homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » a 'man-friendly Christmas' (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: a 'man-friendly Christmas'
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

 - Posted      Profile for anoesis   Email anoesis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is such a thing as active listening.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do I have to say it a third time?!

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with 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.

I'll see how it goes.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Svitlana makes sweeping statements about churches without backing them up. In other news, film at 11.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69

 - Posted      Profile for Rev per Minute   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor

At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken

Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894

 - Posted      Profile for Ariston   Author's homepage   Email Ariston   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the proliferation of links, preserve us, gracious Lord
From the ire of tetchy Hellhosts, preserve them in Your mercy


--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.

Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927

 - Posted      Profile for Lothlorien   Email Lothlorien   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.

Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools