Tags
blogging, Christianity, churchianity, culture, faith, insanitybytes22, men and women, opinion, relationship
I thought this series was rather interesting, by Brett and Kate McKay:
Christianity’s Manhood Problem: An Introduction
Is Christianity an Inherently Feminine Religion?
The Feminization of Christianity
I don’t necessarily agree that “Christianity has a manhood problem” but I do encounter many men, especially on the internet, who tell me it does. So here are three articles that I think address these issues very well, from a variety of perspectives.
I’ll just address the last one, “the Feminization of Christianity,” because it covers one issue I’ve spoken of before, worship songs as “boyfriend music,” the way women often romance and fall madly in love with our Savior. I’m certainly not going to apologize for that or say it’s wrong. God is after all, the lover of our souls. However, men and women are very different, so of course women will turn to God seeking those aspects of Him that we ourselves desire the most, protection, provision, affection. For us He is a Father, Savior, Leader, Redeemer…Husband. I have often quipped while writing praises, “remember I am a girl.” I find those gender differences amusing and quite delightful, not problematic, but I often want to post a disclaimer. Men are unlikely to desire relationship, safety, feelings, with the same kind of feminine enthusiasm I have.
My daughters relate to their earthly Father differently than my son does too, not that the affection is any less, but it does manifest itself differently. He’s the same Father, he’s just perceived differently, depending on roles and relationships. So it seems quite logical that sons and daughters would relate to our heavenly Father with some gender variations, too.
As to some of the contemporary “boyfriend music,” well I’m not going to try to explain or defend that. Some of it is just awful, as in it embarrasses even me and I’m darn near impervious.
I think what lurks at the root of this discussion is the word “prioritize.” Are the more feminine aspects of faith being prioritized over the more masculine ones in the Western church? I don’t know, but I think it’s a good discussion to have.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Quite honestly IB, to me the discussion of the feminization of Christianity is a tempest in a tea pot. My relationship is with Christ – I accept Him into my life and worship accordingly. What the church goers decide to discuss is their business and does not affect me one way or the other. Nor would i expect it to affect any other Christian who had accepted Jesus.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A tempest in a teapot? Sounds good to me, I am all about the teapots. 🙂
However, there are a whole lot of men outside the church and I think this can be part of the reason. It’s somewhat funny, perception is everything but it isn’t always truth and you can watch this as people swing from one extreme to the other. So the fems will say our churches are all “patriarchal dens of misogyny,” while some men at the same time are complaining that “church is for girls. Faith has been feminized.” I don’t think either perception is accurate, but it’s good discussion to have.
You know me, Paul, always trying to figure out what’s separating people from faith, and by extension from the church 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ha! You and St. Jude.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of modern America has a problem with sex roles, so American Christians won’t be any different.
It probably varies place to place. I lived in Rome for a while and knew lots of catholic seminarians from all over: the North Americans and Northern Europeans were all daddy’s boys, that is, when they talked about their upbringing and influences, they all talked about their fathers first, and would then add “oh, and mom was great too”. The Southern Europeans and especially the Latin Americans were all mama’s boys, I was surprised how many of the Mexicans came from fatherless families, something that was really rare with the others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
you have a gift thanks for sharing this great message!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess I attend one of those patriarchal dens. I’m not sure. I haven’t encountered any misogyny – hatred for women. In fact, my personal experience is that women are treated as valued members of the body within our denomination.
Over the years, I’ve participated in ministry (non-pastoral ministry, that is) at every level – local, regional and national. I’ve served countless years as a member of the Board of Directors at our church, led bible studies, taught catechism class, and earned a master’s degree in New Testament Studies from Concordia Seminary. And at one point, I was seriously considering entering into full-time church work as a deaconess.
My contributions, and the contributions of the many other women, are in no way less valued than those of men.
There is only one role that I am unable to serve within the church and that is the pastoral ministry. I do not meet the biblical criteria, which establishes, among other things, that the office is restricted to men.
It’s kinda funny, my husband, who grew up in a different tradition, thinks this is just plain WRONG, but maybe because I grew up with it, I never thought of it as wrong or sexist or unfair. (Ok, maybe for a few years in my late teens/early I struggled with it, lol.) To me it seemed to be a beautiful picture of God’s provision to me THROUGH man. It is as if God said to me, “Here is my provision to you. It is man that I have chosen to distribute my goodness to the world, and to you. I have placed the weight of that burden upon man so that you need not bear it. This is my protection and provision to you.”
It’s never felt like “oppression” to me; it makes me feel incredibly cared for. I see it as all gift.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Amen, anitvan! I too feel blessed, looked after, cared for. It’s sad to me that some people do not know what that looks like, what it feels like, and so where I see safety and comfort, they can only see oppression and potential abuse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The more chickified a church becomes, the more difficult it becomes to get men involved or even interested. The church I used to belong to became hopelessly chickified and I finally had to leave. The only people I can imagine such a place appealing to would be feminists, which are pretty scarce out here in flyover country, except on university campuses and in very large metropolitan areas. (I used to be a feminist long ago, but I recovered.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, chickified, huh? Well said.
LikeLike
hmm. I’ve finally read the articles, well browsed the last bit of the last one since I’m running out of time here. This is an odd topic for me since much of what has been written about doesn’t really appear to reflect me personally or the congregations I’ve been a part of. I have noticed the romance language that you use, IB, and wondered if it was as symbolic as I generally assume it to be. I’m not sure what I think about the other writer speaking about that topic. I don’t see the romance angle in the Bible and I don’t personally gravitate toward that feeling. Nor do I think I’ve ever heard the romance language from the pulpit. But the Bible surely does teach that we personally commit to Christianity or deny it. So there seems as if there is a world of unspoken assumptions in all of that. I think I may have more to say about this after some more prayer and meditation. It just had too many possible tangents, brought up too many possible questions, etc. …maybe… We’ll see if God brings me back to it in the midst of everything going on in life!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate you taking the time to read all that. I am a bit like you, ambivalent,uncertain because this is not something I have seen, not something I have ever experienced. If we are talking about feelings, as in some men may “feel displaced” for assorted reasons, I can certainly relate to that.
But feelings are not always “truth,” sometimes they can be very subjective and the problem is not necessarily “the church,” but rather one’s own struggles.
It’s a bit comical, some fems yell at me about the “patriarchal den of misogyny” that is the church, while at the same time there are some men claiming “the church” has been totally feminized. Only on the intertoobz can two versions of reality exist at the same time…. 🙂
LikeLike
“I don’t necessarily agree that “Christianity has a manhood problem” but I do encounter many men, especially on the internet, who tell me it does.
[…]
Are the more feminine aspects of faith being prioritized over the more masculine ones in the Western church? I don’t know, but I think it’s a good discussion to have.”
I suspect any discussion will be improved if the opinions of men, especially those who did attend “church” but no longer do, are valued rather than discounted for reasons such as “you’re divorced so you must be bitter”, “you’re Red Pill so you hate women”, “you’re jealous of the real men like the pastor or worship leader”, etc.
Reading the articles and reading other internet sources, it appears to me that many people have given serious consideration to the idea that the Western church has been feminized to a noticeable degree. A large number of them believe this is true. It is certainly true that attendance and membership data today show that there are many more women than men in church. If feminization is not the primary reason, what is? What are other significant reasons?
Although I doubt you were considering the question this way, I think you do believe that “Christianity has a manhood problem”. You have repeatedly promoted the concept that marriages, families, churches, and society would be vastly improved if Christian men would lead the way God intended them to do. I believe that this is true, but I think it is less likely to happen if churches and Christians generally are resistant to allowing masculine influence and perspective.
LikeLike
Well, a couple of things come to mind. If you are a red pill who sells hatred of women to bitter divorced men and runs about accusing Pastors and worship leaders of having been cranked out of a “beta farm for wussification,” I’m going with the idea that the error in this case does not lie with the church.
Also, you said, “It is certainly true that attendance and membership data today show that there are many more women than men in church.” Yes, but as these articles stated, that is not a recent phenomenon. I believe they cited the Puritans and showed that contrary to popular thought, men’s participation in the Western church today is actually better than it’s been over several periods of history.
“You have repeatedly promoted the concept that marriages, families, churches, and society would be vastly improved if Christian men would lead the way God intended them to do. I believe that this is true, but I think it is less likely to happen if churches and Christians generally are resistant to allowing masculine influence and perspective.”
Quite true, that is exactly what I have promoted. What I remain unconvinced of however, is that churches are allegedly “suppressing masculine influence and perspective.” I have absolutely no objection to men exploring that possibility however,or having bible studies together, or doing whatever it is men want to do to embrace their masculine influence and perspective. What I do object to is those red pills telling men that the church is a beta farm for feminized men,that the Holy Spirit has been taken over by the feminine imperative, and that men should avoid church out of fear of being de-masculated. That’s false, irresponsible, and wrong.
LikeLike
From the article:
“When men who don’t fit in critique the system as unwelcoming to their type of masculinity, those that do feel at home in the Christian church sometimes blame them, saying the problem is not the church, but that these men are stuck in an overly macho stereotype of what manliness is and are letting false ideas of masculinity become an obstacle to their salvation. Since the insiders don’t have a problem fitting in, they thus wonder why other men can’t get with the program.”
From your last comment (emphases mine):
‘Well, a couple of things come to mind. If you are a red pill who sells hatred of women to bitter divorced men and runs about accusing Pastors and worship leaders of having been cranked out of a “beta farm for wussification,” I’m going with the idea that the error in this case does not lie with the church.
[…]
What I remain unconvinced of however, is that churches are allegedly “suppressing masculine influence and perspective.” I have absolutely no objection to men exploring that possibility however,or having bible studies together, or doing whatever it is men want to do to embrace their masculine influence and perspective. What I do object to is those red pills telling men that the church is a beta farm for feminized men,that the Holy Spirit has been taken over by the feminine imperative, and that men should avoid church out of fear of being de-masculated. That’s false, irresponsible, and wrong.’
Your response fits the theory(?) given in the article exceedingly well. In case you don’t see it, I will give some details:
1. You say the problem is the men who have left, not the church.
2. You say they “are letting false ideas of masculinity become an obstacle to their salvation”. For example, you object to “the church is a beta farm for feminized men”.
3. You wonder why these men “can’t get with the program”. For example, you object to them saying “men should avoid church out of fear of being de-masculated”.
In short, it seems to me that you are an “insider” who has no problem fitting in, so you don’t understand why any man would have a problem. The primary reason is, of course, that you are a woman, not a man. Therefore, you have a different perspective. As you said, “Men are unlikely to desire relationship, safety, feelings, with the same kind of feminine enthusiasm I have.”
Yes, of course, almost all of the men who have left the church are imperfect. However, if there is genuine desire to discuss the question of feminization of the church, it would be foolish to completely ignore the perceptions of those men. I expect there are nuggets of truth to be found, even if they are buried in muck.
I note that your lack of objection to men exploring possibilities seems to be limited to men-only activities. First, although you personally may not object, what about the church leaders objecting? It is my experience that church leaders are often quite reluctant to allow other men to have a say or influence on the activities within the church.
Second, I note you do not mention being open to the possibility that masculine influence and perspective could lead to changes in the entire church. For example, worship service style, building decor, activities, etc.
If you truly want men to lead in the church, I think you need to be prepared for change, and be prepared to accept change.
On a slightly different note, based on what I understand of you and your husband’s experience with your previous church, I wondered if your husband has read this series and, if so, what is his response? I would be very interested to hear it. One specific passage seems especially relevant, where the article says ‘Men express the same frustration today, telling Murrow that they “couldn’t stand the inefficiency of church meetings” and describing “local congregations as ‘unproductive’ and ‘focused on the wrong things.’””
LikeLike
“In short, it seems to me that you are an “insider” who has no problem fitting in, so you don’t understand why any man would have a problem. The primary reason is, of course, that you are a woman, not a man. Therefore, you have a different perspective.”
LOL! Now that’s pretty funny. I can’t recall anyone ever accusing me of being an insider who has no problem fitting in.
“It is my experience that church leaders are often quite reluctant to allow other men to have a say or influence on the activities within the church.”
Okay, but the vast majority of church leaders are men. It’s a bit ironic to me but what you’re speaking of is actually a problem with the male ego, not the feminization of the church. In which case what you are really asking is for male leadership to soften it’s ego a bit and be more receptive towards men on the outside. I totally agree with that, and I think the best churches really do.
“Second, I note you do not mention being open to the possibility that masculine influence and perspective could lead to changes in the entire church.”
I didn’t mention it, because I already see a great deal of masculine influence in the church. Would I be willing to see more? Of course. Masculine influence is a wonderful thing, it doesn’t worry me at all. Now if that meant red pills like Dalrock coming in and taking over, I’d be out the back door rather quickly. That stuff isn’t masculine and it doesn’t reflect the teachings of Christ either.
My husband has not read this series as far as I know, so I can’t speak for him.
LikeLike
Well, this may or may not apply to what you’re addressing since I really don’t attend places where men are noticeably absent from the congregations or where women assume any of the public leadership, but all of the people I’ve known to have “left the church” male and female alike have left for one of two reasons, they claimed to not believe in it or they have gone whole hog into rebellion and sin and don’t want to repent of the sins they’ve embraced and are being rebuked for, most commonly sexual immorality, but sometimes other stuff.
I do recall two congregations of my youth that had little groups of elderly widows (husbands truly deceased not just staying home). But then again the congregation where I attend now has two widows and one widower. Oh and the last one before my most recent move had one widower, but no widows. That’s just the way the numbers played out.
Would it be feminization of the church for some “churches” to not teach against sin? To not really call people to repentance? I’m not sure that it would be but I can see men showing less of a tendency towards such wishy washy-ness maybe and That’s a trend that I *think* I see among bunches of places where I wouldn’t attend. Actually come to think of it that is fairly close to home in one way. My soon to be ex says he rejects or no longer believes the group he used to be a part of with me that wouldn’t condone him leaving or taking up with a mistress among other things is the real church but after months of non-church attendance he’s found a place that’s fine with his new chosen “lifestyle” of fornication and drunkeness and won’t condemn it as antithetical to the teachings of Jesus or requiring any change.
LikeLike
I would consider women in public leadership in a church to be an obvious sign of feminization. As to numbers of men in attendance, it is seldom so low that they are “noticeably absent”. However, you might have a look around in your church and see if there might be a 60:40 women-to-men ratio (that’s not far from a 2:1 ratio). More importantly, what is the general style of the services and the building, and the interaction of the people? Do you think those items would appeal to men?
By leaving the church, I meant that specific congregation. Of three divorces about 5 years ago in my church (in a denomination that is considered quite conservative), I know that two of the men have left that church but now attend other churches. However, the other one no longer wants to have any part of church. In all three cases, the church leaders provided little or no support for the husbands, and generally displayed no interest in them. In one case, when the wife had previously had an affair (with the Sunday School teacher), the husband was told that no leader was available to help him because they were all too involved helping the teacher.
“Would it be feminization of the church for some “churches” to not teach against sin? To not really call people to repentance? “
From the last article from Art of Manliness, “Research has shown that women are more likely to imagine God as characterized by love, forgiveness, and comfort, while men picture him in terms of power, planning, and control.”. If the church leaders are more feminine in their perspective, then it would seem likely they would be inclined to act as you describe above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my 46 years of life and experience I have seen something similar to what you describe where “leaders” did not see to the needs of a man when they absolutely should have in two separate instances when there was no other conclusion I could draw than that the leaders failed and should have seen to their duty to the man in the situation. in either instance, it wasn’t quite so obvious and egregious as helping the person who wronged the man by sleeping with his wife while refusing to counsel the man who had been wronged but it was egregious nonetheless.
I can sort of see the point of focusing on forgiveness as more feminine or more likely in women and I did noticed when the article said it, but I kind of see people and not just women as wrong when they focus on forgiveness to the exclusion of Truth …And vice versa, although I see men do it more often than women, they are all wrong when they focus on Truth to the exclusion of grace.
I do know that where I identify and participate with a local group I would not be given a pass if I had cheated on my husband or tried to leave him “frivolously”. They wouldn’t withhold anything afterward if I truly repented and God then forgave but in the face of the sin they would totally demand the same change of heart and action that God demands and condemn the terrible actions and choices. So its just an odd concept for me to see some mistakes as one or the other in such a way as to call for change to help out one sex over the other. I may need to put in some more or better prayer and meditation on that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
fromscratchmom,
I am going to suppose that “forgiveness to the exclusion of Truth” is forgiveness without repentance. It seems that the church today has subscribed to some worldly, psychological theory that you must forgive, with or without repentance, to avoid bitterness, etc. It is my understanding that forgiveness by God is conditional on our repentance. I do not believe that God would desire us to forgive others without the same condition. If He did, I think the following verse would be written differently.
[Luke 17:3 NASB] 3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
It would instead be written as “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, forgive him no matter what. If he repents, so much the better.” It seems that the emphasis on love (feminization?) in the church has caused us to overlook the requirement of repentance. It is my perception that those who have had to deal with long-term, repeated sin by others against them easily recognize this requirement. Almost all others presume that forgiveness without repentance is the godly action. Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to this behavior when he wrote “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance”.
I applaud your “local group” for their approach to sin. At least it seems to be in line with the practice and teaching found in the New Testament. In my experience, that is quite unusual. It is especially disappointing to me as the “denomination” of my youth is supposed to be patterned after the practices and teaching of the Church as found in the New Testament.
LikeLike
Matthew 10
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
Memi, an issue here may be that urban humans don’t get “sheep”. Rams are “sheep” and actually do pretty well against wolves! Especially when protecting ewes and lambs. A Ram defending ewes and lambs can be “shrewd as a snake and as innocent as a dove”, while at the same time, being a great, head knocking, hoof kicking Ram!
The issue I am facing now is local church and seminary leadership that is “shrewd as doves and innocent as snakes”! ; – (
I am hoping that my role as a “Ram”, will get them back in the fold!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating, A-dad. I was just talking to someone about the differences between rural and urban people and that is something he said too, rams are also sheep.
I keep your mission in my prayers, A-dad. God Himself once told me, “lift them up or take them down, makes no difference to me, but either way you better engage.” In my case that was a bit comical, but I think it speaks to the nature of God and what he often calls us to do. No fence sitters allowed 🙂
LikeLike
Very interesting topic indeed. I honestly think that if the western church is becoming progressively feminine then it is the men’s fault. Men were born to lead but a large part of America men can’t even seem get off the couch long enough to read their Bibles much less lead believers. In their place many women have assumed leadership roles and in many ways are doing a fantastic job, though leadership was likely not made to be this way. Perhaps the lack of leadership (and by leadership I mean true Christ like leadership) in the homes and church have led to this.
Blessings!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for reading and for your comment. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really enjoyed your article and plan on sharing it on my site; my opinion on the matter anyways is that men are not living out Godly principles in the western church. Sin is not talked much about and the gospel has become watered down…Men of Courage where are you at?
LikeLiked by 1 person