Gender and church
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:23 pm
Okay, I didn't want to derail the other thread about worship music but this whole idea that men are leaving the church for ....fill in the blank reasons has me just pondering this.
For instance, in the websites that I have visited, one called church for men says this...
Hear me out: Let's see, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Tolkien, shoot all of the mainline Classical writers, the ones that have people actually wanting to scream about the Dead White Eurapean MALES...that's right...MALES.
Another lovely quote:
Again, I'm not advocating for 45 minutes, but come on ....ten minutes?
Also, going back to the music thing....they are sooo into labeling one type of music "feminine"
Or about this take on why men will watch 3 hour football games:
Believe me, I'm not advocating that there are no differences between the genders. It just seems a shame to me to read this, because a lot of it seems to be catering to some of the weakness prevalent in this society (soundbites, video games) of men. It also seems to be catering to the weaknesses of women as well, limiting their capacity to think (gee we're just bask in the emotional sludge of the music and talk about our *feelings*) instead of challenging them as well in the battle.
It just seems sometimes that we are, in an effort to combat this idea that there are NO differences between the genders, catering to the weaknesses of each gender (men are not as verbal or relational....let's just talk about sports and battles!) and women are the emotional ones (they can sing the "feminine" songs)
For instance, in the websites that I have visited, one called church for men says this...
And I have to wonder....what?!?!? Since when are men allowed to use this to somehow rationalize the absence in church? I worry that in an effort to help strengthen men we are unwittingly....dumbing them down...Men are failing to engage in church life because their brains are not suited to its highly verbal style. And our conversation and vocabulary center on relationships. When the church returns to the visual, hands-on teaching style favored by Jesus, men will understand and respond. A renewed emphasis on mission, concrete objects and an accompanying de-emphasis on relationships will help men engage as well.
Hear me out: Let's see, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Tolkien, shoot all of the mainline Classical writers, the ones that have people actually wanting to scream about the Dead White Eurapean MALES...that's right...MALES.
Another lovely quote:
Now, I'm not necessarily for huge, 45 minute sermons but it does seem rather tragic that ten minutes....ten minutes?!?!? is all he thinks guys can handle? Isnt' this a bit....insulting? I mean, help me out, guys, would you support only ten minutes?As I travel the country, nothing I say creates more controversy than this: men would benefit from shorter, simpler sermons. In my Go for the Guys Sunday Action Plan, I advocate a one-point sermon, ten minutes in length, built around an object lesson.
People are freaking out over this. I get comments like:
* David, you have a low regard for men’s intelligence.
* Short sermons “dumb down” the gospel.
* With Biblical illiteracy such a problem, we need more teaching, not less.
* We don’t need shorter sermons; we need better ones.
* My pastor is so interesting I wouldn’t mind if his sermons were longer.
* The apostle Paul preached for hours, and many were saved.
* Men just need to learn to pay attention.
Let’s take these one at a time.
Again, I'm not advocating for 45 minutes, but come on ....ten minutes?
Also, going back to the music thing....they are sooo into labeling one type of music "feminine"
No problem here...I agree heartily with this...Here’s one of the great, unspoken assumptions of worship today: more emotional the response, the truer the worship. Great worship results in sensation, passion and good feelings. The worship leader’s job is to help the people generate a warm, gooey feeling in their hearts about Jesus. Tears are the best gauge of God’s presence.
In order to generate this emotional response, many worship leaders repeat slow, dreamlike choruses over and over. And over. Simple songs now run 7 or 8 minutes long. This repetitiveness lulls the congregation into what I call a “worship coma.” This technique is not unlike a common practice in Buddhism known as “mantra” or repeating a phrase over and over. Mantras permit the worshipper to empty his mind and create a feeling of peace and euphoria.
now again, I don't have an issue with this primarily....but why in the world is this such a polarized issue with regards to gender? Are women supposed to simply rest on these mantra-like songs? What about challenging the women as well? Why in the world are we supposed to settle for this gunk?Whether passionate emotion equals true worship is not what I’m here to debate. I’m merely pointing out the fact that if ooey-gooey feelings are what we’re shooting for, worship will be much easier for women than men. Women are much less inhibited about showing emotion in public. They can access their emotions more easily than men. So a worship leader who’s trying to get the congregation to feel something will subconsciously target women, because gals are more likely to respond emotionally.
Or about this take on why men will watch 3 hour football games:
So according to this, men simply want action, but not too long, of course, they need breaks for their itty bitty attention span and, of course, food.Sports promoters know the male brain and they tailor their presentation to guys. A sporting event is really ritual combat. It’s a battle between the forces of good (the home team) and evil (the visitor). Player introductions build on this theme. Like rival armies, the opponents march into battle sporting their colors, symbols and uniforms.
Games are heavy on physical movement with lots of objects flying through the air. The most exciting games are those in which the teams are evenly matched so the outcome is uncertain. Most sports offer time-outs (except soccer). These breaks allow men a reprieve from the tension, and give them a chance to stand up and move around. Food is a big part of the experience. Finally, a win allows men to bask in reflected glory, while a loss teaches men to deal with disappointment in a healthy way.
In short, sport is built for the male brain.
Believe me, I'm not advocating that there are no differences between the genders. It just seems a shame to me to read this, because a lot of it seems to be catering to some of the weakness prevalent in this society (soundbites, video games) of men. It also seems to be catering to the weaknesses of women as well, limiting their capacity to think (gee we're just bask in the emotional sludge of the music and talk about our *feelings*) instead of challenging them as well in the battle.
It just seems sometimes that we are, in an effort to combat this idea that there are NO differences between the genders, catering to the weaknesses of each gender (men are not as verbal or relational....let's just talk about sports and battles!) and women are the emotional ones (they can sing the "feminine" songs)