously, which leaves very little space for trying to redefine what leadership is: rather, you have to show that you can match or beat the boys at their own game....
quote:
My home church shares space with a Cantonese congregation. Theey have no lack of male participation. I wonder if that is beecause there is more of a cultural baseline of pride in what you accomplish corporately rather than what you get credit for personally. Because activity-wise, they seem to freaking move mountains.
Maybe this church is fairly young and is still in the pioneer phase. I.e. it still has lots of things for more traditionally masculine men to do. Or perhaps churchgoing has a certain status in their culture. The members may want to emphasise the difference between themselves and other Cantonese immigrants, for example the Buddhists.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
ken might not be here, but there was research published on 30 November this year based on MRI scans of 1400 people that showed there is no such thing as a male or female brain. All the brains had a mixture of functions identified as male or female.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some British scholars of the psychology of religion have done some research which suggests that ministry in Anglican and Methodist churches may attract women who have personality traits that are (stereotypically) associated with men, while male clergy have more traditionally feminine characteristics. On Google I've also just come across a book which suggests that female ministers in Pentecostal churches are more 'tough-minded' than male ones.
It could be that, as with politics and big business, many women in leadership roles have to try harder than men to be taken seriously, which leaves very little space for trying to redefine what leadership is: rather, you have to show that you can match or beat the boys at their own game....
At the risk of going on a bit, I'd suggest that whilst there are still studies looking at "male" and "female" characteristics, this isn't going to change for the better.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I didn't use the term 'male and female characteristics', and I doubt that the research does either.
I referred to the 'masculine' and 'feminine', which aren't the same as 'male' and 'female'. The latter are straightforwardly biological. The former are more ambiguous, and certainly have a cultural component. I was also careful to include terms such as 'stereotypically' and 'traditionally' to emphasise that I wasn't referring to some kind of innate, unchangeable way of being a man or a woman.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I can't make eye contact and talk about my feelings either. If you want to get good conversation out of me, we need to be doing something with our hands, and looking at that rather than each other.
I think this is why things like quilting bees were invented.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I am thoroughly sick of people raising their eyebrows at me because I'm not a demure eye-contacty lady who can sit still during the sermon.
My sister.
My former pastor of Meh memory used to call out young women by name from the pulpit when he caught them whispering or fidgeting in church. Can't recall a single instance of him doing this with the guys.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
MT--
And maybe barn raisings and such, too.
[ 06. December 2015, 03:43: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
MT--
And maybe barn raisings and such, too.
Good thought. I actually thought of barn raisings after I posted that. Or guys working together on an old car, back in the day. (That day being the day in which someone could actually work on their own car without a PhD in auto mechanics computing.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Maybe instead of framing it as a gender thing we can think about it as a "learning style" thing. (You've all read Gardner, right? No? Tsk.)
Only a small percentage of people-- of either gender-- really learn anything efficiently by parking their butt in a pew (or a classroom) and listening to someone lecture. A smart learning experience-- religious or otherwise-- would incorporate elements that allow people of a variety of different learning styles to be engaged.
Barn raising? Hell yes. Singing and chanting? Hell yes. Tangible elements like icons and statues and sacramental objects? All these things facilitate cross-- learning style engagement.
TL;DR-- if people would just fucking listen to the educators, the world would run correctly.
( . Sort of.)
[ 06. December 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Only a small percentage of people-- of either gender-- really learn anything efficiently by parking their butt in a pew (or a classroom) and listening to someone lecture. A smart learning experience-- religious or otherwise-- would incorporate elements that allow people of a variety of different learning styles to be engaged.
*raises hand* Latin scholar right here, with your annual reminder that "sermon" originally meant "conversation". And our churches would be a darn sight more interesting if it still did.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I reckon that the Visual Auditory Kinaesthetic learning styles schtick is all about making the teachers, who mostly can cope with sitting their butts on seats, listening and writing to learn, plus like the sounds of their own voices, realise that there are other ways of teaching other than chalk and talk or death by worksheet. Researchers have been saying for years they don't work, and there's a 2015 study confirming that.
There was an OU / BBC Chinese style school experiment that used chalk and talk and drilling for a class in a secondary school for four weeks. The Chinese teaching methods were very traditional and showed improvement in the students who were taught by these traditional methods compared to their peers in this very limited trial.
Howard Gardner's Learning Styles are good for mentoring - reassuring kids who are struggling in school that there are things they are good at so they can succeed, but they don't have any research proving they work either.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Learning styles are, indeed, notorious bollocks. Doesn't stop charlatans trying to inflict them on teachers and students, of course.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I didn't use the term 'male and female characteristics', and I doubt that the research does either.
I referred to the 'masculine' and 'feminine', which aren't the same as 'male' and 'female'. The latter are straightforwardly biological. The former are more ambiguous, and certainly have a cultural component. I was also careful to include terms such as 'stereotypically' and 'traditionally' to emphasise that I wasn't referring to some kind of innate, unchangeable way of being a man or a woman.
Yes, my apologies, I was being sloppy with language.
The title of the research talks about "feminine men and masculine women". I think this is profoundly unhelpful.
The character traits they describe will be familiar to psychologists, but may mean different things to the lay reader (just as a nutritional paper on binge eating will use descriptors which would be different to the understanding of binge eating that a lay reader might have).
So a neurotic type tends to overreact, experiences emotional reactions out of proportion to the situation, and is moody. These are not characteristics I would wish to have in my rector. But they are not feminine characteristics. They are personality traits. They may be more common in the female half of the population, but being female doesn't make you neurotic - either in psychological research terms, on in colloquial terms. And it's the persistence of this idea that women are like this and men are like that which leads to the other problems you describe - women feeling they have to act in a certain way to be "one of the boys".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think the title is unhelpful if readers immediately assume that 'feminine' and 'masculine' means 'male' and 'female'. I doubt that trained psychologists are likely to make such an assumption - and of course, this is an academic article meant for specialists.
However, we can complain about gender stereotyping all we like, but unless we're seriously going to devote ourselves to overturning expectations (and not just in the sense of encouraging more female ministers) then our churches will continue to be dominated by the same kinds of people. There won't be a lot of balance.
We may prefer our churches to stay more or less the same in terms of demographics and personality types. If so, we need to be honest about that. I suppose that from a moderate mainstream perspective having more 'masculine' men in church is undesirable because they'll disrupt things. Or, unless they're the bossy evangelical bishop that everyone has to tolerate occasionally, they simply won't fit in. The Oxford vicar should bear in mind that some churches are happy to meet the needs of a particular group of people, and churches that try to appeal to everyone are rarely successful.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
I suppose that from a moderate mainstream perspective having more 'masculine' men in church is undesirable because they'll disrupt things.
Lol, thank you. That provided me with a well needed laugh this morning.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
You doing your 'irony' again?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
On a serious note, it has been said that many church splits have been caused because men in the pews have felt deprived of influence and unable to make a contribution. The clergy wouldn't listen to them or take on board their concerns. This seems to have happened several times in the history of British Methodism, for example.
So, we could say that one advantage of having fewer men of this type in the pews, especially in the pews of mainstream churches, is that there's more church unity, less open conflict with the clergy, and fewer breakaway congregations and movements.
[ 06. December 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
ken might not be here, but there was research published on 30 November this year based on MRI scans of 1400 people that showed there is no such thing as a male or female brain. All the brains had a mixture of functions identified as male or female.
And that thing where a woman makes a comment and is not noticed strikes again.
[ 06. December 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There was an OU / BBC Chinese style school experiment that used chalk and talk and drilling for a class in a secondary school for four weeks. The Chinese teaching methods were very traditional and showed improvement in the students who were taught by these traditional methods compared to their peers in this very limited trial.
It depends what you mean by 'improvement'. If you mean passing tests that require rergurgitartion then maybe. Chinese education socialises people into being conformist.
Education in the UK is/should be about thinking for oneself, questioning, evaluating.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A paper reported in New Scientist today:
No such thing...
But the male/female thing isn't just about brain wiring. It's about socialisation.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On a serious note, it has been said that many church splits have been caused because men in the pews have felt deprived of influence and unable to make a contribution. The clergy wouldn't listen to them or take on board their concerns. This seems to have happened several times in the history of British Methodism, for example.
But here's the thing - were the ideas these men were bringing good for the church overall? If not, it doesn't matter who brought them.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But the male/female thing isn't just about brain wiring. It's about socialisation.
Given the brain wiring differences don't seem to exist, do you think the socialisation is positive or negative?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On a serious note, it has been said that many church splits have been caused because men in the pews have felt deprived of influence and unable to make a contribution. The clergy wouldn't listen to them or take on board their concerns. This seems to have happened several times in the history of British Methodism, for example.
I have just read an account of how a group of British Methodists broke away in the nineteenth century to form the Primitive Methodists.
The Methodists had been providing Sunday Schools where children who worked in factories could learn to read and write. A decision was made that it was all right to teach them to read so they could read the Bible, but they shouldn't be taught to write. A group who became the Primitive Methodists objected strongly to this new policy, and they broke away.
They didn't break away because men in the pews felt ignored; they broke away on a matter of principle.
Moo
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Leo:
quote:
Chinese education socialises people into being conformist.
That statement encapsulates in a nutshell why some westerners will never understand the east and why some westerners would have benefited from a better, broader education.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
You doing your 'irony' again?
No I wasn't being ironic. I just found your idiotic statement to be so utterly and hopelessly idiotic that it made me laugh out loud.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
You doing your 'irony' again?
No I wasn't being ironic. I just found your idiotic statement to be so utterly and hopelessly idiotic that it made me laugh out loud.
OK, fair enough. I think you probably live in a more balanced and harmonious church universe than I do, which is a good thing. If all churches were like yours we'd be better off, wouldn't we? Not much to change, and few challenges for the future.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
But here's the thing - were the ideas these men were bringing good for the church overall? If not, it doesn't matter who brought them.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[...]
They didn't break away because men in the pews felt ignored; they broke away on a matter of principle.
Moo
I don't think it's a case of petulant men on the one hand and matters of principle on the other. The point is that people couldn't get things done where they were, because their contributions weren't valued and obstacles were placed in their way.
Whether those specific contributions were good or bad is less important for the purposes of this thread than whether church leaders were able to value their members and put their energy and engagement to good use.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There was an OU / BBC Chinese style school experiment that used chalk and talk and drilling for a class in a secondary school for four weeks. The Chinese teaching methods were very traditional and showed improvement in the students who were taught by these traditional methods compared to their peers in this very limited trial.
It depends what you mean by 'improvement'. If you mean passing tests that require rergurgitartion then maybe. Chinese education socialises people into being conformist.
Education in the UK is/should be about thinking for oneself, questioning, evaluating.
On the one hand education is also about acquiring skills and on another it isn't just education that makes people in China (and many other Eastern societies) more conformist: most aspects of society and culture have done so, for millennia.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
If all churches were like yours we'd be better off, wouldn't we? Not much to change, and few challenges for the future.
Can you give an example of where masculine men came into your church and acted all disruptive (preferably without unfactual and frankly incorrect references to the Methodists, or any other denomination for that matter)? And just for the sake of balance: can you also give an example of where feminine men also came in and provided disruption (or are they incapable of such things)?
[ 06. December 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think it's a case of petulant men on the one hand and matters of principle on the other. The point is that people couldn't get things done where they were, because their contributions weren't valued and obstacles were placed in their way.
Whether those specific contributions were good or bad is less important for the purposes of this thread than whether church leaders were able to value their members and put their energy and engagement to good use.
Yes, people in the church being valued and able to contribute is important. But I don't think their sex has anything to do with that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
fltcher christian
Since you find my comments so hopeless and inaccurate I'm not sure how much effort I should put into looking for information that you'll only find hilarious. It would probably be more interesting for you to tell us how well the churches you know incorporate people of all kinds and all sexes. I wouldn't laugh; I'd find it useful. I've been in positions of lay church leadership (in the Methodist Church) and may be again.
Nevertheless, I'll try to find a few references to illuminate what I'm trying to say.
[ 06. December 2015, 21:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Yes, people in the church being valued and able to contribute is important. But I don't think their sex has anything to do with that.
Maybe it shouldn't have anything to do with it, but if so why are lay churchgoers consistently more likely to be women? Why are women members more active in the church? It may be nurture not nature, but what should we do about that? Or are we not supposed to care one way or the other? In which case, why do we care so much about having female clergy?
It's not that I think de-sexualising the discussion is bad, but on the ground I think it helps to be honest about what the results might be if certain things are changed. There might well be more men here if we do such and such; are we as a church ready to contemplate that? Of course, the happy outcome might also mean more women, which is great!
Good practice helps everyone, but in the wider society it's usual to have a particular group in mind when seeking to broaden participation, e.g. encouraging more BME, LGBT, youth or women to get involved. Some schools and projects have been aimed at raising the achievement of black Caribbean boys. If that's acceptable, why can't churches consider raising the spiritual engagement and growth of men?
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
The approach I would rather have taken is about removing discrimination and allowing equality of opportunity (yuk! Hate that phrase) rather than targeted outreach. Wider society is ahead of the church there, in many ways. Women have been barred from ministry until relatively recently because of our innate characteristics. Gay people, in some situations, likewise. I don't work in education, but thinking about the news story a few weeks back about discrimination at job selection against people with "foreign sounding" names - that's innate characteristics too.
There's nothing innate about being a man which prevents them from coming to church. Just as there's nothing innate about being a man which prevents them from being a stay at home dad whilst mum goes out to work. Or that stops them being primary carer for an older relative.
I think we should stop patronising these grown men by thinking they need special outreach. So many of the items listed in the OP are actually sensible for anyone at church with small children, as we're likely to be at Christmas - the short sermons etc.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There's a lot of stuff about "girls are better at sitting still and concentrating than boys" and it's impossible to know to what extent that is because adult expect and reward these different behaviours. My suspicion is that that's the main difference - or even just that it's what adults expect to see so it's what they report seeing, even when the evidence in front of them is saying something completely different. My suspicion is that girls are used to being told off for fidgeting whereas adults have more of a "boys will be boys" attitude towards boys causing havoc.
That's irrelevant here. Even if some researchers have found that boys learn better when they're bouncing off the walls (and I would want to know exactly what studies have been done and the methodology of them, because there is an unbelievable amount of junk science that takes place in the field of Getting Children To Pass Tests. Simply saying "research" or even, God-help-us, citing Ofsted like it's some kind of all-knowing objective being with no agenda) and girls can sit nicely and be ladylike - that proves exactly nothing about adult men and women. I've changed since I was five years old. My being female is not the most important thing about me.
Furthermore, it's a bad idea to call any psychological traits "feminine" or "masculine". Really bad idea. Even if women are, on average, more likely to do X. Still a bad idea. I doubt that any of these traits have as close a correlation to sex as height does, and yet we manage to use "tall" and "short" when discussing that. Somehow we've managed to grasp that a six foot woman, while statistically unusual, is not less female for being tall. Why the hell we can't do that for psychological traits which are dubiously gendered at best, is beyond me. Don't even get me started on the bullshit "extreme male brain" hypothesis of autism, which has probably done more to ensure that autistic girls are not recognised as such and fail to get the support they need, than any other believe about ASD.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There's a lot of stuff about "girls are better at sitting still and concentrating than boys" and it's impossible to know to what extent that is because adult expect and reward these different behaviours. My suspicion is that that's the main difference - or even just that it's what adults expect to see so it's what they report seeing, even when the evidence in front of them is saying something completely different. My suspicion is that girls are used to being told off for fidgeting whereas adults have more of a "boys will be boys" attitude towards boys causing havoc.. ...
Absolutely. I've seen parents allow a little boy to climb on the furniture in a restaurant, while repeatedly telling his sister to stop doing the same thing and grabbing and forcing her into a chair when she didn't. The lesson for the girl: your brother is free do to whatever the fuck he wants, even if there's risk of damage or injury, but you'll be physically restrained if you try to do the same thing.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jemima: quote:
Given the brain wiring differences don't seem to exist, do you think the socialisation is positive or negative?
If differences in brain wiring do exist they are probably caused by socialization.
Brains can rewire themselves anyway - see the Wikipedia article on neuroplasticity for more details.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Yep - and the New Scientist report Penny linked to was conducted on people aged teens-80s, so plenty of time for changes to be made. I'm cautious about the interpretations people sometimes make of scans, though - for example, extrapolating from the lack of growth shown in a scan of a child suffering severe neglect to "If you ever leave a child to cry its brain will not grow!" That sort of thing.
Thanks for the link.
My question was to leo, really - I was digging to see what his opinion on supposed masculine feminine aspects of church might be, especially in the light of the negative experiences of the social expectations of some of us wee girlies.
[ 07. December 2015, 19:01: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Passively listening to sermons is more female. Men are more kinaesthetic.
Or perhaps, courteously listening to sermons. Since when is listening passive, anyway? Since it's a behaviour associated with females, perhaps? Circularity, anyone?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
There's nothing innate about being a man which prevents them from coming to church. Just as there's nothing innate about being a man which prevents them from being a stay at home dad whilst mum goes out to work. Or that stops them being primary carer for an older relative.
I think we should stop patronising these grown men by thinking they need special outreach. So many of the items listed in the OP are actually sensible for anyone at church with small children, as we're likely to be at Christmas - the short sermons etc.
Would you say it was patronising for a church with hardly any kids or teenagers to start seriously reflecting on and exploring why this was the case? Or for a mainstream church in an inner city area to do the same if it had no BME attenders or members?
For me, it's not the reflection and exploration that's necessarily patronising - but the result may be, if the wrong conclusions are reached, or pursued in an unhelpful way.
I'd agree that the likelihood of the average, smallish, poorly resourced and staffed MOTR church being successful at engaging with and relating to the kinds of men who are strongly underrepresented in their pews is low. Most such churches simply wouldn't deal with the issue - and would have a growing gender gap.
Perhaps if the Oxford vicar were alert and more aware of the temperature in the wider church he would have realised that the undersupply of male worshippers is an awkward and mostly unmentionable topic in mainstream church circles. A cleverer man would have given advice on the challenges presented by class, race or Myers Briggs personality type, etc., and left sex for discussions about sexuality and the importance of women in the ministry.
[ 07. December 2015, 21:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Look up women with ADHD and how underdiagnosed they are - plenty of women suffer immensely from sitting quietly being seen as a female trait.
There is nothing wrong with churches wanting to reach out to men, there is everything wrong with churches suggesting that childcare is for women and action movies are for men because it's just not true. It's especially damaging for church services celebrating the birth of a baby to be seen as inherently unmanly because they involve children - not the sort of attitude towards children and childcare that churches should encourage. Carl Beech's ministry talks about this sort of thing (eg children's Sunday School pictures in church being offputting to men) and it's honestly frightening. What does this attitude say to men who want to become primary school teachers or nursery nurses or paediatricians or even just fathers?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Look up women with ADHD and how underdiagnosed they are - plenty of women suffer immensely from sitting quietly being seen as a female trait.
There is nothing wrong with churches wanting to reach out to men, there is everything wrong with churches suggesting that childcare is for women and action movies are for men because it's just not true. It's especially damaging for church services celebrating the birth of a baby to be seen as inherently unmanly because they involve children - not the sort of attitude towards children and childcare that churches should encourage.
Nowhere have I said that all women are happy to sit quietly in church. I find it a bit challenging to do so myself, and I often wonder how other people can go so long without appearing to move. But expecting people to sit still is what churches insist on, and few people seriously suggest otherwise. If the church community isn't all that bothered about fidgety women, perhaps it'll care more about fidgety men? Probably not, to be fair.
But unless churches are going to commit themselves wholeheartedly to destroying cultural assumptions (and that only seems to be the case with regard to absorbing women into the ministry) they really have to work with and through those same assumptions. I mean, how can you involve men in children's work if the men aren't actually present and committed? You've got to draw them in first, and once you've got them hooked then you can turn them into cuddly guys who adore childcare!
As it happens, I do know men who've been (very good) Sunday school teachers, but considering the need there's nowhere near enough of them. And the outside world has the same problem with getting men into the secular roles you mention.
(Interestingly, though, I once read somewhere that the earliest Sunday School teachers were almost all male. A gendered evolution in religious activity and expectations obviously occurred in the 19th century.)
[ 08. December 2015, 01:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But unless churches are going to commit themselves wholeheartedly to destroying cultural assumptions (and that only seems to be the case with regard to absorbing women into the ministry) they really have to work with and through those same assumptions. I mean, how can you involve men in children's work if the men aren't actually present and committed? You've got to draw them in first, and once you've got them hooked then you can turn them into cuddly guys who adore childcare!
I think this is the nub of where we part company. Being aware of cultural assumptions does not mean we have to work through them. I agree with Liopleurodon's point upthread - being female is not the most important thing about me. It's a distinctly unimportant thing about me, actually, with a few important exceptions - like, I really must book myself a smear test.
If there was evidence to show that men were actively discriminated against in coming to church, I would think differently, but I have yet to see any. This is not the same as the gender pay gap, or there being not very many women surgeons. It doesn't bother me much that there aren't as many men as women in church. There are people in church, and I'd like there to be more people who felt it was an option for them. That's it.
The childcare example is all backwards, and, I suggest, somewhat patronising. It implies that we need the bait & switch - we need to lure men into church with action films (or whatever) and then we can persuade them to help in the creche. How about we give men enough kudos to know already that they might like to go to church, and that they're very good at childcare, and let them do it?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
As a father of a two-year boy I can say that "parenting' things (workshops, meetings, walks) that only use the feminine pronouns are off-putting.
Men are not one group and reflecting about how churches deal with them requires a nuanced approach, away from "they like Jeremy Clarkson" shite. Using myself as an example, the privileges that come to me as being male, there are also some I don't have:
Being brought up with a same-sex parent is one of them. My father died when I was three (I have reflected for a few days in deciding whether to post this; I am aware of where I am posting this). Fatherless boys are more likely to grow up and be in poverty, be drug and/or alcohol dependent, have behavioural problems (by altering the prefrontal cortex of the brain), less likely to have educational success, get into crime, commit suicide, have problems socialising with others, tolerate abuse done to them and have anger issues.
Mothers' groups and womens' groups exist to support them (though less likely in smaller towns and villages). Thankfully, some churches do work addressing LGBTQ people. There is the question as to just how far churches should go with regards to social issues, seeing as it's better to have skilled people.
When I was a young self-harming lad many people in my church had problems with me, due to my behavioural problems and unemployment. I wouldn't call it a formal outreach what happened to me, and I did face a bit of rejection and ridicule, but thankfully things got better with time.
I reject all "men are like this and that" stereotypes, as I don't fulfill many of them (though I'm a fan of heavy metal, beer and football). Men's evenings that go that way only serve to put men in boxes. Generally I think it's good to recognise that there is less of a sense of what it means to be male. I do workshops for young men and this is often an issue. At least there is a lack of having a healthy self-image.
A man-friendly church would recognise these issues, I believe: Having a nuanced and reflected approach and being aware of fatherless and mental health issues.
This would mean addressing the fact that there is a "silent epidemic" of male suicides, with 78% of suicides happening being done by men (source for statistic).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My question was to leo, really - I was digging to see what his opinion on supposed masculine feminine aspects of church might be, especially in the light of the negative experiences of the social expectations of some of us wee girlies.
See what I said here.
On needing to redeem/move on from masculinity, I agree, largely, with this.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Carl Beech's ministry talks about this sort of thing (eg children's Sunday School pictures in church being offputting to men) and it's honestly frightening.
What does this attitude say to men who want to become primary school teachers or nursery nurses or paediatricians or even just fathers?
What indeed. There are lots of men who don't find that to be the case at all. Carl Beech has tended to be the "Jeremy Clarkson" of the men's movement and it's hardly a winsome example for many of us.
There's something rather risible in middle class men trying to pass themselves off as "good ol boys."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My question was to leo, really - I was digging to see what his opinion on supposed masculine feminine aspects of church might be, especially in the light of the negative experiences of the social expectations of some of us wee girlies.
See what I said here.
Thanks for posting this, leo.
Reading it, I do have to wonder if there are cultural variables and assumptions at play. Much if not all of what you describe as being off-putting to men would not, in my experience in my corner of the world, be thought of as particularly off-putting to men or unmasculine at all. Meanwhile, I can imagine much of the "macho church" as described being very off-putting to very many men, me included. Indeed, in my experience in my corner of the world, all-male church activities are often less well-attended or sought after than mixed men-women-child events.
And of course if cultural assumptions and variables are at play, then socialization and stereotypes likely aren't far away.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Since when is listening passive, anyway?
In what way isn't it passive?
Of course, the fact that listening to a sermon is passive doesn't say anything at all about whether it's an inherently male or female activity (if such categories even exist outside of biology). But that it is passive is beyond doubt in my book.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
There is such a thing as active listening.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Since when is listening passive, anyway?
In what way isn't it passive?
Of course, the fact that listening to a sermon is passive doesn't say anything at all about whether it's an inherently male or female activity (if such categories even exist outside of biology). But that it is passive is beyond doubt in my book.
Oxford Dictionaries define passive as: "Accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance: eg.
the women were portrayed as passive victims."
I see what Marvin is saying about the physical activity of listening. What could be more apparently passive behaviour than a group of people static and stationery, and quietly receiving the words of a speaker. And if 'active response or resistance' means specifically being physically or vocally active in the course of the action - in this case, preaching - fair enough.
But I suppose - I presume - it is entirely possible to be emotionally, intellectually and psychologically active and resistant to what one is listening to? And if one is actually learning or benefitting from what they are listening to, is this merely 'passive learning' or 'passive edification' - and how does that work without a positive, and mentally active attitude on the behalf of the listener?
And if listening to sermons is only ever a passive activity, it definitely generates very non-passive behaviour during coffee times with unhappy or provoked listeners! Which rather suggests that something was active and at work during the process of listening.
Still I can see why it could be construed as 'passive'.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My question was to leo, really - I was digging to see what his opinion on supposed masculine feminine aspects of church might be, especially in the light of the negative experiences of the social expectations of some of us wee girlies.
See what I said here.
On needing to redeem/move on from masculinity, I agree, largely, with this.
Thanks, leo.
Regarding the what you said here....
Things that supposedly put men off, also may put women off. I loathe sentimental hymns of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" nature. I note that they seem to be mostly written by men, though. I don't like emotionalism. I don't think women are inherently better at keeping the Christmas card list - we're just told / shown / expected from a very early age, that this is women's work. There's a lot about the XY church that appeals to me - belting hymns, beer, the freedom to swear, and the application of theology to daily life. I bet they wouldn't bloody let me in, though, because as a woman I should be remembering the Christmas list. Which I've probably written down in a Cath Kidston notebook.
The second link I have read a few times, but am struggling to understand. What I do gain from it though is a distinct feeling of the terribleness of women - oh dear God, how we oppress the menfolk, with our witchy maternal hard to understandness. And they can't possibly have a relationship with us until they have found themselves! What rot. How does that fit with fallen humanity which doesn't know itself in this world?
I've just reread the part that declares "It's a woman's world". I'm not really sure I have an answer to that. Except perhaps "Oh no it isn't". (It is panto season after all).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I agree that there are plenty of women who loathe sentimentality.
Re- the second link, it is difficult to give more than a flavour of what a book is about and I think the whole book is well worth reading - though it's a but dated now, coming, as it did, from the era of John Bly's Iron John.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There is such a thing as active listening.
From the fount of all knowledge:
quote:
Active listening is a communication technique used in counselling, training and conflict resolution, which requires the listener to feed back what they hear to the speaker, by way of re-stating or paraphrasing what they have heard in their own words, to confirm what they have heard and moreover, to confirm the understanding of both parties
Which bit of that sounds like listening to a sermon, exactly?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Active listening to a sermon might, I suppose, be found in the call and response tradition of the African-American churches.
Or there might be a heckler. I've only heckled a sermon a couple of times.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I see what Marvin is saying about the physical activity of listening. What could be more apparently passive behaviour than a group of people static and stationery, and quietly receiving the words of a speaker. And if 'active response or resistance' means specifically being physically or vocally active in the course of the action - in this case, preaching - fair enough.
Exactly.
quote:
But I suppose - I presume - it is entirely possible to be emotionally, intellectually and psychologically active and resistant to what one is listening to? And if one is actually learning or benefitting from what they are listening to, is this merely 'passive learning' or 'passive edification' - and how does that work without a positive, and mentally active attitude on the behalf of the listener?
If that counts as active, then thinking bad thoughts about the aristocracy counts as a revolution.
quote:
And if listening to sermons is only ever a passive activity, it definitely generates very non-passive behaviour during coffee times with unhappy or provoked listeners! Which rather suggests that something was active and at work during the process of listening.
See, to me that shows that those people are crying out for more active engagement with the sermon, but have to wait until coffee time comes round before it can happen.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree that there are plenty of women who loathe sentimentality.
Re- the second link, it is difficult to give more than a flavour of what a book is about and I think the whole book is well worth reading - though it's a but dated now, coming, as it did, from the era of John Bly's Iron John.
I quite agree there are plenty of women who loathe sentimentality, just as there are some men who like it. That's why I think it's not worth including discussions of male/female in this area at all. It puts people in boxes which ultimately helps no one.
I know it's only possible to give a flavour of a book, but it was one which gave a nasty aftertaste.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There is such a thing as active listening.
From the fount of all knowledge:
quote:
Active listening is a communication technique used in counselling, training and conflict resolution, which requires the listener to feed back what they hear to the speaker, by way of re-stating or paraphrasing what they have heard in their own words, to confirm what they have heard and moreover, to confirm the understanding of both parties
Which bit of that sounds like listening to a sermon, exactly?
It doesn't and I didn't say it did - I was just pointing out that listening is not inherently passive.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose that from a moderate mainstream perspective having more 'masculine' men in church is undesirable because they'll disrupt things.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Can you give an example of where masculine men came into your church and acted all disruptive (preferably without unfactual and frankly incorrect references to the Methodists, or any other denomination for that matter)? And just for the sake of balance: can you also give an example of where feminine men also came in and provided disruption (or are they incapable of such things)?
Firstly, I think you misunderstood my comment above. I didn't mean that men are literally inclined to barge into church services and cause a nuisance. (FWIW, I have been in the odd service where male beggars, etc., have entered and been a distraction.) No, I was referring to disrupting the church culture. This isn't a difficult idea to understand; congregations and denominations have a culture, have expectations of how members should present themselves and behave. Whether we like it or not, some of these expectations have consequences with regard to race, class, and gender, etc. (or any combination thereof) and individuals who attempt to challenge the dominant culture may be seen as disruptive. This is not to deny that race, class and gender expectations may all be mere constructs that change with time and place.
Secondly, I sense that most commentators here attend churches where the things are going fairly well, and the gender gap is smallish, hardly noticed and not especially relevant to the churches' mission. I'm also aware that many of you have experience of evangelical and other churches where attempts to address 'masculinity' may indicate a desire to hold women back. I don't want to dismiss your experiences and fears, but I believe that a great many other churches around the country have slightly different problems to deal with.
Take British Methodism, which is what I know best. The British Methodist Church faces the same challenges as other denominations, but to a greater extent than most. If you google the pdf doc 'Notes and Quotes: "Church Closure and Membership Statistics: A Methodist Perspective", by L. Burton' (link not permissible due to parenthesis in html tag) and go to p. 2 you'll read that the BMC lost 46% of its membership over the three decades up to 2000, while the CofE lost less than a 1/10; the BMC closed 1/3 churches while the CofE closed less than 1/10.
Like most denominations, it's become more middle class, but Methodism has also experienced a striking process of ageing (scroll down to Long Living Methodists Revisited) . Most importantly for this thread, it has a severe gender imbalance. A Methodist document that reports both the gender and age imbalance notes that in 2011 70% of British Methodists were female, with a similar percentage being over 65 years old, of course with regional variations.
Some may find this situation acceptable, but to me, it's lopsided. If Methodism has something valuable to offer, then it should be palatable to a few more younger people, and certainly to a few more men. Or even, heaven forbid, some slightly younger men?
Let me be honest. I can't imagine a feisty, footy-loving, kinesthetic, gobby young Methodist woman of ideas pursing her lips in disapproval at the idea of deliberately trying to create a church that more men as well as more young people in general want to attend. For a start, although individual Methodists and congregations may be conservatively evangelical in some respects, the denomination in general is moderate and values consensus. It's clergy are pastorally-minded, and aren't known for riding roughshod over their congregations. The denomination has more women clergy than most other denominations, coming third after the URC and the Salvation Army. There is no fear, therefore, of a new, conflict-laden patriarchal agenda coming in on the tide.
Moreover, this young woman will herself benefit from any changes in worship style introduced. If there are men's groups that are closed to her, she or someone else will hopefully be encouraged to start their own dynamic small group as part of the church's broad new vision; Methodism gives laypeople that freedom.
In addition - and this no a minor point - if she has any thoughts whatsoever of marrying a Christian man and doesn't have regular access to a busy ecumenical network of young Christians, then she has to be grateful that her church has begun to address the gender imbalance. To be fair, Methodists don't usually mind who marries whom; how can they, considering the stats? But in general, outside of middle class white evangelicalism and the most popular, successful congregations of other types, the shortage of Christian men for (straight) female members to marry is a big issue. It comes up frequently in books and articles about black British Christianity (and is also an issue in African American churches).
Sorry about the length of this post! This is Hell but my intention hasn't been to offend, simply to explain where I'm coming from, and why I don't think a 'man-friendly Christmas' is inevitably a bad idea.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I call bullshit.
Anecdotally the group that is driving a local CofE church more evangelical is a group women, mostly with husbands who don't attend church, although there are a couple of much quieter husbands who do attend. They are the ones who are committed to Kingdom Faith and the annual Faith Camp, to "feed them" for the months and months of arid worship they endure in a MOR CofE church. They don't attend the local Elim church which would be a better fit, because there is a bigger pool to fish in the CofE church, although they have been known to send their children to attend the Elim services as more fun. Incidentally the Elim Church is staggering on with tiny numbers.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If 70% of Methodists are women, and 70% are over 65, is part of the gender imbalance an artefact of the fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men, so there are rather more over 65 women in the population than there are men?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If 70% of Methodists are women, and 70% are over 65, is part of the gender imbalance an artefact of the fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men, so there are rather more over 65 women in the population than there are men?
One of the links I posted claims that the ageing isn't primarily driven by the longer life-expectancy of women, but by the fact that the Methodist Church doesn't recruit or retain enough younger people. So every time there's a survey, the average age of Methodists gets higher. And of course old people are more likely to die, so the denomination shrinks quite rapidly.
Some articles I looked at suggest a correlation between church decline and a steeply female membership, but I imagine that the connection between the two needs more research. Pentecostalism in some cultures is heavily female, yet is still growing. This may be because Pentecostalism still attracts young women, rather than relying on the continued loyalty of ageing women, as Methodism does.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I call bullshit.
Anecdotally the group that is driving a local CofE church more evangelical is a group women, mostly with husbands who don't attend church, although there are a couple of much quieter husbands who do attend. They are the ones who are committed to Kingdom Faith and the annual Faith Camp, to "feed them" for the months and months of arid worship they endure in a MOR CofE church. They don't attend the local Elim church which would be a better fit, because there is a bigger pool to fish in the CofE church, although they have been known to send their children to attend the Elim services as more fun. Incidentally the Elim Church is staggering on with tiny numbers.
I have heard it said that South American evangelical Pentecostalism is growing partly because 'traditional' women know that such churches are very pro-family. Wives know that if they can get their men to join they'll become better husbands and fathers.
I suppose this holds true in the UK to some extent, although we have a far smaller pool of 'traditional' women to draw from, and there's less anxiety here about 'machismo' men and family abandonment.
Your post does highlight how the CofE benefits from its cultural or social status in being able to keep hold of its evangelicals even though it's not an evangelical denomination. One link I posted above stated that in the English Church Census of 2005 34% of Anglicans described themselves as evangelical. This was only true of 18% of Methodists. The CofE figure had grown, whereas the Methodist figure had dropped.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I have heard it said that South American evangelical Pentecostalism is growing partly because 'traditional' women know that such churches are very pro-family. Wives know that if they can get their men to join they'll become better husbands and fathers.
The term 'pro-family' can mean a lot of things, but there is evidence that some women try to get their men to join because this will make them stop drinking.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Indeed. If they stop drinking this may well make them 'better husbands and fathers'. (I'm presuming of course that the drinking in question goes beyond the odd glass of wine with dinner.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Indeed. If they stop drinking this may well make them 'better husbands and fathers'. (I'm presuming of course that the drinking in question goes beyond the odd glass of wine with dinner.)
Quite. I agree with this, but not necessarily with your earlier sweeping statement "Pentecostal churches are very pro-family".
It is true that their stance on alcohol has had a positive effect on a number of families, and this has been documented. But this is not necessarily all there is to being "a very pro-family church".
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The idea of church as a form of social control has a long history in this country which I feel deserves long and critical scrutiny and is certainly not a model I would welcome being copied elsewhere.
Church is about expression and development of relationship with the divine, and needs to engage the whole person. Social control, on the other hand, works by reducing agency and therefore personhood. The two are therefore fundamentally incompatible.
And as for the assumption that the C of E benefits in ways that are not purely numerical/financial from having a great many evangelical members who have absolutely no idea what they are doing there and what being part of the C of E means is completely questionable. I for one feel it loses by being blackmailed.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
Some articles I looked at suggest a correlation between church decline and a steeply female membership
I'd be interested in reading those. Could you post the links please?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[I don't] necessarily [agree] with your earlier sweeping statement "Pentecostal churches are very pro-family".
It is true that their stance on alcohol has had a positive effect on a number of families, and this has been documented. But this is not necessarily all there is to being "a very pro-family church".
I realise full well that churches don't necessarily do what they do or believe what they believe in order to help families specifically - helping families is more often a by-product of their general theology.
Similarly, more moderate churches aren't specifically 'anti-family'. However their theology and church culture, caring though they may be, don't always contribute significantly to strengthening the family unit in a stressful world. (They probably do better with families in more comfortable, suburban contexts, though.)
Of course, not everyone is looking for a pro-family theology or environment. I'd feel rather out of place in a church dominated by 'families' in a physical or theological sense. But such churches need to exist, because the faith is unlikely to be transmitted very successfully without them.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
From what I have seen in cultures where wife beating is considered quite normal, Pentecostal churches and some very conservative evangelical churches through their teaching (specifically 'Biblical' teaching) actually prop up the system of continued abuse (mostly implicitly rather than explicitly) and help to keep it hidden and unspoken within a family context. While they are very successful in bringing family stability elsewhere, in this area they often don't even see or are even remotely aware of the damage they do. I guess they keep the men in church though.
To give you one example. Some of the outer islands of NTT can be quite a mixture of both Muslim and Christian. There are great concerns about the spread of less moderate Islamic denominations, but even in moderate Islam in these islands wife beating is considered both normal and acceptable practice. Christians have not been all hope and light in this area. For many, many years they have done the same, but recently there has been a marked shift in exposing it, how to handle it sensitively and in the area of education and support for women who are beaten in the home. It tends to be done by the church, through the church, but not exclusively so. Very recently Pentecostalism moved into the area and regularly preaches gender roles in a western vibe, demanding that women cover their heads in church, that the role they play in services is limited and how they must behave at home and in particular they role they must adopt as wives. In the cultural context of these NTT islands it all has a bit of a ring of endorsing old practice and those working in the church there are certainly seeing the negative impact. The Pentecostals were completely oblivious to all of this, so attempts have been made to point this out in a number of 'official' meetings and get togethers. Now either the Pentecostals just didn't get it or they were wilfully negligent. They do not change teaching and preaching practice, they refuse to make any public statement regarding abuse in the home and point blank refuse to either promote or engage with women's refuge centres or educational programmes in their congregations. It's all a very sad affair.
Muslims in the area meanwhile are waking up to the issue, but are also showing signs of dividing along denominational lines.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I realise full well that churches don't necessarily do what they do or believe what they believe in order to help families specifically - helping families is more often a by-product of their general theology.
Similarly, more moderate churches aren't specifically 'anti-family'. However their theology and church culture, caring though they may be, don't always contribute significantly to strengthening the family unit in a stressful world. (They probably do better with families in more comfortable, suburban contexts, though.)
Like I said, 'pro-family' is a complex concept to unpack. Saying "Pentecostal churches are very pro-family" is too simplistic. I don't feel like going into a deep discussion about that right now; I just wanted to make clear that my earlier agreement with you was limited to talking about Pentecostal churches and alcohol, not about them being 'pro-family'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
And as for the assumption that the C of E benefits in ways that are not purely numerical/financial from having a great many evangelical members who have absolutely no idea what they are doing there and what being part of the C of E means is completely questionable. I for one feel it loses by being blackmailed.
I presume the benefit is experienced mainly by the evangelical members themselves, although the wider church at least gets some of their money. It benefits from their engagement as well. Would the CofE have had as much contemporary cross-denominational influence around the world if the HTB team hadn't produce the Alpha course?
If the wider CofE fears being blackmailed by its increasingly influential evangelicals then at some point there'll have to be a debate about whether the CofE has a future in its current form, because it may be more honest for the church to split.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
Some articles I looked at suggest a correlation between church decline and a steeply female membership
I'd be interested in reading those. Could you post the links please?
As I implied, these appeared to be passing suggestions rather than scientifically detailed explanations. I readily admitted that more research probably needs to be done, and that the experience of Pentecostalism, for example, doesn't seem to corroborate the idea.
I could go and look for those texts again, but I'm not sure if most of what I've written so far has been interesting to you. I don't want to prolong the tedium if not!
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
As I implied, these appeared to be passing suggestions rather than scientifically detailed explanations. I readily admitted that more research probably needs to be done, and that the experience of Pentecostalism, for example, doesn't seem to corroborate the idea.
I'd still be interested in reading them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I can try to find them again, but just to be clear, were you at all interested in reading any of the links I posted above? Or am I likely to spend a few days looking for more links that may incite no comment?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Do I have to say it a third time?!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, you haven't written an answer to my actual question even once, but I suppose that silence is itself an answer, so fair enough.
I'll see how it goes.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
Well, you haven't written an answer to my actual question even once, but I suppose that silence is itself an answer, so fair enough.
That might be because I asked you for examples of where masculine men came in to a church and caused disruption. You didn't give any examples, although you did talk around the topic of how masculine men can upset church 'cultures' followed by six paragraphs about Methodism and accompanying links. It's a little difficult to respond to something that isn't a response to the original question or statement.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Svitlana makes sweeping statements about churches without backing them up. In other news, film at 11.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Do I have to say it a third time?!
If people won't read it the first or second time, is there any point?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
Well, you haven't written an answer to my actual question even once, but I suppose that silence is itself an answer, so fair enough.
That might be because I asked you for examples of where masculine men came in to a church and caused disruption. You didn't give any examples, although you did talk around the topic of how masculine men can upset church 'cultures' followed by six paragraphs about Methodism and accompanying links. It's a little difficult to respond to something that isn't a response to the original question or statement.
But I told that you'd misunderstood my original statement. Wasn't I allowed to do that? Aren't you allowed to misunderstand anything?
It's a good job I don't go to your church, or else I'd 'disrupt' you all something silly with my apparently irrelevant nonsense. I suppose it's proof that every church should have its own constituency: women, men, clever-clogs, etc., then the rest of us can make sure we keep the hell away.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Svitlana makes sweeping statements about churches without backing them up. In other news, film at 11.
I backed up a whole bunch of stuff I said about Methodism with links, but who cares?
I'd have thought that a post about the 'man-unfriendly' experience of British Methodism would be relevant to this thread, but it appears not.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
Aren't you allowed to misunderstand anything?
Oh yes! I'm trying hard to understand your posts and where the idea of more females in church leads to a more 'feminine' church and ideas that males are therefore less likely to come to church as posited in the original article on the Diocese of Oxford's website. But it's not only an idea you have expounded here or one that the Diocese of Oxford dreamt up last week or an issue that only vexes poor Leo; I hear it all the time. In fact I think I have heard it for a couple of decades now about the church I belong to and I've certainly heard it about other churches. I had a sneaking suspicion that the church I go to was propagating a bit of an old myth that had been around so long that everyone just assumed that it was true - namely, that there were more women in church than men and that much of what was done in church was off-putting to men. During 2013 we all had to fill in little census cards at three different church services during the year in every parish, which were not special days or feast days, so it gave an accurate picture of what the parishes all looked like on an average Sunday. It collected quite a lot of detailed information. In terms of the male/female split the results were as follows:
"Proportional distribution of attendance by gender is 57% Female, 43% Male. "
That's more or less what it is in society here outside the church*. We were so stunned that we were a reflection of society we still don't know what to do with these figures in 2015, yet amazingly we still have to listen to lay people, clergy and even Bishop's telling us that the male to female gender ratio's are grossly lop-sided and need correction with intervention with all manner of the weird and wonderful which oddly, generally turn out to be somebodies vanity project or a desperate attempt to be seen to be doing something. What was really fascinating was that all the 'big' parishes that said they did this that and the other and had thousands beating down their doors actually turned out to be pretty tiny. There's nothing quite like cold, hard figures to get to the truth.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that what is a myth for us is a myth for others, but I was interested in why the church has an obsession with this. Is it at all possible that this is a general myth propagated by many churches that also happen to be obsessed with issues of sexuality and that this might simply be yet another expression of it? Is it at all possible that the church might have a peculiar vested interest in propagating stereotypes regarding gender and that a myth like this is actually a bolstering exercise in disguise; even if it is almost subconscious? Maybe not, I don't honestly know, but I think that might outline why I'd be interested in reading the things you mentioned in posting this:
Some articles I looked at suggest a correlation between church decline and a steeply female membership
See, I'm not trying to bait you, I am simply interested in an issue I have heard people go on about in the church for decades that I have a strong suspicion is a 'problem' for churches as a whole that might not even be there at all. I might have misunderstood the whole thing and that's why reading an article that highlights it could be a very useful thing.
*According to the Irish Statistics Office as of 2012, the mean for gender by population to include Northern Ireland would be somewhere between 96-98 men for every 100 women.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
"Proportional distribution of attendance by gender is 57% Female, 43% Male. "
[snip]
*According to the Irish Statistics Office as of 2012, the mean for gender by population to include Northern Ireland would be somewhere between 96-98 men for every 100 women.
Sorry fc, but those figures do not correspond. A population of that proportion would mean 48 men to every 50 women, or basically 49% male to 51% female. That is a long way statistically from 43% to 57%, even if the latter is closer to the population share than most churches I know could boast.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some articles I looked at suggest a correlation between church decline and a steeply female membership
OK, let's say something about the above, emphasising again that correlation is a 'mutual relation of two or more things'. I know full well that correlation is not causation. Church decline is a complex issue.
This American study (p. 4) finds that a higher proportion of women in a congregation is associated with decline rather than growth. The abstract of another article points to the gender imbalance as not indicative of growth. George Gallup of the respected polling group also believes that 'the presence of a significant number of men is often a clear indicator of spiritual health in congregations'.
This article refers to some Swiss research which indicates that children are more likely to follow their fathers rather than their mothers into faith. The abstract of this American article is also relevant (and easier to find if you have access to a university library). The influence of mothers has been accepted for a long time, of course. If the claim about the importance of fathers is correct, though, then churches where considerably more mothers than fathers are practising the faith are less likely to benefit from the continued allegiance of church members' children. Low levels of faith transmission lead to church decline.
The doctrine of 'separate spheres', has historically worked in favour of reducing men's engagement with religion, because religion is seen as the duty or natural calling of a woman, hence creating churches which have many more women than men. According to the link, this means that religion becomes less important in the public sphere (p. 232). This is relevant to the thread because one understanding of secularisation relates to the privatisation of religion, which in Western Christian cultures is said to work against churchgoing and other public expressions of faith. This means churches decline. (Spirituality continues in other ways, though.)
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm trying hard to understand your posts and where the idea of more females in church leads to a more 'feminine' church and ideas that males are therefore less likely to come to church as posited in the original article on the Diocese of Oxford's website.
[...]
[In our church w]e were so stunned that we were a reflection of society [regarding our gender balance] we still don't know what to do with these figures in 2015, yet amazingly we still have to listen to lay people, clergy and even Bishop's telling us that the male to female gender ratio's are grossly lop-sided and need correction with intervention with all manner of the weird and wonderful. [...]
Is it at all possible that this is a general myth propagated by many churches that also happen to be obsessed with issues of sexuality and that this might simply be yet another expression of it? Is it at all possible that the church might have a peculiar vested interest in propagating stereotypes regarding gender and that a myth like this is actually a bolstering exercise in disguise; even if it is almost subconscious?
Regarding your church, it seems I was right - you clearly do belong to a church where things are much more balanced. But the imbalance more generally is not a myth, and nor has it only been noticed by Christians who (subconsciously or not) want to oppress women, or who are worrying about sexuality. It's been noticed by scholars of church history as well as sociologists of religion. (I'm planning on reading this book, whose author is a somewhat conservative RC, and this one, whose authors I think are non-religious.) The imbalance seems to go a long way back, and is found in many cultures at different times.
I don't think it's the case that women are to blame for creating a feminised church, rather that a more feminised church begins to appeal more to women and less to men - men and women of a certain type, granted, but the imbalance does become significant on a statistical level. IOW, what we're calling feminization seems to have its origins in cultural developments, not in actual femaleness.
Although it must irritate you when people in your parish make a big noise about fixing something that isn't broken, IME it's not something that's talked about in ordinary, MOTR, traditional churches. Perhaps the churches with the biggest imbalance are the least likely to address the issue, because the risk of unsettling their usual demographic would be so much greater. I think this would be true of most Methodist churches. It seems that the CofE as an institution is less cautious about antagonising its members.
[ 14. December 2015, 23:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
From the proliferation of links, preserve us, gracious Lord
From the ire of tetchy Hellhosts, preserve them in Your mercy
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
From the proliferation of links, preserve us, gracious Lord
From the ire of tetchy Hellhosts, preserve them in Your mercy
Amen, amen. Even an AS host would be tetchy.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
"Proportional distribution of attendance by gender is 57% Female, 43% Male. "
[snip]
*According to the Irish Statistics Office as of 2012, the mean for gender by population to include Northern Ireland would be somewhere between 96-98 men for every 100 women.
Sorry fc, but those figures do not correspond. A population of that proportion would mean 48 men to every 50 women, or basically 49% male to 51% female. That is a long way statistically from 43% to 57%, even if the latter is closer to the population share than most churches I know could boast.
I'd also want to know if the 43%/57% split includes children or is only based on adults in attendance.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Thanks Svitlana. Let me take each link in turn.
1. Are you sure it is page four? I can't see anything relevant there.
2. The book seems interesting enough but the abstract isn't entirely relevant to the issue. It states, However, the numerical dominance of female worshipers is not associated with a congregation’s numerical growth. I which is fine, but doesn't correlate a higher proportion of females to church decline.
3. That's quite interesting actually and I'd like to see it in a European context of WW1 and WW2 and the defined domestic gender identities that prevailed into the 1980's, but agin, it doesn't give us anything to go on in terms of a correlation between more women and steep church decline.
4. Mr Low cites what looks to be an interesting article, but his conclusions are quite a jump. I would strongly suspect he has an agenda to pedal and is doing so quite consciously. Without the original article it's a bit meaningless.
5. That is very interesting, but again not exactly relevant to a correlation between a higher presence of women in church leading to church decline. I suppose you could argue that it might do in the longer term, but this would also suppose that a father not in church is not providing any religious instruction or encouragement to his children and has no religious affiliation. It strikes me that would be rather difficult to ascertain. There's also a slight problem with theories of this nature applied in a universal sense (even if only the 'West' in this case) on what is essentially data that is a snapshot in time. For instance, if this were universally true (or even true to a particular geographical area) then we as Christians we would have all packed our bags and shut the doors somewhere around 1180 AD. I get the separate sphere stuff though and it would be interesting if there a correlation between this and Victorian notions of defined gender roles followed by WW! and WW2 and its results. I strongly suspect there is a correlation which might then point to something quite different and far more complex.
6. Again, interesting, but not relevant to you know what.
7. Reminds me of Bonnhoeffer's quote, 'Up with Jesus and down with the church'. Interesting, but as number 6 above.
8. The fourth line down (ending in footnote 62) seems fairly key here, and also the sentence that follows it. Looks interesting, but I'm not seeing the relevance to high female membership leading to church decline.
quote:
IME it's not something that's talked about in ordinary, MOTR, traditional churches
I think that is where you and I differ. I've heard this stuff pedalled for decades. I once had to do a project on baptism and membership of a very large and significant cathedral that had a major restoration in the mid to late 1800's. A congregational survey indicated that every last member believed that the congregation was considerably smaller than when the restoration occurred. Some even gave anecdotal evidence of their grandparents (and of them speaking of their parents and grandparents) sitting in church full to the brim every Sunday. I had access to the baptismal records and attendance records. Attendance records were pretty grim reading - year after year both on Christmas Day and Easter Day was the simple written entry 'no congregation'. The baptismal records indicated that in the first two decades from the point of restoration there were a total of four baptisms. In the current cathedral baptismal records there are anywhere between 15 and 25 baptisms each year. When you do things like this and then have to listen for a couple of decades about how the church is not expanding and how its influence is waning and there aren't enough men in church it does jar a little. Now I know that what is found in one cathedral cannot be extrapolated to an entire denomination, but I suspect the church does tend to concentrate on the negative aspect of things and will rarely give itself credit when it has done something well. That may or may not be linked to a religious and spiritual culture, but I'm sure there are others factors too.
All said, if it is an issue for any given church that they find themselves with a congregation where 75%+ of its membership is female then it might ask itself questions and choose to tackle it while looking at the area it is in the social factors and all other things related to it, and then act in a way they see appropriate. But to get back to the point of this whole thread; I don't see how what was outlined in the linked page to the Diocese of Oxford could have in any way been successful. Regardless of race, age, social status or educational background, I strongly suspect that most men would look at that and laugh and be able to spot the pathetic desperation that lies behind it.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Marvin:
quote:
I'd also want to know if the 43%/57% split includes children or is only based on adults in attendance.
Yes it did include children. It examined a host of other aspects too including age profile.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
From the proliferation of links, preserve us, gracious Lord
From the ire of tetchy Hellhosts, preserve them in Your mercy
Amen, amen. Even an AS host would be tetchy.
Yeah, but I was asked to back up comments I'd made. I've also been accused here of making 'sweeping statements' without any evidence.
The other solution would be for me not to get involved in these topics. I agree this might be for the best.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
From the proliferation of links, preserve us, gracious Lord
From the ire of tetchy Hellhosts, preserve them in Your mercy
Amen, amen. Even an AS host would be tetchy.
Yeah, but I was asked to back up comments I'd made. I've also been accused here of making 'sweeping statements' without any evidence.
The other solution would be for me not to get involved in these topics. I agree this might be for the best.
Posts and links are one thing but a long post with lots of links reads like an academic paper.
In Purg and its equivalents that may be acceptable but in Hell, where one paints a target on oneself by posting at all, a longer post with more links just puts a laser designator on that target.
Don't be discouraged, but don't be surprised either.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Oh, piffle. You young hosts have no links to curse about. I once had the misfortune to have to verify a post containing a poem where every word was linked to something. And several were faulty. And all this before tea in the morning. I still have nightmares, but I wake up relieved that that person is no longer posting.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Did you not go the extra mile and relink each of those to a kitten? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
1. Are you sure it is page four? I can't see anything relevant there.
.
Page 4 is particularly relevant. It says that: quote:
a higher proportion of women in the congregation is associated with decline rather than growth.
You go on to say:
quote:
4. Mr Low cites what looks to be an interesting article, but his conclusions are quite a jump. I would strongly suspect he has an agenda to pedal and is doing so quite consciously. Without the original article it's a bit meaningless.
Mr Low obviously has an agenda, but I don't think that drawing your attention to this research was a meaningless thing to do. I included it as proof that some work has been done, and that in at least one context the influence of fathers appears to be significant to faith, and hence to church health.
quote:
5. That is very interesting, but again not exactly relevant to a correlation between a higher presence of women in church leading to church decline. I suppose you could argue that it might do in the longer term, but this would also suppose that a father not in church is not providing any religious instruction or encouragement to his children and has no religious affiliation. It strikes me that would be rather difficult to ascertain.
Some texts suggest that at some points in the British past, men were quite happy to send their wives and children to church on their behalf, so in that sense there is a normative 'family religion' being passed down with the consent of fathers. However, we're talking here about church involvement, not just about a faith of some kind, nurtured privately. Children are obviously limited in how much freedom they have, but as they get older, they're less easily taken in by 'do as I say, not as I do', with regards to going to church or anything else. In the contemporary Western situation, the impact of the father's possible non-involvement is also likely to be reinforced by the broader processes of secularisation in our society, and general ageing in the church. In combination, church decline would be likely. (More research needed, as I originally said.)
quote:
There's also a slight problem with theories of this nature applied in a universal sense (even if only the 'West' in this case) on what is essentially data that is a snapshot in time. For instance, if this were universally true (or even true to a particular geographical area) then we as Christians we would have all packed our bags and shut the doors somewhere around 1180 AD. I get the separate sphere stuff though and it would be interesting if there a correlation between this and Victorian notions of defined gender roles followed by WW! and WW2 and its results. I strongly suspect there is a correlation which might then point to something quite different and far more complex.
[...]
I began my previous post by stating that church decline is a complex issue! By no means do I think that 'feminisation' is the core issue in church decline. TBH, I've been more interested in the clergy/laity divide. But I think all these things overlap; some people think, for example, that greater lay engagement in decision-making helps to make churches more equally balanced in terms of gender, makes people feel that they belong, keeps people from dropping out, and prevents the creation of a lopsided and unappealing congregation to outsiders. Other factors also come into play.
You claim that things like 'feminization theory' imply that the church should by rights have shut up shop centuries ago. I'm not sure about that. AFAIK this theory doesn't propose that masculinity has never had any impact on church culture, or that men have never entered the church in considerable numbers, under certain conditions.
quote:
I've heard this stuff pedalled [in ordinary, MOTR, traditional churches] for decades.
[...] I suspect the church does tend to concentrate on the negative aspect of things and will rarely give itself credit when it has done something well.
Both of these comments are more likely to be truer of the CofE than the Methodist Church, I would say.
I agree with your closing points that the Oxford vicar's changes probably wouldn't be very effective in themselves. Broadening a church demographic takes serious work, unless your church is already blessed with favourable circumstances.
(No more long posts from me on this topic. Hurrah! I think we've been heavily influenced by our personal experiences here, which is understandable. I accept and appreciate your experience of a balanced, healthy church.)
[ 15. December 2015, 12:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
I accept and appreciate your experience of a balanced, healthy church.
Lol, I'm not sure I would label it as that - it's just different.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
George Gallup of the respected polling group also believes that 'the presence of a significant number of men is often a clear indicator of spiritual health in congregations'.
Interesting that the article gives no further exposition about how they define or measure "spiritual health". It's one thing for a polling organization to offer raw stats-- e.g. something like congregations with a higher portion of men are less likely to close in the next 24 months, or less likely to suffer budget deficits, or some other objective measurable data. It seems rather presumptuous for a polling organization to make a statement, though about spiritual health, especially with no clear definition or explication of how that was measured. It seems to me to indicate some innate bias (probably that size = health).
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Had a look again at your first link and found the brief sentence you were referring to. I was looking at the pdf page numbers rather than the documents; apologies. It's a shame they don't expand on it or provide the phrasing of the question for that portion of data, but the collection of data is highly subjective in that it is a collection of mere opinion; i.e. do you strongly agree, strongly disagree (or somewhere in between) with such and such a statement. It also has some very strange things, like associating the use of drums between 2000 and 2009 with church congregational growth! The conclusions are fairly standard and I doubt anyone would argue with them, namely that churches who have families with children have a higher likelihood of growth and churches that have had conflict might suffer decline.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
It also has some very strange things, like associating the use of drums between 2000 and 2009 with church congregational growth!
I'll bite here - although this looks ridiculous posed as a piece of raw causation (buy a drum, grow your church), as a correlation it's interesting. If I were looking for an elegant survey metric in the area of church music against which I hoped to run some stats and find links with something else (like growth, or the prevalence of noise-induced hearing-loss ) the presence of drums might be a nice single handle which would avoid introducing 15 dimensions of different hymn book into my ANOVA
And Svitlana - I think your analysis is cogent in a Methodist context, FWIW. Of course it's not only that Dad is not in church - Mum is at work, no-one is running (or attending) the bring-and-buy sale, and the kids are on the web rather than playing snooker at a MAYC club. Our congregational model ran a long time, but my generation (I'm 44) dropped the ball.
[ 15. December 2015, 20:52: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
George Gallup of the respected polling group also believes that 'the presence of a significant number of men is often a clear indicator of spiritual health in congregations'.
Interesting that the article gives no further exposition about how they define or measure "spiritual health". It's one thing for a polling organization to offer raw stats-- e.g. something like congregations with a higher portion of men are less likely to close in the next 24 months, or less likely to suffer budget deficits, or some other objective measurable data. It seems rather presumptuous for a polling organization to make a statement, though about spiritual health, especially with no clear definition or explication of how that was measured. It seems to me to indicate some innate bias (probably that size = health).
Agreed. I suspect that the main problem with churches with a high proportion of women is that they are poorly resourced. Women (statistically) earn less than men hence there'll be less money in the plate, there's no money to buy drum kits or to pay for campaigns, hospitality, top notch ministers etc. In a household, if both parents attend church I bet there'll be far more financial contribution than if the wife alone attends. Of course it's not de rigeur to say we need more men because they'll be able to contribute more financially so we prevaricate around issues such as "feminisation" being off-putting to men.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It brings to mind Mars Hill-- Mark Driscoll's former church (I hate identifying churches by their pastor's name, but in this case it fits). Mars Hills famously met all those markers to reach out to men, and as a result, had a much higher-than-average proportion of male members. And it had all those "successful" markers-- it had a large attendance, big budget, was able to plant "daughter" churches (or should I say "son" churches?) etc etc. Yet as things devolved over the last couple years, it became quite clear that, even at the height of it's popularity, Mars Hill was anything but spiritually healthy.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't think Mars Hill is the model that anyone is aiming for, though! For a start, AFAIUI, Driscoll's goal was not just to get men through the door; he also had a specific theology to promote. Not everyone who wants to attract more men to church will share this theology.
Although perhaps some might argue that getting too many laymen into your pews is only going to turn the church into a fundie hellhole. That doesn't say much for men, does it?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Mars Hill is the model that anyone is aiming for, though! For a start, AFAIUI, Driscoll's goal was not just to get men through the door; he also had a specific theology to promote. Not everyone who wants to attract more men to church will share this theology.
Sadly, being an American evangelical, I think I'm closer to the action than you and have better intel. Driscoll's explicit, stated goal was in fact to get more men in the door. And Mars Hill was, until far too recently, very much a model that many were aiming for-- which is why Driscoll was able to build his "Acts 29" empire of cookie-cutter churches following his (misogynistic) model. And the beast isn't dead yet: Driscoll is starting a new church in (of course) Phoenix.
Sure, now that the whole thing has gone up in flames, everyone's going to conveniently claim, "oh I would never have elevated that as a model!" but the fact is Driscoll was selling books and getting booked as the "expert" on church growth in conferences up until the very end. Mars Hill is precisely what this "man-friendly" churches look like.
It's all part & parcel of the homogenous unit principle which is part and parcel of the Church Growth Movement that gave us (American evangelicals) large megachurches like Mars Hill). It has already been demostrated that HUP (targeting single demographic groups in the interests of growth) led to mono-ethnic churches that reinforce cultural stereotypes and even racism (something Hybels and Warren have explicitly, if belatedly, apologized for-- unlike Driscoll). I think the trajectory of Mars Hill demonstrates well that applying HUP to gender has the same ugly outcome that applying it to race & culture did.
Which is perhaps why we have Eph. 2.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Your 'intel' about the USA is surely better than mine, yes.
I suppose there's one good thing; if everyone is trying to distance themselves from Driscoll now, then his new church is likely to be a failure. Although it might attract... a few old ladies?? (There's homogeneity for you.)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Oh, would that were true. But sadly, I fear you greatly overestimate my fellow evangelicals. We love a good conversion story, and I'm sure Markie boy will play it to the hilt before rolling out the same exact game plan that worked so well in Seattle (and by "well" I mean "profitably"-- not "spiritually healthy." Yes, Gallup, I'm looking at you).
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
cliffdweller: quote:
It seems rather presumptuous for a polling organization to make a statement about spiritual health, especially with no clear definition or explication of how that was measured. It seems to me to indicate some innate bias (probably that size = health).
Or that women are incapable of achieving a state of spiritual health without the guidance of men. That sounds like complementarianism to me.
We have just enjoyed a man-friendly Christmas in our household, featuring Midnight Mass with Other Half doing his favourite job of thurifer, dinner cooked by him and 00 gauge trainset all over the floor.
It was a woman-friendly Christmas as well; I had lots of spare time for reading my new books and didn't have to peel the sprouts (I did the washing-up instead, but you can't have everything).
And neither of us went to the sales!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
...I'm imagining your Other Half thurifering, cooking, and playing with the train all at the same time!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0