Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

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

---

This.

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

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

---

This.

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

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

---

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

etc

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

The Salvation Army has had them since 1860

Female Ministry - a Woman's Right to Preach

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

for the sake of peddling it to alpha males

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

for the sake of peddling it to alpha males

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lep:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

At football matches? All of them!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

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

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

---

Oh, everything's about gender politics, really.
No, not really, I'm only kidding.

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

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

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

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

<snip>

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

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

<snip>

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What has Islam got that Christianity hasn't ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---