Men and Church

Paul writes – Frederica Mathewes-Green has written an interesting essay on why (she believes) “men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionally intriguing.”

Based upon her research, she gives the following reasons; reasons that I must say remind me (in part) of a conversation I had with Alan Roxburgh, Steve Taylor and others around a table in the US earlier this year.

Eastern Orthodoxy is (and Mathewes-Green suggests other denominations might benefit by, as it were, listening in on the findings):

1.           Challenging – it is active, not passive – “It’s the only church where you are required to adapt to it, rather than it adapting to you. It thus has a strong “counter-cultural” stream. I wonder if this need reinforces the value around an intentional, challenging “missional order” at the heart of a congregation – not in the sense of those in it being some kind of “super Christians”…?

2.           It represents a reasonable set of boundaries – “just tell me what you want.” It has clear expectations and resources that enable and prevent one from “feeling put on the spot”.

3.           Offers a challenge with a goal – union with God (theosis). “Challenges and spiritual disciplines increase self-knowledge and humility, and lead to strength over sins that block union with God. It emphasizes “doing”. Grace for the Eastern Orthodox is not a static concept. It provides a “means of making progress along a defined path that is going somewhere real and better.”

4.           Opens up a new dimension – a way of encountering “the invisible realities that form the genuine substance of the Christian lexicon.

5.           Jesus Christ – Jesus Christ is the centre of everything the Church does or says. Orthodoxy offers a “robust Jesus.” Christ is the goal.

6.           Continuity – A sense of history (“ancient” + counter-cultural – see point #1) and continuity. A continuity that “intellectually-inclined [male] readers of church history find compelling. It offers stability and a rich tradition.

7.           Worship is startling and “amazingly different.”

8.           It is not sentimental – Leon Podles (see the title below) offers the theory that the piety of the Western Church became “feminized” in the 12-13^th centuries with what he calls “bridal mysticism”. The effect was a dualistic separation of “head” and “heart” – “men retired for brandy and cigars to the Systematic Theology Room.” Eastern Orthodoxy escaped this “split.”

9.           It invites men “to something more subtle than the ‘standard stereotypes of masculinity’.” “In Orthodoxy, the masculine is held together with the feminine… It is neither male nor female.

10.       Men in leadership – “Like it or not, men simply prefer to be led by men,” Mathewes-Green writes. 

Have a read of the full paper – Men and Church

Also recommended by many during the course of Mathewes-Green’s little research ‘project’ was The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity

Comments

[maggi]

so in your conversation with ST and AR round the table in the US, did you three conclude that men simply prefer to be led by men? and that CHristianity has ben "feminized"? or did you reach any alternative conclusions?

[ash]

I think people are attracted to the Orthodox churches because they have better theology and are counter-cultural. that works.

Not sure they go because of the men.

[dave paisley]

That "paper" is so fundamentally flawed I don't even know where to start. It would help if she could actually write coherent English for a start.

[Makeesha Fisher]

....ummmm...men prefer to be led by men? ok. so then we refuse women positions of leadership over men so that ... what? women have to be led by men? i've never understood this argument, esp. since the conclusion is that women shouldn't lead men so we need to only have male leaders - which leaves women, AGAIN AND STILL being stuck with only male leaders. I just don't get it.

[Makeesha Fisher]

oh and by the by, I like much of FMG's writings and the draw to the EOC is something worth examining but I have known more people to convert to EO and leave a few years later than I have convert and stay...and all the men I know who are converting are doing so at the appeal of their wives who are the ones to first become attracted.

[Paul Fromont]

Hi Maggi. Peace to you :-) No we didn't reach that conclusion. As I accentuated in the post, this article (in part) resonated with that conversation which was altogether very general. In fact, I don't think we got past what in Mathewes-Green's paper is point #1.

[maggi]

I'd love eto know what you did think, as the book and article you hav e cited here seem to be so different from what I understand as your own views - so what's the connection?

[Paul Fromont]

Hi Maggi. Thanks for your comments and question.

I come at this on three fronts: Firstly, and the most obvious point of interest – I’m a male. Secondly, I’m interesting in the subject as a spiritual director (this includes questions of faith-development). And, thirdly, I’m interested in both the missiological and ecclesiological questions around “men and church.”

The so-called "feminisation of church" (I get what the use of “feminisation” is saying in this context (I appreciate there can be a pejorative sense in this context), but I’m also very aware of the benefits to the church of what I and others would call “prophetic feminism” (contra “ideological feminism).

The so-called “feminisation of the church” is increasingly a topic of discussion down here. Interestingly in a workshop I facilitated (50% females & 50% males), it was the females in this group who most recognised this as increasingly a challenge for the church.

Here are two quotes from Prof. Peter Lineham, a historian here in NZ:

“…In our society religion is more and more left to women. Unbelievers are strikingly a male group…”

“Like many denominations, the Anglican Church has shown increasing signs of gender imbalance. Because women live longer than men one would expect to find more women than men among elderly Anglicans, and the figures bear this out. But these patterns now are skewed towards women in age ranges where there is no shortage of men.”

These comments reflect statistically verifiable facts. My questions flow from this. If this is true, and anecdotally it would seem to be, then what issues does it throw up around males and spirituality, males and gospel, and males and church? So, I have a “category” on my blog – a way of collecting commentary; a way of resourcing my own questions and imagination. Does that provide a sense of connection?

Below is a link to a very quickly written response to a question I was asked. I posted it on the blog last year I think. It sketches some of the trajectories I’m exploring and thinking through. Again, it might be a helpful response to your question. If not, push me some more.

http://prodigal.typepad.com/prodigal_kiwi/files/paul_fromont_masculine_spirituality_a_reflection.pdf

Moving away from (Christian)spirituality per se, this quote (used above) from Peter Lineham is the important missional/ecclesiological statement I’m orbiting around: “…In our society religion is more and more left to women. Unbelievers are strikingly a male group…” If true, how, and in what ways does this challenge and critique current understandings and practices of being church? Where are the invitations for us to explore and experiment with others ways of being church together?

This is broad, but I hope my response is a helpful start. How do you see the issue(s)?

[Paul Fromont]

I've left an additional comment on Dave Paisley's site:

http://davepaisley.typepad.com/disaster_area/2007/11/and-its-back-to.html?cid=88531022#comment-88531022

[Makeesha Fisher]

again, I'm still so confused about this. We women have lived and thrived in a church world dominated by men FOREVER and no one seemed to care about that - and we managed. And now some men are suggesting there are too many women leaders and we think we need to DO SOMETHING about it? I don't get it. I really don't.

[Paul Fromont]

Hi Makeesha. Thanks for your comments. I'm not saying that "there are too many women leaders". I'm not sure anyone is who has left a comment on this post. The only person suggesting or observing that "men prefer male leaders" is Mathewes-Green (a women).

Have women "thrived" in male-dominated patriarchal church contexts? I'm not sure, hence the helpful corrective that "prophetic feminisim" has enabled in some measure (I suspect many women would say there is still along way to go - but I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths - what do you women readers think?)

I think the absence of men in many church contexts (as researchers like Peter Lineham is suggesting) raises important questions on a number of levels. That has been the point of my coments. I'm interested in the questions and where these might lead...in terms of spirituality and ecclesiology.

Makeesha, I'm not sure I've been helpful, but want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that there are too many women leaders

[Makeesha Fisher]

I get the Paul - that really wasn't the thrust of my comment. In the discussion of the emasculation of church, there is often the response that we need to somehow create a more "masculine" church. I don't get that.

I'm also saddened that people care so much about how men think about church when I have NEVER in my whole church life experienced anyone who cares about what women think of a male dominated church leadership.

[lorna (see-through faith)]

The so-called “feminisation of the church” is increasingly a topic of discussion down here. Interestingly in a workshop I facilitated (50% females & 50% males), it was the females in this group who most recognised this as increasingly a challenge for the church.

No suprise there. I think women who for so long have been 'under' male leadership are sensitive to the fact that for men it may not always be so easy to have a female pastor etc.

I think it's fair to note too that some churches have a really high proportion of women in the pews. (Our local church is mostly full of university students and even there there is about 75% (or higher) female attendance. This is a skewed demography and it does need to be addressed.

Ironically when we had a female pastor the balance was a little better 60-40 but that was because I think she was on fire - passionate worship leader, prayer warrior and could preach your socks off.

Now with a male pastor once more we're losing memebers. Not that his gender is the reason that people are leaving (as far as I can tell)

“Like it or not, men simply prefer to be led by men,” mmm -would it be fairer to say that some men dislike women in authority.

[MikeF]

Please forgive lack of extended, reasoned response here - I'm just getting over 'flu! - but I can't resist just making the point that one of the attractive things about the good old Anglican Communion is the lack of a domineering masculine leadership in the way that it is often encountered in the evangelical, and even emerging, churches. I'm more than happy being "led" by anyone God's obviously called to the job - and when that's a gifted, brilliant woman then I for one am delighted to learn from her.

[Makeesha Fisher]

and that has served you all well - I would hate for people to steer toward a "mark driscoll-esque" stereotyped authoritarian leadership just so that some men can feel better about going to church.

if getting more male butts in the seats is the reason why decisions are made, there's a problem

[Christy]

Haven't there always been more women than men in church? And on any given Sunday morning in the U.K. and most of Europe, isn't at least 90% of the population elsewhere? I think in most of the Western world, EVERYBODY is leaving the church - it just takes women a little longer.

Women are far more likely to volunteer, work at non-profits, go to the mission field or be in urban ministry and be more civically involved generally, and I think the gender imbalance in the church is just a reflection of that general tendency.

Here's my take on the situation from my context in the U.S.: The majority of Christian institutions - but particularly evangelicals - emphasize obedience, not asking too many questions, being self-sacrificing, passivity, niceness,and sentimentality. Women are more socialized to embrace these qualities - particularly those who were raised Christian - so they are more willing to put up with that than men are, so women are more likely to stay in the pews.

Give it another 10 - 15 years, and the women will leave too. I did, and I would highly recommend it.

Which is not to say that women and men don't experience their spirituality differently. Richard Rohr has some good stuff on male spirituality - without falling back on all the hierarchical crap.

Peace.

[Paul Fromont]

Thanks everyone for your comments

I strongly suspect that many of the issues (around the so-called “feminisation of the church”) lie with males themselves. I equally believe the issues I’m reflecting on a deeper that simply wanting to get “more men on seats” on Sunday (or whenever). I suspect that this has little to do with females in leadership (we need more gifted and skilled women in leadership); instead I wonder if its men ‘running’ from the deeper and richer invitations (and thus challenges to a false masculine) to wholeness and liberation. So, how does the data around the “feminisation of the church” interrogate us as males, and as church communities?

I wonder if, in part, it’s an invitation for men to “grow up”; for men (as Thomas Merton did) to recognise that little is gained in our “sailing to the moon, if we [have not been] able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves.” This, the inner journey, Merton tells us “is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it all the rest are not only useless but disastrous. I’d want to encourage both females and males to take that journey.

Certainly (my intentions behind the post) have nothing to do with men being MORE important than women. They are equally important, and equally held in God’s love. Women matter and churches which have said they don’t have done us all a profound disservice. The damage to human persons created to image God has been incalculable.

I was thinking the other day and wonder if (for example) Jungian psychology offers us something important when it talks of male and female archetypes. Jung held that every man and every woman has both “masculine” and “feminine” traits. In the male, masculine priorities are usually dominant on the surface and feminine qualities are recessive. In women the opposite is true.

Reflect for a moment on what (Prof.) David Tacey writes:

“Men fail to see that what they style the ‘enemy’ [feminism] of their masculinity wants to transform them, not destroy them… the male conundrum,” he writes, “is that the creative feminine [i.e. what we have already called, the prophetic feminine] is forced into an adversarial role by our continued resistance, so we never allow the feminine to transform us.” He adds, “In the myths of mature masculinity, the feminine (as anima) stops opposing [growth]… and starts supporting and complementing it.”

“What continues to be resisted in the West, but forced upon us by the psyche, is a necessary partnership with the creative feminine…” Outwardly is seems to me it’s about deeper levels of external partnership.

One of my favourite icons is on in which the resurrected Jesus is holding the hands of Adam and Eve.

So for males; at the deeper levels of our humanity does Jesus somehow enable a breakdown of the ways in which gender so often divides us – both inwardly and outwardly?

In Christ’s resurrection, are richer and ultimately more fulfilling possibilities held out to us as females and males? Ways of being together, enriching one another, and offering to each other God’s shalom…?

So if less men in churches is a reality and is at its root a male problem; if, in part, it’s an ego and a fear problem, then how might we encourage men (this is the spiritual director in me talking) to take Merton’s “inner journey” – the journey across the abyss that separates us from our deepest selves hidden in God. And in that question is an irony and a paradox because Merton and others would suggest that we can’t find God unless in some sense we have been found by God.

I don’t think a more “masculine church” or more male leaders will help us address the deeper issues of being male and female together in Christ. A more masculine church would I suspect only exasperate the problem by encouraging men to remain at the level of ego and machismo and I can’t see that as enabling the deeper work to be done - the quest for personal integration in the face of fragmentary, depersonalizing [and dehumanizing] forces – the opening of the self at its deepest level to God, a centering of the self in God in whom we live and move and have our being.

How might we practically enable and encourage that kind of journey to be taken to be taken in the midst of church belonging –whether female or male? This is the richer question for me. Any practical and helpful suggestions?

[Christy]

That is a MUCH better question than "What shall we do about not having enough men in churches?"

My very honest answer is that, in my experience, most churches make it HARDER, not easier, for both men and women to make that inner journey. It's not that people don't mean well or aren't sincere; it's just that churches don't have the tools to help people do this and most churches suck at dealing with the pain and ambiguity involved in this kind of interior journey. It's not so much that their theology is wrong - more that it just doesn't have a category for it.

I had to look elsewhere, and so does everyone I know who has done significant inner work. I do not know one person - male or female -who found their local congregation to be particularly helpful in the process, and I know several people - me included - who had to give up involvement in a local congregation because it was an obstacle to that kind of work.

I'm a big fan of spiritual direction, but I don't know anyone who is doing that in the context of a local congregation - the goals and ethos are too different. (There are a few Catholic parishes that offer spiritual direction.)

Sorry to be so negative, but while I've seen local congregations do some good stuff on the social justice/community involvement front, I do not know of a single example of a local congregation that helps people do inner work. That doesn't mean there aren't any - just few and far between.

Not to mention the fact that, in the U.S. at least, the majority of church goers belong to churches that outright bar women from being priests or pastors. It's rather difficult to find personal integration in an atmosphere of sexism and Deity-approved discrimination.

[Makeesha Fisher]

I agree, Christy - much better question indeed. And if we focus it there then I'm ok with that.

[Paul Fromont]

Thanks Christy and Makeesha. I very much appreciated your comments. Much to think about, reflect on, and hopefully address in practical ways over time. PAX

[Peter Christensen]

Hmmm,very interesting...I found this site the other day, looking at what in a church attracts men, and I found it pretty scary (http://speakingofmen.com/top10FAQ.html), especially the conclusion that men liked large churches with conservative theology that are led by outspoken men...that to me seems a step backward, like the conclusions about Eastern Orthodox...how can we make church more 'human' might be a better question???

[Paul Fromont]

Hi Peter. I agree with you. It does sound like a backward step... and yes, your concluding statement is important too. Too many churches, in my experience, actually de-humanise rather than re-humanise people. Regards your earlier question, the workshop went well, and I did another variation of it. However, I'm no expert and the workshops really on floated and reflected my own questions and wondering. My answers are still ill-formed, but they remain questions I sit with, as much for my own life and growth/development as much as anyone else's.

Thailand is a very different context, and I wouldn't presume to form a response to your questions about male spiritual formation in that context. Being missional and contextual - for me- means listening deeply and discerning the invitations and activity of God in your own contexts.

If you e-mail me, I'm happy to send you a PDF of my workshop handout.

Sorry I can't be of more help to you.

Paul