The title of this post should be said with an Austrian accent while flexing one's biceps.
Your intrepid blog reporter here is noticing a plethora of posts on the feminization of the church recently.
A couple of weeks ago I referenced Sean Michael Lucas's post The Feminization of American Christianity.
Anthony Bradley got fired up reading David Murrow's book Why Men Hate Going to Church and wrote:
And . . .
My new friend Alex Chediak touches on the theme in a couple of posts:
And . . .
And, it's not new, but it's vintage iMonk in his December 2005 post Prissy Protestants: Why We Need More Men Like Peggy Noonan.
Andy Jackson at Smart Christian is all over this stuff with links to the following articles/posts:
The Feminization of TV News by Gene Veith
And . . .
Girly-Jesus, the Feminized Church and Absent Men by Donald Sensing from One-Hand Clapping.
And you just know that I can't merely post links without sharing a few of my own thoughts, now dontcha? Keep reading.
At the risk of arrogantly implying that I am way ahead of the curve and that all of these folks are johnny-come-latelies I'll mention that I was talking about the feminization of the church and girly-churches way back in 2004 (here, here and here). But it is good to see all of these folks finally catching up, it makes bearing the burden of being the man who is always on the cutting edge a little easier.
Seriously though, it is interesting to see all of this and it will be interesting to see if this is a real groundswell which will lead to change in churches or if it's just a hot-button of the month type of thing. In my own posting and interaction on this stuff here are a few reactions/pushbacks/observations I have made.
1. I shared some of this stuff on the feminization of the church at a men's retreat a couple of years ago. This was before Murrow's book came out and I was relying mostly on Leon Podles book "The Church Impotent." It was new to most of them, a few accepted what I was saying and a few rejected it. But it did occur to me that our church has a healthy percentage of men who are deeply involved and who have taken up their calling to be godly men. I was also in a church several years ago where I would say the same.
It occurs to me that these two churches had high-content preaching (biblical/theological) and would largely fit Thom Rainer's decription of High Expectation churches.
So, I wonder if feminization is more a problem in low content, low expectation, feel-good type churches.
2. I can remember getting taken to the woodshed by one of the ladies of the blogosphere who had grown up in a very masculine fundamentalist tradition. She was none too enthused to see me and others advocating "masculine" Christianity.
That point is well taken. There is another side to the coin here. There is an abusive pseudo-masculinity in some parts of the church that masquerades as male leadership and it is particularly acute in some fundamentalist circles.
Ultimately, I think Murrow, Podles and those of us who have appreciated their books need to be careful not to let masculinity devolve into authoritarianism.
3. I have noticed this problem most acutely with young men. As a youth minister and now as a pastor keeping young people in the church is a perrenial problem. This is bigger than just a "guy" problem, but I think it is particularly acute with the guys.
Anthony Bradley speaks to why he thinks this happens.
In high school, you were baby sat, entertained, shamed, taught how to be "nice," kept busy with lots of programs, told not to sin--(sex, porn, getting drunk, having long hair), went on a 10-day missions trip to Jamaica over Christmas, but never given a picture for your role in the mission of God to redeem His world. Your faith has been totally undermined by a Christianity of privitization: you and Jesus. You were given the monastic vision of Christianity as a life of personal piety alone. Raised to live in the Christian ghetto where it's safe.
Your faith is privately engaged but socially and culturally irrelevant--and this is not the way of Jesus. You have no passion for serving others personally nor in terms of calling, a job, etc. and you're a grown man. Actually many of you aren't passionate about anything (that part of you got emasculated). You don't see yourself as "a man with a mission."
You'd have to listen to the young men in your own life to know if Anthony is correct, but at least some of that resonates with me. I'm afraid my own sons will destroy something if they hear another sex talk and though there are times they just want to do something besides the normal church stuff.
I do think Anthony is on to something here - we've given kids, and particularly young men, a picture where the sum total of the Christian life is: go to church, youth group activities and camps and mission trips and don't do drugs, sex, alcohol, or (secular) rock-n-roll. It just doesn't really inspire them.
Yup. I quite agree. It's bad, and it is also the buzz-of-the-moment, but it's a real problem.
I think one incorrect solution that's popular is to focus on an emotive "masculinism" that tries to recover "manliness" in some way . . . I'm a little mistrustful of the "passion" line, but not so much so that I can't see some truth in it.
I think a focus on high expectations is good.
May I suggest that what I, as a "younger" (but not *that* young anymore) scion of a Fundamentalist tradition, long for is a recovery of both sides of the disciplING/disciplINE coin, in our churches?
That is, people should be GUIDED into growth, in part by being EXPECTED to grow. Want people to "feel called" to service? Well, where is the church doing its job to SEND them? The call to ministry is one of the first, and most severely, privatized of all aspects of Christian life; and with that suffers much of our church life, that is, our life as members of the Body, the very real and concrete way in which we "abide in Christ."
I long for a church in which my sins are confronted in a context of an expectation that (as I profess, and sincerely but imperfectly intend) I will be and wish to be transformed by the Spirit's work into the image of Christ; that will send me into service, and not wait for me to beg to go, and beg to be supported, as if the CHURCH were signing on to MY mission!
Alas, such things are all too rare, in my experience. I look forward to going home to help build such a church. Indeed, at this point, I hope to be part of building up a body that will build me up and send me out to serve others.
How else can we go with God?
Peace,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps | July 25, 2006 at 06:39 AM
I wrote about this subject here if it interests you.
http://www.ochuk.com/?p=1001
In that post I deal with what I believe is the preconcieved ideas of masculinity and how a lot of it is a sham. Complementarians love to blame the evangelical feminists for this problem, but actually most evangelical churches out there are complementarian! Not only that, but many of the "jesus or my girlfriend" songs are written by men.
In the end I advocate a cease-fire in the "gender wars" and plead for grace.
Posted by: Ochuk | July 25, 2006 at 08:48 AM
The feminization of the church? Oh puhleeze!
As long as God is consistently imaged in male terms, as long as the authority figures in most fundamentalist and evangelical churches are male, as long as the creed recited in more traditional churches uses male language to describe the three persons of the Trinity, there is no "feminization." Call it something else, but it's not "feminization."
I'll call it what it is, patriarchy. You're seeing something else here, not sure what it is since I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I did think I ought to inject an outsider's view into what is a very narrow, insular and turned-inward argument.
- post-churched
Posted by: Mirele | July 25, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Well, if God as God revealed Godself isn't gonna work for you, then that does explain "post-churched." . . .
And, uh, yeah. If you confessedly "outside," then why would we (and why should you) rate your estimation of church problems worth a plugged nickel?
FWIW, "patriarchy" as you intend it isn't an accurate description of Biblical gender relations; and "patriarchy" in the sense of father-led households as basic socio-political units isn't really such a bad response to the practical realities of life outside the modern urb. Granted, its modern urban implementation is pretty artificial and arcane, though.
Later,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps | July 25, 2006 at 11:07 AM
There is what we profess to believe, and then there is the reality- where men view Christianity as a religion for the weak, and Christians as wimps.
Ironically, I began my sermon prep for Mt. 5:5- blessed are the meek... this morning. We often equate meek w/weak. Jesus was meek, but not weak. It takes a strong man, inside, to not demand his rights all the time, to plot and protest when things don't go his way.
we've got a generation of boys that needs to see this- rather than the insecurity that runs rampant proving itself with fisticuffs, blades or bullets.
What is the most common denominator among those in prison? It isn't race- it is the father relationship (either absent or abusive/neglectful). Society needs strong men (NOT abusive men) who lovingly sacrifice for their families and instruct their families. The church does too. Why are we so afraid of admitting that?
Posted by: cavman | July 25, 2006 at 12:28 PM
I agree with you, but then, I'm Baptist.
What do you suggest be done?
I do my best to train my ladies to back down and let their husbands lead, regardless of how much more "spiritual" they "feel".
Its tough going. There are a lot of wimpy men out there.
R
Posted by: Rhonda Arias | July 25, 2006 at 02:09 PM
I have to agree with PGE here.
In addition some actual expositional preaching instead of warrenesk ripoffs of secular motivational books would be nice!!
Posted by: Ray | July 25, 2006 at 03:44 PM
Peter, Peter, Peter, down boy!! We welcome dissent here in Jollyland.
Obviously, Mirele's comment wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy, but at least she wasn't calling me nasty names.
I do appreciate the outsider's view here Mirele and I think the divide between us goes deeper than patriarchy/feminization, etc. into views of inspiration and hermeneutics.
Posted by: David Wayne | July 25, 2006 at 04:53 PM
I completely agree that the modern church & men have been emasculated. Satan always attempts to tear down God-given standards, like the differences and roles of the sexes.
A very good book on this is by Weldon Hardenbrook "Missing In Action".
Posted by: Lance Roberts | July 25, 2006 at 06:01 PM
David,
Let me put in another plug for the book Love and Respect by Dr. Emerson E. Eggerichs. It affirms biblical teaching that manhood is mutually exclusive of womanhood and vice versa. The father is the patriarch and the mother is the matriarch, co-existing as equals in essense, but with different roles.
Posted by: Former Corn Chuckin' Champ | July 25, 2006 at 06:09 PM
FCC - thanks for the recommendation - good thoughts.
Lance - I read that book about a hundred years ago. Is it still in print? I remember it being a good book.
Posted by: David Wayne | July 25, 2006 at 09:05 PM
I'm wondering what a "male-friendly" church would look like? This is not a rhetorical question and I'd truly be interested in hearing people's comments.
In his post, David mentions "high-content (biblical/theological) preaching". It strikes me that this is more of a "personality-type thing" than a "gender thing". If I can be permitted to use Meyers-Briggs language (I don't "worship" MB, by the way, it's just helpful to use here) - "high-content biblical/theological preaching" seems something that would be favoured by the "thinking" function as opposed to the "feeling" function.
There is no one-to-one correspondence with being male and the thinking function; women who are "thinkers" or who function well in "thinking mode" would value high-content preaching as well.
When we use words like "masculine" I wonder whether we are talking about "sensing / thinking" and when we use words like "feminine" we are talking about "intuition / feeling"?
Posted by: Pam | July 26, 2006 at 06:50 AM
Here are a couple of quotes from a feminist (Naomi Goldenberg) (I've been blogging about gender roles)
“The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy.”
“ . . . It is likely that as we watch Christ and Yahweh tumble to the ground, we will completely outgrow the need for an external God.”
“We, women are going to bring an end to God. We will change the world so much that He won’t fit in anymore.”
Posted by: Ellen | July 26, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Men leaving the church because it's too feminized? I suggest you look at the other side of the coin and read "Wicca's Charm" by journalist and Christian Catherine Sanders. Spending a year studying, observing, and blending in with Wiccans yielded some interesting insights. Sanders heard the same story over and over again from former Christian women: it is precisely because of patriarchal, masculinized Christian churches that women are turning to Wicca. They are tired of being seen as good for little more than working in the church nursery and serving at church suppers, tired of having their leadership and intellectual gifts ignored.
This is what happens when we push people into pink and blue boxes and affix a list of permitted exclusively feminine and exclusively masculine expressions of faith and ministry to each box. Until men and women learn that each individual is uniquely created and gifted, and until they are permitted to exercise those god-given gifts and serve without regard to gender, the church will never find the authentic community it strives for.
Posted by: Light | July 26, 2006 at 03:46 PM
“We, women are going to bring an end to God. We will change the world so much that He won’t fit in anymore.”
Then what happens when Allah comes in to fill the vacuum you left when you brought "an end to God"? Not only does Islam's male-supremacist angle sound like a lot better deal for men than what that changed world offers, it also promises payback with interest.
Posted by: Ken | July 27, 2006 at 04:27 PM
M. le Jolly-Bloggeur: rebuke accepted. :-)
I get weary of "our" (church) internal discussions being treated as if the world's judgment were relevant or interesting. Such weariness is a poor reason to react, though.
Cheers,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps | July 27, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Then what happens when Allah comes in to fill the vacuum you left when you brought "an end to God"? Not only does Islam's male-supremacist angle sound like a lot better deal for men than what that changed world offers, it also promises payback with interest.
The feminized "goddess" steps in. If we throw aside the proper Biblical teaching of complimentarian gender roles, we lose the Creator, Father God.
I'm going through a book on my blog, "Does Christianity Squash Women?" by Rebecca Jones. She says that if we (women) shake our fists at the patriarch [male headship], then we must ultimately shake also our fists at the Patriarch who set it all up.
I posted the quotes, not to advocate for the view, but to illustrate that feminism (in its boiled down, purest form) is entirely incompatible with Biblical Christianity.
Posted by: Ellen | July 28, 2006 at 09:38 AM
I'm wondering what a "male-friendly" church would look like? This is not a rhetorical question and I'd truly be interested in hearing people's comments.
A male-friendly church would not be mauve. There would be no jokes from the pulpit about "sleeping on the couch". Young men would have a team of mentors raising them up to be strong leaders and young women would have a team of mentors teaching them that it is a good and Godly thing to submit to Biblical headship.
A male-friendly church would take the emphasis off of "doing the right thing" and place the emphasis on "being the right thing".
Posted by: Ellen | July 28, 2006 at 09:42 AM
Thanks for this post! I'd like to add that a superfeminized church can also turn off some...women. Yes! I'm not one for tea parties and such; I am a graduate student and researcher. The superfeminized, touchy-feely church for me has the unhappy effect of making me feel rather out of place: the men seem emasculated and the women seem frilly. Where are the strong men and women of faith and purpose? They must be out there somewhere, but maybe their presence is obscured by all the fripperies.
Yet there's more to church than pastel walls and feel-good choruses, after all. I keep feeling that some substance, real substance, is missing. Besides, I've always been an independent sort of chick (you have to be in order to survive grad school, really), and the uber-girly church makes me...er, uncomfortable, as if somehow I weren't girly enough to fully participate. I find myself sympathizing with the guys in a "Why Men Hate Going to Church" scenario. Ubergirliness ultimately = irrelevance.
Anyway, I don't think you're arguing as much for a "masculinized" Christianity as much as you're really arguing for a ROBUST Christianity. And there's nothing wrong with that! Using terms like "masculinized" brings up all sorts of other associations, and we've all been in religious circles where men who are insecure deep down parade their "male headship/leadership" to mask their inadequacies at the expense of the ladies' own important roles. Really, what we need is a church in which men and women are free to be themselves, not pale versions of that.
Posted by: Mad Minerva | July 28, 2006 at 03:27 PM
the problem with modern christianity is nothing but all sorts of ideals like marxism and feminism and communism are infiltrated.we today live in a world the young and manly are naturally atracted to communism islam and anything but christian.but has anybody really paused to think why?its because we have left god out of our system and our hearts.jesus is not a feminised pacifist god he was a masculine in every sense and more
Posted by: rojer | December 19, 2006 at 08:25 AM
i said in previous post jesus is masculine and more .y is it so .coz bible says man is the head of woman and christ is the head of man.how can female god be the head of man when woman is under man .its self contradictory to the word of god .the present problem with feminization also shows we have reached the end of the road.in bible woman is asked to be veiled in church worship not because she should show of her face or wear sexily in church.from wear did such an impression came it came from islam.surely its said in the bible that woman should wear sensibly in church so that men will not be distracted.but this is not the case of veiling.veiling is done to show the godly orderof god christ man woman.woman who prayes or doing public ministry without veil disgraces her husband why because jesus is present in every christian. rember the verse that says i shall be in the midst of u whenever 2 of u gather in my name.this denotes all type of christian meetings bot church and informal.rember early christians had no church buildins they assembled in houses and caves and underground due to severe persecution by non christians.so when a woman is not veiled she makes herself christs wife.jesus said when he saw the woman at the well go and call ur husband the one whom u have now is not ur husband.because he wanted to make his intention regarding the position of women he made it clear.in the verse i above mentioned its said that women is allowed public ministry if she is veiled.but what is the public ministry when another verse in the bible says woman should no speak in the church and should be silent.its disgracful for woman to speak in th church of god.woman are not allowed to teach men and rule over them.so the public ministry allowed to woman are confined only to woman and evangelizing non christian men and woman.another feminizing teaching of the church is christians are not allowed to take up arms or to fight or to defend.but jesus himself said in lukes gospel that he who doesnot have a sword should buy one selling his cloak.jesus said i have come to make warand not peace.he certainly was not a pacifist god as the modern evangelists and preists think of.infact throught the old testament we see people of god fighting holy wars against there enemies.even in church history christians have waged many wars.if evil can take up arms how much more can the good do so?so christians should be allowed to form there own militias for selfdefence and offence if required.
Posted by: rojer | December 19, 2006 at 09:00 AM
Well I'm not sure were this open forum will decide to go with this subject, my comments however are directed at my brothers and sisters in Christ. Those of you outside of this bride do not have the same desire to see her healthy. I understand that it may sound snyed but your opinions on this matter do not really have any love or understanding.
My comment on this feminization issue is that it is far to real and more deeply inbedid in our life's than we would like to believe. I am 27 and have been married for almost 7 years. I obviously was married as a boy. My wife and I have overcome the odds and have no intention of leaving each-other but as I became a man and she a women there were great obstacles to triumph. Wow how we made it I don't know outside of our faith in Christ, but we really became adults together and really discovered what our goals and desires were and kept our love alive through it all. But right now we have come to a place were that biblical leadership and the dreaded "submit" issue has become of great importance. My wife has told me she does believe that the man is supposed to be the head of the home and God the head of the husband, however she struggles with this greatly and says she believes she is so inbedid with a distrust of men, a strong desire to make all the decisions and a generally ill feeling towards what she says feels like relinquishing her rights with out a fight that it is a very real battle for her. I believe that the feminist movement produced a generation of mothers who had a absolute disgust of men and christianity and most of all any plan of submission of women. In there raising of there daughters most of all I think they produced a generation of women who through being encouraged to not believe they were any less valuable than men ( which is true) they shouldn't let men hold them down, that they could do anything that men could do etc. these daughters I believe grew up with a feeling deep within them that men are controlling and suppressive sex, at the same time a group of passive boys whose natural masculine behaviors were suppressed and even ridiculed as immature and caveman type behaviors that they were made to be ashamed of. Both husbands and sons in order to fit in in this new society and moreover to have any relationship with women which no matter what men desire we must become sensitive, passive, feminized men. And the church in my generation I remember from the early 90's until the late 90's had a big push from the feminized women of the church, ( the carnal things slowly make there way into christians life's and then slowly into the church, it takes awhile but the carnality in christians who are the church does work it's way through the whole bunch) pushed there pastors to give them equal time, ( if you will) and I never heard so much preaching on husbands love your wife's as Christ loved the church and etc. Now this is true and Husbands must however the underlying issue was the rise of feminism in the church and a loss of Godly men knowing what there purpose was anymore, a confusion and fear was put in men and women started taking over the leadership of the home, with the excuse that he wasn't leading someone had to and many others. Now we can isolate the worst abuse's of the roll of Husband's for sure and it continues to go on, but if we want the church to be the way it was when Godly men led Godly homes and wife's trusted that there husbands submitted ti God and felt comfortable submitting to them under this knowledge and a wife adored her husband because of this and a husband adored his wife for her submissive love. Unfortunately I agree men have become mirror hogging makeup wearing poets who are more interested in fashion than football ( not that football is great for men, I'm making the point of the change that has occurred) This is my generation I am speaking of the 20 somethings.
MY BIGGEST fear in all of this though is the daughters I was talking about earlier are slowly becoming our ( meaning the generation currently in grade school) new school teachers and the young boys that are our son's grandson's etc. are being demasculized in a greater way than ever before, anything that separates the line between men and women boy's and girls is being removed. These young boy's will be the first generation that is almost completely unaware of the God given joy of being a wild boy-man. It all goes back to a rebellion against men. On a final not I personally think I have seen nothing more beautiful than a Godly women who adores her husband a is proud not demeaned to be a submissive wife, she shines like the sun and every man adores her. I have such an aunt.
Posted by: Travis | December 23, 2006 at 12:58 AM