Girlie Christianity by Ted Slater on 06/11/2010 at 4:04 PM

Some people think that our faith is patriarchal. It may have been so at one time, but now, to be honest, it may have become overly ... "effeminate," for lack of a better word.

In a desire to reflect within the Church the full character of humanity, we've allowed the pendulum to swing a bit too far.

Let me be clear: I appreciate women. Whether in the home or the marketplace or government or church, women have contributed much to their communities.

But it's also become clear that there's an imbalance in many churches, an imbalance that has alienated many men. Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing. Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating. Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine. Bulletins with clipart seemingly picked out by your grandmother.

It's a wonder more men don't disengage from service and leadership.

I should be clear that humanity needs to honor both masculine and feminine attributes. I affirm the feminine. But church culture must become more masculine to regain balance and relevance for men, and to more accurately reflect the community of God.

Of course, that leads to the question: What does a more "masculine" church culture look like? Oh, and I suppose we should consider this question as well: Has the church become "effeminate," or something else?

J. Budziszewski begins a discussion in today's featured article, "Girlie Christianity," that addresses these issues. Whether you've experienced this phenomenon or not, maybe click over for a read to get his take on it.

Girlie Christianity by Ted Slater on 06/11/2010 at 4:04 PM

Some people think that our faith is patriarchal. It may have been so at one time, but now, to be honest, it may have become overly ... "effeminate," for lack of a better word.

In a desire to reflect within the Church the full character of humanity, we've allowed the pendulum to swing a bit too far.

Let me be clear: I appreciate women. Whether in the home or the marketplace or government or church, women have contributed much to their communities.

But it's also become clear that there's an imbalance in many churches, an imbalance that has alienated many men. Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing. Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating. Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine. Bulletins with clipart seemingly picked out by your grandmother.

It's a wonder more men don't disengage from service and leadership.

I should be clear that humanity needs to honor both masculine and feminine attributes. I affirm the feminine. But church culture must become more masculine to regain balance and relevance for men, and to more accurately reflect the community of God.

Of course, that leads to the question: What does a more "masculine" church culture look like? Oh, and I suppose we should consider this question as well: Has the church become "effeminate," or something else?

J. Budziszewski begins a discussion in today's featured article, "Girlie Christianity," that addresses these issues. Whether you've experienced this phenomenon or not, maybe click over for a read to get his take on it.

Comments

[1. Dave said the following at 5:13 PM on Jun 11:]

1

"And the sermon was gooey. Do you know what I mean? Lots of sweet sentiments about luhhhv, just like Nathan said — but nothing uncomfortable, nothing challenging, nothing that forced you to think, nothing that made you want to go out and do hard things."

I'm confused. It seems a little ironic to post an article like that the week one now-deleted post (which admittedly did seem rather harsh ... but could be fixed with a few edits) was replaced by one that seems (in the terminology of this article) "gooey" ... with "[l]ots of sweet sentiments about luhhhv" ... "but nothing uncomfortable, nothing challenging, nothing that forced you to think, nothing that made you want to go out and do hard things"

[2. Marie said the following at 5:33 PM on Jun 11:]

2

That's because your church is lame (if that's your own actual experience you're talking about and not just a gross generalization). Personally, I would not attend a lame church if I could avoid it (and I have).

If you're discontent, open your eyes and look for another church. Or maybe you should just man up and say something (pun somewhat intended) instead of complaining...

[3. Al said the following at 6:13 PM on Jun 11:]

3

I do think some of church culture tends to lean towards the soft and feminine. But I will argue that it needs to be come more masculine. Rather, the church needs to be a place where there is room and place for both masculine and feminine expressions.

[4. Brian in San Dimas said the following at 6:59 PM on Jun 11:]

4

This is something that I am dealing with right now, but not how you might think. My problem is with the men themselves. I am not clear why men don't engage with other men, doing things that men would rather be doing. It seems to me that maybe men just think they don't need the fellowship or the spiritual influence from other men. Or maybe they got it all figured out and don't need anyone to help along their walk. I recently started a mens group, calling out all the men that want to start doing the "hard things" to lead their families and walk this christian walk. Out of the 15 that I first asked to be a part of it, the most that ever showed up were....6. On average we only have 3 or 4 come out. Do we sit around and do womenly things.NO!!!! We go out to shoot some basketball, eat at burger joints, even go to Dave&Busters(food and video games). Sorry Ted, it just seems that maybe the church has gone in that direction because the men don't.....here it comes....."step up and lead". They don't want to grow spiritually, or be held accountable. They would rather just have fun, aquire things(toys,jetskies,dirtbikes,etc..), and then do their part by showing up to a sunday service.

Look I know it's not all men. The majority of the ones on this site, are probably the ones like me. Hence them being on a christian site and spending time communicating ideas and opinions on these issues. But the church as a whole. The men are just absent....GOD will work around the men if necessary. Anyone ever hear of a certain judge by the name of DEBORAH. HE'LL still acomplish HIS task. I would just rather be a part of it.

End with this. Remember the story of Gideons army. GOD told him to make his men smaller, and in the end HE said watch them drink from the spring. THe ones that drink "alert", with weapon in hand and looking around, those are the ones that stay to fight. So my question is which men are "alert" and ready to fight. I am looking for those guys to take up arms with me and fight on behalf of the ALMIGHTY.

[5. Elizabeth said the following at 7:08 PM on Jun 11:]

5

I've heard this argument before, and it kind of makes sense to me. A lot of Christianity is really emotional and avoids challenging and convicting people. Those are things that are stereotypically associated with girls. However, I'm a girl, and I despise mushy, emotional, contentless worship songs. I would much rather discuss doctrine or be challenged to change my behavior than listen to a feel-good message. Am I the exception? Does this make me not feminine? What exactly is the difference between being feminine and being girly?

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 8:50 PM on Jun 11:]

6

Marie (#2) -- I should be clear: My description is not of my church, but of other churches that I've heard about here and there. That said, I agree strongly with you: Men in these churches should either find a better church or contribute to fixing the church they're currently part of.

Elizabeth (#5) -- Yeah, that's why I really hesitated to use terms like "feminine" or "effeminate" or "girlie" to describe what we're seeing in too many churches. While problems can be linked to the absence of men stepping up, other problems (soft sermons, weak song lyrics) are not "feminine," but something else.

[7. Craig M. said the following at 9:18 PM on Jun 11:]

7

I'm looking forward to Ted's apology for this post.

[8. Renee said the following at 9:22 PM on Jun 11:]

8

I'm a woman, and I've been annoyed with churches for these reasons for years. I've drifted and not found one I go to. But I'm definitely still Christian.

[9. Kelsey C said the following at 9:50 PM on Jun 11:]

9

Ted, I don't really even know where to begin...that was one of the most offensive articles relating to church practices that I've read in a while. It seems like you've made several accusations that reflect something you haven't researched very well: "My description is not of my church, but of other churches that I've heard about here and there." Could it be that you've overheard and participated in a few too many conversations in the "locker room"? I think if you were to read the pages of scripture you would find many examples of humans (both men and women) expressing similar and varied emotions before that Lord that reflect His Triune nature and qualities. A few examples of men showing emotion: David dancing before the Lord, Job weeping for his family, John clinging to the side of Jesus, Jesus Himself inviting the children to come to Him. If showing emotion and engaging in an intimate experience with the Lord is strictly a feminine practice than I feel great sorrow for the men of the church who miss out on opportunities to draw near to the Lord with their whole hearts.

[10. amerrychase said the following at 9:51 PM on Jun 11:]

10

Well... this is the reason I -a 20ish young lady- switched to a traditional roman catholic church (as opposed to my old, "spirit of vatican II" one which is fairly like the one described). We sing songs about the church militant, and talk about martyrs willing to die for the church. The sermons talk about hard things, including fine doctrinal points and politics.The pews are packed with single young men and young, growing families. Men are *needed* in the traditional church- they have to show up or the liturgy doesn't work. Really, I just about bust with pride watching the subdeacon usher around the flock of altar boys (16 of them! Every Sunday! & 2 on weekdays!) since I know at least a few of them will become priests. The youngest ones are excited just to be on the altar holding candles. The oldest ones-not yet graduated into seminary- 'run' the rest of the altar and chant the readings to the congregation. All of them full of masculine dignity.
It has been a little hard to change my own mindset, though- just to admit that men (while not "better" than the ladies) do have a natural authority that they should step up and claim.

[11. MizattA said the following at 11:56 PM on Jun 11:]

11

#4 Brian

I think Just because You're men in your church are not showing up to your group does not mean that they don't think they need guy time or that they don't want to lead. More so when out of the list of things you describe as a guy I only seek out Burgers joint time. I play video games with guy friends cause I know I need guy time, but i grown past that stage in my life for the most part and the only sport I care about is Football.

My problem is that too many people like yourself(no offense) stereotype men in what men are by what men have stereotypically done in the past or some groups of men like, rather than what the bible says men are. There's nothing about Men Needing to be hunters, fishers, sports players, or outdoorsy in the bible for the definition of men.

I like Photography, Writing, Reading, Walking, Hiking, Working out.

I hate Hunting, Fishing, Working on Cars, Building Stuff, working with my hands or with power tools or tools of any sort. Manual labor in general.

I will play Basketball, Ultimate Frisbee and football, but in the end I could care less if I ever played sports in my life even if I love football. None of these which are stereotypically "men" things make men men in reality and me not liking them doesn't make me any less of a man. I would much prefer to sit in front of the tv and watch a show or movie and chat with a guy friend then I would most of the stereotypically "Men" things, but being honest with ourselves as men until you older and married for a while most men suck at communication and talking to one another. Men who have been married 10 to 30 years are usually at the level females college age are at when it comes to verbal skills and being at a place where they will open up even a little to other men, which makes it hard to bond and want to hang out with solely guys no matter how much its needed. So much of what guys talk about is boring and useless surface stuff like Video Games, Most Sports, Home repairs(for married men) and Work(If I am not at work I dont want to be talking about my work)rather than issues that matter like whats really going on with the person.

My suggestion to you is there are actually two possible reasons that the Men are not showing up 1. They want to spend time with their wives. Yes Guys need guy time, but they need time with their wives much much more. Its possible they are getting guy time through other friends at other times as well. 2. Maybe your doing stuff that just doesn't plain interest most of the men in your church. Maybe try finding More rounded and broad activities more men would enjoy.

[12. Peter said the following at 1:07 AM on Jun 12:]

12

I made it into a Boundless post at last!! [grin]

Well maybe not. I'm as little older and grumpier than the "Peter" in this article, but I have experienced every issue of which "Peter" complains. Before someone asks, "Why don't you speak up or move?", I have done both.

In my experience, the atmosphere of which "Peter" complains is actually hostile to men. Why should men wish to "connect" to a group that regards them as broken for simply being the way that God has made us?

Peter

[13. dawnellen said the following at 1:53 AM on Jun 12:]

13

I agree, the issue of balance is something to work on.. but perhaps it's not femininity or girly-ness but more so a spirit of passivity in some churches? Or even in some cases fear when it come to preaching watered down messages and then singing songs afterward that are supposed to go with a more moving message.

As for emotional songs, I think they do have their place. Emotions and feelings are so often looked down at as negative even to the point of being completely inferior to logic, but the right mixture is important. Hopefully some of the churches will realize what's occuring and come back to being bold for Christ through representing both his love and tenderness along with his power and might.

[14. Bek said the following at 3:47 AM on Jun 12:]

14

Just my comment - I often find worship songs are written in keys too low for me to sing. I simply choose to harmonise but I'm a singer and have that option. It is one of the worship leader's responsibilities to ensure that a mix of songs are used so that men and women can engage.

[15. Larissa said the following at 5:53 AM on Jun 12:]

15

Elizabeth (#5), you said:
However, I'm a girl, and I despise mushy, emotional, contentless worship songs. I would much rather discuss doctrine or be challenged to change my behavior than listen to a feel-good message. Am I the exception? Does this make me not feminine? What exactly is the difference between being feminine and being girly?
You're not the exception, I completely agree!! (Unless we're both exceptions...)
I don't think it lessens your femininity. To me, the difference is that femininity has a strength to it, whereas girlie is the weak, shallow expression of femininity. (Hmm, not sure that actually made sense!)

[16. Matthew Jones said the following at 6:02 AM on Jun 12:]

16

That article may explain the rise of atheism: most atheists are male. I attended an event with an atheist friend once, and for a minute, I thought the group only allowed men until my friend pointed out that most atheists were males.

I guess atheism is the new masculine frontier.

[17. James said the following at 10:28 AM on Jun 12:]

17

Not sure I understand... it sounds like you're talking about style, which isn't terribly important. Or do you consider this more a substance issue? I have to admit I don't necessarily examine the worship songs very closely, I'm sure a fair number aren't theologically accurate. But whether you like a certain style or not is largely irrelevant imo.

As far as preaching goes, you could disagree with a presentation or emphasis...but that probably comes in a distant second next to whether the Word is indeed being (accurately) preached.

[18. Lou said the following at 11:19 AM on Jun 12:]

18

As a girl who attends a church where most of the hymns are at least 50 if not more than 100 years old...I find it hard to sing the majority of them because they're set too high. But that isn't because they're effeminate; it's because they're written with four-part harmony in mind and sopranos generally get the melody. It's not that they're effeminate because they're set too high for me, but that I'm not very good at following the alto line.

[19. Brad said the following at 11:55 AM on Jun 12:]

19

Christianity girlie? Perhaps Luke-warm Christianity may indeed be girlie... if your walk with Christ is nothing more than Sunday Schools arts & crafts with kids, sitting around singing camp fire songs, or polishing up your fancy shoes to look your best for church.

But this shallow appearance-only type of faith is not what God wants of us. Scripture tells us that the luke-warm will be "spit out".

Those who truly walk with God, engaging the enemy in a life-or-death spiritual battle on a daily basis are anything but girlie. God is my strength and my armor in a war where evil is consuming every aspect of our society. As we resist the sexual images of our media, the foul-mouths of classmates/coworkers, and life-sucking greed of our financially driven world, we should be clinging to the Warrior Jesus and walking with Him. I'm talking about the Jesus who flipped out in the temple, throwing tables around and putting the hypocrites in their place. Jesus was the ultimate manly man, in my opinion. He didn't go around picking fights or needlessly roaring at people like Rambo, but He stood up for what He believed and PASSIONATELY submitted to the orders of His Father and King.

When Christians live the way God has called us to live, it's anything but girlie.

[20. Brian in San Dimas said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 12:]

20

Mizatta

Let me clear things up for you. The men that I asked to be a part of the group, all had previous conversations with me, all were in,liked the idea and were gung ho. We agreed to read through a book that challenges us and to meet and discuss. I completely leave the venue open for their ideas.(I personally don't do most of the stuff you talked about either, I don't follow any sports) They just don't engage. By the way none of them are married most are actually right out of or still in college. When it comes down to it....They just don't want it. Want what???? All that GOD has for them. Nothing that I can do for them. everyhting that HE can do for them. WHen the vision was cast, they saw it. But when it came time to step up and aply themselves, they walked away. Like I said, you and most men on this site are not the issue. It's the ones that go to church to appease their wives or their conscience and get their feel good fix(I am good person I go to church). GOD is looking for soilders, there is a battle brewing, like it or not. Whose side will you be on. As Joshua said, " As for me and my house, we'll serve the LORD." Serve requires a little more than attending a sunday service.

[21. MizattA said the following at 12:07 PM on Jun 12:]

21

I also find it beyond ridiculous to connect emotions or being emotional and girlishness or the such. Guys who say they dont have emotions lie through their teeth. Its just a matter of expressing them and how we choose to.

[22. Spunky said the following at 12:08 PM on Jun 12:]

22

#16

You are right about that. I have noticed a large number of male atheist.(I know because I dated an atheist once.

Maybe most guys nows are just too skeptic of religious belief when we live in a world full of hardship.They don't want to be live life by a set of rules....

I have also seen a large number of women take much more active roles in churches than men. I hardly don't see too many men unleast they are 30+ and married.

Come back to the church! We Christian women need Christian men to marry! :D

[23. Craig M. said the following at 12:32 PM on Jun 12:]

23

James--I think style matters a lot. As C.S. Lewis observes in the Screwtape Letters, "everything [our bodies] do affects [our][ souls." Ever noticed that there are songs that--purely by their music, not their lyrics--inspire you to want to do good, and songs that--again with the music alone--inspire you to want to be bad? Think of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" by U2. The music is so hopeful that the listener is immediately inspired to seek nobility and truth; it's literally a sort of resolute, determined, hopeful feeling in your chest. Now think of "Personal Jesus" by Depeche Mode. There's really nothing wrong with the lyrics of this song themselves--in fact, Johnny Cash covered the song using the exact same lyrics, and by the WAY he covered it, made it into a penitential, humble and very Christian song. But the original by Depeche Mode, due to the sneering and sexual WAY it's sung, in combination with the driving, dark beat and music, makes lyrics like "someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares....I will deliver, you know I'm a forgiver" the very furthest thing from devotional. Depeche Mode is clearly using Christ as an analogy for an obsessive, unhealthy sexual relationship; Cash uses the same lyrics but means them.

I think the TYPES of emotions created by a song matter a lot. I get emotional singing "It Is Well With my Soul," but it's the emotion of thoughtful resolution and gratefulness. That's a very different thing than what happens to your heart and brain when you sing "Your Name is Jesus" 50 times in a row (doesn't He already know His name?), or any of the songs described if you just scroll down a bit here:

http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_3814456/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

[24. MrsLarijani said the following at 12:55 PM on Jun 12:]

24

MizattA #21 said

I also find it beyond ridiculous to connect emotions or being emotional and girlishness or the such. Guys who say they dont have emotions lie through their teeth. Its just a matter of expressing them and how we choose to.

Ted fleshed out some examples of what he meant:

Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing. Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating. Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine. Bulletins with clipart seemingly picked out by your grandmother.

He used " " around worship for a reason. The songs often aren't very worshipful at all.

Amir & I once went to a service where they closed with this. So, there's that or worship songs like this.

(sidenote: Amir loves the 2nd verse that is sung . . . he ad libbed during our wedding service and I about keeled over in laughter.)

You can be emotional and be manly, but it's a matter of what emotions the (collective) Church is encouraging. Are they encouraging righteous anger? bold submission? an environment where iron sharpens iron?

The first church I was a part of still, to this day, has clip art that grandma would pick out on their bulletins. There haven't been many strong male leaders have emerged from that church.

(I found it a bit funny that Ted said that. I had never made that connection before.)

One can be emotional in masculine ways. A good example of this was about a month ago at the gun range. . .

My gun was getting jammed. It wasn't a cheap gun. I began to take it personally that the gun jammed.

My loving and wise husband said "Don't get emotional around firearms! Calm down!"

If one of his guns jams, it's a matter of mechanics. For me, the gun has a mission to bring me frustration and angst. Can he experience just as much frustration? Sure. It's just expressed in an entirely different way.

And, you know what? That's OK.

And it needs to be OK. So many would demand that a man's emotions be expressed in the exact same way as a woman expresses hers. That should never be the case.

Men are men. It's totally OK (and strongly preferred) that men continue to be men.

I, for one, am glad that I did not marry a woman. ;)

[25. Marian said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 12:]

25

A great article about men and Christianity (and, therefore, the Church), including the balancing issue, can be read here.

God bless.

[26. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:21 PM on Jun 12:]

26

Craig M. (7): I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment :)

Back on topic: I suspect a lot of the trouble comes from men abdicating their position in God's organisation. amerrychase puts it well, I feel, in identifying both the “natural authority that they should step up and claim” and also the difficulty in changing mindsets amongst women.

After all, it seems clear that asking men to lead their families would require others to follow: “leading” without anyone following is decidedly empty. I would guess that many, if not most, women would resist any attempt at a husband leading the family if the husbands haven't been doing so all along. The wives will have become used to being in charge, or least not being led, and most humans resist change to begin with; why should we demand that women stop being human in that respect?

The other aspect I've noticed over the years is that the resistance of wives is not necessarily a bad thing: if the husband can't stand firm in the face of resistance from her, then what chance does he have against the forces of evil at work around us? She has committed to loving him as long as they both shall live, and the forces of evil have committed the opposite! Men grow in that way, from my observation, and become stronger and better spiritual warriors.

[27. Peter said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 12:]

27

Brian. (#20)

I no longer accept the excuse that men in their 30's are rejecting the church and "what God can do for them" in favour of family and work.

The truth is that large parts of the church have been making promises that God is not prepared to fulfill and that an objective reading of scripture does not justify..

You know the type... ,"God brought Eve to Adam and the steward brought Rebekah to Isaac, so God WILL choose the perfect wife for you and bring her...."

Men tend to be more motivated by what works, than by what feels good. They are less interested in what God can do and more in what God will do. The 30's are merely the period in which a couple of decades of the Church's failure to deliver become to great to ignore for a man struggling with the needs of wife, family, mortgage and work.

That's not necessarily your fault, but you need to be aware of this dynamic and not oversell what a men's group can achieve. Our bull-dust detectors are too well tuned by this stage.

Recognising that the men who didn't turn up to your group are not rejecting God, but are victims of poor theology will enable you to minister to them far more effectively. I wish you all the best. It grieves me deeply to see how many *have* left the church due to lack of appropriate ministry.

Peter

[28. Peter said the following at 5:14 PM on Jun 12:]

28

MizattA (#21)

You contribute nothing to this debate by setting up a straw-man. No-one here has claimed that men do not have emotions.

However, if we love men then we need to recognise that God has made the average man different from the average woman. Most of that difference is of degree, not of type. We will not honour men or minister to them successfully if we do not understand and accept these God-given differences.

You demonstrate the problem when you say that "Men suck at communication" as though men are broken or retarded. Reality is that men communicate and form relationships differently. It's shoddy and disrespectful workmanship to apply women's solutions to men's problems and them blame the men because it isn't working.

Peter

[29. David said the following at 6:46 PM on Jun 12:]

29

A few things-

First, this so called "imbalance" in the Protestant (I use the term generically to define from Catholic) church has long existed; in this country there have generally been more women then men in the church.

Second, the complaint of "girly Christianity" sounds rather familiar. During the 1920's, the fundamentalists criticized Victorian era Christianity for being "feminized" and promoted a more "masculine" Christianity. So, these complaints are really nothing new...

I think its unarguable that modern evangelicals put a premium on emotions at an expense of the mind (see Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). That is the main reason I left evangelicalism; they simply didn't practice their faith in the way I did. Emotions are very important in the Christian faith, but so is the mind; we are commanded to love God with all our heart, soul and mind. Various Christian traditions have done better with emotions or mind, but we need both.

[30. Deb said the following at 7:48 PM on Jun 12:]

30

I'm with Elizabeth and Larissa. As I read the article, I kept thinking the examples used would make me a little queasy myself.

I consider myself fortunate to attend a church that seems to have a balance. We can even talk about sin, but not in a way that condemns people so harshly that they leave. Perhaps some of the 'girlie-ness' some are seeing is a backlash to the patriarchal, but also to the legalistic places that some of us have come from.

Then again, as I mentioned, I haven't seen anything go as far as what was described in the article. As a strong (yet feminine) woman, if I did, I'd be seeking another church.

All the best!
deb

[31. MizattA said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 12:]

31

Peter #28

Problem is that when we apply what a lot of men sadly consider womanly communication to men it does work more so then the way men in general communicate.(God designed women to be relational and thus more communicative therefore it makes logical sense they know how to do it better and more effective than at least some Men) When You talk to married man of 10-30 years they are a lot more open and have a lot more meaningful and deep conversations than that of 20 something men. They are 10 times easier to bond to than single 20 something men who just haven't grown in that area yet.

College age women are usually already very good at being open and allowing people to get close and thus easier to bond with then men. Yeah Men and women bond differently. Women just make it easier to get close friendships with them then Men choose to which doesn't make much sense to me. why do we need to choose to bond in a way that makes the process more difficult.

Yes you're right Men do bond differently then females, but in general younger men make it harder and longer than need be. I am not saying we are defective, I am saying we as a general rule make it harder on ourselves than we should and need to by placing stereotypes on the way we should and should not communicate based on what Hollywood has said about men not really being able to feel rather than whats biblical or healthy.

[32. Ted Slater said the following at 9:10 PM on Jun 12:]

32

I have to admit that I don't feel comfortable describing a problem with the church as "girlie" or "effeminate." Women are fine, and their distinctives are fine, and femininity is fine. So to describe a problem as innately linked to women just strikes me as wrong.

That's why I hesitated to use the words "effeminate." And I simply used the title provided by J. Budziszewski.

Maybe it's not "girlie," but simply lacks sufficient "masculinity." What does that mean? Hm. Discuss ...

Oh, here's something to ponder: Do women do better in a "masculine" church than men do in a "feminine" church?

[33. David said the following at 9:48 PM on Jun 12:]

33

@Ted #32

It depends; I think both have some serious issues. Men in a feminine church can be become weak and not lead. Women in a masculine church can be subject to abuse. I think both represent extremes off the Biblical center ground.

[34. Peter said the following at 12:48 AM on Jun 13:]

34

MizattA (#31)

I don't think you're understanding the point. The point is not that men don't communicate, but that we communicate - and learn to do so - differently.

One major difference is that we tend to do so when working side by side, rather than sitting face to face. The depth of relationship between soldiers who have fought together and taken risks (and injuries) for each other is legendary. Reference the relationship between David and Jonathon. My own best friendships have been forged working and playing hard with other men, not over a Latte. The deepest and most open communication comes AFTER this level of relationship has been established. The instance which you cite - that of a good marriage, provides just this level of time-spent-working-together that induces masculine communication.

Forcing communication using an inappropriate tool - like sitting men down in a group and insisting that they WILL talk (an invasion of privacy when trust has not yet been established) - may produce some results, but also produces negative results. " If you don't respect me enough to earn my trust, that hinders any relationship we might have...

Women are not experts on communication. No more than being a talented runner makes you an expert on biomechanics.....

OH.... and Hollywood is famous for giving mixed messages. How often do you see a Hollywood production in which men are shown putting their emotions to one side and making decisions in a calm and competent manner? It doesn't make for drama, but emotions should remain a servant, not a master.

Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city.." Prov 16:32

[35. twilley said the following at 12:54 AM on Jun 13:]

35

Mrs. Larijani, #24:

"I, for one, am glad that I did not marry a woman. ;)"

To each his own ;o) :oD

[36. theoneandonly said the following at 4:44 AM on Jun 13:]

36

Ted, if you're uncomfortable using terms like feminine, girlie etc to describe a situation like this, then why did you? Wouldn't it have been better to spend a bit more time selecting your vocabulary to accurately reflect the message rather than plough ahead? Do we have to discuss this issue in terms of gender? I think it only serves to further alienates women who already feel disengaged from their church for all the reasons you've mentioned above. And probably alienates men who do engage with the kind of church you've described. Not only that but it supports the stereotype that women want their Jesus romantic and fuzzy round the edges. It isn't just men that want their experience of Christ to be authentic, engaging and challenging, so can we stop discussing it as if it is? I appreciate that you've already acknowledged this to some extent but do think that if that's the case then it needs to influence your writing, not be added as a postscript.

I don't think this is a masculine/feminine issue - I think it's the result of a culture that places to much emphasis on the 'seen experience' of God. Much of church culture implies that I'm not fully engaging unless I raise my hands during sung worship, or I'm not touched by the spirit unless I cry. However subconciously, criteria for 'meeting with God' are set and those expressions are recognised and validated, whilst others (sitting quietly and thinking about the theological accuracy of a song for example) are not.

Ted, have just re-read my post and hope it doesn't come across as harsh - that's not my intention at all. I'm genuinely interested as to why we make this a gender issue when I don't think it's one of gender at all. Maybe I should take my own advice and let that influence my writing rather than just adding it as a postscript ;)

[37. Latoya K said the following at 6:15 AM on Jun 13:]

37

How do I say this as nicely as possible?

I have a son. Part of his training to become a man is to actively solve problems and correct mistakes as opposed to groaning and thus being a "whiny hiney."

Let's examine the claim of the church being effeminate...

"But it's also become clear that there's an imbalance in many churches, an imbalance that has alienated many men. Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing."

That's easy to solve. Choose another song. I like to keep things upbeat. Who wants to be depressed during the praise and worship part? While you're at it, transpose the key or drop it down an octave or two for a male soloist.

"Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating."

Most of church members in my community are women. There are many women pastors today. Do we direct the sermons towards 2 year olds? They are not the ones paying attention to the sermon, so no. They are not the audience. Maybe the pastor is "sensitive" because of his life experiences and spiritual journey. Sensitive doesn't mean unmanly.

"Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine."

These historically inaccurate images have been around for at least 1500 years. The artists from Europe have been the worst offenders. These drawings and paintings of a Flemish Jesus with soft wheat blond flowing curls and milk bath treated skin are ingrained in believers minds world wide. The problematic feminine images and icons are not a new problem.

"Bulletins with clip art seemingly picked out by your grandmother." Grandma is retired and has finished raising her children. Therefore, grandma graciously volunteers her time to do the bulletin each week, among other tasks that working men and mothers with children cannot do. You should thank Mother Jackson, Sister Hopkins and Nanna O'Dell for the loving, caring gifts they share. The could be otherwise spending their time watching the price is right.

The preacher at my church cautioned us not to criticize, unless we are volunteering to make things better AND can truly improve on what is given already.

Otherwise, the MANLY thing to do is to put up or shut up.

[38. MizattA said the following at 10:13 AM on Jun 13:]

38

#34 Peter

No I Understand the Point your trying to make, I just disagree with that being healthy or that it holds true to men all or most the time.

Also think your missing my point that in general men make it harder on themselves if they refuse to open up to one another and form friendships til long after tons of surface stuff. That yes men do communicate but usually its based off of non important stuff like Work, Sports, Video Games, Home Repair etc. There's only so much talking about matters that aren't important I as a man can handle before I also like to get to serious important matters with people.

I for one don't function the same way you do when it comes to bonding with other guys. I much rather Talk then go do sports or go camping or build something with other guys or something like that. Its not that I completely dislike doing that stuff, but with the men that I formed closer bonds to over the last few years, we didn't start camping, hiking, stocking wood, working on garages and houses and stuff til well after the Bond had already been made through communication.

My Point was that men have just as much emotions as females so saying that emotional worship songs are bad isnt true all the time and that in general men can make it harder on themselves and we are to blame for some of the problems by not recognizing our weaknesses and being willing to change or at least address them, not women or the church.

[39. Abi said the following at 10:21 AM on Jun 13:]

39

I am a woman and my ministry in my church is to arrange songs for worship. It was difficult to get a balance and aim to mainly use song from Bible passages and songs the exalt and glorify God. When we think about how great He is we show a dept of awe and humility that's needed in both men and women

Also my character is more like my father's and I find it difficult to talk or communicated the way most women do.
Peter ~34 comment made sense when he said that men bond working side by side. This is very true for me
I'm just different :]

[40. Nancy said the following at 10:50 AM on Jun 13:]

40

The heart of the issue is not about feminine or masculine, it seems to me. It's about presenting a wishy-washy, wimpy, watered-down version of Christ, and of what we are called to do for Him.

I think the discussion would be more clear without the related assumptions about gender. Many churches seem to be afraid to teach (or worship) about the less warm and fuzzy aspects of God's character.

I think the strength of character and leadership of a head pastor shows, and men are willing to follow (and step into leadership) behind a good leader. Our head pastor is an outdoorsman, but that isn't as important as the fact that he teaches the Bible faithfully, without leaving out the less "palatable" parts.

[41. Mike said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 13:]

41

Whenever this topic comes up, it's one of two flavors:

1) The church is too "girly" and so men won't participate.

2) Men aren't "standing up" and taking leadership as they should; they're hopeless slackers and ought to get their acts together.

Did anyone ever consider tailoring a men's group that actually affirms men? Listens to them? Meets their fundamental needs for respect and competence rather than tearing them down? Serves as a group of brothers in arms that cheers men on in the struggles of life - and the spiritual battles against the enemy and the world - instead of doing stupid stuff like playing basketball or going whitewater rafting?

Guess not.

[/snark mode off]

[42. Mike said the following at 11:08 AM on Jun 13:]

42

Latoya K (#37) -

That has to be one of the snarkiest posts I've read on Boundless. It's patently obvious why your community is mostly female, given your long string of excuses why you should not give any consideration to the needs or preferences of your male parishioners.

If you keep up that attitude, your church will be 100% female in short order. Which is fine ... but then don't gripe that there aren't any men "stepping up". Because you've driven them all away with your disregard for their point of view.

Have a nice day.

[43. MizattA said the following at 11:12 AM on Jun 13:]

43

# 37 Latoya said

"Sensitive doesn't mean unmanly."

This is a major major point I try to make. Being Sensitive and being Empathic does not make you a woman or girlie. It makes you a better person. We in our society enforce bad stereotypes all the time like the one about men not being sensitive or empathic and that its a woman's thing.

[44. Tami said the following at 2:29 PM on Jun 13:]

44

Craig M -- interesting, and right-on, analysis of "Personal Jesus" and the way DM v. Johnny Cash perform the song.

Martin Gore (primary songwriter in Depeche Mode) is hugely spiritually conflicted (was apparently quite religious for much of his youth, then went off the rails spiritually, so to speak). A lot of his music yearns for God and transcendence, but is distrustful of Him at the same time.

Apropos of this topic, he is also effeminate in his appearance (though not gay).

Johnny Cash -- about as masculine as you can get.

Interesting.

As you point out regarding "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," when I listen to that song, I also experience the same emotions you describe -- seeking, but determined. [Plus I don't get the sense that Bono is afraid of making strong statements, generally.]

But somehow, in the church, we've come to the conclusion that seekers will find Jesus only by being in an "inoffensive" setting. Perhaps that's why we call it "seeker sensitive" rather than "seeker oriented" or even "seeker welcoming".

NB I am generally not excited about hearing modern pop songs in a church or worship setting. Sometimes they put my head in the wrong place (one worship band replaced the "doo doo doos" from the Third Eye Blind song with "hal-le-lu, hal-le-lu-jah"... thankfully they didn't sing the TRUE lyrics of the song, which are all about getting dissipated w/drugs and sex); other times they sound exactly like the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs we *already* have too many of (another church did the Lemonheads' "Into Your Arms" as a worship song). If the point was to be "relevant," it was completely lost on me; and even from the perspective of a person who doesn't know the Lord, I don't know what the net gain of singing a pop/modern rock song in a worship setting is. If you aren't a believer, but you were going to a worship service, wouldn't you *expect* to hear true worship songs, rather than stuff you heard on the radio on the drive in?

[45. Peter said the following at 5:09 PM on Jun 13:]

45

MizattA.

(#38) You have admitted that you're not an average man - and there's no shame in that - but you're in error in claiming that your personal experience has a lot to say about a group that you do not represent.

This is probably why you don't "get" the difference between the average male and the average female WRT emotions. Regardless of whether we agree on the degree to which we experience emotion, there is a well-researched difference between men and women in our reaction to emotional stimuli and the way that we deal with the results.. The theory that most of the emotional and psychological difference between men and women is a result of culture and upbringing - which was very popular decades ago - has been discarded by mainstream psychology. There is simply too much evidence that God has hard-wired us differently from birth.

Applying this to worship songs allows us to understand that emotion that generates a positive emotional respoonse in women does not always do so in men..... particularly when the language involved is appropriate to the bedroom, and you're asking men to repeat it towards another man. (Jesus) Jesus in NOT my boyfriend.

---------------
Latoya K (#37) MizattA (#43)

You ignore the need of context when it comes to sensitivity. What men complain about is sensitivity at the expense of truth. Sensitivity at the expense of righteousness. The kind of sensitivity that allows people to comfortably go to eternal damnation... or live lives that are far from what God would have for them.

It's one of the basic functions of leadership to be able to make hard decisions and offer hard judgements when that is the best thing in the long term.... and I agree with Boundless in that leadership is a biblically established function of manhood. THAT is why it's not wrong for men to have a different take on sensitivity, and why churches that over-emphasise sensitivity are wildly unbalanced and do not meet the needs of men who are attempting to lead.

You should be cautious in discussing sensitivity, when you show so little sensitivity towards the real needs of the average man, yourself.

[46. Peter said the following at 5:34 PM on Jun 13:]

46

This quote by Dorothy L. Sayers bears repeating.
We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him 'meek and mild,' and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies."

It was not "sensitivity" that caused Christ to respond to Peter with "Get thee behind me, Satan." Nor did it cause Him to cleanse the temple, or announce " “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

That's before we start on the Apostles.

Peter, accusing all the Jews of Jerusalem with the crucifixion of Christ..

Paul, famous for his letters of fierce rebuke as much as for his encouragement.

James, telling us to suck it all up, when we encounter pain and suffering.

Sensitivity isn't a problem in itself. But it's a faux sensitivity that does not recognise our need for balance, for rebuke, for exhortation as well as our need for comfort.

Peter

[47. Peter said the following at 6:11 PM on Jun 13:]

47

Brad (#19) and CraigM.(#23) In combination raise a point worth making.

What we achieve - whether in the spiritual or the physical - tends to come out of our character

As C.S.Lewis most insensitively put it. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

The truth is this, we will not find men who are genuinely courageous and persevereing in spiritual warfare if they are not ALSO persistent and courageous in their everyday life.

Actions come out of character, and character is built by repeating actions. Churches - and I have been in one - whose major emphasis is on feeling good and being blesed - do not build such character. Men must be taught to DO, in their everyday lives, not just to feel.

Most men rightly reject churches which do not meet their genuine needs. Men need challenges and practical results, because they live in a world in which results matter. Poor work means that their family suffers, so sensitive affirmation of their poor performance is of less value to them than enabling to work better.

Pardon the mulitiplicity of posts, but this is a hot issue for me. I've seen far too many of the friends that I had in my 20's, walk away from Christ because the church got it wrong.

Peter

[48. MizattA said the following at 7:08 PM on Jun 13:]

48

I never had a problem with any worship songs for the most worship songs. at the Church I went to at school they sang songs like Grace Like Rain or Amazing Grace, Your Name, Indescribable, etc.

if anything at my Home church I have problems with the lyrics and music because they are old school hymnish which tend to be hard to sing due to IMHO poor structure and weird tones. I will enter his gates is about the only one that seems to even remotely be accessible to me.

[49. Mike from Canmore said the following at 9:15 PM on Jun 13:]

49

#37 - Latoya K -- Spot on.

Too much complaining going on.
I would rather have a song is hard to sing than have one where the lyrics consist of "yeah, yeah, yeah" for three minutes or stating the same simple line of 7 words 11 times.
And, if my grandma designed a church bulletin, I would think that would be pretty neat.

[50. Guarnerium said the following at 12:10 AM on Jun 14:]

50

Since the relationship between masculinity and “emotion” seems to be an underlying theme of this discussion, here is my two-cents’ worth. I think we all agree that guys are allowed to feel something, provided that “something” is somehow at least tenuously related to driving drumbeats, knocking out the competition, or consuming flesh. Guys are allowed to enjoy—really enjoy—[the feeling of] playing basketball, or eating with “the fellas” at a burger joint, or what have you. But it is unclear how far beyond this point emotions are still within the bound of “the masculine,” and consequently males cultivate (and are encouraged to cultivate) a way of acting, thinking, and being that can at times amount to little more than a caricature of true masculinity. Ironically, we also complain that guys aren’t maturing into men—they’re spending all their time playing bloody video games, fraternizing at the burger joint, generally acting like macho teenagers, etc.—not realizing that this forced caricature itself militates against maturation.

“There is no fear in love.” A gender-image driven by fear—fear of falling outside “the masculine”—stands in marked contrast to one driven by love—a love of God, a love of His ways and His creation, and a love of the place which God has given the man in this world—which, when processed by the masculine “lens,” cannot fail to implant in a man’s heart a constant consciousness and understanding of what it means to be a man in God’s creation (an understanding which, by the way, registers itself preeminently with the “emotions”—what other language to we have to describe it? Our senses give us data, our intellect processes it, and then we feel it. Then, of course, our wills act on it, but I am concerned with the feeling of it at the moment, since that is where masculine perception takes on its distinctly masculine hue, it seems [though of course the male and female minds do sort data differently]). The masculinity driven by love necessarily burns with a genuine fire of true understanding and hence assurance of its own masculinity, while the one driven by fear is a mere counterfeit that has no anchor whatsoever and is literally enslaved to whatever the “powers that be” decree that manhood is.

So what is masculinity? If we confine it to touchdowns and T-bones, we’re missing the boat: affinity for those is a legitimate expression of the masculine heart; but it is still an expression, not the heart of what is being expressed. Men—we sense this intuitively; it burns in us in our better moments—we are stewards; we are guardians; we are propelled by quest: to ride far and wide, to search out mysteries and discover wonders, to protect, to conquer adversity, to raise monuments, and to love with a love as strong as death. By contrast, I see nothing patently masculine in someone who may have an “ideal” masculine physique or demeanor (which probably means different things to different people) and uses it to obtain women as trophies before defrauding them and moving on; though he himself might think his conquests are quite masculine, don’t they exhibit a complete lack of the courage, commitment, and everything else that a masculine fire in the heart would engender?

So if this masculine “fire” is something perceived through the emotions, we might then ask, what emotions are appropriate for a man? Is it appropriate to glory in the noble and the epic? Is it appropriate to feel sorrow or regret or nostalgia? Is it appropriate to be captivated by beauty? (most women certainly hope the latter is true.) Again, we lapse into error if we fail to discern, firstly, that emotional excess (in the sense not of feeling too deeply but of being hindered or crippled by emotion) is a problem when it surfaces in women as much as when it surfaces in men, so it’s not as though it is only a “problem” in men; and secondly, that the perception of such things as nobility, sorrow, and beauty differs between men and women. Art or other media that convey them become mirrors in which each gender perceives itself and reads its own story the more clearly; great art allows us to read in it our “true story,” the story of what we were made for and where we find ourselves as men and women amidst a broken world that yet resonates with strains of hope and redemption. I think the question should often be less “is it masculine or feminine?” than “is it legitimate/credible or not?” My sense is that oftentimes men see kitschy, sentimental rubbish and don’t know what to make of it beyond knowing that it certainly isn’t masculine, so it’s dubbed “girlie” or “feminine” (though I suspect no woman would find such things stirring in her a sense of awakened femininity). That said, it is clear that some things can generally apply to or be tolerated by one gender more than the other: using boyfriend-language for Jesus is a prime example, though I would say that the issue there is really illegitimacy of expression, which happens to have feminine overtones. The same goes for “sensitive” sermons: if the gospel is being watered down (though why anyone would want to water down such a glorious and powerful message is beyond me), then THAT’s the real problem, not so-called “femininity” of tone.

One final bone to pick: I have come to hate the term “sensitive” because of its abuses. But properly used, it implies keenness of perception, not lack of backbone. Eyes which discern the minutest details could be said to be most sensitive; they could also be said to be the strongest. The idea that “sensitivity” is a womanly attribute encourages men to be entirely superficial, never probing anything lest they be moved (heaven forbid). In Jesus we have an illustration of true masculine sensitivity: here was a man who was moved to intense weeping for the lost and could look on his betrayers with love, yet had the strength to follow his Father’s will all the way to the cross, in the meanwhile telling people saving truths they didn’t want to hear.

[51. Kristen said the following at 3:08 AM on Jun 14:]

51

The real issue here is that its not a good idea to use such fluid terms as "masculine" and "feminine" to define the church. what I heard when I read this was that a spiritually weak and watered-down church was feminine and a spiritually vibrant church was masculine. I know thats not what were saying here, so why the confusing gender terms? why can't we just have a discussion about why young men are not active in certain churches?

[52. Jennifer said the following at 6:03 AM on Jun 14:]

52

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best singer (I think I'm tone deaf), but when the key that the song is sung in is so high that I (a woman) can't even hope to keep up... When I have to transpose a song down a whole octave to sing it...it's frustrating.

[53. Benjamin said the following at 6:35 AM on Jun 14:]

53

if anything at my Home church I have problems with the lyrics and music because they are old school hymnish which tend to be hard to sing due to IMHO poor structure and weird tones

I don't know if this is true, but could I theorize and ask if perhaps these hymns are being led with a guitar? This is a problem I see more and more at churches I visit -- almost all hymns were written for piano and voice and are too chordally and rhythmically nuanced to translate very well to guitar, yet many music leaders insist on trying to lead them with a guitar, perhaps with an insipid repetitive extra chorus thrown in to appeal to the youth (not to get too bitter).

That is the only explanation I could think of; if not, I think it is unlikely that you will find many who will agree that the musical structure of most hymns is inferior to the identical 3-chord structure of most more modern worship songs.

[54. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 6:52 AM on Jun 14:]

54

Western Christianity most definitely favors a non-masculine orientation.

Have any of you ever seen those saccharine depictions of Jesus in the devotion of the Sacred Heart? It is scandalous.

The Sacred Heart reflects Jesus as women want him to be: sensitive, affectionate and always willing to talk about his feelings.

Men in Christian churches are encouraged to be sensitive, diplomatic and modest. Albeit good traits to possess, these goods are usually exercised to avoid or minimize conflict and maximize comfort. But, the irony is that Jesus was often none of these things!

[55. Peter said the following at 7:25 AM on Jun 14:]

55

Mike from Canmore (#49)

It's easy to say that there is too much complaining when you haven't experienced the problem.

Let me know if you've ever been in a congregation and observed more than half the men (by count) not participating in the worship, (I wasn't either, and I love to sing) mentioned it to one of the Elders as a question of song choice and suitability of vocal range,,,, and seen as the result , a tongue-lashing of the assembled men at the next men's group meeting.

No attempt to discuss men's needs.
No attempt to discern what would make it easier for men to join in the worship.

Why shouldn't I think that there's a problem?

Peter

[56. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:46 AM on Jun 14:]

56

Mike (41): Your second category shows the pitfall: men can't “take leadership” if nobody else will follow!

You could construct as many groups as you like for men, but it will make little difference unless you are willing to tell women to follow. See 1 Peter 3 for a sample of such telling :) but I think you could expect some resistance if you said the same thing to Christian women today.

Latoya K is quite right to suggest men should “put up”, but many women would be upset when a man who did so told Grandma to take out the clip art, the music team to change their songs, and the preacher to preach without apology the word of God (starting with 1 Peter 3, perhaps) . . .

[57. Rich said the following at 8:07 AM on Jun 14:]

57

I agree with the main post that the balance is out of whack. As a worship pastor I've noticed this trend heavily among worship leaders, but I've never seen it addressed. I have attempted to do so at my blog and have gotten more hate than love for it, but I stand by it and believe the church and her leaders should repent for being effeminate. Anyway, here's a link if anyone is interested: http://sounddoxology.blogspot.com/2010/04/effeminate-worship-leader.html

[58. Christie said the following at 8:47 AM on Jun 14:]

58

Perhaps people should consider attending a liturgical church where the service is rooted in solid doctrine, the hymns have theological meat to them, and the pastor preaches sermons that focus on Law and Gospel and is grounded in Scripture. The church I attend is not effeminate at all. The denomination of the church I attend is LCMS. There are other liturgical denominations also with a similar tradition.

This present generation has been too quick to dismiss the rich Christian history that has been passed down and tested for centuries through the church. Could it be that people are rejecting the wisdom of the older generations and by rejecting that wisdom people have to go through the learning process of starting from scratch and thus have a greater potential for church services to be too effeminate or too macho.

[59. Loris said the following at 9:25 AM on Jun 14:]

59

After reading the original article, I went into my Sunday service with ears pricked. We sang one new song that was beyond mediocre both lyrically and musically-everything else was fine. Regarding the pitch, yes, the music is pitched high, but that's probably because there are about 15 women in the choir to three men. So that begs the question-which came first, men being uncomfortable with singing, or music that guys don't like to sing?

[60. EM said the following at 9:35 AM on Jun 14:]

60

Let's say what we mean and mean what we say.

Nobody ultimately benefits from "Christian" teaching and practice that is:
WEAK
WISHY-WASHY
THEOLOGICALLY BANKRUPT
EXPERIENCE DRIVEN
LICENTIOUS
UNTRUTHFUL
TOLERANT OF SIN
PASSIVE
WORLDY

Nobody ultimately benefits from "Christian" teaching and practice that is:
HARSH
ARROGANT
PERSONALITY DRIVEN
DRY
LEGALISTIC
UNCARING
UNGRACIOUS
ANGRY
JUDGMENTAL

And nobody ultimately benefits from "put-downs" of our brothers and sisters in Christ based on gender distinctives. Arguments where one party insists that Jesus is "loving, compassionate and gentle" and the other points out that he was "strong, intolerant of sin and had a high pain tolerance" are ridiculous.

I bristle when I hear that the church in America is "too feminine" or that a particularly church is "too masculine." That is lazy and careless verbage.

Usually, when these terms are used, we mean any of the following:
1 - there are more women than men in the church numerically (or visa versa).
2 - women are more visible / active than men in the church (or visa versa)
3 - there are more church organized activities for women than men in the church (or visa versa)
4 - church leadership shows favoritism in treatment of men / women; significantly tailoring church ministries to one gender over the other.
5 - church services are marked by poor theology.

Listen, brothers and sisters, God does not think your church's problem is being effeminate or patriarichal. Your church suffers from an incorrect view of God, apathy about evangelism, legalism, hypocrisy, and any number of sins, perhaps, but let's define our terms, shall we?

We can't talk too much in our churches about the Love of God though we can talk too little about the justice of God and his hatred of sin. Let's strive to live more biblically and build more gospel-centered churches, instead of associating one or the other of our image-bearing sexes with what we despise about "some churches out there."

Quick question for those who disagree: are these hymns masculine / feminine to you?

---

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.

O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.

When years of time shall pass away,
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

---

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

[61. Dan Gill said the following at 9:50 AM on Jun 14:]

61

I would recommend that you read "Why Men Hate Going to Church."

This weekend we had one song that I simply will not sing, "Ten Thousand Charms." It is nothing but bad romantic lyrics applied to Jesus. It's not something that a man can feel comfortable singing to another man. Nor should he.

I know, some will point out that the church is the Bride of Christ. That does not make individual Christians his wives. It's an analogy, folks.

No, this is not a new problem. It goes back about 300 years in the Western church. Time for a change.

[62. Liz said the following at 10:06 AM on Jun 14:]

62

This is why I'm glad I'm Episcopalian. No one raises their hands during songs (it doesn't really go with the 100-year-old hymns), cries, or gets touchy-feely. We can barely make it through "The Peace" without having issues, because no on really likes being in anyone else's personal space bubble all that much. It's a great denomination for the socially awkward- types like me!

[63. Tami said the following at 10:07 AM on Jun 14:]

63

Regarding the "singability" issue -- yet another part of the problem is that so much of contemporary worship music was originally written to be sung by an individual, yet it's applied in a corporate setting. This can be difficult to follow [if you want an example of this, think about all the "yeah"s that show up in contemporary songs. It can be *hard* to follow something like that, which is kind of easy for a soloist to improvise or sing more fluidly]. Hymns, on the other hand, were written for corporate singing; and originally, several different sets of lyrics would be set to the same tune, thus making it easier to learn them.

I know that doesn't quite answer the issue about key, but my guess is that, if a church is used to singing stuff for solo sopranos or tenors, the hymns end up in that key, too.

Regarding the use of "feminine" or "masculine" -- I too dislike this terminology (remember the "weak and womanly" discussion? ugh) when applied to a church's manner. *However* in a certain respect I *do* think a church can come off as "feminine" if it's decorated with ruffles and flowers and pastel colors, and if every event *is* geared toward women. This is definitely not to suggest that a church should look like a hunting lodge; but if that's a way in which someone is saying a church is "too feminine," I can understand where they're coming from. But otherwise I agree with EM -- we should be more precise in our language. "Feminine" shouldn't be shorthand for "poor theology" or "weak doctrine."

[64. EM said the following at 10:11 AM on Jun 14:]

64

Dan, I had to laugh at your objection to "Come Ye Sinners" as "nothing but bad romantic lyrics."

You do realize that this was written in 1759 by Joseph Hart about the need of the sinner for grace - need met at the cross of Christ.

Yes, it talks about the being in the arms of the Savior. But you are, you know. As a son runs to the arms of his Father so you are to run to your Savior in your distress, though it takes humility to admit you need his salvation, comfort and protection. The Psalmist says his soul longs for his God like a deer pants for the water brook. Do you consider that too sappy and sentimental for "manly" Christianity?

So, what's unbiblical about this hymn?

Come, ye sinners, poor and needy,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, love and pow’r.

Refrain:
I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
Oh, there are ten thousand charms.

Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome,
God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.

Come, ye weary, heavy-laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you’re better,
You will never come at all.

View Him prostrate in the garden;
On the ground your Maker lies;
On the bloody tree behold Him;
Sinner, will this not suffice?

Lo! th’ incarnate God ascended,
Pleads the merit of His blood:
Venture on Him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude.

Let not conscience make you linger,
Not of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth
Is to feel your need of Him.

[65. EM said the following at 10:31 AM on Jun 14:]

65

Oh, and, Dan - in Jesus time, men were not at all uncomfortable embracing another man in public.

They would actually have been far more uncomfortable kissing their wife in public.

That's still true in Middle Eastern culture.

[66. Keith said the following at 11:38 AM on Jun 14:]

66

I was reading an article this morning about this very issue. Here is an interesting quotation I got from the article:

"Men can be taught to be men only by other men, and all too many pastors are not real men. A pastor called me about my book. He had been ordained in the mainline Presbyterian Church. When he entered the seminary, he had to take a battery of psychological tests and talk to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist looked over the tests, and the first question he asked the candidate was, “Are you a homosexual?” The candidate responded, “No, I’m not, and why do you ask?” The psychiatrist replied, “You have the psychological profile of a homosexual. But don’t worry, all the successful ministers in your denomination have this profile.” The problem, as the minister realized after reading my book, is that pastors too often become pastors because they enjoy working in a feminine world, and they adopt the mental attitudes of women, who are their principal audience. In men, such a psychological profile is effeminate.

[67. SarahJane said the following at 1:51 PM on Jun 14:]

67

And no one has mentioned the impact that the same trend - whether it is one of feminization or of poor theology or something else - has on children's ministry in the church. Has anyone looked at mainstream Christian children's ministry curriculum lately? It is as if we couldn't possibly talk about anything like sin or the fact that Jesus did indeed die to take the punishment for that sin around children! And the song lyrics...yikes! I certainly understand the need to be age-appropriate when teaching children about the truths in Scripture, but when those truths are so watered-down and sugared-up that they become soda pop rather even than the milk that the apostle Peter speaks of for adult believers, can we be surprised to find young people leaving the church? I don't think that the potential dangers mentioned in this blog post are relevant only to men, but to all believers, as they are evident from the level of children's programming up to "big church". We need to refuse to accept substitutes for Scripturally-grounded teaching and worship in all areas of church ministry.

[68. Sarah said the following at 2:06 PM on Jun 14:]

68

You could sing hymns instead of worship songs...sung in 4 part harmony :) That's what we do at my church...

[69. Dan Gill said the following at 2:55 PM on Jun 14:]

69

EM (#64 and 65): I did not know the origin of the song. However, the chorus (not the verses) still has romantic, Jesus-is-my-boyfriend tones to me and many other men. I've met lots of men who are uncomfortable singing it. It's not the only one. Most are pretty recent.

As for embracing other men, I'm also big on that. As far as emotions go, I'm pretty much an emotional giant. I cry unashamedly in worship, and at other times. I'm also one to stand up and shout at some things, and wherever I sit in church is the amen corner. I'm expressive. Lots of men aren't.

The point is that much of what we do in worship and many of the service opportunities in churches are oriented toward women. We've managed to emasculate the church, paring the claws of the Lion of Judah, as someone here quoted Dorothy Sayers.

I encourage you still to read the book, and to read "Wild at Heart" and "Jesus Mean and Wild." I've learned a lot from all of them.

And when we sing one of the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs, I send a "Girly Song Alert" e-mail to our worship minister. He has come to expect them from me, and we usually have a chuckle over them.

[70. Mike said the following at 3:31 PM on Jun 14:]

70

Trevor Dolby (#56) wrote:

[M]en can't “take leadership” if nobody else will follow!

You could construct as many groups as you like for men, but it will make little difference unless you are willing to tell women to follow. See 1 Peter 3 for a sample of such telling :) but I think you could expect some resistance if you said the same thing to Christian women today.

Preach it, brother! :-)

I'm often amazed at the number of people screaming at men to "stand up!" ... and yet, as soon as a man "stands up" to a woman, he's accused of being a brute, insensitive, lacking in understanding, etc., etc.

Latoya K is quite right to suggest men should “put up”, but many women would be upset when a man who did so told Grandma to take out the clip art, the music team to change their songs, and the preacher to preach without apology the word of God (starting with 1 Peter 3, perhaps) . . .

Indeed. And here's my issue with the whole thing: We gripe incessantly about men not wanting to participate in church while simultaneously creating as hostile an environment for men as we can. And then we defend it vigorously. Hmn ... if you want the men to participate, mightn't it be useful to consider making the environment more amenable to male participation?

Just a thought.

[71. Prickly Pete said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 14:]

71

Dan Gill (#69):

I encourage you still to read the book, and to read "Wild at Heart" ...

Has there ever been a discussion on this site about Wild at Heart? I always find people's reactions to that book interesting.

I, for one, do not care for it; I think the author takes great liberties with Scripture in order to define manliness as ... whatever he likes, and then declares God's approval without any solid Biblical backing. I am not particularly surprised that it became popular, though -- the basic idea of "God made me like this, so I shouldn't have to change" is always an attractive one.

[72. Peter said the following at 4:44 PM on Jun 14:]

72

EM (#60)

When I refer to a church as "feminine", I mean one in which women are more comfortable and more affirmed than men. One in which women are encouraged to be like women, and men are encouraged to be like women.

I'm referring to the driving characteristics, not merely the results.

What is wrong with my choice of terminology?

Curiously.... Peter

[73. Peter said the following at 4:56 PM on Jun 14:]

73

Hmm.....

Many seem to like quoting David as the epitome of what an emotional, worshipping man should be like. Let's bear in mind that David was far from a perfect example as far as his own character is concerned. A weak father, an undisciplined lover and a leader who occasionally had to be rebuked for indulging in self-centred emotion when his men needed self-sacrificial leadership.

However what is much more to the point, is that David demonstrates a very strong extrovert/artistic temperament , of a type that is foreign to 3/4 of men and clashes with 1/4 of us. Doesn't mean that the psalms are bad, just that not every expression of David's worship is a great pattern for us. OK?

Peter.

[74. Al said the following at 4:59 PM on Jun 14:]

74

dawnellen wrote,

As for emotional songs, I think they do have their place. Emotions and feelings are so often looked down at as negative even to the point of being completely inferior to logic, but the right mixture is important.

I know about the sort of contentless emotive songs that some take issue with. But I totally agree with you-- the whole point of music is to elicit emotion, so we feel the right way about the right things.

Logic and emotions are often pitted against each other by folks that are strong in one and distrust the other. But I believe logic is only serving its purpose fully when it produces hearty emotion, and emotion is fully grounded in truth only when it is constrained by reason. And it is only through emotion that we fully comprehend not just what the truth is, but what the truth means.

[75. H said the following at 5:03 PM on Jun 14:]

75

Prickly Pete (71)
Yeah that is an ..intersting book. I read it just because I happened to come across it and I sort of found it to be rather ...indulgent, for lack of a better word. I always wondered if that was because I was a girl and just didn't "get" it... Although I have read the "girl version" called "Captivting" and didn't like that one much better.

[76. Tami said the following at 5:12 PM on Jun 14:]

76

Prickly Pete (71) I concur with you about Wild at Heart.

Captivating is the same, except it refers to women.

Note: I don't disagree that men want to be MEN. I affirm that! It's just *that book* I have issues with... as Prickly Pete wrote, I think it takes liberties. And I say the same for Captivating.

And yeah, many men *do* use Wild at Heart to defend their behavior in the "that's just how I am" way. (But then... I feel *a lot* of current Christian books set out to use psychology and polling to determine and defend "normal" behavior... the For Women Only/For Men Only books do that a lot.)

[77. EM said the following at 5:27 PM on Jun 14:]

77

Peter #72
My concern with the term would be how you are defining "feminine."

See, I don't know from the above what you mean by that or by "like a woman". I doubt you mean that men are being encouraged to nurse babies, so I'm still left wondering exactly what you think wrong in the given church. Is it that truth is compromised in pursuit of sensitivity? Is it that services always seem to pursue an emotional high and knowing God through his word is neglected? Are all the role models female? Are there 5 bible studies for women & none for men?

My point is that I still don't know what you mean when you criticize a church as feminized. That said, I agree that it is less than optimal if either sex, on balance, feels excluded, unnecessary, or attacked in the body life of a given local church.

[78. Matthew Jones said the following at 5:29 PM on Jun 14:]

78

Question for the men of boundless: anyone ever considered starting a men's only church? My older brother started a men's only group and had so much success, they began a men's only church that meets through the member's houses. I visited them when they first started and it was only about twelve guys, but the group has grown to almost fifty now.

Most of the guys who attend admitted they weren't attending church before attending his group.

I'm curious how the men on boundless would react because I've considered trying to start something similar in my area.

[79. Dan Gill said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 14:]

79

Prickly Pete: Like it or dislike it as you please. I think you're misreading it. I know I didn't like it the first time I tried to read it. Later, I tried again and found a lot of truth there. I recommend it because I believe it is correct. It doesn't necessarily validate my behavior. It's funny to me how often people make assumptions about others based on nothing more than a post or two on a forum.

[80. Angie at 36 said the following at 6:30 PM on Jun 14:]

80

@ multiple posts Peter

Well said. I'm not a guy and so I have a hard time describing the masculine. But I know it when I see it/hear it. And I know truth when I hear it. And you spoke it well.

I would disagree with you on one thing. Your 20s friends---they didn't walk away from Christ bc the church got it wrong. Ultimately, they walked away bc THEY got it wrong.

That said though, your passion is evident, necessary and timely. It made me smile. I would encourage you to keep speaking out on the matter but somehow think you will with or without encouragement.

[81. Peter said the following at 6:45 PM on Jun 14:]

81

Long Post Alert.....

Guarnerium (#50)

Opined somewhat satirically:- "I think we all agree that guys are allowed to feel something, provided that “something” is somehow at least tenuously related to driving drumbeats, knocking out the competition, or consuming flesh. Guys are allowed to enjoy—really enjoy—[the feeling of] playing basketball, or eating with “the fellas” at a burger joint, or what have you. But it is unclear how far beyond this point emotions are still within the bound of “the masculine,” and consequently males cultivate (and are encouraged to cultivate) a way of acting, thinking, and being that can at times amount to little more than a caricature of true masculinity. "

At least, I hope that it was satirical.

It is very true that society has been trying to re-mold men for at least 50 years. It has been comprehensively demonstrated that boys and girls are hardwired differently from birth. Boys are more restless, energetic, competitive, exploratory and accepting of risk. Yet our peaceful, affluent (decadent?) society sees much of this as negative, or at best, uncomfortable. Some are put in the category of "In case of war/emergency, Break Glass."

A relative of mine was involved in a major review of a state education system's methods, with reference to gender. The review recommended a strategy to make the typically male-dominated subjects like maths and science, more attractive to girls. My relative wrote the minority dissenting report, predicting that the proposed changes would make the classroom and learning process hostile for boys. Decades later, the results have proven her right.

My point is that when we talk about what men are "allowed" to feel, our current society is a lousy starting point. With depression in seemingly epidemic proportions, and men bearing a disproportionately high burden, the rational conclusion is that it is current trends, not old stereotypes that are creating problems for men..

Whether it's health issues like this, or the attitudes towards emotion that permit uncommitted sex and absentee fatherhood, the church should be countering cultural trends, not following them.

I look to three sources for my understanding of how men should be - and current cultural fads are not amongst them.

(1) The most error-prone, but still useful, is through an examination of the way that God has made men different. As mentioned before, boys are hard-wired differently at the emotional level. We react differently, we communicate differently, we orient differently. To choose an obvious example, we do not expect the average women to perform the kind of heavy work of which the average man is fully capable, I argue that it is equally foolish to expect the same emotional standards reactions and standards from the two sexes. God has made us different

(2) I look to the revelation of scripture. Not just to examples, because the Bible records as many of men's failings as their successes. But when men are commanded to protect and defend, I understand that this requires toughness. Selflessness requires being able to put your emotions to one side so that you can deal with the needs of others. Leadership and responsibility require the ability to think objectively, abstractly and unemotionally .... so it is no surprise that men fulfilling their biblical roles will demonstrate a certain amount of emotional distance and high degree of self-control. Note that being "temperate" as a required by church elders in Timothy means "even tempered" and not given to emotional extremes.

(3)Obviously, I also look to Christ as the perfect example of a man. I note that while Christ wept, he did so rarely (and arguably, never for himself). He was angry and impatient more often. (How does the church react to angry and impatient men?) When tired or in need he went off alone to pray. In the period leading up to Jesus arrest - the last supper and his time of prayer in Gethsemane - the only recorded instances of Jesus referring to his own feelings are his comment on how eagerly He has desired to eat that meal (Luke22:15)and "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."(Matt 26:38) before going APART from his disciples to pray.

Jesus' care and concern for his disciples is DEMONSTRATED by his teaching, warning and preparation, NOT ARTICULATED by discussion of his own feelings..

That's an example that more men would feel inspired to follow, if the church presented it correctly.

Peter

[82. Schy said the following at 7:42 PM on Jun 14:]

82

Too may people that comment on his articles are lookign to nit pick instead of seek out the point of the article and the main idea!!! It is starting to get really annoying.

We are advised to not let any unwholesome word depart from our mouth, but only such words that are good for building others up according to the need of the moment, that it may impart grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:29)

[83. Peter said the following at 9:06 PM on Jun 14:]

83

EM (#77)

You wrote:
"See, I don't know from the above what you mean by that or by "like a woman". I doubt you mean that men are being encouraged to nurse babies, so I'm still left wondering exactly what you think wrong in the given church. ?"

Believe it or not, I have been trying to keep my posts shorter by not revisiting the whole of the "what is masculine/feminine" issue every time. In past discussions I've defined the two as those characteristics and tendencies which distinguish the sexes, as opposed to those we have in common. I empphasize "tendencies" because I'm not foolish enough to consider a lot of the issues under discussion to be absolute or exclusive to one particular sex.

As I've stated previously, I consider that a church in which one sex is more accepted, encouraged and affirmed than the other is not balanced. As most of my experience is of an imbalance towards what accepts, aaffirms encourages (or is just plain liked by...) women more than men, I feel justified in applying the label "feminized" to this kind of church.

How would you label a church in which women had to remain veiled and silent at all times?

"Is it that truth is compromised in pursuit of sensitivity? Is it that services always seem to pursue an emotional high and knowing God through his word is neglected? Are all the role models female? Are there 5 bible studies for women & none for men?"

Yes, I've seen all of the above, to various degrees, the role models including feminine men, rather than just women.

This includes the depiction of Jesus himself as a soft-handed, white-faced, glossy-haired passive male who spent his time patting children and cuddling lambs (Please consider that I'm a sheep farmer so I have ZERO delusions that lambs are cute.) Far from the dynamic, calloused-handed, ex-carpenter from whom "Follow me" was a challenge, not a polite request. Consider this when discussing role-models.

Cheers..... Peter

[84. Tami said the following at 9:23 PM on Jun 14:]

84

Dan Gill (79) for the sake of clarity, in my own analysis of Wild at Heart, I am not saying that *you personally* are using it to defend your own behavior. I know of men in "real life" who do.

Because as you wrote... I don't know you, except for what you write on this blog, and that has always seemed sound to me.

[85. Peter said the following at 9:27 PM on Jun 14:]

85

Angie (#80)

You are right in that every one of us ultimately bears responsibility for our decision to follow Christ or the enemy.

What I mean to make clear is that this does not let the Church off the hook.

As Jesus said in Luke17:1 " "Things that cause people to sin (Literally - " to stumble") are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come."

[86. James said the following at 9:56 PM on Jun 14:]

86

I count myself with EM in that I simply don't understand this concept of a feminine church. Despite seeing this issue multiple times on this blog, I have yet to see a tangible example of this. Song selections aren't exactly a strong issue to put this on imo.

I suppose I should count myself blessed I haven't had any experience with this phenomenon. If anything, the reputation of Churches I've attended is they're too harsh. But, I get the sense women like that, they like strong stances on issues, the high accountability for men to be leaders, etc.

Mathew (78) What you're describing is a small group (home, community group, etc), not a Church. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, of course it is! I've been in one before, and it's a good outlet to discuss issues for men. It's just not a substitute for Church imo.

[87. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:29 AM on Jun 15:]

87

It's long past time we cut the niceties and burned that American-made lie--"Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild"--at the stake.

I'll supply the marshmallows.

James says:

I count myself with EM in that I simply don't understand this concept of a feminine church. Despite seeing this issue multiple times on this blog, I have yet to see a tangible example of this. Song selections aren't exactly a strong issue to put this on imo.

Here is the perfect example of a "feminine church". It's more like a witches' coven, but I digress...

[88. Dan GIll said the following at 6:34 AM on Jun 15:]

88

Tami, I responded to Prickly Pete as I did because it seemed as if he was painting with a broad brush, attributing motives to lots of folks. It's pretty hard, perhaps impossible to do that fairly. I think your post came after mine.

As for a discussion of "Wild at Heart," I've seen some criticisms of it that were pretty silly to me. I'd be interesting in hearing what behavior you and Prickly Pete think people were justifying through the book. But perhaps that is a subject for another thread. I recommend the book to all Christian men I know. I've seen a lot of men who are helped by it. It's not scripture, so it's not infallible. What book is?

[89. EM said the following at 7:57 AM on Jun 15:]

89

@ Peter 83

Cool - listen, I think we agree that all of those things are problems. I just don't think "feminine" or "woman-like" (which is what effeminite means, of course) is good short-hand for describing those very real problems.

In general, men and women do have certain different tendencies, I know; just as you know that not all men are alike and not all women are alike. Each person probably differs from the "mean" for their sex to some degree.

Which leaves me struggling greatly to see the merit in defining the problems in any given group by the NEGATIVE tendencies common to males or females.

You see, I had to guess what you meant by "feminized" based on how I'd seen other people use the term. And you agreed with what I guessed and elaborated on it. Not one thing I named or you agreed with was a positive thing about women. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by a biblical understanding of grace, full of people who were ready to forgive as they had been forgiven, quick to care for the poor and show mercy to a brother or sister who had fallen and was repentant. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by godly strength and dignity like the Proverbs 31 woman.

So, when you say a church is feminized, it sounds really negative to me. And that makes me wonder if you think women are marked, in general, by negative characteristics. And, if you think that, it makes me wonder how you can respect women in general if that's what you think of them.

As in your example, what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if I were talking about all those masculinized churches, where women had to keep quiet and veiled on the one extreme or where the only women who had any input at all were those who exhibited traditionally male characteristics, on the other extreme. What if I made it clear that when I talked about "masculinization," I meant that the church was run by bullies, angry people who tolerated or defended abusers and child molesters. Where anyone who tried to express a feeling was shut down and told that God doesn't care what you feel, only what you do. Where if you didn't agree with church leadership about any matter, no matter how petty, you would be shunned. Where there were no strong female role models and, in fact, if you were a woman who was interested in anything "non-traditional," you would be considered a rebel against God's created order.

If that was my concept of a "masculine" church, you might be forgiven for thinking I had a very low view of men in general.

A healthy church is not going to be prone to the sinful extremes of either sex. Not only those who fit the average patterns for their own sex, but outliers will be accepted, valued, and learn to live well in Christian community. Men who like NASCAR and hunting and are more comfortable problem solving will be respected and women who enjoy shopping, decorating and girl talk over tea will feel loved. But strong women engineers who like football will also feel respected and talented male artists who express heart felt emotions with deep sensitivity will be valued too. And the attention of all will be centered on the gospel. Christ will be exalted and image-bearers won't be boxed in based on how well or poorly they conform to gender stereotypes but will be challenged to leave behind the weaknesses common to their sex as they are conformed to the image of Christ.

[90. Sarah P. said the following at 8:16 AM on Jun 15:]

90

Peter (#81) said: To choose an obvious example, we do not expect the average women to perform the kind of heavy work of which the average man is fully capable, I argue that it is equally foolish to expect the same emotional standards reactions and standards from the two sexes..

So perhaps men are very good at being hard, and women are very good at being soft (in general). I think the point is that we need to learn to put those skills together as a unit, each sex being willing to learn from each other and grow. In that way, we image Christ better -- since He is both a lion and a lamb.

The Church always needs both. It needs to be a lion, or it won't have the strength to make an impact. And it needs to be a lamb, or it won't have the love to make the right impact.

I've never gone to one of these sissy churches, if only because it seems it would be a waste of time when the world needs so much done by strong Christians. So I don't know for sure what everyone is talking about. Sometimes worship music is too high and also really bad artistically, but that is when our (male tenor) worship leader gets carried away.

Besides, your Christianity will only be "girlie" if you let it.

[91. EM said the following at 8:55 AM on Jun 15:]

91

@ Dan 69

I can certainly understand the discomfort you and other men might feel with the words to the chorus of that hymn.

I would also agree that there are unbiblical lyrics out there which you shouldn't be singing.

However, we all have a responsibility to measure our comfort levels against biblical truth and respond to the truth, even if it is inconsistent with our feelings or cultural norms.

In the case of this hymn, it might be appropriate to rethink the reaction to the chorus in light of the truths it is talking about. No matter how strong of a man you are, you are still a weak sinner who needs the Savior. As for the ten thousand charms in his arms, besides the good rhyme, its a very biblical phrase.

The songwriter is drawing the biblically informed reader's mind from the "pleasures of sin" (which are deceptive and shortlived, hence we are "ruined by the fall") to the pleasures of Christ. It is better to be a door-keeper in the House of God than to dwell in the tents of the wicked because we get to behold his majesty, his holiness, his beauty, as Scripture says. "Charms" is simply an older-English word for rewards, benefits, pleasures.

As Christ is our "great high priest," the "firstborn of many brethren," our Savior, it is appropriate to think of and to praise Him for the benefits we find in Him. How is that unmanly?

[92. Angie at 36 said the following at 9:12 AM on Jun 15:]

92

Peter @ 85....

....agreed

[93. Dan said the following at 9:27 AM on Jun 15:]

93

Unfortunately, I don't have as much time to put into this comment as I would like, but there are a few things burning in my mind right now:

First, worshipping our God requires all of us, our emotions, our intellect, our desires, our actions. To say that being emotive is "girlie" and that we've emasculated the church by bringing emotions into songs (implying on some level, our worship would be more biblical if we were all head-knowledge, or even chose to use more battle-oriented metaphors) is just ridiculous. That said, modern worship music IN GENERAL has strayed greatly in terms of the content of the songs that are out there.

As a worship leader, I have so many songs to sift through because worship music has become a money-making industry, and there really are a small percentage of what's out there that has the meat (or Scripturally rich lyrics) that we look for as a congregation. Our team works hard to present the congregation with a balanced approach to worship as far as the content of our songs and the key that we put them in, and even the style with which they are played.

**But** where we have the most success is in presenting a transparent, genuine, and biblical approach to the heart of worship. We put that first and then our team members work hard to add musical excellence, good variety, etc. I believe THAT is why we have consistently had great engagement (not just attendance) from both men and women.

The Church in America is so wealthy and comfortable that we can afford to have conversations ad nauseum about our preferences and whether this should be this way or that way, or should we legislate this or that, and so many times we miss out on the heart of the issue. Don't let your hopefully honest desire to honor God in all that we do cause you to miss out on the condition of your heart, from which all else flows. Are you ready to worship, no matter the circumstance, not just musically, but with every action you take? Because to allow your worship to be DEPENDENT upon external circumstances is a slap in the face to the love that was given to you.

[94. Jannie said the following at 9:55 AM on Jun 15:]

94

I only read the first 6 posts and I felt like the comments where a most femenistic. I am a woman who wants to live as Christ designed women to live. The Godly woman of Proverbs 31. That doesn't mean I have to be married and have kids. God created men first for a reason, they are to be leaders and leaders for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Deborah was called forth to be a judge, but that was because there wasn't a man that would step forth. In that story it talked about how she had to follow a man to battle because he was too scared to go on his own. Even though God had already spoken through her to him, but he told her he wasn't going to go without her. But if you notice in this story Deborah stepped up because the man wouldn't. She had to push him along.
In the word it says first "Woman submit to your husbands" and secondly "Men honor your wifes, and love them as christ loves the church.". These verses show a lot about the call of God on men and women. Women don't think I am trying to lessen who you are, if God has placed you in a leadership role don't water it down. You're there for a reason and glorify God with the opportunity, but men if you are being prompted by the Holy Spirit and your not answering because your scared of failure, or just plain scared because you don't know what is going to happen. There were men through out the scriptures and in the world today that were martyred for the sake of loving and being obedient to Christ. Think of the blessing that the Lord will bestow on you for your obiedience.
Also on a side note. I can guarentee you there isn't a godly christian woman that doesn't find a man who is willing to step up and take initiative in the church (fellowshiping, attending bible studies, serving. etc...) attractive. It is something we desire in our husbands. If they can do it for the Lord than they can definately do it for their families.
If its something you desire, ask the Lord. We all have stuggles with our flesh and spirit and God knows that. That is where the prayer of "Lord I want to ....but please Lord help my unwant" comes in great. =)

[95. Natasha said the following at 11:30 AM on Jun 15:]

95

Thank you EM #89!

Since you basically said it all, I'll just second your entire post. :)
However I'd like to draw special attention to this section:

A healthy church is not going to be prone to the sinful extremes of either sex. Not only those who fit the average patterns for their own sex, but outliers will be accepted, valued, and learn to live well in Christian community... ...And the attention of all will be centered on the gospel. Christ will be exalted and image-bearers won't be boxed in based on how well or poorly they conform to gender stereotypes but will be challenged to leave behind the weaknesses common to their sex as they are conformed to the image of Christ.

Excellent truths! God bless!

[96. Trevor Dolby said the following at 11:44 AM on Jun 15:]

96

Jannie (94): Amen :) but are you sure that all godly Christian women would be attracted to a man who took the initiative in church by correcting others, tearing up the song sheets for blasphemous songs, etc? I agree that they would if the men did what you describe (fellowshipping, attending bible studies, serving, etc), but the initiative-taking won't stop there . . .

[97. EM said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 15:]

97

@ Amir 87

Wow - that Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran, San Francisco - ELCA sounds pretty awful.

If anyone here is attending there (or something close) I'd be happy to have a bible-based conversation on the necessity of separating from any group that worships a false god. And if that's what you mean by "girlie" Christianity, then I'll agree with the term! :-) It seems like they worship female identity, not Christ.

[98. Jo said the following at 12:31 PM on Jun 15:]

98

Amir, 87:

"Here is the perfect example of a "feminine church". It's more like a witches' coven, but I digress..."

Uh huh, except that isn't at all the kind of church that Ted was talking about, is it.

[99. Dan GIll said the following at 2:02 PM on Jun 15:]

99

EM (#91) said:
"As Christ is our "great high priest," the "firstborn of many brethren," our Savior, it is appropriate to think of and to praise Him for the benefits we find in Him. How is that unmanly?"

Sorry, but you're setting up a straw man. I never said, nor would I ever say that was unmanly. Look back at my posts. I merely said the chorus of that song was not something I or a lot of men could sing. Charms may have meant something else to the writer. It doesn't mean that to most people.

There are plenty of good songs that don't cause these problems. We really don't need this one. Ask 100 people what the chorus means, and you won't get more than a few who reference the old English meaning. They'll mainly say that it has romantic overtones.

[100. Peter said the following at 6:24 PM on Jun 15:]

100

EM (#89)

QUOTE "Which leaves me struggling greatly to see the merit in defining the problems in any given group by the NEGATIVE tendencies common to males or females.

...... Not one thing I named or you agreed with was a positive thing about women. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by a biblical understanding of grace, full of people who were ready to forgive as they had been forgiven, quick to care for the poor .

EM...

Ever been to hospital with a broken limb? Would you be impressed if the medic insisted on a lisst of the 200-odd bones that were not broken... or would you prefer that he concentrated on diagnosing the problem.

This is a blog post, not a Doctoral thesis, so of course we're focussed on the problems and issues, now what the churches in question have done well.

Masculine and feminine are both neutral terms. Nothing inherently negative about either. It depends on context It is in the context of a church that should be "all things to all men" and "no respecter of persons", but should cater to Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, ... but which caters disproportionately to the needs of women, then the term "feminised" is both appropriate and negative.

Nothing wrong with femininity, just excessive femininity in the wrong place.

Peter

[1. Dave said the following at 5:13 PM on Jun 11:]

1

"And the sermon was gooey. Do you know what I mean? Lots of sweet sentiments about luhhhv, just like Nathan said — but nothing uncomfortable, nothing challenging, nothing that forced you to think, nothing that made you want to go out and do hard things."

I'm confused. It seems a little ironic to post an article like that the week one now-deleted post (which admittedly did seem rather harsh ... but could be fixed with a few edits) was replaced by one that seems (in the terminology of this article) "gooey" ... with "[l]ots of sweet sentiments about luhhhv" ... "but nothing uncomfortable, nothing challenging, nothing that forced you to think, nothing that made you want to go out and do hard things"

[2. Marie said the following at 5:33 PM on Jun 11:]

2

That's because your church is lame (if that's your own actual experience you're talking about and not just a gross generalization). Personally, I would not attend a lame church if I could avoid it (and I have).

If you're discontent, open your eyes and look for another church. Or maybe you should just man up and say something (pun somewhat intended) instead of complaining...

[3. Al said the following at 6:13 PM on Jun 11:]

3

I do think some of church culture tends to lean towards the soft and feminine. But I will argue that it needs to be come more masculine. Rather, the church needs to be a place where there is room and place for both masculine and feminine expressions.

[4. Brian in San Dimas said the following at 6:59 PM on Jun 11:]

4

This is something that I am dealing with right now, but not how you might think. My problem is with the men themselves. I am not clear why men don't engage with other men, doing things that men would rather be doing. It seems to me that maybe men just think they don't need the fellowship or the spiritual influence from other men. Or maybe they got it all figured out and don't need anyone to help along their walk. I recently started a mens group, calling out all the men that want to start doing the "hard things" to lead their families and walk this christian walk. Out of the 15 that I first asked to be a part of it, the most that ever showed up were....6. On average we only have 3 or 4 come out. Do we sit around and do womenly things.NO!!!! We go out to shoot some basketball, eat at burger joints, even go to Dave&Busters(food and video games). Sorry Ted, it just seems that maybe the church has gone in that direction because the men don't.....here it comes....."step up and lead". They don't want to grow spiritually, or be held accountable. They would rather just have fun, aquire things(toys,jetskies,dirtbikes,etc..), and then do their part by showing up to a sunday service.

Look I know it's not all men. The majority of the ones on this site, are probably the ones like me. Hence them being on a christian site and spending time communicating ideas and opinions on these issues. But the church as a whole. The men are just absent....GOD will work around the men if necessary. Anyone ever hear of a certain judge by the name of DEBORAH. HE'LL still acomplish HIS task. I would just rather be a part of it.

End with this. Remember the story of Gideons army. GOD told him to make his men smaller, and in the end HE said watch them drink from the spring. THe ones that drink "alert", with weapon in hand and looking around, those are the ones that stay to fight. So my question is which men are "alert" and ready to fight. I am looking for those guys to take up arms with me and fight on behalf of the ALMIGHTY.

[5. Elizabeth said the following at 7:08 PM on Jun 11:]

5

I've heard this argument before, and it kind of makes sense to me. A lot of Christianity is really emotional and avoids challenging and convicting people. Those are things that are stereotypically associated with girls. However, I'm a girl, and I despise mushy, emotional, contentless worship songs. I would much rather discuss doctrine or be challenged to change my behavior than listen to a feel-good message. Am I the exception? Does this make me not feminine? What exactly is the difference between being feminine and being girly?

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 8:50 PM on Jun 11:]

6

Marie (#2) -- I should be clear: My description is not of my church, but of other churches that I've heard about here and there. That said, I agree strongly with you: Men in these churches should either find a better church or contribute to fixing the church they're currently part of.

Elizabeth (#5) -- Yeah, that's why I really hesitated to use terms like "feminine" or "effeminate" or "girlie" to describe what we're seeing in too many churches. While problems can be linked to the absence of men stepping up, other problems (soft sermons, weak song lyrics) are not "feminine," but something else.

[7. Craig M. said the following at 9:18 PM on Jun 11:]

7

I'm looking forward to Ted's apology for this post.

[8. Renee said the following at 9:22 PM on Jun 11:]

8

I'm a woman, and I've been annoyed with churches for these reasons for years. I've drifted and not found one I go to. But I'm definitely still Christian.

[9. Kelsey C said the following at 9:50 PM on Jun 11:]

9

Ted, I don't really even know where to begin...that was one of the most offensive articles relating to church practices that I've read in a while. It seems like you've made several accusations that reflect something you haven't researched very well: "My description is not of my church, but of other churches that I've heard about here and there." Could it be that you've overheard and participated in a few too many conversations in the "locker room"? I think if you were to read the pages of scripture you would find many examples of humans (both men and women) expressing similar and varied emotions before that Lord that reflect His Triune nature and qualities. A few examples of men showing emotion: David dancing before the Lord, Job weeping for his family, John clinging to the side of Jesus, Jesus Himself inviting the children to come to Him. If showing emotion and engaging in an intimate experience with the Lord is strictly a feminine practice than I feel great sorrow for the men of the church who miss out on opportunities to draw near to the Lord with their whole hearts.

[10. amerrychase said the following at 9:51 PM on Jun 11:]

10

Well... this is the reason I -a 20ish young lady- switched to a traditional roman catholic church (as opposed to my old, "spirit of vatican II" one which is fairly like the one described). We sing songs about the church militant, and talk about martyrs willing to die for the church. The sermons talk about hard things, including fine doctrinal points and politics.The pews are packed with single young men and young, growing families. Men are *needed* in the traditional church- they have to show up or the liturgy doesn't work. Really, I just about bust with pride watching the subdeacon usher around the flock of altar boys (16 of them! Every Sunday! & 2 on weekdays!) since I know at least a few of them will become priests. The youngest ones are excited just to be on the altar holding candles. The oldest ones-not yet graduated into seminary- 'run' the rest of the altar and chant the readings to the congregation. All of them full of masculine dignity.
It has been a little hard to change my own mindset, though- just to admit that men (while not "better" than the ladies) do have a natural authority that they should step up and claim.

[11. MizattA said the following at 11:56 PM on Jun 11:]

11

#4 Brian

I think Just because You're men in your church are not showing up to your group does not mean that they don't think they need guy time or that they don't want to lead. More so when out of the list of things you describe as a guy I only seek out Burgers joint time. I play video games with guy friends cause I know I need guy time, but i grown past that stage in my life for the most part and the only sport I care about is Football.

My problem is that too many people like yourself(no offense) stereotype men in what men are by what men have stereotypically done in the past or some groups of men like, rather than what the bible says men are. There's nothing about Men Needing to be hunters, fishers, sports players, or outdoorsy in the bible for the definition of men.

I like Photography, Writing, Reading, Walking, Hiking, Working out.

I hate Hunting, Fishing, Working on Cars, Building Stuff, working with my hands or with power tools or tools of any sort. Manual labor in general.

I will play Basketball, Ultimate Frisbee and football, but in the end I could care less if I ever played sports in my life even if I love football. None of these which are stereotypically "men" things make men men in reality and me not liking them doesn't make me any less of a man. I would much prefer to sit in front of the tv and watch a show or movie and chat with a guy friend then I would most of the stereotypically "Men" things, but being honest with ourselves as men until you older and married for a while most men suck at communication and talking to one another. Men who have been married 10 to 30 years are usually at the level females college age are at when it comes to verbal skills and being at a place where they will open up even a little to other men, which makes it hard to bond and want to hang out with solely guys no matter how much its needed. So much of what guys talk about is boring and useless surface stuff like Video Games, Most Sports, Home repairs(for married men) and Work(If I am not at work I dont want to be talking about my work)rather than issues that matter like whats really going on with the person.

My suggestion to you is there are actually two possible reasons that the Men are not showing up 1. They want to spend time with their wives. Yes Guys need guy time, but they need time with their wives much much more. Its possible they are getting guy time through other friends at other times as well. 2. Maybe your doing stuff that just doesn't plain interest most of the men in your church. Maybe try finding More rounded and broad activities more men would enjoy.

[12. Peter said the following at 1:07 AM on Jun 12:]

12

I made it into a Boundless post at last!! [grin]

Well maybe not. I'm as little older and grumpier than the "Peter" in this article, but I have experienced every issue of which "Peter" complains. Before someone asks, "Why don't you speak up or move?", I have done both.

In my experience, the atmosphere of which "Peter" complains is actually hostile to men. Why should men wish to "connect" to a group that regards them as broken for simply being the way that God has made us?

Peter

[13. dawnellen said the following at 1:53 AM on Jun 12:]

13

I agree, the issue of balance is something to work on.. but perhaps it's not femininity or girly-ness but more so a spirit of passivity in some churches? Or even in some cases fear when it come to preaching watered down messages and then singing songs afterward that are supposed to go with a more moving message.

As for emotional songs, I think they do have their place. Emotions and feelings are so often looked down at as negative even to the point of being completely inferior to logic, but the right mixture is important. Hopefully some of the churches will realize what's occuring and come back to being bold for Christ through representing both his love and tenderness along with his power and might.

[14. Bek said the following at 3:47 AM on Jun 12:]

14

Just my comment - I often find worship songs are written in keys too low for me to sing. I simply choose to harmonise but I'm a singer and have that option. It is one of the worship leader's responsibilities to ensure that a mix of songs are used so that men and women can engage.

[15. Larissa said the following at 5:53 AM on Jun 12:]

15

Elizabeth (#5), you said:
However, I'm a girl, and I despise mushy, emotional, contentless worship songs. I would much rather discuss doctrine or be challenged to change my behavior than listen to a feel-good message. Am I the exception? Does this make me not feminine? What exactly is the difference between being feminine and being girly?
You're not the exception, I completely agree!! (Unless we're both exceptions...)
I don't think it lessens your femininity. To me, the difference is that femininity has a strength to it, whereas girlie is the weak, shallow expression of femininity. (Hmm, not sure that actually made sense!)

[16. Matthew Jones said the following at 6:02 AM on Jun 12:]

16

That article may explain the rise of atheism: most atheists are male. I attended an event with an atheist friend once, and for a minute, I thought the group only allowed men until my friend pointed out that most atheists were males.

I guess atheism is the new masculine frontier.

[17. James said the following at 10:28 AM on Jun 12:]

17

Not sure I understand... it sounds like you're talking about style, which isn't terribly important. Or do you consider this more a substance issue? I have to admit I don't necessarily examine the worship songs very closely, I'm sure a fair number aren't theologically accurate. But whether you like a certain style or not is largely irrelevant imo.

As far as preaching goes, you could disagree with a presentation or emphasis...but that probably comes in a distant second next to whether the Word is indeed being (accurately) preached.

[18. Lou said the following at 11:19 AM on Jun 12:]

18

As a girl who attends a church where most of the hymns are at least 50 if not more than 100 years old...I find it hard to sing the majority of them because they're set too high. But that isn't because they're effeminate; it's because they're written with four-part harmony in mind and sopranos generally get the melody. It's not that they're effeminate because they're set too high for me, but that I'm not very good at following the alto line.

[19. Brad said the following at 11:55 AM on Jun 12:]

19

Christianity girlie? Perhaps Luke-warm Christianity may indeed be girlie... if your walk with Christ is nothing more than Sunday Schools arts & crafts with kids, sitting around singing camp fire songs, or polishing up your fancy shoes to look your best for church.

But this shallow appearance-only type of faith is not what God wants of us. Scripture tells us that the luke-warm will be "spit out".

Those who truly walk with God, engaging the enemy in a life-or-death spiritual battle on a daily basis are anything but girlie. God is my strength and my armor in a war where evil is consuming every aspect of our society. As we resist the sexual images of our media, the foul-mouths of classmates/coworkers, and life-sucking greed of our financially driven world, we should be clinging to the Warrior Jesus and walking with Him. I'm talking about the Jesus who flipped out in the temple, throwing tables around and putting the hypocrites in their place. Jesus was the ultimate manly man, in my opinion. He didn't go around picking fights or needlessly roaring at people like Rambo, but He stood up for what He believed and PASSIONATELY submitted to the orders of His Father and King.

When Christians live the way God has called us to live, it's anything but girlie.

[20. Brian in San Dimas said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 12:]

20

Mizatta

Let me clear things up for you. The men that I asked to be a part of the group, all had previous conversations with me, all were in,liked the idea and were gung ho. We agreed to read through a book that challenges us and to meet and discuss. I completely leave the venue open for their ideas.(I personally don't do most of the stuff you talked about either, I don't follow any sports) They just don't engage. By the way none of them are married most are actually right out of or still in college. When it comes down to it....They just don't want it. Want what???? All that GOD has for them. Nothing that I can do for them. everyhting that HE can do for them. WHen the vision was cast, they saw it. But when it came time to step up and aply themselves, they walked away. Like I said, you and most men on this site are not the issue. It's the ones that go to church to appease their wives or their conscience and get their feel good fix(I am good person I go to church). GOD is looking for soilders, there is a battle brewing, like it or not. Whose side will you be on. As Joshua said, " As for me and my house, we'll serve the LORD." Serve requires a little more than attending a sunday service.

[21. MizattA said the following at 12:07 PM on Jun 12:]

21

I also find it beyond ridiculous to connect emotions or being emotional and girlishness or the such. Guys who say they dont have emotions lie through their teeth. Its just a matter of expressing them and how we choose to.

[22. Spunky said the following at 12:08 PM on Jun 12:]

22

#16

You are right about that. I have noticed a large number of male atheist.(I know because I dated an atheist once.

Maybe most guys nows are just too skeptic of religious belief when we live in a world full of hardship.They don't want to be live life by a set of rules....

I have also seen a large number of women take much more active roles in churches than men. I hardly don't see too many men unleast they are 30+ and married.

Come back to the church! We Christian women need Christian men to marry! :D

[23. Craig M. said the following at 12:32 PM on Jun 12:]

23

James--I think style matters a lot. As C.S. Lewis observes in the Screwtape Letters, "everything [our bodies] do affects [our][ souls." Ever noticed that there are songs that--purely by their music, not their lyrics--inspire you to want to do good, and songs that--again with the music alone--inspire you to want to be bad? Think of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" by U2. The music is so hopeful that the listener is immediately inspired to seek nobility and truth; it's literally a sort of resolute, determined, hopeful feeling in your chest. Now think of "Personal Jesus" by Depeche Mode. There's really nothing wrong with the lyrics of this song themselves--in fact, Johnny Cash covered the song using the exact same lyrics, and by the WAY he covered it, made it into a penitential, humble and very Christian song. But the original by Depeche Mode, due to the sneering and sexual WAY it's sung, in combination with the driving, dark beat and music, makes lyrics like "someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares....I will deliver, you know I'm a forgiver" the very furthest thing from devotional. Depeche Mode is clearly using Christ as an analogy for an obsessive, unhealthy sexual relationship; Cash uses the same lyrics but means them.

I think the TYPES of emotions created by a song matter a lot. I get emotional singing "It Is Well With my Soul," but it's the emotion of thoughtful resolution and gratefulness. That's a very different thing than what happens to your heart and brain when you sing "Your Name is Jesus" 50 times in a row (doesn't He already know His name?), or any of the songs described if you just scroll down a bit here:

http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_3814456/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

[24. MrsLarijani said the following at 12:55 PM on Jun 12:]

24

MizattA #21 said

I also find it beyond ridiculous to connect emotions or being emotional and girlishness or the such. Guys who say they dont have emotions lie through their teeth. Its just a matter of expressing them and how we choose to.

Ted fleshed out some examples of what he meant:

Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing. Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating. Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine. Bulletins with clipart seemingly picked out by your grandmother.

He used " " around worship for a reason. The songs often aren't very worshipful at all.

Amir & I once went to a service where they closed with this. So, there's that or worship songs like this.

(sidenote: Amir loves the 2nd verse that is sung . . . he ad libbed during our wedding service and I about keeled over in laughter.)

You can be emotional and be manly, but it's a matter of what emotions the (collective) Church is encouraging. Are they encouraging righteous anger? bold submission? an environment where iron sharpens iron?

The first church I was a part of still, to this day, has clip art that grandma would pick out on their bulletins. There haven't been many strong male leaders have emerged from that church.

(I found it a bit funny that Ted said that. I had never made that connection before.)

One can be emotional in masculine ways. A good example of this was about a month ago at the gun range. . .

My gun was getting jammed. It wasn't a cheap gun. I began to take it personally that the gun jammed.

My loving and wise husband said "Don't get emotional around firearms! Calm down!"

If one of his guns jams, it's a matter of mechanics. For me, the gun has a mission to bring me frustration and angst. Can he experience just as much frustration? Sure. It's just expressed in an entirely different way.

And, you know what? That's OK.

And it needs to be OK. So many would demand that a man's emotions be expressed in the exact same way as a woman expresses hers. That should never be the case.

Men are men. It's totally OK (and strongly preferred) that men continue to be men.

I, for one, am glad that I did not marry a woman. ;)

[25. Marian said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 12:]

25

A great article about men and Christianity (and, therefore, the Church), including the balancing issue, can be read here.

God bless.

[26. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:21 PM on Jun 12:]

26

Craig M. (7): I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment :)

Back on topic: I suspect a lot of the trouble comes from men abdicating their position in God's organisation. amerrychase puts it well, I feel, in identifying both the “natural authority that they should step up and claim” and also the difficulty in changing mindsets amongst women.

After all, it seems clear that asking men to lead their families would require others to follow: “leading” without anyone following is decidedly empty. I would guess that many, if not most, women would resist any attempt at a husband leading the family if the husbands haven't been doing so all along. The wives will have become used to being in charge, or least not being led, and most humans resist change to begin with; why should we demand that women stop being human in that respect?

The other aspect I've noticed over the years is that the resistance of wives is not necessarily a bad thing: if the husband can't stand firm in the face of resistance from her, then what chance does he have against the forces of evil at work around us? She has committed to loving him as long as they both shall live, and the forces of evil have committed the opposite! Men grow in that way, from my observation, and become stronger and better spiritual warriors.

[27. Peter said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 12:]

27

Brian. (#20)

I no longer accept the excuse that men in their 30's are rejecting the church and "what God can do for them" in favour of family and work.

The truth is that large parts of the church have been making promises that God is not prepared to fulfill and that an objective reading of scripture does not justify..

You know the type... ,"God brought Eve to Adam and the steward brought Rebekah to Isaac, so God WILL choose the perfect wife for you and bring her...."

Men tend to be more motivated by what works, than by what feels good. They are less interested in what God can do and more in what God will do. The 30's are merely the period in which a couple of decades of the Church's failure to deliver become to great to ignore for a man struggling with the needs of wife, family, mortgage and work.

That's not necessarily your fault, but you need to be aware of this dynamic and not oversell what a men's group can achieve. Our bull-dust detectors are too well tuned by this stage.

Recognising that the men who didn't turn up to your group are not rejecting God, but are victims of poor theology will enable you to minister to them far more effectively. I wish you all the best. It grieves me deeply to see how many *have* left the church due to lack of appropriate ministry.

Peter

[28. Peter said the following at 5:14 PM on Jun 12:]

28

MizattA (#21)

You contribute nothing to this debate by setting up a straw-man. No-one here has claimed that men do not have emotions.

However, if we love men then we need to recognise that God has made the average man different from the average woman. Most of that difference is of degree, not of type. We will not honour men or minister to them successfully if we do not understand and accept these God-given differences.

You demonstrate the problem when you say that "Men suck at communication" as though men are broken or retarded. Reality is that men communicate and form relationships differently. It's shoddy and disrespectful workmanship to apply women's solutions to men's problems and them blame the men because it isn't working.

Peter

[29. David said the following at 6:46 PM on Jun 12:]

29

A few things-

First, this so called "imbalance" in the Protestant (I use the term generically to define from Catholic) church has long existed; in this country there have generally been more women then men in the church.

Second, the complaint of "girly Christianity" sounds rather familiar. During the 1920's, the fundamentalists criticized Victorian era Christianity for being "feminized" and promoted a more "masculine" Christianity. So, these complaints are really nothing new...

I think its unarguable that modern evangelicals put a premium on emotions at an expense of the mind (see Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). That is the main reason I left evangelicalism; they simply didn't practice their faith in the way I did. Emotions are very important in the Christian faith, but so is the mind; we are commanded to love God with all our heart, soul and mind. Various Christian traditions have done better with emotions or mind, but we need both.

[30. Deb said the following at 7:48 PM on Jun 12:]

30

I'm with Elizabeth and Larissa. As I read the article, I kept thinking the examples used would make me a little queasy myself.

I consider myself fortunate to attend a church that seems to have a balance. We can even talk about sin, but not in a way that condemns people so harshly that they leave. Perhaps some of the 'girlie-ness' some are seeing is a backlash to the patriarchal, but also to the legalistic places that some of us have come from.

Then again, as I mentioned, I haven't seen anything go as far as what was described in the article. As a strong (yet feminine) woman, if I did, I'd be seeking another church.

All the best!
deb

[31. MizattA said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 12:]

31

Peter #28

Problem is that when we apply what a lot of men sadly consider womanly communication to men it does work more so then the way men in general communicate.(God designed women to be relational and thus more communicative therefore it makes logical sense they know how to do it better and more effective than at least some Men) When You talk to married man of 10-30 years they are a lot more open and have a lot more meaningful and deep conversations than that of 20 something men. They are 10 times easier to bond to than single 20 something men who just haven't grown in that area yet.

College age women are usually already very good at being open and allowing people to get close and thus easier to bond with then men. Yeah Men and women bond differently. Women just make it easier to get close friendships with them then Men choose to which doesn't make much sense to me. why do we need to choose to bond in a way that makes the process more difficult.

Yes you're right Men do bond differently then females, but in general younger men make it harder and longer than need be. I am not saying we are defective, I am saying we as a general rule make it harder on ourselves than we should and need to by placing stereotypes on the way we should and should not communicate based on what Hollywood has said about men not really being able to feel rather than whats biblical or healthy.

[32. Ted Slater said the following at 9:10 PM on Jun 12:]

32

I have to admit that I don't feel comfortable describing a problem with the church as "girlie" or "effeminate." Women are fine, and their distinctives are fine, and femininity is fine. So to describe a problem as innately linked to women just strikes me as wrong.

That's why I hesitated to use the words "effeminate." And I simply used the title provided by J. Budziszewski.

Maybe it's not "girlie," but simply lacks sufficient "masculinity." What does that mean? Hm. Discuss ...

Oh, here's something to ponder: Do women do better in a "masculine" church than men do in a "feminine" church?

[33. David said the following at 9:48 PM on Jun 12:]

33

@Ted #32

It depends; I think both have some serious issues. Men in a feminine church can be become weak and not lead. Women in a masculine church can be subject to abuse. I think both represent extremes off the Biblical center ground.

[34. Peter said the following at 12:48 AM on Jun 13:]

34

MizattA (#31)

I don't think you're understanding the point. The point is not that men don't communicate, but that we communicate - and learn to do so - differently.

One major difference is that we tend to do so when working side by side, rather than sitting face to face. The depth of relationship between soldiers who have fought together and taken risks (and injuries) for each other is legendary. Reference the relationship between David and Jonathon. My own best friendships have been forged working and playing hard with other men, not over a Latte. The deepest and most open communication comes AFTER this level of relationship has been established. The instance which you cite - that of a good marriage, provides just this level of time-spent-working-together that induces masculine communication.

Forcing communication using an inappropriate tool - like sitting men down in a group and insisting that they WILL talk (an invasion of privacy when trust has not yet been established) - may produce some results, but also produces negative results. " If you don't respect me enough to earn my trust, that hinders any relationship we might have...

Women are not experts on communication. No more than being a talented runner makes you an expert on biomechanics.....

OH.... and Hollywood is famous for giving mixed messages. How often do you see a Hollywood production in which men are shown putting their emotions to one side and making decisions in a calm and competent manner? It doesn't make for drama, but emotions should remain a servant, not a master.

Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city.." Prov 16:32

[35. twilley said the following at 12:54 AM on Jun 13:]

35

Mrs. Larijani, #24:

"I, for one, am glad that I did not marry a woman. ;)"

To each his own ;o) :oD

[36. theoneandonly said the following at 4:44 AM on Jun 13:]

36

Ted, if you're uncomfortable using terms like feminine, girlie etc to describe a situation like this, then why did you? Wouldn't it have been better to spend a bit more time selecting your vocabulary to accurately reflect the message rather than plough ahead? Do we have to discuss this issue in terms of gender? I think it only serves to further alienates women who already feel disengaged from their church for all the reasons you've mentioned above. And probably alienates men who do engage with the kind of church you've described. Not only that but it supports the stereotype that women want their Jesus romantic and fuzzy round the edges. It isn't just men that want their experience of Christ to be authentic, engaging and challenging, so can we stop discussing it as if it is? I appreciate that you've already acknowledged this to some extent but do think that if that's the case then it needs to influence your writing, not be added as a postscript.

I don't think this is a masculine/feminine issue - I think it's the result of a culture that places to much emphasis on the 'seen experience' of God. Much of church culture implies that I'm not fully engaging unless I raise my hands during sung worship, or I'm not touched by the spirit unless I cry. However subconciously, criteria for 'meeting with God' are set and those expressions are recognised and validated, whilst others (sitting quietly and thinking about the theological accuracy of a song for example) are not.

Ted, have just re-read my post and hope it doesn't come across as harsh - that's not my intention at all. I'm genuinely interested as to why we make this a gender issue when I don't think it's one of gender at all. Maybe I should take my own advice and let that influence my writing rather than just adding it as a postscript ;)

[37. Latoya K said the following at 6:15 AM on Jun 13:]

37

How do I say this as nicely as possible?

I have a son. Part of his training to become a man is to actively solve problems and correct mistakes as opposed to groaning and thus being a "whiny hiney."

Let's examine the claim of the church being effeminate...

"But it's also become clear that there's an imbalance in many churches, an imbalance that has alienated many men. Emotive "worship" songs, offered in a key too high for men to sing."

That's easy to solve. Choose another song. I like to keep things upbeat. Who wants to be depressed during the praise and worship part? While you're at it, transpose the key or drop it down an octave or two for a male soloist.

"Sensitive sermons that generally appeal to women but to which men have a hard time relating."

Most of church members in my community are women. There are many women pastors today. Do we direct the sermons towards 2 year olds? They are not the ones paying attention to the sermon, so no. They are not the audience. Maybe the pastor is "sensitive" because of his life experiences and spiritual journey. Sensitive doesn't mean unmanly.

"Images portraying Jesus as soft and feminine, rather than rough and masculine."

These historically inaccurate images have been around for at least 1500 years. The artists from Europe have been the worst offenders. These drawings and paintings of a Flemish Jesus with soft wheat blond flowing curls and milk bath treated skin are ingrained in believers minds world wide. The problematic feminine images and icons are not a new problem.

"Bulletins with clip art seemingly picked out by your grandmother." Grandma is retired and has finished raising her children. Therefore, grandma graciously volunteers her time to do the bulletin each week, among other tasks that working men and mothers with children cannot do. You should thank Mother Jackson, Sister Hopkins and Nanna O'Dell for the loving, caring gifts they share. The could be otherwise spending their time watching the price is right.

The preacher at my church cautioned us not to criticize, unless we are volunteering to make things better AND can truly improve on what is given already.

Otherwise, the MANLY thing to do is to put up or shut up.

[38. MizattA said the following at 10:13 AM on Jun 13:]

38

#34 Peter

No I Understand the Point your trying to make, I just disagree with that being healthy or that it holds true to men all or most the time.

Also think your missing my point that in general men make it harder on themselves if they refuse to open up to one another and form friendships til long after tons of surface stuff. That yes men do communicate but usually its based off of non important stuff like Work, Sports, Video Games, Home Repair etc. There's only so much talking about matters that aren't important I as a man can handle before I also like to get to serious important matters with people.

I for one don't function the same way you do when it comes to bonding with other guys. I much rather Talk then go do sports or go camping or build something with other guys or something like that. Its not that I completely dislike doing that stuff, but with the men that I formed closer bonds to over the last few years, we didn't start camping, hiking, stocking wood, working on garages and houses and stuff til well after the Bond had already been made through communication.

My Point was that men have just as much emotions as females so saying that emotional worship songs are bad isnt true all the time and that in general men can make it harder on themselves and we are to blame for some of the problems by not recognizing our weaknesses and being willing to change or at least address them, not women or the church.

[39. Abi said the following at 10:21 AM on Jun 13:]

39

I am a woman and my ministry in my church is to arrange songs for worship. It was difficult to get a balance and aim to mainly use song from Bible passages and songs the exalt and glorify God. When we think about how great He is we show a dept of awe and humility that's needed in both men and women

Also my character is more like my father's and I find it difficult to talk or communicated the way most women do.
Peter ~34 comment made sense when he said that men bond working side by side. This is very true for me
I'm just different :]

[40. Nancy said the following at 10:50 AM on Jun 13:]

40

The heart of the issue is not about feminine or masculine, it seems to me. It's about presenting a wishy-washy, wimpy, watered-down version of Christ, and of what we are called to do for Him.

I think the discussion would be more clear without the related assumptions about gender. Many churches seem to be afraid to teach (or worship) about the less warm and fuzzy aspects of God's character.

I think the strength of character and leadership of a head pastor shows, and men are willing to follow (and step into leadership) behind a good leader. Our head pastor is an outdoorsman, but that isn't as important as the fact that he teaches the Bible faithfully, without leaving out the less "palatable" parts.

[41. Mike said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 13:]

41

Whenever this topic comes up, it's one of two flavors:

1) The church is too "girly" and so men won't participate.

2) Men aren't "standing up" and taking leadership as they should; they're hopeless slackers and ought to get their acts together.

Did anyone ever consider tailoring a men's group that actually affirms men? Listens to them? Meets their fundamental needs for respect and competence rather than tearing them down? Serves as a group of brothers in arms that cheers men on in the struggles of life - and the spiritual battles against the enemy and the world - instead of doing stupid stuff like playing basketball or going whitewater rafting?

Guess not.

[/snark mode off]

[42. Mike said the following at 11:08 AM on Jun 13:]

42

Latoya K (#37) -

That has to be one of the snarkiest posts I've read on Boundless. It's patently obvious why your community is mostly female, given your long string of excuses why you should not give any consideration to the needs or preferences of your male parishioners.

If you keep up that attitude, your church will be 100% female in short order. Which is fine ... but then don't gripe that there aren't any men "stepping up". Because you've driven them all away with your disregard for their point of view.

Have a nice day.

[43. MizattA said the following at 11:12 AM on Jun 13:]

43

# 37 Latoya said

"Sensitive doesn't mean unmanly."

This is a major major point I try to make. Being Sensitive and being Empathic does not make you a woman or girlie. It makes you a better person. We in our society enforce bad stereotypes all the time like the one about men not being sensitive or empathic and that its a woman's thing.

[44. Tami said the following at 2:29 PM on Jun 13:]

44

Craig M -- interesting, and right-on, analysis of "Personal Jesus" and the way DM v. Johnny Cash perform the song.

Martin Gore (primary songwriter in Depeche Mode) is hugely spiritually conflicted (was apparently quite religious for much of his youth, then went off the rails spiritually, so to speak). A lot of his music yearns for God and transcendence, but is distrustful of Him at the same time.

Apropos of this topic, he is also effeminate in his appearance (though not gay).

Johnny Cash -- about as masculine as you can get.

Interesting.

As you point out regarding "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," when I listen to that song, I also experience the same emotions you describe -- seeking, but determined. [Plus I don't get the sense that Bono is afraid of making strong statements, generally.]

But somehow, in the church, we've come to the conclusion that seekers will find Jesus only by being in an "inoffensive" setting. Perhaps that's why we call it "seeker sensitive" rather than "seeker oriented" or even "seeker welcoming".

NB I am generally not excited about hearing modern pop songs in a church or worship setting. Sometimes they put my head in the wrong place (one worship band replaced the "doo doo doos" from the Third Eye Blind song with "hal-le-lu, hal-le-lu-jah"... thankfully they didn't sing the TRUE lyrics of the song, which are all about getting dissipated w/drugs and sex); other times they sound exactly like the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs we *already* have too many of (another church did the Lemonheads' "Into Your Arms" as a worship song). If the point was to be "relevant," it was completely lost on me; and even from the perspective of a person who doesn't know the Lord, I don't know what the net gain of singing a pop/modern rock song in a worship setting is. If you aren't a believer, but you were going to a worship service, wouldn't you *expect* to hear true worship songs, rather than stuff you heard on the radio on the drive in?

[45. Peter said the following at 5:09 PM on Jun 13:]

45

MizattA.

(#38) You have admitted that you're not an average man - and there's no shame in that - but you're in error in claiming that your personal experience has a lot to say about a group that you do not represent.

This is probably why you don't "get" the difference between the average male and the average female WRT emotions. Regardless of whether we agree on the degree to which we experience emotion, there is a well-researched difference between men and women in our reaction to emotional stimuli and the way that we deal with the results.. The theory that most of the emotional and psychological difference between men and women is a result of culture and upbringing - which was very popular decades ago - has been discarded by mainstream psychology. There is simply too much evidence that God has hard-wired us differently from birth.

Applying this to worship songs allows us to understand that emotion that generates a positive emotional respoonse in women does not always do so in men..... particularly when the language involved is appropriate to the bedroom, and you're asking men to repeat it towards another man. (Jesus) Jesus in NOT my boyfriend.

---------------
Latoya K (#37) MizattA (#43)

You ignore the need of context when it comes to sensitivity. What men complain about is sensitivity at the expense of truth. Sensitivity at the expense of righteousness. The kind of sensitivity that allows people to comfortably go to eternal damnation... or live lives that are far from what God would have for them.

It's one of the basic functions of leadership to be able to make hard decisions and offer hard judgements when that is the best thing in the long term.... and I agree with Boundless in that leadership is a biblically established function of manhood. THAT is why it's not wrong for men to have a different take on sensitivity, and why churches that over-emphasise sensitivity are wildly unbalanced and do not meet the needs of men who are attempting to lead.

You should be cautious in discussing sensitivity, when you show so little sensitivity towards the real needs of the average man, yourself.

[46. Peter said the following at 5:34 PM on Jun 13:]

46

This quote by Dorothy L. Sayers bears repeating.
We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him 'meek and mild,' and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies."

It was not "sensitivity" that caused Christ to respond to Peter with "Get thee behind me, Satan." Nor did it cause Him to cleanse the temple, or announce " “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

That's before we start on the Apostles.

Peter, accusing all the Jews of Jerusalem with the crucifixion of Christ..

Paul, famous for his letters of fierce rebuke as much as for his encouragement.

James, telling us to suck it all up, when we encounter pain and suffering.

Sensitivity isn't a problem in itself. But it's a faux sensitivity that does not recognise our need for balance, for rebuke, for exhortation as well as our need for comfort.

Peter

[47. Peter said the following at 6:11 PM on Jun 13:]

47

Brad (#19) and CraigM.(#23) In combination raise a point worth making.

What we achieve - whether in the spiritual or the physical - tends to come out of our character

As C.S.Lewis most insensitively put it. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

The truth is this, we will not find men who are genuinely courageous and persevereing in spiritual warfare if they are not ALSO persistent and courageous in their everyday life.

Actions come out of character, and character is built by repeating actions. Churches - and I have been in one - whose major emphasis is on feeling good and being blesed - do not build such character. Men must be taught to DO, in their everyday lives, not just to feel.

Most men rightly reject churches which do not meet their genuine needs. Men need challenges and practical results, because they live in a world in which results matter. Poor work means that their family suffers, so sensitive affirmation of their poor performance is of less value to them than enabling to work better.

Pardon the mulitiplicity of posts, but this is a hot issue for me. I've seen far too many of the friends that I had in my 20's, walk away from Christ because the church got it wrong.

Peter

[48. MizattA said the following at 7:08 PM on Jun 13:]

48

I never had a problem with any worship songs for the most worship songs. at the Church I went to at school they sang songs like Grace Like Rain or Amazing Grace, Your Name, Indescribable, etc.

if anything at my Home church I have problems with the lyrics and music because they are old school hymnish which tend to be hard to sing due to IMHO poor structure and weird tones. I will enter his gates is about the only one that seems to even remotely be accessible to me.

[49. Mike from Canmore said the following at 9:15 PM on Jun 13:]

49

#37 - Latoya K -- Spot on.

Too much complaining going on.
I would rather have a song is hard to sing than have one where the lyrics consist of "yeah, yeah, yeah" for three minutes or stating the same simple line of 7 words 11 times.
And, if my grandma designed a church bulletin, I would think that would be pretty neat.

[50. Guarnerium said the following at 12:10 AM on Jun 14:]

50

Since the relationship between masculinity and “emotion” seems to be an underlying theme of this discussion, here is my two-cents’ worth. I think we all agree that guys are allowed to feel something, provided that “something” is somehow at least tenuously related to driving drumbeats, knocking out the competition, or consuming flesh. Guys are allowed to enjoy—really enjoy—[the feeling of] playing basketball, or eating with “the fellas” at a burger joint, or what have you. But it is unclear how far beyond this point emotions are still within the bound of “the masculine,” and consequently males cultivate (and are encouraged to cultivate) a way of acting, thinking, and being that can at times amount to little more than a caricature of true masculinity. Ironically, we also complain that guys aren’t maturing into men—they’re spending all their time playing bloody video games, fraternizing at the burger joint, generally acting like macho teenagers, etc.—not realizing that this forced caricature itself militates against maturation.

“There is no fear in love.” A gender-image driven by fear—fear of falling outside “the masculine”—stands in marked contrast to one driven by love—a love of God, a love of His ways and His creation, and a love of the place which God has given the man in this world—which, when processed by the masculine “lens,” cannot fail to implant in a man’s heart a constant consciousness and understanding of what it means to be a man in God’s creation (an understanding which, by the way, registers itself preeminently with the “emotions”—what other language to we have to describe it? Our senses give us data, our intellect processes it, and then we feel it. Then, of course, our wills act on it, but I am concerned with the feeling of it at the moment, since that is where masculine perception takes on its distinctly masculine hue, it seems [though of course the male and female minds do sort data differently]). The masculinity driven by love necessarily burns with a genuine fire of true understanding and hence assurance of its own masculinity, while the one driven by fear is a mere counterfeit that has no anchor whatsoever and is literally enslaved to whatever the “powers that be” decree that manhood is.

So what is masculinity? If we confine it to touchdowns and T-bones, we’re missing the boat: affinity for those is a legitimate expression of the masculine heart; but it is still an expression, not the heart of what is being expressed. Men—we sense this intuitively; it burns in us in our better moments—we are stewards; we are guardians; we are propelled by quest: to ride far and wide, to search out mysteries and discover wonders, to protect, to conquer adversity, to raise monuments, and to love with a love as strong as death. By contrast, I see nothing patently masculine in someone who may have an “ideal” masculine physique or demeanor (which probably means different things to different people) and uses it to obtain women as trophies before defrauding them and moving on; though he himself might think his conquests are quite masculine, don’t they exhibit a complete lack of the courage, commitment, and everything else that a masculine fire in the heart would engender?

So if this masculine “fire” is something perceived through the emotions, we might then ask, what emotions are appropriate for a man? Is it appropriate to glory in the noble and the epic? Is it appropriate to feel sorrow or regret or nostalgia? Is it appropriate to be captivated by beauty? (most women certainly hope the latter is true.) Again, we lapse into error if we fail to discern, firstly, that emotional excess (in the sense not of feeling too deeply but of being hindered or crippled by emotion) is a problem when it surfaces in women as much as when it surfaces in men, so it’s not as though it is only a “problem” in men; and secondly, that the perception of such things as nobility, sorrow, and beauty differs between men and women. Art or other media that convey them become mirrors in which each gender perceives itself and reads its own story the more clearly; great art allows us to read in it our “true story,” the story of what we were made for and where we find ourselves as men and women amidst a broken world that yet resonates with strains of hope and redemption. I think the question should often be less “is it masculine or feminine?” than “is it legitimate/credible or not?” My sense is that oftentimes men see kitschy, sentimental rubbish and don’t know what to make of it beyond knowing that it certainly isn’t masculine, so it’s dubbed “girlie” or “feminine” (though I suspect no woman would find such things stirring in her a sense of awakened femininity). That said, it is clear that some things can generally apply to or be tolerated by one gender more than the other: using boyfriend-language for Jesus is a prime example, though I would say that the issue there is really illegitimacy of expression, which happens to have feminine overtones. The same goes for “sensitive” sermons: if the gospel is being watered down (though why anyone would want to water down such a glorious and powerful message is beyond me), then THAT’s the real problem, not so-called “femininity” of tone.

One final bone to pick: I have come to hate the term “sensitive” because of its abuses. But properly used, it implies keenness of perception, not lack of backbone. Eyes which discern the minutest details could be said to be most sensitive; they could also be said to be the strongest. The idea that “sensitivity” is a womanly attribute encourages men to be entirely superficial, never probing anything lest they be moved (heaven forbid). In Jesus we have an illustration of true masculine sensitivity: here was a man who was moved to intense weeping for the lost and could look on his betrayers with love, yet had the strength to follow his Father’s will all the way to the cross, in the meanwhile telling people saving truths they didn’t want to hear.

[51. Kristen said the following at 3:08 AM on Jun 14:]

51

The real issue here is that its not a good idea to use such fluid terms as "masculine" and "feminine" to define the church. what I heard when I read this was that a spiritually weak and watered-down church was feminine and a spiritually vibrant church was masculine. I know thats not what were saying here, so why the confusing gender terms? why can't we just have a discussion about why young men are not active in certain churches?

[52. Jennifer said the following at 6:03 AM on Jun 14:]

52

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best singer (I think I'm tone deaf), but when the key that the song is sung in is so high that I (a woman) can't even hope to keep up... When I have to transpose a song down a whole octave to sing it...it's frustrating.

[53. Benjamin said the following at 6:35 AM on Jun 14:]

53

if anything at my Home church I have problems with the lyrics and music because they are old school hymnish which tend to be hard to sing due to IMHO poor structure and weird tones

I don't know if this is true, but could I theorize and ask if perhaps these hymns are being led with a guitar? This is a problem I see more and more at churches I visit -- almost all hymns were written for piano and voice and are too chordally and rhythmically nuanced to translate very well to guitar, yet many music leaders insist on trying to lead them with a guitar, perhaps with an insipid repetitive extra chorus thrown in to appeal to the youth (not to get too bitter).

That is the only explanation I could think of; if not, I think it is unlikely that you will find many who will agree that the musical structure of most hymns is inferior to the identical 3-chord structure of most more modern worship songs.

[54. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 6:52 AM on Jun 14:]

54

Western Christianity most definitely favors a non-masculine orientation.

Have any of you ever seen those saccharine depictions of Jesus in the devotion of the Sacred Heart? It is scandalous.

The Sacred Heart reflects Jesus as women want him to be: sensitive, affectionate and always willing to talk about his feelings.

Men in Christian churches are encouraged to be sensitive, diplomatic and modest. Albeit good traits to possess, these goods are usually exercised to avoid or minimize conflict and maximize comfort. But, the irony is that Jesus was often none of these things!

[55. Peter said the following at 7:25 AM on Jun 14:]

55

Mike from Canmore (#49)

It's easy to say that there is too much complaining when you haven't experienced the problem.

Let me know if you've ever been in a congregation and observed more than half the men (by count) not participating in the worship, (I wasn't either, and I love to sing) mentioned it to one of the Elders as a question of song choice and suitability of vocal range,,,, and seen as the result , a tongue-lashing of the assembled men at the next men's group meeting.

No attempt to discuss men's needs.
No attempt to discern what would make it easier for men to join in the worship.

Why shouldn't I think that there's a problem?

Peter

[56. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:46 AM on Jun 14:]

56

Mike (41): Your second category shows the pitfall: men can't “take leadership” if nobody else will follow!

You could construct as many groups as you like for men, but it will make little difference unless you are willing to tell women to follow. See 1 Peter 3 for a sample of such telling :) but I think you could expect some resistance if you said the same thing to Christian women today.

Latoya K is quite right to suggest men should “put up”, but many women would be upset when a man who did so told Grandma to take out the clip art, the music team to change their songs, and the preacher to preach without apology the word of God (starting with 1 Peter 3, perhaps) . . .

[57. Rich said the following at 8:07 AM on Jun 14:]

57

I agree with the main post that the balance is out of whack. As a worship pastor I've noticed this trend heavily among worship leaders, but I've never seen it addressed. I have attempted to do so at my blog and have gotten more hate than love for it, but I stand by it and believe the church and her leaders should repent for being effeminate. Anyway, here's a link if anyone is interested: http://sounddoxology.blogspot.com/2010/04/effeminate-worship-leader.html

[58. Christie said the following at 8:47 AM on Jun 14:]

58

Perhaps people should consider attending a liturgical church where the service is rooted in solid doctrine, the hymns have theological meat to them, and the pastor preaches sermons that focus on Law and Gospel and is grounded in Scripture. The church I attend is not effeminate at all. The denomination of the church I attend is LCMS. There are other liturgical denominations also with a similar tradition.

This present generation has been too quick to dismiss the rich Christian history that has been passed down and tested for centuries through the church. Could it be that people are rejecting the wisdom of the older generations and by rejecting that wisdom people have to go through the learning process of starting from scratch and thus have a greater potential for church services to be too effeminate or too macho.

[59. Loris said the following at 9:25 AM on Jun 14:]

59

After reading the original article, I went into my Sunday service with ears pricked. We sang one new song that was beyond mediocre both lyrically and musically-everything else was fine. Regarding the pitch, yes, the music is pitched high, but that's probably because there are about 15 women in the choir to three men. So that begs the question-which came first, men being uncomfortable with singing, or music that guys don't like to sing?

[60. EM said the following at 9:35 AM on Jun 14:]

60

Let's say what we mean and mean what we say.

Nobody ultimately benefits from "Christian" teaching and practice that is:
WEAK
WISHY-WASHY
THEOLOGICALLY BANKRUPT
EXPERIENCE DRIVEN
LICENTIOUS
UNTRUTHFUL
TOLERANT OF SIN
PASSIVE
WORLDY

Nobody ultimately benefits from "Christian" teaching and practice that is:
HARSH
ARROGANT
PERSONALITY DRIVEN
DRY
LEGALISTIC
UNCARING
UNGRACIOUS
ANGRY
JUDGMENTAL

And nobody ultimately benefits from "put-downs" of our brothers and sisters in Christ based on gender distinctives. Arguments where one party insists that Jesus is "loving, compassionate and gentle" and the other points out that he was "strong, intolerant of sin and had a high pain tolerance" are ridiculous.

I bristle when I hear that the church in America is "too feminine" or that a particularly church is "too masculine." That is lazy and careless verbage.

Usually, when these terms are used, we mean any of the following:
1 - there are more women than men in the church numerically (or visa versa).
2 - women are more visible / active than men in the church (or visa versa)
3 - there are more church organized activities for women than men in the church (or visa versa)
4 - church leadership shows favoritism in treatment of men / women; significantly tailoring church ministries to one gender over the other.
5 - church services are marked by poor theology.

Listen, brothers and sisters, God does not think your church's problem is being effeminate or patriarichal. Your church suffers from an incorrect view of God, apathy about evangelism, legalism, hypocrisy, and any number of sins, perhaps, but let's define our terms, shall we?

We can't talk too much in our churches about the Love of God though we can talk too little about the justice of God and his hatred of sin. Let's strive to live more biblically and build more gospel-centered churches, instead of associating one or the other of our image-bearing sexes with what we despise about "some churches out there."

Quick question for those who disagree: are these hymns masculine / feminine to you?

---

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.

O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.

When years of time shall pass away,
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

---

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

[61. Dan Gill said the following at 9:50 AM on Jun 14:]

61

I would recommend that you read "Why Men Hate Going to Church."

This weekend we had one song that I simply will not sing, "Ten Thousand Charms." It is nothing but bad romantic lyrics applied to Jesus. It's not something that a man can feel comfortable singing to another man. Nor should he.

I know, some will point out that the church is the Bride of Christ. That does not make individual Christians his wives. It's an analogy, folks.

No, this is not a new problem. It goes back about 300 years in the Western church. Time for a change.

[62. Liz said the following at 10:06 AM on Jun 14:]

62

This is why I'm glad I'm Episcopalian. No one raises their hands during songs (it doesn't really go with the 100-year-old hymns), cries, or gets touchy-feely. We can barely make it through "The Peace" without having issues, because no on really likes being in anyone else's personal space bubble all that much. It's a great denomination for the socially awkward- types like me!

[63. Tami said the following at 10:07 AM on Jun 14:]

63

Regarding the "singability" issue -- yet another part of the problem is that so much of contemporary worship music was originally written to be sung by an individual, yet it's applied in a corporate setting. This can be difficult to follow [if you want an example of this, think about all the "yeah"s that show up in contemporary songs. It can be *hard* to follow something like that, which is kind of easy for a soloist to improvise or sing more fluidly]. Hymns, on the other hand, were written for corporate singing; and originally, several different sets of lyrics would be set to the same tune, thus making it easier to learn them.

I know that doesn't quite answer the issue about key, but my guess is that, if a church is used to singing stuff for solo sopranos or tenors, the hymns end up in that key, too.

Regarding the use of "feminine" or "masculine" -- I too dislike this terminology (remember the "weak and womanly" discussion? ugh) when applied to a church's manner. *However* in a certain respect I *do* think a church can come off as "feminine" if it's decorated with ruffles and flowers and pastel colors, and if every event *is* geared toward women. This is definitely not to suggest that a church should look like a hunting lodge; but if that's a way in which someone is saying a church is "too feminine," I can understand where they're coming from. But otherwise I agree with EM -- we should be more precise in our language. "Feminine" shouldn't be shorthand for "poor theology" or "weak doctrine."

[64. EM said the following at 10:11 AM on Jun 14:]

64

Dan, I had to laugh at your objection to "Come Ye Sinners" as "nothing but bad romantic lyrics."

You do realize that this was written in 1759 by Joseph Hart about the need of the sinner for grace - need met at the cross of Christ.

Yes, it talks about the being in the arms of the Savior. But you are, you know. As a son runs to the arms of his Father so you are to run to your Savior in your distress, though it takes humility to admit you need his salvation, comfort and protection. The Psalmist says his soul longs for his God like a deer pants for the water brook. Do you consider that too sappy and sentimental for "manly" Christianity?

So, what's unbiblical about this hymn?

Come, ye sinners, poor and needy,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, love and pow’r.

Refrain:
I will arise and go to Jesus,
He will embrace me in His arms;
In the arms of my dear Savior,
Oh, there are ten thousand charms.

Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome,
God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.

Come, ye weary, heavy-laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you’re better,
You will never come at all.

View Him prostrate in the garden;
On the ground your Maker lies;
On the bloody tree behold Him;
Sinner, will this not suffice?

Lo! th’ incarnate God ascended,
Pleads the merit of His blood:
Venture on Him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude.

Let not conscience make you linger,
Not of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth
Is to feel your need of Him.

[65. EM said the following at 10:31 AM on Jun 14:]

65

Oh, and, Dan - in Jesus time, men were not at all uncomfortable embracing another man in public.

They would actually have been far more uncomfortable kissing their wife in public.

That's still true in Middle Eastern culture.

[66. Keith said the following at 11:38 AM on Jun 14:]

66

I was reading an article this morning about this very issue. Here is an interesting quotation I got from the article:

"Men can be taught to be men only by other men, and all too many pastors are not real men. A pastor called me about my book. He had been ordained in the mainline Presbyterian Church. When he entered the seminary, he had to take a battery of psychological tests and talk to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist looked over the tests, and the first question he asked the candidate was, “Are you a homosexual?” The candidate responded, “No, I’m not, and why do you ask?” The psychiatrist replied, “You have the psychological profile of a homosexual. But don’t worry, all the successful ministers in your denomination have this profile.” The problem, as the minister realized after reading my book, is that pastors too often become pastors because they enjoy working in a feminine world, and they adopt the mental attitudes of women, who are their principal audience. In men, such a psychological profile is effeminate.

[67. SarahJane said the following at 1:51 PM on Jun 14:]

67

And no one has mentioned the impact that the same trend - whether it is one of feminization or of poor theology or something else - has on children's ministry in the church. Has anyone looked at mainstream Christian children's ministry curriculum lately? It is as if we couldn't possibly talk about anything like sin or the fact that Jesus did indeed die to take the punishment for that sin around children! And the song lyrics...yikes! I certainly understand the need to be age-appropriate when teaching children about the truths in Scripture, but when those truths are so watered-down and sugared-up that they become soda pop rather even than the milk that the apostle Peter speaks of for adult believers, can we be surprised to find young people leaving the church? I don't think that the potential dangers mentioned in this blog post are relevant only to men, but to all believers, as they are evident from the level of children's programming up to "big church". We need to refuse to accept substitutes for Scripturally-grounded teaching and worship in all areas of church ministry.

[68. Sarah said the following at 2:06 PM on Jun 14:]

68

You could sing hymns instead of worship songs...sung in 4 part harmony :) That's what we do at my church...

[69. Dan Gill said the following at 2:55 PM on Jun 14:]

69

EM (#64 and 65): I did not know the origin of the song. However, the chorus (not the verses) still has romantic, Jesus-is-my-boyfriend tones to me and many other men. I've met lots of men who are uncomfortable singing it. It's not the only one. Most are pretty recent.

As for embracing other men, I'm also big on that. As far as emotions go, I'm pretty much an emotional giant. I cry unashamedly in worship, and at other times. I'm also one to stand up and shout at some things, and wherever I sit in church is the amen corner. I'm expressive. Lots of men aren't.

The point is that much of what we do in worship and many of the service opportunities in churches are oriented toward women. We've managed to emasculate the church, paring the claws of the Lion of Judah, as someone here quoted Dorothy Sayers.

I encourage you still to read the book, and to read "Wild at Heart" and "Jesus Mean and Wild." I've learned a lot from all of them.

And when we sing one of the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs, I send a "Girly Song Alert" e-mail to our worship minister. He has come to expect them from me, and we usually have a chuckle over them.

[70. Mike said the following at 3:31 PM on Jun 14:]

70

Trevor Dolby (#56) wrote:

[M]en can't “take leadership” if nobody else will follow!

You could construct as many groups as you like for men, but it will make little difference unless you are willing to tell women to follow. See 1 Peter 3 for a sample of such telling :) but I think you could expect some resistance if you said the same thing to Christian women today.

Preach it, brother! :-)

I'm often amazed at the number of people screaming at men to "stand up!" ... and yet, as soon as a man "stands up" to a woman, he's accused of being a brute, insensitive, lacking in understanding, etc., etc.

Latoya K is quite right to suggest men should “put up”, but many women would be upset when a man who did so told Grandma to take out the clip art, the music team to change their songs, and the preacher to preach without apology the word of God (starting with 1 Peter 3, perhaps) . . .

Indeed. And here's my issue with the whole thing: We gripe incessantly about men not wanting to participate in church while simultaneously creating as hostile an environment for men as we can. And then we defend it vigorously. Hmn ... if you want the men to participate, mightn't it be useful to consider making the environment more amenable to male participation?

Just a thought.

[71. Prickly Pete said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 14:]

71

Dan Gill (#69):

I encourage you still to read the book, and to read "Wild at Heart" ...

Has there ever been a discussion on this site about Wild at Heart? I always find people's reactions to that book interesting.

I, for one, do not care for it; I think the author takes great liberties with Scripture in order to define manliness as ... whatever he likes, and then declares God's approval without any solid Biblical backing. I am not particularly surprised that it became popular, though -- the basic idea of "God made me like this, so I shouldn't have to change" is always an attractive one.

[72. Peter said the following at 4:44 PM on Jun 14:]

72

EM (#60)

When I refer to a church as "feminine", I mean one in which women are more comfortable and more affirmed than men. One in which women are encouraged to be like women, and men are encouraged to be like women.

I'm referring to the driving characteristics, not merely the results.

What is wrong with my choice of terminology?

Curiously.... Peter

[73. Peter said the following at 4:56 PM on Jun 14:]

73

Hmm.....

Many seem to like quoting David as the epitome of what an emotional, worshipping man should be like. Let's bear in mind that David was far from a perfect example as far as his own character is concerned. A weak father, an undisciplined lover and a leader who occasionally had to be rebuked for indulging in self-centred emotion when his men needed self-sacrificial leadership.

However what is much more to the point, is that David demonstrates a very strong extrovert/artistic temperament , of a type that is foreign to 3/4 of men and clashes with 1/4 of us. Doesn't mean that the psalms are bad, just that not every expression of David's worship is a great pattern for us. OK?

Peter.

[74. Al said the following at 4:59 PM on Jun 14:]

74

dawnellen wrote,

As for emotional songs, I think they do have their place. Emotions and feelings are so often looked down at as negative even to the point of being completely inferior to logic, but the right mixture is important.

I know about the sort of contentless emotive songs that some take issue with. But I totally agree with you-- the whole point of music is to elicit emotion, so we feel the right way about the right things.

Logic and emotions are often pitted against each other by folks that are strong in one and distrust the other. But I believe logic is only serving its purpose fully when it produces hearty emotion, and emotion is fully grounded in truth only when it is constrained by reason. And it is only through emotion that we fully comprehend not just what the truth is, but what the truth means.

[75. H said the following at 5:03 PM on Jun 14:]

75

Prickly Pete (71)
Yeah that is an ..intersting book. I read it just because I happened to come across it and I sort of found it to be rather ...indulgent, for lack of a better word. I always wondered if that was because I was a girl and just didn't "get" it... Although I have read the "girl version" called "Captivting" and didn't like that one much better.

[76. Tami said the following at 5:12 PM on Jun 14:]

76

Prickly Pete (71) I concur with you about Wild at Heart.

Captivating is the same, except it refers to women.

Note: I don't disagree that men want to be MEN. I affirm that! It's just *that book* I have issues with... as Prickly Pete wrote, I think it takes liberties. And I say the same for Captivating.

And yeah, many men *do* use Wild at Heart to defend their behavior in the "that's just how I am" way. (But then... I feel *a lot* of current Christian books set out to use psychology and polling to determine and defend "normal" behavior... the For Women Only/For Men Only books do that a lot.)

[77. EM said the following at 5:27 PM on Jun 14:]

77

Peter #72
My concern with the term would be how you are defining "feminine."

See, I don't know from the above what you mean by that or by "like a woman". I doubt you mean that men are being encouraged to nurse babies, so I'm still left wondering exactly what you think wrong in the given church. Is it that truth is compromised in pursuit of sensitivity? Is it that services always seem to pursue an emotional high and knowing God through his word is neglected? Are all the role models female? Are there 5 bible studies for women & none for men?

My point is that I still don't know what you mean when you criticize a church as feminized. That said, I agree that it is less than optimal if either sex, on balance, feels excluded, unnecessary, or attacked in the body life of a given local church.

[78. Matthew Jones said the following at 5:29 PM on Jun 14:]

78

Question for the men of boundless: anyone ever considered starting a men's only church? My older brother started a men's only group and had so much success, they began a men's only church that meets through the member's houses. I visited them when they first started and it was only about twelve guys, but the group has grown to almost fifty now.

Most of the guys who attend admitted they weren't attending church before attending his group.

I'm curious how the men on boundless would react because I've considered trying to start something similar in my area.

[79. Dan Gill said the following at 6:01 PM on Jun 14:]

79

Prickly Pete: Like it or dislike it as you please. I think you're misreading it. I know I didn't like it the first time I tried to read it. Later, I tried again and found a lot of truth there. I recommend it because I believe it is correct. It doesn't necessarily validate my behavior. It's funny to me how often people make assumptions about others based on nothing more than a post or two on a forum.

[80. Angie at 36 said the following at 6:30 PM on Jun 14:]

80

@ multiple posts Peter

Well said. I'm not a guy and so I have a hard time describing the masculine. But I know it when I see it/hear it. And I know truth when I hear it. And you spoke it well.

I would disagree with you on one thing. Your 20s friends---they didn't walk away from Christ bc the church got it wrong. Ultimately, they walked away bc THEY got it wrong.

That said though, your passion is evident, necessary and timely. It made me smile. I would encourage you to keep speaking out on the matter but somehow think you will with or without encouragement.

[81. Peter said the following at 6:45 PM on Jun 14:]

81

Long Post Alert.....

Guarnerium (#50)

Opined somewhat satirically:- "I think we all agree that guys are allowed to feel something, provided that “something” is somehow at least tenuously related to driving drumbeats, knocking out the competition, or consuming flesh. Guys are allowed to enjoy—really enjoy—[the feeling of] playing basketball, or eating with “the fellas” at a burger joint, or what have you. But it is unclear how far beyond this point emotions are still within the bound of “the masculine,” and consequently males cultivate (and are encouraged to cultivate) a way of acting, thinking, and being that can at times amount to little more than a caricature of true masculinity. "

At least, I hope that it was satirical.

It is very true that society has been trying to re-mold men for at least 50 years. It has been comprehensively demonstrated that boys and girls are hardwired differently from birth. Boys are more restless, energetic, competitive, exploratory and accepting of risk. Yet our peaceful, affluent (decadent?) society sees much of this as negative, or at best, uncomfortable. Some are put in the category of "In case of war/emergency, Break Glass."

A relative of mine was involved in a major review of a state education system's methods, with reference to gender. The review recommended a strategy to make the typically male-dominated subjects like maths and science, more attractive to girls. My relative wrote the minority dissenting report, predicting that the proposed changes would make the classroom and learning process hostile for boys. Decades later, the results have proven her right.

My point is that when we talk about what men are "allowed" to feel, our current society is a lousy starting point. With depression in seemingly epidemic proportions, and men bearing a disproportionately high burden, the rational conclusion is that it is current trends, not old stereotypes that are creating problems for men..

Whether it's health issues like this, or the attitudes towards emotion that permit uncommitted sex and absentee fatherhood, the church should be countering cultural trends, not following them.

I look to three sources for my understanding of how men should be - and current cultural fads are not amongst them.

(1) The most error-prone, but still useful, is through an examination of the way that God has made men different. As mentioned before, boys are hard-wired differently at the emotional level. We react differently, we communicate differently, we orient differently. To choose an obvious example, we do not expect the average women to perform the kind of heavy work of which the average man is fully capable, I argue that it is equally foolish to expect the same emotional standards reactions and standards from the two sexes. God has made us different

(2) I look to the revelation of scripture. Not just to examples, because the Bible records as many of men's failings as their successes. But when men are commanded to protect and defend, I understand that this requires toughness. Selflessness requires being able to put your emotions to one side so that you can deal with the needs of others. Leadership and responsibility require the ability to think objectively, abstractly and unemotionally .... so it is no surprise that men fulfilling their biblical roles will demonstrate a certain amount of emotional distance and high degree of self-control. Note that being "temperate" as a required by church elders in Timothy means "even tempered" and not given to emotional extremes.

(3)Obviously, I also look to Christ as the perfect example of a man. I note that while Christ wept, he did so rarely (and arguably, never for himself). He was angry and impatient more often. (How does the church react to angry and impatient men?) When tired or in need he went off alone to pray. In the period leading up to Jesus arrest - the last supper and his time of prayer in Gethsemane - the only recorded instances of Jesus referring to his own feelings are his comment on how eagerly He has desired to eat that meal (Luke22:15)and "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."(Matt 26:38) before going APART from his disciples to pray.

Jesus' care and concern for his disciples is DEMONSTRATED by his teaching, warning and preparation, NOT ARTICULATED by discussion of his own feelings..

That's an example that more men would feel inspired to follow, if the church presented it correctly.

Peter

[82. Schy said the following at 7:42 PM on Jun 14:]

82

Too may people that comment on his articles are lookign to nit pick instead of seek out the point of the article and the main idea!!! It is starting to get really annoying.

We are advised to not let any unwholesome word depart from our mouth, but only such words that are good for building others up according to the need of the moment, that it may impart grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:29)

[83. Peter said the following at 9:06 PM on Jun 14:]

83

EM (#77)

You wrote:
"See, I don't know from the above what you mean by that or by "like a woman". I doubt you mean that men are being encouraged to nurse babies, so I'm still left wondering exactly what you think wrong in the given church. ?"

Believe it or not, I have been trying to keep my posts shorter by not revisiting the whole of the "what is masculine/feminine" issue every time. In past discussions I've defined the two as those characteristics and tendencies which distinguish the sexes, as opposed to those we have in common. I empphasize "tendencies" because I'm not foolish enough to consider a lot of the issues under discussion to be absolute or exclusive to one particular sex.

As I've stated previously, I consider that a church in which one sex is more accepted, encouraged and affirmed than the other is not balanced. As most of my experience is of an imbalance towards what accepts, aaffirms encourages (or is just plain liked by...) women more than men, I feel justified in applying the label "feminized" to this kind of church.

How would you label a church in which women had to remain veiled and silent at all times?

"Is it that truth is compromised in pursuit of sensitivity? Is it that services always seem to pursue an emotional high and knowing God through his word is neglected? Are all the role models female? Are there 5 bible studies for women & none for men?"

Yes, I've seen all of the above, to various degrees, the role models including feminine men, rather than just women.

This includes the depiction of Jesus himself as a soft-handed, white-faced, glossy-haired passive male who spent his time patting children and cuddling lambs (Please consider that I'm a sheep farmer so I have ZERO delusions that lambs are cute.) Far from the dynamic, calloused-handed, ex-carpenter from whom "Follow me" was a challenge, not a polite request. Consider this when discussing role-models.

Cheers..... Peter

[84. Tami said the following at 9:23 PM on Jun 14:]

84

Dan Gill (79) for the sake of clarity, in my own analysis of Wild at Heart, I am not saying that *you personally* are using it to defend your own behavior. I know of men in "real life" who do.

Because as you wrote... I don't know you, except for what you write on this blog, and that has always seemed sound to me.

[85. Peter said the following at 9:27 PM on Jun 14:]

85

Angie (#80)

You are right in that every one of us ultimately bears responsibility for our decision to follow Christ or the enemy.

What I mean to make clear is that this does not let the Church off the hook.

As Jesus said in Luke17:1 " "Things that cause people to sin (Literally - " to stumble") are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come."

[86. James said the following at 9:56 PM on Jun 14:]

86

I count myself with EM in that I simply don't understand this concept of a feminine church. Despite seeing this issue multiple times on this blog, I have yet to see a tangible example of this. Song selections aren't exactly a strong issue to put this on imo.

I suppose I should count myself blessed I haven't had any experience with this phenomenon. If anything, the reputation of Churches I've attended is they're too harsh. But, I get the sense women like that, they like strong stances on issues, the high accountability for men to be leaders, etc.

Mathew (78) What you're describing is a small group (home, community group, etc), not a Church. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, of course it is! I've been in one before, and it's a good outlet to discuss issues for men. It's just not a substitute for Church imo.

[87. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:29 AM on Jun 15:]

87

It's long past time we cut the niceties and burned that American-made lie--"Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild"--at the stake.

I'll supply the marshmallows.

James says:

I count myself with EM in that I simply don't understand this concept of a feminine church. Despite seeing this issue multiple times on this blog, I have yet to see a tangible example of this. Song selections aren't exactly a strong issue to put this on imo.

Here is the perfect example of a "feminine church". It's more like a witches' coven, but I digress...

[88. Dan GIll said the following at 6:34 AM on Jun 15:]

88

Tami, I responded to Prickly Pete as I did because it seemed as if he was painting with a broad brush, attributing motives to lots of folks. It's pretty hard, perhaps impossible to do that fairly. I think your post came after mine.

As for a discussion of "Wild at Heart," I've seen some criticisms of it that were pretty silly to me. I'd be interesting in hearing what behavior you and Prickly Pete think people were justifying through the book. But perhaps that is a subject for another thread. I recommend the book to all Christian men I know. I've seen a lot of men who are helped by it. It's not scripture, so it's not infallible. What book is?

[89. EM said the following at 7:57 AM on Jun 15:]

89

@ Peter 83

Cool - listen, I think we agree that all of those things are problems. I just don't think "feminine" or "woman-like" (which is what effeminite means, of course) is good short-hand for describing those very real problems.

In general, men and women do have certain different tendencies, I know; just as you know that not all men are alike and not all women are alike. Each person probably differs from the "mean" for their sex to some degree.

Which leaves me struggling greatly to see the merit in defining the problems in any given group by the NEGATIVE tendencies common to males or females.

You see, I had to guess what you meant by "feminized" based on how I'd seen other people use the term. And you agreed with what I guessed and elaborated on it. Not one thing I named or you agreed with was a positive thing about women. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by a biblical understanding of grace, full of people who were ready to forgive as they had been forgiven, quick to care for the poor and show mercy to a brother or sister who had fallen and was repentant. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by godly strength and dignity like the Proverbs 31 woman.

So, when you say a church is feminized, it sounds really negative to me. And that makes me wonder if you think women are marked, in general, by negative characteristics. And, if you think that, it makes me wonder how you can respect women in general if that's what you think of them.

As in your example, what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if I were talking about all those masculinized churches, where women had to keep quiet and veiled on the one extreme or where the only women who had any input at all were those who exhibited traditionally male characteristics, on the other extreme. What if I made it clear that when I talked about "masculinization," I meant that the church was run by bullies, angry people who tolerated or defended abusers and child molesters. Where anyone who tried to express a feeling was shut down and told that God doesn't care what you feel, only what you do. Where if you didn't agree with church leadership about any matter, no matter how petty, you would be shunned. Where there were no strong female role models and, in fact, if you were a woman who was interested in anything "non-traditional," you would be considered a rebel against God's created order.

If that was my concept of a "masculine" church, you might be forgiven for thinking I had a very low view of men in general.

A healthy church is not going to be prone to the sinful extremes of either sex. Not only those who fit the average patterns for their own sex, but outliers will be accepted, valued, and learn to live well in Christian community. Men who like NASCAR and hunting and are more comfortable problem solving will be respected and women who enjoy shopping, decorating and girl talk over tea will feel loved. But strong women engineers who like football will also feel respected and talented male artists who express heart felt emotions with deep sensitivity will be valued too. And the attention of all will be centered on the gospel. Christ will be exalted and image-bearers won't be boxed in based on how well or poorly they conform to gender stereotypes but will be challenged to leave behind the weaknesses common to their sex as they are conformed to the image of Christ.

[90. Sarah P. said the following at 8:16 AM on Jun 15:]

90

Peter (#81) said: To choose an obvious example, we do not expect the average women to perform the kind of heavy work of which the average man is fully capable, I argue that it is equally foolish to expect the same emotional standards reactions and standards from the two sexes..

So perhaps men are very good at being hard, and women are very good at being soft (in general). I think the point is that we need to learn to put those skills together as a unit, each sex being willing to learn from each other and grow. In that way, we image Christ better -- since He is both a lion and a lamb.

The Church always needs both. It needs to be a lion, or it won't have the strength to make an impact. And it needs to be a lamb, or it won't have the love to make the right impact.

I've never gone to one of these sissy churches, if only because it seems it would be a waste of time when the world needs so much done by strong Christians. So I don't know for sure what everyone is talking about. Sometimes worship music is too high and also really bad artistically, but that is when our (male tenor) worship leader gets carried away.

Besides, your Christianity will only be "girlie" if you let it.

[91. EM said the following at 8:55 AM on Jun 15:]

91

@ Dan 69

I can certainly understand the discomfort you and other men might feel with the words to the chorus of that hymn.

I would also agree that there are unbiblical lyrics out there which you shouldn't be singing.

However, we all have a responsibility to measure our comfort levels against biblical truth and respond to the truth, even if it is inconsistent with our feelings or cultural norms.

In the case of this hymn, it might be appropriate to rethink the reaction to the chorus in light of the truths it is talking about. No matter how strong of a man you are, you are still a weak sinner who needs the Savior. As for the ten thousand charms in his arms, besides the good rhyme, its a very biblical phrase.

The songwriter is drawing the biblically informed reader's mind from the "pleasures of sin" (which are deceptive and shortlived, hence we are "ruined by the fall") to the pleasures of Christ. It is better to be a door-keeper in the House of God than to dwell in the tents of the wicked because we get to behold his majesty, his holiness, his beauty, as Scripture says. "Charms" is simply an older-English word for rewards, benefits, pleasures.

As Christ is our "great high priest," the "firstborn of many brethren," our Savior, it is appropriate to think of and to praise Him for the benefits we find in Him. How is that unmanly?

[92. Angie at 36 said the following at 9:12 AM on Jun 15:]

92

Peter @ 85....

....agreed

[93. Dan said the following at 9:27 AM on Jun 15:]

93

Unfortunately, I don't have as much time to put into this comment as I would like, but there are a few things burning in my mind right now:

First, worshipping our God requires all of us, our emotions, our intellect, our desires, our actions. To say that being emotive is "girlie" and that we've emasculated the church by bringing emotions into songs (implying on some level, our worship would be more biblical if we were all head-knowledge, or even chose to use more battle-oriented metaphors) is just ridiculous. That said, modern worship music IN GENERAL has strayed greatly in terms of the content of the songs that are out there.

As a worship leader, I have so many songs to sift through because worship music has become a money-making industry, and there really are a small percentage of what's out there that has the meat (or Scripturally rich lyrics) that we look for as a congregation. Our team works hard to present the congregation with a balanced approach to worship as far as the content of our songs and the key that we put them in, and even the style with which they are played.

**But** where we have the most success is in presenting a transparent, genuine, and biblical approach to the heart of worship. We put that first and then our team members work hard to add musical excellence, good variety, etc. I believe THAT is why we have consistently had great engagement (not just attendance) from both men and women.

The Church in America is so wealthy and comfortable that we can afford to have conversations ad nauseum about our preferences and whether this should be this way or that way, or should we legislate this or that, and so many times we miss out on the heart of the issue. Don't let your hopefully honest desire to honor God in all that we do cause you to miss out on the condition of your heart, from which all else flows. Are you ready to worship, no matter the circumstance, not just musically, but with every action you take? Because to allow your worship to be DEPENDENT upon external circumstances is a slap in the face to the love that was given to you.

[94. Jannie said the following at 9:55 AM on Jun 15:]

94

I only read the first 6 posts and I felt like the comments where a most femenistic. I am a woman who wants to live as Christ designed women to live. The Godly woman of Proverbs 31. That doesn't mean I have to be married and have kids. God created men first for a reason, they are to be leaders and leaders for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Deborah was called forth to be a judge, but that was because there wasn't a man that would step forth. In that story it talked about how she had to follow a man to battle because he was too scared to go on his own. Even though God had already spoken through her to him, but he told her he wasn't going to go without her. But if you notice in this story Deborah stepped up because the man wouldn't. She had to push him along.
In the word it says first "Woman submit to your husbands" and secondly "Men honor your wifes, and love them as christ loves the church.". These verses show a lot about the call of God on men and women. Women don't think I am trying to lessen who you are, if God has placed you in a leadership role don't water it down. You're there for a reason and glorify God with the opportunity, but men if you are being prompted by the Holy Spirit and your not answering because your scared of failure, or just plain scared because you don't know what is going to happen. There were men through out the scriptures and in the world today that were martyred for the sake of loving and being obedient to Christ. Think of the blessing that the Lord will bestow on you for your obiedience.
Also on a side note. I can guarentee you there isn't a godly christian woman that doesn't find a man who is willing to step up and take initiative in the church (fellowshiping, attending bible studies, serving. etc...) attractive. It is something we desire in our husbands. If they can do it for the Lord than they can definately do it for their families.
If its something you desire, ask the Lord. We all have stuggles with our flesh and spirit and God knows that. That is where the prayer of "Lord I want to ....but please Lord help my unwant" comes in great. =)

[95. Natasha said the following at 11:30 AM on Jun 15:]

95

Thank you EM #89!

Since you basically said it all, I'll just second your entire post. :)
However I'd like to draw special attention to this section:

A healthy church is not going to be prone to the sinful extremes of either sex. Not only those who fit the average patterns for their own sex, but outliers will be accepted, valued, and learn to live well in Christian community... ...And the attention of all will be centered on the gospel. Christ will be exalted and image-bearers won't be boxed in based on how well or poorly they conform to gender stereotypes but will be challenged to leave behind the weaknesses common to their sex as they are conformed to the image of Christ.

Excellent truths! God bless!

[96. Trevor Dolby said the following at 11:44 AM on Jun 15:]

96

Jannie (94): Amen :) but are you sure that all godly Christian women would be attracted to a man who took the initiative in church by correcting others, tearing up the song sheets for blasphemous songs, etc? I agree that they would if the men did what you describe (fellowshipping, attending bible studies, serving, etc), but the initiative-taking won't stop there . . .

[97. EM said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 15:]

97

@ Amir 87

Wow - that Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran, San Francisco - ELCA sounds pretty awful.

If anyone here is attending there (or something close) I'd be happy to have a bible-based conversation on the necessity of separating from any group that worships a false god. And if that's what you mean by "girlie" Christianity, then I'll agree with the term! :-) It seems like they worship female identity, not Christ.

[98. Jo said the following at 12:31 PM on Jun 15:]

98

Amir, 87:

"Here is the perfect example of a "feminine church". It's more like a witches' coven, but I digress..."

Uh huh, except that isn't at all the kind of church that Ted was talking about, is it.

[99. Dan GIll said the following at 2:02 PM on Jun 15:]

99

EM (#91) said:
"As Christ is our "great high priest," the "firstborn of many brethren," our Savior, it is appropriate to think of and to praise Him for the benefits we find in Him. How is that unmanly?"

Sorry, but you're setting up a straw man. I never said, nor would I ever say that was unmanly. Look back at my posts. I merely said the chorus of that song was not something I or a lot of men could sing. Charms may have meant something else to the writer. It doesn't mean that to most people.

There are plenty of good songs that don't cause these problems. We really don't need this one. Ask 100 people what the chorus means, and you won't get more than a few who reference the old English meaning. They'll mainly say that it has romantic overtones.

[100. Peter said the following at 6:24 PM on Jun 15:]

100

EM (#89)

QUOTE "Which leaves me struggling greatly to see the merit in defining the problems in any given group by the NEGATIVE tendencies common to males or females.

...... Not one thing I named or you agreed with was a positive thing about women. You didn't mean that the church was characterized by a biblical understanding of grace, full of people who were ready to forgive as they had been forgiven, quick to care for the poor .

EM...

Ever been to hospital with a broken limb? Would you be impressed if the medic insisted on a lisst of the 200-odd bones that were not broken... or would you prefer that he concentrated on diagnosing the problem.

This is a blog post, not a Doctoral thesis, so of course we're focussed on the problems and issues, now what the churches in question have done well.

Masculine and feminine are both neutral terms. Nothing inherently negative about either. It depends on context It is in the context of a church that should be "all things to all men" and "no respecter of persons", but should cater to Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, ... but which caters disproportionately to the needs of women, then the term "feminised" is both appropriate and negative.

Nothing wrong with femininity, just excessive femininity in the wrong place.

Peter