The Feminization of Christianity: Where are all the Men’s Ministries?
Posted on February 18th, 2008 by David Mackin into the Uncategorized, David Mackin Writes: category
Today I heard a man in the 700 Club studio audience ask Pat Robertson two questions about men’s ministries: (1) Why is there such a lack of men’s ministries today in so many local churches? and, (2) What can be done to attract men to a church-based men’s ministry?
Pat skipped the first question and said the following about the second: If you’re going to have a men’s ministry, then you need to organize it around what men like to do. Do manly things like go to the gym and do karate. One men’s group is focused around hunting; they meet together and eat game. You can’t have an effective men’s group by expecting men to sit around and play tiddlywinks or knit.
I would like to submit a response to the question which Pat chose not to address: Why is there such a lack of men’s ministries in so many local churches?
In my former home church, our senior pastor allowed a men’s ministry to hold its meetings on the same evening as the mid-week service. This seemed like an ideal night to get men together since most would be coming to church with their families anyway. Interested men would meet in various houses and places near the church at about 6:00pm but had to be dismissed around 7:00pm-7:15pm in order to attend the mid-week church service. The meetings were a great success. The men, of all ages by the way, so enjoyed the meetings that they requested of the senior pastor that he allow them to skip the mid-week service and stay in their men’s meeting groups until the church service ended. After all, they reasoned, what was happening in the men’s groups was personally ministering to them more than what was going on in the mid-week church services! As I remember it, there was a great groundswell of support for this idea from most, if not all, of the men.
After several months of great meetings, something terrible happened. The senior pastor abruptly ended the meetings. I do not remember the reason that was publicly given as to why the pastor decided to end the meetings, but I do remember that whatever it was did not strike many of us as the full story. When the announcement was made to the groups, we felt very disappointed; we thought, what could we do to reverse his decision since we were not church staff leaders?
I would like to submit two reasons why I think that this senior pastor closed down the men's meetings.
(1) I suggest that the men’s’ meetings became a political threat to the mid-week service. If the men would rather attend men’s meetings more than corporate church meetings, what if this attitude spread to the women, too? What would happen to the mid-seek service?
(I don’t think that economics played as much of a role because they could still take up collections in the individual groups, but one ever knows for sure on this one.)
(2) I also suggest that the level of transparency evidenced in the meetings became an emotional and psychological threat to the pastor. He was not raised in an era where church leaders were open and vulnerable about their struggles. The men in the meetings shared honestly about the issues that regularly affected them: women/marriage/family, money/career, and, of course, sex.
Recommended reading: Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent: the Feminization of Christianity (Spence Publishing), 1999.
RSS feed for posts
February 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Back in the early 1990s when I was involved in fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity, Promise Keepers was supposedly the solution to attracting men back to the Christianity. And yet, it seems PK has not had any long-lasting impact.
Pat Robertson’s male social club idea is interesting, but are recreational activities really what Christianity is about?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Norm! said: Pat Robertson’s male social club idea is interesting, but are recreational activities really what Christianity is about?
Norm, As I was listening to Pat’s response today, I felt that I might never be a part of any men’s ministry the way that he was describing it. I don’t like hunting, cars, or sports - all the typical guy things. I’d like to see us use these natural interests in a way that we can get them talking about the deeper personal issues all eventually, at least, ending up in reading the Word and praying for one another.
—
I forgot to add this: I am under the present persuasion that one of the causes of the feminization of the church today is the Senior Pastor Cult, i.e., the rule of pastor-kings. Under the rule of what church historian’s call the “monarchical bishop,” (speaking in generalities, of course): men become like passive women. They don’t confront, ask questions, push back, demand full financial disclosure and participation, redress grievances, try to re-write their church’s constitution with more of a balance of power, etc. in an effort to stop the reign of pastor-kings. Such a power cult not only attracts feminine-type personalities (I don’t mean effeminate or homosexual); in my view, it also produces them.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The ‘worship service’ is a lot like a stage play, i.e., theatre or opera. What manly man wants to sit thru that kinda junk?
BTW - I’ve heard that type of ministry function called “affinity evangelism” …
February 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Dave,
I think your comments were more insightful that many may realize. The fact that passive, feminine-type personalities are generated by the pastor cult phenomena seems to perpetuate the problem. It’s also seems to me that the demasculization of our entire society bleeds over into the church, which is why the celebrity/senior pastor cult may be seen so much in the IC in this current era. The more unfortunate thing is that it seems there are only a minority of senior pastors that de-throne themselves and refuse to accept a celebrity status of any type. These few pastors are like salt in what seems to many to be a very bland IC. In my opinion, we are really in need of another revolution from within, or from outside of the church. Possibly akin to Mr. Luther.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Having been outside the IC for awhile now, this is one of those things that always strikes me as culturally odd when I do have reason to come into contact with those still deep on the inside.
This is especially true for the music and musicians. A large portion of it is written with such melancholy, it’s no wonder guys are reluctant to participate. Unless you really like to sing songs that sound like Cold Play ballads and Jack Johnson, you’re only alternative is to listen to Christian emo (aka Hillsong youth & CBC’s imitation, Gen Unleashed). There are few, if any, songs about the masculine qualities of God unless you’re singing in the hushed awe of a schoolgirl. Any songs that might truly appeal to the male psyche are shunned for being offensive or worldly. Hymns have more masculine appeal than modern P&W: “Onward Christian Soldiers”, “Victory In Jesus”, “Good Christian Men Rejoice”, etc. — And don’t even get me started on the feminine hair styles of Christians, especially musicians. Ironically, this shift seems to be a strange twist to the strict policies of BT/CBC in the past. Rather than just grow long hair, the boys (I can’t even call them men) carefully coif their hair and color/frost it in various shades. Outside of Nashville, no one except boys in mega churches wear their hair like that. It creeps me out. And this is coming from a guy who had long hair for awhile, and permed his hair in the 80’s.
CBC used to have manly men, like Howdy Sligar (an ass-kicking Marine) who could get the men of the church fired up. Masculinity doesn’t seem to have a place in the IC any more, never mind seeing them celebrate masculinity in Christianity.
My views on the tone of the New Testament have changed within the last few years, and I’m beginning to notice things like the attitude of Christ towards some people that would be considered rough and crude by post-modern Western thinking. He was absolutely frank and abrupt when He wanted to be, and pulled no punches when insulting the Pharisees or condemning those who opposed Him. Reading His frustration with His own disciples puts a different perspective on the “nice” Jesus. Anyone who would brutally attack a large group of people with a bunch or ropes as a whip is an effing maniac not to be messed with. The historical Jesus was simultaneously kind and intimidating. Growing up a carpenter probably made him vigorous and muscular with wide calloused hands (you try building stuff without power tools some time and see what happens). There was nothing genteel about Jesus, yet our culture is saturated with a softened perspective of someone who cuddles sheep and speaks in a soft voice. Jesus had the physical stamina to suffer a terrible beating and then live for a considerable time during the process of crucifixion - he was not a frail figure by any means. How many public speakers do you know who could shout to a crowd of several thousand and be clearly heard? He was not soft-spoken.
Most of the Apostles were “blue collar” and made their living through back breaking labor. They worked hard and even during their discipleship, it was clear they continued to work by doing things like fishing.
The Apostle Paul was hardly a mild-mannered person. His epistles are full of fiery prose that demand a healthy fear and respect for an all-powerful God. He often wrote in angry tone that scolded early Christians, and condemned the heretics and apostate. For someone who authored the “fruit of the Spirit” he seemed to be someone you didn’t dare contradict unless you really wanted a fight on your hands.
OK, I’m getting carried away with this, but I just want to say that it’s more or less the IC’s fault for portraying Christianity in such a feminine light. If you read the Bible carefully, it’s clear that the opposite perspective is the predominant one. I can appreciate the progress of female empowerment within the Church in recent generations, but it’s time to swing the pendulum back the other way.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
It is possible to not project oneself in a typical “masculine” manner as dictated by society and still be masculine. I’m not talking about style (hair & clothing), I’m talking about body language, speech, actions, etc.
My boyfriend is the kindest person I know. He is gentle in speech and manner but firm and commanding when he needs to be (if he is genuinely angry or upset, or if he is disciplining children). He has never spoken a harsh word to me and I have never heard him speak a harsh word to another person. He is a vegetarian and a pacifist. He loves cats as opposed to dogs. He is thoughtful and open about his feelings. He is loving and sweet even in front of his male friends. I know some of these things seem silly but they are view by society in general to be “feminine” or at least less than what society thinks a “real man” should be like. Of course, these things are offset by his love of rock&roll, guitars, action and his lack of care for his physical appearance other than looking clean and wearing whatever clothing that is least likely to draw attention to him.
But my boyfriend is more of a man than any other male I have ever known including my brothers and my father (whom I love and look up to).
I don’t mean to ramble — I just think it’s important to know that there are men who embody the traits of true masculinity–at least a masculinity that is good and positive–and don’t emit certain expected masculine behaviors or activities.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Makes you feel like the old guard, eh? Never thought you’d see the day when someone dressing and styling their hair like Judah Smith does would be the ‘popular’ male image, huh?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
@JT, It seems the few male aspects of your boyfriend that you mentioned are hardly the sole territory of masculinity. I’m not trying to contradict you, but what makes him masculine to you? Just curious.
@eleytheria - Old guard? I guess that’s debatable. I see a difference between simply letting your hair grow long vs. spending just as much time and money on hair products as women(perhaps more). But “popular” - there I’ll disagree with you. Christian hair (I think I just coined a new term) is only popular in evangelical mega-church circles and Nashville artists, the same that televangelist hair is only acceptable on TBN, and neither one is popular in mainstream America. Depending on where you go, those kinds of hair styles can a) put you at risk for getting hit on by other guys or b) put you in danger of an ass whooping. Long hair in the 60’s was also a cultural & political statement - you were stickin’ it to the Man. Fancy Christian hair now is more about ego and appealing to Christian teenage girls.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Hey FICM,
That’s true — I sort of threw out some generalities and definitely didn’t cover it all. And really, what I think of as masculine will be a lot of my own personal opinion. I have a mixed view of it and I think it comes out to roughly 50% traditional and 50% non-traditional. On top of which, I am a woman — and that changes my viewpoint as well because I am on the outside of what it means to be these things.
Let’s say that the following are 7 characteristics of masculinity as defined by society (with some flexibility):
Physical::virile, athletic, strong, brave
Functional::breadwinner, provider
Sexual::sexually aggressive, experienced, single status acceptable
Emotional::unemotional, stoic, “boys don’t cry”
Intellectual::logical, rational, objective, practical
Interpersonal::leader, dominating, disciplinarian, independent, demanding
Various Personal Traits::ambitious, proud, egotistical, moral, trustworthy
This is the world. When it comes to church/religion/spirituality, other expected characteristics are added to this — the main one being the Spiritual leader in the home.
What makes my boyfriend masculine to me is that he has shaped himself into a person who has embraced all the good and wonderful things about being a man, rejected the negative connotations and let himself become the best person he can become without those restrictions. ONE example: my boyfriend is far more aware of his emotional process and far more communicative about it than any man I know (I would say he is almost exactly like me in this area), but at the same time does not let it hinder him acting/thinking logically & rationally.
My boyfriend hasn’t lost his maleness in allowing himself to think of me and treat me truly as an equal. He doesn’t attempt to be feminine but he doesn’t reject the part of him that is that way. He has learned how to take that and mold it into his maleness.
I’m not sure if this answers your question — I sort of feel that it falls short but I don’t want to write a post so long you have to scroll to see it all. Probably too late for that. I don’t think that my definition of what masculinity is is the majority opinion and I don’t think that I am right and others are wrong.
I would LOVE to have this kind of conversation in person because I am so interested in what other people’s definitions, ideas and opinions are when it comes to masculinity and femininity.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
… unless you’re Donald Trump …
February 20th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Ok, I’m surprised nobody has taken issue yet with “the feminization of Christianity.” I find this language sexist and separatist.
It denotes the feminine gender into a negative and masculine into a postive, rather than a partnership between the sexes.
The battle of the sexes is old and worn, but the last time I checked the Church is meant to be a manifestation of the kingdom of God in which there is neither male nor female, all are one…
Where is the call for partnership between the sexes? Of course it is great if men get together in spiritual gatherings, and of course women need time to hang out with women….but to put the blame for the lack of interest among men to develop consistent and meaningful relationships as if women have taken over ministries and leaders are catering programs to women is not fair.
As for the example you share with us David, what struck me was how subservient the men in your community kow-towed to one person, rather than continuing to meet anyway. This is more about the ridiculous power the senior pastor welded over men who gave him that power.
Feminization of Christianity? No, it’s the unhealthy expectations on leaders to direct us in our relationships rather than hanging out with who we want to hang out with doing what is meaningful for ourselves.
And all of this was noted in your awesome and insightful post on insecure pastors.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I expected someone to take exception to this, and the only surprise is how long it’s taken for them to do so.
Pam, I agree that the statement you reference from Galatians (3:28) indeed refers to there being no distinction as to gender in Christ.
However, Dave’s post is addressing gender roles in Local Churches, which two concepts — the last time I checked — were not the same thing.
-joebib
February 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Joebib, thanks for the good clarification!
Pam said: Feminization of Christianity? No, it’s the unhealthy expectations of leaders to direct us in our relationships rather than hanging out with who we want to hang out with doing what is meaningful for ourselves.
Pam, Thank you for your kind words relative to my posting on Insecure Pastors.
I also appreciate your insight into the necessity of me not forgetting that men and women are all “one in Christ.” Amen and I probably should have included that in my comments.
My point, nonetheless, was that I have observed the reign of pastor-kings not so much, “directing us in our relationships rather than hanging out with who we want…” but in actually suppressing the healthy functions of thinking, questioning, confronting, and debating in local churches and on local church leadership teams - which, admittedly, describe admirable qualities in both men and women.
If you would indulge me…I noticed that even your interpretation of what I said was a relational interpretation: “directing us in our relationships…” Actually, from my point of view, I never meant to refer to relationships at all. That shows, I think, that even though we are one in Christ, men and women are still different and need to learn how to work together as a complementary team.
“Sexist?” …Even though I would admit that there are many strong women in leadership capacities both in and out of the church, I really don’t think that my comments could be termed “sexist” since they were not meant to say women are inferior to men or to discriminate against them in any way. All I’m saying is that there are many men in the church who need to step up to the plate and learn to hit the ball.
Maybe if Leon Podles had entitled his book, The Church Impotent: The De-Masculinization of the Christian Male, it might have come across less offensive to you…do you think?
P.S. When I kiss my wife, I’m still glad that she does not have a moustache! ; )
February 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I don’t see that the post has anything to do with feminization or gender roles. I don’t see where Dave even implies that the reason for the lack of men’s ministries is due to feminization so I wonder at the title?
I did see the sexist connotations of the title and was expecting to be pissed once done reading but when I read the actual post I couldn’t find anything to be offended by. If one wanted to really read into it they could say that because of the title it is implied in the post, but I personally wouldn’t take that away from it.
His follow up comment almost goes there — but he qualifies the women he refers to as “passive” women.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
After reading through this and thinking about it, maybe we should ask, “Where is Any Ministry?”.
At CBC, if you want to go to a conference, $100. Attend Gen Unleashed, $55. Send the kids to camp, $350. If you go to a Sunday service, “As I give in todays’ offering” is the first thing you hear. You want to speak to a pastor? Sorry, he’s just on the screen today, not really here.
They used to have a “Presbetery” week where prophets would come and minister to people who desired it. There was no charge at the door. Guess what, it has been eliminated. If you need a personal word, go buy a book or a CD. Listen to their latest music CD, that’ll do it! Be sure to come and visit, you’ll THRIVE here!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Whoa — they don’t do presbytery anymore?! I remember the days that I use to think it was awesome and couldn’t wait until I got to do it and it just amazes me now that I ever thought that way about it.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
About the “feminization” of church, perhaps it’s more of an observation than accusation … from a man’s perspective, the whole “worship service” scene is a bit “tea-party-ish” … everyone in costume, flowers on the altar, ushers, readings and special music - preludes, interludes, postludes - the 5-fold ‘Amen’ - the unspoken code of conduct …
Is there anything even remotely resembling the modern worship service to be found in the NT?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Dave and Joe,
I should have qualified my rant: the use of the word feminization in regards to describing the current face of Western Christianity is what I take issue with, not with Dave’s post, which I know, I know, was about gender roles and men’s ministries. I am not calling Dave sexist or separatist, but the word feminization begs to be questioned when used in regards to the body of Christ, aka The Church.
As for men stepping up to the plate, I hear ya. At one slightly big church I went to for awhile the bible classes offered were nearly all women. One class I took had only man, besides the teacher…and all the classes were taught by men, fyi…
A prayer vigil I participated in years ago in a medium-sized conservative church ended up having as part of it’s focus on spontaneously praying for men, our brothers, to lead in what they are meant to lead in. I have no argument with that. Of course not. When it comes to defining gender roles in culture and faith it gets emotional really fast. Women still feel the sharp edges of the glass-stained ceiling in that place that is meant to be inclusive, but in reality is not. If men lead everything and attend everything and women held back I can only wonder if there would be prayer vigils or books written. But when women are at the forefront and men, generally speaking, are not as devoted to spiritual formation or church activities, then it becomes necessary to write books and sling around words like feminization.
The interesting thing to me is where are the voices calling for gender partnership and mutual encouragement of one another in this raging beauty known as the bride of Christ? (oops, did God eff up by feminizing the church when he described it as the bride???)
Ok, really, I don’t think or meant to communicate that I’m calling you a sexist.
And as for your wife not having a mustache, hey, don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it. My husband loves mine.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:29 am
Pam, thanks for the clarifications! I appreciate them.
WhatHesaid said: They used to have a “Presbetery” week where prophets would come and minister to people who desired it. There was no charge at the door. Guess what, it has been eliminated.
Whathesaid, What has been eliminated? ‘the “no charge at the door?’ ; )
I heard that they split up those sessions into 5-6 happening simultaneously for several years instead of one big session in the main auditorium. But I had not heard about this! Can you give us more details as to the reasons that were given (publicly and privately). I have several comments on such a move but don’t want to make them yet until I know for sure what is really happening and “why…” Can you help me here?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Real men won’t stay in those churches. All you have left is wussy yes-men. Talked to a real man the other day who said he would like to find a decent church but was afraid to try. Afraid it would screw up his walk with the Lord.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
David,
I can only remember getting a letter from the church around Christmas last year, saying the presbytery had been postponed “due to the busy season”. I never heard it rescheduled. It seems like GU took its place.
I haven’t been attending much, so I may have missed something. I’ll try to find out more.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 am
Good one, Pam
Just Curious–
That’s hilarious!
I nominate it for post of the week…..I love you, man!
-joe