Thread: .....because the church needs more misogyny. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029590
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Is this a joke?
Man tips!
Part of me really hopes it is a joke, even if it's a really bad one.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well, of course some of the advice for services where you want to enable a contact with visitors after the service is entirely appropriate. Short, relevant sermon, keep the service within the advertised length, use well known and singable carols (or other hymns at other occasions), focus on the ministry of Christ. Of course, none of those are gender specific.
The rest of the suggestions? Bin them.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is this a joke?
Man tips!
Part of me really hopes it is a joke, even if it's a really bad one.
Seems to me entirely good advice. This is a valid and serious issue. The accusation of mysogyny is entirely misplaced.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
Hmm, macho Jesus. I wonder if there are any contradictions there...
quote:
Finally, Jesus said to his disciples: “I will make you fishers of men.”
Not in my translation. He said something about catching people if I recall...
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is a valid and serious issue. The accusation of mysogyny is entirely misplaced.
Yes, I have to agree. The whole point is to attract men specifically, not women and children (who are already there in droves), as permanent churchgoers.
Most parents labor under the mistaken notion that other people are as interested in their children as they are. A Christmas eve service featuring photogenic cherubs will guarantee that first-time male visitors won't return. As will playing a video clip -- the vicar is mistaken in thinking that church should be a multi-media event.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Ditch 7 & 8. The events promoted at 6 might be dire too. Otherwise it looks good for any service.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
The problem with this as with much 'ministry to men' is it runs with a stereotypical view of men and also comes dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy.
Why not go for the truly Biblical approach which is that the Gospel is for all? So have men and women appear at the front of church leading things and use a variety of images for God - as the Bible does.
The misquote of Jesus is heinous and should not have got past the diocesan editors.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The misquote of Jesus is heinous and should not have got past the diocesan editors.
do you mean misquote or partial use of the quote in support of what Jesus didn't mean?
I'd go along with saying "he said men but didn't mean just men" but the quote "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" is straight out of the Authorised Version.
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The problem with this as with much 'ministry to men' is it runs with a stereotypical view of men and also comes dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy.
This!
If someone posted an article about attracting young women to a church service which said "Use analogies which involve make up and pretty clothes to capture their attention", many people would be outraged. We should thus be equally outraged, on behalf of men everywhere, at advice that one needs to "Play a video clip from an action film". The article isn't misogynist, but it is sexist, and in places it is men who are the victims of that sexism.
Best wishes,
Rachel.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I wonder what action films he has in mind? Given the large number of young children at the Christmas Eve service, it would have to be a child-friendly clip from an action film.
Also, wouldn't this be an example of bait and switch? Come to church! We show clips from action films! Er, except that we don't, usually.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The problem with this as with much 'ministry to men' is it runs with a stereotypical view of men and also comes dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy.
Why not go for the truly Biblical approach which is that the Gospel is for all?
So don't you want any 'stereotypical' men in the church, then?
The irony is that although we claim that the gospel is 'for all', most churchgoers are women. We complain about patriarchy in the church, but in ordinary mainstream churches only the men at the top of the hierarchy seem to benefit from this. It's rather like polygamy; only the alpha males benefit. Other males are expendable!
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
How are "stereotypical" men excluded by a church that views men as complicated human beings? I am pretty sure my husband would be less than impressed by a clip of an action movie in church generally. I imagine'd be even less impressed by the view that he's a flighty creature who can only be caught by things like action and shows of strength. (I'd ask him but he's taking our son to school.) How is it excluding men to avoid pigeon holing them?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The article makes a lot of sense.
Men are greatly outnumbered by women in churches because the type of worship and preaching usually offered appeals more to women.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
The problem with this as with much 'ministry to men' is it runs with a stereotypical view of men and also comes dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy.
Why not go for the truly Biblical approach which is that the Gospel is for all?
So don't you want any 'stereotypical' men in the church, then?
The irony is that although we claim that the gospel is 'for all', most churchgoers are women. We complain about patriarchy in the church, but in ordinary mainstream churches only the men at the top of the hierarchy seem to benefit from this. It's rather like polygamy; only the alpha males benefit. Other males are expendable!
Are you saying alpha males aren't stereotypical males?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gwai
I think the point is that churches unconsciously do things that only appeal to a particular kind of personality.
Men obviously come in various types, as do women, but most churches clearly do poorly when it comes to attracting men who have a particular understanding of masculinity. (Of course, it could be argued that they find it difficult to deal with broad understandings and experiences of femininity too.)
Whether it's possible for a single church to appeal to the whole range of personality types and understandings of masculinity and femininity is a good question. But the consistently lower numbers of men in church suggests that there is an issue here that seriously needs to be addressed. This vicar may not be addressing it as everyone would choose, but he's trying.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you saying alpha males aren't stereotypical males?
Most men aren't alpha males, but it would seem that a great many of them would stereotypically like to be alpha males. In that sense, a church that discourages those inclinations rather than working with them in some way is likely to be at a disadvantage.
It has been said that alpha males are very much underrepresented in church congregations.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Charles Read:
quote:
The problem with this as with much 'ministry to men' is it runs with a stereotypical view of men and also comes dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy.
I think it's more than just a stereotype; it's actually in the realm of self parody, even if it be unwitting. Makes for very humorous reading though.
I would also say it doesn't run dangerously close to lapsing into patriarchy; it is patriarchy. We've had almost two thousand years of ministry by men to men. It seems to me most clergy are still male regardless of denomination. Most vestry members, session members, panels, parish councils etc tend to be men. Most of the stuff we sing was written by men and the liturgy tends to be constructed by men. We've made the women do the sowing circles, prayer groups, bun fights and flower arranging. There may be a statistic that suggests that currently more women are actually 'in' church on any given Sunday morning, but as a man who will freely admit that even outside of church I live in a man's world that tends to largely pander to me and my needs, the fact (or otherwise) that there are more women in church doesn't actually threaten my hairy chested arse scratching manliness to the extent that I require a 'special' ministry to me that involves such profundity as Jesus the superhero, movie clips of fight scenes and sermon illustrations with boxing.
I genuinely thought this whole thing was a bit of a wind up, but now I'm wondering if the world and the church is actually in a far worse state than I originally thought. I'm so confused that I will have to build a man cave for myself, grow a beard and swill beer through it while watching Jeremy Clarkson.
[ 02. December 2015, 14:14: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
We've had almost two thousand years of ministry by men to men. It seems to me most clergy are still male regardless of denomination. Most vestry members, session members, panels, parish councils etc tend to be men. Most of the stuff we sing was written by men and the liturgy tends to be constructed by men. We've made the women do the sowing circles, prayer groups, bun fights and flower arranging. There may be a statistic that suggests that currently more women are actually 'in' church on any given Sunday morning, but as a man who will freely admit that even outside of church I live in a man's world that tends to largely pander to me and my needs, the fact (or otherwise) that there are more women in church doesn't actually threaten my hairy chested arse scratching manliness to the extent that I require a 'special' ministry to me that involves such profundity as Jesus the superhero, movie clips of fight scenes and sermon illustrations with boxing.
But if the church didn't have men doing all this stuff in the church it's possible that there'd be even fewer of them turning up. This has been given as a reason as to why women in some churches tolerate a largely (or exclusively) male ordained ministry or theological culture.
As responses on the Ship indicate, one problem with focusing on 'stereotypical' physical aspects of masculinity as the vicar has is that it may alienate the mostly middle class white collar men who attend church these days. That could be counterproductive.
[ 02. December 2015, 14:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
This isn't the only place on t'internet that people have been giving this article a kicking. And what do you know, the article has been taken down...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What an overreaction.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I can't access the article (I get "page not found" even when I searched the site for "ten tips for a man friendly")
When I was a kid in TEC only males could do anything active in church - clergy, usher, a few years earlier only men and boys could be in choir. Did a higher proportion of men attend because they had specific place, purpose? Or just because it was socially required to go to church to be thought a good person?
When women became active in those roles, did that affect male interest? If so, why?
Where I live, the switch to lovey-dovey songs lyrics came after the men started staying home Sunday mornings, so I don't know that choice of music/prayers/sermon topics is a cause.
One man friend quietly stopped coming a few months after he quit leading the kids choir; he's formed a kids choir outside the church and throws his energy into that. Another has recently gotten involved in little theater instead of church. A third does volunteer reading books recorded for the blind Sunday mornings, another does trash pickup along a nature trail Sunday mornings, when it's quiet on the trail.
The men I know aren't dropping out to be passive but to be more happily and productively active than they find in church.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Well, their director of communications is a woman ...
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
This response is interesting and quotes each of the suggestions in the original article (in brief) so it can give people an idea of what the original suggested.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is a distinct trend, observable over many fields and careers over the ages, that lowers the status of any job or calling the moment women predominate in it. Nursing is a good example, or knitting -- there was a time when knitting stockings was solely a male activity, beyond the feeble female intellect.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the point is that churches unconsciously do things that only appeal to a particular kind of personality.
Definitely agreed, but I don't think that has much to do with gender. I find whole kinds of ways of doing church very off putting, and I find they make assumptions about me that really bother me, so I get why this is objectionable. But as you will have guessed, I am not male, so I don't think this is a gendered issue.
Men obviously come in various types, as do women, but most churches clearly do poorly when it comes to attracting men who have a particular understanding of masculinity. (Of course, it could be argued that they find it difficult to deal with broad understandings and experiences of femininity too.)
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Whether it's possible for a single church to appeal to the whole range of personality types and understandings of masculinity and femininity is a good question. But the consistently lower numbers of men in church suggests that there is an issue here that seriously needs to be addressed. This vicar may not be addressing it as everyone would choose, but he's trying.
He is trying, and trying is good, but he's making a host of assumptions that I think are likely to make the problem worse. As someone noted in the comments on the response I posted above, it's not at all clear that the more "feminine" theory of church isn't a response to men leaving. (I don't see church as a feminized place at all, but be that as it may.)
Men have been dropping out of the job market too, at least in this country, so I suspect the issue isn't related to men and the church, but more men and society. I think we have been teaching boys and men how to lead, but have not been teaching boys and men how to cope with hard times. Because of patriarchy, we have been teaching girls and women how to cope with hard times. So when things like job loss and other depressing hard things happen, girls and women are less likely to drop out of society.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I can't access the article (I get "page not found" even when I searched the site for "ten tips for a man friendly")
When I was a kid in TEC only males could do anything active in church - clergy, usher, a few years earlier only men and boys could be in choir. Did a higher proportion of men attend because they had specific place, purpose? Or just because it was socially required to go to church to be thought a good person?
When women became active in those roles, did that affect male interest? If so, why?
Where I live, the switch to lovey-dovey songs lyrics came after the men started staying home Sunday mornings, so I don't know that choice of music/prayers/sermon topics is a cause.
One man friend quietly stopped coming a few months after he quit leading the kids choir; he's formed a kids choir outside the church and throws his energy into that. Another has recently gotten involved in little theater instead of church. A third does volunteer reading books recorded for the blind Sunday mornings, another does trash pickup along a nature trail Sunday mornings, when it's quiet on the trail.
The men I know aren't dropping out to be passive but to be more happily and productively active than they find in church.
IIRC it wasn't really talking about those who have dropped out. It was talking about those who never come except when they're dragooned into it at Christmas - and this is the one chance to talk to them.
Many have of course raised the perfectly reasonable point that it's also a chance to talk to all sort of people that only come then, not just men. But I suppose the point needs to be made (as I did on the concurrent Hell thread) that it was written by the "Diocesan Missioner (Unreached Men)."
You could argue about whether a diocese needs such a person. But if you're going to have one, and Oxford has clearly decided that it is, then surely it's to be expected that they write articles focused on reaching unreached men during services?
Whether the content is up to much is a different question admittedly, but I'd reiterate that I think there's something in the diagnosis even if not the remedy (and my experience of the non-churched rather than the unchurched is that some of my acquaintance do think it's "something for women/old ladies/children apart from the man in the dress" (CLEARLY I don't agree with them)) and I think it's good of Oxford to have a go.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
The link does not work.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I think it also depends on what you think evangelism is.
We we talking Saddleback or Willow Creek here?
Based on what I picked up in seminary, the Saddelback approach is to use statistical research to figure out a target demographic, build a reasonable scarecrow of a typical member of that demographic, and market to it very aggressively.
Willow Creek, so the story goes, goes door to door talking to people, figuring out what they want, and providing it. I think the emphasis in that case is less on using a simple model as making a mix of things that people say they like.
The two are similar, but I think it's an important nuance.
I think the list is going on a Saddleback model, though I wonder what, if any, actual research went into his list.
I'd also like to see, at least, anecdotal evidence of results before putting weight on or behind any of these "suggestions."
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
This isn't the only place on t'internet that people have been giving this article a kicking. And what do you know, the article has been taken down...
Aha, explains why I got a "page not found."
I found it via Google's cache.
Not a bad article. I agree with "use masculine imagery" - not exclusively, but Christmas often seems overly feminine and child oriented in spite of the fact that by far most characters in the story are adult males. Maybe the author should have worded it "recognize the masculinity in the story." It's not all about a sweet Mom and a cute baby.
Similarly with the rest, I don't get the sense he meant "cut out the women" but rather "stop cutting out the men." In announcements be sure to announce "male" interest upcoming events as well as the usual female interest events (the repair a poor person's house work project as well as the pot luck to sign up what dish you'll bring - and don't address either of these specifically to "men" or "women" as if the other gender isn't welcome.)
The point being you have this one Sunday to dangle a few enticing reasons people might want to come back, don't waste that opportunity.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
This response is interesting and quotes each of the suggestions in the original article (in brief) so it can give people an idea of what the original suggested.
The comments are interesting, too.
Brenda's point about the lowering of the status of a job when women come to predominate in it could be read alongside the point in the blog about research showing that when there are women present performing a task, while still in the minority, the situation can be seen as being over-run with women. (I remember some similar research about conversations in mixed groups, comparing comments from participants with actual recordings. Women might contribute only a little, but be perceived as interrupting and talking too much by the men.)
What about emphasising the shepherds, who were outsiders in society, despite the many skills and the knowledge they needed? Quite recently in this country, a shepherd would be buried with a wisp of wool in his hands so he would not be judged for having missed church services.
[ 02. December 2015, 15:52: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you saying alpha males aren't stereotypical males?
Most men aren't alpha males, but it would seem that a great many of them would stereotypically like to be alpha males. In that sense, a church that discourages those inclinations rather than working with them in some way is likely to be at a disadvantage.
It has been said that alpha males are very much underrepresented in church congregations.
Most men will never be alpha males, alpha males represent a very small percentage of the population and have through recorded history and what can be inferred by study of prehistoric humans. We are not wolves anyway.
The problem, ISTM, is not your churches, but the societies they live in.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
But if the church didn't have men doing all this stuff in the church it's possible that there'd be even fewer of them turning up. This has been given as a reason as to why women in some churches tolerate a largely (or exclusively) male ordained ministry or theological culture.
I'm not sure where to even begin unpacking this. Has the church in the Diocese of Oxford become so gender defined that it is actually effecting men's sense of manliness? Sometimes it's when these things are put into words that it highlights how daft it really is - I can't quite believe I posited that question on this forum. Quite apart from anything else if the Gospel as taught in any given church in Oxford cannot be easily distinguished from the Christmas wrapping whatever faction or lobby wants to cover it in, then surely we have already lost the plot entirely.
quote:
As responses on the Ship indicate, one problem with focusing on 'stereotypical' physical aspects of masculinity as the vicar has is that it may alienate the mostly middle class white collar men who attend church these days. That could be counterproductive.
I have no notion whatsoever in my head why it should all boil down to middle class white men in church. Is this just a statement of fact based on a poll somewhere?
Overall the Gospel will never actually be popular or fashionable. I can never see the point in pretending that it is.
Edited to add:
And what on earth is an alpha male? I mean, what is it really - preferable in a recognised scientific, sociological sense and not some frustrated male who feels emasculated by all this 'wimmens stuff' everywhere? Most of the people presented as 'alpha male' look to me to be either pathetic and looking to create a front to their crumbling interior life, or some kind of sociopath.
[ 02. December 2015, 16:23: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
As someone noted in the comments on the response I posted above, it's not at all clear that the more "feminine" theory of church isn't a response to men leaving. (I don't see church as a feminized place at all, but be that as it may.)
Men have been dropping out of the job market too, at least in this country, so I suspect the issue isn't related to men and the church, but more men and society.
True, it may not be the case that feminisation has caused men to leave the church. It's probably more complex than that - but we're still left with a church where men are in the minority.
It may be that women have always been relatively quite active in the church. It's noticeable how many women get involved in the early church in the NT, when compared with women's contribution to the religious life in the OT. Women in the NT weren't socially free to become too involved in Jesus's wandering evangelistic life, but as the religion became more settled they had more to offer. This has also been true in more recent times; men often participate enthusiastically in the founding of churches and church movements, but then the contribution of women becomes more prominent
as routinisation occurs.
As I said in the related thread in hell, Christianity may be a feminising religion with regard to our constructs of femininity and masculinity. We may preach that everyone should be a servant, should deny self, should live a life in submission to God, should turn the other cheek; but in human culture, in our existence as mammals in a hostile world, these are not normally considered to be useful, desirable masculine ways of being.
If we absolutely want to defy and subvert these culturally defined ways of being masculine then we need to be absolutely open and clear about it. But I agree with you and lilBuddha that our culture is currently confused about how our ideas about masculinity should change.
Middle class mainstream churchgoers are also confused, wanting to welcome the poor and working classes, yet sensing that stereotypical working class male culture and the stereotypical masculinity of poor (and frequently unemployed) men is potentially unsuitable for the caring, sharing church environment. Some would like the church to claim these people in other to reform them, but it's hard to see how mainstream church culture, marginal and genteel as it is, is going to have much success with that.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Most of the people presented as 'alpha male' look to me to be either pathetic and looking to create a front to their crumbling interior life, or some kind of sociopath.
Without being flippant, aren't they basically the sort of people then that might benefit from a bit of church outreach (at least the former)? Or are we not interested in things that might appeal to those who are pathetic and looking to create a front to their crumbling interior life?
Possibly even by showing them they don't need to create a front and aren't pathetic?
First though, you've got to speak to them, get a hearing, which (however badly expressed) was kind of the point of the article...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Middle class mainstream churchgoers are also confused, wanting to welcome the poor and working classes, yet sensing that stereotypical working class male culture and the stereotypical masculinity of poor (and frequently unemployed) men is potentially unsuitable for the caring, sharing church environment. Some would like the church to claim these people in other to reform them
Am I reading this right? Is there an underlying notion that working class males might largely be apes?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I am continually reminded of the parallels between the Labour Party and the Church (specifically, Church of England, but in this case I think it is wider). The Oldham West by-election tomorrow is, allegedly, touch-and-go because the predominantly (white) working-class who always voted Labour in the past have been alienated by the metropolitan (and metrosexual?) Labour of today: whether in its right-wing New Labour incarnation or its Corbynite left-wing version (as someone has said, they are two sides of the same Islington coin). I suspect there is enough truth in this analysis to make the result far from a foregone conclusion.
For much, much longer, white working class people and especially men have been largely estranged from the church. But whether it is HTB-style charismatic evangelicalism, or 'radical' liberalism, new movements appeal even more to university-educated middle-class people and probably make working-class folk ill at ease. 'Inclusive Church' is good at including LGBTs but less confident with other groups, especially ethnic minorities or the unemployed.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Without being flippant, aren't they basically the sort of people then that might benefit from a bit of church outreach (at least the former)? Or are we not interested in things that might appeal to those who are pathetic and looking to create a front to their crumbling interior life?
Possibly even by showing them they don't need to create a front and aren't pathetic?
First though, you've got to speak to them, get a hearing, which (however badly expressed) was kind of the point of the article...
Yes, absolutely. But I'll shy away from creating a Gospel in their image, and really, which one of us isn't pathetic with a crumbling interior life, putting on fronts for others and projected images of what we would like people to see and occasionally taking a little trip into the world of the sociopath, fortunately or unfortunately with all the grace of a two year old holding an epic tantrum? But I think the Gospel is like that and has a keen tendency to strip away all our crap and the great news is it does it for everyone. Problem is, not everyone wants to hear that and no amount of twisting it around to package it up to look 'manly' is going to change it.
[ 02. December 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Has the church in the Diocese of Oxford become so gender defined that it is actually effecting men's sense of manliness?
It's probably more the case that the men aren't around in order to be affected.
quote:
I have no notion whatsoever in my head why it should all boil down to middle class white men in church. Is this just a statement of fact based on a poll somewhere?
Overall the Gospel will never actually be popular or fashionable. I can never see the point in pretending that it is.
I'm not making 'statements of fact', nor 'boil[ing] down' the issues to one single thing, , but studies do show that churchgoers tend to be of a higher social status than the population at large. CofE vicars will mostly be from middle class backgrounds as well. Which means that if a vicar is talking about attracting men with videos of boxing, etc., he's probably not talking about men like himself or like most of his congregation!
It's not news that most church folk want church life to be familiar. They want to be friendly to outsiders, but they don't really want things to change significantly in order to get people through the doors. So it seems obvious that too much 'pandering' to men who like boxing is going to be threatening to the middle class folk who are already there.
quote:
And what on earth is an alpha male? I mean, what is it really - preferable in a recognised scientific, sociological sense and not some frustrated male who feels emasculated by all this 'wimmens stuff' everywhere? Most of the people presented as 'alpha male' look to me to be either pathetic and looking to create a front to their crumbling interior life, or some kind of sociopath.
I could go and find an acceptable sociological definition of the term, but so could you. I'm not sure if it really matters. The point is, they're not in church. But to be fair, neither are the 'sociopaths' or men with a 'crumbling interior life'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
Middle class mainstream churchgoers are also confused, wanting to welcome the poor and working classes, yet sensing that stereotypical working class male culture and the stereotypical masculinity of poor (and frequently unemployed) men is potentially unsuitable for the caring, sharing church environment. Some would like the church to claim these people in other to reform them
Am I reading this right? Is there an underlying notion that working class males might largely be apes?
No, you're not reading it right.
I'm not reading you right either, I suspect. On the one hand you don't think churches should pander to potential male visitors who don't behave as you deem proper, but on the other, you don't think the church should make any effort to reach out to them so they can be transformed by the gospel.
So what are you saying? That the church should just carry on as usual and simply ignore these people?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
I could go and find an acceptable sociological definition of the term, but so could you.
The point is I've never found one. Google will turn up pages and pages of stuff from ever so reliable websites that range from totally opposing definitions to papers suggesting it's a whole crock of nonsense that belongs in the self help section.
quote:
No, you're not reading it right.
Well, can you let me know how to read it right?
[ 02. December 2015, 16:54: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I found myself remembering a Rogationtide sermon in the village church some time ago, in which the vicar (sorry, Rector) mused about the procession Beating the Bounds with the choirboys, observed by the labourers in the fields. And I sat there and mused about where those labourers would have been of a Sunday, down at the chapel (or one of the chapels, since each of them would have one they didn't go to, along with the parish church) taking note of the long and convoluted sermon so that they could take up the minister on their way out on something they thought he had wrong. (One branch of my mother's family put up their own tin chapel.) I think the class thing has been more complicated in the past. But the Rector hadn't an inkling about that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Fletcher Christian
You're the one who's implying that men who don't behave in the approved fashion should be abandoned by the church. This doesn't mean that such men are 'apes'.
Working class men are not 'apes'. They may be great guys. But they may well have attitudes or interests that nice, middle class, caring, sharing Christian men won't like or relate to. The question is whether the church should do anything about this chasm. Your answer to this question seems to be no.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I know the speciality of the CofE often seems to be either stating the bleedin' obvious or putting the collective foot in the mouth, but ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.
Preaching advice is nonsense: the fact is that if you haven't got the kernel of your message over in 5 minutes you're wasting your time. And point 5 (suggesting a sermon about a martyr) is going to go down a storm at Christmas, especially since it is going to be completely at variance with the readings.
Points 2 to 4 are just bizarre. First, a service length is bound to be variable if it depends on the number of communicants. Second, are we really going to have sidespeople saying to women and children "Sorry, you can't sit in the front pew, its reserved for the men" - I can see that going down a storm, especially at something like a Christmas service with a nativity tableau. As for the "familiar" carols - its highly unlikely that the trad carols will be unfamiliar, and the key for the music is likely to be suitable for all. Dare I suggest that many clergy won't be too helpful when it comes to decisions on tessitura.
Points 6 and 7 are too stupid for words.
I can see a certain frisson being possible if one adopts Point 8 and shows a clip from, say, one of the Die Hard films - but is the sight of Bruce Willis, bloodstained and in a filthy vest really the overriding message we want people to take from a Christmas service?
Whoever thought that promoting a service series on Christmas Eve would be a good idea either has no experience of the average Christmas Eve service or is a fifth columnist from some other organisation (Richard Dawkins' militant atheists perhaps?) tying to sabotage the little goodwill that the general population shows towards the CofE at Christmas.
As for presenting Christ the Man at Christmas - difficult when the whole thing is about marking and celebrating his arrival as an infant.
Yes, I too would hope that the whole thing was put up as a joke, but I suspect this has been dreamt up by some cleric with "gifts" for "communication". Its enough to make the (soon to be born) Baby Jesus not only weep but gnash his gums with rage.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
I'm not reading you right either, I suspect. On the one hand you don't think churches should pander to potential male visitors who don't behave as you deem proper, but on the other, you don't think the church should make any effort to reach out to them so they can be transformed by the gospel.
So what are you saying? That the church should just carry on as usual and simply ignore these people?
No, you not reading me right.
I see the church as there for everyone - period. I don't think this is a difficult concept to grasp. If you are male or female, Gentile or Jew......I've heard this before somewhere but he said it much better. The point I was making was that the article seemed a wind up. It dealt in the most outrageous stereotypes of men (and inversely, of women) that were really just laughable until you realise that it was a 'serious' article on a diocesan website no less, that is actually kind of insulting regardless of your socio-economic and educational background.
I dunno maybe I've been reading my Gospels all wrong. Maybe Jesus preached the sermon on the mount between wrestling bouts. Maybe when he hung out with the women - surely men weren't there at the same time - he did knitting and baked little breads. Maybe he preached about gender definition and distinctive dividing roles. Maybe he acted all camp with the women and all butch with the lads. Thing is, I just don't recall ever reading anything like that. See, at heart I think the topic of the thread - which is the website page we can no longer see - is a farce, and I'm afraid I've responded in the same vein.
Edited to add:
Ok, I do apologise. I've just seen one of your previous posts and understand you don't do irony.
[ 02. December 2015, 17:12: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Whether the content is up to much is a different question admittedly, but I'd reiterate that I think there's something in the diagnosis even if not the remedy (and my experience of the non-churched rather than the unchurched is that some of my acquaintance do think it's "something for women/old ladies/children apart from the man in the dress" (CLEARLY I don't agree with them)) and I think it's good of Oxford to have a go.
I agree there is a problem.
But as I said more snarkily in the Hell thread, AIUI we are talking about men who only show up for the Christmas Eve service, but who do so year after year. They don't turn up and dislike the content so much that they never cross the threshold again. There is something about the Christmas Eve service that attracts them and that they don't expect to find in any other church service. Prima facie, the best approach would seem to be to leave the Christmas Eve service intact, and try to infuse the other services with whatever magic is present in Christmas Eve. It isn't to go fixing what is apparently the only service that isn't broken.
Also, the majority of women aren't churchgoers either, which suggests to me that the problem isn't a male/female divide as such - it's that church is only attractive to a specific personality type that's more prevalent among women than men. You could argue that that amounts to the same thing - but I think if we express the problem in terms of personality types rather than gender, we can answer it without reference to gender stereotyping.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Women in the NT weren't socially free to become too involved in Jesus's wandering evangelistic life...
{tangent alert}
Here is Luke 8:1-3 quote:
Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.
Not only were these women free to follow Jesus, they had resources of their own to help support his ministry.
{/tangent alert}
Moo
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Thanks for that. Mary Magdalene did come to mind.
By 'support' I was thinking of people who were actually wandering with him, though some were supporting him with financial help from the comfort of their homes. I'm asking myself whether the wandering women were quite poor people with little to lose, while the women who offered material help generally were settled women who were well-off. Or was there some kind of overlap?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's been pulled as if it never existed.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm asking myself whether the wandering women were quite poor people with little to lose, while the women who offered material help generally were settled women who were well-off. Or was there some kind of overlap?
My impression is that the same women followed him and supported him. The wife of Herod's steward must have been well-to-do.
Moo
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
The link doesn't work anymore. Anywhere else it can be found?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baker:
The link doesn't work anymore. Anywhere else it can be found?
I found the
Google cached page. The web is forever.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I wonder why they attempted to pull it?
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
Thanks for the cached link. I did read it, and while it wasn't exactly misogynistic, it was rather silly. If men aren't coming to church that often in his diocese dumbing down the Christmas Eve service isn't going to have that much of an effect on attendance at other times of the year.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It has been said that alpha males are very much underrepresented in church congregations.
But perhaps overrepresented in the clergy?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I wouldn't say that they are - except in certain evangelical places, especially those which are "entrepreneurial" and/or Fundamentalist in style.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Co-incidentally, my church was discussing outreach last week, and the point was made that if all those women who currently attend without their husbands, persuaded their husbands to come with them, our weekly numbers would grow by at least 10%.
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
Would they be tempted out of bed by a clip from an action film? Probably not. If they want to see an action film on a Sunday morning they can lie in bed and watch an action film there.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Co-incidentally, my church was discussing outreach last week, and the point was made that if all those women who currently attend without their husbands, persuaded their husbands to come with them, our weekly numbers would grow by at least 10%.
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
Would they be tempted out of bed by a clip from an action film? Probably not. If they want to see an action film on a Sunday morning they can lie in bed and watch an action film there.
What conclusions did you come to and what concrete things are you now going to be starting to do or doing differently from what you currently do? Or have you decided to do nothing?
Genuine question - positive ideas are probably something many could learn from. As I think I made clear at the start I thought a lot of the list was pretty daft, but in the absence of anyone else doing the hard thinking....
Personally I think he was mad to take the role of Outreach to Unreached Men in the first place given that a one-man-band rarely reaches the right answer by themselves and as soon as their meagre efforts do reach the internet they get shot down in flames.
Even where they're shot down in flames because they're daft I haven't seen much in the responses (anywhere on the internet, not just here) identifying what ought to be done about outreach to unreached men instead. But there has been plenty about whether we even need to be trying, or why it won't work, or why they won't want to be reached out to, which seems to suggest the whole thing is best filed in the "too difficult, let's not bother" drawer.
I don't know what the answer is either, but my gut instinct is there is an issue somewhere here about attracting more people to church. Personally, I think that goes for people full stop, but as a 30 something man I won't deny that I think that the needs of some groups are so distinct that it's unlikely a one-size-fits-all approach to mission will work.
I suspect it's very positive to have someone working on mission to unreached men (within the framework of mission to all sorts of other groups as well) - in much the same way as having a ministry of health doesn't mean you can't have a ministry of agriculture as well. So, if the thoughts of this vicar aren't the answer (and clearly most of them aren't) then does anyone have any constructive suggestions as to what might be? Mission in general, or male mission specific within that?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
My friend's husband never comes to Church. He's an atheist, so it's perfectly obvious why he doesn't come to Church.
Are there more atheist men than women?
(He does all the week's ironing while my friend is at Church)
[ 03. December 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
Would they be tempted out of bed by a clip from an action film? Probably not. If they want to see an action film on a Sunday morning they can lie in bed and watch an action film there.
True but that's always going to be the case. You can light a candle at home, you can put on recorded choral music, you can listen to a sermon online etc. In the later two cases you can probably easily beat the quality at your local church.
Tempting someone out of bed - for someone who's pre-disposed to a lie-in - is setting the bar quite high. A better test is: when they do decide to for-go the lie-in, for example at Christmas, is what they encounter more or less likely to make them want to come back?
Now I don't think the answer is clips from action movies. At least it's not for me.
My problem with the suggestions in the link is not that they're misogynist, it's that they're superficial. The concept I suppose, is that there's some core of Christianity that the missing men can connect to if only it's packaged in the right way. Which implies that some of the things that you're willing to change are not really part of the core faith, or that they're neutral. I'm not sure that's always the case. It also makes it more difficult to critique the culture when you borrow from it to appeal to people.
I think this is a good conversation to have though. I think it's useful to try to figure out what we think is central to Christianity and what it means to put on a service. Or whether it's useful to think in terms of a "core" where the rest can be changed, at all. (though if not then ISTM that your only option is to set out your stall and accept who comes along, or not)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This lowers greatly my respect for whoever happens to be the webmaster for the Oxford diocesan website. 'O dear. We upset some rentafacebook chatterboxes; we must immediately pull something that's controversial but is saying something that could be important'.
Even if you are one of those who disagrees fundamentally and for sociologically ideological reasons with him, what the chap was trying to address is why men don't come to church. As they don't, that's an important question.
I'm not that macho minded. I'm not interested in football. I'm old enough not to worry about these issues so much. Nevertheless, a lot of church is a bit soppy and wimpish. It has been all my life. Christmas is a time when this can become all too pronounced. Wet carols - Away in a manger is a particularly bad one - too much emphasis on Jesus as a baby rather than someone who grew up. These all give the impression to a lot of us that Christian faith is something only for the kiddies.
Even if you don't like what this man said, he was airing something that really matters.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
What conclusions did you come to and what concrete things are you now going to be starting to do or doing differently from what you currently do? Or have you decided to do nothing?
The meeting was a brainstorming meeting to set the agenda for future meetings. We do intend to do things differently, but at the moment we are looking at our current church demographic in comparison to the parish demographic. Lots of bar charts!
I'm interested in what the Rev. Paul Eddy has to say, because there may be items on that list I could bring to future meetings. In terms of our services generally, we have a male minister who does include references to rugby / football / other sport results, and our two chief lay members (the session clerk and the beadle) are both male. We aim to have both male and female greeters at the door, though last week was all female because I stood in for my husband. Apart from our female organist, all visible lay duties are mixed male / female.
In terms of the men who do attend regularly, while I would hesitate to describe any of them as alpha males, the main industry hereabouts is oil, and we have men who have worked in Angola, Iraq, and Kazakhstan, in places with armed guards. Two of our male members are two weeks on / two weeks off the rigs and commute by helicopter. One of our members survived his attempted murder in a politically volatile country. We're clearly not so feminised that we're putting those men off. At the same we have men who are / were the stay at home parent because their wife earned more. With the downturn in oil prices, and job losses in the industry, we might get more. I don't think we have a "one size fits all" definition of male within our parish.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
So maybe that's why the Christmas Eve service is popular - it's last thing at night, so doesn't interfere with the lie-in.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Whether the content is up to much is a different question admittedly, but I'd reiterate that I think there's something in the diagnosis even if not the remedy (and my experience of the non-churched rather than the unchurched is that some of my acquaintance do think it's "something for women/old ladies/children apart from the man in the dress" (CLEARLY I don't agree with them)) and I think it's good of Oxford to have a go.
I agree there is a problem.
But as I said more snarkily in the Hell thread, AIUI we are talking about men who only show up for the Christmas Eve service, but who do so year after year. They don't turn up and dislike the content so much that they never cross the threshold again. There is something about the Christmas Eve service that attracts them and that they don't expect to find in any other church service. Prima facie, the best approach would seem to be to leave the Christmas Eve service intact, and try to infuse the other services with whatever magic is present in Christmas Eve. It isn't to go fixing what is apparently the only service that isn't broken.
Also, the majority of women aren't churchgoers either, which suggests to me that the problem isn't a male/female divide as such - it's that church is only attractive to a specific personality type that's more prevalent among women than men. You could argue that that amounts to the same thing - but I think if we express the problem in terms of personality types rather than gender, we can answer it without reference to gender stereotyping.
This.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I think the time would be better spent going to some real live men, of the actual sort that a particular congregation would like to attract, and talk to them about what it is that would cause them to show up. The answer might be having services later in the day. It might be "if my friends went I'd go too, but they don't." It might be "persuade me of the existence of God." I'm fairly sure it's not going to be "include a powerpoint presentation that has a clip of Tom Cruise running away from something exploding!" It's just a hunch. If the guy wants that of a Sunday morning he can lie in bed and watch Netflix on his tablet. It's just lazy, lazy thinking. "What do men like? Babes in bikinis! And beer! And explosions! Oh, we can't really put the first two into our service..."
I don't really have a dog in this race anymore as I don't go to church anymore. Suppose someone wanted to lure me back? In many ways I'm hella girly. I'm someone who's sitting here right now, wearing sparkly eyeshadow, bright red lipstick, my hair's in an updo with an enormous green velvet bow, and I'm wearing a full-skirted 1950s dress that I made myself and which has pictures of Dusty Springfield all over it. This is just a regular day for me, clothing-wise. But if someone were to try to lure me back into church by discussing pretty dresses and makeup rather than any kind of meaningful explanation as to why I need church in my life, I would be beyond insulted.
Men should be insulted by this. They should be insulted by the idea that they are that easily manipulated.
And I don't even know where to go with the idea that we need to alter the images of Christmas because the whole "woman and baby" emphasis might be offputting to men because men will be upset that a man isn't getting all the attention and that might put men off Christianity. OK. This is a whole religion based on worshipping a particular man. The Bible was written by men. Most of the stories are about men. Most of Jesus' followers who are important enough to be named in the Bible are men. The vast majority of clergy, Christian writers and philosophers throughout history have been men. Are men really so pathetic that they can't handle a woman and a baby being given some attention on the day we celebrate the story in which a woman gives birth to a baby? Really? We have to focus the story back on big grown up manly men or men will get butthurt? Are they really so insecure of their masculinity that they can't deal with a group of kids singing "Away in a Manger" and "Little Donkey" because those are children's songs unsuitable for manly manly alpha manly men?
I don't think men are that pathetic.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
My (non-believing) brother’s mates meet every Christmas Eve to belt out carols – down the pub. They choose the pub in question specifically for the communal singing. I think that for the church which could work out how to capitalise on it, there is a definite “beer and hymns”-type opportunity there which would appeal to blokes.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Personally I think he was mad to take the role of Outreach to Unreached Men in the first place given that a one-man-band rarely reaches the right answer by themselves and as soon as their meagre efforts do reach the internet they get shot down in flames.
I certainly don't have answers to the questions you posited, but I do think that missions that are specific in this way can always fall on their own sword, especially when they deal in stereotypes, which might be the very same thing they have already seen in church and the very same thing keeping them away.
As far as I understand it attendance is falling generally and I strongly suspect it might be because the church has acquired a certain odour of desperation, loosing expressions of faith core to what it is that could be expressed with conviction and a genuine approach. There is nothing more sad and tragic than a church community trying to be something other than it is with little financial means to get whoever it might be in through the door. That, coupled with a loss of confidence in who and what we are and represent to my mind is a good place to start looking at the changes we now need to make. It is very easy for me to sling criticism at the diocese of Oxford from the comfort of my office chair, but you have to admit it looks very strange when churches and entire dioceses are so desperate that it looks like their website has been hacked by some prankster. It paints a bit of a target.
[ 03. December 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
So why don't they come? The general impression was that given a straight choice between a long lie on a Sunday morning and going to church the long lie wins.
So maybe that's why the Christmas Eve service is popular - it's last thing at night, so doesn't interfere with the lie-in.
Amen to evening being the best time for a church service! All my life I've wanted a Sunday evening service instead of Sunday morning - end the weekend with reflection and transition to preparing for the work week. The Sunday morning time slot chops up the weekend.
But also - where do people get the idea men (more than women) are staying in bed Sunday mornings? I suspect it's an unsupported invented accusation to make the accuser feel superior. "I go to church, if he doesn't go to church he's obviously lazy and staying in bed." The men (and women) I know who stay home Sunday mornings are up and active, like the one upthread who does all the ironing while the wife is at church.
We won't find out why men (or people) stay home (or do some other activity) if we write them off as lesser beings instead of noticing and valuing whatever they really are doing Sunday mornings. If some really do need a lie-in, we need to focus on why they are so tired and are there ways to help with the load.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think the time would be better spent going to some real live men, of the actual sort that a particular congregation would like to attract, and talk to them about what it is that would cause them to show up.....
I don't really have a dog in this race anymore as I don't go to church anymore. Suppose someone wanted to lure me back? In many ways I'm hella girly. I'm someone who's sitting here right now, wearing sparkly eyeshadow, bright red lipstick, my hair's in an updo with an enormous green velvet bow, and I'm wearing a full-skirted 1950s dress that I made myself and which has pictures of Dusty Springfield all over it. This is just a regular day for me, clothing-wise. But if someone were to try to lure me back into church by discussing pretty dresses and makeup rather than any kind of meaningful explanation as to why I need church in my life, I would be beyond insulted.
Men should be insulted by this. They should be insulted by the idea that they are that easily manipulated.
Yes, all of these things. The manipulation really sucks - "if we could just show....oooh.....an action film......men would come. Men like action films, don't they?"
My husband likes some action films. To be watched, whilst ironing and drinking beer, generally. What he doesn't want (I suspect, I'll check with him later) is to watch a little clip from an action film followed by a desperate attempt to tack the gospel onto it. He doesn't go to church because he doesn't believe in God, and he'd rather be sailing.
He's a silly idea. Why don't we ask the people who don't come to church why they don't want to, and then do some of the things they might like?
We can't make the non believers believe, but we could do some things like............preach something interesting, challenging and encouraging from the Bible every Sunday in under 15 minutes, sometimes have communion services for people who value that, sometimes have rowdy praise services for people who like that, have film evenings for people who like those, have a book club for people who like those, have a parent and toddler group for people who like those, have a job club / skills club for people who might use it, align ourselves with the local food bank for people who might need it or want to help, have a discussion evening for people who want to discuss, have a beer and hymns evening for people who like beer and hymns, have a carols by candlelight for people who like that.....
and whatever else people would value. And while we're at all of those things, be kind to people and let them know when the services are. And tell them honestly what we consider to be true.
And leave whether people are male and female out of it altogether.
[Disclaimer, if my church ever does a beer & hymns, I'm going to be first in the queue.]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Er, oops. Here's a silly idea, I meant.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Action movie? Christmas? I'll work John McClane's catchphrase from the Die Hard movies into my Christmas Eve sermon. Men, women, and children are going to remember it for years to come.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
... Are they really so insecure of their masculinity that they can't deal with a group of kids singing "Away in a Manger" and "Little Donkey" because those are children's songs unsuitable for manly manly alpha manly men? ....
I have my doubts whether those two are suitable for children. There's a certain sort of adult who likes to feel gooey at the sight of a whole lot of children singing them. But they convey the impression to quite a lot of children even that the Christian faith is strictly for under-fives.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have my doubts whether those two are suitable for children. There's a certain sort of adult who likes to feel gooey at the sight of a whole lot of children singing them. But they convey the impression to quite a lot of children even that the Christian faith is strictly for under-fives.
I agree with you on this, I've always hated Away in a Manger.
I darkly suspect the same is true of action songs, i.e. they're not for kids, they exist because adults think kids doing wiggly worms at the front of church are cute.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But as I said more snarkily in the Hell thread, AIUI we are talking about men who only show up for the Christmas Eve service, but who do so year after year. They don't turn up and dislike the content so much that they never cross the threshold again. There is something about the Christmas Eve service that attracts them and that they don't expect to find in any other church service. Prima facie, the best approach would seem to be to leave the Christmas Eve service intact, and try to infuse the other services with whatever magic is present in Christmas Eve.
Except that I think it's very likely in many (most?) instances that the magic present in the Christmas Eve service is that it's Christmas Eve. Christmas is the time of year more than any other when tradition and "what we've always done" come into play. (Ditto for "I can do it this one time of year because it makes Mom/Dad/Wife happy.") They're there on Christmas Eve because of the familiarity—even with all the doubts, disbelief or disregard for religion, it just wouldn't quite be Christmas Eve without going to church, singing or hearing carols (including "Away in a Manger") and hearing the story again.
Meanwhile, I think that Liopleurodon hit every single nail squarely on the head.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Except that I think it's very likely in many (most?) instances that the magic present in the Christmas Eve service is that it's Christmas Eve.
Alcohol often adds to the warm glow too ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Wait for it though. Any day now, like the first cuckoo in Spring, some poor vicar will be castigated in the press for saying something rude about Santa - either that he doesn't exist or that he wasn't in the stable at Bethlehem.
After all, isn't the church there to deliver the sort of Christmas to which some mothers think their children are entitled?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It has been said that alpha males are very much underrepresented in church congregations.
But perhaps overrepresented in the clergy?
Perhaps in some of the high powered evangelical congregations, yes. But as I said on the Hell thread, our culture doesn't generally envision clergymen as particularly 'masculine' men, and this seems to have been the case for for a several centuries. Moreover, psychological studies seem to suggest that male clergy in general have psychological profiles that distinguish them significantly from men in the wider society and hence from popular masculinity. (There have also been psychological studies of female clergy and of lay churchgoers. Refs are available.)
In a previous response to you I proposed that alpha males were underrepresented in the church and in the world, but that many men would like to be alpha males. ISTM that becoming a clergyman is one way of getting close to a sort of alpha 'status' for men who otherwise would not have that kind of power (or potential power) and influence over other people's lives. Certainly, in their role as ordained clergy these men receive a level of female attention which they probably wouldn't get otherwise.
BTW, I'm not attempting to criticise male clergy here, or to claim that they all have personality problems! I'm a female churchgoer like other female churchgoers, and most of the time I'm in a church which is being led by a male minister. In fact, I tend to think that discussions about the difficulties that unordained men often have with the church don't highlight 'misogyny' (or even anti-clericalism) as much as they highlight the longstanding challenges of the clergy/laity divide. But maybe that's just me.
[ 03. December 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, I tend to think that discussions about the difficulties that unordained men often have with the church don't highlight 'misogyny' (or even misandry or anti-clericalism in general) as much as they highlight the longstanding challenges of the clergy/laity divide. But maybe that's just me.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Alcohol often adds to the warm glow too
Very true. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wait for it though. Any day now, like the first cuckoo in Spring, some poor vicar will be castigated in the press for saying something rude about Santa - either that he doesn't exist or that he wasn't in the stable at Bethlehem.
After all, isn't the church there to deliver the sort of Christmas to which some mothers think their children are entitled?
I'm just waiting for the flurries of complaint from families who went to church on Christmas Eve expecting to hear about Mary and Joseph / Baby Jesus / shepherds / wise men and instead had to watch a video clip of a sweaty Bruce Willis in a blood stained vest and listen to the story of the agonising death of a martyr by beheading / boiling in oil / etc.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
For a lot of years, I've avoided church services in Advent because I can't stand the twee-ness.
I think it is quite interesting that this is a fairly recent innovation, no doubt related to the Dickensification of British Christmas.
I am not entirely sure whether the suggestions in the article from the OP would actually make church more attractive to men, but I'm thinking that there are actually models of Christmas which are not so twee from British history.
As people have talked about "beer and carols", there is of course the tradition of the Wassail, which was a form of carol-infused pub crawl. In Wales there is a traditional form of carolling - which seems more like a folk club - called Plygain which at times was seen as being so riotous that church authorities banned it.
There are also various traditions such as the hoodeners of East Kent (usually seen as comedy or games played by men dressed up in traditional clothing).
I know folk music is not really very attractive to most young men, but there is quite a following amongst some. I think if the church was (at least in some places) to return to some of these types of traditional Christmas practices, there might be some more men attending.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
After all, isn't the church there to deliver the sort of Christmas to which some mothers think their children are entitled?
I'm just waiting for the flurries of complaint from families who went to church on Christmas Eve expecting to hear about Mary and Joseph / Baby Jesus / shepherds / wise men and instead had to watch a video clip of a sweaty Bruce Willis in a blood stained vest and listen to the story of the agonising death of a martyr by beheading / boiling in oil / etc.
Yes. There is a very difficult line to be trod between, on the one hand, tacitly endorsing peoples' sentimental stereotypes about Christmas; and, on the other hand, issuing a "challenge" which so enrages them that they utterly ignore it. I freely admit I've done both from time to time!
I irritated our Organist by wanting to include a couple of short thought-provoking meditations and a brief sermon into our Candle-lit carol service. He felt that the carols and the readings told the story well enough, but I felt (and still do feel) that their very familiarity means that people listen and sing without engaging with them. In fact my interventions have gone down very well and people seem to like being left with something to think about.
By the way, for a few years we have had an "alternative" and reflective Christmas Eve midnight service - clearly billed as such. It attracts a small but enthusiastic congregation with a few visitors. (We couldn't do the "midnight Mass" thing anyway, for very practical reasons, and it's not part of our tradition).
[ 04. December 2015, 08:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have my doubts whether those two are suitable for children. There's a certain sort of adult who likes to feel gooey at the sight of a whole lot of children singing them. But they convey the impression to quite a lot of children even that the Christian faith is strictly for under-fives.
I agree with you on this, I've always hated Away in a Manger.
I darkly suspect the same is true of action songs, i.e. they're not for kids, they exist because adults think kids doing wiggly worms at the front of church are cute.
Nah. They were invented by Satan when he was bored and wanted a really, really good way to torment me from childhood on. I suspect that's what'll happen to me if the Fundies are right and I'm Hellbound - I'll be forced to do one potato two potato actions to "I will build my church" for ever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Except that I think it's very likely in many (most?) instances that the magic present in the Christmas Eve service is that it's Christmas Eve.
Alcohol often adds to the warm glow too
Whoa, what church do YOU go to on Christmas Eve?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Except that I think it's very likely in many (most?) instances that the magic present in the Christmas Eve service is that it's Christmas Eve.
Alcohol often adds to the warm glow too
Whoa, what church do YOU go to on Christmas Eve?
Do you not have the quaint tradition of filling your churches with generally-benevolent-but-sometimes-aggressive borderline drunk people on Christmas Eve where you are?
You're missing out - that's mainstream behaviour in the UK.*
*which reminds me, we're can only be about 8 days away from the kick-off of another quaint tradition, the "who's got the earliest kick-off for midnight mass" thread.
[ 04. December 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Our local church had a notice up about conflicts with Sunday morning service, suggesting attendance at the early service instead.
The major conflict involves the junior rugby club. Boys' sports seem to have colonised Sunday mornings, and the needs of playing matches against other clubs which have also chosen Sunday mornings are going to make it difficult for the fathers of the boys to be somewhere else. (During the week at school I had terrible trouble getting my chess team to play matches at the same time as football practice, so I know how powerful the draw of this sort of thing is.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Action movie? Christmas? I'll work John McClane's catchphrase from the Die Hard movies into my Christmas Eve sermon. Men, women, and children are going to remember it for years to come.
I still remember a sermon from the late Fr. Rogers about Dr. Who and 'the ancient of days is an hour or two old.'
That was Christmas morning sung eucharist in 1966.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Not every man is an alpha male or alpha male wannabe. In fact for some me the whole "Alpha" thing is the subject or ridcule esp when it's men trying to look alpha in front of men who aere, without showing it.
We have our fair share of them here but also those (who like me) think football is stupid and really really don't care about cars. (One or two of us even think the car thing is all about som kind of sub freudian penis type competition: we tend to bve the ones who refer to football as girly bladder kicking ...).
I happen to be in some kind of leadership: on the one hand I'm a Cambridge educated ex senior executive from a major UK Finance organisation. On the other I've worked as a labourer ... we don't tend to have one "house" pov. What does annoy all of us is the assumption that all men want Bruce Willis films (who he?) or all like to do needle point and the ironing. We are all different.
One thing I would say is this: it's Christmas and in yor Christmas services please just tell the story. People expect it - so give them what they want. No gimmicks. It works.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This one?
Bill Jarvis, from Another Organization: Anybody following you at all? Any kind of surveillance, telephone, house, anything unusual at all?
John McClane: Well, now that you mention it, I have experienced a, you know, like a burning sensation between my toes. I thought it was just some athlete's foot or something.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This one's Christian:
Zeus: Why you keep calling me Jésus? I look
Puerto Rican to you?
John McClane: Guy back there called you Jésus.
Zeus: He didn't say Jésus. He said, "Hey, Zeus!" My name is Zeus.
John McClane: Zeus?
Zeus: Yeah, Zeus! As in, father of Apollo? Mt. Olympus? Don't fuck with me or I'll shove a lightning bolt up your ass? Zeus! You got a problem with that?
John McClane: No, I don't have a problem with that.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Action movie? Christmas? I'll work John McClane's catchphrase from the Die Hard movies into my Christmas Eve sermon. Men, women, and children are going to remember it for years to come.
You could use Arnie's catchphrase from the Terminator films in Advent sermons.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
You could use Arnie's catchphrase from the Terminator films in Advent sermons.
.... and possibly for Ascensiontide --- "Ged into the Chopper"?
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
One thing I would say is this: it's Christmas and in yor Christmas services please just tell the story. People expect it - so give them what they want. No gimmicks. It works.
This.
ESPECIALLY for people who rarely go to church. What else does anyone thing they've come for?
In my diocese, Southwark, the church where you consistently find the highest proportion of worshipping adult men is the cathedral. Especially at the major festivals. The cathedral puts on traditional, liturgical services in the monastic tradition but in English since we're CofE. The Good Friday 3-hours liturgy is packed with men worshippers every year I've attended. Doesn't this say something about what attracts men to church?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Our local church had a notice up about conflicts with Sunday morning service, suggesting attendance at the early service instead.
The major conflict involves the junior rugby club. Boys' sports seem to have colonised Sunday mornings, and the needs of playing matches against other clubs which have also chosen Sunday mornings are going to make it difficult for the fathers of the boys to be somewhere else. (During the week at school I had terrible trouble getting my chess team to play matches at the same time as football practice, so I know how powerful the draw of this sort of thing is.)
The same factor operates in Canada as well, where team sports of all kinds use Sunday mornings-- for many fathers this is their only extended time with their children and, especially for the joint-custody parents, they are unlikely to go for any other use of their time (indeed, I know of one family where they seriously thought of not taking their son to his grandfather's memorial service as the timing interfered with his training schedule-- a scrappy lesbian librarian aunt settled the debate).
One of my Latin clerical acquaintances feels that this is why the vigil mass (held locally on Saturdays at either 5.00 pm or 7.00 pm) has grown in popularity with men and students. Counting the Saturday figures, his ASA has improved slightly, while Sunday mass numbers steadily diminish.
While the significance of this will vary depending on local demographics, clerics should also note that masculine culture is not uniform and they should guard against stereotyping. Not everyone follows sports and one of the most guy events I know of in my neighbourhood are the Tuesday night poetry readings at the Carleton Tavern (where one modestly notes that one took first prize at the Haiku Deathmatch in 2009).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
In my diocese, Southwark, the church where you consistently find the highest proportion of worshipping adult men is the cathedral. Especially at the major festivals. The cathedral puts on traditional, liturgical services in the monastic tradition but in English since we're CofE. The Good Friday 3-hours liturgy is packed with men worshippers every year I've attended. Doesn't this say something about what attracts men to church?
That's an interesting comment - I've been attending cathedral services in my diocese for a while after a long period of going to parish services - and I think it is certainly true, there are definitely more men than there would be in the parish.
But in contrast to what you've said above, I think this reflects that the Cathedral offers something different (maybe even compared to a parish evensong) so people travel a long way to get to it.
Last week I went to a well attended Advent carol service - and I can assure you that it was unlike any other kind of Anglican parish church service I've attended in 20+ years.
Hence I'm not sure it is fair to suggest that this indicates more people would go to quote unquote "traditional" services in a parish church.
To me this is just about diversity - there should be cathedral-like services for people who like that kind of thing, and there should be a range of other kinds of thing available.
In my view the problem is not that parish services are too "untraditional" as much as they're too alike. Particularly at Christmas.
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
In my view the problem is not that parish services are too "untraditional" as much as they're too alike. Particularly at Christmas.
You could well be right. But I think another factor is quality. The reason I attend the Good Friday liturgy at the cathedral is because I have complete confidence that they will do it well. I've been to some fantastic Good Friday parish services and a lot of truly dire ones. As it's a difficult service, bringing up issues of guilt and responsibility and death, I find I get the best out of it when I know I'm in good hands.
As previous posters on this thread have said, there's a lot of scope for cringe-making tweeness in Christmas services, so maybe the same applies? The late Dean of Southwark used to lead a fantastic children's crib service. I haven't been to a cathedral Christmas service since the new Dean came but it's probably still pretty good.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
You could well be right. But I think another factor is quality. The reason I attend the Good Friday liturgy at the cathedral is because I have complete confidence that they will do it well. I've been to some fantastic Good Friday parish services and a lot of truly dire ones. As it's a difficult service, bringing up issues of guilt and responsibility and death, I find I get the best out of it when I know I'm in good hands.
Mmm. I agree that Cathedral services are "professional" in a way that other church services often are not - but then I'd argue that good/dire is in the eye of the beholder. Why should a church use you (or me) as the measure of what is a high quality service?
quote:
As previous posters on this thread have said, there's a lot of scope for cringe-making tweeness in Christmas services, so maybe the same applies? The late Dean of Southwark used to lead a fantastic children's crib service. I haven't been to a cathedral Christmas service since the new Dean came but it's probably still pretty good.
For me, part of the attraction of the Cathedral is that no attempt is made to speak to children. Hence I think it is not really a very friendly place for younger children in particular. In that sense I feel sorry for the choirboys, who often look bored out of their skulls between their singing parts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[Some of the men here] think football is stupid and really really don't care about cars. (One or two of us even think the car thing is all about some kind of sub freudian penis type competition: we tend to be the ones who refer to football as girly bladder kicking ...).
[...]
One thing I would say is this: it's Christmas and in your Christmas services please just tell the story. People expect it - so give them what they want. No gimmicks. It works.
Perhaps you do what you do exceedingly well. Your approach obviously works well in your area, among the local demographic that you hope and expect to attract. But some churches might find Christmas more difficult, for any number of reasons. I've been to non-gimmicky Christmas Day services where the congregations have been very small.
I don't know if the vicar in question faces particular challenges in his area. An outsider like me might think 'Oxford: try to appeal to the intellectuals and the sophisticates'. But of course not everyone in Oxford is associated with academia, and many local people, particularly the men, will be football fans. Why not try to relate to them in some way?
However, I'm not a football-loving lady myself. I know a Methodist minister who irritatingly has to squeeze his love for Wolves into practically every sermon. But at least he's not trying to be 'gimmicky'. It would appear that he genuinely loves his football....
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I think there are two problems that mean churches do better at Christmas than the rest of the year. The Midnight Mass service is one that remains pretty constant, with recognisable hymns and a service structure people know, from books and films if nowhere else.
This quotation is put into the mouth of a woman that I suspect sums up many feelings of people who are occasional church goers:
quote:
Today, however, she'd had a sudden longing to enjoy a sense of peaceful communion in the familiarity of the age-old liturgy. But it was not to be. The [vicar] was away on a fortnight's holiday and the service, extraordinarily long and drawn out, and led by the lay readers and team ministry, hadn't provided the quiet solemnity she had hoped for. It has been a scrupulously modern affair, a family service that had covered everything but touched nothing. The hymns were all modern and naively simplistic and tediously repetitive. There had been too much clapping, too many squeaky recorders and far too many rattling bean-filled shakers in the hands of far too many uncontrollable children. A play had been acted out by older members of the Sunday school, put together, one presumed, to bring to the complacent middle-class attention of the congregation the plight of the homeless, along with prostitution, drug addiction and gang warfare. It had gone on for an eternity - or, more accurately, purgatory - and had laboured its point of hard-hitting edginess to the nth degree. .... A wasted morning, she thought ....
The other big issue for Christianity is that Christians are seen as believing in six impossible things before breakfast, anti-science and anti-fun.
Something that's pretty stereotypically masculine, The Infinite Monkey Cage Radio 4 science programme with Professor Brian Cox and Robin Ince and has a Christmas Special (goes out on Christmas Day*).
I was at the recording of this year's special and Robin Ince referred back to the 2014 episode, which is online here, with Brian Blessed, Chris Hadfield, the Rev Richard Coles and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Hebrew Scholar, talking about the history of the Bible and whether the view of the Christmas story changes when people are in space looking back to Earth. Robin Ince is an atheist and was saying approvingly at this year's recording that the Reverend Richard Coles agreeing with the Hebrew scholar that most of the Bible stories were myth and telling other truths was almost as atheist as he was. (I suspect Robin Ince has mellowed since he met liberal Christians, at Greenbelt in 2012, and has realised that not all Christians are creationists and anti-science.)
But when the view portrayed in the media of Christians is so unreasonable and unreasoning, it's not surprising people are staying away.
* This year's episode is about the science of Doctor Who.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The church here runs a crib service early on Christmas Eve - 5pm before Midnight Mass at 11:30pm.
The Crib Service is a retelling of the Christmas story for children, with mainly child actors and carols. So Angel Gabriel coming to Mary and telling her she's going to have a baby. Mary and Joseph travelling around the church to Bethlehem to Little Donkey. Mary and Joseph knocking on the doors of inns before being let into a stable (and disappearing into the chancel). Shepherds and sheep processing round while congregation sings While Shepherds Watched, arriving on stage to see angels telling them that Jesus is to be born, going to the stable door and disappearing into the chancel behind a curtain. Three kings processing to We Three Kings and etc. Final bit is usually the whole lot coming forward as a tableau with a baby in a cradle and Away in a Manger, prayer and blessing, go out after O come all ye faithful.
That service has over 500 people attending, children and families. Numbers have been going up since a flirtation with modern trendy versions of the story and a return to a simple retelling of the Matthew / Luke mash up.
Midnight Mass gets 200-300 people depending on weather. (Well it did when I was involved in both, but I doubt that's changed much.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The other big issue for Christianity is that Christians are seen as believing in six impossible things before breakfast, anti-science and anti-fun.
Certainly, for those who simply can't accept any of it the problem goes far beyond making church services attractive. There's a certain sort of atheist who likes to sing Christmas carols, though. Richard Dawkins is one of them. But I suppose it's a rather upper middle class habit.
quote:
Robin Ince is an atheist and was saying approvingly at this year's recording that the Reverend Richard Coles agreeing with the Hebrew scholar that most of the Bible stories were myth and telling other truths was almost as atheist as he was. (I suspect Robin Ince has mellowed since he met liberal Christians, at Greenbelt in 2012, and has realised that not all Christians are creationists and anti-science.)
But when the view portrayed in the media of Christians is so unreasonable and unreasoning, it's not surprising people are staying away.
* This year's episode is about the science of Doctor Who.
Are you saying that Christianity should be promoted as an almost atheistic faith in order to survive? Well, I suppose some people would appreciate that. Mostly the upper middle classes again?
In the age of the internet it doesn't make sense for liberal Christians to complain about the mainstream media ignoring them. They don't need the mainstream media; everyone has access to the net. Highly educated clerics could popularise their theology on Youtube, or publish and promote ebooks. It might take work, but a committed liberal congregation might see that as part of their communal ministry.
By the way, where does your first big extract come from? Is it a novel? For me, it proves not that every Christmas service ought to be thoroughly traditional, but that every Christmas service ought to be adequately described and advertised, so that visitors know exactly which local church is offering the kind of service they want.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The first extract comes from a novel - mainstream, not particularly religious - church is for funerals and Christmas type background. And I quoted it because I winced in recognition at the toe-curling truth of that description. The passage goes on to describe the regulars at coffee complaining. If regular church goers find the service an embarrassment, how on earth are they going to encourage others to come in?
Secondly, I'm not saying that the church should portray itself as atheist, because I don't think Robin Ince is correct in his black and white atheistic scientism. The atheism comments about the Reverend Richard Coles came from the conversation about the virgin birth and nativity narratives which were described as almost certainly written in later to fulfill the prophecies in the Jewish texts. Which is really not a controversial point of view to most thinking Christians. That's not saying the church should become atheist.
The perception of most non-Christians I meet is that Christians believe in the Bible as inerrant truth and that creationism and homophobia are sine non qua*. Until that perception changes I don't think churches stand a chance of broadening their appeal.
* indispensable truths
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Is there a reason why you'd rather not share the name of the novel? I'm actually quite interested in modern British novels that talk about the Christian faith. Most of them are, of course, quite critical of organised religion (although there probably isn't much criticism about the paucity of men in the pews).
It's interesting that you feel people want a 'traditional' experience of worship, while preferring a modern, myth-friendly theology. As I say, I think there is some call for this from sophisticated people with high aesthetic tastes. But the opposite is also true: churches with a more modern worship style yet a more traditional theology also have their fans.
Regarding the popular image of Christianity, I'm not sure that it's one solid thing. In the media (well, in The Guardian, anyway) you often come across a certain mockery of stereotypical 'wishy-washy' CofE vicars who won't be pinned down on anything, except for social justice matters. It would seem that the fire and brimstone creationists of popular imagination must be cartoon characters imported from American culture, because our own home grown variety are hardly more visible or media-friendly than your ordinary, moderate Anglican Christian.
(Lots of Jehovah's Witnesses clogging up the streets these days, but apparently they're not creationists. Conservative on sexuality though.)
[ 06. December 2015, 02:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The perception of most non-Christians I meet is that Christians believe in the Bible as inerrant truth and that creationism and homophobia are sine non qua*. Until that perception changes I don't think churches stand a chance of broadening their appeal.
But it seems to me that that churches which preach those things are the successful churches both in terms of numbers and in terms of individual commitment.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think we are in a cleft stick here.
1. Dawkins and his cronies have successfully sown the idea that Christians are all anti-intellectual fundamentalists. The media have, to an extent, abetted this; or just given out the idea that it is reactionary and ineffectual.
2. There are people who are undoubtedly attracted to churches which preach simple certainties in a complex world. Those who preached a more nuanced message seem to struggle.
3. The "worship experience" provided by many so-called "progressive" churches is unattractive and dull: it neither relates to modern culture nor offers a traditional numinosity.
And so on ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Curiosity Killed, what the fictional woman you quote is saying, is that churches should be providing services designed those who aren't there rather than those who are, just on the off-chance that they might occasionally turn up - though they probably won't. I've heard many different permutations of this, and I don't agree with any of them.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that if she doesn't go regularly, she's given up any title to complain that it has changed since she was last there. After all that style didn't keep her when she was last going. Churches should have the guts to say that and say it bluntly.
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I suspect that the big "successful" churches are student churches and if you looked at what was actually going on with, for example HTB, there would be a more nuanced story.
HTB is within a ten minute walk of the following higher education institutions:
- Imperial College (total number of students 16,000, although that number is across a number of sites, the South Kensington site had 8,000 students in the 1980s),
- the Royal College of Art with 1700 students
- the Royal College of Music with another 800 students.
With a total of at least 10,000 students, possibly 18,000, studying within a few yards of HTB a 12% church attendance figure, as given Wikipedia for UK church attendance in 2012, would mean 1,200 to 2,160 students per week should be attending HTB and or its satellites.
HTB doesn't look that successful when those sorts of comparisons are made.
(The RCM and RCA figures came from wikipedia)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
Exactly - and that's why people don't go - they don't believe in God!
Our Church does all sorts of good, worthwhile work for the homeless, lonely etc. But they also do good, worthwhile work for the community. Community choir, toddlers group, art group, keep fit for the over 60s, indoor bowls and more. Not outside organisations using the building but Church run stuff. The minister goes into primary schools and invites choirs, recorder groups etc to play in services.
There is an underlying hope that some people who attend the various provisions and invited services will 'come to faith' and thus start coming to Church.
Some do.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Curiosity Killed, what the fictional woman you quote is saying, is that churches should be providing services designed those who aren't there rather than those who are, just on the off-chance that they might occasionally turn up - though they probably won't. I've heard many different permutations of this, and I don't agree with any of them.
Indeed, I'd go further and say that if she doesn't go regularly, she's given up any title to complain that it has changed since she was last there. After all that style didn't keep her when she was last going. Churches should have the guts to say that and say it bluntly.
But changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
Those changes also drive people away who might have come back when whatever was keeping them away: young family, weekend sporting fixtures, visiting family elsewhere to care at weekends, overwhelming work life ends.
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places. Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
quote:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
quote:
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
That is a distortion of what I wrote, which was that the nativity accounts are recognised to be later additions and almost certainly included to fulfill the predictions in the Old Testament. There's a lot of textual evidence of the resurrection - including the change in the behaviour of the disciples. Less so for the Virgin Birth - and that is mainstream.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Can I just say that it is quite odd - and possibly some kind of copyright issue - to quote from a published work without citing the reference, CK.
I can see no rational reason why you'd do that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect that the big "successful" churches are student churches and if you looked at what was actually going on with, for example HTB, there would be a more nuanced story.
HTB is within a ten minute walk of the following higher education institutions:
- Imperial College (total number of students 16,000, although that number is across a number of sites, the South Kensington site had 8,000 students in the 1980s),
- the Royal College of Art with 1700 students
- the Royal College of Music with another 800 students.
With a total of at least 10,000 students, possibly 18,000, studying within a few yards of HTB a 12% church attendance figure, as given Wikipedia for UK church attendance in 2012, would mean 1,200 to 2,160 students per week should be attending HTB and or its satellites.
HTB doesn't look that successful when those sorts of comparisons are made.
(The RCM and RCA figures came from wikipedia)
That's absurd. Most people today commute to popular churches, there is no sense that a large church is reliant on their traditional parish boundaries.
Given that many Anglicans either passionately love or violently hate things like HTB, it is highly likely that people from a good distance are commuting to services and that others are commuting away.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
[...]
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places. Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
Methodist and URC worship has remained quite traditional on the whole, but this hasn't prevented a disastrous decline in membership and attendance figures. I agree, though, that 'traditional' in the CofE sense is a different kettle of fish in many respects.
As for lay participation in church life, this is clearly inevitable if you have fewer and fewer people attending, and fewer clergy. In that regard you have a vicious circle. But OTOH, I do think many British people often fail to realise that churches don't run themselves. They complain about the lack of community 'support' from churches without thinking that someone actually has to be committed to doing the work - and certainly not themselves - and that it has to be paid for. Maybe this way of thinking arises out of the misconception that the government pays for the upkeep of churches.
[ 06. December 2015, 13:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Even within the churches, people are quick to complain when "they" haven't done something ... but are far less willing to muck in themselves. (e.g. "They used to decorate the church so nicely at Christmas - but now they've let things go a bit").
[ 06. December 2015, 13:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But changing the programme hasn't kept people in church either. Attendance at Church of England services has halved over the last 40 years. So you can't argue that change has helped.
That's not quite the sequitur it appears to be. How things were didn't kept the fictitious woman and her demographic believing and practicing. I can remember those days. They'd already largely left.
We have no idea - we can have no idea - whether in the intervening years how things were would have attracted a different demographic from the reduced one that now practices and believes. The decline might have been less. The effect on the demographic that it used to not-appeal to, suggests that it would be just as likely to have been a lot more.
quote:
Those changes also drive people away who might have come back when whatever was keeping them away: young family, weekend sporting fixtures, visiting family elsewhere to care at weekends, overwhelming work life ends.
Are you saying what has made them cease to attend was (a) changing the style of services or (b) pressure of young families, visiting, sports work and all sorts of other things that seem more important than church on Sunday?
They aren't the same thing unless you can say that people wouldn't have given up on churchgoing if the services had carried on like they were in the fifties, that services as they were then would have competed successfully with all those other things in a way that services as they are now don't.
There is no evidence for that. If they had been able to do that, they would have done.
But that isn't really what I'm disagreeing with. What I've no time for is the notion that those who don't go to church think they have any title to tell us what we should be doing despite the fact that they aren't there and have no intention of being there.
quote:
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places.
Apart from theology about 'whole body ministry etc, where else do you think churches are going to find people to do all the work involved in keeping them going?
I agree with what Baptist Trainfan has just said.
quote:
Because the church needs those people to work in the church too to keep it going. Another damn good reason for staying away.
quote:
We're basically about God, not about giving the occasional visitor a rosy glow that reminds them of childhood.
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
God is God and remains so, everlasting and unchanging, whether the churches are representing him or misrepresenting him. quote:
quote:
The same goes for politely not mentioning that we happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because it might frightened the horses.
That is a distortion of what I wrote, which was that the nativity accounts are recognised to be later additions and almost certainly included to fulfill the predictions in the Old Testament. There's a lot of textual evidence of the resurrection - including the change in the behaviour of the disciples. Less so for the Virgin Birth - and that is mainstream.
I'd bear with 'are argued by some' but "are recognised" is as dogmatic a statement in its direction as a young earth creationist is in theirs.
[ 06. December 2015, 14:17: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is another ongoing issue of churches moving to more and more lay involvement. People cannot just attend and recharge their faith, returning to being salt and light in their work places.
I agree with this and have felt it recently. I have to work hard (and often feel bad) to refuse to do more and more 'stuff' for Church, which is often supremely unsuited to my talents and abilities. I want to turn up, be refueled, and go home.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Baptist Trainfanposted by Baptist Trainfan quote:
1. Dawkins and his cronies have successfully sown the idea that Christians are all anti-intellectual fundamentalists. The media have, to an extent, abetted this; or just given out the idea that it is reactionary and ineffectual.
I agree, that is how some of the media portray the Church - and until recently I'd have argued that this was entirely false; however, having nw been on one of the "facilitated conversations" to do with the Pilling Report I am no longer so certain that this description is entirely unfair. What I found among some of our more evangelical brethren was a rigidity and uncharitableness that took the breath away, and was every bit as repellent as the certainties voiced by fundamentalists of other creeds and beliefs. Indeed, in their condemnation of homosexuality some of their comments, shorn of identifiers, could have come from the daesh.
I agree that the media casts clergy (in particular) as vacillating and ineffectual, but that is how so many clergy are. quote:
2. There are people who are undoubtedly attracted to churches which preach simple certainties in a complex world. Those who preached a more nuanced message seem to struggle.
Indeed - and to some people who attend those churches the idea that nuances (shades of grey, if you will) exist is anathema. Yes, it is simple and, as voiced by some with approval, one "knows where they stand", but they are monocultural and entirely closed to new ideas or other opinions. quote:
3. The "worship experience" provided by many so-called "progressive" churches is unattractive and dull: it neither relates to modern culture nor offers a traditional numinosity.
Not just "progressive" churches! There is a total lack of realisation among clergy that churchgoing is now seen by the majority as just another 'leisure activitiy' and that they therefore need to actively pitch to attract people. First and foremost, that means services that are properly prepared, well thought-through, shorn of 'lets-be-modern' cringe-making gimmickry. To put it bluntly, the church is in competition with other 'leisure activities' and just snootily repeating the mantra 'we are different and above that' won't put people in pews.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
As Boogie says, who wants to believe in a God who tells us, according to many churches, to be misogynist and homophobic? What is so special about the God so portrayed that makes anyone want to come to church?
As it happens, I touched on some of these issues in today's sermon, which was about the Annunciation. Using some material from feminist theologians, I asked whether the story really portrays a bullying, abusive male God having his way with a vulnerable Mary who has little option but to give her consent, and whether it has been used by the Church as the rationale for portraying women as little more than the submissive bearers of men's babies.
(That's not where I ended up, as it happens: I suggested that Mary did have the ability to refuse her designated role and thus exercised considerable power over the outcome of the whole salvation saga; I also suggested that she was well aware of knew difference between submitting to "lords" and to God).
So far I've had a positive response although I certainly took the congregation to an unfamiliar and uncomfortable place. I do think that these questions need to be asked if we are to be authentically Christian in today's society.
[ 06. December 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I don't think "the church" has realized how different people's lifestyle and finances are, compared to e.g. our grandparents. Families have two breadwinners, or only one parent. There aren't enough hours in the day or days in the week. If a family has lots of money, the kids have to be trucked across town to the right school and to other activities every day. If a family is short of money, the parents work long hours and can't afford child care.
Asking people to give up a huge chunk of one of their free days is a huge demand. How about e.g. a decent dinner, child care, and a stimulating and supportive program for adults on a Wednesday night instead?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Perhaps the "Ask not what the Church can do for you, but what you can do for the Church" approach is completely wrong.
If we really believed that this is the way of salvation, that we are invited to spend time with the Creator of the Universe, and if we approached our Sunday mornings as though that was what we are facilitating, we'd all want to be there more than anything else in the week.
I know it's not like that, and it will never be the case that it will be like that every week, but if we went to church expecting that, and if we designed what happens when we get there to help mediate that, in stead of what it's currently like, we'd look forward to it as the one thing we really wouldn't want to miss. Perhaps even our children would complain that football was getting in the way of their being able to be there.
In the gospels, crowds follow Jesus wherever he goes. He has difficulty escaping them to get a bit of peace and quiet.
Even in Corinth, one gets the impression that their meetings were something they were all keen to go to.
What's changed, when, why and how?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is surely not a matter of faith that services have to be on a Sunday morning.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even in Corinth, one gets the impression that their meetings were something they were all keen to go to.
What's changed, when, why and how?
Just to be cynical, how do we know it's really changed. Would letters to a mediocre congregation that never really worked out have lasted? It's selection bias that we see all the average or worse than average products of today's society in a way that we never do with previous society's.
[ 06. December 2015, 17:47: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Some of the congregations mentioned at the beginning of Revelation appear to be somewhat short of wonderful.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps the "Ask not what the Church can do for you, but what you can do for the Church" approach is completely wrong.
Been there, got the t-shirt saying Burn Out. When I tried to reduce involvement so I could stay upright, I got abused, bullied really, for putting something in abeyance for a couple of months until I could pass something bigger onto others, because I wasn't just walking away but handing things over. And I had consulted how to reduce my involvement. That abuse meant that I didn't just reduce what I was doing but handed everything (it was a lot) to others over 3 months and walked away entirely to get a break and let the new people make things their own. Some things were never picked up and I still get asked about them if I attend.
When I considered going back that abuse didn't help. Nor did the women bishops debate, nor same sex marriage. Because I found myself in discussion with others, outside the church, and found I couldn't justify either decision to them or me.
quote:
If we really believed that this is the way of salvation, that we are invited to spend time with the Creator of the Universe, and if we approached our Sunday mornings as though that was what we are facilitating, we'd all want to be there more than anything else in the week.
Coming out of a service frazzled after being grabbed by all and sundry in the Peace to pass on complaints and services where I couldn't relax because I ended up covering anything and everything at short notice did nothing to my time with God. Particularly when the services were built with no space anywhere.
quote:
I know it's not like that, and it will never be the case that it will be like that every week, but if we went to church expecting that, and if we designed what happens when we get there to help mediate that, in stead of what it's currently like, we'd look forward to it as the one thing we really wouldn't want to miss. Perhaps even our children would complain that football was getting in the way of their being able to be there.
Trust me, i really don't miss church. I am so damn tired from my current job that the lie in on a Sunday morning and time to catch up with work is far far better than being wound up by naff services. I still go for uniformed group parades and believe me, they are still naff, nothing to encourage me back. I miss the numinous but there aren't many services around that aim for that stillness and peace. And two hours travel to reach them when I'm already tired isn't something I want to do.
quote:
<snip>
What's changed, when, why and how?
I suspect it is a false perception that it was ever like that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Coming out of a service frazzled after being grabbed by all and sundry in the Peace to pass on complaints ...
That's definitely not what the Peace is for!
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I would like to go to Baptist Trainfan's church please. That's all.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I would like to go to Baptist Trainfan's church please. That's all.
If it was the sermon he preached yesterday (that he referred to above) that particularly interested you, I have just added it to the church website, and you can read it here
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
It was! Well, that and his attitude to the peace. Thanks very much for that - I'll enjoy reading it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I kinda like the idea that the Angel Gab had tried, but been rebuffed, by Betty, Sharon and Lisa and is sitting around wondering who else there is to ask. And Lo! Twas Mary what agreed to the deal.
I don't think it happened like that at all, btw.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0