Why Guys Dislike Church by Suzanne Hadley on 06/10/2008 at 12:15 PM

I love attending church. But I'm a girl.

In his new book How Women Help Men Find God, David Murrow discusses why the typical guy dislikes church. Multnomah Bible College's student newspaper, the Voice (article not available online), chatted with Murrow about how the church can improve:

the Voice: How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?

Murrow: Make it shorter. One of the main complaints that men have with church is that the sermons are long and boring. The average parable of Jesus takes 38 seconds to preach. Why does it take a preacher 30 minutes or an hour?

And then the other thing you can do is use a strong visual or object-lesson component every time you enter the pulpit. When Jesus taught, he often used a prop, like a coin or a sheep or some wheat. We need to recover visual preaching because that's what Jesus did.

Is there anything in the structure and organization of the service that could be improved to appeal to men?

Men like a service that is vertical-focused, focused more on God. A lot of churches have a horizontal focus, where the focus is on the people; people stand up and share prayer requests, for example. Men usually hate that.

If your worship service reflects "God is my buddy," then you're going to attract more women. If your God is a little more remote, absolute, powerful and mighty, then you are going to attract more men.

What style would appeal to men?

The focus on a mission. One hundred years ago, preachers talked about our mission. Today they talk about a personal relationship with Jesus. If that's the punch line of the gospel, then you're going to have more women than men responding because women are all about relationships.

How does church music affect men?

We used to have hymns, which were pretty well-suited to the masculine heart; they talked about battle and blood and victory. Today we have praise and worship choruses, which I call "Jesus is my boyfriend music." We use words that no man would dare say to another, and yet we ask men every week to express their love to God using these very romantic words.

How can churches change?

It's a long process. You have to disciple your men first. But once thy have roots, then you can start offering them ministries oriented toward their tastes.

What should churches do to make boys grow up to love going to church?

We really start losing boys in Sunday school. The behaviors we value in Sunday school are sit still, listen, memorize and verbalize. The verbal centers of a girl's brain mature about 18 months ahead of those of a boy's. So if we have a highly verbal, reading, memorize-type Sunday school, who is going to do better? The way you retain boys in Sunday school is you give them a chance to win, to perform as well as the girls.

So what do you think, guys? Is Murrow onto something? What methods and styles within the church have you found compelling?

Comments

[1. DannieA said the following at 12:25 PM on Jun 10]

1

from conversations I've had with single men and with the husbands of my friends...this about says it.

Mostly it's hymns vs. praise music. A lot of guys will go to the service that has a lot of more structured holy music than the next garage band waiting to happen.

[2. KJ said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 10]

2

That's exactly what we're *not* supposed to do-- change the church to suit the fleeting fancies of personal taste. Church sermons are to be based upon sound doctrine (i.e. the Word of God: Jesus Christ and Him crucified). Does the Gospel bore you? Offend you? A stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, indeed. What utter folly to suggest "changing" the church in the interest of "appealing" to people.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" 2nd Timothy 4:3

[3. Chris Krycho said the following at 12:41 PM on Jun 10]

3

I think a number of these points are right on the head - most, in fact - but they miss a few critical things. The first one is way off. The Puritans would have 3-hour sermons, and their men loved it. It's the quality of the teaching, not the length of sermon, that gets people. If it's just another "how to make your life better" seminar weekly, sure, men won't care - and women won't either, but the things that do draw women to keep coming won't draw the men.

As well, I'm in favor of eliminating Sunday school altogether - the whole thing is a bad idea. Dads know (or can learn) how to engage their sons far better than a random Sunday school teacher. (Don't get me wrong; I got a lot out of Sunday school classes... but they stopped when I was 7; from that point forward I was in the regular service.)

If the focus is where it should be - on Christ, and all aspects of the Godhead in His infinite greatness - then both the relational aspects that draw women and the strength and mission aspects that draw men will be together in great force and strength.

And really, wouldn't we be better off asking, "What glorifies Christ?" and doing that wholeheartedly than focusing on church growth programs?

[4. Zach Thompson said the following at 12:42 PM on Jun 10]

4

Suzanne,
Although men have no excuse for being absent from worshiping their Saviour, Creator, & Lord I think Murrow's reason's make great sense. Many of his points reflect my list of complaints with my own church & the evangelical church as a whole. Basically the modern church is not Biblical or radical(read 'sold out') enough in my opinion.

[5. Callie said the following at 12:53 PM on Jun 10]

5

I believe that a large majority of praise & worship music written and led by men. So, I think that point is a little off.

[6. Chris B. (VA) said the following at 12:55 PM on Jun 10]

6

As a young Christian man who grew up in the church and who kept his faith through college, I agree with most of Murrow's observations.

I do find it mildly insulting to assert that men need visual helps in order to pay attention to a sermon, as if all--or most--men are just overgrown children who need a show-and-tell sermon. What we all need is truth spoken with clarity, boldness, and sincerity. We need God's word in its full undiluted and unadulterated glory, which is to say that liberal (in their theology) pastors can expect to see little or no fruit.

Competition, powerful worship (that is, worship without too much sentimentalism or affectation), mission focus, and God-glorifying sermons will all be beneficial to men; however, what men need most in the church are goldy men from whom they can learn and grow. A lot of people in the church don't seem to like the idea of heroes, but men need heroes. Men need other men who can be mentors, leaders, and who can inspire them to follow God with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and strength.

[7. DannieA said the following at 12:57 PM on Jun 10]

7

Chris #3...I have to disagree with you on the Sunday school issue. As children, their brains need the gospel in a way that they can understand and be a part of. This is what Sunday school provides.
Not to mention...it's one key factor for why many couples return to church in the first place...so their children can grow up in the church even if they drifted when they went to college...
also, Sunday school provides Christian friends....and as you know for most people, if there weren't sunday school for them, they usually don't attend church...this is why I think it's important.

[8. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:58 PM on Jun 10]

8

I don't know about these assertations here. Some of the objections I believe might apply to both men and women, and is highly dependent upon one's individual temperment.

Another "problem" with this article is that it can play right into the consumer mindset of many churchgoers right now. Give me a church/sermon which meets all of MY needs. My type of music, my type of style of sermon, etc. To be sure, audiences' tastes should be taken into account, but they ought not to be the top priority.

Looking at the specific remedies though:

#1 Make sermons shorter
Sermons are already as short as they have ever been in American church history. I don't think this is a men/women issue at all. It's an issue that has to do with our ever decreasing attention span. I've heard short sermons that were bad, and long sermons that were great.

#2 Change from horizonal to vertical
There is legitimacy to the notion that men are not as willing to share prayer requests (mainly because men are not as quick to reveal weakness or need as women, especially in a public setting). But I think it's a stretch to say that men prefer an aloof God to one more personal.

#3 Change the music
Again, I don't think that music in church is necessarily a male/female preference as much as it is perhaps a contemporary/pop as opposed to traditional hymns.

#4 Focus on a mission
Now here I think he is onto something. Men tend to be more of a goal-orientated and "conquering" mindset. Giving them a hill to take or some tangible trophy rather than just a relationship might indeed get more men energized about church

If Mr. Murrow wants to make these claims though it would help if he provided some empirical evidence to back them up.

However, the problem in my opinion stems beyond just styles or preferences. It seems, especially in recent years that the general consensus in the church is that women = good, men = bad. In general we have attributed positive, Christian, virtues more to women than men. Men are the ones who are more likey to be stuck in adultescence still living with the parents and playing their PS3's all day. They are the ones who won't commit (Boundless has been known to reinforce this stereotype). And they are one's assumed to be at fault whenever a relationship turns bad.

Need more proof? Ok, in your honest opinion, in response to each of these words, state which gender comes to mind first:
- Loving
- Peaceful
- Patient
- Kind
- Gentle

I know for myself I thought of women first in all 5. And you know what, the above 5 were 5 of the 9 Fruits of the Spirit as spoken in Galatians.

Ok, what about these words? Same deal. Whatever gender pops in your mind first.
- Arrogant
- Lustful
- Wreckless
- Greedy

Now which gender? I thought so.

But here's the strange thing. The perception is that men don't like going to church. And it is true that there is a disparity in the number of men vs. women going to church (50% of women compared to 44% of men according to the Barna group). Yet I think we might be off the mark if we are focusing on getting the remaining 6% to come to church while not working with the 44% who are. Church ought not to be primarily an "exciting" event like attending a movie or sports game. It should be about worshiping God, praying, and breaking bread with one another.

And let's not forget that church is not really an "if I feel like it" subject. It's fairly important to our spiritual growth.

[9. Jacob said the following at 1:00 PM on Jun 10]

9

I take issue with some of the first few points, but agree with the latter.
Shorter sermons are tend to be shallow sermons. In general, we are a culture with a short attention span. Rather than change the sermon to fit the deficiencies of our culture, we should work to increase our attention spans.
I have mixed feelings about the second point. Certainly I think there are problems with the "Jesus is my boyfriend" angle, but I don't think deemphasizing community is a good idea. Men today need more accountability and to be a part of a community.
I agree whole-heartedly with "Jesus Love Songs" not being appealing. God is more than Love. He is also absolutely Holy.
Discipling men is a great point and I'm all for it. The point about Sunday School could easily be applied to education of boys in general and is a valid point: boys learn differently than girls.

[10. Lewis said the following at 1:01 PM on Jun 10]

10

Extremely compelling. I'm interested now.

[11. mindlab said the following at 1:04 PM on Jun 10]

11

“How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?”

Preach theology from the word of God, and skip the cutesy 3 point outlines (and the yelling, bouncing, and silly props). I’m here to learn about Almighty God, not the latest quasi-Christian theory. Also, solid, well thought out teaching (whether preaching or a college lecture) will remain interesting for an hour or more; if you're losing your audience at 20 minutes, it's probably because you don't understand you’re own subject.

“Men like a service that is vertical-focused. . . on God. A lot of churches have a horizontal focus. . . (on people). Men usually hate that.”

Hey, yeah. I’m glad I’m not the only one.

“We used to have hymns, which were pretty well-suited to the masculine heart; they talked about battle and blood and victory. Today we have praise and worship choruses, which I call ‘Jesus is my boyfriend music.’”

Ah hah! Yes, and hymns, at least the older hymns (not the camp meeting-est stuff) tend to emphasize great theological truth. You could teach the fundamentals of theology out of Trinity Hymnal; learning the the lyrics is an excellent way to remind oneself of biblical truth.

And one last thing; I enjoy meeting and interacting with other Christians, but I very strongly dislike making small-talk on Sunday morning. Women and extroverted men appear to be quite good at small talk, but I suspect I am not alone among men in being lousy at it. It’s much more natural (not to mention productive) to meet people in the context of a conversation about some important idea (i.e. the sermon), or in the context of a mutual project or goal.

This is my biggest gripe with my local Sovereign Grace fellowship; they’re so focused on ‘serving’ that it’s impossible for me, as a newbie (and single to boot), to get involved and meet anyone. This is not meant to be judgmental toward S.G., I just happen to be having trouble with them right now.

[12. PLH said the following at 1:06 PM on Jun 10]

12

Chris (3)-Why not have male Sunday school teachers? My dad taught 4th grade Sunday school for years and was great at it. Or better yet, have a male and female teacher work together and devise a curriculum that will engage a wider range of children. Also, the Puritan leaders may have been all male, but by the 1660s, church attendance for females in NE was already higher than males...so this is not a new problem.

[13. Nick said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 10]

13

"Make it shorter" ??
In my Bible, the sermon on the mount is a few chapters. Jesus was not just about sound bytes. At times, he is recorded as teaching crowds for several hours (prompting the feeding of 5000).
Length for the sake of filling time is not needed, however I don't agree that sermons need to be short. #3 was right - sermons used to be longer and men would come. To hear the word.
That is what sermons should be about - teaching the word. Not changing to suit "itching ears".
I DO agree that there needs to be more of an emphasis on mission. As men, we need to be challenged to do great things for God. That might be the only thing that makes us realize how much we need him.
I also agree that more of a focus on the "vertical" relationship needs to be emphasized - learning about God and who he is. And a key way to do this is through sermons about God from his word. But, God also created the church, and we are called to be a part of it - relationships included.

[14. George said the following at 1:11 PM on Jun 10]

14

Hmm, I guess the church I'm in is different then. We actually have a problem keeping the women interested.

There's more men in attendance during the Sunday services, adult Sunday school, Bible studies and prayer meetings. And men participate more during the discussions and question period during the Bible studies and Sunday schools.

During our Sunday services and prayer meetings we split the worship time between hymns and contemporary worship songs. I for one find a lot of newer contemporary worship songs too focused on the person, rather than the Infinite, Almighty God, and I'm easily turned off by those songs. Many hymns on the other hand were written by men and women who went through intense persecution for their faith, and the lyrics are focused on the Creator's holiness, power, mercy, love and grace.

[15. Michele said the following at 1:14 PM on Jun 10]

15

I'm a Sunday school director, and the last bit hit home. Right now we're doing a very active, engaging-all-the-senses VBS in lieu of regular curriculum. The result? Girls complaining about coming to Sunday school, and boys enjoying themselves and engaging beyond what they normally do.

We're definitely reevaluating some of our aspects from here on out.

[16. Rachael said the following at 1:25 PM on Jun 10]

16

While there may be some male/female issues I'd agree with Mike that some issues may come down to temperament.

Like mindlab, I desire theology. Like mindlab, I like hymns (though I'd extend that to say that I like songs with good words; they don't have to be hymns.) Also like mindlab, I don't always feel comfortable with Sunday small talk. Now that I'm involved in my church's community and know more people, it can be enjoyable, but if all it is is a handshake and distracted eyes I'm not so drawn...

I don't think liking church is so simple as male vs. female, but more related to one's walk, the theology, the absorption of sermons, the lyrics of the music, the community, the focus being on Christ and not on man...sure some women might appear to be better at surface relationships and enjoy seeming 'relationshipy' issues than men...but we really all have the same heart core. We all respond to the truth in different ways. What is important is, how is the truth being preached, proclaimed, and lived out in a church community?

[17. Ted Slater said the following at 1:32 PM on Jun 10]

17

Chris Krycho (3) -- great points. That men need shorter sermons than women is just condescending toward men. Amir -- I'm awaiting your warranted denunciation of point 1.

I agree with your point about Sunday School as well. Thank you for making it.

That said, Sunday School is of some value to children of either non-Christians or Christians who don't know how to "catechize" their children. DanielleA (7) and PLH (12) make some valid observations about the benefits of Sunday School.

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 1:33 PM on Jun 10]

18

mindlab (11) -- I don't understand the point you're making in your final paragraph. I'd think that a church that emphasizes "serving" would provide more opportunities for you to rub shoulders with other church members. Or are you saying that all the opportunities for serving are already taken up by others, and there's consequently no space for you to serve?

[19. Tami said the following at 1:37 PM on Jun 10]

19

Church is obviously not inherently "girly"; I think the original "sons of thunder" would take umbrage with that! :)

Like anything, I think it's a time investment issue. In my observation, the key is offering opportunities to spend time together and serve God shoulder to shoulder. Make sure your church creates an environment where men know it's OK to be real. If you're a pastor -- *get involved* in the lives of your men, and encourage them to step out in faith in all areas of their lives.

And women: pray for the men in your church. Encourage them as they step out and lead. And pray that *more men* attend.

Perhaps this is just me, but I think that exegetical preaching can offer more relevance to *all* congregants, as it encourages you to start with Scripture and think "how does this connect with my life?" rather than starting with the question of "what's personally relevant to me?" and then looking to Scripture to provide illustrations or examples.

Again... I'm not a dude. So I'm speaking from observation. :) I have seen many, many men grow *a ton* lately, and some of what I've listed above (empowered by the Holy Spirit, of course) has been elemental in doing so.

[20. BDB said the following at 1:41 PM on Jun 10]

20

First, let me say, length of sermon is not the reason. Solid, Biblical teaching draws men. Our sermon this weekend was about 1 hour, 15 minutes long. Pastor kind of got on a roll. Normally it's about 45 minutes. The thing is, he ran that long for FOUR services. But it's very Biblical, a mix of exposition and topical. We're doing a segment on what "worship" really means now, so he's jumping around the Bible. He also does a monthly men's Bible study (at 5:30am!) than runs more than an hour. Hundreds of men come.

We do believe strongly that children, especially boys, need to see men teaching Sunday school. It's a team effort, with at least two teachers in every classroom. The curriculum for elementary is common for 1st/2nd grade and for 3rd/4th grade. For the summer we do a group elementary teaching for all 1st-4th graders, and then they have video, drama, a lesson, worship together in a group, and some small groups broken out by grade level for discussion. We usually separate elementary into boys and girls classes (rooms are only big enough for 15-20 comfortably anyway) and so each class takes on its own character. The 3rd grade girls always seem much quieter than the 3rd grade boys.

Believe me, most 7-year-olds can't stay quiet through the full 2-hour service. A few can. When I was that age, I could. Then again, I've got the verbal skills to be comfortable listening quietly.

One thing that came up in our recent teaching is HOW men show worship to God. One way is through giving money. They work hard to make money, and giving it is an act of worship. It's also important to have enough roles for men to fill. We have thousands of people coming and going, so a whole bunch of men are needed for the parking ministry. They're ou there in safety vests directing traffic. Or ushering/greeting.

As for music, our pastor wants to have a multi-ethnic church, so we tend to switch musical styles. This introduces all the white and latino folks to Black Gospel music, for example. We also have different venues for LOUD rock worship music, a coffee cafe with acoustical, etc....I admit that recently I've suggested to the worship team folks that we should try using less Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs...

[21. John D. said the following at 1:44 PM on Jun 10]

21

mindlab wrote,

"Ah hah! Yes, and hymns, at least the older hymns (not the camp meeting-est stuff) tend to emphasize great theological truth. You could teach the fundamentals of theology out of Trinity Hymnal; learning the the lyrics is an excellent way to remind oneself of biblical truth.

And one last thing; I enjoy meeting and interacting with other Christians, but I very strongly dislike making small-talk on Sunday morning. Women and extroverted men appear to be quite good at small talk, but I suspect I am not alone among men in being lousy at it. It’s much more natural (not to mention productive) to meet people in the context of a conversation about some important idea (i.e. the sermon), or in the context of a mutual project or goal."

Two excellent points!

I believe I have commented on Boundless before that some old hymns ("Fountain of Never Ceasing Grace" by Augustus M. Toplady being a good example) contain more theology than some sermons preached nowadays.

Also, I'm like you, mindlab: I love my Christian brethren but, as an introvert, I'm not good at the cocktail party chatter that seems to be de rigeur before and after services. In fact, I prefer to come into the sanctuary in an attitude of worship, and leave with the hymns ringing in my ears and taking a little of the reflected glory of God back out into the day.

[22. Chris Krycho said the following at 1:45 PM on Jun 10]

22

DannieA and PLH - did you guys read the article I linked? It's right here on Boundless. :-)

The following may sound angry. That's because I'm angry with the way the church is handling these subjects: please understand, none of this is directed personally at anyone here. I like you all, by and large. :D

As to why eliminate Sunday School? Well, Voddie Baucham said it better than I will, but plainly put - we don't need children's ministers, we already have them. They're called parents. I'm not saying that all Sunday School is bad, I'm just saying that it's a lot worse than the Biblical model of doing things: parents teach (or better yet, an old and scary word: catechize) their children.

If I hear "engage" in this context one more time, I'm going to be ill. This isn't a marketing thing, it's not a business strategy, and the fact that we've adopted that language means we've adopted - however subconsciously - that mentality. We need to make disciples, and do it the way that Christ and the apostles showed us how. Fathers have the spiritual responsibility for their children. Why not have male Sunday school teachers, or even them partnering with female Sunday school teachers? Because Sunday school defeats the purpose of familial spiritual responsibility. The responsibility to make these children godly is their parents and no one else's.

That sounds harsh, but it's also true. Sunday school allows parents to dump responsibility on those teachers for the instruction of their children. Do all parents whose children are in Sunday school do so? No. Do many? Absolutely yes - and that is a terrible, terrible thing.

You want to know how to get men to show up and take responsibility and lead? Give them responsibility. Tell them to get up and lead their families, and tell them what that means: to instruct their children in godliness, to give their wives vision, and to pursue God in a mission of winning the world.

Parents are better than anyone else at giving children the gospel in a way they can understand. And trust me, children understand the gospel better - with less cute stuff tossed on top - than most adults do. You don't need specialized training to teach a child the gospel. You need (1) to love Jesus Christ and (2) to love those children and (3) to pray a lot about it.

The need for Sunday school goes away if we start challenging men to be disciplemakers - and then teach them how to do it. And if we are teaching men and women how to have true fellowship - read: a common devotion to and pursuit of Christ and a common mission of advancing the gospel - then community, including children, will spring up.

This isn't complicated. It's just different, and bluntly, I think people are unwilling to change it simply because it's now how they did things. Well, it's not how I did things either, exactly, but we need a better way than what we're doing now, so doing it the way it was done by the apostles seems to be a good place to start.

[23. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:55 PM on Jun 10]

23

I think he's generally on the money. I'm going to be reviewing his book Why Men Hate Going to Church in a week or so.

[24. DannieA said the following at 2:33 PM on Jun 10]

24

for the record Chris, I did read the article when it first came out and refreshed my memory...I still disagree. And no it's not because "it's always been done this way" mentality either.

Reread your comment #22: it's an excellent rebuttal, if you are solely preaching to the choir. I think SS is a ministry to children and to the parents with a limited but growing learning of what it means to be a Christian and the such. Seriously...I think it was cool to sing the "only a boy named David" when discussing different Bible stories...it's a good way to BEGIN to learn the Bible. Most new Christian parents know about the plan of salvation and Christ on the cross...but having a knowledge of everything that can be presented in a ss they are probably limited for a time.

That's my point. I do feel though that parents should always take an active role in Spiritual matters....and in this day and age, not everyone has a father in the picture so careful on typing out assumptions for every family

:)

[25. DannieA said the following at 2:37 PM on Jun 10]

25

oh and Ted and Chris,

I went to SS (although since I went to church on Saturday instead of sunday it was Sabbath School not Sunday School), but our family had worship every single night!
Now if I travel and go visit my Grandfather who is a retired minister and my hero of the faith, we have worship/devotional every morning at breakfast and at night...so I was fortunate to have the best of both worlds.

[26. Justice said the following at 2:49 PM on Jun 10]

26

I think this stuff is great, and it does not appeal to CONSUMERS.

I remember going to worship services and hearing the girls talk about being 'in love' with God, which is frankly freaky sounding. The songs WERE feminine, hands down. That's why a lot of the Hillsong United songs are so great, they are songs about God, not love songs

[27. DP said the following at 2:52 PM on Jun 10]

27

#22 - I think you are right on that parents need to step it up when teaching their children (and that doesn't just go for church things...), but what about the kids whose parents aren't Christians? Where do they go?

[28. .j said the following at 2:52 PM on Jun 10]

28

Good heavens, this post was actually offensive to me (and I'm not the kid to get easily offended over every little thing). I agree with a lot of the stuff mindlab, Mike, Chris, and others said (although not all of it).

Like many of the commenters the I feel the part about sermon length is ridiculous. The American church is already waist-deep in McSermons. Many are over inflated with Powerpoints, Videos, smoke, lasers, dancing bears, etc. Also I feel many pastors (like the one at a church I used to attend) stick to topical teachings, sometimes yielding the same set of sermons over and over with slight changes (which I feel can easily lead to boredom). I have been blessed to attend a church that goes solidly through the word. There is a time of worship, no announcements (they can be sought out on own time) and then a solid chunk of time learning about the scriptures. I've witnessed hundreds of men sit through hour-long teachings week after week with no problems.

I feel that Murrow is writing this mainly from his point of view. The Sunday School at the church I attend is both focused on activity as well as the academics. What a broad and erroneous statement to say we should shy away from academics and memorization for boys.

I wonder if part of it isn't the church pandering to pop-culture and coddling "kids" too long. Many "kids" don't enter the "big church" until after high school (at least, this was the case with some of the early churches I attended). They're shuffled through youth groups packed with videos, eating contests, and other such "X-treme" feats. Then, they're expected to go sit still through a 20 minute McSermon? Good luck.

I hate to harp on the "my church does it this way," but at the church I attend kids are expected to sit in on the sermon starting in high school (or earlier if they wish) as well as having a weekly meeting time with their peers. I agree with DannieA who noted that material definitely needs to be tailored to younger ages, I just think the church as a whole doesn't put the breaks on that soon enough.

I'll admit I'm a bit on the fence about using visual aids. I've been to some churches where the visual aid basically amounts to a weekly "bigger or better" (Look! A camel on stage!). I also feel that constant visuals (usually multimedia) can be very distracting; in many cases I also feel powerpoint-ed verses lead to a lack of Bible use. However, Jesus definitely used visual aids and his surroundings to teach, so I don't think the idea should be totally shunned. However I think speaking of common practices/locations/experiences/etc. works as well; I don't feel there needs to be visual aid after visual aid.

Also, as far as the music section and using romantic words: the Bible itself says we are the bride of Christ! I definitely feel this idea is more easily accepted by women (trust me, it's definitely odd to guys). But discussing music in the church itself is opening up a whole other can of worms :)

In the end: I know tons of guys who enjoy going to chruch. Many of Murrow's "fixes" are rather potentially devastating imo.

[29. Ashley S. said the following at 2:59 PM on Jun 10]

29

Chris Krycho (#22),

You took the words out of my mouth. Amen!

In the home church that my family is a part of, the men take turns in facillitating the Bible study portion. You would not believe how much spiritual growth this has caused not just for the men, but for the women also. I have especially seen my dad's spiritual maturity grow so much that it is almost unreal.

As a young woman, I love to see men take the initiative to lead their familes and I think that many times we underestimate what men are capable of. With discipleship and a true love for God, they can grow into strong, mature leaders for their families, their communties and our world.

We don't need churches that cater to men, we need churches that EQUIP them!

[30. Keenan said the following at 3:05 PM on Jun 10]

30

I find Murrow's examples of Jesus' preaching tactics compelling, yet I don't think Jesus told stories and use tangible objects just to attract men's attention: He wanted to attract everyone: men, women and children.

Then again, Jesus had a very different reason for using stories than what we imagine: "seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand..."Lk. 8:9

It should be mentioned though that Murrow's examples are of Jesus' tactic when He was out field preaching. Jesus could still preach the old fashion (or "as was custom")way (Lk. 4:16-20).

It would also be well to ask, "What is church?" Is the Church the body of believers in Christ, or is it just a slightly boring institution that people go to on Sunday morning, or is it a building? Suzanne begins this post by saying, "I love attending church."

So is church something you "attend" or something that you are? Would the early Christians use phrases like that? Phrases like "going to church" I think are problematic. Other phrases like "I have problems with the church" tend to bother me. If you have a problem with church or "the church", you actually have a problem with yourself because you are a part of the church. I sometimes wonder whether we should stop using the word "church." The word is really unhelpful considering how prosaic and common the actually Greek word "ekklesia" was, but that's another story.

[31. Calvin said the following at 3:17 PM on Jun 10]

31

Hey Chris Krycho (#22),

Right on brother! I'm with you right down to the faintly frustrated tenor of your comment.

I spent 18 years as a serious Christian and student of theology in various Bible-believing churches. As much as I loved Jesus and tried to study the scriptures for myself, it has only been recently that I've really begun to get a grasp of historical Protestant Christian theology. The greatest driver in this transformation was when I found a church that has dispensed with the "Jesus as Boyfriend" mentality (not just songs), and returned to serious catechism both inside and outside the church.

One aspect of that has been dispensing with separate children's Sunday School or Children's worship services. The elders noticed that despite our children having grown up in the church, once they "graduated" out of the Sunday School department, they didn't transition into the main service. They were so used to doing their own thing, and so alienated from the whole adult worship experience, that they would choose to do almost anything else with their own peer groups (usually college Christian groups) rather than attend the adult worship service on Sunday.

Now, our children are sitting in the adult worship service, and are comfortable being treated as adults by the time they are in their mid-teens. Often, the older teens choose to attend the adult question and answer sessions after the service instead of going to an age-specific class.

Also, our men are much more "engaged" (sorry had to do it) in conversations and discussions with each other, with the women of the church, and with the children since the focus has shifted from "how much I love Jesus" to how high and holy God is and why it is so amazing that a holy God would choose to rescue sinful men, women, and children. The discussions are theological and rational in nature, and not discussions of how I "feel" about what has been accomplished. Clearly, they feel the majesty of God's person and redemption in a far greater way than they express. After all, they can't stop talking about what God has done, but the focus remains on God where it ought to be an not on our own feelings.

Calvin

P.S. I've nothing against college Christian fellowships, but they are not substitutes for churches.

[32. J.T. said the following at 3:26 PM on Jun 10]

32

Maybe it's because the church discriminates against men. Don't believe me? Then why is it every Mother's Day we praise the women of the church and make men beg their forgivness, but every Father's Day we berate the men for not being good enough husbands and fathers? Imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed. I think we know what would go down. Again, why do women have "fellowship groups" and men have "accountability groups"? Maybe if the church would stop treating men like they are one step away from a felony, maybe more men would show up.

[33. neil said the following at 3:29 PM on Jun 10]

33

There are a lot of guys moving towards the Orthodox Church, possibly for some of the reasons Murrow states; but as has been pointed out, the best reason is perhaps that the Orthodox Church does the flavor of the month thing.

[34. Carrie said the following at 3:34 PM on Jun 10]

34

Wow!! who and where are these weak whishy whashy ADD guys that sound like they need to go to childrens church instead? I cannot believe this is a serious article as it portrays men in a horrible, weak and insulting light.

Missions, battle songs, battle cries, opportunities to win and shorter sermons? Sounds a little like day care or rehab. I am not exactly why this really amuses me and yet annoys me at the same time. Maybe because I grew up in another country where church as all morning, and then there were evening services as well and there were all led by men, very male dominated as women could not take leadership roles in a church service. I had a discussion a few weeks ago with a friend who had just come back from a missions trip and she was amazed at how patient people in other countries were especially regarding church. She said here in the US if it goes over an hour people start to fidget and some will walk out – but not so in other parts of the world. This is a very me culture, everything seems to be tailored to the individual and it is sad that the authors and supporters of this article now want church to be that way. It is not about you, it is about worshiping God, it does not need to make you happy or entertain you, it is about giving honour and glory to Him.

[35. Jonathan said the following at 3:41 PM on Jun 10]

35

I think a lot of assumptions are made about men here, and about different aspects of the Church. I find that the songs most often sung in my church (which plays contemporary songs) are deeply theologically based and are often scripture in lyrics (i.e. Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, etc.) These songs are about how awesome God is, not about my feelings (i.e. Holy is the Lord, How Great is our God).
Last time I checked, men write and give sermons Sunday morning, so it isn't a guy thing.
I think the biggest thing is providing male mentors in the church. There are so many men at my church that work with youth, and they are a huge reason I work with youth today. Boys need men to be examples in their lives, and if more Godly men stepped up, you'd see more men in the church.

[36. Frank H said the following at 4:26 PM on Jun 10]

36

Wow! All these people chanting it should be done this way or that way. I think something is being missed.

I propose a new concept: relevance. Widely unrelated concepts to illustrate the point:

• A lot of the way the Bible stories were told was meant to be relevant to the audience at the time of the preaching. If given zero cultural context, a lot of Biblical stories would make no sense.
• Everybody should learn calculus because it is too useful to science. But, only at a time when they can learn it, where they can actually understand it and appreciate the importance of it. In other words, teach it at the relevant time.
• Girls will say spiritual maturity is the most important thing in a guy. Maybe. But I guarantee that if he doesn't connect emotionally with you, then he has almost zero chance. (Same with guys and physical attraction; if he doesn't find you physically attractive, you have almost zero chance.) If you're not relevant to the general desires of the opposite gender, you're going to have a hard time attracting a mate.

Basically, if a thing is not as relevant to you, you'll get bored, not interested, and leave. And honest; no one approach fits all cultures, circumstance, and demographic.

So, I think the way to think of the solution is something like Whatever. So long as it is relevant to the target audience AND consistent with Biblical principles.

Miscellaneous thoughts on his recommendations:

• I tend to agree with shorter sermons. We live busier lives and people just have less attention span nowadays. That's the way the world works. Besides, if it's too long, I won't absorb it all.
• I also tend to not like the "Jesus is my boyfriend" worship music. I wouldn't be surprised if Boundless polled the young adult guys, they would feel the same for the most part. I suspect male worship leaders do that kind of music to be relevant to the predominantly female audience.

Grr. I meant to write more and have it make more sense and all that, but I should do work while I am at work.

[37. Renee said the following at 4:29 PM on Jun 10]

37

I'm a girl and I dislike the same things these guys dislike. I don't like going to church... and I'd like what those guys like.

[38. PLH said the following at 4:34 PM on Jun 10]

38

Chris-I'm not saying that parents have no spiritual responsibility for their children. Clearly they have the primary responsibility-and pledge to instruct their children in Christ's teachings when they baptize or dedicate their child. But, what about children who do not have Christian parents or neglect this responsibility? Moreover, I think children also learn from each other in a group setting in ways they cannot when instructed only by their parents. Sunday school is a great way to insure all children get age appropriate instruction and learn from other children in the church.

[39. PLH said the following at 4:37 PM on Jun 10]

39

I think the largest reason men don't enjoy coming to church is because the church and Bible have a different idea of masculinity than popular culture. Popular culture glorifies athletic, strong, sexually virile men but overlooks Godliness, responsibility, chastity, fatherhood, being a husband, etc as men's roles. Until the church deals with this disconnect, I don't expect to see men lining up in the pews in as great numbers as women.

[40. D.Williams said the following at 4:39 PM on Jun 10]

40

"How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?" Nine times out of ten, men are the ones doing the preaching.

"Make it shorter. One of the main complaints that men have with church is that the sermons are long and boring." Yet men can watch NASCAR and golf for hours.

"Today they talk about a personal relationship with Jesus." Is it even possible to be a Christian without having a relationship with Christ? Remember the phrase “Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I know you not.”

"How does church music affect men?"
"Today we have praise and worship choruses, which I call "Jesus is my boyfriend music." %95 of church musicians are male and have no problem whatsoever playing worship music, (and let's not even begin to mention the number of male emo fans out there; talking about mushy music).

"We really start losing boys in Sunday school." Sunday School is only about an hour to an hour and a half before Sunday service. If you don't like Sunday School, don't go.

Sounds like a lot of excuses to me. But I'm a girl; what do I know?

[41. Don said the following at 4:50 PM on Jun 10]

41

My two cents:

1. I really hate short sermons with object lessons. They feel cheap and shallow, and I don't feel like I am getting anything out of a sermon like that. My dad, on the other hand, really likes sermons like that. I just don't get it.

2 and 3. I can agree with the God-focus and the mission idea. I don't know that doing it the current way really turns me off, but I could accept those ideas.

4. I do not enjoy singing hymns. I feel completely disconnected with hymns and often when my church sings hymns during the music portion of the service, I stop singing. It might be because the church I grew up in sang nothing but hymns and they were slowed down more than necessary. As my mom says, "It was like a funeral dirge."

5. I agree with discipling men. It seems to me that there are not enough ministries focused on men. At least not in any of the churches I've ever attended. The men's ministry committee thing extends to organizing trips to sporting events, and that's about it.

6. I've always enjoyed Sunday School. I'm all about the listening and memorizing. I am not by nature a hugely competitive person, so a Sunday school program with competition or whatever would have turned me off to church.

The church I grew up in, as well as the church I am currently a member at have Sunday School in addition to the normal Sunday service.

Sunday School starts with pre-schoolers, but there are classes for every age group all the way through senior adults. The adult classes discuss different topics each quarter and adults can choose the class that most interests them.

[42. BDB said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 10]

42

Chris Krycho (#22) wrote:

>>we don't need children's ministers, we already have them. They're called parents.<<

That's actually part of the problem: many families don't have plural parents, they have a parent. Lots of single women drop off their boys to an elementary class taught by men. I may be the ONLY male influence in their life - their regular teacher is almost always female, too. One of our 3rd grade teachers is a business executive who was deeply impacted by Sunday School because that's the only time he encountered a man providing spiritual leadership. So, now he teaches to give back what he was given.

During WWII they tried to be sure that all schools had at least one male teacher or principal - so many kids had their fathers off at war for the duration - they were gone for YEARS. It's not like now where military are deployed for 12-15 months and have Internet connections back with home.

Now, I can clearly see the difference in the kids when their father takes spiritual leadership. Those are the kids who come to class, behave (for the most part), have the books of the Bible memorized, etc.

Though there is some truth to what Calvin (#31) says. In high school I attended youth group, but then all of us went in to the adult service. We kind of took over one section, but we were in the same room, hearing the same sermon. I'm sure that experience was part of the reason I went out and found a good church in college, even though most of my fellow students seemed to have no interest in going to regular church on Sunday.

[43. brx said the following at 7:18 PM on Jun 10]

43

Suzanne,

I'm not so sure I agree with Murrow, not because I think he's wrong on those points, but because he's trying to build a stereotype of local churches and I think that's just too much motion to nail down. I see many churches changing in various ways and going through some cyclical patterns. Each local church really does have it's own character, strengths, weaknesses, and style - even within the same denominations.

Foy my part, what I've found in ministry with guys in my particular community is we like to: be real - not sweeping under the rug controversial or difficult issues; be honestly raw with our opinions; be doing something or working toward something - goal/task oriented; be respected and encouraged in leadership. We've also done some controversial things in the name of building men up in Christ; things like kicking off a men's group with a viewing of "Fight Club" (dare you to look that one up on Plugged-In, :> ) complete with a set of rules for our men's group. More recently, we launched PB&J - Pizza Beer & Jesus, and also doing "church" in a local sports bar.

I think Keenan (#30) is right on. It's worth thinking about what the Church/church is according to the Gospels. In recent years it's begun bug me that Christians often refer to church gatherings as a "church service". It makes me consider - what does that mean? what is it supposed to mean? what should it be?

Grace, peace & adventure!

[44. DannieA said the following at 7:20 PM on Jun 10]

44

whoa wait wow ok, I guess maybe when one thinks of sunday school...one is thinking about sunday school that is apart from church?

If so, then I'm sorry if my posts have seemed that they were advocating that.

When I was growing up and to this day in my church and many churches in my particular denomination...our SS was before church and then ALL families went inside for the service. No segregation of children and teenagers from their families during the worship service. In fact I don't understand the churches that drop off their kids like daycare and then don't worship with their kids....to me, I don't like that.....having an age based lesson before (or after church) with none of that during the worship hour is what I agree on.

I hope that makes my points more clear.

[45. Becky said the following at 9:07 PM on Jun 10]

45

admittedly, I'm a "stuffy Anglo-Catholic" and can be a bit arrogant about it at times. Many of the points covered are realities in the Catholic (Roman/Anglican/Orthodox) church. I love that there's a *reason* for everything.
And frankly, I have nothing against shorter sermons. (at my church this is because of the emphasis on Communion and the addition of reading several extensive scripture passages each sunday)My priest believes in 10 minute sermons, but he manages to crystallize truths that are exactly what I need to hear and I find myself breathlessly scrambling for a pencil. Sometimes it's easier to focus, to process without repetition and excess.
I hate warm fuzzies. I like tradition, because it pulls me out of myself, reminding me of the community of believers throughout the world and throughout history that I am a part of.
And I'm female.
What appeals to people is partly because of background and personality, not just gender. Different churches exist for a reason-not everyone has the same priorities or perspective. And, even if a church is considering a move more in the direction of my convictions, I think they should consider their purpose and the needs of their congregation as a whole before beginning a targeted appeal to a particular group.

[46. farmer Tom said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 10]

46

I've been having computer issues, haven't been able to comment, put I can see the discussions. Working from an different machine tonight.

1. I disagree with the make it shorter idea.
(Don't tell my pastor, I tell him he preaches too long). You give me a preacher with the ability to clearly communicate the Truth of the Word of God, (through expository preaching as opposed to topical preaching) and the length of the message has little to do with mens ability to appreciate the message. Too much of what is being spewed forth from modern American pulpits is little more than a bastardized cross of Andrew Carnegie motivational speeches, "name it, claim it theology" and a large dose of amateur pop psychology. It's feel good, happy, happy syrup for people with thimble deep theology. Give me good Bible teaching and preaching and I give you permission to go on and on and on.

The second point,(structure) AMEN

The third, (style) I agree in principle, preach against sin, then show me how to live by the Spirit, so that I can no longer be held captive by that sin.

Forth, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN,

Fifth, Ok, I find this one a little silly. Preach the Word, be diligent in season, and out. Yes to discipleship, but until the men hear the whole counsel of God from Scripture, they can not be the kind of men God wants them to be. Programs and change for changes sake are little more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. Scripture is the answer to getting men to accept their God given role.

Treat the young men like men, we have a culture of rampant "extended adolescence". What we ought to be doing is giving young men tasks to do and incorporating study of scripture with that task. An example, having the young men serve as ushers and other activities which require them to be responsible for acting and conducting themselves as adults. At the same time teaching them the Scriptural principles of the servant-leader. Serving others with respect and dignity, leading by example the younger boys. A young man given the responsibility to serve is much more likely to do the same when he has reached adulthood.

Overall a fair critique of the church today. The church has been feminized thus men find the "church" experience to be something of little use to them.

BTW, so men wrote some of the 7/11 songs (seven words/ eleven times) that the modern church uses, big deal, would you still argue this point if they had been written by baboons? Who writes the songs ie men or women, has little to do with how the songs are used. Fanny Crosby wrote some great songs, powerful stuff, no one cares whether it was a woman that wrote them,((Tell Me the Story of Jesus, Rescue the Pershing, Blessed Assurance, Near the Cross, and I could go on) If the songs are vacuous, pabulum and do not encourage corporate worship(ie a church service) then they are little more than pop music for Christians, and should be relegated to a category of personal entertainment, for ones personal enjoyment. Church is not an entertainment venue. It should be a place of corporate(the body) worship. And the music should be conducive to corporate worship.

[47. Nicole (from Boston) said the following at 9:12 PM on Jun 10]

47

So I know I'm not a guy but I do go to church and I know guys in the church so I think that qualifies me to put in my two cents, right? Basically, I was disappointed to read David Murrow's "how to fix the church" ideas. They seemed to me to be all "external Band-Aid" rather than "internal change". The church was not founded to cater to any population, men, women, children, Americans, whatever. The church was founded to glorify Christ and spread the Gospel. These two goals are accomplished when the members are equipped (as someone previously mentioned) with truth and good doctrine. My pastor's sermons usually go for about an hour and yet they are so solid and packed with such Biblical truth that often I'm surprised at how quickly the hour goes by. I find, at least for myself, that sound doctrine and the Gospel warm my heart to God far more than a good multimedia presentation that is speaking to peripheral issues. And I also know that many of the guys in my church feel the same way. I'm loving how I'm seeing the guys on here respond, revealing this same desire for truth.

Mindlab, as a member of a Sovereign Grace church myself, I'm sorry you're feeling the way you are. I know, at least for my church, one of the best ways to get to know people is to jump in and serve and initiate. I find that as I serve with people, I get to know them rather quickly. Your church may be quite different in style but that's how the trend seems to work here.

[48. Sionel said the following at 9:25 PM on Jun 10]

48

I'm not a guy either...but I have to say, I agree with those who've said this is likely Murrow's own point of view (and also with those who've said this unfairly stereotypes guys). He appears to have lost sight of the fact that men are, or should be, the leaders both in the church and in the family - talking about them as though they won't pay attention without gimmicks is both silly and insulting.

I do see the point of doing away with Sunday school, but I'd disagree that it's completely necessary. Keeping it up to perhaps age 8-9 makes sense (and I love the idea of joint leaders! Wish my church did that) - but parents do also have a duty to teach their children. That said, I'm one of the above-mentioned who grew up without a father, and my mother did a wonderful job (well, I think so!) - but she had a lot on her plate. I'm sure sometimes having others to help out in this area was a relief, as well as in others.

I don't want to lay down the law particularly about what guys should or shouldn't do, mainly because I'm not the perfect woman either! I guess my understanding, though, is that sometimes we tend to lose sight of the fact that men do have very important and specific roles to play - leading in families and in the church, mission work (women do this too of course, but again, unless it's a women's mission men should lead it). I think the sense of challenge and purpose goes missing a lot from our churches. Now I don't mean everyone should race out and join a mission in darkest Africa! But we do sometimes buy into the world's viewpoint of life just being the daily grind, and we just drift along without a great deal of direction. If the church started addressing that more directly and effectively - maybe we'd see more people in general, not just men (but again - particularly men, given their leadership position), seeing a point in attending.

[49. Efe said the following at 9:32 PM on Jun 10]

49

I think that yes this article has made a valid point. Guys are more masculine, but we need to start focusing on God and stop focusing on ourselves. Thats what I would have to say about all of this.

[50. Ashley said the following at 9:37 PM on Jun 10]

50

Some of these points might be valid, but I know many, many men who are the exception. I think this is pretty narrow-based in general, and I think that all churches are vastly different and so find it hard to believe that all those different styles are condensed into this. The whole "Jesus is my boyfriend" thing for music, um hello? Look at the Psalms... David wrote all kinds of things that touch both masculine and feminine hearts, a lot of modern worship is based on that. Quite honestly I believe the issue with men not preferring church has more to do with society than anything else, and the daily battle waged to keep men from becoming more Christ-like, from becoming the men God designed them to be. As long as men are not functioning in God's roles for them, women will never truly be able to function in THEIR roles. If you look at the root of issues caused in people, it typically goes back to the father, and even if it goes back to a mother, HER issues will usually point to a father (or lack thereof). The Enemy knows the target to increase broken hearts, and that is boys and men - which then branches off to girls and women. This is the core issue, and I think reflects more on the discrepancy in the church than anything else (even though some of those, as I said ARE valid).

[51. Cliff Tam said the following at 10:07 PM on Jun 10]

51

I am not against changing the format of the church to fit to the culture. What I question is the reason behind such changes.

For example, Jesus travel on foot and on a donkey. Why don't we follow that?

Are we making the Gospel more attractive or are we focus on the mission of God?
I am still discerning on my part.

In regards of what makes the Bible attractive. From me, a 28-yr-old male, what draws me to Christ is the exciting life that I have on this spiritual walk.

I have situations where I have to rely on faith alone and not on my own, that's excitement. I don't need to make it more attractive, this is what Christ calls me to do. As I serve one another selflessly. As I stand and defend on my faith when the back of my hair stand up. That's exciting.

To relentlessly to go against the worldly ways, to purposely deny myself and take up my own cross, that gets me fire up.

I don't doubt that the Bible is as attractive on its own. I am just afraid are we changing our program to sale the Bible.

[52. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:19 PM on Jun 10]

52

Ted:

In terms of making the sermons shorter, I can see two sides to this argument. On one hand, the detractors are correct: sermons are already short. I'm not sure that sermon length is the issue.

On the other hand, I think unnecessary rambling--spending too much time on a particular point--is the problem.

I've heard far too many sermons in which a preacher crams a 2-minute point into 30 minutes. That's where the men might have a tendency to tune out.

When I look at Jesus' preaching--take the Sermon on the Mount for instance--it's not necessarily brief, but He doesn't overkill particular points. Instead, He makes a lot of important points. And He makes them in riveting fashion.

I have no gripe with long sermons. But I do have a gripe with long sermons with a lot of filler time.

Length isn't the issue; quality is the issue.

[53. malaman41 said the following at 10:30 PM on Jun 10]

53

I am a guy. I didn't read all of the posts above but here are my 2 cents.

I love long sermons as long as they are quality messages that make me think. I can get bored during a short sermon.

I like hymns and contemporary worship. I do not like contemporary worship songs that use overly romantic lyrics.

I don't like having to engage with people during the worship service. I came to worship God, not to do a superficial greeting or prayer circle with folks I do not know well.

I think the church in general needs an infusion of mission beyond living a good life.

[54. Rich said the following at 10:58 PM on Jun 10]

54

Jonathan (#35),

I can agree with part of your post. Young men do need strong men as mentors. That is something I crave as a young man (28), and I know that it is something younger men (teens and such) need but lack.

However, when you note that men still give sermons and write/sing songs on Sunday mornings, I think you need to look deeper. If you do that, I think you'll find that many of those men are feminized (oriented towards more feminine norms of behaving and feeling)--or, if you prefer a slightly more crass word, take Mark Driscoll's phrase: chick-i-fied.

As far as what Murrow said, I can agree with some of his observations--like the content of worship songs, a focus on mission, and the importance of discipleship--but other observations are far-fetched. I balk at a few of the words he uses to describe the God who will "attract men," like "remote, absolute," etc.

What the heck is that? Conquering King, yes. Remote King, no. David Macollough (sp?) notes in *1776* that Washington was the most inspiring when he was in the battle with his men (i.e., not remote)...the same is with any competent warrior, including God.

Plus--and this has been noted above--Murrow's focus seems to be on adjusting one's approach in order to attract a certain type of person (men), rather than being faithful to Christ's Word. This is nothing more than a marketing approach. Those have benefits, but also many subtle drawbacks, the first being that its "the tail wagging the dog."

Contend for the gospel, and be faithful to Christ--boldly, passionately, courageously, and without giving quarter on the truth. Men will come. They did 2,000 years ago.

[55. Alex C. said the following at 11:05 PM on Jun 10]

55

I'm a guy. Here's how some of those ideas hit me:

-shorter services: check. I often find myself getting antsy during a sermon. Although this one place where i'm not sure it would be a good thing for the church to change to suit me. I have a feeling my desire for a shorter sermon has more to do with often being distracted by "worldly" thoughts and pursuits than it does my just being a guy.

-Visuals: big check. I like having visual aids and it is easier to be focused and pay attention when a preacher uses them.

-vertical focus, rather than horizontal: Well, I'm a little confused as to what this means. But I can say that I'm not really into "interactive" lessons. My sunday school class sometimes has us break into discussion groups, and I hate that ><.

-focus on a mission vs "personal relationship": I prefer the relationship one actually. But again, like with the lenght thing, this may be more my own problem. I'm VERY introverted, so I often struggle with the messages that call for action and stuff like that, since it presupposes human interaction ^_^.

-the music: Actually I much prefer "modern" christian music to hyms. I think it may be because I really don't like the Organ as an instrument, and it seems like ALL hyms use it. "Jesus is my Boyfriend" music all the way! ^_^.

As for the teaching style thing for kids; I've always preffered lecture style teaching, although I also hate memorizing (thats what textbooks are for ^^). See my comment about "interactive lessons" above.

That being said, I also agree with what some of the other people have been saying about consumer mentality. The church shouldn't have to change for our desires, we're the ones who are supposed to be changed by Christ's sacrifice.

[56. Colin said the following at 11:20 PM on Jun 10]

56

As a man, I find most of these points--especially the first--insulting, not compelling. If we take Murrow's advice and spice up the sermon with props and make it shorter, how long do we have before we have two services--one where sound doctrine is taught to the women, and another where the men watch Veggie Tales?

[57. Glenise said the following at 11:26 PM on Jun 10]

57

What? Dispense with Sunday school? Are you kidding?

Pretty much every Sunday morning, my Dad would wake us up and we'd do devotions in our living room, praying together and reading the Word. Great times. My father was definitely a spiritual leader in our household.

But, as a seven year old, hearing the gospel and Bible stories in a way that I could understand them and apply them to my own little life was a rich, rich blessing. Much, much better than sitting in a pew, trying to listen to what may as well had been a latin mass to me. I still remember some of those lessons! Dude, if someone had told me they were doing away with Sunday school, I would have cried!

So, even though I learned much from family time with my Dad, I am still extremely grateful for the blessing Sunday School was to me. Besides, for kids and adults, Sunday school has its benefits. It's not like you can raise your hand to ask a question, or give your own opinion in regular church time. Dare I even say that I think many people learn a great deal more in Sunday school than in the service because a lot of it is INTERACTIVE. That way, people RETAIN more (except learning styles can differ from person to person, so maybe some people may not be able to get much out of it).

All in all, though, I don't think Sunday school should ever replace parental instruction. But it sure does add to the experience.

1 good thing + 1 good thing = 2 good things! What's wrong with that? But for kids who don't have godly parents:
0 good things + 0 good things = sad.

If you don't like Sunday School, don't go. It's just that easy.

[58. Matthew S. said the following at 12:07 AM on Jun 11]

58

Ditto number 11: "Preach theology from the word of God, and skip the cutesy 3 point outlines (and the yelling, bouncing, and silly props)."

Reasonable, thinking, unchurched men coming into a lot of churches would think the preacher was crazy or obviously acting a part. When a MAN yells until he's hoarse, runs around, and waves his arms, it means he's angry about something really important! When a preacher does this throughout his sermon, it just looks like he has an angry personality or is just stupid and fake (a guy yelling at me makes me tense for a fight!). Affecting refined, grandiloquent airs or "sucking wind" sound just as bad. Ministers who have grown up all their lives in church and go to seminary often end up adopting the style of their favorite preachers without thinking how stupid it looks. How many people must be insulted or turned off by preachers who won't talk to them like ordinary, grown-up people!

Oh, and we should leave out TALKING in 1600s English also. It is fine to read from the King James Version, but it sounds so silly to hear preachers saying "thee" and "thou" in sermons when they never do in real life. Thou shouldst not do like to such.

[59. James said the following at 12:45 AM on Jun 11]

59

So we men are too distracted by a long sermon so we avoid church?

What rubbish!

I'm a fairly typical guy, and I LOVE going to church, both the morning service (which has more structured worship and very vertical focused sermons) and to the young adult evening service (music is much more conventional and the sermons more horizontal pointing to the vertical focused). What both have, though, is SOUND DOCTRINE. No matter the sermon length.

What we men HATE is fluffy, empty sermons that take an hour to preach. Some folks may have gotten warm fuzzies, but a Godly man would be sickened by empty words that wasted an hour of his life even if those words were sprinkled with scripture references.

Oh how I'd love to live in Puritan England during it's golden years (when John Owen was around). Bring on the 3 hours sermons. You want to see men with serious personal relationships with the Lord, you look at the Puritans. The richest theology comes from those who know their Lord the best. THAT captivates a man's heart like none other.

[60. Don said the following at 1:01 AM on Jun 11]

60

Here's another thought that came to me as I reread the original post and many of the comments posted after.

I used to have a problem with long sermons. I used to fall asleep in church all the time. I tried to write it off as my job that keeps me out late on Saturday nights (I work for a movie theatre), but it wasn't my job or the pastor's approach that needed to change, it was my approach.

I went out and bought a notebook. I bring it to church with me all the time now. I use it to take notes. The small space provided in my church's bulletin is nowhere near big enough to take notes about the whole sermon. Even though a general outline is given in the bulletin I keep my own notes about what the pastor is preaching about, it makes it a bit more personal and helps me understand what the pastor is talking about.

In summary, I believe that it's not the sermons that need to change to appeal to men, but the men that need to change. You can't just sit and listen and absorb, you need to actively listen to what is being preached and wrestle with it.

[61. Matt said the following at 2:00 AM on Jun 11]

61

I'm one of them, a man who used to hate going to church...I believed going to church was the right thing to do, but I still hated it. I moved to the city I'm in now about a year ago, and had real trouble finding a church I liked.

Sermon length wasn't an issue. Sermons that were nothing but emotion, sermons that did absolutely nothing to make me think and did nothing but regurgitate stuff that I'd heard a million times before, those were the sermons I had issues with. If I had to choose between a boring sermon or sleeping in, I usually slept in.

Music. Myself personally, I think that most "praise and worship music" pretty much sucks. I know some people like it, and I can live with some P&W, but if that was the only music played, it drove me nuts. The "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" description is very apt.

So yeah. Old-school churches drove me nuts. They tended toward sermons that were essentially preaching to the choir and usually were nothing I hadn't heard plenty of times before.

New-school (is that even a word?) churches drove me nuts too. Nothing but P&W music, and the sermons usually didn't have much substance beyond the emotion put into them.

For me, male-bashing wasn't an issue, and I never even noticed any. It certainly wasn't a factor keeping me away from church.

Another big issue was that as a dude who has a hard time making small talk, I found it hard to get to know people at all. A church that actively works to gets new people plugged in and connected is a winner in my book. A lot of churches don't, other than the "stand up and shake hands with someone you don't know" routine, which really doesn't do shy quiet guys like me any good.

I finally found a church several months ago that actually has preaching that is doctrinally sound and makes me think, and a music team that actually mixes things up a little bit. And, it does well with getting people plugged in and connected to others in the body. And for the first time since I moved, I actually feel like going to church when I get up on Sunday morning.

Hopefully this makes some sense...just my $.02 I guess

[62. mindlab said the following at 3:35 AM on Jun 11]

62

18. Ted Slater:

"I'd think that a church that emphasizes "serving" would provide more opportunities for you to rub shoulders with other church members. Or are you saying that all the opportunities for serving are already taken up by others, and there's consequently no space for you to serve?"

Sorry, to clarify: only members are allowed to serve, newbies are encouraged to take several months to get to know the church before committing to membership, and I'm a newbie. Therefore, I am (largely) excluded from serving with the members and getting to interact in that context.

[63. Kelly said the following at 6:22 AM on Jun 11]

63

Men I know personally have complain about the following things in church:

1) Too long
2) Too unstructured
3) Too much singing
4) Too much closing eyes and 'unstructured prayer', i.e. "Lift your hands to Jesus and speak in tongues". This can sometimes go on for 15-20 minutes. At least twice a service.

This is all part of the regular weekly service. No wonder it's mostly women there.

(I, too, would much rather attend church to hear a clear, structured message rather than have ~2 hours of raising hands style worship.) But the reason I stay is because I would feel wrong leaving and looking for something that 'suited me better'.

[64. Paxton said the following at 7:34 AM on Jun 11]

64

Blimey! Speak truth in love as best you know how. I agree with #2.

[65. Tehilah said the following at 8:12 AM on Jun 11]

65

Just a thought to throw into this stew - in Biblical times, all men participated in the services. A typical modern synagogue service (not so far removed from 1st century patterns) requires everyone to follow along, and multiple participants carry the responsibility for teaching or reading the Word. The women, for their part, are free to come and go (special women's section for this purpose).
I'm not advocating separation of the sexes here, I just think it's an interesting concept to consider - Jesus, after all, was free to preach in the synagogue despite the fact that he was neither priest nor synagogue ruler. This type of service is one that is Scripturally supported also in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 12-14).

[66. Loris said the following at 8:13 AM on Jun 11]

66

I agreed with this article, except for the attention span assumption. My husband's a bit on the squirmy side, but once his attention is focused, it's laser-intense.
I absolutely agree on the critique of praise music. There are plenty of songs that are meaningful and have beautiful tunes. God didn't just give the gift of musical inspiration in the eighteenth century, after all. But for every pleasant, meaningful song, there are half a dozen others with bad rhymes and tunes are are virtually indistinguishable from the next song. Hardly a Sunday goes by that my husband doesn't complain about some ditty with ridiculous lyrics.

Men (and the rest of us who aren't men) need to be challenged from the pulpit. We serve a Lord that will return someday with a sword and crown. I believe that the gentler virtues of the Christian faith follow naturally from keeping our eyes on our King who has triumphed over sin and death. In ancient times, a triumph was a parade to honor a great soldier. The Bible is full of military language: triumph, victory, etc that seems to mean more to men than to women. I'm not a girly-girl by any stretch, but I love to hear exegesis on what certain words mean. I love the Psalms for their beautiful language and their range of human feeling. On the other hand, my husband finds that stuff interesting, but what really touches him is hearing practical, meaty messages on the fatherhood of God and Christ's advocacy for us. It's the same Bible, but a different emphasis.

[67. Jacob MT said the following at 8:42 AM on Jun 11]

67

He does make some good points. In moderation they might be of some value. A lot of the church has lost it's masculinity.

Throw out his ideas about short sermons and visual aids though! Don't make Sunday School easier. Make the kids listen to the sermon!

[68. Tim said the following at 9:52 AM on Jun 11]

68

mindlab said: "Ah hah! Yes, and hymns, at least the older hymns (not the camp meeting-est stuff) tend to emphasize great theological truth. You could teach the fundamentals of theology out of Trinity Hymnal; learning the the lyrics is an excellent way to remind oneself of biblical truth."

I agree 100%. Often I read the words to the "worship" songs that are sung nowadays and I scratch my head. I wonder, "Have these guys even read a Bible before?" In addition, todays worship music is very mystical and emotional lacking any significant intellectual substance. When I read old hymns or the Psalms (especially) I am exhorted, taught, and reminded of truth.

These older songs also know that it is important to back up what they say with an example. For example, a lyric to a contemporary song might say, "You are great and compassionate Lord" and have you sing that 5 times in a row.

A Psalm might say, "The Lord is faithful and abounding in lovingkindness to His people" and follow that up with a brief description of the Lord parting the Red Sea.

One of the best lessons I learned in a creative writing class I took is that characterizations of characters are much better if you show a character being a certain way instead of just SAYING what they are like. Don't just tell me God is compassionate, SHOW me how God is compassionate.

[69. Tim said the following at 10:03 AM on Jun 11]

69

"How can preaching be improved to attract men to church?"

Like many others here, I also disagree with Mr. Murrow concerning his opinion that sermons should be shorter. I tend to like 45 minute to 1 hour sermons. However, I must admit that I have heard excellent teachers who know what they are doing.

I just believe that one of the problems we have in the church nowadays is this trend towards mystical experiences and hyper-emotionality. Like I said in an earlier post, worship music nowadays is all about the "emotion," "experience," or "mood" that it creates. I am sorry, but as a man, that does NOT APPEAL to me.

I feel that the church has slowly become less and less intellectual. I like my mind to be engaged as well as my heart. Too much of the church nowadays is anti-intellectual. This needs to change. It is for this reason that I appreciate pastors like Mark Driscoll, Hank Hannegraf, and others who respect theolgoy, past teachers/theologians, and, most importantly, God's Word. Three-point sermons are an abomination and the great teachers out there know that.

One last point: I think part of the problem in recent years has been the trend away from expositional teaching toward topical teaching. The Word needs to be taught book by book, verse by verse.

[70. Suzanne said the following at 10:09 AM on Jun 11]

70

Great, godly Sunday school teachers made a big difference in my life. My parents were also wonderful children's ministers in the home. I don't think it needs to be either/or. My parents attended Sunday school at the same time we kids did, then we all sat in service together.

[71. Amanda said the following at 11:35 AM on Jun 11]

71

This really disturbed me. I go to church and see many young men(and older) who are praising God and seeking Him with their whole heart. This isn't an issue of liking the music or teaching. It's an issue of pride. We all suffer from pride, but there comes a time to set it aside and take your relationship with God seriously. Church doesn't need to fit our lifestyle and taste. We're fallen. Don't you think it could very well be a side effect?

[72. lewsta said the following at 12:19 PM on Jun 11]

72

Morrow totally misses the mark in every category save one: sunday school. A recent American invention, it does, as others have said, effectively give FATHERS a great excuse to abdicate their God-given duty to TEACH their children. His solution for SS misses again, though. IF SS is concurrent with the weekly believer's meeting, it needs to be abandoned, or, at the least, moved to a different time, and parents need to be there as well. Gospel truth and solid theology know no "age-appropriate" categories. Truth is truth. Children can hear, and live, truth. Most SS are all about entertaining, and feminising, the children and meking the parents feel good about their involvement. Truth is too often a casualty of "appropriate" As to the other points Morrow mentions: length of sermon...bogus. I can be put to sleep in five minutes by many shallow sermons I've heard, and I can be held spellbound all day, three days running, by solid, biblical, challenging teaching. "Worship" (a serious misnomer in most cases" style is a shill issue. I heard Stuart Townend, in a three day worship seminar once, give the best ever description of appropriate material for corporate worship (my paraphrase of his content): it will contain words that direct the singer's heart and mind toward God and His glory. It will be sung to a melody that is varied and interesting enough to be memorable and followable. "Boyfriend" music does neither of these, nor do many of the contemporary works. And yes, the older hymnals abound with sappy emotional "its all about MEEEEE" nonsense, so WHEN a piece was written has no value. Someone mentioned the psalms as excellent examples, and I solidly agree. Use them. But not exclusively. I'd far rather sing some hymns (written in any century) with solid, God'focussed content, to the accompaniment of one simple accoustic guitar or a piano than the slick, rehearsed, note-perfect sap-laden heart-string "P&W" stuff sold in the "christian family supply stores" by the millions.

And whoever mentioned the need for EQUIPPING men to BE the heads of their households was spot on, but I'll take that one step further: equip them, yes. then encourage and challenge them until they are not only DOING it themselves, but equipping others. a major failing in the American church today, and the major reason men are bored with it, is the separation of clergy and laity, the relegation of the "doing" to the one in the pulpit. Remember Paul's exhortation that, whenever we come together, let EACH of you bring something--song, hymn, teaching, revelation, word of encouragement, prophecy, knowledge... but no, we are trained to sit in rows, silent (or, at best, reading a prepared script in unison at the appropriate times) whilst the one up front "does the magic show". Part of this is in result of the HUGE size of our congregations. Two thousand in one "church"? Ridiculous. HOW can "everyone" being something and we not be there all day? And HOW can anyone effectively get to know that many? Men are relegated to the role of seat-fillers simply by force of numbers. Now, consider the dynamics of a congregation of a few hundred at most. Ah, now there is NEED for many men to fil the various roles. Impossible, impractical, you say? Let me assure you it is NOT. Having been member of such a small church for years, it works wonderfully. And we are growing... whenever a given congregation reaches about three hundred in size, we will "replicate" a new one, simultaneously restoring the effective dynamic of smaller groups, ample room for men to be practically involved, challenged, responsible, and take on new roles of leadership previously filled by those who've been there longer. Where we formerly had one pulpit to fill weekly, we now have seven, more coming.

Perhaps the key to stimulating and maintaining involvement and interest of men in our congregations is a serious commitment on the part of church leadership to the concepts Paul outlines in Ephesians 4, 11 and following: after enumerating the gifts of Christ to the church (yes, all five of them, given TODAY), Paul explains WHY: for the EQUIPPING OF THE SAINTS. Not for "leadership roles", but to equip the members. For what? FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. Oh, so WHO actually DOES the work of the ministry? It is the saints, NOT the "leaders". Do we see this pattern at work in the modern American church generally? Certainly not. And THERE lies the problem. Remove our function as men in the "work of the ministry" (and no, I do NOT refer to things like sunday cleanup, leading a sunday school class, managing the schedule of the Friday night witnessing teams, though some of these COULD be "work of the ministry". Every aspect of the life of the congregation can, and should be, managed by the members. Pastor as CEO/CFO is NOT according to the biblical model at all.
When we leave behind the modern seminary-controlled model of "church leadership" and function we see today, the church will again return to BEING salt and light in a desparate world, men at the centre and forefront. It will again be the women who need to be encouraged and brought along, as it appears to have been in the past. Oh, and we will soon see an end to niggly issues as abortion, homosexuality, legalised (and soon to be mandated) euthanasia, rampant divorce, substance abuse, bored and decadent "youth", long-delayed marriage, below-replacement birth rates, and economic collapse.

[73. Rachael said the following at 12:40 PM on Jun 11]

73

Generally speaking, I am not against Sunday School. Heck, I GO to Sunday School and love it. We're going through Exodus.

For people who are against a Sunday School for kids, when or if you have kids...maybe you could consider how much they'll get out of the sermon.

Like if they get nothing out of the sermons due to their maturity level, perhaps it would be better for them to go to a Sunday School or something geared toward kids. When they are able to take notes and benefit from the sermons, you might consider having them go to the service then.

I agree with Don (60) about the value of note-taking. For people who lose focus when listening to one person talk for a long time (like me), note-taking totally helps me focus and glean from the sermon or Sunday School lesson. Sometimes I reflect on some gleanings later and blog about it.

[74. Kit said the following at 12:53 PM on Jun 11]

74

Please tell me why this article seems to imply that only men are disillusioned with the church?

Issues like length of sermon, context, and style of music have nothing to do with the sex of the attender. I'm a woman, and I hate the 'feel good' sermons. It has nothing to do with the emotions expressed in the sermons. It's because usually, nothing is expressed. It's just not challenging.

I agree that there aren't enough young men in the church. There aren't enough young women, either.

[75. Jacob said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 11]

75

I posted an assessment on my blog, available here

[76. kman said the following at 1:21 PM on Jun 11]

76

I agree with some points.

As far as sermons go. I enjoy a good sermon, I look forward to it at church.

And I'm glad someone articulated what I was thinking about the "Jesus is my boyfriend" music. I understand it but I prefer more to sing about the Lordship of God vs. being held by God etc.

[77. Dan Gill said the following at 2:39 PM on Jun 11]

77

Folks, perhaps you should read Murrow's books. Why Men Hate Going to Church is the first one. He makes some valid points that are based on his own experiences, interviews with others, and other research. Sure, it's somewhat overstated. You don't sell books by understating.

[78. Rader said the following at 3:17 PM on Jun 11]

78

Jesus meets men where they are. Jesus provides a sense of belonging, a challenging mission and authority that can be trusted.

The amazing thing to think about is that the core of Jesus's ministry was that he committed to a small group of guys and challenged them daily for three years. This has changed the world.

Maybe, just maybe, commitment to seeking God aided by unconditional commitment to walk in discipleship for three years, even if you know one of those guys is going to kill, maybe that kind of living sacrifice will humble our hearts enough listen and obey.

It is not about the service, it is about who you serve. Have we constructed an environment and lifestyle where we unyieldingly serve God? Let us look to Jesus.

[79. Joseph said the following at 4:03 PM on Jun 11]

79

The concept that hymns would appeal to men more than contemporary music is simply not true. The preference for one music style or another is based more on culture and tradition (ie a guy raised in a very traditional Lutheran church will probably relate less to Pentecostal style music).

Male attendance in evangelical, charismatic, and nondenominational churches is much higher than the more traditional counterparts.

As a man I find it insulting to suggest that I am too insecure to express my love and devotion to God unless it is veiled in a hymn relating battles. I would suggest that Murrow study the Psalms where David (also a warrior) expresses his feelings towards his Lord with candor.

I will say that I always hated churches that would try to prompt me into a certain style of worship, I think as long as the church has created an environment were people feel free to worship as they're led to men will in turn feel comfortable.

[80. Joseph said the following at 4:33 PM on Jun 11]

80

Further more I just checked out this guy's website, and I think he's way off base. In his 'for men' section he openly laments that modern Christianity isnt more like Islam!
???
This is the kind of person you're quoting in your article?

He has an interesting stratagy for attracting men to church. He starts off by immasculating the men who currently attend church (he makes no denomination distinction but it's fairly obvious he's refering to evangelical groups), and then he goes onto hope that the branch of Christianity that is actually growing (nondenominationals and charismatics) become more like their traditional counterparts who have negative growth rates each year.

I sincerly pray people dont actually follow this guy's advice.

[81. Katie said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 11]

81

"That's exactly what we're *not* supposed to do-- change the church to suit the fleeting fancies of personal taste. Church sermons are to be based upon sound doctrine (i.e. the Word of God: Jesus Christ and Him crucified). Does the Gospel bore you? Offend you? A stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, indeed. What utter folly to suggest "changing" the church in the interest of "appealing" to people.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" 2nd Timothy 4:3"

AMEN!

[82. Fred Walker said the following at 6:02 PM on Jun 11]

82

Joseph,

I wouldn't take Murrow's comments personally because he was generalising and in general he may be right about men preferring battle-hymns.

[83. Vanessa said the following at 6:39 PM on Jun 11]

83

A very wise person once explained his frustration with modern day worship leaders and worship services as a whole. He stated that while everyone knew he loved his wife and he would be affectionate towards her in public...that he didn't strip her down and make love to her in front of an audience. The same intimacy that a husband and a wife share in secret is what should be shared in private between the believer and God. Our corporate worship is not to replace our intimate worship time with God.

[84. Jacob said the following at 7:11 PM on Jun 11]

84

Joseph,

I don't think one's background is the deciding factor when it comes to music. In my experience (shared by many of my friends and acquaintances), many of us who were raised in churches that did the whole praise and worship style are moving away from it in favor of more traditional, liturgical styles. One fellow grew up going to a very charismatic church and is now a very liturgical Lutheran. Of course, most of us fall into Collin Hansen's "Young Restless Reformed" demographic.

[85. Ashley S. said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 12]

85

I would like to address what seems to be the 2 main reasons that some commenters seem to say that we should not do away with Sunday School (in the age-segregated form).

The first argument being that children's "...brains need the gospel in a way that they can understand and be a part of." As a child, I experienced both sides. I attended Sunday School, and I also sat in the regular service. I can't tell you a single lesson that was taught in Sunday School that I have held onto (except a way to remember the books of the Bible). However, sitting in for the regular service definately had an impact on me. Much of what was taught in those sermons has laid the foundation of my spiritual life. Did I comprehend everything that was said? Of course not, but my parents were there to answer any questions. We were even able to discuss the sermon, because we had heard the same one.

Which leads me to the second argument for keeping Sunday School. The reasoning that many children either don't have Christian parents or even a father at home. This is very true and my heart breaks for them. But why do we rely on the Church (as in the institution) to reach them? Does your family have evening worship? Why not invite these children over? Let them experience the love of Christ in a family setting.

I guess that my main points are these: Don't underestimate the understanding and faith of a child, for it is only when we become like them that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And don't leave the institution of the church to do all of the work, because WE are the ones called to change the world.

[86. Mandi said the following at 11:25 AM on Jun 12]

86

neil (#33) and others interested,

A great write-up on that very point about men and Orthodoxy is here.

[87. Joseph said the following at 2:22 PM on Jun 12]

87

The point regarding that men, and people in general, are fleeing nondenominational and charismatic churches to more traditional protestant churches isnt just misstated, it's blatantly false. Christian and secular sources all indicate that the more traditional churches are just smaller, they're dying off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5465761/
The most shocking statistic on the subject is a study that measured the growth rate of various churches from 1972- 1992 rate that the more traditional churches (Episcopal, United Methodist) are experience growth rates around -21%.
The pentecostals and evangelicals? Growth rate of over 100%.

The question that follows then is why? If Mr. Murrow's theories are correct then whey arent the more stoic churces experiencing an onset of dissatisfied evangelical men?

Rushing frantically to the stone altar of a God they would rather appease than love. After all, you wouldnt want to look like a girl by saying you love Jesus.

I tease, but I reiterate my point that it is not right to dictate a certain worship style to the entire body of Christ. Does organ music and gregorian chants inspire you to worship God in spirit and in truth? Great! I think that's wonderful and I'm sure there are a bevy of churches that would meet your needs. Likewise for those with different tastes there are groups with more contemporary music.

[88. Don said the following at 3:06 PM on Jun 12]

88

I think I can agree with Jacob (84) about moving away from the kind of music that you grew up listening to. I'm certain that's why I do not like hymns, because of the music in the church I grew up in. I'm sure it wasn't the way hymns were meant to be sung, but it's had an adverse effect any way.

[89. Jacob said the following at 3:26 PM on Jun 12]

89

Joseph,
My comment wasn't meant to be taken as evidence of a general trend. It is simply the common experience of many of the young men and women I know. Not all of them, and probably not even a majority of them. But, fact remains, a significant number of us have.
Furthermore, mainline Methodists don't have a monopoly on traditional worship. There is a vibrant community of Reformed Baptists and (conservative) Presbyterians who are both traditional and enjoying growth (however modest it may be).

Don,
I think your point about shifting away from what you were raised with is probably closer to a general trend than to say that Millennials are becoming more traditional in their tastes. If you were raised under one way and it didn't do it for you, you're certainly going to be open to doing church differently.

[90. Samuel PG said the following at 5:02 PM on Jun 12]

90

I realize this type of thing has been said on here, but I like throwing out my two cents so I will. I doubt Murrow intended it to come across this way, but some of the points made in the interview are not particularly helpful. The Church should not be seeking ways to attract specific groups of people so much as seeking to be the Church that God desires. There are, of course, some things that can be added of left out without compromising the Church's integrity (like props in sermons). Should a church use more hymns or contemporary worship music? Instead of asking which types appeal to certain people, why not ask which accurately represent God? Songs from both sets can be theologically accurate or not. Perhaps we should seek a balance in the songs we use, some that use battle language, some focusing on Christ's victory over death, some weighing the depth of Christ's suffering, some about the hope of Heaven, some about the work to be done on earth, some that reflect our intimate relationship with God, and some that highlight God's glory and holiness. Instead of trying to please any one group, we could seek to provide a balance among the different lenses Scripture itself uses to show us God.
Should a church be more vertical or horizontal? I don't know if there is any legitimate difference between what men and women prefer, but whether or not there is a church service should perhaps share both emphases, with somewhat more of a focus on the vertical in order to reflect the order of the two greatest commands.
There may or may not be a difference in men and women with regard to their preference for relationship oriented teaching and mission oriented teaching, but we need to be taught about both. Every Christian needs to be reminded of the importance of our mission as well as the importance of fostering loving relationships with others (part of the mission, actually).
As for the romantic worship songs (which are tough on me, personally), I think they are good within balance if we remember that the romance of the New Testament is not so much between Christ and my soul, but between Christ and His Church.
All in all, the point is that the Church needs to be what God desires her to be and to make disciples of men and women instead of trying to meet personal tastes. Following Christ is not about me demanding my tastes be met, but offering my life.
Thankfull, I think the Church is doing a better job then we usually admit.

[91. Dan said the following at 11:57 PM on Jun 12]

91

"It's a long process. You have to disciple your men first. But once thy have roots, then you can start offering them ministries oriented toward their tastes."

It all hinges here most churches aren't willing to even offer discipleship classes for men under 40 much less even think of offering a young mens program that mentors them. Thats where it starts the willingness to recognize there is a problem and something needs to be done.

[92. Farmer Pete said the following at 5:40 AM on Jun 13]

92

I have seen so many men either drift away from church, or struggle even while they remain faithful, that I think that we need to be prepared to seriously examine both the culture of the church and the way that it seeks to meet the needs of men. It isn't about attracting specific groups, so much as not ignoring the needs of men. What is it about being "all things to all men" that we find it so hard to grasp?

- On sermon length, don't blame Murrow for reporting what other men are telling him. My personal take is that it's more about content than length. Good teaching should be equipping us - that is giving us the tools - to live our lives and responsibilities as God calls us. For men this is more about action and motivation, and less about warm fuzzies. Male pastors need to recognise that the traits that qualify them for that calling, also render them different from the average male. The average man IS different, and it's neither a sin nor a disease to be the way that God has made us.

- On structure... I agree that asking men to emote for significant periods of time is counter-productive. I also agree that men will find it far more easy to follow a leader who calls them to something more important than their own feelings. Great leaders do this, but Christ is presented in this light all too infrequently.

- On worship. Bear in mind that the great hymns are those which are still being sung after decades or centuries. How many have fallen into disuse? It is more valid to ask. (1) Which lyrics say what we as worshippers want to say to God. Bear in mind that the average musician is not the average man. That goes for David, too.(2) Which music is suitable for singing by untrained singers , in a group, and possibly without good musical accompaniment. It is worth remembering that much modern music is written to be performed by talented singers who have a lot of time to practice. Ask me to sing well something that I've only heard once or twice, and to hit all the notes and variations in timing, and I can't do it. Yet I love singing. (3) Which music is within the vocal range of men. (This is not a trivial issue.)

- On Sunday School. I believe that children should be given a level of teaching that is appropriate for their understanding, and that the adults in church should have teaching appropriate to theirs. This need not mean separation for the entire service.

The ultimate question is whether - as a church - we are obeying the commandment to love our neighbours. If we refuse to acknowledge and address the needs of a considerable portion of the population, then I suggest that we are not.

Peter

[93. Drew said the following at 8:27 AM on Jun 13]

93

I hate when people pick and choose what Jesus did or said. Yes, Jesus did use object lessons when he taught; however, he also taught (or preached) for such long periods of time, that the people were not able to get home in time for dinner. That is why Jesus had to feed 5,000 people with the small amount of food that one boy had with him. I think it is amazing that the author only mentions the teaching methods that fit into his personal preference. If he is going to use Jesus as the paradigm, then he needs to stop picking and choosing.
Also, the reason most men don't like going to church is because they aren't Christians. Before I was a Christian, I hated church too. Why would a non-believer like to sing praises to a God he doesn't serve or listen to someone teach from a book that doesn't have any authority. Christians should love church, but non-Christians typically will not. We do need to be relevant, but not at the cost of not being biblical. Most unsaved men today would have hated going to a first-centry worship gathering or listening to Jesus teach. I guess Jesus didn't know what he was doing either.

[94. Jon said the following at 2:30 PM on Jun 13]

94

This is good stuff. Although I don't think men need shorter sermons as much as to-the-point sermons that say something. The music point couldn't be truer. It made me laugh out loud.

[95. Joseph said the following at 4:57 PM on Jun 13]

95

I think one way most mainline churches fail to meet the needs of men is that it expects nothing of them. Though I disagree with the majority of Murrow’s solutions, his pin-pointing of a problem was, for the most part, accurate. When you treat men like boys, with no obligations, responsibilities, or expectations they behave like boys.

I find it interesting that one of Murrow’s critiques was that men are expected to instruct or interact with children at church. I can’t think of an arena more in desperate need of masculine presence than the rearing of children. Male involvement with children doesn’t need, and probably shouldn’t be, a game of patty cake or the singing of nursery rhymes. Why can’t men in the church step up and coach the kids on a sport? Perhaps teach the group how to fish or catch a baseball? Those are just a few possibilities and off the top of my head.

As much as I disagree with Mormon doctrine the church does an adequate job of integrating men into the service (and please do not take this in any way as an endorsement of their theology). And why is that? Men are expected to participate. They have duties- serving communion, being involved in the church and in their community. You want men to act like men in the church? Stop treating them like teenagers and expect them to be the leaders they need to be.

That being said I think Murrow had good points about scheduling male oriented activities- camping, sports, etc… My church has a lot of those and our male attendance is great.

[96. Christina said the following at 3:22 PM on Jun 15]

96

I tend to agree with Morrow on the choice of songs to a point. That is where each songleader, whether it is traditional or contemporary, needs to make sure that each song is scriptural and right for the service. Some choruses should be used for private moments with God and not congretgational. As for time limitation'son the preaching, we have to realize that in today's society,whether we like it or not has the attention span of about 20 to 30 minutes.Some can go longer...(Sad but true)If the preacher has not made their point within that amount of time, chances are, the people will tune him/her out.(Watch people's faces next time you are at church and see if I'm wrong. You can buy the copy of the sermon so you wont miss anything.)
Sunday School on the other hand has been blown way out of context and has not been used to its best ability. I believe sunday school is a time of discipleship. You are not preached at. you are supposed to be shown the Word of God and how it can be applied to your own life. If a person is a new christian, hearing about how their finances can be improved in 3 easy steps is not going to help further their walk with God. Jesus saves them During the service and it seems we(chirch as a whole)let them flounder on until they give up.(I have seen this at my church)We tell them just pray and read their bibles. Where do you think they start Geneisis...There is no teaching of how to study this word of God, What praying really means, fasting and so on...There has got to come a time when we as a united body of christ come together and help these people. Help ourselves. Go beyond a relationship with God that is a mile wide but only an in deep. To get past the "Spiritual Milk" and began to feast on the "Meat" the Lord has for us. We have got to show these men so they can become the spiritual leaders of the home, of our sunday schools.

[97. BDB said the following at 4:55 PM on Jun 15]

97

My church had hymns this weekend. I wrote a bulletin tear-off to gush about what a good choice it was!

[98. Mike Perry said the following at 2:01 PM on Jun 23]

98

Those who suggest changes in sermons are missing the point. No healthy minded guy wants a job where all he does is watch his boss give speeches to a passive audience. Televised sports are interesting because they show men doing something that men find impressive, like NASCAR, which has guys driving bumper to bumper at 200 MPH. There's challenge, there's risk, there's uncertainty, there's the chance to do something important.

It sports terms, church is pitiful. One guy, the preacher, drives around the track at a leisurely 25 MPH, while the rest of us sit and watch. He's not in a debate and there's nothing challenging or impressive about what he is doing. What he is doing involves no risk. No one dares object or debate him. In a race with just one car, driving a bit faster and taking less time to finish may reduce how boring it is, but it doesn't change the essence of it all. Nothing is happening but words rattling stained glass windows. Words spoken by one guy who's paid to do that, words that reach no further than the church walls.

Most churches do not offer men anything that's challenging, risky, or with the chance for real accomplishment or great failure. The pastor gets the glory, men (if men they are) fret and fuss over the state of the church lawn or finding enough seats for that family of seven. They're never expected to do anything the slightest bit impressive, risky, exciting or challenging. That's why the best adjective to describe Evangelical men is often "wimp." It's why the Washington Post in the 1990s wrote that the typical Evangelical was "a poorly educated older woman." They certainly act like one.

I often point to an example of why this happens. Imagine a gifted, well-respected lawyer who becomes a Christian and begins to attend an Evangelical church. What thoughts pass through the mind of that church's pastor? I suggest that 99.99% of the pastors will have one of three thoughts:

1. This guy is handsome and respectable looking. Let's make him an usher, so visitors will see him and be impressed.

2. This guy must make a lot of money. I'll have to do a sermon series on tithing.

3. This guy is a lawyer. We need to make him an elder/deacon, so he can help us with contracts and similar legal stuff.

Would one pastor is a thousand think of the possibility that this gifted lawyer and talented leader might do something fix the divorce laws that have flooded churches with families torn with divorce and with struggling single moms? I think not.

For the typical preacher, the solution to all social ills is him in a pulpit yelling at people. In sports terms, that's him driving around the race track, tooting his horn and waving. No wonder guys get bored watching the little egotist.

A while back, a friend who was a physician's wife got me to go with her to some meetings to discuss an issue that had arisen when it was discovered that Seattle's high schools had been requiring teens to read a story that glamorized the life of a prostitute, The issue had only come out when the Seattle school district wanted to move the reader into junior high classrooms.

What struck me most about those small meetings was the total, utter, complete, abject absence of any Christian guy but me there. There must be thousands of Christian men in Seattle, and hundreds with an expertise in law and medicine that would give them more credibility than me, a bachelor writer, has. Yet none were there. Nor did any show up at at of the larger "children having children" meeting going on at that same time. Those were the spiritual equivalent of NASCAR races or of Jesus debating his foes out in the open. To participate, standing for anything other than the politically correct point of view would take courage and abllity.

Were there Christian men in Seattle who have the professional talent to make a major impact on what tens of thousands of kids were being taught? Yes. And would those men have found that sort of activity as exciting, challenging and risky as a NASCAR race? Yes. If being a believer meant that sort of thing, then men would be excited about their faith.

But that's not what most Evangelical churches offer their men. Sit and listen to the preacher, they are told, and go home and read your Bible, and perhaps we will let you join a committee to restripe the parking lot. That's all that's expected of men.

Given that situation, the amazing thing is that any men who aren't 'Jesus is my boyfriend" wimps attend church.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace

[99. Anita said the following at 8:04 AM on Jun 25]

99

I'd say that a lot of girls would like church more as well if it was as The Voice describes. Many Sunday morning services do tend to be boring. It's the actually studying of the Bible that is exciting.

[100. Don said the following at 9:34 PM on Sep 10]

100

Where the music is concerned I am a musician myself. So for me most of the music having grown up through the 80's rock scene is boring. Most worship teams forget that their ability is a gift from God and they play like they are afraid to share what He has given. In regards to the relationship with Christ bit my favorite verse in the bible is Ex 33:11 God spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with a friend. So I'm all for the relationship thing. I want to experience what it is like to be in the Holy of Holies and the only way to do that is to spend time with God and get to know him. Where the sermons are concerned, in all honesty I have moved to a point in my relationship with God where most sermons talk about things I outgrew a few years ago. So again, it goes back to seeking and depending on God for him to teach me the things he wants me to know in regards to my relationship with him and his call on my life. What I get into is every so often I will come across someone after the service that is going through some things I have been through and I get to share how God used that situation to teach me and to help me grow and mature more spiritually. On occasion I will be going through something and when I come to church God will allow the Pastor to 'read my mail' in his teaching if you will but most of the time it isn't about me anyway. It's about what he wants and if we find ourselves getting bored asking God to show us what it is he wants us to see.