Why Are Christian Churches Losing Men?

[Songbird]

'Where are the womenz?' is always an important religious question!

And according to Barna, more accurate than my OP.

Another thing - the word on the street is that Barna's stats are often skewed or inaccurate. Some local pastors call him an alarmist. Anyone have an informed scoop on that?

FYI, a page or so back, I posted a different link that countered my OP. It basically said the opposite - women are leaving churches at a faster rate than men.

 

[doppelganger]

I haven't found an article proving churches are feminized, anyway. But it sure is popular hype right now in evangelical settings.

It's delusional excuse making to distract from the real problems they are facing.

Problemo number one: the predominant and defining cosmology of our culture is hopelessly incompatible with the cosmology to which most of these evangelical organizations are wedded. So much so, that very few, if any, can even attempt to give an account of the cosmology underlying their faith without they themselves feeling rather silly as they present it, or making no sense at all.

 

[Songbird]

It's delusional excuse making to distract from the real problems they are facing.

Problemo number one: the predominant and defining cosmology of our culture is hopelessly incompatible with the cosmology to which most of these evangelical organizations are wedded. So much so, that very few, if any, can even attempt to give an account of the cosmology underlying their faith without they themselves feeling rather silly as they present it, or making no sense at all.

It seems that aggressive and defensive stances against real and perceived attacks on beliefs are seen as noble. Sunstone's thread on spiritual warfare reminded me of how energizing it is to unite in groups in defense of a cause. Combine that with a fear of analysis and a lack of understanding the cosmology of faith, as you put it, and I can see how excuse-making happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the dark ages were a terrible time i know

but christianity was not really christianity during that time...it was hijacked by politically minded individuals who were power hungry and used christianity as a means of controlling the population

Wait - didn't you just argue that Christianity used to follow "the Christian way of life" and only recently have moved away from it? Wasn't that your whole point when you argued that your "prophecy" applies more today than ever?

If the people calling themselves Christians have been "lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God" all along, then why would you think that the passage describes the days we're in specifically?

why else do you think they kept the bible away from people? It was so that no one could question them.

Do you think that they did keep the Bible away from people? It'd help if you explained what you meant and gave some evidence for it.

They even continued to keep church services in a language no one could understand, Latin, in order to keep the people under control.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the reasons why Latin was used in the Catholic Church. IMO, this just grew out of two main factors:

- the Catholic Church is slow to change, and it had its roots in Latin.

- it was (and is) a worldwide organization trying to maintain control over a wide network. Also (though this bit is just a hypothesis on my part), they were very concerned about preserving the sanctity and validity of things like the Mass. Every time that the liturgy is translated into the local language, it's an opportunity for errors to creep in... especially when the Vatican has limited knowledge of a language on the other side of the world and would be relying on the religious orders working there to perform the translation who might "colour" the local version with their own theological bent. I can see them deciding that because this issue is so important, better for people to get the "real thing" in a language they might not understand than risk them receiving an invalid sacrament.

They taught christianity the way that would benefit their political agenda.

Well, I agree with you there.

I haven't found an article proving churches are feminized, anyway. But it sure is popular hype right now in evangelical settings.

That's worrying.

I've also noticed that in much of the Christian media I read or listen to from time to time, "feminism" has become a bit of a dirty word.

I also wonder how much of the worry about the "feminization" of churches is a consequence of the same-sex marriage debate: since a lot of the rhetoric around the issue deals with appointed roles for men and women and "complementarity" of the sexes, I think it's possible that the increased focus on these ideas in the context of same-sex marriage has spilled over into other areas. I wonder if more people are approaching a wide range of issues with the mindset that there is some "ideal" balance between male and female in various aspects of life, and any deviation from this balance (whatever they feel it "should" be) is bad.

The LDS Church is quite explicit about the husband/father being the "spiritual head" of the household; I wonder if it's similar (but maybe toned-down) thinking at play here: that "feminization" of churches is bad because the job of religious leadership in the family was given by God to the man.

 

[Pegg]

Wait - didn't you just argue that Christianity used to follow "the Christian way of life" and only recently have moved away from it? Wasn't that your whole point when you argued that your "prophecy" applies more today than ever?

If the people calling themselves Christians have been "lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God" all along, then why would you think that the passage describes the days we're in specifically?

there have always been good honest sincere christians who have tried to live a christian way of life. but since the last days began, even those christians who once were sincere have become fewer and fewer. This is partly the fault of the religious establishment itself. christendom has not set a good example, its leaders have been deeply entrenched in politics and corruption and the people they are supposed to be guiding have often followed their bad examples. Many people are sick of the hypocrisy of religion so they prefer to be irreligious.

Many who now claim to be athiests or agnostics were brought up in religious households.

Do you think that they did keep the Bible away from people? It'd help if you explained what you meant and gave some evidence for it.

the first english tranlsation of the bible did not appear until the 15th century. William Tyndale made the first translation and was eventually hunted down by the church and killed for doing so. They also attempted to burn all the english translations. And anyone who was caught with and english translation was also put to death. It was the Catholic church who did that.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the reasons why Latin was used in the Catholic Church. IMO, this just grew out of two main factors:

- the Catholic Church is slow to change, and it had its roots in Latin.

- it was (and is) a worldwide organization trying to maintain control over a wide network.

yeah, thats the problem....why do they have to maintain control if they are being guided by God?

The fact is they could have translated the bible themselves into English so that there followers could at least know what the bible says

but they dont want people to know what the bible says because they dont teach what the bible says and if their flocks ever came to realize that, they'd have no flocks left because the sincere ones would leave.... and isnt that what has been happening in Christendom. churches do not have the numbers the way they did only 50 years ago. People are too enlightened nowadays, they can read the bible for themselves and they can see what it does and does not say.

Also (though this bit is just a hypothesis on my part), they were very concerned about preserving the sanctity and validity of things like the Mass. Every time that the liturgy is translated into the local language, it's an opportunity for errors to creep in... especially when the Vatican has limited knowledge of a language on the other side of the world and would be relying on the religious orders working there to perform the translation who might "colour" the local version with their own theological bent. I can see them deciding that because this issue is so important, better for people to get the "real thing" in a language they might not understand than risk them receiving an invalid sacrament.

lol Yeah, well hearing a catholic sermon in latin has gotta be better then hearing it in english...hehe

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the first english tranlsation of the bible did not appear until the 15th century. William Tyndale made the first translation and was eventually hunted down by the church and killed for doing so. They also attempted to burn all the english translations. And anyone who was caught with and english translation was also put to death. It was the Catholic church who did that.

No, Tyndale was executed for promoting Protestantism.

For quite a while after that, the English Bible translations after that were done under the auspices of the Church of England after Henry VIII broke with Rome, so they would've been heretical translations from a schismatic sect.

yeah, thats the problem....why do they have to maintain control if they are being guided by God?

I can't believe a Jehovah's Witness is asking me this question.

The fact is they could have translated the bible themselves into English so that there followers could at least know what the bible says

In an age when most people were illiterate, why wouldn't it have been just as good for a priest who speaks both Latin and English (or whatever the local language was) to tell them what it says?

Through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, a "proper" education included instruction in Latin. Odds were that if you could read at all, you could read Latin. You're making a big deal out of a non-issue.

but they dont want people to know what the bible says because they dont teach what the bible says and if their flocks ever came to realize that, they'd have no flocks left because the sincere ones would leave.... and isnt that what has been happening in Christendom. churches do not have the numbers the way they did only 50 years ago. People are too enlightened nowadays, they can read the bible for themselves and they can see what it does and does not say.

And?

FWIW, the Catholic Church is pretty well reconciled with the Bible. You didn't see people who could read Latin leaving the Church in droves for the past thousand years, did you? They could "see what it does and does not say".

lol Yeah, well hearing a catholic sermon in latin has gotta be better then hearing it in english...hehe

I don't know. My personal preference is no sermon at all, but if I was forced to go to one, I might be inclined to pick a Catholic mass.

 

[e2ekiel]

This has been a popular concern for the last few years, and usually the answer I hear is because of the feminization of the church. After reading some articles on what people deem as feminization, I reject this reason. I think it's possibly due to the rise of evangelical atheism or verbal attacks on Christianity - saying things like it's a fairy tale belief for the easily deluded. I suggest this offends men's sense of worth more than women's and may drive them away.

But I really have no idea. Thoughts?

Christianity is all about relationships, and it gets into the deep emotive needs. Women are naturally relational and men... not (so much). Given all the activities available on Sunday these days, men would rather be "doing something" than at church "getting know other people (including God)".

In the past Christian men did "man things" around the church, eg building, maintenance etc. Men need tasks to perform to relate to other men, in the past that was more clearly defined, these days with secularists ideals of "equal opportunity", "outsourcing" (if something needs doing, just pay someone to do it) seeping into the Church, the roles of men have eroded.

that's my brief thoughts on the matter... oh and one more thing... songs tend be written with feminine vocal range in mind, (real) men can sing in this range :no:

 

[Songbird]

Christianity is all about relationships, and it gets into the deep emotive needs. Women are naturally relational and men... not (so much). Given all the activities available on Sunday these days, men would rather be "doing something" than at church "getting know other people (including God)".

In the past Christian men did "man things" around the church, eg building, maintenance etc. Men need tasks to perform to relate to other men, in the past that was more clearly defined, these days with secularists ideals of "equal opportunity", "outsourcing" (if something needs doing, just pay someone to do it) seeping into the Church, the roles of men have eroded.

I can see that being the case.

that's my brief thoughts on the matter... oh and one more thing... songs tend be written with feminine vocal range in mind, (real) men can sing in this range :no:

Ha, I've always noticed whether songs were more male- or female-friendly in range. At the churches I've been to, the lead singers were men, and the songs were in male range, but it depends pretty much only on who leads the music. People change the keys to fit their voices. I don't know about old hymns...I pretty much always sang harmony, so I couldn't even tell you if the melody was out of my range.

 

[roger1440]

Why Are Christian Churches Losing Men? The answer is simple. To many fat chicks. I bet you think I'm kidding.

 

[sojourner]

Why Are Christian Churches Losing Men? The answer is simple. To many fat chicks. I bet you think I'm kidding.

Really?! After four years you resort this old thread just to talk about fat chicks? srrsly?!

 

[12jtartar]

This has been a popular concern for the last few years, and usually the answer I hear is because of the feminization of the church. After reading some articles on what people deem as feminization, I reject this reason. I think it's possibly due to the rise of evangelical atheism or verbal attacks on Christianity - saying things like it's a fairy tale belief for the easily deluded. I suggest this offends men's sense of worth more than women's and may drive them away.

But I really have no idea. Thoughts?

Songbird,
It is very true what you say, but there is a variety of reasons that are recorded in God's word, The Holy Bible.
Dan 12:10, no wicked can understand!!!
At Matthew, chapter 13, there are recorded many reasons that people do not learn righteousness, but it all comes down to the condition of the heart, Matt 13:13-15, 18-23.
Consider a few things that are recorded about the heart, Pv 28:26, Jere 17:9,10.
Matthew and Mark tells us that all the bad things that men do, come from the heart, Matt 12:34-37, 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23. Paul also mentions something we especially need to guard against, being willfully wicked, Heb 10:26,27.
Not only can we purposely turn away from God, but we can slowly DRIFT away by thinking we are just Too Busy, to read God's word or attend meetings of His people, Heb 2:1-4, 3:12-14, 10:22-25.
There are a Multitude of things today that can cause us not to pay attention to God, we must put our priorities in correct order, if we want God to preserve us through The Great Tribulation, that is very close, even at the door, Rev 7:14, Matt 24:33.

 

[paarsurrey]

This has been a popular concern for the last few years, and usually the answer I hear is because of the feminization of the church. After reading some articles on what people deem as feminization, I reject this reason. I think it's possibly due to the rise of evangelical atheism or verbal attacks on Christianity - saying things like it's a fairy tale belief for the easily deluded. I suggest this offends men's sense of worth more than women's and may drive them away.

But I really have no idea. Thoughts?

Christianity is a myth, with education and free thinking it has lost its grip on its follower, they have realized it in not based on what Jesus believed or acted.

Regards

 

[enthused antagonist]

I have no idea why men are leaving churches -- except that I have heard men are less likely to attend church than are women in almost all societies on earth. In other words, it's not just an American problem. If that's the case, then any explanation for why men attend church less frequently than women might need to apply to societies as diverse as Russia, Italy, and the US.

Islam has no problem recruiting men. Christians didn't either when Christianity favored subjugation of women. I think attraction to any faith is the result of indoctrination, social benefit and influence or power. Internal fulfillment. Wonder what percentage of single men are actively involved in a Christian church.

 

[enthused antagonist]

Christianity is a myth, with education and free thinking it has lost its grip on its follower, they have realized it in not based on what Jesus believed or acted.

Regards

I agree. But I see plenty of very intelligent people participating in the b farce. Why do you think thry do?
Ecperiments have been done on control groups showed a picturevamong their peers then asked to identify it. The subjuct is shown a square and the group is asked what they have seen. If asked first, yhe subject b almost always correctly identifies the shape. The subject shown a sqsure asked what he saw after a significsnt number of peers (instructed to lie)say they saw a circle will be much more compelled to say he saw the same. Shown and asked to idenyify the shape apart from peer influence, he was always right.