Mind The Gap by Ted Slater on 04/20/2009 at 3:42 PM

We published an article by Lauren F. Winner this past week that, frankly, does not apply to most of our male Boundless readers. Most of the men who read Boundless Webzine and participate on The Line are on a trajectory toward godly manhood, and don't fit the gamer boy stereotype offered in Winner's article.

Essentially, Winner argued in "Mind The Gap" that the lack of male leadership and involvement evident in colleges and in church is largely the result of the slacker gaming culture. Relevant sentences:

Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas....

It's not just in the ranks of church volunteers that women are outshining men. According to a recent cover story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, women are outpacing men on college campuses, too. More women than men are attending college, and once they get there, women get better grades and devote more time to civic activities and serving in leadership positions in campus organizations. At graduation time, women also bring home more awards and honors than men....

Men devote far more time than women to playing computer games. Men also exercise more and watch more TV, and are more likely to oversleep and miss class....

I found the article to be both encouraging and depressing: I think it's good news for women, who, studies show, were being edged out by men in college classrooms as recently as 15 years ago. And I think it's good news that female high school students are excelling, taking college prep classes, going to college and doing well once they get there.

But it's not such great news for society that so many in college take video games more seriously than studying....

So, if more women are getting into the habit of working hard, volunteering and leading civic activities, and more men are getting into the habit of applying themselves to Wii, then it's really no surprise that out there in the real world, the grown-up church world, it's women who seem more willing to shoulder responsibility.

In all honestly, if you found Winner's article to be offensive, I'd understand why. It tends to make sweeping generalizations about men and about women. The tone is a bit on the cynical side. It offers few legitimate solutions. Why did I publish it, then? Because the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles, at least in university and church.

I think that's a real problem. And I'd like to see us discuss this.

Our first thoughtful comment is from Mike Theemling, who e-mailed me the following:

* * * I agree that there is a definite gender gap in both the academic realm and the church realm. I haven't heard much more than anecdotal evidence myself regarding church volunteering, but news outlets have reported the gender gap in academic achievement. I do agree with the author's thesis that the two areas (academic performance and lack of volunteerism) are related.

I sensed this gap when I attended high school. All throughout my HS years, only three males consistently made the High Honor Roll. Myself, a friend of mine, and one other guy we didn't know. The rest on the list included about a dozen women (who also happened to be on student council and involved heavily in extracurricular activities). In my graduating class I was the only male in the top 10.

There's a lot of debate as to the causes of this phenomenon. I believe that there isn't one specific cause, but rather a number of factors such as cultural expectations, economic considerations, and so on. My own personal theory is that the two largest causes of this trend are 1) the lack of strong fatherly role models in a boy's life, and 2) the lack of societal pressure on young males to achieve academically (e.g., oppression whether real or perceived, culture not glorifying academics, etc.).

Up until the last 20 to 30 years, most families were of the "nuclear" sort (two parents and kids). Now, there are many more single parent homes with the usual head of household being a woman, with the highest single parent households in the African American and Latino demographic groups. According to some studies, the most important indicator of academic achievement — regardless of gender or even economics — is whether or not both parents live at home.

True, this assertion is sometimes disputed and there are plenty of counterexamples (I've found many other studies which seem to contradict each other; some say that just having a mother is the most important, some say that the "two parent" benefit is greatly exaggerated, etc.). Indeed it is a complex beast, but very few would outright dismiss that having two parents living at home is preferred and more beneficial to a child's wellbeing than just one.

Consider that since many single-parent households are headed by a woman, conventional wisdom says a boy would lack a "father figure," and thus would tend not to step up and take the lead either academically or culturally (again, some dispute this claim). He does not see within his own household that a man needs to "provide for the family" (he only sees a woman doing it) and thus feels consciously or subconsciously that it's perfectly fine to slack off.

On the flip-side, a girl in such a household may see the difficult situation her mother is in and become more motivated to succeed, not wanting to end up like them.

Of course some would say that there are plenty of nuclear families where the sister still outperforms the brother. That is where the second reason may come into play: there is also a distinct lack of societal pressure on young men to succeed.

Young girls are told all the time to "do everything that a man can do," and role models and news stories tend to be of those who are breaking glass ceilings, something which requires academic excellence. However, role models for young men are either largely absent or emphasize less on academic achievement and more on things such as athletics or music. Sometimes there can also be an incentive to fight the "patriarchal societies" that oppress women and may motivate them to work harder to prove themselves (indeed, issues such as the gender pay gap seem to be legitimate grievances). This should not be interpreted however that "it's all feminism's fault." Just because women are more motivated to succeed does not mean it "caused" men to become less motivated.

Finally, I think also related to this is the delaying of marriage among young adults (it may be a cause or a symptom of the male achievement gap, or both). Because there is less pressure to get married and have kids at an earlier age, there is less pressure on a man to find a career which can provide for more than just himself. Why then does this only affect men and not women? Perhaps because women realize that when a child is born, more often than not they are the ones who will have to provide for the baby, and thus they are more motivated. I admit this is just speculation though.

As to the solution? The author unfortunately is vague on this point but don't knock her; coming up with viable, concrete solutions is difficult. She criticizes guys spending too much time playing video games, but I don't think video games are the core problem. The core problem is controlling what young men do with their free time. Girls may be naturally more inclined to use it productively, but most boys it seems are not.

I believe the most practical and simple solution, at least for the academic realm, is for a parent to exert more of their God-given responsibility to manage their kids' time. That means making rules limiting TV, Internet, video game use, and so on. That also means making rules (e.g., homework done before play) and consequences for not following those rules.

Benjamin Carson, an African American man raised by a single mother, consistently did poorly in school. People thought he was just plain "stupid." His mother didn't know what to do at first, but then began to make and enforce some rules to help his study habits. Rules like "limiting his television watching and refused to let him go outside to play until he had finished his homework each day. She required him to read two library books a week and to give her written reports on his reading, even though, with her own poor education, she could barely read what he had written."

Because of this, Ben realized he wasn't stupid after all — in fact he became one of the smartest kids in school. He eventually went to become a renown neurosurgeon.

If more parents followed what Ben's mother did, raising their children up to be ready for society rather than trying to "befriend" them, this problem of the male education gap wouldn't be as serious as it is now.

* * *

I'd love to hear what thoughts this article, and Mike's comment, have brought to mind for you.

Mind The Gap by Ted Slater on 04/20/2009 at 3:42 PM

We published an article by Lauren F. Winner this past week that, frankly, does not apply to most of our male Boundless readers. Most of the men who read Boundless Webzine and participate on The Line are on a trajectory toward godly manhood, and don't fit the gamer boy stereotype offered in Winner's article.

Essentially, Winner argued in "Mind The Gap" that the lack of male leadership and involvement evident in colleges and in church is largely the result of the slacker gaming culture. Relevant sentences:

Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas....

It's not just in the ranks of church volunteers that women are outshining men. According to a recent cover story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, women are outpacing men on college campuses, too. More women than men are attending college, and once they get there, women get better grades and devote more time to civic activities and serving in leadership positions in campus organizations. At graduation time, women also bring home more awards and honors than men....

Men devote far more time than women to playing computer games. Men also exercise more and watch more TV, and are more likely to oversleep and miss class....

I found the article to be both encouraging and depressing: I think it's good news for women, who, studies show, were being edged out by men in college classrooms as recently as 15 years ago. And I think it's good news that female high school students are excelling, taking college prep classes, going to college and doing well once they get there.

But it's not such great news for society that so many in college take video games more seriously than studying....

So, if more women are getting into the habit of working hard, volunteering and leading civic activities, and more men are getting into the habit of applying themselves to Wii, then it's really no surprise that out there in the real world, the grown-up church world, it's women who seem more willing to shoulder responsibility.

In all honestly, if you found Winner's article to be offensive, I'd understand why. It tends to make sweeping generalizations about men and about women. The tone is a bit on the cynical side. It offers few legitimate solutions. Why did I publish it, then? Because the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles, at least in university and church.

I think that's a real problem. And I'd like to see us discuss this.

Our first thoughtful comment is from Mike Theemling, who e-mailed me the following:

* * * I agree that there is a definite gender gap in both the academic realm and the church realm. I haven't heard much more than anecdotal evidence myself regarding church volunteering, but news outlets have reported the gender gap in academic achievement. I do agree with the author's thesis that the two areas (academic performance and lack of volunteerism) are related.

I sensed this gap when I attended high school. All throughout my HS years, only three males consistently made the High Honor Roll. Myself, a friend of mine, and one other guy we didn't know. The rest on the list included about a dozen women (who also happened to be on student council and involved heavily in extracurricular activities). In my graduating class I was the only male in the top 10.

There's a lot of debate as to the causes of this phenomenon. I believe that there isn't one specific cause, but rather a number of factors such as cultural expectations, economic considerations, and so on. My own personal theory is that the two largest causes of this trend are 1) the lack of strong fatherly role models in a boy's life, and 2) the lack of societal pressure on young males to achieve academically (e.g., oppression whether real or perceived, culture not glorifying academics, etc.).

Up until the last 20 to 30 years, most families were of the "nuclear" sort (two parents and kids). Now, there are many more single parent homes with the usual head of household being a woman, with the highest single parent households in the African American and Latino demographic groups. According to some studies, the most important indicator of academic achievement — regardless of gender or even economics — is whether or not both parents live at home.

True, this assertion is sometimes disputed and there are plenty of counterexamples (I've found many other studies which seem to contradict each other; some say that just having a mother is the most important, some say that the "two parent" benefit is greatly exaggerated, etc.). Indeed it is a complex beast, but very few would outright dismiss that having two parents living at home is preferred and more beneficial to a child's wellbeing than just one.

Consider that since many single-parent households are headed by a woman, conventional wisdom says a boy would lack a "father figure," and thus would tend not to step up and take the lead either academically or culturally (again, some dispute this claim). He does not see within his own household that a man needs to "provide for the family" (he only sees a woman doing it) and thus feels consciously or subconsciously that it's perfectly fine to slack off.

On the flip-side, a girl in such a household may see the difficult situation her mother is in and become more motivated to succeed, not wanting to end up like them.

Of course some would say that there are plenty of nuclear families where the sister still outperforms the brother. That is where the second reason may come into play: there is also a distinct lack of societal pressure on young men to succeed.

Young girls are told all the time to "do everything that a man can do," and role models and news stories tend to be of those who are breaking glass ceilings, something which requires academic excellence. However, role models for young men are either largely absent or emphasize less on academic achievement and more on things such as athletics or music. Sometimes there can also be an incentive to fight the "patriarchal societies" that oppress women and may motivate them to work harder to prove themselves (indeed, issues such as the gender pay gap seem to be legitimate grievances). This should not be interpreted however that "it's all feminism's fault." Just because women are more motivated to succeed does not mean it "caused" men to become less motivated.

Finally, I think also related to this is the delaying of marriage among young adults (it may be a cause or a symptom of the male achievement gap, or both). Because there is less pressure to get married and have kids at an earlier age, there is less pressure on a man to find a career which can provide for more than just himself. Why then does this only affect men and not women? Perhaps because women realize that when a child is born, more often than not they are the ones who will have to provide for the baby, and thus they are more motivated. I admit this is just speculation though.

As to the solution? The author unfortunately is vague on this point but don't knock her; coming up with viable, concrete solutions is difficult. She criticizes guys spending too much time playing video games, but I don't think video games are the core problem. The core problem is controlling what young men do with their free time. Girls may be naturally more inclined to use it productively, but most boys it seems are not.

I believe the most practical and simple solution, at least for the academic realm, is for a parent to exert more of their God-given responsibility to manage their kids' time. That means making rules limiting TV, Internet, video game use, and so on. That also means making rules (e.g., homework done before play) and consequences for not following those rules.

Benjamin Carson, an African American man raised by a single mother, consistently did poorly in school. People thought he was just plain "stupid." His mother didn't know what to do at first, but then began to make and enforce some rules to help his study habits. Rules like "limiting his television watching and refused to let him go outside to play until he had finished his homework each day. She required him to read two library books a week and to give her written reports on his reading, even though, with her own poor education, she could barely read what he had written."

Because of this, Ben realized he wasn't stupid after all — in fact he became one of the smartest kids in school. He eventually went to become a renown neurosurgeon.

If more parents followed what Ben's mother did, raising their children up to be ready for society rather than trying to "befriend" them, this problem of the male education gap wouldn't be as serious as it is now.

* * *

I'd love to hear what thoughts this article, and Mike's comment, have brought to mind for you.

Comments

[1. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:19 PM on Apr 20:]

1

I think Mike's on target. And I agree with Lauren's point that women's being encouraged to serve/volunteer in church shouldn't negate the expectation that men lead and serve in the church.

I really feel for men, especially those who grow up without fathers and role models. The men who get my utmost respect are the ones who not only recognize their shortcomings and have a good sense of humor about them and seek to overcome them and depend on Christ in the midst of them but also seek to do the best they can to mentor boys and younger men.

At some point, we've got to break the cycles. Only the ones who recognize that the cycle exists and then recognize the solution (the Truth of Christ) and then do something biblical about it will be the cycle-breakers.

I want to be a woman who cheers on my brothers in these types of efforts... and lends a hand, as it is appropriate. (And part of that lending a hand is my refraining from snark... when it isn't appropriate. And another part is NOT listening to, condoning, or telling man-bashing jokes.)

~~~~~~

Mike Theemling,

Kudos to the max for your notice of good parenting skills!! I think you'd make an excellent father, if ever given the opportunity. I hope that you are investing in the life of at least one younger guy or boy... you have much wisdom and good practical counsel to pass on. And you recognize teachable moments. That is such a gift and a joy! Bless you, brother!!!

[2. Mrs. Spit said the following at 4:35 PM on Apr 20:]

2

#1, You hit on something my husband showed me. It's perfectly acceptable to bash men. Indeed, it seems to be the sub plot of most television shows and novels. Man (and possibly dad) is the bumbling idiot, and woman is the one who saves him from himself. When you really think about it, no one would stand for women to be abused this way. No one would stand for these stereotypes, this meanness.

But, it’s perfectly ok to say that left to his own devices, a man would starve to death in dirty underwear, living in squalor.

We would never say that left to her own devices a woman would run her car out of gas and be stuck on the side of the road for days.

It seems to me there's no wonder that men don't achieve, or even lead - why would he, all the male role models in the media aren't leading or achieving, they’re playing along with the stereo types.

Heaven forbid a man would object to this sort of characterization. Heaven forbid that my husband point out that he does all the laundry at our house, or that he can and does cook. Heaven forbid that he would point out to anyone that his smart, articulate wife has utterly no idea how the lawn mower or the car or the plumbing works. That would be misogyny and women bashing.

Perhaps we could start by objecting, publicly, when the media, when our friends, when our churches set men up as the butt of jokes. Perhaps we could insist that media portrayals are inaccurate and demeaning.

As women, perhaps we could all refuse to play along when women start bashing the men they marry, as lousy husbands and fathers.

I, for one, have a great husband – he’s engaged and involved in his family, his church and his community.

[3. Keith said the following at 4:43 PM on Apr 20:]

3

First of all, the fact that a boy doesn't do well academically doesn't mean he is stupid. Some young men do poorly in school, but excel doing trades work, and many of them end up making far more than college graduates.

Having said that though, you do highlight a serious problem. And as you said, it all comes down to the parents.

Having a strong father involved in a young man's life is invaluable. I remember a statistic that stated two-thirds of men in American prisons said they didn't even know who their father was. Imagine how much safer our streets would be if fathers took on thier responsibility to raise thier sons !!!

[4. BDB said the following at 4:51 PM on Apr 20:]

4

Wow, this is a long post. Can you leave the comments open for a few weeks while we read it?

[5. Dani said the following at 5:02 PM on Apr 20:]

5

Living on a college campus, I can attest to the fact that women outperform men. I'm in a mostly female major (dietetics), but in non-major classes, the men--or rather, boys--act like fools. Granted, that may be a little harsh, but sadly, it's nearly the truth.

Medical schools are also starting to be dominated by females, if not in the classes specifically, than most certainly in the applicants. Asian women are having real trouble getting accepted, since med schools want to remain "as diverse as possible" and women and Asian Americans are applying at very high rates.

I unfortunately don't have the solution, but all of this makes me wonder: who will these high-achieving women marry? If the men they know are slackers at school, work, and church, what options are left? It makes me very grateful for the godly young man I'm dating, who works hard, loves the Lord, and yes, occasionally plays some NFL Blitz 2000. : )

[6. Jammy said the following at 5:22 PM on Apr 20:]

6

I don't think Winner is writing about a surprising problem and it isn't new. Movements like Promise Keepers and Muscular Christianity (1900's) have tried to encourage men to purse the ideals of engaged manhood. Honestly though, if I were a man, I would hope that given the resources available to me as a child of God and empowered by His Spirit I'd be able to overcome cultural norms and expectations. I mean, I understand things are tough, but I grew up with out a mother and I refuse to let that keep me from becoming a Godly woman. At what point, will men "man up" and not be conformed to the pattern of this world? Society and the media tell me what I should be everyday, and frankly I fail, but I've another standard for living and being and I know it's more lasting than anything this world has to offer. Shouldn't this be something men are capable of doing too? Collectively and individually?

[7. BDB said the following at 5:39 PM on Apr 20:]

7

Hmmm...well, I don't think that playing video games is the "root cause." I suppose I agree with Mike, that it is deeper. Men growing up without a father-figure do experience the challenges Mike describes.

We've probably all heard stories about people who've pushed themselves to succeed in a certain field because someone in their family succeeded. It used to be extremely common for sons to follow their father's trade. One wonders whether that is the natural course of things. Deep down, they know that if their father can do it, they can do it.

I would be curious to know how many of the video-game focused guys come from divorced homes. It may not be that dad wasn't around, it may be that his parents' marriage failed in a spectacular way.

Now, they're in a situation where their father failed. And here's where the idea works in reverse: if their parents failed, they may believe that they will also fail, therefore it's not worth trying.

To succeed where one's parents have failed is much more difficult than simply following their example. Of the people you know who married in their early 20's and are successful, how many came from happy homes? On a tactical level, these are the parents who will be quick to raise red flags when a boyfriend or girlfriend shows bad qualities, such as persistent disrespect. They will also point out good qualities.

To an extent, succeeding where one parents have failed requires rejecting their philosophy of life. In the work world, getting promoted often requires performing tasks that aren't the most fun. If one's parents always quit their jobs when things weren't fun, then career success requires rejecting that part of a parent's world view. A good mentor can tell someone, "If you want to be a manager, you need to suck it up and do the things you don't like."

But that won't necessarily remove all conflict. In-law conflict is a big cause of divorce. If I remember my statistics, it comes right after fights about money.

Ponder this situation - a guy goes to church, gets some good mentoring, and meets a girl who is excited about motherhood. One problem: his mother is completely hostile to traditional marriage. What happens if he brings the girl home to mom, the girl gushes about wanting to be a SAHM, and mom goes ballistic?

[8. Rachael said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 20:]

8

Even if there is a lack of men in certain community/church/university leadership roles it doesn't mean they're not showing private servanthood qualities or living out the fruits of the Spirit in other life areas, which, I think, could be equally or more important.

And, there are lots of fun technological ways to waste time. Perhaps some people choose not to engage in meaningful community activities because of their favorite TV show or video game...if we're tempted to judge them negatively, we should look at our own lives and ask ourselves, do we ever waste time when we should be doing something productive? I sure do.

[Note: I am not very gung-ho on the topic of #s of men and women in community activities at the moment, but at the same time I understand it's an easy trap to pick out the specks in others' eyes while neglecting the logs in our own. I do that, so my saying we shouldn't be so judgemental is hypocritical and log-in-the-eyeish.]

On another gender note, though, I heard the number of women may one day be greater than the number of men in jobs, or high roles in jobs, or something like that...or that the number of unemployed or layed off men will be higher than women? I am not in business, but if female candidates are chosen over the male simply because they're female...poor men. I understand if that ever had to be done in the past to start getting them in there, but...hmm.

[9. Kate said the following at 6:04 PM on Apr 20:]

9

LOL BDB 4! I kept scrolling and scrolling and wondering "how long is this?" although it was good and worth the read.

I really like this quote from the article "What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life."

I agree that it would be difficult to assume that the ridiculous portrayals of men in their families in the media have nothing to do with what we are describing here. Sure men may be heroic leaders in crime solving shows or on shows like ER, but when are they ever seen that way in sitcoms about families? These men are shown as having everything materialistic and stereotypical without sacrificing much besides tolerating listening to a nagging, but hot, wife. He is a buffoon, is whiny, lazy and caters to his every emotional whim in that sense, but still has the nice house, cool job, group of buffoon friends, cute but undemanding children, big TV and the hot wife. When a man is like that in real life, he may still have some of those things but he's probably going to have a lot more conflict in his life.

I think the sort of backlash in our culture against male achievement and leadership was justly inspired by men who were able to rule and succeed at the expense of women through force and tyranny. Unfortunately, this rejection seems to go a bit too far to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach in which all male leadership, achievement and claims about masculinity can become vilified without question.

I wonder if this has anything to do with why so man men don't get more involved in church or other leading roles? Like maybe they don't really think through all of that, but a fear of being accused of being an "oppressor" contributes to why they might "feel weird" about getting involved and then avoid it.

It's hard to think of a solution!

Although I am female, I think a lot of the things Boundless already tries to address with men about sacrificial leadership in relationships, accountability with other good men and intentional life planning are a big start.

[10. Catherine said the following at 6:14 PM on Apr 20:]

10

finally! lauren winner wrote a great post on a subject that churches really need to confront. i have been spending a lot of time reading about this lately while trying to find a church where my fiancee and i can both feel comfortable. i really enjoyed "why men hate church" for example.. it raises some difficult questions about why christianity (and western culture) has become so feminized.

here is what i think one major cause could be (the fatherless home point is a good one, but every underachieving male i know is from a healthy, intact home with a great dad)- i think its a lack of expectations from the church and society. asian men achieve at high levels, and that has mainly been linked to rigidly enforced high standards in their family and community. we as a christian community need to demand more from men and remind them continually that there are certain responsibilities that are not negotiable. i have seen how simply asking for more leadership and initiative from my fiancee has really changed his attitude toward his potential as a man. we need to talk more about what real manhood is and only encourage TV shows, movies, stories, etc. that reinforce those ideals. i know that i have pledged to not play into our tendency to infantilize men with my conversations with friends, etc. i tell the men in my life often how they are succeeding in areas that i think are important and remind them that they have a special role to fill. i respect them and ask them to live up to my respect- and i have seen how appreciative (and sadly, surprised!) many of them seem with this orientation.

as for the church- i recently stopped attending an episcopal church because the "gap" was not only huge, but not even considered a problem! this infuriates me. i am considering attending a PCA church simply because the inability of women to serve in some positions forces the church to cultivate male leadership in a different way. i do not have any strong belief against females leading- but i have seen the down side of always allowing us to lead. men leave the church because its "a female thing" or only effeminate/socially awkward men are left. its a sad state of affairs..

[11. K said the following at 7:12 PM on Apr 20:]

11

I really wish articles would stop pointing the finger at "video games". It's a SYMPTOM, not a cause. If it wasn't video games, it would be something else that's fun and fritters away hours without visible gain.

By saying video games, we look at our circles of friends and think, "Well, he doesn't waste hours playing them so it mustn't affect him." But what about the guy who spends 2-3 hours at the gym every day? The ones who hang out in the pub for hours every night, drinking beer or watching football?

I know that I waste hours blogging. You could argue that I'm learning and interacting while doing this. But what if I gave these hours to serving at church? Which one is the selfish action?

---

I think it is the lack of expectation of responsibility. Because our society allows men (and women) to be children until age ~30 or so, when they are then supposed to 'settle down', of course they will fit the expectation. If no one demands higher of you then why try?

As for women, I agree with the assertion that IN GENERAL, women assume they will have children one day. And once that happens, all of their "free" time will vanish, so all they have is NOW to do all those things they want to do (working hard at school), or serving in church (because they know one day they won't have as much time, whereas perhaps men assume they will get around to it one day?)

---

My brother was stuck in the "lazy" scenario until he and his girlfriend got pregnant. Boy, did he step up then! (He was 2 years post-college, working a part-time job, but with a wedding and kid on the way, he was suddenly motivated to get a 'real' job and work hard for the first time in his life. Thankfully, it seems to have turned out for the best.)

[12. Mike said the following at 7:13 PM on Apr 20:]

12

Did anyone consider that maybe young men don't succeed because:

(a) Nobody ever told them they could, but only focused on telling them how inadequate they were?

(b) Nobody ever tells them that failure was acceptable?

How many articles on Boundless focus on telling men how inadequate we are? How many articles on Boundless focus on telling men it's okay to fail?

Remember, a core emotional need of men is competence. Unless you make it OK to be less than the "13 Marks of Godly Manhood" - a standard only achieved once - there's going to be a lot of men who simply say, "Why bother?"

[13. Alison said the following at 7:22 PM on Apr 20:]

13

1) What is the percentage of women vs men who read boundless? I would guess its more women. So, while the article may not apply to the men who read boundless I think the larger % of men out there it does.
I work in higher education. I call myself the paid "big sister." I actually have had my male students ask me fore dating advice. They tell me they are intimidated to ask women on dates, because they are so well accomplished. Also, as a single let me say I have struggle to find eligible men to date, because they just aren't there.

Thoughts-
1) When I was in junior high my teachers told the girls to dream big. Studies had just come out about how boys got more attention in school, so teachers were encouraged to call on more females. As teaching is a dominate female profession, of course they wanted to see the girls succeed.
2) Why were boys called on more? Usually they were acting out. They were demonstrating their physical aggression. For what ever reason it seems that it is cute for boys to act out, but not girls. How often have I heard that "boys will be boys" and that they will grow out of their rambunctious years. Yet, being rambunctious was never acceptable behavior for girls. Remember we were taught to play quietly with our dolls.
3) Fast fwd a couple years. Little girls grow up being told to be all they can be. We are independent and realize we don't need a man to support ourself. We have also socially been taught to work hard. Meanwhile, as women aren't interested in getting married earlier men don't have to worry about supporting a wife. In our secular world that often translates to men can get sex and have marry the girl. Also, without a wife men can have more disposable income on there self. Money to travel, snow board, and play video games. This makes sense as they were once told it was cute to have fun being rambunctious.

[14. Marty said the following at 7:33 PM on Apr 20:]

14

To be honest, I was definitely offended by Lauren's article. I wasn't offended by the fact that there is a gap between men and women when it comes to volunteering or academic achievement.

What offended me was the tone, which was rather smug.
That, and the overly-simplistic solution which was basically that young men need to be told to pull their socks up and try harder.
Some men do need some encouragement to apply themselves more. But the roots go far, far deeper than work ethic, and most men need more encouragement and mentoring, not more chastisement.

What surprises me in all of this discussion is the failure to see the most obvious forces that are at work against men.
In short, I believe that we, as a society, have let men down.

- From early years, boys spend most of their time with women.
It starts with mum and continues on with carers. Most school teachers are women, leading to an educational environment tooled to suit
girls more than boys.

- The post-industrial-revolution world we live in means that Dad leaves his son, and comes back hours later tired. The boy neither sees nor knows his father's world. So even if a father desires to be present with his son, his work often prevents this.

- The proliferation of divorce and single-parent families has harmed boys as well. Despite clear evidence that children of divorce fare better with the parent of the same sex, in most cases boys still end up with mum.

- Throw feminism into the mix and what you have is the systematic removal of any and all 'men-only' clubs, systems, mentoring programs and anything that might help a man develop.
No longer is it OK or polticially correct for men to be given special treatment, advantage or special attention.
A boy often isn't mentored at home and doesn't have many places to go to be with other men for the purposes of growth.
Add to this the many scholarships, bursaries, programs, etc. encouraging and helping women to achieve.

- Feminism also brought about massive confusion for men. Is a man meant to be tough or sensitive? Is he meant to exhibit strength or vulnerability? The game keeps changing between the S.N.A.G., the metrosexual, retrosexual, neosexual, etc.
As a young man tries to work out who he is and who he's meant to be, without a close male mentor, he is left utterly confused.

- Our society has very little in terms of support for men. The traditional view has been that men are OK and are well looked after by themselves and society. So most charities and not-for-profits don't even have men and boys on their radar.

- As mentioned above, our media often portrays men and boys in a negative light. It's in advertising and it's in drama, comedy, etc. And again, no one says a word.

- Our society does not value manual forms of labour, which makes it difficult for men who are more geared towards physical pursuits.
Even in her article Lauren showed her bias for academia over sport. The fact that men do more exercise than women could be seen as positive and healthy.

- When a man does reach an age where he could be married, the current climate means that there is great risk of divorce. If he does divorce, there is a great chance that his children will live with their mother and he will have limited contact with them.
Even if he stays married, our culture is one of disrespect toward men. Does this sound like a good investment to the average man?

I have spoken in general terms here.

Sometimes the Christian community helps to work against some of these forces. Sometimes it works against men. But we don't have time here to explore that.

In summary, I believe men will come to the table and play when they know the rules are fair, that they have a chance of winning and that they will be rewarded justly for their efforts.

But in our society the odds are stacked against men, so instead of playing by society's rules they opt out.

It's as simple, and as complicated, as that.

[15. Marie said the following at 7:47 PM on Apr 20:]

15

i think this sort of thing has happened before at other times in history. i think the solution is give the guys time. i think God is raising up godly, hard-working men, they just aren't in the spotlight yet. i am so proud and grateful to know some of them, and they are not seeking attention, but rather preparing to be leaders.

[16. renee68 said the following at 8:11 PM on Apr 20:]

16

Kudos to Mike. I particularly agree with the following paragraph from his comments:

"Finally, I think also related to this is the delaying of marriage among young adults (it may be a cause or a symptom of the male achievement gap, or both). Because there is less pressure to get married and have kids at an earlier age, there is less pressure on a man to find a career which can provide for more than just himself. Why then does this only affect men and not women? Perhaps because women realize that when a child is born, more often than not they are the ones who will have to provide for the baby, and thus they are more motivated. I admit this is just speculation though."

I was raised by a single mom. I saw her struggle financially and so I worked incredibly hard to build a career in which I would be financially successful. God has blessed me and I have been financially successful. However, for a woman, there can be a downside to financial success. I have outearned most of the men I have dated. Many of them have been very poor earners (not due to lack of potential but due to lack of motivation) In most of these relationships, I realized that should I have married that person, I would end up being the breadwinner and thus, would never be able to be a stay-at-home mom. Probably also part of the reason I never married.

[17. Jason said the following at 9:50 PM on Apr 20:]

17

As someone who would consider himself a member of this "slacker gamer culture," at least according to the terms expressed here, the real crisis is ultimately a failure to internalize certain societal values. I personally really struggle to consider the values of my parents (financial stability, hard work, traditional "conservative" values) my own. I am more than academically competent, but there comes a certain point at which one is forced to consider whether the traditional academic channels can provide any sort of real satisfaction. I guess my real point in this conversation is to be careful about considering this a "problem," and looking at it more as a shift of values. I personally think that there are some very serious problems in the traditional American definitions of achievement, and, even though I don't generally consider the counter-culture a significant upgrade on those values, I find it a net positive that there is a counter-culture. One of the greatest dangers for a committed Christian is an introspective blindness, and if we are unable to distinguish between true Christian values and traditional "family" values, I worry where it will lead us.

[18. Janelle said the following at 11:01 PM on Apr 20:]

18

Catherine (#10), your point about men moving into leadership when the women aren't able to take over is right on.

I remember a sermon my pastor gave on Ephesians 6. He essentially said this: God is asking women to submit because that is the hardest thing for them to do. He is asking men to lead because that is the hardest thing for them.

Women are happy to lead and men are happy to follow, but by asking us to go against our comfort zones we are stretched and we grow in maturity.

[19. Kelly said the following at 11:02 PM on Apr 20:]

19

Catherine - #10 - your post inspired revelation in me.

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that's hard for me to swallow. Yet as I grow older, I invariably come to understand that it's not just "God laying down the law". He made these laws for very good reasons.

(For example, when I was younger I could never understand why God disallowed sex before marriage: surely it didn't really hurt anyone? As I got older, I learnt that emotional bonding comes through physical intimacy, and the greater the intimacy, the greater the hurt if the relationship dissolves.)

So... a law for our own protection.

The one I'm talking about here, that I have always had big issues with, is regarding women in leadership positions in church. My background is very traditional; my 'home' church does not allow women to be pastors. Why? Because it's in the Bible.

And yet... what are we seeing? When women are allowed to be pastors, they step up. They take on these roles. They excel at them. All which is wonderful, but what does that do to the man? His role diminishes; he's no longer needed, he doesn't have any reason to step up and do something which someone else is doing well.

Is this why the Bible forbade women speaking in church? Because it takes both men and women away from the roles that God made us for?

[20. Dave said the following at 11:31 PM on Apr 20:]

20

Can't we just simplify the following statement by chopping off the last two words?

the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles

I'm not sure if any of the Boundless staff has ever read The Sexual Paradox, but if not if might make for some interesting future reading. It's largely a comparison of male/female brains and types of intelligence and how this may influence behaviors. Interestingly, the book presents some evidence that women may have been overachievers in education even in centuries gone by (arguing for an equal or higher average literacy level with less formal education).

[21. Shelley Y. said the following at 12:56 AM on Apr 21:]

21

I'm a college administrator at a Christian institution and I don't think it is uncommon to have difficulty finding male students to lead...but I think it may be determined by what the leadership role is.

My work involves a lot of event planning--is that necessarily a characteristic that men have/desire? Like others have said, it's not just one thing, and I wouldn't blame video games only. I think parents have a huge role to play but we haven't given men and woman the skills and mentoring necessary to be whom they are called to truly be as Christ-followers.

Instead of just dealing w/ the issue after the fact, we really need to find men and woman who set a high standard for those they chose to marry, to marry well and bring up children who are given boundaries and clear expectations. Too often we don't have the human examples in our lives that we so desperately crave--the fathers and mothers who train us to be who we are called to be as young men and young women. We are so confused these days about our gender, our role...and we shouldn't be.

Like the Harris' say in their book, "Do Hard Things", we need to be doing just that. As a single 30 yr old woman who would love to have a family and be a help meet, I also don't want to settle for mediocre. My hard thing is to actively wait--pursuing what God's given me for this season--and pray for a husband who'll align with my desire to be Godly parents.

Can I...can you...can we do hard things by not just pursuing any male or female spouse but really choosing one that'll desire to be a Godly parent and example for others to follow?

[22. Mike said the following at 3:37 AM on Apr 21:]

22

Catherine (#10) wrote:

" i do not have any strong belief against females leading- but i have seen the down side of always allowing us to lead."

If I may quote from Lies Women Believe by Nancy Leigh DeMoss:

"Ever since that fateful day in Eden, the natural drive of the woman has been to control her husband, to rule over him, and to act independently of him. Our natural tendency is to take the reins, to take the initiative ourselves; ironically, however, because of the way God created us, we also long to be responders; we long for our men to take action...As women, we are quick to fault men for being passive and to insist that if they weren't so inactive...we would not take matters into our own hands...I know what it is to be frustrated by apparent passivity on the part of some men...But as I have watched men and women interact and have evaluated the effect of my own reactions in these sorts of settings, I can't help but wonder to what extent we women have demotivated and emasculated the men around us by our quickness to take the reins rather than waiting on the Lord to move men to action. We can so easily strip men of the motivation to rise to the challenge and provide the necessary leadership. To make matters worse, when they do take action, the women they look to for encouragement and affirmation correct them or tell them how they could have done it better...We simply can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't insist on running the show and then expect men to be proactive, take initiative, and be 'spiritual leaders.'"

Short version: If you want men to lead, stop trying to compete for the leadership positions...

[23. obewan said the following at 5:52 AM on Apr 21:]

23

I am biased the other way. I work in engineering and it is still dominated by males. We may have 2% females where I work. At school, the male female ratio was 12:1. Her statistics may be skewed because of where she is looking. What if she looked at the military?

[24. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:18 AM on Apr 21:]

24

It's no secret that more women than men are actively involved in church activities...therefore it makes sense that more women are involved in church leadership.

[25. Mattiaus said the following at 6:38 AM on Apr 21:]

25

Some feel that women have been "taking control" or unsurp a young man's "authority" or "do things for him" or any number of ways of taking away his male leadership responsibility, or the ability to develop these leadership skills. And usually, the male lets the woman do that. In turn, it may make men more passive; the thinking goes "hey, if she's just going to do it for me, or not listen to me, or not follow my lead, why should I bust my hump to work when my leadership is questioned? She just takes control and goes behind my back." Thus, the gravitation to "easier" things such as video games, and to a large extent, porn, comes into play. Just another possible factor.

[26. a.k. said the following at 8:39 AM on Apr 21:]

26

I don't condone generalizations about men or women. That said, I see academic, accomplished male role models all over the place.
- every President of the United States, and the majority of their cabinet members. Not to mention the vast majority of Senators & Congressmen throughout history.
- 487 of the USA's largest 500 publicly traded companies are headed by men
- academics & "smart people" on popular TV shows both past & present are largely men. E.g. the following:
* Numb3rs
* House, M.D. (whose female dean of medicine can apparently only be a competent doctor when a pregnant woman or baby is involved & did I mention she has no control over the doctor she's supposed to be supervising?)
* Heroes (female characters on this show tend to end up as things to be rescued, killed, or as toys that can be wounded again & again. or evil.)
* The West Wing (predominantly male staff)
* The Big Bang Theory (3 smart geeks + ...a ditzy gorgeous girl)
* The Eleventh Hour (male scientist provides crucial evidence that solves attractive female agent's cases)
* Beauty & the Geek (reality tv show)

I could go on & on. Even the few shows supposedly espousing female empowerment (e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer) designate a man (in this case, Giles) as the "smart guy." Chances are, if there is a designated "smart" person in some kind of popular media... it's a guy. If the "smart person" happens to be a woman, check to see whether she:
- is impossibly gorgeous
- is prone to crying or other emotional outbursts (=vulnerability) in front of her male superiors

I just don't see popular media as marketing academics or intelligence to women more than men.

[27. hxcjf said the following at 9:13 AM on Apr 21:]

27

Winner has written some good books; I enjoyed Real Sex. But she misses the point of why guys do not use their free time constructively. Take the church. Your average cozy American church is wimped out. Its a funny thing, I'm in a community of radical believers who have preached the gospel on 6 continents, healed the sick, cast out demons, and transformed communities by the miraculous power of God. There were MORE guys than girls in our organization. The systemic unbelief and backslidden comfort theology in our churches is responsible for the lack of men. Come to the front lines of faith and risk, and you'll find us.

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 10:00 AM on Apr 21:]

28

Marty (#14) -- you wrote that "most men need more encouragement and mentoring, not more chastisement."

I completely agree with you. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

[29. Pebble said the following at 1:15 PM on Apr 21:]

29

i was waiting for a blog post about this article - it'll be interesting to see how the discussion continues. on a similar note to guys and their involvement in church and church-related ministries/activities, has anyone read mike erre's "why guys need God"?

[30. Jonathan M. said the following at 1:53 PM on Apr 21:]

30

I think Shelly Y. hit on something a bit when she asked whether or not event planning is something that interests men. My initial thought when I read the article was "Why is a majority of female staff in a church considered too much female leadership?" I don't think there is anything wrong with lots of women coordinating events and such as long as the oversight is coming from the men on top. And I don't think it has as much to do with men being lazy or unmotivated as it does with the differences in what men and women find interesting. Women generally like "organizing" things more than men, and are less content to find themselves alone on a weeknight and would rather be at the church. This might also explain why men involve themselves with fewer extra-cirriculars on campuses. Or maybe the men are just taking their day-jobs a bit more seriously than the women are and like the down-time more. This last point may be the bigger issue. Although men are often bigger slackers in the younger years, their drive often picks up in the mid-20's, where they suddenly want to be productive all the time. This often manifests itself as working harder and harder at their jobs to establish a career. So they often want to relax on the weekends instead of taking on more responsibility at church. So the answer at some level is "Because they don't want to." It sounds like we're trying to pick out exactly why they don't want to, and some of the reasons are innate, which I will get to in a moment.
And as for women outperforming men academically, some of it comes down to economics. There are still many jobs that pay well that don't require education but men are just naturally more geared toward, such as sales, entrepreneurship, and pretty much any kind of manual labor. With equal access to higher education, it makes sense that we would end up with more women since higher education might benefit more women economically.
People often don't put enough emphasis on the differences in needs, wants, and concerns between men and women. It applies in most areas. The answer to why fewer women study engineering than men is "Because they don't like studying machines and such as much as men do." The answer to why fewer women are CEO's than men is "Because they generally aren't as willing as men are to work 60 hours a week for 30 years and move to undesireable locations 5 times in the process." It's like when I quit the wrestling team in high school my senior year and a teammate said "What's the matter? Can't you hack it?" The answer was "It's not that I can't, it's that I just don't want to."

[31. BDB said the following at 1:57 PM on Apr 21:]

31

This reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, asking why the real world can't be more like TV, when the women are scantily clad and the men carry powerful handguns...

[32. Jo said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 21:]

32

Jonathan M: "The answer to why fewer women study engineering than men is "Because they don't like studying machines and such as much as men do.""

Amen Brother. If only more politicians were sensible enough to see that.

[33. Craig M said the following at 3:08 PM on Apr 21:]

33

I'm going to tell you exactly what's really happenning. As more and more fields become "gender neutral," as more and more leaders are referred to as "chairpersons," men are opting out. Boys and men want fundamentally to be masculine. They want masculine pursuits. They are, on the whole, disinterested in deep participation in anything that has a "feminine" feel or aura to it, or even a "neutral" feel. As a pursuit loses its masculine flavor, it loses its appeal. As student government or AP classes or church services become more feminine in style and nature, men back away. They are not gratified by a deep association with a "feminine" field--and it takes very little to transform the "feel" of an organization from masculine to feminine. Men may still go to church out of religious devotion or obligation, but if the church is feelings-obsessed and makes no explicit distinction between the masculine and the feminine--if there is no defined and necessary masculine role--men who are leaders will go to find something else to lead.

[34. Leeandra said the following at 3:45 PM on Apr 21:]

34

My personal opinion is that it boils down first to family, and then societal, expectations.

I used to teach freshman compostition at the University of New Orleans. Most of my students were lower-middle-class, working-class, or just plain poor New Orleans natives and were products of the public schools here.

One of the things that struck me was that the Vietnamese kids of both genders generally outperformed the black girls, who generally outperformed the black boys. (This is a generalization and is by no means universal--I had good and bad, diligent and lazy students of all genders and races.)

New Orleans is a majority black city, but it has a sizeable Vietnamese population. The kids I taught were mostly the sons and daughters of the "boat people" who fled the war as children in the 1970s with not much more than the clothes on their backs. English was not usually the language spoken at home, though all my students were fluent in it.

Now, the absolute biggest difference I could see between the Vietnamese kids and the black kids was that the Vietnamese kids were almost always from two-parents-married families that put a very, very high value on education and academic achievement. This wasn't usually the case with the black students.

Many of the black girls were single mothers juggling jobs/school because they wanted their children's lives to be better. If any of the black boys were fathers (and some of them probably were), I never heard about their children nor about them going to college/working in order to give those kids a better life.

[35. Kelly said the following at 6:35 PM on Apr 21:]

35

Re: Media portrayal of men.

I challenge you all, when watching your favourite tv show this week, to make a count of how many men versus how many women appear on the show.

And then in each group, how many of these have admirable qualities.

You might be surprised.

[36. Kellie said the following at 6:36 PM on Apr 21:]

36

I don't know if the comments of #16 speak for many of the women who read Boundless, but there is much more to a husband than his paycheck. Income is not necessarily an indication of laziness.

[37. Lost In The World said the following at 7:46 PM on Apr 21:]

37

"Remain calm my Friends."- Wingman "Duke",
Wing Commander Prophecy, Windows and Game Boy Advance

In all this Sturm und drang surrounding the article, it shocks me ridged that no one has asked the most pertinent question of all, does this matter?

Everyone assumes that not going to college is a bad thing. The ABC news program 20/20 recently aired a story that asked the right question, Is College the ultimate rip-off? Until you answer that question, you can't truthfully answer the assumption made by the article.* (I won't go deeply into that story, but you should look it up. It was good.)

What isn't being said is that an undergraduate degree today quite simply means less then it did 30 years ago. Having tried to get a part time job to cover expenses recently, I was often shocked by the number of "college graduates" doing the same jobs as those who only graduated from high school. Recently when I asked a male friend (No Degree) who manages a business about this hiring practice, he shrugged and said, "Now adays everyone has a degree, but it doesn't mean they learned anything useful. Someone who's been in the work force for years and has experience goes to the top of the list."

And college (at least at the Undergrad level) is quite often a waste, both of time and money. (Didn't Theopolis say something to this effect during his exile to TrueU?) I can't tell you the number of times I used my status as a minority to winge, for pages and pages, about how I "felt" (Like my feelings were at all pertinent to the subject we should have been learning) to the ecstacy (and over-inflated grade) of my professors. Well, that's a bit of a fib. Really I was complaining about the things my professor felt about the topic they were "teaching". (I must admit to no small amount of guilt after reading my [more honest] friends papers, that were usually better, yet received lower grades [In my defense, I often knew the material better then they did and could have done equally insightful papers, but...well...Dude wanted to go to law school, and I knew how to get there]).

In contrast to that, there is the statistic that men still earn more post graduate degrees then women over all, and the picture may just start coming into focus. In fact, the article that Mrs. Winner cites even admits men are still getting the best jobs in the work force. So it would seem that those men who want a post graduate degree (or who, admittedly, want to stay inebriated for 4 years) go to college. Those who want to work do so and often find themselves in a better position then those with 4 years gone.

And those who pal around with Master Chief protecting the Earth from "The Flood", rescue princesses and their mushroom-headed retainers from evil Dinosaur-looking things, and zip about outer space stopping Kilrathi invaders on the weekends just might not have anything, at all, to do with it.

*Full Disclosure: The author of this post has 3 degrees culminating in a JD (Juris Doctorate [Law Degree]). He did (and does) play video games. Like mad.

[38. BDB said the following at 1:09 AM on Apr 22:]

38

Here's a funny cartoon related to game-playing achievement:

http://xkcd.com/132/

[39. BDB said the following at 1:14 AM on Apr 22:]

39

Kelly (#35) wrote:

>>I challenge you all, when watching your favourite tv show this week, to make a count of how many men versus how many women appear on the show.<<

I was about to write that Science Fiction shows consistently show men in a positive light - usually taking leadership and often being chivalrous...also often heavily armed AND good pilots...

Then it occurred to me, video games also tend to depict men as being "empowered." Usually fairly heavily armed, too.

Let's face it, how many men play SIMS?

Though, on the cheat page for SIMS, I thought it was very funny that one way to run up the score is to keep "kissing the female, and eventally she will say, 'I want to have a baby.'"

[40. BDB said the following at 1:18 AM on Apr 22:]

40

And no, I don't play SIMS. I haven't played anything in years.

But I will say that Civilization is a cool game, especially for those who've completed graduate work in political economy.

[41. Amanda said the following at 1:07 PM on Apr 22:]

41

It is frustrating that the things we seem most inclined towards (women taking initiative and/or leading, men not as much in comparison) are the very things God doesn't want us to do. Why give me initiative and skills to lead an organization to then say, "No, that's bad. You need to let the boys go first."

If there is a place where a position needs to be filled, then I am going to fill it with the most capable person for it. If that it is a male or female, I certainly don't care. I am rather tired of this whining by men that everything is becoming effeminate or less masculine.

I will admit that it is frustrating seeing fewer men in college or working for a higher goal than being a McDonald's cashier. It does make me wonder if men are physically stronger so they'll have some advantage coming out of the womb, because gracious knows the majority I see (obviously not all) don't want to apply themselves to anything.

But, again, it does make me wonder why God gives us certain predispositions that are positive for the other sex than the one who actually has them? (E.g., women being more likely to step up and lead, but it's the men who God wants to do that.)

P.S. I enjoying playing my Wii and PS2.

[42. Craig M said the following at 3:31 PM on Apr 22:]

42

Amanda writes: "I am rather tired of this whining by men that everything is becoming effeminate or less masculine."

You're wrong to underestimate the impact of this. Be as tired of it as you want, but it's a deadly serious factor impacting the minds of men. I'm a military attorney. One of my responsibilities is leading PT (physical training) for my command. I cannot be even the least bit demanding at PT because our command is populated with women who cannot do the exercises and complain incessantly if I am demanding. I am constantly forced to use coddling, "encouraging" language to get them to do as few as 20 pushups.

Now, I am paid less than half of what I could earn on the open market as a military attorney. I chose the military despite this partly because of the inherent appeal of military life--hard training, toughness, masculinity. I discovered fairly quickly that those things are a fantasy for most military commands these days. The combat units are still that way, but support commands are highly feminized. The loss of the unique masculinity in most military organizations diminishes their appeal to me, and makes it less worthwhile to forgo a more lucrative outside job. The organization has lost all of its unique qualities that made it appealing to me. So I won't stay, certainly not for a career.

When a guy attends church, and the sermons are all feelings-focused, "how to cope" massages, and the songs are all Jesus-is-my-boyfriend "love" songs that any respectable man would be ashamed to sing, you're not going to get masculine men volunteering to take a more active role. Again, be as tired of that as you want, but it's the truth.

[43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:28 PM on Apr 22:]

43

To back up Craig M (#42), there is even a book Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow, Thomas Nelson, 2004. All what Craig mentions are documented there, and plenty more. See Murrow's summary article. Fortunately, there are some women who are concerned enough about the shortage of men in church to listen to him, rather than being tired of alleged male failings and not changing.

[44. Craig M. said the following at 10:28 AM on Apr 23:]

44

Jonathan--Wow. GREAT article. A sample:

"Nick looks around at the men. Some are obviously there against their will, dragged by a wife or mother. Others are softies. Research finds that men who are interested in Christianity are less masculine than average; seminarians also exhibit more feminine characteristics than the typical male. Even the vocabulary of churchgoing men is softer. Christian men use terms such as precious, share, and relationship, words you’d never hear on the lips of a typical man.

The signals keep coming during the service. Nick may be asked to hold hands with his neighbor. He may be asked to sing a love song to Christ, such as, “Lord, You’re Beautiful,” or “Jesus, I am so in love with You.” Someone may weep. Then Nick will have his 8-minute male attention span put to the test by a 30-minute sermon. When this torture test is finally over, Nick is invited to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Let’s spend a moment on that last one: a personal relationship with Jesus. That phrase never appears in the Bible. Yet in the past 50 years it’s become the number one way the evangelical church describes the Christian walk. It’s turned the gospel into a puzzle for men, because most guys don’t think in terms of relationships. Let’s say Lenny approaches Nick and says, “Nick, would you like to have a personal relationship with me?” Yuck! Men don’t talk or think like this, yet we’ve wrapped the gospel in this man-repellent package."

Yes. YES. I cannot overstate the accuracy of this article. I cannot stand those songs. I feel fundamentally wrong singing them, and now simply will not. And I cannot overstate the consistency with which I've observed that the most "Christian" men in church--that is, the men most comfortable and at-home in the modern evangelical church--are substantially more feminine and neutered than any friend I'd actually want to spend time with.

[45. Amanda said the following at 10:46 AM on Apr 23:]

45

Craig M. --

I do still consider it whining.

But, on your particular point about women whining at PT. Tell them, "Tough!"
The military is hard, and people who join need to be in the best physical condition. Don't worry, I find it frustrating talking to some women who feel they should be able to get away with doing one mile, while the men have to do three miles. My life depends on the person to my side, and it is not a comfortable feeling thinking they were allowed to slack off because of their gender.

So, for the women in your unit... they can grow up and realize what it is they have joined.

[46. Craig M. said the following at 1:22 PM on Apr 23:]

46

Amanda--with all respect. It's not up to me. There is an ingrained culture now. If I were to be "tough" with the low-performing, I would be upbraided by my military organization. The fundamental nature of the thing "they have joined" has changed.

[47. Jeremy said the following at 2:14 PM on Apr 23:]

47

While the article (linked to in comment #43) contained a smattering of valid observations, I found it at times to be pretty clearly offering excuses for laziness and a lack of self-discipline:

"Nick will have his 8-minute male attention span put to the test by a 30-minute sermon."

"Nick was never much of a student, but taking classes, reading the Bible and studying books are presented as cornerstones of a living faith."

If Nick cannot pay attention for more than 8 minutes and refuses to read the Bible ... maybe what needs to change is not the church, but Nick.

[48. Mike said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 23:]

48

If I may quote John Eldredge:

"'Where are all the real men?' is regular fare for talk shows and new books. You asked them to be women, I want to say."

If you want men to be warriors for Christ, stop asking them to be parlor maids.

[49. Rachael said the following at 9:48 PM on Apr 23:]

49

re: quote in #44

-There is Christianese used by both men and women not always used in "secular" conversations.

-Songs. Preference not always or ever a gender thing. Other factors may include theological leanings, church experiences, preferences, personality...

-"personal relationship with Jesus" --> I'm not really into the "It's not a religion; it's a relationship" cliche, and I believe Christianity could be classified as both.

Basically gender factors are not always or ever the reasons for people's preferences, church styles, and choice of language.

I am a woman, and honestly am somewhat uncomfortable with the music (overall) situation at my new church. I used to LOVE the music at my old church. It was rich in content and the music was beautiful. My impression with the music at my new church (though we've been late at least 1-2 times) is that I don't always resonate with the words and that it is repetitive and that it lasts a long time. Could be wrong, but the music is in "that" category in my mind.

It is my situation, and I am fine overall with the sermons at this church.

But...hopefully my attitude and heart will change and grow to appreciate the songs or at least develop a worshipful attitude during the songs even if much of the music tends to not strike much of a chord in my heart.(Again though, we've barely been to this church and we've been late before; one time really really late, so my judgment is early and perhaps premature).

[50. BDB said the following at 10:38 PM on Apr 23:]

50

Amanda (#45) wrote:

>>But, on your particular point about women whining at PT. Tell them, "Tough!" <<

Ha ha! Yes. That's probably the right thing to do.

When I was in ROTC, I'd always run with the fasted female cadet. She wasn't quite fast enough to meet the male standards, but MUCH faster than the rest of the women.

Some generals let their commands do PT on their own. It would solve Craig M's problem, because they'd need to either motivate themselves or fail the test. "We're here today practicing because you failed your last PT test" is a little easier.

When I had a staff of mostly female clerks taking payments, the female supervisors were quite tough. My joke was, "It doesn't matter if you cry, you still have to balance your deposit. Here's a tissue - go re-run your tape."

[51. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:22 AM on Apr 24:]

51

No offense...but I just had a field day laughing at all these guys whining about how they feel emasculated by churches and how the services are too "girly."

People think that Western definitions of "real" chest-thumping masculinity are somehow intrinsic to humanity.

How much do you wanna bet the "girliness" of churches is inversely related to the oppression and subjugation of women? I'm pretty sure mosques are still have plenty of male participation and I've heard they're looking for converts...any takers?

[52. Jo said the following at 11:59 AM on Apr 24:]

52

Jeremy: great point. (Although there were some good points in the passage that Craig quoeted as well.) The John Eldridge quote was also brilliant, and true.

I do have some sympathy. I think in our struggle for equality of the sexes we have lost any real concept of what it is to be a man (and perhaps what it is to be a woman, too). Because strength and leadership and authority have been so abused by men in the past, we've almost forbidden men to use those qualities at all. Because women never had the opportunity to lead, we now treat leadership as the holy grail of womanhood, at the expense of other feminine attributes.

So I totally disagree with those who've said that women are naturally more motivated and gifted in leadership etc. When society expected men to step up, they stepped up. Of course that society also expected women to stay down, but it's true that our society has shifted too far the other way. I can't help thinking though that it took women a huge fight to get the status we have today, and it would take men a lot less effort to push the balance back a little.

'Cause in the end guys, if you think church is too girly, it's up to you to change it. Women obviously aren't going to, and you shouldn't expect us to either. It sucks that you're expected to be too feminine - go ahead and defy expectation. Unlike the women of days gone by, there's actually nothing stopping you.

[53. Mike said the following at 1:38 PM on Apr 24:]

53

Jo (#52) said:

I can't help thinking though that it took women a huge fight to get the status we have today, and it would take men a lot less effort to push the balance back a little.

But pass the ammunition ((#51) said:

How much do you wanna bet the "girliness" of churches is inversely related to the oppression and subjugation of women?

Therein lies the problem. If men "step up", much of the time, it's perceived as "subjugating" the women. (Just try saying, "Wives, submit to your husbands" within earshot of a woman under the age of 40 and watch what kind of reaction you get.) Any hint of thinking men should be in authority, and the women instantly squeal, "Not over ME!"

The church has completely fallen down on the issue of gender roles. Nobody teaches the concepts the Bible contains on Biblical submission or the different emotional needs of women and men any more. Instead, the church is cowering before the culture.

Men naturally want their women to be happy. To quote Shaunti Feldhahn:

“Not surprisingly, men said they judge themselves - and feel that others judge them - based on the happiness and respect of their wives."

So, if a man thinks that being in control will make his woman happy, he will let her be in control, at least for a while - despite the fact that it undermines his sense of self-respect and her sense of respect for him. But eventually, what happens? He'll get angry because she doesn't respect him. She'll get disgusted because she's carrying all the load.

Essentially, all this "we had to fight hard for the right to undermine our own emotional health" stuff rings hollow. You want truth? Look to Scripture.

[54. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 24:]

54

Mike--Wifely submission IS subjugation if the wife is unwilling.

I guess that's kind of my point--what does it say about men if they can't feel "manly" or "masculine" without having a woman willing to submit to them?

Why do people define masculinity based on the ability of men to have authority over women? It seems like feminists and many of the posters on Boundless may have found something they agree on.

Most women realize there is a very fine line between Biblical submission and subjugation. Some couples (especially the good examples we have on Boundless) seem to walk the line very well. However, for most women it does not seem to be worth the risk.

[55. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:45 PM on Apr 24:]

55

Also, I made the reference to Islam because I urge someone to find an example of churches that STRICTLY adheres to Biblical guidlines on male and female roles where oppression is not widespread.

I suspect people will have trouble with this. While many evangelical churches pay lip service to traditional roles, women are still taking up much of the leadership, as Ted Slater pointed out in his original post, along with other commenters. The churches and cultures that do follow these guidelines have typically not lived up to the ideals the Bible laid out, resulting instead abuses of power by the men in charge.

Its like the notion of "separate but equal." It may work in theory, but in practice some people end up "more equal" than others.

[56. Pak said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 24:]

56

So if the wife is unwilling to submit to a husband, wouldn't that make her disobedient as opposed to subjugated, especially if the husband is loving her in the manner that the Bible commands?

[57. pass the ammunition said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 24:]

57

Lol one more comment...why does it have to be "either or?" Why is it either the man in charge or the woman in control? Between mature adults I believe there is room for balance and equality, and working out the balance that works for each couple. I think that men and women are both happier this way. There is evidence that married peope today are much more satisfied with their relationships than in the past.

[58. IMO said the following at 3:13 PM on Apr 24:]

58

#56,

Agreed.
It's more than just submitting to the husband. The big picture is the woman submitting to God and being obedient to Him. That's her responsibility no matter how her husband treats her. And yes, if her husband is sinning against her and is asking her to sin, that is a different story. Obedience to God first.

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

1 John 5:3
This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.

Of course for those without Christ there is great risk.

There is only great reward in following Christ and being obedient to Him.

[59. IMO said the following at 3:27 PM on Apr 24:]

59

#57
Yes of course...

And I also think the married men have a tall order to fill as well...they are suppose to love their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. That's huge. And there need to be godly leaders out there willing show what the practical steps are to do that.
For me, I never knew how to show respect my husband in a practical way. That's why I keep talking about the book For Women Only...that book has been helpful to me in this area. And also the book, Love and Respect...

[60. Pak said the following at 3:39 PM on Apr 24:]

60

I don't look at it as an either/or situation where the man or woman is in control but rather as a right/wrong. You either obey or you disobey. When we involve shades of gray, we get into trouble.

[61. Jo said the following at 4:05 PM on Apr 24:]

61

Mike, 53:

Lots of good points (although the last paragraph was a little unnecessary, if it was directed at me).

But, men don't have to step up by beating women around the head with the submission passages. You don't need to do anything extraordinary, and you don't need to push women out of their roles in order to fulfil your own. Just take some responsibility, volunteer for leadership roles and begin to change the culture from the inside.

I guess what I'm saying is neither gender has the right to complain unless they're willing to do something. If you're a man, step up and be a man. If you're a woman, expect and challenge the men around you to be men and appreciate them for being men. It's a two way street.

Also as an aside, I think it's important to note that there ARE women who are fine with the idea of submitting to their husbands. There are also women who really struggle with it (with good reason - it goes completely against everything society has taught us) but who are trying their best to reconcile themselves with what scripture says. You have to understand that this is a very sensitive and often painful topic for women. That doesn't mean we should just gloss over it (as often happens), but it needs a lot of grace on both sides as we all try and navigate it together.

[62. a.k. said the following at 5:57 PM on Apr 24:]

62

#42
“When a guy attends church, and the sermons are all feelings-focused, "how to cope" massages, and the songs are all Jesus-is-my-boyfriend "love" songs that any respectable man would be ashamed to sing, you're not going to get masculine men volunteering to take a more active role. Again, be as tired of that as you want, but it's the truth.”

And who are the people giving these sermons? Aren’t they... men? Isn’t it *easier* for a lackluster pastor to preach feelings or coping without the challenge of the gospel message? Why is idiocy in the pulpit characterized as “feminine”? Why isn’t it just classed as idiocy? You imply rather pejoratively that it appeals to more women than men, but let’s not forget that MEN are preaching these false gospels.

Furthermore, if you research the roots of New Age spirituality and similar emotion-driven or mystical movements, you’ll find that all of them were propogated by men – even the Big Names in modern Wicca and neopaganism are by far predominantly male. Why are these heresies considered "feminine"?

All the directors of music I know are men. In fact, at least one PCA church I attended only allowed an elder to direct church music (perhaps this is unwritten law in others?). So again – who sets these “Jesus as boyfriend” songs; who writes them? And just what is considered “feminine” music, anyway? Of course silly songs masking as praise hymns should be ousted. But what precisely crosses the line? Should we toss the Wesley hymns because they speak of Jesus as Divine Love? Is it unmasculine to love Jesus? Should we play down the incredible debt we owe to Our Savior and his incredible love for us because it makes men uncomfortable?

It's interesting to see how hyperaware and conformist Christians can be. Throughout history, the composition and performance of all kinds of song and poetry were seen as almost exclusively a masculine art. In the Greco-Roman era, the medieval period, the Renaissance, and subsequent centuries, poetry and song were instruments of the supreme Gentleman. Love songs/poetry and religious hymns especially. Now, in the past 50 years or so, anything too arty or poetic, sensual or devotional, is derided as feminine. Once it was the man's job to outfit his home with things indicating his refined taste (see the writings of Cicero, for example, or European royalty/noblemen throughout history). Now, if you are a man with a talent for interior decorating or an artistic eye - !! you're automatically considered gay. How sheeplike are the masses indeed, even the masses of so-called believers. So are we Christians to model our worship after the culture so that it’s “masculine” enough (or should I really say “1950s sexist” enough) for certain people?

I just find this kind of talk so discouraging. If we are talking solely about church preaching and ideology, then why brand wishy-washiness, emotionality, and feel-good sermons as feminine? Any woman seduced by this type of “religion” should be just as ashamed as any man. Everyone should be disgusted by it. Call a spade a spade. Branding them as “feminine” only mocks and scorns the female sex further. These things aren’t feminine. They are heresy.

If we're talking about church environment, I think there is a lot of work to be done in reaching out to those born in the 1980s-2000s. But I do not think that the way to win Christians is through advocating gender stereotypes that are no longer relevant. The gospel is powerful and strong enough to function on its own. What we need are dynamic preachers centered in the Bible, not fewer flowers on the welcome tables or (God forbid) fewer women volunteering their precious lives in the service of the church.

[63. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:23 PM on Apr 24:]

63

Jo (#52) Cause in the end guys, if you think church is too girly, it's up to you to change it.

That's exactly what the book and site I cited in #43 is trying to do. But the book also mentions the widespread "velvet veto" from many women and girlymen when they do try, and gives examples.

Jeremy (#47): of course, don't water down biblical standards to try to win men over. But do water down church traditions that are repelling many men. Whinging that men should change first has clearly not worked.

Many women are not happy with the current situation either. One of my colleagues wondered why a pretty, pleasant and intelligent lady at a church wasn't married at 30. She said that there were not enough men in the church she would be happy with. Another very intelligent and feminine girl I know who attends a Christian uni says that most of the guy students are more feminine than she is!

[64. Mike said the following at 10:14 PM on Apr 24:]

64

Jo (#61) -

I agree with you; there's no point in beating anyone up with Scripture. That's not its purpose. Rather, it tells us how we should live in a Godly fashion.

My point with saying that women have undermined their emotional health with all this "independence" stuff goes straight to the emotional differences between men and women: The primary needs for men are respect and competence, whereas for women they are love and security. Ephesians 5:33 is the way Scripture tells us to meet the needs of the other gender. The woman is told to submit because this meets the man's need for respect and competence. The man is told to love as Christ loved to meet the woman's need for love and security. (Like IMO pointed out, pick up a copy of Love and Respect; Dr. Eggerichs does a great job of laying all this out.)

You are correct to say that men should step up. But I believe I'm correct to say that women shouldn't discourage men from stepping up because their independence is threatened.

Like you said, this is a sensitive topic for women, primarily because the church is afraid to address and teach it. Frankly, I think it's cowardice. The church, in my opinion, has caved to the culture in this area. When was the last time you heard a sermon that talked about the difference between loving submission - which is supportive and voluntary - and subjugation - which is forceful and unloving? I can't remember EVER hearing such a sermon. As a result, I think a lot of women don't understand the concept of Biblical submission; they bristle because they automatically assume "submit" means "he gets to boss me around" - which, of course, is definitely not what it means.

But you know what? It's a sensitive topic for men, too. Men carry around a chronic fear of failure. (Any man who says he doesn't is either in denial or lying.) A woman's lack of approval can crush any desire he might have to step up. So if he takes that risk and is ridiculed or pushed aside, you can bet the farm he won't want to come back. This is why God made woman as his "helper" (I really hate that translation, but that's what it is); to strengthen him, lift him up, and encourage him. Here's Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

"A wife can tear down a husband's necessary sense of strength and importance more easily with a look or a comment than can torture in a prison camp. Surviving the latter is a demonstration of a man's strength. Men don't easily survive the former: Their wives' approval is as important as oxygen: surviving their wives' lack of approval is emasculation."

Like you said: Unless this is handled with grace, unless men and women recognize that the relationship is about what I give rather than what I get, we're going to wind up in that nasty place in Genesis 3:16: “…And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

Nice chatting with you. :-)

[65. Craig M. said the following at 11:21 PM on Apr 24:]

65

a.k. #62--you referenced my comment so I'll respond. I don't disagree that male leaders are often responsible for instituting these practices. Frankly, such men repulse me FAR more than the women in any church. But that doesn't change that the practices themselves fit women far better, and appeal far more widely to women than to men. That's the basis for referring to some of them as "feminine." Women's clothes are "feminine" because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male. Joel Osteen comes to mind.

You ask if it is unmasculine to love Jesus. That is a cheat of a question that purposely misses the obvious point that some of us are making. Of course it is masculine to love Christ, if by love we mean deep gratitude for His sacrifice, heartfelt and focused devotion to our elder brother and King, and determination to follow Him in our life. But that is not what is evoked by many of these "love" songs. These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts. Unlike the hymns you reference, theologically they are an inch deep. Again, women are far more comfortable singing about Jesus in this way, and enjoy it far more.

You seem very convinced that what you call "gender stereotypes" are outmoded and silly. I'm not sure what goes into all that. Are you one of those folks who thinks that men and women are basically the same? There are dramatic mental, physical, chemical, biological, hormonal, emotional differences between men and women that strongly influence the disparate impact that a given stimuli (such as an emotional song) is likely to have on each, on average. You seem to want to just call any problems "heresy" and ignore their disparate impact on men. I agree that if something is heresy that's where the inquiry should start, and I don't think artistic tapestries and flowers in the cathedral are really central to the issue. But I also don't think it's wise to ignore that our churches are repelling men in droves. You make the point yourself by pointing out the effeminate male innovators who initiated most of these changes. For many men, if THAT is the Christian life, he's going to choose something more stark.

[66. Jo said the following at 2:39 AM on Apr 25:]

66

Dr S, 63: Very true.

a.k., 62: Amazing points.

It is up to all of us, in the end. the church as a whole should be promoting Biblical concepts of what is masculine and what is feminine, and resisting the extremes of tradition and modern culture. But it's also true that people are not just set in a mold of 'generic man' or 'generic woman'. We are all different, so any 'gender ideal' should leave a lot of room for individuality. Some guys are more sensitive/emotional/'feminine' than others and that's fine. (The criticism of such men by some on this topic is unhepful.) But their Biblical role is still protector, leader and provider. Same goes for women. Of course we can be independent, strong and confident. But we still are called to submit to our husbands in marriage. We do, as a.k. said, need to shed our stereotypical ideas of manhood and womanhood, wherever they come from, and get back to what the Bible says.

[67. Jo said the following at 11:10 AM on Apr 25:]

67

Mike, 64:

I agree with pretty much everything in your comment. :)

This though:
"The primary needs for men are respect and competence, whereas for women they are love and security."

I've heard this argument before, and I'm undecided about it - just wondering whether there's a Biblical basis for this interpretation of the Ephesians passage? Scripturally, I don't know whether it's a fact or just a theory.

I see the sense in the idea that women mainly need love and men mainly need respect. But really I think we all need both. I also think that love and respect are closely linked, and perhaps even two aspects of the same thing. Perhaps it's a 'love languages' issue. :P If you want to show a man you love him, then respect and support him in leadership; if you want to show a woman you love her then care for her sacrificially.

Thoughts, anyone?

[68. ray said the following at 4:13 PM on Apr 25:]

68

you people are full of it, and i don't mean the lord's spirit

your governments and churches have spent the last half-century destroying fatherhood, sonship, and masculinity in every way possible, forcing men out of the schools, churches, and workplaces with your WomenFirst agendas, disenfranchising boys and men in every secular and religous sphere, and then calling it "progress"

and now you and your clueless "experts" sit around and complain that men aren't "stepping up to the place" in your godless, matriarchal churches and cultures of the west

nor will you abide instruction, nor will you abide the truth, no more than you tolerated the king when he came to you

you and your nations serve the goddess, not God the Father, and if one day you find the courage to REALLY face the problem, i suggest consulting a mirror

ray

[69. BDB said the following at 8:44 PM on Apr 25:]

69

Craig M (#65) wrote:

>>Women's clothes are "feminine" because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male. Joel Osteen comes to mind. <<

When is Joel's next line coming out?

[70. Jo said the following at 11:19 AM on Apr 26:]

70

Craig, 65:
"These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts."

Can you offer an example or two?

[71. Ted Slater said the following at 12:18 PM on Apr 26:]

71

Craig (#65) and Jo (#70) -- I agree that there is a lot of junk out there. Too much erotic, emotion-driven, touchy-feely pabulum being pushed as "contemporary worship music." In many cases, it's not worship music at all, as it's more about *me* and *my* feelings, and not about the object of our worship: God. Too often it's "... me above all" (the famous last lines of a "worship" song that repulses me).

Contemporary "worship music" is best described, in my opinion, in Colossians 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in (us) richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in (our) hearts to the Lord."

Note the primary purposes of this kind of music: to facilitate the word of Christ dwelling in us, which produces godly wisdom. Worship music teaches and encourages and admonishes us. We do this by reflecting on who He is and what He's done, through the ages and right now.

This kind of music is God's gift to us to help us engage Him. Feelings follow, yes, but that is not the goal. The goal is not to drum up feelings, to "invoke" His presence, and so on. The goal is to magnify the Lord among the congregation, to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever (or to glorify God by enjoying Him forever).

For a very balanced take on this, I recommend Bob Kauflin's blog "Expressing Love to God."

[72. Mike said the following at 1:11 PM on Apr 26:]

72

Jo (#67) said:

I've heard this argument before, and I'm undecided about it - just wondering whether there's a Biblical basis for this interpretation of the Ephesians passage? Scripturally, I don't know whether it's a fact or just a theory.

I suggest picking up a copy of Eggerichs' Love and Respect. The argument is way too long to go into on a blog comment. But there is a Biblical basis for it.

(Although, the short version is: Ephesians 5:33 is a command to love and respect - hence, God is saying that we need to provide for our partners' needs. That is really where the case for the book begins.)

I see the sense in the idea that women mainly need love and men mainly need respect. But really I think we all need both.

True dat. That's why I said those were the primary needs.

I also think that love and respect are closely linked, and perhaps even two aspects of the same thing. Perhaps it's a 'love languages' issue. :P If you want to show a man you love him, then respect and support him in leadership; if you want to show a woman you love her then care for her sacrificially.

Interestingly enough, in Shaunti Feldhahn's surveys, the women were able to distinguish between love and respect - they typically did not consider them the same thing at all. The men, on the other hand, often had trouble answering whether they'd rather be unloved or disrespected, because, in their minds, they were one and the same.

But again, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Dr. Eggerichs' book. It lays it all out beautifully.

And again again, nice chatting with you. :-)

[73. Jo said the following at 1:38 PM on Apr 26:]

73

Ted,

I understand the argument against vague 'lovesong' lyrics. And on the face of it, I somewhat agree. My problem is that I can't actually think of a single worship song that speaks of emotion without also affirming truth and addressing praise to God. I can't think of one that focuses just on 'me and my feelings', rather than voicing a personal but Biblical response to God.

Perhaps we just don't sing these touchy-feely songs at my church, but I googled 'Jesus is my boyfriend' and came up with a lot of people complaining about such songs, and not one legitimate example of such a song. I'm beginning to think we're all complaining about something that doesn't actually exist...

Do we just not want ANY emotion in our worship songs? Craig talks of romantic rubbish that 'any man would be ashamed to sing', and yet the Bible says we are (collectively) the Bride of Christ, the Psalms frequently use poetic and emotive language and Song of Songs (if you interpret it on any level to speak of God's relationship with His people), is pure romance.

I'm wondering really whether the problem is that while such language was considered totally masculine in the past (David and Jonathan's expression of their friendship, for example, is probably quite foreign to most men today), our society's perception of love has changed to the extent that men feel uncomfortable singing lyrics that in fact are perfectly sound. Now if that's true, then it may still be a problem, and the solution may still come from different wording in the songs. But in that case, the problem should be recognised as a cultural one about how we perceive the words, rather than a theological one about the words being wrong.

Sorry for the long post... Any thoughts?

[74. Rachael said the following at 5:17 PM on Apr 26:]

74

Jo,

Maybe an example would be like this song by the Katinas (I don't know if I've ever sung it in church, but, for example....):

Draw Me Close to You
Never Let Me Go
I Lay It All Down Again
To Hear You Say That I'm Your Friend
You Are My Desire
No One Else Will Be
Cos no One Else Can Take Your Place
To Feel the Warmth of Your Embrace
Help Me Find the Way
Bring Me Back to You

Chorus
You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near

Draw Me Close to You
Never Let Me Go
I Lay It All Down Again
To Hear You Say That I'm Your Friend
You Are My Desire
No One Else Will Be
No One Else Can Take Your Place
To Feel the Warmth of Your Embrace
Help Me Find the Way
Bring Me Back to You

Chorus
You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near

You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near
Help Me Know You Are Near
Help Me Know You Are Near

-->Personally, I'm fine with this song, I think, or at least hearing it on the radio or wherever, and don't think about this song much, but it came to mind. I think if you imagine 'romancey' songs, see if you could very well sing that song, or parts of it, to a person instead of God.

-->As for uncomfortable music in general (not necessarily 'romancey')...I would feel uncomfortable singing words that say my desire is something that it is not at the moment. Okay, suppose the lyrics in a song were: "My heart is so full of joy I can't stop singing" (I don't know if there's a song that exactly says that). Well, for me that would mean discomfort. What if I don't feel joy...I know I CAN stop singing...

Or part of a song that used to be sung in an old church: "We will dance on the streets that are golden" (maybe), and in "I could sing of your love forever" --> "dance with joy like we're dancing now" (is that in that song?). When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? Maybe I'm too much of a literalist but I really do detest hearing lyrics I don't mean.

When lyrics are repeated....I understand that there is a Psalm where there is a bunch of a repeated phrase. But, when we repeat the song of a chorus, do we mean it anymore the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 10th time it is sung than the first? Or is it to build emotions? Are we supposed to be thinking of examples of the repetitive line that is being sung? What are we supposed to be thinking about?

Music I would love to hear is music that acknowledges our fallen state, acknowledges God's character, speaks of salvation, what God's done and has the power to do....and not totally repetitive.

I don't want to sing music that expresses someone else's desire I don't feel or commitment I don't feel like making, etc...

[75. Craig M. said the following at 5:17 PM on Apr 26:]

75

A few samples--real songs I've heard in church and looked up, from "Vinyard," etc.:

"Jesus, I am so in love with you...."

"Your love is all I need
Jesus, You’re all I need

My life belongs to You
You gave Your life for me
Your grace is all I need
Jesus, You’re all I need

Hold me in Your arms
Never let me go
I want to spend eternity with You"

"I need You like the rain
Come to me and sing again
I long for Your love so much
I’ve wanted Your pure touch

You are beautiful, beautiful
You are beautiful, beautiful
So beautiful, beautiful

I need You to be here
Come to me, I can feel You near
I love You, You are my hope
You love me as Your own"

Ugh.

And Jo, seriously, you have to be kidding. There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a "romantic" relationship with Jesus. You should know better than to fall for such theological sophistry. And Song of Songs is about romantic and sexual love between man and wife. Theologians who tried to make it about something else because of their discomfort with that don't have a leg to stand on.

[76. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:58 PM on Apr 26:]

76

Much that passes for "worship" is highly emotional and doesn't reach the intellect, and is annoyingly repetitive — hence 9-11 songs; 9 words repeated 11 times. Some are just illogical, e.g. a song that calls God "indescribable" then goes on to say that He is uncontainable, amazing, all powerful, untameable … all of which are descriptions of Him!

[77. a. k. said the following at 7:39 PM on Apr 26:]

77

reply to Craig M. (#65) but also a general reply

Thanks very much for replying, Craig. I have a few more words that might clarify what bugs me about characterizing certain problems as "feminization." I invite any readers of this blog to comment on my thoughts, especially those I've marked as somewhat speculative.

Quote from Craig (#65):
“I don't disagree that male leaders are often responsible for instituting these practices. Frankly, such men repulse me FAR more than the women in any church. But that doesn't change that the practices themselves fit women far better, and appeal far more widely to women than to men. That's the basis for referring to some of them as ‘feminine.’ Women's clothes are ‘feminine’ because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male.”

I think your clothing analogy here is very apt – and it also helps articulate why I find characterization of outright heresy as “masculine” or “feminine” or “effeminate” troubling. A Christianity that lowers the status of Christ and the Gospel as the focus is not fit for anyone. A Christianity based on emotion or “coping” or anything other than sound exposition is fit neither for man nor woman. When someone talks about the failures of the modern church (in terms of its overemphasis on emotions or fluffy material) as the effeminization of the church – this implies the following:

1. That such emotional emphasis “fits” women.
2. That a worship service, book, or religion based on emotions is ultimately OK if women are the participants/consumers.
3. Subtlely – that women are “emotional/irrational/fluffy” while men are “rational/solid.” It is a lie that men need solid stuff and women need softer stuff when it comes to preaching. This is patently not true: both men and women are equipped to handle the meat of the gospel and need this meat for their sanctification.
4. Subtlely – that women have (or need to have) a fundamentally different relationship with Christ than men do. I haven’t considered this notion in its entirety, so my thoughts are speculative at this point; but something strikes me as inherently wrong with this belief. While relationships with other humans may differ according to sex, our relationship and status with regard to Christ and God does not.

My stance against branding certain inappropriate preaching/environmental aspects of the modern Church as “feminine” or “effeminate” is based on why we consider these things in terms of the female sex. When a very close friend was talking about people “feminizing Jesus” or the “effeminate modern Church,” I pushed him on what he meant by feminizing/effeminate. He ended up stuck: he had to admit that he was using the female sex to indicate something derogatory (i.e. that being feminine/female is inferior per se). Why must we characterize defects as “feminine” or “female-oriented” – especially when men are the ones ultimately making the decisions? This goes beyond a notion of offensive language and hits at the heart of a perverted dichotomy that is still very much alive: one in which the female represents the weak, frivolous & inferior stuff, while the male represents the strong, rational & superior stuff.

I think Craig & I (& others who commented) agree on the inappropriate nature of quasi-erotic songs about Jesus (personally I have not encountered them, but the churches in my past were rather high church & my most recent churches take a very serious approach to musical worship with only the rare misstep). I just wonder where one draws the line in terms of making a certain group of people comfortable in church. But that wasn’t intended to be my main point & I apologize if it was too much at the forefront. I do have a comment about the following bit Craig wrote, though:

“...that is not what is evoked by many of these "love" songs. These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts. Unlike the hymns you reference, theologically they are an inch deep. Again, women are far more comfortable singing about Jesus in this way, and enjoy it far more.”

Perhaps it is true that more women than men enjoy singing about Jesus in this way, but is it Biblically sound? I’d say not – especially if it focuses on Christ as some kind of emotional fulfillment as opposed to Savior and God. Are such songs fundamentally different than other kinds of worshiper-centered (as opposed to Christ-centered) songs? One example of a worshiper-centered (in my humble opinion, anyway) song that is quite popular is “Amazing Love,” in which we sing:

"Amazing love, I know it’s true
It’s my joy to honor You
In all I do, I honor You
In all I do, I honor You"

Is this true? I don’t like to sing lies to God, especially lies that seem to puff up my own committment to Him. Certainly it’s not my joy to honor Him all the time & I don’t honor Him as I should – ever. Nor do I know any mortal man or woman who would claim that in all their deeds, they glorify the Lord. So I think this song in its current state is inappropriately emotional & worshiper-centered.

Anyway, my point here is that quasi-erotic references to Jesus constitute an inappropriate way of referring to the Savior and aren’t more appropriate for women than they are for men. Nor do I know a theologically sound woman (or well, any woman) who would be comfortable singing about Jesus in even a subtlely erotic way. Such references are equally inappropriate for both sexes. So again, I wouldn’t dwell on this as “feminine” – rather as a poor Christology and theology of worship. But as another said earlier, Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church (including men and women) is the Bride – we can’t alter this mystery out of the Bible, even if we are at a loss to explain it completely or understand fully how it will play out.

Craig M.: “You seem very convinced that what you call "gender stereotypes" are outmoded and silly. I'm not sure what goes into all that. Are you one of those folks who thinks that men and women are basically the same? There are dramatic mental, physical, chemical, biological, hormonal, emotional differences between men and women that strongly influence the disparate impact that a given stimuli (such as an emotional song) is likely to have on each, on average. You seem to want to just call any problems "heresy" and ignore their disparate impact on men.”

I think that there is a fundamental difference between respecting the Biblical, God-ordained differences between the sexes and embracing gender stereotypes like “women are emotional/irrational creatures uninterested in math & machines; men are rational/stark creatures who love logic & science.” [Please note: this statement is just a brief generalization of some attitudes in this thread & isn’t a direct quote from this thread – but it’s been said elsewhere on similar fora.] Do I think men and women are different and have different roles in marriage & the Church? Yes. But I also think that the Church should not embrace arbitrarily stereotypes of one particular culture during one particular time (e.g. the theologically conservative Church tends to embrace 1950s American culture) as definitions of “man” and “woman.”

When I hear Mark Driscoll making silly jokes like “men who order salads are gay – dump him right away, girls!” or openly remarking that Cosmopolitan magazine is proof positive that women are more gullible than men... I fear for the future of the Church. When I read posts on the CBMW blog that are crammed with stereotypes (see David Kotter's CBMW blog post from December 24, 2007), I fear for the future of the Church. And often insinuations on this blog kindle fear as well.

Already too many intelligent women are driven to theologically liberal churches because the theologically conservative ones tend to idolize a particular idea of Woman that is not Biblically ordained but culturally mandated. It’s just as wrong to allow cultural mores (past or present) to influence our notion of what a man is. Such notions can be easily questioned by flipping back a few decades or centuries. The last thing the theologically conservative Church needs is to push away more talented godly women by branding various defects in the Church as “effeminization” or “feminization” rather than dealing with the root of the issue: a move away from the gospel toward human emotion, focusing on the created rather than the Creator. We need to minister to BOTH men and women through the gospel instead of characterizing what’s wrong with the Church as “feminization” or “masculinization.” I just don't think this kind of language is helpful; nor does it foster the kind of Christian community we ought to be building among Reformed individuals.

[78. BDB said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 26:]

78

Rachael (#74) wrote:

>>When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? <<

It kinda depends on how Charismatic the church is, I think.

There's one song that involves "lifting my hands to worship," and most people's hands tend to go up when we sing that one.

And, there's a few people who like to dance at the dance ones. The pastor asks them to do so in the back. If they insist that they need to be in front, then he tells them that they're doing it for their own pride, because God can see them anywhere.

Our church is a mix of people from a lot of different traditions, so worship styles can be an interesting discussion. Some people have a really hard time with clapping...

I suppose a good test is that if you hear a "worship" song being sung on a secular radio station by a non-Christian artist (or on American Idol), look closely and see if it's more of a romantic song than a worship song.

I wouldn't expect the Battle Hymn of the Republic to be on the love-songs radio station...

[79. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:43 PM on Apr 26:]

79

Craig M (#75) is certainly right with, ‘There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a “romantic” relationship with Jesus.’ It is also a logical error called the fallacy of division.

The book Why Men Hate Going to Church backs up Craig's concern. What chance does an ordinary husband have when the wife romanticizes Jesus as her real perfect husband.

I also detest devotions on the Song of Songs that allegorize it to Christ and the Church. One example is from Spurgeon:

“A spring shut up, a fountain sealed. {#So 4:12} In this metaphor, which has reference to the inner life of a believer, we have very plainly the idea of secrecy. It is a spring shut up: just as there were springs in the East, over which an edifice was built, so that none could reach them save those who knew the secret entrance; so is the heart of a believer when it is renewed by grace: there is a mysterious life within which no human skill can touch. It is a secret which no other man knoweth; nay, which the very man who is the possessor of it cannot tell to his neighbour. The text includes not only secrecy, but separation. It is not the common spring, of which every passerby may drink, it is one kept and preserved from all others; it is a fountain bearing a particular mark—a king’s royal seal, so that all can perceive that it is not a common fountain, but a fountain owned by a proprietor, and placed specially by itself alone. So is it with the spiritual life. The chosen of God were separated in the eternal decree; they were separated by God in the day of redemption; and they are separated by the possession of a life which others have not; and it is impossible for them to feel at home with the world, or to delight in its pleasures. There is also the idea of sacredness. The spring shut up is preserved for the use of some special person: and such is the Christian’s heart. It is a spring kept for Jesus. Every Christian should feel that he has God’s seal upon him—and he should be able to say with Paul, "From henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Another idea is prominent—it is that of security. Oh! how sure and safe is the inner life of the believer! If all the powers of earth and hell could combine against it, that immortal principle must still exist, for he who gave it pledged his life for its preservation. And who "is he that shall harm you", when God is your protector?”

Unfortunately, despite his merits in other areas, Spurgeon always let Victorian prudery override the plain meaning of the Word of God in the Song of Solomon, resulting in twee allegorisations of a poem about love between a groom and bride who became husband and wife. Here it's using the spring as a metaphor for virginity. What's the difference in principle between eisegeting Scripture to kowtow towards prudery and kowtowing towards, say, gay marriage?

[80. Craig M. said the following at 12:58 PM on Apr 27:]

80

a.k.--I don't have any serious disagreements with anything you write in #77. Bad churches are definitely bad for women too. At least the women still go, though.

[81. BDB said the following at 1:48 PM on Apr 27:]

81

Rachael (#74) wrote:

>>--> "dance with joy like we're dancing now" (is that in that song?). When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? <<

It depends on the church.

At my church, when we sing one of those songs that mentioned "lifting hands in worship," yes, people lift their hands during the song.

We don't have a lot of dancing. There are a few people who came to our church from others where it was more common.

The pastor asks them to do so in the back. He had someone once say that she needed to be in front. He told her that no, it's her own pride telling her she needs to be in front to be seen by everyone. God can see her just fine in the back.

[82. Rachael said the following at 3:03 PM on Apr 27:]

82

77 wrote: "Is this true? I don’t like to sing lies to God, especially lies that seem to puff up my own committment to Him."

Amen, amen, a-men!!!!!!! I usually try not to sing words of songs I don't mean, but it would be nice to relax and just sing music that could be true. At my last church I went to regularly and for a time that I loved, I LOVED the music and it wasn't or almost wasn't like 'that'. I DO NOT want to tell God promises I don't mean or states of my heart that aren't true. I am overly (too much so) careful when talking with people and don't want to say things I don't mean. It would be nice to just relax and sing things that were true.

Lyrics are what is most important to me (in an 'ideal' setting), though a combo of awesome lyrics and good music is simply heavenly. I had a taste of that wonderful music at my old church.

As for worshipful body positions. Currently, I don't raise my hands in worship. Now, if I were currently at a church were everyone or many people did that, I might do that. If I were to do that now, I'd be conscious and feel as if the attention were too much on me. At my old church, during a confession prayer or something people could kneel if they wanted. I have attended a church where everyone or almost everyone kneeled for a part. That's neat. If everyone or almost everyone is doing it, it won't make you stick out. I think at that same church many people may have raised their hands during a certain part. If I went to that church regularly I may one day decide to do the same.

I don't want to put myself into positions where I'd feel socially uncomfortable doing something with my body language and be thinking of my awkwardness instead of thinking of what I'm saying, singing, or praying.

But if many or all people would do things with their bodies it would lesson the awkwardity level.

[83. Dan Real Name said the following at 10:46 PM on Apr 27:]

83

.....and somehow men and women still find each other and get married.....

[84. Jo said the following at 10:29 AM on Apr 28:]

84

Wow, too much to reply to.

Rachael 74 -
Haha, that song is a good example, and we actually do sing that at my church. I'm still not sure I mind, so long as that type of song doesn't dominate our services (which it doesn't). But yes, it's definitely a good example of an emotion-focused rather than theology-focused song.

Craig 75 -
I don't really agree with your second example (I wouldn't say that's particularly romantic language) but the other two are fair. The first one is a song I like, but the phrase 'in love with you' is out of place, I agree.

Honestly, your last paragraph caught me off guard a little - came across as pretty angry. :/ Not quite sure how my comment provoked that.

"And Jo, seriously, you have to be kidding. There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a "romantic" relationship with Jesus. You should know better than to fall for such theological sophistry."

Of course there is, that's why I specified 'collectively'. I also never suggested that an individual believer has a romantic relationship with God. Regardless, the analogy is undeniably there. There is something about our collective relationship with Christ that mirrors the human marriage relationship. So why shouldn't we collectively express that in worship? (You can of course argue the use of I/we in such songs.)

"And Song of Songs is about romantic and sexual love between man and wife. Theologians who tried to make it about something else because of their discomfort with that don't have a leg to stand on."

I mentioned Song of Songs because while the primary message is OBVIOUSLY about human romantic love, there are many respected theologians who draw spiritual messages from it as well. I really don't want to make this a debate about Song of Songs, but it is in the Bible after all. Is it the only book that teaches us nothing whatsoever about our relationship with God?

Of course you can take any analogy too far. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the picture.

No one is suggesting that there's anything erotic or sexual in our relationship with God. I agree with you completely that any songs that make that sort of link are at fault. If we're making the link in our own minds though, that's a different problem.

Emotion is part of our relationship with God. Isn't it? I just can't see what is wrong with expressing emotion of all kinds - gratitude, admiration and yes, love - in worship - as long as that isn't ALL we're doing.

[85. Kevin Kelly said the following at 1:31 AM on May 1:]

85

Possibly most of you are completely missing the point; certainly women don't seem to get it.

Precisely WHY should men work hard to achieve anything in life, beyond the bare necessities for their own happiness? They are constantly belittled by government, media, church and women in general.
Let's assume a guy does get married. He will probably soon be divorced against his will, and lose his shirt in the process.

Do you see where I'm going with this line of reasoning? For most men, a simple cost-benefit analysis reveals a simple truth to men:

Marriage and romance are simply not worth it most of the time. With women achieving ever higher accomplishments, ( and almost always marrying up the social/financial ladder) thereby raising the bar even higher for men, so many men have just given up. It's a lot easier and more enjoyable to spend time playing video games or reading a good book rather than constantly wondering whether or not you measure up to modern woman's ever-increasing demands for perfection in school, on the job, in the home and at church.

In simple terms, the vast majority of women have simply priced themselves out of the market, and they just don't get it. Simple economics, ladies. Your price, I'm afraid to say, has simply risen so high that few men are able or willing to pay.

No offense, but I'm afraid it's just that simple.

[86. Keith said the following at 10:09 PM on May 12:]

86

The real issue is men no longer feel valued or respected in this society. What are boys to strive for? Everywhere they hear how bad males are, how great women are, go girl, go girl! Why invest in a society that denigrates everything masculine at every opportunity? Why make sacrifices to provide for a family, when there is a 50% your wife will terminate the marriage and take your children away from you? Why strive for a wife when so many women make it clear through their choices and actions that they have no intention of caring for their future children or for being a helpmate to their husband? Feminism has won even in the church. The only way the trends will reverse is if women have a change of heart in the church and in society as a whole. More and more young men have no intention or interest in seeking a wife or children. Therefore, why stress yourself out with careerism when men can live on much less than women and still be happy? I think the future is very bleak for this society. As men become more and more disconnected from family life, the society will become more unstable, the institutions of law and order will falter, and eventually it will become survival of the strong only.

[1. Andrea-Elena said the following at 4:19 PM on Apr 20:]

1

I think Mike's on target. And I agree with Lauren's point that women's being encouraged to serve/volunteer in church shouldn't negate the expectation that men lead and serve in the church.

I really feel for men, especially those who grow up without fathers and role models. The men who get my utmost respect are the ones who not only recognize their shortcomings and have a good sense of humor about them and seek to overcome them and depend on Christ in the midst of them but also seek to do the best they can to mentor boys and younger men.

At some point, we've got to break the cycles. Only the ones who recognize that the cycle exists and then recognize the solution (the Truth of Christ) and then do something biblical about it will be the cycle-breakers.

I want to be a woman who cheers on my brothers in these types of efforts... and lends a hand, as it is appropriate. (And part of that lending a hand is my refraining from snark... when it isn't appropriate. And another part is NOT listening to, condoning, or telling man-bashing jokes.)

~~~~~~

Mike Theemling,

Kudos to the max for your notice of good parenting skills!! I think you'd make an excellent father, if ever given the opportunity. I hope that you are investing in the life of at least one younger guy or boy... you have much wisdom and good practical counsel to pass on. And you recognize teachable moments. That is such a gift and a joy! Bless you, brother!!!

[2. Mrs. Spit said the following at 4:35 PM on Apr 20:]

2

#1, You hit on something my husband showed me. It's perfectly acceptable to bash men. Indeed, it seems to be the sub plot of most television shows and novels. Man (and possibly dad) is the bumbling idiot, and woman is the one who saves him from himself. When you really think about it, no one would stand for women to be abused this way. No one would stand for these stereotypes, this meanness.

But, it’s perfectly ok to say that left to his own devices, a man would starve to death in dirty underwear, living in squalor.

We would never say that left to her own devices a woman would run her car out of gas and be stuck on the side of the road for days.

It seems to me there's no wonder that men don't achieve, or even lead - why would he, all the male role models in the media aren't leading or achieving, they’re playing along with the stereo types.

Heaven forbid a man would object to this sort of characterization. Heaven forbid that my husband point out that he does all the laundry at our house, or that he can and does cook. Heaven forbid that he would point out to anyone that his smart, articulate wife has utterly no idea how the lawn mower or the car or the plumbing works. That would be misogyny and women bashing.

Perhaps we could start by objecting, publicly, when the media, when our friends, when our churches set men up as the butt of jokes. Perhaps we could insist that media portrayals are inaccurate and demeaning.

As women, perhaps we could all refuse to play along when women start bashing the men they marry, as lousy husbands and fathers.

I, for one, have a great husband – he’s engaged and involved in his family, his church and his community.

[3. Keith said the following at 4:43 PM on Apr 20:]

3

First of all, the fact that a boy doesn't do well academically doesn't mean he is stupid. Some young men do poorly in school, but excel doing trades work, and many of them end up making far more than college graduates.

Having said that though, you do highlight a serious problem. And as you said, it all comes down to the parents.

Having a strong father involved in a young man's life is invaluable. I remember a statistic that stated two-thirds of men in American prisons said they didn't even know who their father was. Imagine how much safer our streets would be if fathers took on thier responsibility to raise thier sons !!!

[4. BDB said the following at 4:51 PM on Apr 20:]

4

Wow, this is a long post. Can you leave the comments open for a few weeks while we read it?

[5. Dani said the following at 5:02 PM on Apr 20:]

5

Living on a college campus, I can attest to the fact that women outperform men. I'm in a mostly female major (dietetics), but in non-major classes, the men--or rather, boys--act like fools. Granted, that may be a little harsh, but sadly, it's nearly the truth.

Medical schools are also starting to be dominated by females, if not in the classes specifically, than most certainly in the applicants. Asian women are having real trouble getting accepted, since med schools want to remain "as diverse as possible" and women and Asian Americans are applying at very high rates.

I unfortunately don't have the solution, but all of this makes me wonder: who will these high-achieving women marry? If the men they know are slackers at school, work, and church, what options are left? It makes me very grateful for the godly young man I'm dating, who works hard, loves the Lord, and yes, occasionally plays some NFL Blitz 2000. : )

[6. Jammy said the following at 5:22 PM on Apr 20:]

6

I don't think Winner is writing about a surprising problem and it isn't new. Movements like Promise Keepers and Muscular Christianity (1900's) have tried to encourage men to purse the ideals of engaged manhood. Honestly though, if I were a man, I would hope that given the resources available to me as a child of God and empowered by His Spirit I'd be able to overcome cultural norms and expectations. I mean, I understand things are tough, but I grew up with out a mother and I refuse to let that keep me from becoming a Godly woman. At what point, will men "man up" and not be conformed to the pattern of this world? Society and the media tell me what I should be everyday, and frankly I fail, but I've another standard for living and being and I know it's more lasting than anything this world has to offer. Shouldn't this be something men are capable of doing too? Collectively and individually?

[7. BDB said the following at 5:39 PM on Apr 20:]

7

Hmmm...well, I don't think that playing video games is the "root cause." I suppose I agree with Mike, that it is deeper. Men growing up without a father-figure do experience the challenges Mike describes.

We've probably all heard stories about people who've pushed themselves to succeed in a certain field because someone in their family succeeded. It used to be extremely common for sons to follow their father's trade. One wonders whether that is the natural course of things. Deep down, they know that if their father can do it, they can do it.

I would be curious to know how many of the video-game focused guys come from divorced homes. It may not be that dad wasn't around, it may be that his parents' marriage failed in a spectacular way.

Now, they're in a situation where their father failed. And here's where the idea works in reverse: if their parents failed, they may believe that they will also fail, therefore it's not worth trying.

To succeed where one's parents have failed is much more difficult than simply following their example. Of the people you know who married in their early 20's and are successful, how many came from happy homes? On a tactical level, these are the parents who will be quick to raise red flags when a boyfriend or girlfriend shows bad qualities, such as persistent disrespect. They will also point out good qualities.

To an extent, succeeding where one parents have failed requires rejecting their philosophy of life. In the work world, getting promoted often requires performing tasks that aren't the most fun. If one's parents always quit their jobs when things weren't fun, then career success requires rejecting that part of a parent's world view. A good mentor can tell someone, "If you want to be a manager, you need to suck it up and do the things you don't like."

But that won't necessarily remove all conflict. In-law conflict is a big cause of divorce. If I remember my statistics, it comes right after fights about money.

Ponder this situation - a guy goes to church, gets some good mentoring, and meets a girl who is excited about motherhood. One problem: his mother is completely hostile to traditional marriage. What happens if he brings the girl home to mom, the girl gushes about wanting to be a SAHM, and mom goes ballistic?

[8. Rachael said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 20:]

8

Even if there is a lack of men in certain community/church/university leadership roles it doesn't mean they're not showing private servanthood qualities or living out the fruits of the Spirit in other life areas, which, I think, could be equally or more important.

And, there are lots of fun technological ways to waste time. Perhaps some people choose not to engage in meaningful community activities because of their favorite TV show or video game...if we're tempted to judge them negatively, we should look at our own lives and ask ourselves, do we ever waste time when we should be doing something productive? I sure do.

[Note: I am not very gung-ho on the topic of #s of men and women in community activities at the moment, but at the same time I understand it's an easy trap to pick out the specks in others' eyes while neglecting the logs in our own. I do that, so my saying we shouldn't be so judgemental is hypocritical and log-in-the-eyeish.]

On another gender note, though, I heard the number of women may one day be greater than the number of men in jobs, or high roles in jobs, or something like that...or that the number of unemployed or layed off men will be higher than women? I am not in business, but if female candidates are chosen over the male simply because they're female...poor men. I understand if that ever had to be done in the past to start getting them in there, but...hmm.

[9. Kate said the following at 6:04 PM on Apr 20:]

9

LOL BDB 4! I kept scrolling and scrolling and wondering "how long is this?" although it was good and worth the read.

I really like this quote from the article "What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life."

I agree that it would be difficult to assume that the ridiculous portrayals of men in their families in the media have nothing to do with what we are describing here. Sure men may be heroic leaders in crime solving shows or on shows like ER, but when are they ever seen that way in sitcoms about families? These men are shown as having everything materialistic and stereotypical without sacrificing much besides tolerating listening to a nagging, but hot, wife. He is a buffoon, is whiny, lazy and caters to his every emotional whim in that sense, but still has the nice house, cool job, group of buffoon friends, cute but undemanding children, big TV and the hot wife. When a man is like that in real life, he may still have some of those things but he's probably going to have a lot more conflict in his life.

I think the sort of backlash in our culture against male achievement and leadership was justly inspired by men who were able to rule and succeed at the expense of women through force and tyranny. Unfortunately, this rejection seems to go a bit too far to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach in which all male leadership, achievement and claims about masculinity can become vilified without question.

I wonder if this has anything to do with why so man men don't get more involved in church or other leading roles? Like maybe they don't really think through all of that, but a fear of being accused of being an "oppressor" contributes to why they might "feel weird" about getting involved and then avoid it.

It's hard to think of a solution!

Although I am female, I think a lot of the things Boundless already tries to address with men about sacrificial leadership in relationships, accountability with other good men and intentional life planning are a big start.

[10. Catherine said the following at 6:14 PM on Apr 20:]

10

finally! lauren winner wrote a great post on a subject that churches really need to confront. i have been spending a lot of time reading about this lately while trying to find a church where my fiancee and i can both feel comfortable. i really enjoyed "why men hate church" for example.. it raises some difficult questions about why christianity (and western culture) has become so feminized.

here is what i think one major cause could be (the fatherless home point is a good one, but every underachieving male i know is from a healthy, intact home with a great dad)- i think its a lack of expectations from the church and society. asian men achieve at high levels, and that has mainly been linked to rigidly enforced high standards in their family and community. we as a christian community need to demand more from men and remind them continually that there are certain responsibilities that are not negotiable. i have seen how simply asking for more leadership and initiative from my fiancee has really changed his attitude toward his potential as a man. we need to talk more about what real manhood is and only encourage TV shows, movies, stories, etc. that reinforce those ideals. i know that i have pledged to not play into our tendency to infantilize men with my conversations with friends, etc. i tell the men in my life often how they are succeeding in areas that i think are important and remind them that they have a special role to fill. i respect them and ask them to live up to my respect- and i have seen how appreciative (and sadly, surprised!) many of them seem with this orientation.

as for the church- i recently stopped attending an episcopal church because the "gap" was not only huge, but not even considered a problem! this infuriates me. i am considering attending a PCA church simply because the inability of women to serve in some positions forces the church to cultivate male leadership in a different way. i do not have any strong belief against females leading- but i have seen the down side of always allowing us to lead. men leave the church because its "a female thing" or only effeminate/socially awkward men are left. its a sad state of affairs..

[11. K said the following at 7:12 PM on Apr 20:]

11

I really wish articles would stop pointing the finger at "video games". It's a SYMPTOM, not a cause. If it wasn't video games, it would be something else that's fun and fritters away hours without visible gain.

By saying video games, we look at our circles of friends and think, "Well, he doesn't waste hours playing them so it mustn't affect him." But what about the guy who spends 2-3 hours at the gym every day? The ones who hang out in the pub for hours every night, drinking beer or watching football?

I know that I waste hours blogging. You could argue that I'm learning and interacting while doing this. But what if I gave these hours to serving at church? Which one is the selfish action?

---

I think it is the lack of expectation of responsibility. Because our society allows men (and women) to be children until age ~30 or so, when they are then supposed to 'settle down', of course they will fit the expectation. If no one demands higher of you then why try?

As for women, I agree with the assertion that IN GENERAL, women assume they will have children one day. And once that happens, all of their "free" time will vanish, so all they have is NOW to do all those things they want to do (working hard at school), or serving in church (because they know one day they won't have as much time, whereas perhaps men assume they will get around to it one day?)

---

My brother was stuck in the "lazy" scenario until he and his girlfriend got pregnant. Boy, did he step up then! (He was 2 years post-college, working a part-time job, but with a wedding and kid on the way, he was suddenly motivated to get a 'real' job and work hard for the first time in his life. Thankfully, it seems to have turned out for the best.)

[12. Mike said the following at 7:13 PM on Apr 20:]

12

Did anyone consider that maybe young men don't succeed because:

(a) Nobody ever told them they could, but only focused on telling them how inadequate they were?

(b) Nobody ever tells them that failure was acceptable?

How many articles on Boundless focus on telling men how inadequate we are? How many articles on Boundless focus on telling men it's okay to fail?

Remember, a core emotional need of men is competence. Unless you make it OK to be less than the "13 Marks of Godly Manhood" - a standard only achieved once - there's going to be a lot of men who simply say, "Why bother?"

[13. Alison said the following at 7:22 PM on Apr 20:]

13

1) What is the percentage of women vs men who read boundless? I would guess its more women. So, while the article may not apply to the men who read boundless I think the larger % of men out there it does.
I work in higher education. I call myself the paid "big sister." I actually have had my male students ask me fore dating advice. They tell me they are intimidated to ask women on dates, because they are so well accomplished. Also, as a single let me say I have struggle to find eligible men to date, because they just aren't there.

Thoughts-
1) When I was in junior high my teachers told the girls to dream big. Studies had just come out about how boys got more attention in school, so teachers were encouraged to call on more females. As teaching is a dominate female profession, of course they wanted to see the girls succeed.
2) Why were boys called on more? Usually they were acting out. They were demonstrating their physical aggression. For what ever reason it seems that it is cute for boys to act out, but not girls. How often have I heard that "boys will be boys" and that they will grow out of their rambunctious years. Yet, being rambunctious was never acceptable behavior for girls. Remember we were taught to play quietly with our dolls.
3) Fast fwd a couple years. Little girls grow up being told to be all they can be. We are independent and realize we don't need a man to support ourself. We have also socially been taught to work hard. Meanwhile, as women aren't interested in getting married earlier men don't have to worry about supporting a wife. In our secular world that often translates to men can get sex and have marry the girl. Also, without a wife men can have more disposable income on there self. Money to travel, snow board, and play video games. This makes sense as they were once told it was cute to have fun being rambunctious.

[14. Marty said the following at 7:33 PM on Apr 20:]

14

To be honest, I was definitely offended by Lauren's article. I wasn't offended by the fact that there is a gap between men and women when it comes to volunteering or academic achievement.

What offended me was the tone, which was rather smug.
That, and the overly-simplistic solution which was basically that young men need to be told to pull their socks up and try harder.
Some men do need some encouragement to apply themselves more. But the roots go far, far deeper than work ethic, and most men need more encouragement and mentoring, not more chastisement.

What surprises me in all of this discussion is the failure to see the most obvious forces that are at work against men.
In short, I believe that we, as a society, have let men down.

- From early years, boys spend most of their time with women.
It starts with mum and continues on with carers. Most school teachers are women, leading to an educational environment tooled to suit
girls more than boys.

- The post-industrial-revolution world we live in means that Dad leaves his son, and comes back hours later tired. The boy neither sees nor knows his father's world. So even if a father desires to be present with his son, his work often prevents this.

- The proliferation of divorce and single-parent families has harmed boys as well. Despite clear evidence that children of divorce fare better with the parent of the same sex, in most cases boys still end up with mum.

- Throw feminism into the mix and what you have is the systematic removal of any and all 'men-only' clubs, systems, mentoring programs and anything that might help a man develop.
No longer is it OK or polticially correct for men to be given special treatment, advantage or special attention.
A boy often isn't mentored at home and doesn't have many places to go to be with other men for the purposes of growth.
Add to this the many scholarships, bursaries, programs, etc. encouraging and helping women to achieve.

- Feminism also brought about massive confusion for men. Is a man meant to be tough or sensitive? Is he meant to exhibit strength or vulnerability? The game keeps changing between the S.N.A.G., the metrosexual, retrosexual, neosexual, etc.
As a young man tries to work out who he is and who he's meant to be, without a close male mentor, he is left utterly confused.

- Our society has very little in terms of support for men. The traditional view has been that men are OK and are well looked after by themselves and society. So most charities and not-for-profits don't even have men and boys on their radar.

- As mentioned above, our media often portrays men and boys in a negative light. It's in advertising and it's in drama, comedy, etc. And again, no one says a word.

- Our society does not value manual forms of labour, which makes it difficult for men who are more geared towards physical pursuits.
Even in her article Lauren showed her bias for academia over sport. The fact that men do more exercise than women could be seen as positive and healthy.

- When a man does reach an age where he could be married, the current climate means that there is great risk of divorce. If he does divorce, there is a great chance that his children will live with their mother and he will have limited contact with them.
Even if he stays married, our culture is one of disrespect toward men. Does this sound like a good investment to the average man?

I have spoken in general terms here.

Sometimes the Christian community helps to work against some of these forces. Sometimes it works against men. But we don't have time here to explore that.

In summary, I believe men will come to the table and play when they know the rules are fair, that they have a chance of winning and that they will be rewarded justly for their efforts.

But in our society the odds are stacked against men, so instead of playing by society's rules they opt out.

It's as simple, and as complicated, as that.

[15. Marie said the following at 7:47 PM on Apr 20:]

15

i think this sort of thing has happened before at other times in history. i think the solution is give the guys time. i think God is raising up godly, hard-working men, they just aren't in the spotlight yet. i am so proud and grateful to know some of them, and they are not seeking attention, but rather preparing to be leaders.

[16. renee68 said the following at 8:11 PM on Apr 20:]

16

Kudos to Mike. I particularly agree with the following paragraph from his comments:

"Finally, I think also related to this is the delaying of marriage among young adults (it may be a cause or a symptom of the male achievement gap, or both). Because there is less pressure to get married and have kids at an earlier age, there is less pressure on a man to find a career which can provide for more than just himself. Why then does this only affect men and not women? Perhaps because women realize that when a child is born, more often than not they are the ones who will have to provide for the baby, and thus they are more motivated. I admit this is just speculation though."

I was raised by a single mom. I saw her struggle financially and so I worked incredibly hard to build a career in which I would be financially successful. God has blessed me and I have been financially successful. However, for a woman, there can be a downside to financial success. I have outearned most of the men I have dated. Many of them have been very poor earners (not due to lack of potential but due to lack of motivation) In most of these relationships, I realized that should I have married that person, I would end up being the breadwinner and thus, would never be able to be a stay-at-home mom. Probably also part of the reason I never married.

[17. Jason said the following at 9:50 PM on Apr 20:]

17

As someone who would consider himself a member of this "slacker gamer culture," at least according to the terms expressed here, the real crisis is ultimately a failure to internalize certain societal values. I personally really struggle to consider the values of my parents (financial stability, hard work, traditional "conservative" values) my own. I am more than academically competent, but there comes a certain point at which one is forced to consider whether the traditional academic channels can provide any sort of real satisfaction. I guess my real point in this conversation is to be careful about considering this a "problem," and looking at it more as a shift of values. I personally think that there are some very serious problems in the traditional American definitions of achievement, and, even though I don't generally consider the counter-culture a significant upgrade on those values, I find it a net positive that there is a counter-culture. One of the greatest dangers for a committed Christian is an introspective blindness, and if we are unable to distinguish between true Christian values and traditional "family" values, I worry where it will lead us.

[18. Janelle said the following at 11:01 PM on Apr 20:]

18

Catherine (#10), your point about men moving into leadership when the women aren't able to take over is right on.

I remember a sermon my pastor gave on Ephesians 6. He essentially said this: God is asking women to submit because that is the hardest thing for them to do. He is asking men to lead because that is the hardest thing for them.

Women are happy to lead and men are happy to follow, but by asking us to go against our comfort zones we are stretched and we grow in maturity.

[19. Kelly said the following at 11:02 PM on Apr 20:]

19

Catherine - #10 - your post inspired revelation in me.

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that's hard for me to swallow. Yet as I grow older, I invariably come to understand that it's not just "God laying down the law". He made these laws for very good reasons.

(For example, when I was younger I could never understand why God disallowed sex before marriage: surely it didn't really hurt anyone? As I got older, I learnt that emotional bonding comes through physical intimacy, and the greater the intimacy, the greater the hurt if the relationship dissolves.)

So... a law for our own protection.

The one I'm talking about here, that I have always had big issues with, is regarding women in leadership positions in church. My background is very traditional; my 'home' church does not allow women to be pastors. Why? Because it's in the Bible.

And yet... what are we seeing? When women are allowed to be pastors, they step up. They take on these roles. They excel at them. All which is wonderful, but what does that do to the man? His role diminishes; he's no longer needed, he doesn't have any reason to step up and do something which someone else is doing well.

Is this why the Bible forbade women speaking in church? Because it takes both men and women away from the roles that God made us for?

[20. Dave said the following at 11:31 PM on Apr 20:]

20

Can't we just simplify the following statement by chopping off the last two words?

the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles

I'm not sure if any of the Boundless staff has ever read The Sexual Paradox, but if not if might make for some interesting future reading. It's largely a comparison of male/female brains and types of intelligence and how this may influence behaviors. Interestingly, the book presents some evidence that women may have been overachievers in education even in centuries gone by (arguing for an equal or higher average literacy level with less formal education).

[21. Shelley Y. said the following at 12:56 AM on Apr 21:]

21

I'm a college administrator at a Christian institution and I don't think it is uncommon to have difficulty finding male students to lead...but I think it may be determined by what the leadership role is.

My work involves a lot of event planning--is that necessarily a characteristic that men have/desire? Like others have said, it's not just one thing, and I wouldn't blame video games only. I think parents have a huge role to play but we haven't given men and woman the skills and mentoring necessary to be whom they are called to truly be as Christ-followers.

Instead of just dealing w/ the issue after the fact, we really need to find men and woman who set a high standard for those they chose to marry, to marry well and bring up children who are given boundaries and clear expectations. Too often we don't have the human examples in our lives that we so desperately crave--the fathers and mothers who train us to be who we are called to be as young men and young women. We are so confused these days about our gender, our role...and we shouldn't be.

Like the Harris' say in their book, "Do Hard Things", we need to be doing just that. As a single 30 yr old woman who would love to have a family and be a help meet, I also don't want to settle for mediocre. My hard thing is to actively wait--pursuing what God's given me for this season--and pray for a husband who'll align with my desire to be Godly parents.

Can I...can you...can we do hard things by not just pursuing any male or female spouse but really choosing one that'll desire to be a Godly parent and example for others to follow?

[22. Mike said the following at 3:37 AM on Apr 21:]

22

Catherine (#10) wrote:

" i do not have any strong belief against females leading- but i have seen the down side of always allowing us to lead."

If I may quote from Lies Women Believe by Nancy Leigh DeMoss:

"Ever since that fateful day in Eden, the natural drive of the woman has been to control her husband, to rule over him, and to act independently of him. Our natural tendency is to take the reins, to take the initiative ourselves; ironically, however, because of the way God created us, we also long to be responders; we long for our men to take action...As women, we are quick to fault men for being passive and to insist that if they weren't so inactive...we would not take matters into our own hands...I know what it is to be frustrated by apparent passivity on the part of some men...But as I have watched men and women interact and have evaluated the effect of my own reactions in these sorts of settings, I can't help but wonder to what extent we women have demotivated and emasculated the men around us by our quickness to take the reins rather than waiting on the Lord to move men to action. We can so easily strip men of the motivation to rise to the challenge and provide the necessary leadership. To make matters worse, when they do take action, the women they look to for encouragement and affirmation correct them or tell them how they could have done it better...We simply can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't insist on running the show and then expect men to be proactive, take initiative, and be 'spiritual leaders.'"

Short version: If you want men to lead, stop trying to compete for the leadership positions...

[23. obewan said the following at 5:52 AM on Apr 21:]

23

I am biased the other way. I work in engineering and it is still dominated by males. We may have 2% females where I work. At school, the male female ratio was 12:1. Her statistics may be skewed because of where she is looking. What if she looked at the military?

[24. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:18 AM on Apr 21:]

24

It's no secret that more women than men are actively involved in church activities...therefore it makes sense that more women are involved in church leadership.

[25. Mattiaus said the following at 6:38 AM on Apr 21:]

25

Some feel that women have been "taking control" or unsurp a young man's "authority" or "do things for him" or any number of ways of taking away his male leadership responsibility, or the ability to develop these leadership skills. And usually, the male lets the woman do that. In turn, it may make men more passive; the thinking goes "hey, if she's just going to do it for me, or not listen to me, or not follow my lead, why should I bust my hump to work when my leadership is questioned? She just takes control and goes behind my back." Thus, the gravitation to "easier" things such as video games, and to a large extent, porn, comes into play. Just another possible factor.

[26. a.k. said the following at 8:39 AM on Apr 21:]

26

I don't condone generalizations about men or women. That said, I see academic, accomplished male role models all over the place.
- every President of the United States, and the majority of their cabinet members. Not to mention the vast majority of Senators & Congressmen throughout history.
- 487 of the USA's largest 500 publicly traded companies are headed by men
- academics & "smart people" on popular TV shows both past & present are largely men. E.g. the following:
* Numb3rs
* House, M.D. (whose female dean of medicine can apparently only be a competent doctor when a pregnant woman or baby is involved & did I mention she has no control over the doctor she's supposed to be supervising?)
* Heroes (female characters on this show tend to end up as things to be rescued, killed, or as toys that can be wounded again & again. or evil.)
* The West Wing (predominantly male staff)
* The Big Bang Theory (3 smart geeks + ...a ditzy gorgeous girl)
* The Eleventh Hour (male scientist provides crucial evidence that solves attractive female agent's cases)
* Beauty & the Geek (reality tv show)

I could go on & on. Even the few shows supposedly espousing female empowerment (e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer) designate a man (in this case, Giles) as the "smart guy." Chances are, if there is a designated "smart" person in some kind of popular media... it's a guy. If the "smart person" happens to be a woman, check to see whether she:
- is impossibly gorgeous
- is prone to crying or other emotional outbursts (=vulnerability) in front of her male superiors

I just don't see popular media as marketing academics or intelligence to women more than men.

[27. hxcjf said the following at 9:13 AM on Apr 21:]

27

Winner has written some good books; I enjoyed Real Sex. But she misses the point of why guys do not use their free time constructively. Take the church. Your average cozy American church is wimped out. Its a funny thing, I'm in a community of radical believers who have preached the gospel on 6 continents, healed the sick, cast out demons, and transformed communities by the miraculous power of God. There were MORE guys than girls in our organization. The systemic unbelief and backslidden comfort theology in our churches is responsible for the lack of men. Come to the front lines of faith and risk, and you'll find us.

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 10:00 AM on Apr 21:]

28

Marty (#14) -- you wrote that "most men need more encouragement and mentoring, not more chastisement."

I completely agree with you. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

[29. Pebble said the following at 1:15 PM on Apr 21:]

29

i was waiting for a blog post about this article - it'll be interesting to see how the discussion continues. on a similar note to guys and their involvement in church and church-related ministries/activities, has anyone read mike erre's "why guys need God"?

[30. Jonathan M. said the following at 1:53 PM on Apr 21:]

30

I think Shelly Y. hit on something a bit when she asked whether or not event planning is something that interests men. My initial thought when I read the article was "Why is a majority of female staff in a church considered too much female leadership?" I don't think there is anything wrong with lots of women coordinating events and such as long as the oversight is coming from the men on top. And I don't think it has as much to do with men being lazy or unmotivated as it does with the differences in what men and women find interesting. Women generally like "organizing" things more than men, and are less content to find themselves alone on a weeknight and would rather be at the church. This might also explain why men involve themselves with fewer extra-cirriculars on campuses. Or maybe the men are just taking their day-jobs a bit more seriously than the women are and like the down-time more. This last point may be the bigger issue. Although men are often bigger slackers in the younger years, their drive often picks up in the mid-20's, where they suddenly want to be productive all the time. This often manifests itself as working harder and harder at their jobs to establish a career. So they often want to relax on the weekends instead of taking on more responsibility at church. So the answer at some level is "Because they don't want to." It sounds like we're trying to pick out exactly why they don't want to, and some of the reasons are innate, which I will get to in a moment.
And as for women outperforming men academically, some of it comes down to economics. There are still many jobs that pay well that don't require education but men are just naturally more geared toward, such as sales, entrepreneurship, and pretty much any kind of manual labor. With equal access to higher education, it makes sense that we would end up with more women since higher education might benefit more women economically.
People often don't put enough emphasis on the differences in needs, wants, and concerns between men and women. It applies in most areas. The answer to why fewer women study engineering than men is "Because they don't like studying machines and such as much as men do." The answer to why fewer women are CEO's than men is "Because they generally aren't as willing as men are to work 60 hours a week for 30 years and move to undesireable locations 5 times in the process." It's like when I quit the wrestling team in high school my senior year and a teammate said "What's the matter? Can't you hack it?" The answer was "It's not that I can't, it's that I just don't want to."

[31. BDB said the following at 1:57 PM on Apr 21:]

31

This reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, asking why the real world can't be more like TV, when the women are scantily clad and the men carry powerful handguns...

[32. Jo said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 21:]

32

Jonathan M: "The answer to why fewer women study engineering than men is "Because they don't like studying machines and such as much as men do.""

Amen Brother. If only more politicians were sensible enough to see that.

[33. Craig M said the following at 3:08 PM on Apr 21:]

33

I'm going to tell you exactly what's really happenning. As more and more fields become "gender neutral," as more and more leaders are referred to as "chairpersons," men are opting out. Boys and men want fundamentally to be masculine. They want masculine pursuits. They are, on the whole, disinterested in deep participation in anything that has a "feminine" feel or aura to it, or even a "neutral" feel. As a pursuit loses its masculine flavor, it loses its appeal. As student government or AP classes or church services become more feminine in style and nature, men back away. They are not gratified by a deep association with a "feminine" field--and it takes very little to transform the "feel" of an organization from masculine to feminine. Men may still go to church out of religious devotion or obligation, but if the church is feelings-obsessed and makes no explicit distinction between the masculine and the feminine--if there is no defined and necessary masculine role--men who are leaders will go to find something else to lead.

[34. Leeandra said the following at 3:45 PM on Apr 21:]

34

My personal opinion is that it boils down first to family, and then societal, expectations.

I used to teach freshman compostition at the University of New Orleans. Most of my students were lower-middle-class, working-class, or just plain poor New Orleans natives and were products of the public schools here.

One of the things that struck me was that the Vietnamese kids of both genders generally outperformed the black girls, who generally outperformed the black boys. (This is a generalization and is by no means universal--I had good and bad, diligent and lazy students of all genders and races.)

New Orleans is a majority black city, but it has a sizeable Vietnamese population. The kids I taught were mostly the sons and daughters of the "boat people" who fled the war as children in the 1970s with not much more than the clothes on their backs. English was not usually the language spoken at home, though all my students were fluent in it.

Now, the absolute biggest difference I could see between the Vietnamese kids and the black kids was that the Vietnamese kids were almost always from two-parents-married families that put a very, very high value on education and academic achievement. This wasn't usually the case with the black students.

Many of the black girls were single mothers juggling jobs/school because they wanted their children's lives to be better. If any of the black boys were fathers (and some of them probably were), I never heard about their children nor about them going to college/working in order to give those kids a better life.

[35. Kelly said the following at 6:35 PM on Apr 21:]

35

Re: Media portrayal of men.

I challenge you all, when watching your favourite tv show this week, to make a count of how many men versus how many women appear on the show.

And then in each group, how many of these have admirable qualities.

You might be surprised.

[36. Kellie said the following at 6:36 PM on Apr 21:]

36

I don't know if the comments of #16 speak for many of the women who read Boundless, but there is much more to a husband than his paycheck. Income is not necessarily an indication of laziness.

[37. Lost In The World said the following at 7:46 PM on Apr 21:]

37

"Remain calm my Friends."- Wingman "Duke",
Wing Commander Prophecy, Windows and Game Boy Advance

In all this Sturm und drang surrounding the article, it shocks me ridged that no one has asked the most pertinent question of all, does this matter?

Everyone assumes that not going to college is a bad thing. The ABC news program 20/20 recently aired a story that asked the right question, Is College the ultimate rip-off? Until you answer that question, you can't truthfully answer the assumption made by the article.* (I won't go deeply into that story, but you should look it up. It was good.)

What isn't being said is that an undergraduate degree today quite simply means less then it did 30 years ago. Having tried to get a part time job to cover expenses recently, I was often shocked by the number of "college graduates" doing the same jobs as those who only graduated from high school. Recently when I asked a male friend (No Degree) who manages a business about this hiring practice, he shrugged and said, "Now adays everyone has a degree, but it doesn't mean they learned anything useful. Someone who's been in the work force for years and has experience goes to the top of the list."

And college (at least at the Undergrad level) is quite often a waste, both of time and money. (Didn't Theopolis say something to this effect during his exile to TrueU?) I can't tell you the number of times I used my status as a minority to winge, for pages and pages, about how I "felt" (Like my feelings were at all pertinent to the subject we should have been learning) to the ecstacy (and over-inflated grade) of my professors. Well, that's a bit of a fib. Really I was complaining about the things my professor felt about the topic they were "teaching". (I must admit to no small amount of guilt after reading my [more honest] friends papers, that were usually better, yet received lower grades [In my defense, I often knew the material better then they did and could have done equally insightful papers, but...well...Dude wanted to go to law school, and I knew how to get there]).

In contrast to that, there is the statistic that men still earn more post graduate degrees then women over all, and the picture may just start coming into focus. In fact, the article that Mrs. Winner cites even admits men are still getting the best jobs in the work force. So it would seem that those men who want a post graduate degree (or who, admittedly, want to stay inebriated for 4 years) go to college. Those who want to work do so and often find themselves in a better position then those with 4 years gone.

And those who pal around with Master Chief protecting the Earth from "The Flood", rescue princesses and their mushroom-headed retainers from evil Dinosaur-looking things, and zip about outer space stopping Kilrathi invaders on the weekends just might not have anything, at all, to do with it.

*Full Disclosure: The author of this post has 3 degrees culminating in a JD (Juris Doctorate [Law Degree]). He did (and does) play video games. Like mad.

[38. BDB said the following at 1:09 AM on Apr 22:]

38

Here's a funny cartoon related to game-playing achievement:

http://xkcd.com/132/

[39. BDB said the following at 1:14 AM on Apr 22:]

39

Kelly (#35) wrote:

>>I challenge you all, when watching your favourite tv show this week, to make a count of how many men versus how many women appear on the show.<<

I was about to write that Science Fiction shows consistently show men in a positive light - usually taking leadership and often being chivalrous...also often heavily armed AND good pilots...

Then it occurred to me, video games also tend to depict men as being "empowered." Usually fairly heavily armed, too.

Let's face it, how many men play SIMS?

Though, on the cheat page for SIMS, I thought it was very funny that one way to run up the score is to keep "kissing the female, and eventally she will say, 'I want to have a baby.'"

[40. BDB said the following at 1:18 AM on Apr 22:]

40

And no, I don't play SIMS. I haven't played anything in years.

But I will say that Civilization is a cool game, especially for those who've completed graduate work in political economy.

[41. Amanda said the following at 1:07 PM on Apr 22:]

41

It is frustrating that the things we seem most inclined towards (women taking initiative and/or leading, men not as much in comparison) are the very things God doesn't want us to do. Why give me initiative and skills to lead an organization to then say, "No, that's bad. You need to let the boys go first."

If there is a place where a position needs to be filled, then I am going to fill it with the most capable person for it. If that it is a male or female, I certainly don't care. I am rather tired of this whining by men that everything is becoming effeminate or less masculine.

I will admit that it is frustrating seeing fewer men in college or working for a higher goal than being a McDonald's cashier. It does make me wonder if men are physically stronger so they'll have some advantage coming out of the womb, because gracious knows the majority I see (obviously not all) don't want to apply themselves to anything.

But, again, it does make me wonder why God gives us certain predispositions that are positive for the other sex than the one who actually has them? (E.g., women being more likely to step up and lead, but it's the men who God wants to do that.)

P.S. I enjoying playing my Wii and PS2.

[42. Craig M said the following at 3:31 PM on Apr 22:]

42

Amanda writes: "I am rather tired of this whining by men that everything is becoming effeminate or less masculine."

You're wrong to underestimate the impact of this. Be as tired of it as you want, but it's a deadly serious factor impacting the minds of men. I'm a military attorney. One of my responsibilities is leading PT (physical training) for my command. I cannot be even the least bit demanding at PT because our command is populated with women who cannot do the exercises and complain incessantly if I am demanding. I am constantly forced to use coddling, "encouraging" language to get them to do as few as 20 pushups.

Now, I am paid less than half of what I could earn on the open market as a military attorney. I chose the military despite this partly because of the inherent appeal of military life--hard training, toughness, masculinity. I discovered fairly quickly that those things are a fantasy for most military commands these days. The combat units are still that way, but support commands are highly feminized. The loss of the unique masculinity in most military organizations diminishes their appeal to me, and makes it less worthwhile to forgo a more lucrative outside job. The organization has lost all of its unique qualities that made it appealing to me. So I won't stay, certainly not for a career.

When a guy attends church, and the sermons are all feelings-focused, "how to cope" massages, and the songs are all Jesus-is-my-boyfriend "love" songs that any respectable man would be ashamed to sing, you're not going to get masculine men volunteering to take a more active role. Again, be as tired of that as you want, but it's the truth.

[43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:28 PM on Apr 22:]

43

To back up Craig M (#42), there is even a book Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow, Thomas Nelson, 2004. All what Craig mentions are documented there, and plenty more. See Murrow's summary article. Fortunately, there are some women who are concerned enough about the shortage of men in church to listen to him, rather than being tired of alleged male failings and not changing.

[44. Craig M. said the following at 10:28 AM on Apr 23:]

44

Jonathan--Wow. GREAT article. A sample:

"Nick looks around at the men. Some are obviously there against their will, dragged by a wife or mother. Others are softies. Research finds that men who are interested in Christianity are less masculine than average; seminarians also exhibit more feminine characteristics than the typical male. Even the vocabulary of churchgoing men is softer. Christian men use terms such as precious, share, and relationship, words you’d never hear on the lips of a typical man.

The signals keep coming during the service. Nick may be asked to hold hands with his neighbor. He may be asked to sing a love song to Christ, such as, “Lord, You’re Beautiful,” or “Jesus, I am so in love with You.” Someone may weep. Then Nick will have his 8-minute male attention span put to the test by a 30-minute sermon. When this torture test is finally over, Nick is invited to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Let’s spend a moment on that last one: a personal relationship with Jesus. That phrase never appears in the Bible. Yet in the past 50 years it’s become the number one way the evangelical church describes the Christian walk. It’s turned the gospel into a puzzle for men, because most guys don’t think in terms of relationships. Let’s say Lenny approaches Nick and says, “Nick, would you like to have a personal relationship with me?” Yuck! Men don’t talk or think like this, yet we’ve wrapped the gospel in this man-repellent package."

Yes. YES. I cannot overstate the accuracy of this article. I cannot stand those songs. I feel fundamentally wrong singing them, and now simply will not. And I cannot overstate the consistency with which I've observed that the most "Christian" men in church--that is, the men most comfortable and at-home in the modern evangelical church--are substantially more feminine and neutered than any friend I'd actually want to spend time with.

[45. Amanda said the following at 10:46 AM on Apr 23:]

45

Craig M. --

I do still consider it whining.

But, on your particular point about women whining at PT. Tell them, "Tough!"
The military is hard, and people who join need to be in the best physical condition. Don't worry, I find it frustrating talking to some women who feel they should be able to get away with doing one mile, while the men have to do three miles. My life depends on the person to my side, and it is not a comfortable feeling thinking they were allowed to slack off because of their gender.

So, for the women in your unit... they can grow up and realize what it is they have joined.

[46. Craig M. said the following at 1:22 PM on Apr 23:]

46

Amanda--with all respect. It's not up to me. There is an ingrained culture now. If I were to be "tough" with the low-performing, I would be upbraided by my military organization. The fundamental nature of the thing "they have joined" has changed.

[47. Jeremy said the following at 2:14 PM on Apr 23:]

47

While the article (linked to in comment #43) contained a smattering of valid observations, I found it at times to be pretty clearly offering excuses for laziness and a lack of self-discipline:

"Nick will have his 8-minute male attention span put to the test by a 30-minute sermon."

"Nick was never much of a student, but taking classes, reading the Bible and studying books are presented as cornerstones of a living faith."

If Nick cannot pay attention for more than 8 minutes and refuses to read the Bible ... maybe what needs to change is not the church, but Nick.

[48. Mike said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 23:]

48

If I may quote John Eldredge:

"'Where are all the real men?' is regular fare for talk shows and new books. You asked them to be women, I want to say."

If you want men to be warriors for Christ, stop asking them to be parlor maids.

[49. Rachael said the following at 9:48 PM on Apr 23:]

49

re: quote in #44

-There is Christianese used by both men and women not always used in "secular" conversations.

-Songs. Preference not always or ever a gender thing. Other factors may include theological leanings, church experiences, preferences, personality...

-"personal relationship with Jesus" --> I'm not really into the "It's not a religion; it's a relationship" cliche, and I believe Christianity could be classified as both.

Basically gender factors are not always or ever the reasons for people's preferences, church styles, and choice of language.

I am a woman, and honestly am somewhat uncomfortable with the music (overall) situation at my new church. I used to LOVE the music at my old church. It was rich in content and the music was beautiful. My impression with the music at my new church (though we've been late at least 1-2 times) is that I don't always resonate with the words and that it is repetitive and that it lasts a long time. Could be wrong, but the music is in "that" category in my mind.

It is my situation, and I am fine overall with the sermons at this church.

But...hopefully my attitude and heart will change and grow to appreciate the songs or at least develop a worshipful attitude during the songs even if much of the music tends to not strike much of a chord in my heart.(Again though, we've barely been to this church and we've been late before; one time really really late, so my judgment is early and perhaps premature).

[50. BDB said the following at 10:38 PM on Apr 23:]

50

Amanda (#45) wrote:

>>But, on your particular point about women whining at PT. Tell them, "Tough!" <<

Ha ha! Yes. That's probably the right thing to do.

When I was in ROTC, I'd always run with the fasted female cadet. She wasn't quite fast enough to meet the male standards, but MUCH faster than the rest of the women.

Some generals let their commands do PT on their own. It would solve Craig M's problem, because they'd need to either motivate themselves or fail the test. "We're here today practicing because you failed your last PT test" is a little easier.

When I had a staff of mostly female clerks taking payments, the female supervisors were quite tough. My joke was, "It doesn't matter if you cry, you still have to balance your deposit. Here's a tissue - go re-run your tape."

[51. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:22 AM on Apr 24:]

51

No offense...but I just had a field day laughing at all these guys whining about how they feel emasculated by churches and how the services are too "girly."

People think that Western definitions of "real" chest-thumping masculinity are somehow intrinsic to humanity.

How much do you wanna bet the "girliness" of churches is inversely related to the oppression and subjugation of women? I'm pretty sure mosques are still have plenty of male participation and I've heard they're looking for converts...any takers?

[52. Jo said the following at 11:59 AM on Apr 24:]

52

Jeremy: great point. (Although there were some good points in the passage that Craig quoeted as well.) The John Eldridge quote was also brilliant, and true.

I do have some sympathy. I think in our struggle for equality of the sexes we have lost any real concept of what it is to be a man (and perhaps what it is to be a woman, too). Because strength and leadership and authority have been so abused by men in the past, we've almost forbidden men to use those qualities at all. Because women never had the opportunity to lead, we now treat leadership as the holy grail of womanhood, at the expense of other feminine attributes.

So I totally disagree with those who've said that women are naturally more motivated and gifted in leadership etc. When society expected men to step up, they stepped up. Of course that society also expected women to stay down, but it's true that our society has shifted too far the other way. I can't help thinking though that it took women a huge fight to get the status we have today, and it would take men a lot less effort to push the balance back a little.

'Cause in the end guys, if you think church is too girly, it's up to you to change it. Women obviously aren't going to, and you shouldn't expect us to either. It sucks that you're expected to be too feminine - go ahead and defy expectation. Unlike the women of days gone by, there's actually nothing stopping you.

[53. Mike said the following at 1:38 PM on Apr 24:]

53

Jo (#52) said:

I can't help thinking though that it took women a huge fight to get the status we have today, and it would take men a lot less effort to push the balance back a little.

But pass the ammunition ((#51) said:

How much do you wanna bet the "girliness" of churches is inversely related to the oppression and subjugation of women?

Therein lies the problem. If men "step up", much of the time, it's perceived as "subjugating" the women. (Just try saying, "Wives, submit to your husbands" within earshot of a woman under the age of 40 and watch what kind of reaction you get.) Any hint of thinking men should be in authority, and the women instantly squeal, "Not over ME!"

The church has completely fallen down on the issue of gender roles. Nobody teaches the concepts the Bible contains on Biblical submission or the different emotional needs of women and men any more. Instead, the church is cowering before the culture.

Men naturally want their women to be happy. To quote Shaunti Feldhahn:

“Not surprisingly, men said they judge themselves - and feel that others judge them - based on the happiness and respect of their wives."

So, if a man thinks that being in control will make his woman happy, he will let her be in control, at least for a while - despite the fact that it undermines his sense of self-respect and her sense of respect for him. But eventually, what happens? He'll get angry because she doesn't respect him. She'll get disgusted because she's carrying all the load.

Essentially, all this "we had to fight hard for the right to undermine our own emotional health" stuff rings hollow. You want truth? Look to Scripture.

[54. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 24:]

54

Mike--Wifely submission IS subjugation if the wife is unwilling.

I guess that's kind of my point--what does it say about men if they can't feel "manly" or "masculine" without having a woman willing to submit to them?

Why do people define masculinity based on the ability of men to have authority over women? It seems like feminists and many of the posters on Boundless may have found something they agree on.

Most women realize there is a very fine line between Biblical submission and subjugation. Some couples (especially the good examples we have on Boundless) seem to walk the line very well. However, for most women it does not seem to be worth the risk.

[55. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:45 PM on Apr 24:]

55

Also, I made the reference to Islam because I urge someone to find an example of churches that STRICTLY adheres to Biblical guidlines on male and female roles where oppression is not widespread.

I suspect people will have trouble with this. While many evangelical churches pay lip service to traditional roles, women are still taking up much of the leadership, as Ted Slater pointed out in his original post, along with other commenters. The churches and cultures that do follow these guidelines have typically not lived up to the ideals the Bible laid out, resulting instead abuses of power by the men in charge.

Its like the notion of "separate but equal." It may work in theory, but in practice some people end up "more equal" than others.

[56. Pak said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 24:]

56

So if the wife is unwilling to submit to a husband, wouldn't that make her disobedient as opposed to subjugated, especially if the husband is loving her in the manner that the Bible commands?

[57. pass the ammunition said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 24:]

57

Lol one more comment...why does it have to be "either or?" Why is it either the man in charge or the woman in control? Between mature adults I believe there is room for balance and equality, and working out the balance that works for each couple. I think that men and women are both happier this way. There is evidence that married peope today are much more satisfied with their relationships than in the past.

[58. IMO said the following at 3:13 PM on Apr 24:]

58

#56,

Agreed.
It's more than just submitting to the husband. The big picture is the woman submitting to God and being obedient to Him. That's her responsibility no matter how her husband treats her. And yes, if her husband is sinning against her and is asking her to sin, that is a different story. Obedience to God first.

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

1 John 5:3
This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.

Of course for those without Christ there is great risk.

There is only great reward in following Christ and being obedient to Him.

[59. IMO said the following at 3:27 PM on Apr 24:]

59

#57
Yes of course...

And I also think the married men have a tall order to fill as well...they are suppose to love their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. That's huge. And there need to be godly leaders out there willing show what the practical steps are to do that.
For me, I never knew how to show respect my husband in a practical way. That's why I keep talking about the book For Women Only...that book has been helpful to me in this area. And also the book, Love and Respect...

[60. Pak said the following at 3:39 PM on Apr 24:]

60

I don't look at it as an either/or situation where the man or woman is in control but rather as a right/wrong. You either obey or you disobey. When we involve shades of gray, we get into trouble.

[61. Jo said the following at 4:05 PM on Apr 24:]

61

Mike, 53:

Lots of good points (although the last paragraph was a little unnecessary, if it was directed at me).

But, men don't have to step up by beating women around the head with the submission passages. You don't need to do anything extraordinary, and you don't need to push women out of their roles in order to fulfil your own. Just take some responsibility, volunteer for leadership roles and begin to change the culture from the inside.

I guess what I'm saying is neither gender has the right to complain unless they're willing to do something. If you're a man, step up and be a man. If you're a woman, expect and challenge the men around you to be men and appreciate them for being men. It's a two way street.

Also as an aside, I think it's important to note that there ARE women who are fine with the idea of submitting to their husbands. There are also women who really struggle with it (with good reason - it goes completely against everything society has taught us) but who are trying their best to reconcile themselves with what scripture says. You have to understand that this is a very sensitive and often painful topic for women. That doesn't mean we should just gloss over it (as often happens), but it needs a lot of grace on both sides as we all try and navigate it together.

[62. a.k. said the following at 5:57 PM on Apr 24:]

62

#42
“When a guy attends church, and the sermons are all feelings-focused, "how to cope" massages, and the songs are all Jesus-is-my-boyfriend "love" songs that any respectable man would be ashamed to sing, you're not going to get masculine men volunteering to take a more active role. Again, be as tired of that as you want, but it's the truth.”

And who are the people giving these sermons? Aren’t they... men? Isn’t it *easier* for a lackluster pastor to preach feelings or coping without the challenge of the gospel message? Why is idiocy in the pulpit characterized as “feminine”? Why isn’t it just classed as idiocy? You imply rather pejoratively that it appeals to more women than men, but let’s not forget that MEN are preaching these false gospels.

Furthermore, if you research the roots of New Age spirituality and similar emotion-driven or mystical movements, you’ll find that all of them were propogated by men – even the Big Names in modern Wicca and neopaganism are by far predominantly male. Why are these heresies considered "feminine"?

All the directors of music I know are men. In fact, at least one PCA church I attended only allowed an elder to direct church music (perhaps this is unwritten law in others?). So again – who sets these “Jesus as boyfriend” songs; who writes them? And just what is considered “feminine” music, anyway? Of course silly songs masking as praise hymns should be ousted. But what precisely crosses the line? Should we toss the Wesley hymns because they speak of Jesus as Divine Love? Is it unmasculine to love Jesus? Should we play down the incredible debt we owe to Our Savior and his incredible love for us because it makes men uncomfortable?

It's interesting to see how hyperaware and conformist Christians can be. Throughout history, the composition and performance of all kinds of song and poetry were seen as almost exclusively a masculine art. In the Greco-Roman era, the medieval period, the Renaissance, and subsequent centuries, poetry and song were instruments of the supreme Gentleman. Love songs/poetry and religious hymns especially. Now, in the past 50 years or so, anything too arty or poetic, sensual or devotional, is derided as feminine. Once it was the man's job to outfit his home with things indicating his refined taste (see the writings of Cicero, for example, or European royalty/noblemen throughout history). Now, if you are a man with a talent for interior decorating or an artistic eye - !! you're automatically considered gay. How sheeplike are the masses indeed, even the masses of so-called believers. So are we Christians to model our worship after the culture so that it’s “masculine” enough (or should I really say “1950s sexist” enough) for certain people?

I just find this kind of talk so discouraging. If we are talking solely about church preaching and ideology, then why brand wishy-washiness, emotionality, and feel-good sermons as feminine? Any woman seduced by this type of “religion” should be just as ashamed as any man. Everyone should be disgusted by it. Call a spade a spade. Branding them as “feminine” only mocks and scorns the female sex further. These things aren’t feminine. They are heresy.

If we're talking about church environment, I think there is a lot of work to be done in reaching out to those born in the 1980s-2000s. But I do not think that the way to win Christians is through advocating gender stereotypes that are no longer relevant. The gospel is powerful and strong enough to function on its own. What we need are dynamic preachers centered in the Bible, not fewer flowers on the welcome tables or (God forbid) fewer women volunteering their precious lives in the service of the church.

[63. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:23 PM on Apr 24:]

63

Jo (#52) Cause in the end guys, if you think church is too girly, it's up to you to change it.

That's exactly what the book and site I cited in #43 is trying to do. But the book also mentions the widespread "velvet veto" from many women and girlymen when they do try, and gives examples.

Jeremy (#47): of course, don't water down biblical standards to try to win men over. But do water down church traditions that are repelling many men. Whinging that men should change first has clearly not worked.

Many women are not happy with the current situation either. One of my colleagues wondered why a pretty, pleasant and intelligent lady at a church wasn't married at 30. She said that there were not enough men in the church she would be happy with. Another very intelligent and feminine girl I know who attends a Christian uni says that most of the guy students are more feminine than she is!

[64. Mike said the following at 10:14 PM on Apr 24:]

64

Jo (#61) -

I agree with you; there's no point in beating anyone up with Scripture. That's not its purpose. Rather, it tells us how we should live in a Godly fashion.

My point with saying that women have undermined their emotional health with all this "independence" stuff goes straight to the emotional differences between men and women: The primary needs for men are respect and competence, whereas for women they are love and security. Ephesians 5:33 is the way Scripture tells us to meet the needs of the other gender. The woman is told to submit because this meets the man's need for respect and competence. The man is told to love as Christ loved to meet the woman's need for love and security. (Like IMO pointed out, pick up a copy of Love and Respect; Dr. Eggerichs does a great job of laying all this out.)

You are correct to say that men should step up. But I believe I'm correct to say that women shouldn't discourage men from stepping up because their independence is threatened.

Like you said, this is a sensitive topic for women, primarily because the church is afraid to address and teach it. Frankly, I think it's cowardice. The church, in my opinion, has caved to the culture in this area. When was the last time you heard a sermon that talked about the difference between loving submission - which is supportive and voluntary - and subjugation - which is forceful and unloving? I can't remember EVER hearing such a sermon. As a result, I think a lot of women don't understand the concept of Biblical submission; they bristle because they automatically assume "submit" means "he gets to boss me around" - which, of course, is definitely not what it means.

But you know what? It's a sensitive topic for men, too. Men carry around a chronic fear of failure. (Any man who says he doesn't is either in denial or lying.) A woman's lack of approval can crush any desire he might have to step up. So if he takes that risk and is ridiculed or pushed aside, you can bet the farm he won't want to come back. This is why God made woman as his "helper" (I really hate that translation, but that's what it is); to strengthen him, lift him up, and encourage him. Here's Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

"A wife can tear down a husband's necessary sense of strength and importance more easily with a look or a comment than can torture in a prison camp. Surviving the latter is a demonstration of a man's strength. Men don't easily survive the former: Their wives' approval is as important as oxygen: surviving their wives' lack of approval is emasculation."

Like you said: Unless this is handled with grace, unless men and women recognize that the relationship is about what I give rather than what I get, we're going to wind up in that nasty place in Genesis 3:16: “…And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

Nice chatting with you. :-)

[65. Craig M. said the following at 11:21 PM on Apr 24:]

65

a.k. #62--you referenced my comment so I'll respond. I don't disagree that male leaders are often responsible for instituting these practices. Frankly, such men repulse me FAR more than the women in any church. But that doesn't change that the practices themselves fit women far better, and appeal far more widely to women than to men. That's the basis for referring to some of them as "feminine." Women's clothes are "feminine" because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male. Joel Osteen comes to mind.

You ask if it is unmasculine to love Jesus. That is a cheat of a question that purposely misses the obvious point that some of us are making. Of course it is masculine to love Christ, if by love we mean deep gratitude for His sacrifice, heartfelt and focused devotion to our elder brother and King, and determination to follow Him in our life. But that is not what is evoked by many of these "love" songs. These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts. Unlike the hymns you reference, theologically they are an inch deep. Again, women are far more comfortable singing about Jesus in this way, and enjoy it far more.

You seem very convinced that what you call "gender stereotypes" are outmoded and silly. I'm not sure what goes into all that. Are you one of those folks who thinks that men and women are basically the same? There are dramatic mental, physical, chemical, biological, hormonal, emotional differences between men and women that strongly influence the disparate impact that a given stimuli (such as an emotional song) is likely to have on each, on average. You seem to want to just call any problems "heresy" and ignore their disparate impact on men. I agree that if something is heresy that's where the inquiry should start, and I don't think artistic tapestries and flowers in the cathedral are really central to the issue. But I also don't think it's wise to ignore that our churches are repelling men in droves. You make the point yourself by pointing out the effeminate male innovators who initiated most of these changes. For many men, if THAT is the Christian life, he's going to choose something more stark.

[66. Jo said the following at 2:39 AM on Apr 25:]

66

Dr S, 63: Very true.

a.k., 62: Amazing points.

It is up to all of us, in the end. the church as a whole should be promoting Biblical concepts of what is masculine and what is feminine, and resisting the extremes of tradition and modern culture. But it's also true that people are not just set in a mold of 'generic man' or 'generic woman'. We are all different, so any 'gender ideal' should leave a lot of room for individuality. Some guys are more sensitive/emotional/'feminine' than others and that's fine. (The criticism of such men by some on this topic is unhepful.) But their Biblical role is still protector, leader and provider. Same goes for women. Of course we can be independent, strong and confident. But we still are called to submit to our husbands in marriage. We do, as a.k. said, need to shed our stereotypical ideas of manhood and womanhood, wherever they come from, and get back to what the Bible says.

[67. Jo said the following at 11:10 AM on Apr 25:]

67

Mike, 64:

I agree with pretty much everything in your comment. :)

This though:
"The primary needs for men are respect and competence, whereas for women they are love and security."

I've heard this argument before, and I'm undecided about it - just wondering whether there's a Biblical basis for this interpretation of the Ephesians passage? Scripturally, I don't know whether it's a fact or just a theory.

I see the sense in the idea that women mainly need love and men mainly need respect. But really I think we all need both. I also think that love and respect are closely linked, and perhaps even two aspects of the same thing. Perhaps it's a 'love languages' issue. :P If you want to show a man you love him, then respect and support him in leadership; if you want to show a woman you love her then care for her sacrificially.

Thoughts, anyone?

[68. ray said the following at 4:13 PM on Apr 25:]

68

you people are full of it, and i don't mean the lord's spirit

your governments and churches have spent the last half-century destroying fatherhood, sonship, and masculinity in every way possible, forcing men out of the schools, churches, and workplaces with your WomenFirst agendas, disenfranchising boys and men in every secular and religous sphere, and then calling it "progress"

and now you and your clueless "experts" sit around and complain that men aren't "stepping up to the place" in your godless, matriarchal churches and cultures of the west

nor will you abide instruction, nor will you abide the truth, no more than you tolerated the king when he came to you

you and your nations serve the goddess, not God the Father, and if one day you find the courage to REALLY face the problem, i suggest consulting a mirror

ray

[69. BDB said the following at 8:44 PM on Apr 25:]

69

Craig M (#65) wrote:

>>Women's clothes are "feminine" because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male. Joel Osteen comes to mind. <<

When is Joel's next line coming out?

[70. Jo said the following at 11:19 AM on Apr 26:]

70

Craig, 65:
"These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts."

Can you offer an example or two?

[71. Ted Slater said the following at 12:18 PM on Apr 26:]

71

Craig (#65) and Jo (#70) -- I agree that there is a lot of junk out there. Too much erotic, emotion-driven, touchy-feely pabulum being pushed as "contemporary worship music." In many cases, it's not worship music at all, as it's more about *me* and *my* feelings, and not about the object of our worship: God. Too often it's "... me above all" (the famous last lines of a "worship" song that repulses me).

Contemporary "worship music" is best described, in my opinion, in Colossians 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in (us) richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in (our) hearts to the Lord."

Note the primary purposes of this kind of music: to facilitate the word of Christ dwelling in us, which produces godly wisdom. Worship music teaches and encourages and admonishes us. We do this by reflecting on who He is and what He's done, through the ages and right now.

This kind of music is God's gift to us to help us engage Him. Feelings follow, yes, but that is not the goal. The goal is not to drum up feelings, to "invoke" His presence, and so on. The goal is to magnify the Lord among the congregation, to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever (or to glorify God by enjoying Him forever).

For a very balanced take on this, I recommend Bob Kauflin's blog "Expressing Love to God."

[72. Mike said the following at 1:11 PM on Apr 26:]

72

Jo (#67) said:

I've heard this argument before, and I'm undecided about it - just wondering whether there's a Biblical basis for this interpretation of the Ephesians passage? Scripturally, I don't know whether it's a fact or just a theory.

I suggest picking up a copy of Eggerichs' Love and Respect. The argument is way too long to go into on a blog comment. But there is a Biblical basis for it.

(Although, the short version is: Ephesians 5:33 is a command to love and respect - hence, God is saying that we need to provide for our partners' needs. That is really where the case for the book begins.)

I see the sense in the idea that women mainly need love and men mainly need respect. But really I think we all need both.

True dat. That's why I said those were the primary needs.

I also think that love and respect are closely linked, and perhaps even two aspects of the same thing. Perhaps it's a 'love languages' issue. :P If you want to show a man you love him, then respect and support him in leadership; if you want to show a woman you love her then care for her sacrificially.

Interestingly enough, in Shaunti Feldhahn's surveys, the women were able to distinguish between love and respect - they typically did not consider them the same thing at all. The men, on the other hand, often had trouble answering whether they'd rather be unloved or disrespected, because, in their minds, they were one and the same.

But again, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Dr. Eggerichs' book. It lays it all out beautifully.

And again again, nice chatting with you. :-)

[73. Jo said the following at 1:38 PM on Apr 26:]

73

Ted,

I understand the argument against vague 'lovesong' lyrics. And on the face of it, I somewhat agree. My problem is that I can't actually think of a single worship song that speaks of emotion without also affirming truth and addressing praise to God. I can't think of one that focuses just on 'me and my feelings', rather than voicing a personal but Biblical response to God.

Perhaps we just don't sing these touchy-feely songs at my church, but I googled 'Jesus is my boyfriend' and came up with a lot of people complaining about such songs, and not one legitimate example of such a song. I'm beginning to think we're all complaining about something that doesn't actually exist...

Do we just not want ANY emotion in our worship songs? Craig talks of romantic rubbish that 'any man would be ashamed to sing', and yet the Bible says we are (collectively) the Bride of Christ, the Psalms frequently use poetic and emotive language and Song of Songs (if you interpret it on any level to speak of God's relationship with His people), is pure romance.

I'm wondering really whether the problem is that while such language was considered totally masculine in the past (David and Jonathan's expression of their friendship, for example, is probably quite foreign to most men today), our society's perception of love has changed to the extent that men feel uncomfortable singing lyrics that in fact are perfectly sound. Now if that's true, then it may still be a problem, and the solution may still come from different wording in the songs. But in that case, the problem should be recognised as a cultural one about how we perceive the words, rather than a theological one about the words being wrong.

Sorry for the long post... Any thoughts?

[74. Rachael said the following at 5:17 PM on Apr 26:]

74

Jo,

Maybe an example would be like this song by the Katinas (I don't know if I've ever sung it in church, but, for example....):

Draw Me Close to You
Never Let Me Go
I Lay It All Down Again
To Hear You Say That I'm Your Friend
You Are My Desire
No One Else Will Be
Cos no One Else Can Take Your Place
To Feel the Warmth of Your Embrace
Help Me Find the Way
Bring Me Back to You

Chorus
You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near

Draw Me Close to You
Never Let Me Go
I Lay It All Down Again
To Hear You Say That I'm Your Friend
You Are My Desire
No One Else Will Be
No One Else Can Take Your Place
To Feel the Warmth of Your Embrace
Help Me Find the Way
Bring Me Back to You

Chorus
You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near

You're All I Want
You're All I've Ever Needed
You're All I Want
Help Me Know You Are Near
Help Me Know You Are Near
Help Me Know You Are Near

-->Personally, I'm fine with this song, I think, or at least hearing it on the radio or wherever, and don't think about this song much, but it came to mind. I think if you imagine 'romancey' songs, see if you could very well sing that song, or parts of it, to a person instead of God.

-->As for uncomfortable music in general (not necessarily 'romancey')...I would feel uncomfortable singing words that say my desire is something that it is not at the moment. Okay, suppose the lyrics in a song were: "My heart is so full of joy I can't stop singing" (I don't know if there's a song that exactly says that). Well, for me that would mean discomfort. What if I don't feel joy...I know I CAN stop singing...

Or part of a song that used to be sung in an old church: "We will dance on the streets that are golden" (maybe), and in "I could sing of your love forever" --> "dance with joy like we're dancing now" (is that in that song?). When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? Maybe I'm too much of a literalist but I really do detest hearing lyrics I don't mean.

When lyrics are repeated....I understand that there is a Psalm where there is a bunch of a repeated phrase. But, when we repeat the song of a chorus, do we mean it anymore the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 10th time it is sung than the first? Or is it to build emotions? Are we supposed to be thinking of examples of the repetitive line that is being sung? What are we supposed to be thinking about?

Music I would love to hear is music that acknowledges our fallen state, acknowledges God's character, speaks of salvation, what God's done and has the power to do....and not totally repetitive.

I don't want to sing music that expresses someone else's desire I don't feel or commitment I don't feel like making, etc...

[75. Craig M. said the following at 5:17 PM on Apr 26:]

75

A few samples--real songs I've heard in church and looked up, from "Vinyard," etc.:

"Jesus, I am so in love with you...."

"Your love is all I need
Jesus, You’re all I need

My life belongs to You
You gave Your life for me
Your grace is all I need
Jesus, You’re all I need

Hold me in Your arms
Never let me go
I want to spend eternity with You"

"I need You like the rain
Come to me and sing again
I long for Your love so much
I’ve wanted Your pure touch

You are beautiful, beautiful
You are beautiful, beautiful
So beautiful, beautiful

I need You to be here
Come to me, I can feel You near
I love You, You are my hope
You love me as Your own"

Ugh.

And Jo, seriously, you have to be kidding. There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a "romantic" relationship with Jesus. You should know better than to fall for such theological sophistry. And Song of Songs is about romantic and sexual love between man and wife. Theologians who tried to make it about something else because of their discomfort with that don't have a leg to stand on.

[76. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:58 PM on Apr 26:]

76

Much that passes for "worship" is highly emotional and doesn't reach the intellect, and is annoyingly repetitive — hence 9-11 songs; 9 words repeated 11 times. Some are just illogical, e.g. a song that calls God "indescribable" then goes on to say that He is uncontainable, amazing, all powerful, untameable … all of which are descriptions of Him!

[77. a. k. said the following at 7:39 PM on Apr 26:]

77

reply to Craig M. (#65) but also a general reply

Thanks very much for replying, Craig. I have a few more words that might clarify what bugs me about characterizing certain problems as "feminization." I invite any readers of this blog to comment on my thoughts, especially those I've marked as somewhat speculative.

Quote from Craig (#65):
“I don't disagree that male leaders are often responsible for instituting these practices. Frankly, such men repulse me FAR more than the women in any church. But that doesn't change that the practices themselves fit women far better, and appeal far more widely to women than to men. That's the basis for referring to some of them as ‘feminine.’ Women's clothes are ‘feminine’ because they fit and appeal to women, even though many leading fashion designers are male.”

I think your clothing analogy here is very apt – and it also helps articulate why I find characterization of outright heresy as “masculine” or “feminine” or “effeminate” troubling. A Christianity that lowers the status of Christ and the Gospel as the focus is not fit for anyone. A Christianity based on emotion or “coping” or anything other than sound exposition is fit neither for man nor woman. When someone talks about the failures of the modern church (in terms of its overemphasis on emotions or fluffy material) as the effeminization of the church – this implies the following:

1. That such emotional emphasis “fits” women.
2. That a worship service, book, or religion based on emotions is ultimately OK if women are the participants/consumers.
3. Subtlely – that women are “emotional/irrational/fluffy” while men are “rational/solid.” It is a lie that men need solid stuff and women need softer stuff when it comes to preaching. This is patently not true: both men and women are equipped to handle the meat of the gospel and need this meat for their sanctification.
4. Subtlely – that women have (or need to have) a fundamentally different relationship with Christ than men do. I haven’t considered this notion in its entirety, so my thoughts are speculative at this point; but something strikes me as inherently wrong with this belief. While relationships with other humans may differ according to sex, our relationship and status with regard to Christ and God does not.

My stance against branding certain inappropriate preaching/environmental aspects of the modern Church as “feminine” or “effeminate” is based on why we consider these things in terms of the female sex. When a very close friend was talking about people “feminizing Jesus” or the “effeminate modern Church,” I pushed him on what he meant by feminizing/effeminate. He ended up stuck: he had to admit that he was using the female sex to indicate something derogatory (i.e. that being feminine/female is inferior per se). Why must we characterize defects as “feminine” or “female-oriented” – especially when men are the ones ultimately making the decisions? This goes beyond a notion of offensive language and hits at the heart of a perverted dichotomy that is still very much alive: one in which the female represents the weak, frivolous & inferior stuff, while the male represents the strong, rational & superior stuff.

I think Craig & I (& others who commented) agree on the inappropriate nature of quasi-erotic songs about Jesus (personally I have not encountered them, but the churches in my past were rather high church & my most recent churches take a very serious approach to musical worship with only the rare misstep). I just wonder where one draws the line in terms of making a certain group of people comfortable in church. But that wasn’t intended to be my main point & I apologize if it was too much at the forefront. I do have a comment about the following bit Craig wrote, though:

“...that is not what is evoked by many of these "love" songs. These songs focus inwards on the quasi-erotic feelings experienced by the singer when thinking about Jesus, and dwell on how He fills an emotional hole in their hearts. Unlike the hymns you reference, theologically they are an inch deep. Again, women are far more comfortable singing about Jesus in this way, and enjoy it far more.”

Perhaps it is true that more women than men enjoy singing about Jesus in this way, but is it Biblically sound? I’d say not – especially if it focuses on Christ as some kind of emotional fulfillment as opposed to Savior and God. Are such songs fundamentally different than other kinds of worshiper-centered (as opposed to Christ-centered) songs? One example of a worshiper-centered (in my humble opinion, anyway) song that is quite popular is “Amazing Love,” in which we sing:

"Amazing love, I know it’s true
It’s my joy to honor You
In all I do, I honor You
In all I do, I honor You"

Is this true? I don’t like to sing lies to God, especially lies that seem to puff up my own committment to Him. Certainly it’s not my joy to honor Him all the time & I don’t honor Him as I should – ever. Nor do I know any mortal man or woman who would claim that in all their deeds, they glorify the Lord. So I think this song in its current state is inappropriately emotional & worshiper-centered.

Anyway, my point here is that quasi-erotic references to Jesus constitute an inappropriate way of referring to the Savior and aren’t more appropriate for women than they are for men. Nor do I know a theologically sound woman (or well, any woman) who would be comfortable singing about Jesus in even a subtlely erotic way. Such references are equally inappropriate for both sexes. So again, I wouldn’t dwell on this as “feminine” – rather as a poor Christology and theology of worship. But as another said earlier, Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church (including men and women) is the Bride – we can’t alter this mystery out of the Bible, even if we are at a loss to explain it completely or understand fully how it will play out.

Craig M.: “You seem very convinced that what you call "gender stereotypes" are outmoded and silly. I'm not sure what goes into all that. Are you one of those folks who thinks that men and women are basically the same? There are dramatic mental, physical, chemical, biological, hormonal, emotional differences between men and women that strongly influence the disparate impact that a given stimuli (such as an emotional song) is likely to have on each, on average. You seem to want to just call any problems "heresy" and ignore their disparate impact on men.”

I think that there is a fundamental difference between respecting the Biblical, God-ordained differences between the sexes and embracing gender stereotypes like “women are emotional/irrational creatures uninterested in math & machines; men are rational/stark creatures who love logic & science.” [Please note: this statement is just a brief generalization of some attitudes in this thread & isn’t a direct quote from this thread – but it’s been said elsewhere on similar fora.] Do I think men and women are different and have different roles in marriage & the Church? Yes. But I also think that the Church should not embrace arbitrarily stereotypes of one particular culture during one particular time (e.g. the theologically conservative Church tends to embrace 1950s American culture) as definitions of “man” and “woman.”

When I hear Mark Driscoll making silly jokes like “men who order salads are gay – dump him right away, girls!” or openly remarking that Cosmopolitan magazine is proof positive that women are more gullible than men... I fear for the future of the Church. When I read posts on the CBMW blog that are crammed with stereotypes (see David Kotter's CBMW blog post from December 24, 2007), I fear for the future of the Church. And often insinuations on this blog kindle fear as well.

Already too many intelligent women are driven to theologically liberal churches because the theologically conservative ones tend to idolize a particular idea of Woman that is not Biblically ordained but culturally mandated. It’s just as wrong to allow cultural mores (past or present) to influence our notion of what a man is. Such notions can be easily questioned by flipping back a few decades or centuries. The last thing the theologically conservative Church needs is to push away more talented godly women by branding various defects in the Church as “effeminization” or “feminization” rather than dealing with the root of the issue: a move away from the gospel toward human emotion, focusing on the created rather than the Creator. We need to minister to BOTH men and women through the gospel instead of characterizing what’s wrong with the Church as “feminization” or “masculinization.” I just don't think this kind of language is helpful; nor does it foster the kind of Christian community we ought to be building among Reformed individuals.

[78. BDB said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 26:]

78

Rachael (#74) wrote:

>>When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? <<

It kinda depends on how Charismatic the church is, I think.

There's one song that involves "lifting my hands to worship," and most people's hands tend to go up when we sing that one.

And, there's a few people who like to dance at the dance ones. The pastor asks them to do so in the back. If they insist that they need to be in front, then he tells them that they're doing it for their own pride, because God can see them anywhere.

Our church is a mix of people from a lot of different traditions, so worship styles can be an interesting discussion. Some people have a really hard time with clapping...

I suppose a good test is that if you hear a "worship" song being sung on a secular radio station by a non-Christian artist (or on American Idol), look closely and see if it's more of a romantic song than a worship song.

I wouldn't expect the Battle Hymn of the Republic to be on the love-songs radio station...

[79. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:43 PM on Apr 26:]

79

Craig M (#75) is certainly right with, ‘There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a “romantic” relationship with Jesus.’ It is also a logical error called the fallacy of division.

The book Why Men Hate Going to Church backs up Craig's concern. What chance does an ordinary husband have when the wife romanticizes Jesus as her real perfect husband.

I also detest devotions on the Song of Songs that allegorize it to Christ and the Church. One example is from Spurgeon:

“A spring shut up, a fountain sealed. {#So 4:12} In this metaphor, which has reference to the inner life of a believer, we have very plainly the idea of secrecy. It is a spring shut up: just as there were springs in the East, over which an edifice was built, so that none could reach them save those who knew the secret entrance; so is the heart of a believer when it is renewed by grace: there is a mysterious life within which no human skill can touch. It is a secret which no other man knoweth; nay, which the very man who is the possessor of it cannot tell to his neighbour. The text includes not only secrecy, but separation. It is not the common spring, of which every passerby may drink, it is one kept and preserved from all others; it is a fountain bearing a particular mark—a king’s royal seal, so that all can perceive that it is not a common fountain, but a fountain owned by a proprietor, and placed specially by itself alone. So is it with the spiritual life. The chosen of God were separated in the eternal decree; they were separated by God in the day of redemption; and they are separated by the possession of a life which others have not; and it is impossible for them to feel at home with the world, or to delight in its pleasures. There is also the idea of sacredness. The spring shut up is preserved for the use of some special person: and such is the Christian’s heart. It is a spring kept for Jesus. Every Christian should feel that he has God’s seal upon him—and he should be able to say with Paul, "From henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Another idea is prominent—it is that of security. Oh! how sure and safe is the inner life of the believer! If all the powers of earth and hell could combine against it, that immortal principle must still exist, for he who gave it pledged his life for its preservation. And who "is he that shall harm you", when God is your protector?”

Unfortunately, despite his merits in other areas, Spurgeon always let Victorian prudery override the plain meaning of the Word of God in the Song of Solomon, resulting in twee allegorisations of a poem about love between a groom and bride who became husband and wife. Here it's using the spring as a metaphor for virginity. What's the difference in principle between eisegeting Scripture to kowtow towards prudery and kowtowing towards, say, gay marriage?

[80. Craig M. said the following at 12:58 PM on Apr 27:]

80

a.k.--I don't have any serious disagreements with anything you write in #77. Bad churches are definitely bad for women too. At least the women still go, though.

[81. BDB said the following at 1:48 PM on Apr 27:]

81

Rachael (#74) wrote:

>>--> "dance with joy like we're dancing now" (is that in that song?). When you say "like we're dancing now", is anyone really dancing???? <<

It depends on the church.

At my church, when we sing one of those songs that mentioned "lifting hands in worship," yes, people lift their hands during the song.

We don't have a lot of dancing. There are a few people who came to our church from others where it was more common.

The pastor asks them to do so in the back. He had someone once say that she needed to be in front. He told her that no, it's her own pride telling her she needs to be in front to be seen by everyone. God can see her just fine in the back.

[82. Rachael said the following at 3:03 PM on Apr 27:]

82

77 wrote: "Is this true? I don’t like to sing lies to God, especially lies that seem to puff up my own committment to Him."

Amen, amen, a-men!!!!!!! I usually try not to sing words of songs I don't mean, but it would be nice to relax and just sing music that could be true. At my last church I went to regularly and for a time that I loved, I LOVED the music and it wasn't or almost wasn't like 'that'. I DO NOT want to tell God promises I don't mean or states of my heart that aren't true. I am overly (too much so) careful when talking with people and don't want to say things I don't mean. It would be nice to just relax and sing things that were true.

Lyrics are what is most important to me (in an 'ideal' setting), though a combo of awesome lyrics and good music is simply heavenly. I had a taste of that wonderful music at my old church.

As for worshipful body positions. Currently, I don't raise my hands in worship. Now, if I were currently at a church were everyone or many people did that, I might do that. If I were to do that now, I'd be conscious and feel as if the attention were too much on me. At my old church, during a confession prayer or something people could kneel if they wanted. I have attended a church where everyone or almost everyone kneeled for a part. That's neat. If everyone or almost everyone is doing it, it won't make you stick out. I think at that same church many people may have raised their hands during a certain part. If I went to that church regularly I may one day decide to do the same.

I don't want to put myself into positions where I'd feel socially uncomfortable doing something with my body language and be thinking of my awkwardness instead of thinking of what I'm saying, singing, or praying.

But if many or all people would do things with their bodies it would lesson the awkwardity level.

[83. Dan Real Name said the following at 10:46 PM on Apr 27:]

83

.....and somehow men and women still find each other and get married.....

[84. Jo said the following at 10:29 AM on Apr 28:]

84

Wow, too much to reply to.

Rachael 74 -
Haha, that song is a good example, and we actually do sing that at my church. I'm still not sure I mind, so long as that type of song doesn't dominate our services (which it doesn't). But yes, it's definitely a good example of an emotion-focused rather than theology-focused song.

Craig 75 -
I don't really agree with your second example (I wouldn't say that's particularly romantic language) but the other two are fair. The first one is a song I like, but the phrase 'in love with you' is out of place, I agree.

Honestly, your last paragraph caught me off guard a little - came across as pretty angry. :/ Not quite sure how my comment provoked that.

"And Jo, seriously, you have to be kidding. There is a huge difference between the illustration of the collective church as the bride of Christ and the idea that any individual Christian has a "romantic" relationship with Jesus. You should know better than to fall for such theological sophistry."

Of course there is, that's why I specified 'collectively'. I also never suggested that an individual believer has a romantic relationship with God. Regardless, the analogy is undeniably there. There is something about our collective relationship with Christ that mirrors the human marriage relationship. So why shouldn't we collectively express that in worship? (You can of course argue the use of I/we in such songs.)

"And Song of Songs is about romantic and sexual love between man and wife. Theologians who tried to make it about something else because of their discomfort with that don't have a leg to stand on."

I mentioned Song of Songs because while the primary message is OBVIOUSLY about human romantic love, there are many respected theologians who draw spiritual messages from it as well. I really don't want to make this a debate about Song of Songs, but it is in the Bible after all. Is it the only book that teaches us nothing whatsoever about our relationship with God?

Of course you can take any analogy too far. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the picture.

No one is suggesting that there's anything erotic or sexual in our relationship with God. I agree with you completely that any songs that make that sort of link are at fault. If we're making the link in our own minds though, that's a different problem.

Emotion is part of our relationship with God. Isn't it? I just can't see what is wrong with expressing emotion of all kinds - gratitude, admiration and yes, love - in worship - as long as that isn't ALL we're doing.

[85. Kevin Kelly said the following at 1:31 AM on May 1:]

85

Possibly most of you are completely missing the point; certainly women don't seem to get it.

Precisely WHY should men work hard to achieve anything in life, beyond the bare necessities for their own happiness? They are constantly belittled by government, media, church and women in general.
Let's assume a guy does get married. He will probably soon be divorced against his will, and lose his shirt in the process.

Do you see where I'm going with this line of reasoning? For most men, a simple cost-benefit analysis reveals a simple truth to men:

Marriage and romance are simply not worth it most of the time. With women achieving ever higher accomplishments, ( and almost always marrying up the social/financial ladder) thereby raising the bar even higher for men, so many men have just given up. It's a lot easier and more enjoyable to spend time playing video games or reading a good book rather than constantly wondering whether or not you measure up to modern woman's ever-increasing demands for perfection in school, on the job, in the home and at church.

In simple terms, the vast majority of women have simply priced themselves out of the market, and they just don't get it. Simple economics, ladies. Your price, I'm afraid to say, has simply risen so high that few men are able or willing to pay.

No offense, but I'm afraid it's just that simple.

[86. Keith said the following at 10:09 PM on May 12:]

86

The real issue is men no longer feel valued or respected in this society. What are boys to strive for? Everywhere they hear how bad males are, how great women are, go girl, go girl! Why invest in a society that denigrates everything masculine at every opportunity? Why make sacrifices to provide for a family, when there is a 50% your wife will terminate the marriage and take your children away from you? Why strive for a wife when so many women make it clear through their choices and actions that they have no intention of caring for their future children or for being a helpmate to their husband? Feminism has won even in the church. The only way the trends will reverse is if women have a change of heart in the church and in society as a whole. More and more young men have no intention or interest in seeking a wife or children. Therefore, why stress yourself out with careerism when men can live on much less than women and still be happy? I think the future is very bleak for this society. As men become more and more disconnected from family life, the society will become more unstable, the institutions of law and order will falter, and eventually it will become survival of the strong only.