« being shaped by the Potter..... | Main | a few more thoughts on feminization.... »
April 23, 2006
feminization of the church? hmmmmmm.....
To be completely honest again. There are some things that I think are worth note, worth a comment, but not worth me spending a lot of time in debate over. One, it might be because I just don't have enough knowledge in an area, and though I think the topic is interesting, I probably don't know enough to post too much stuff on it (but then again, I guess that hasn't stopped me much before). Second, some things are worth note and a comment because I see or have taken notice of the issue, but it's not an issue that I think is the pressing issue at the moment. I think this issue is reflective of both of those things. I am no expert in this area, and I don't see this as the pressing issue in the churc either. What issue? What some are calling the "feminization of the church."
Now, let me first state that I like Biola a lot. I almost went to undergrad there. I have good friends there. And I have particpated in some events there. So this is not a knock on Biola, as much as some of my awe over some of the conclusions in the article I am linking below.
Over the weekend my father-in-law handed me a copy of one of Biola's magazines. I don't remember the name, but I think it might have been "Connections." I don't have the magazine in my possession anymore since my sister-in-law is in possession of it (she is an alumni), but the article was titled, The Feminization of the Church
Why Its Music, Messages and Ministries Are Driving Men Away. And though I don't have the hardcopy of what I read, I found this article online which appears to be exactly the same thing.
This is an interesting topic to me because I often wonder why the majority of people in church are women. Is it because our population consists of more men than women? Is there something in the church culture driving men away? Or is it just part of the ebb and flow that we find ourselves in at times? I don't have any really good answers, and the ones that I have heard, aren't that great either. All I know is that I appreciate any help or leadership I get in my college ministry, whether it be more men or more women. And sometimes it just depends on the year.
But because of this predicament that many see in the church certain ministries have risen up like Wild at Heart, Promise Keepers, etc., etc. I have even been too several Promise Keeper events in the mid-90's.
But what bothers me about this discussion is the "hyper-masculine" language, that seems to state that unless the metaphors of "war" and "battle" and "fighting" are used, than men are not being reached and any other message is irrelevant. Now I am painting with broad strokes here, but you know what I mean.
Let me give some examples from the article:
Feminized music concerns Steve Craig ('05), a graduate of Biola's degree completion program and the director of a men's ministry of over 400 men at Yorba Linda Friends Church in Yorba Linda, Calif.
"In our men's ministry, we're beginning to take out the flowery songs and replace them with the warrior-type lyrics and more masculine things that men identify with," Craig said.
Mike Erre (M.A. '04)-- the director of a men's ministry of over 400 men at Rock Harbor Church in Costa Mesa, Calif. -- said feminine expressions of spirituality are more validated than masculine expressions.
"The classic example is the worship pose of the eyes shut and the arms raised in this tender embrace, singing a song that says, 'I'm desperate for you. You're the air I breathe.' Guys don't talk to guys like that," Erre said.
Now, I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be a balance of lyrical content, but is it unmasculine for a man to shut his eyes and raise his hands in the air in worship to God? And if worship music begins to be replaced by certain imagery, than is this movement of masculinity going to be all about warriors and fighting?
Then there is this comment:
Also, many church service opportunities are geared for women -- like working in the nursery, teaching children, cooking and hospitality. So, many men feel their options are limited to ushering, directing parking, or sitting on a committee -- activities that might not allow them to use their skills or challenge them.
Wow! The author may not mean it that way, but that seems like a sexist comment. And yeah, I know the author is a woman. But I didn't know that cooking, teaching children, working in the nursery and hospitality were only gifts given to women.
What seems to underlie a lot of the article is that men...not all, but some...are uncomfortable with some of the shifting of roles in society, and they aren't quite sure what to do about it. Maybe it's not the lyrics or the music or the preaching. Maybe it is something larger. And it's not only men that are uncomfortable with some of this role-shifting in culture, but many women as well.
Then there is this comment:
Even professionals who join church committees, like a building or finance committee, often complain that the skills they contribute to the corporate world --like taking risks, making hard decisions, and thinking outside the box --aren't welcome in many churches, whose governing boards tend to play it safe, according to Murrow. As a result, less gets accomplished, which can be frustrating to men who are results-driven, he said.
For example, some businessmen might suggest that a church cut an ineffective program that is costing time and money and replace it with a more effective one. But inefficient programs often remain because a more feminine value--of not hurting people's feelings-- wins out.
Wow! The impication seems to be that women run more inefficient programs because of their feminine value of not wanting to hurt other people's feelings. As opposed to men I supppose who don't care about the feelings of others at all. Oh, and maybe the church isn't supposed run like the corportations men work in during the week. Maybe part of the problem of the church is that it has succumbed to the American corporate business model for its operation.
Here comes more:
Girly-Men Pastors
Touchy-feely sermons come from touchy-feely pastors. A feminized church tends to attract more "gentle, sensitive, nurturing" leadership," according to Pearcey.
Now here comes my own bias, because I tend to see myself as senstive and nurturing as a leader. But I guess I didn't know that leadership wasn't supposed to be nurturing. My bad. I admit, I have my own flaws as a leader and I'm not always as well-rounded as I should be, but Jesus seemed to be a nurturing leader. And he seemed to be sensitive enough that one of his disciples was comfortable enough to recline up against him at the last supper (John 13:25).
Now here comes Pearcey's knock on youth pastors:
Pearcey said to consider a typical youth pastor.
"He's really into relationships, very motivating, but is he teaching good apologetics? Is he teaching youth to use their minds and to understand deeper theological truths? At least the ones I've known haven't," she said. "Today, the common trajectory is for youth pastors to become senior pastors," she added.
There you have it. Ministry and the church and the pastorate is not about relationships, but it is about teaching good apologetics.
Here is the final killer quote:
Yet, much of the church is seeking further feminization, through attempts to increase female clergy and to create gender-neutral Bibles and hymns. Many liberal seminaries now graduate equal numbers of women and men, or more women than men, like Yale Divinity School and Harvard Divinity School.
Well, they didn't mention Fuller Seminary where I went. But I thought Fuller promoted women in ministry because of the calling of God upon their lives and the work of the Holy Spirit for full-time ministry, not because it was a coup to further feminize the Church. And maybe the church isn't seeking feminization as much as it is cathing up to a history and a church that has been mostly masculinzed for so long.
The one thought that I really appreciated in the article was from one of Biola's professors:
But Dr. Gary Strauss, a professor in Biola's Rosemead School of Psychology, warns that Murrow may be promoting a "hypermasculinity"--the idea that all men should fit the stereotypical norm of a "man's man," like the Marlboro Man--tough, outdoorsy and self-reliant.
"He seems to place such a strong emphasis on the hypermasculine image that he doesn't adequately affirm men of a different type," Strauss said. "To me, from the hyperfeminine woman, on the one end of the human spectrum, to the hypermasculine man, on the other, and every person in between (assuming psychological health), reflects the breadth and image of God," he said.
Hey, if you read my blog at all, you know I love Jack Bauer, and he is hardly your typical feminine stereotype. I also love Braveheart and Gladiator as much as the next guy. But I don't agree with some of the conclusions that are being discussed, nor do I think that the answer for the chuch is to dress it up in military language and garb in an attempt to strike a better gender balance. And maybe the problem is not with the church, but with us as men in general. Maybe we as men need to learn how to be men in the church today, and not grasp for old stereotypes of what we think masculinity is supposed to be in the church. As the roles of men and women shift in both society and the church it is going to take time and some periods of wrestling out what the church looks like. There is no easy answer and there is no cookie cutter solutions.
I think and believe that one of the most creative relationships is that between a man and woman, a husband and wife. It is creative because of the differences that sometimes exist between the sexes, and it is that tension that I think makes for a beautiful relationship and marriage. It is a true balancing act that only God can succeed in bringing together. (But hey, what do I know...I'm speaking as a man who has been married for only ten months :-)
And I think that if the church is truly going to be the Church, it is going to need both the gifts of men and women. It is going to need both men and women using the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them. And whether the church has more men or more women does not matter. What matters is that God is using both men and women to accomplish His work, in the Church and here on earth.
Posted by rhett at April 23, 2006 07:29 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/414
Comments
Great thoughts, Rhett [as usual]. I am so shocked by how some of these people have "read the data". A feminization of the church? Really? Just because there are more men than women in the church?
I am also deeply disturbed by the notion that seminaries have gone "liberal" if they are graduating women. It also appears from the article that to make a seminary viable, you need to have a majority of men as graduates. I especially like how Biola wants you to know that they are doing their part by having 76% of it's students be men.
With all these men graduating, you would think that churches would be more "masculine". But I guess not by readin the article. Hhhmm, I wonder what Biola and Talobt would have to say about that?
Feminization of the church? Please.
As for the quote from YLFC, I will keep my opinions to myself.
Posted by: Mike DeVries at April 23, 2006 11:29 PM
Rhett,
Brilliant critique, really. I generally think that femininization is bad and I am fairly traditional when it comes to women in leadership, but at the same time, the stereotyping of the genders that you highlighted bothers me immensely. Especially those that (as you pointed out) imply that men shouldn't be tender and sensitive. Men, after all, have always been poets, a practice that many would now label as 'feminine.' A book that I think got the balance right was Stu Weber's "Tender Warrior." It's an easy read, but good (from what I remember).
Also, the loss of warfare language in church does trouble me, but not for masculinity reasons. Rather, warfare imagery is Biblical--Paul uses it frequently, and Jesus seems to "do battle" with death when he raises Lazarus (he snorts like a war horse, that is, when he is 'deeply moved'). So a faith without warfare imagery is an anemic faith, but not necessarily a feminized faith. Women should use warfare language too, I think. As far as I can tell, they are no more immune from Satan's attacks then men. He, at least, seems to be an egalitarian.
Posted by: Matt Anderson at April 24, 2006 12:34 AM
Rhett, I always appreciate your stance on "issues" because you teach us that life isn't this little line of black that we are meant to stand on... we need to adventure into the white and gray and color and see for ourselves what is real... and it is in these things that we find God's real character and His desire for us... and the more and more I read (and listen) to what you say, the more I realize how blessed I am to have had you as a pastor for the last four years... feelings and relationships and all... ;)
Posted by: Katie Hat at April 24, 2006 12:36 AM
Rhett,
I am more than a little frustrated with the 'Wild at Heart' type of approach to masculinity. Personally I think that it's built from a romantization of American frontierism and individualism. In the early colonial history, men were heads of households and had responsibilities to his family as a result. Young men were attracted to the frontier as an exciting and even lawless place where they were free from the restraints and responsibilities of family life. I think that this hyper-masculinization trend has been unduly influenced by manhood as recklessly adventuresome.
Just this weekend my church had a men's retreat where many of the ideas from John Eldridge were promoted - but it seemed to work well because they were watered down and not carried to an irresponsible extreme. So, the good news is that I wasn't clawing the arms of my chair the entire time and gritting my teeth, but I did leave with the sense that there was much more that we could have done and talked about.
As a complementarian, I do not endorse Wild at Heart. But, for what it's worth, neither does the CBMW, which has posted a clearly unfavorable review of the book on its website.
BTW, I just made a post with some of my views on gender relationships on my blog. I had intended on posting it earlier, but instead waited about two weeks because I didn't feel it was ready, and because I've had a lot happening in my life. You might take a look at it if you get a chance.
--michaelh
Posted by: Michael Hamblin at April 24, 2006 09:35 AM
Rhett,
I am sure you can guess from our previous interactions that I am an advocate of the "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" postion, but I think you are right about this article in Biola's magazine. They seem to miss the point. No one disagrees that men are essential to the church. A study I read once said that if the man in a family comes to Christ, there is a 90% likelihood that the rest of the family will follow. Male leadership is weak these days and men are often seen in the media as being macho is they sleep with a lot of women or get into fights -- definitely not the Biblical model of manhood.
And it disturbs me that many of these guys are advocating solving the problem by playing different music or emphasizing war motifs and the such. What we need is for churches to set forth men that embody Christ - strong, intelligent, couragous, but also kind, loving, and respectful of women. We must start by raising the prophetic voice against male stereotypes in our sex-crazed society and then raise our children to be reponsible men and women, not given over to their sinful desires. We need men of discipline, men of character and we need to be these men in the church. We don't need more marketing, we need more Christlike transformation. We need more prayer for the Holy Spirit to work in men's hearts -- we need more disciplining of men and more character building.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's true that the Church has become more populated by women, but that's because men have failed, not the church's marketing department.
Posted by: D.R. Randle at April 24, 2006 01:15 PM
seriously.. they should release wild boar on church grounds so that men can hunt DURING church.. I think they tried that at John Eldridges church, and men reported a 10 percent increase in manly feelings... What they mean by manly feelings is yet to be understood..
Posted by: torch at April 25, 2006 01:35 AM
Rhett- As I sit here in my loincloth eating meat that I shot with my bow and just cooked over a firepit in my backyard I can't help but think you are a woosy. If God didn't want men to be in charge of everything he wouldn't have made us so pig headed and stupid. I mean come on isn't it obvious that we have the gift of screwing up much of what we touch and making fools of ourselves?
Ok so I think there is some scary stuff in the Biola article. Scary in the sense that it makes me nervous to think that the church has lost men. What makes me more nervous though is the way we aim to fix it. I'm against mens ministry equalling sports ministry. We had a conversation the other day that we were tired of so many trips to Padres games and mens retreats that are all about sports. And, when we bring up the idea of doing some "Less masculine" types of mens ministry we get ridiculed.
What's the answer? I don't know....I'm going to the backyard to makes some more arrows.
Posted by: Lars Rood at April 25, 2006 08:17 AM
I wish I had time to go over the article and respond intelligently, but the school load (which happens to be at Talbot, which is at BIOLA) does not permit this. It is an important topic that too often is left to extremes and generalizations. Personally, I am a woman college ministry director who happens to impact young men much more than I impact young women. I wonder how this fits into the issue...
Posted by: Laura at April 25, 2006 11:33 AM
I find myself in agreement, and in solidarity with your frustration. I'm a current Fuller student, but my former life was being a college kid who did camping ministries in Texas. And let me tell you, the "wild at heart" approach to Christianity, and the attempts to "reclaim the lost masculinity of the church and home" are alive and well deep in the heart of Texas...and apparently in Southern California as well.
Where WAH calls for getting out of our cubicles and comfort zones and living with utter abandonment to the leading of God and the Spirit, that's ok. But Elderidge, I fear, taps into that desire to break free from that which constricts us (which not just males have...I don't think), to justify a "knight in shining armor," let me save the day-approach to living... which seems antithetical to the idea of following the lead of God. It's just exchanging one kind of individualism for another.
Anyone can be a leader in the church, b/c it's God who empowers the person to do so... as Bonhoeffer said, all else is subservient to the call of God. It's not our charm, wit, fortitude, masculinity, or femininity that makes us leaders.
Posted by: josh whitler at April 25, 2006 01:51 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
