WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
RT @acts29: John Calvin is still dead (~500 years) and Jesus is still alive (~2000 years). Just sayin'
Why guys leave the church, Part II
The evangelical church grossly underchallenges men aged 18-29. What does the church expect of young men? Not much: Stay out of trouble, get married, and remain sexually pure. Now God has raised up an army of men to fight against a world of evil as part of His redemptive mission, and the best thing most churches have for guys is an informational Bible study, group penance in an accountability group, and once-a-week basketball.
David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going To Church, says the church’s focus on “relationships” — a personal relationship with Jesus and healthy relationships with others — appeals directly to the needs of women. Jesus, as the fulfiller of relationship needs, “partners with women to fulfill their deepest longing” for safety and security. Few churches model men’s values, says Murrow: “risk and reward, accomplishment, heroic sacrifice, action and adventure.” Men respond to challenge and invitations to embark on missions.
Jesus invited his disciples to “follow” Him into mission and battle for the purposes of the Kingdom. Churches ask young men to be quiet, nice, and cuddly with a hippie Jesus. Jesus did not say, “Hey guys, will you have a relationship with me?”
Men typically aren’t looking for a church with safe programs either. Men change through encounters with inspiring men, Murrow argues: “Every successful man will tell you of a father, an uncle, a teacher, a coach, or a sergeant who made the difference in his life.”
Passivity, softness, pink walls, love ballads, safety and security idols will not sustain a population of younger men. Many churches attempt to rectify this by unwisely creating separate ministries to reach “college and career” young adults or developing a special service with “cooler” music. Music ain’t the problem.
If you want to capture the hearts of men you must invite them to die by rejecting the idols of safety and comfort. Jesus invites men to follow him into mystery, uncertainty, adventure, danger, pain, suffering, warfare, and death. Jesus invites men to live in poverty, fight evil, endure attacks, and to follow inspiring men. Most churches only challenge young men to be nice, live for safety, hang out with youth, sing “You’re altogether lovely. . .altogether wonderful to me,” and stay out of trouble until they get married. As a result, young guys avoid church, stay at home to play Nintendo Wii, watch sports, plan their next female conquest, brainstorm about tattoos, and ski.
back to top37 Comments to “Why guys leave the church, Part II”
Do you intend to continue steadfast in this confession and Church and suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it? (Lutheran Service Book rite of confirmation)
Report comment to moderator
Men HAVE to live in poverty in order to be godly? Tell that to Abraham – a very wealthy and godly man.
Report comment to moderator
Typical muddled Bradley column. I get the impression he just likes to bellyache about evangelicals. If churches adopted all these “ideas”, he’d be complaining that they leave women out. You’ll note that for all his constant criticisms of churches, he never, ever suggests anything specific to remedy the problem. It’s always nothing but complaints and vague platitudes and bromides about “risk” and “following Jesus”, etc. But never any practical suggestions about what should be done. Look through all his columns and you’ll see what I mean. He’s good at bellyaching (and contradicting himself from week to week), but that’s about it.
Report comment to moderator
It is a good rant, indeed, and I would agree. So, where IS the adventure we are called to as Christians? What do we do? Wandering the deepest, darkest (literally and spiritually) jungles looking for unreached peoples counts but most folks can’t do that (even the men).
Report comment to moderator
Music ain’t the problem.
It was last week. What’s changed?
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, Stubob.
Report comment to moderator
NT and Stubob beat me to it. Anthony begins a paragraph with how “love ballads” won’t “sustain a population of young men,” and ends it with “[m]usic ain’t the problem.” Huh?
Buried deep inside this incoherence is a worthwhile column yearning to be free. I think. I hope.
Could we cut to the chase and just agree 1.) that the Lord “bids us come and die” (as Bonhoeffer renders), and 2.) that the church has done a poor job emphasizing this? And then go to how we might correct this situation?
Report comment to moderator
4-
James 1:27
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction…among other things, we don’t have to travel far to find neglected people
Report comment to moderator
You will never get the lefties to want to die for their church when they won’t even die for their family or country.
Yep, sometimes men feel that going to church is like going to a chick flick with our wife or girlfriend. You may not like it but if you don’t then there will be hell to pay most often
Report comment to moderator
I went on a men’s retreat at a local church and it turned into a tear-fest with grown men sobbing on each others shoulders. Even the pastor was blubbering about his fear that people don’t like him. Emotional outbursts like this are cheered on as a true expression of spirituality. This “men’s retreat” was exactly that — a group of “men in retreat”. True godly sorrow leads to action not tearful hugs.
For some reason, “getting in touch with God” has become little more than “getting in touch with your feelings”. True spirituality has been replaced with emotional experience. This is especially true in charismatic and liberal circles.
In a broad sense, the feminization of churches has to do with liberalization. Classic Christianity as preached by Jesus, his disciples and great theologians throughout the centuries was as tough as it gets, i.e. lay down your life for others. There is nothing feminine about falling on a grenade to save your buddies.
Modern churches are so often about spiritual self indulgence. We go to church to be “blessed” or “edified”. Even service is mostly about us: potluck dinners, community outreach, programs can simply be ploys to increase attendance.
My son 18 hates to go to church. Instead, he joined the Marines. I am still trying to help him understand the difference between biblical faith and the church experience. I am trying to get to him to see that church service is about serving not being served.
He just joined the “Service” in order to serve his country. That is how he should view church.
Report comment to moderator
One important caveat in all this is that there is nothing wrong with the feminine side of things. It is a wonderful part of God’s created order. The point is that a church needs balance.
We live in an age of sexual confusion. Feminism encourages women to be more like men and men more like women. A biblical understanding of life recognizes the differences between men and women and allows us to appreciate those differences. It frees us to be who we really are. Church is one place where such differences can be celebrated and put into action.
Report comment to moderator
In most cases, guys leave Jesus’ church because they aren’t really following Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
A real man who follows Jesus would stay and change the church for the better rather than run from it.
I liked what Xion said about church service being more about serving than being served.
Report comment to moderator
NT and many others. You’re not reading carefully. “Music ain’t the problem” was related to Bradley’s comment about unwise churches who think they will attract men simply by changing the music. I guess the point is the music alone is not the only problem so simply having “cooler” music will not keep men.
Again, here’s the actual context: “Many churches attempt to rectify this by unwisely creating separate ministries to reach “college and career” young adults or developing a special service with “cooler” music. Music ain’t the problem.”
Context is important. I don’t know why you guys refuse to read things in context. It’s just weird to do otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
I like man o’ war psalms and hymns and warhorse preachers. I want our men to be strong and courageous and willing and ready to fight for our country’s freedoms – not men who wimper all over each other with a seminarial Sanjaya for an accountablity partner.
Don’t give me no dessert for church. I want an onion sandwich! Vidalia, but onions nonetheless!
Report comment to moderator
Byron — The context is, in “Why guys leave the church, Part I,” Mr. Bradley made a big deal about the role of suboptimal music in driving men from the church. While you’re right that unwise churches won’t attract men by changing the music, Part I implied the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, LOL! Bring on the Vidalias.
Report comment to moderator
Accountability partners (how about APs for short) –
Not too long ago, I kept reading about the importance of APs, of men being accountable to each other, confessing their sins to one another, to help them overcome sinful habits in their lives.
Honestly confessing sin & one’s stumblings does not seem to me to be wimpy in any way.
But now they’re a bad thing? How did that happen?
Report comment to moderator
It depends on how they’re used, Karen. It’s too easy to get into a group where everyone is somewhat pressured to reveal their darkest secrets, then everyone prays and leaves, i.e. the typical church group. That’s the bad way. The good but hard way is for a group of friends to voluntarily offer help to one another and stick with it, follow up, and do so continually. That takes true friends, though, which are a rare commodity these days (and I would presume always have been).
Report comment to moderator
As so often happens, churches have tried to correct one past mistake by making another. Several decades ago, a lot of men did grow up learning that it was “unmanly” to express feelings. There’s nothing Biblical about that – you can find lots of examples of godly men in the Bible expressing feelings very openly. But the corrective is not to go to the opposite extreme and push men to act more emotional than is natural for them.
Some men are going to be comfortable with that, just as some women are more like most men in their competitiveness and desire to take risks. Some of those men may have gotten in charge of some men’s ministries and pushed this kind of thing.
The men’s ministries at the churches I’ve been at seem pretty balanced. There is a need for relationships, for accountability, for a good friend to turn to in difficult times. But that had better not be the heart of the men’s ministry. They also need the opportunities to take on challenges, to serve in difficult circumstances, to enjoy competitive activities, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Both of these columns have kinda rattled around, clearly idenifying problems but failing to present clear alternatives. I don’t think that Part 1 necessarily recommended amping up the U2 in order to keep men interested, but it did say that syrupy sweet hymns certainly weren’t keeping any butts in the seats, either.
As with so many things, it all comes down to your theology; what you believe about who God is, and who man(kind) is, and what a man’s role in his church and his marriage is. Sadly, what we see in a lot of churches is built on the idea that God has to be all things to all people (rather than inherantly all-sufficient), people are to be encouraged and cheered to the point of self-worship (rather than a clear view of the fallen nature of all mankind), and men are encouraged to follow a corrupted view of masculinity as put forth by dictatorial fathers and couch potato sitcom dads (instead of seeing sacrifice and servanthood as our highest callings).
Report comment to moderator
“…church service being more about serving than being served.”
is a nice saying, but it’s 90% not reality.
And it’s also no excuse. There *are* opportunities to serve. Don’t blame the church if they’re not taken.
Jesus invites men to… fight evil… Most churches only challenge young men to be nice… stay out of trouble until they get married.
The first (and best?) way to “fight evil” is to fight it within. That’s where Jesus said the problem was. And you have no business fighting without unless you’ve started fighting it within.
What exactly and specifically do you want churches to do then, Bradley, besides [all of the bad stuff you listed]?
As for music, I agree and said so last time, that it (by itself) is not *the* problem, but it is *part of* the problem, and a symptom of the underlying problem. The whole idea of making it “cooler” to attract [fill in the blank] to the point where it’s virtually indistinguishable from Top 40 or MTV (are those references still usable?).
Report comment to moderator
The concept of Christianity as a “fighting” religion baffles me. Christianity orginally appealed to women and slaves. The Roman and Greek elites considered it far too wimpy for them. As Christian influence grew and Rome was sacked and the Empire was dieing, the elites blamed the wimpish or weak Christian religion and contrasted it with the original warrior gods of Rome and Greece and even more so with the Germanic barbarians.
Throughout history, the ferocity of the Crusades and religious wars was counter balanced with the docility and obedience demanded of the common attendee. Christianity is not in its essence anymore a “manly” religoin than it is feminine. (I could go on lengths about the transitory nature of gender categories but …..)
Report comment to moderator
#22 TRR What exactly and specifically do you want churches to do then, Bradley?
That is the fundamental question. However, the answer is not easy nor politically correct. The answer is to recognize the unique role given to men and to hold them accountable for it. That is a very unpopular message these days because it puts women in a supporting role. Who is brave enough to preach that?
And so the church becomes soft. Accountability for men has come to mean confessing sin, sobbing and getting a group hug. That message is so much safer than a call to action.
Men must be held accountable for the spiritual condition of the church and their families. They must rise up and build and teach and lead. The feminization of the church makes them impotent.
Report comment to moderator
#10 Though I’ve never been in it, the Corps is for many men a true brotherhood/fraternity in a way that Promise Keepers or similar groups couldnt ever be. I’m not saying I approve of that situation, but I believe it to be accurate. In the army at large I think the RANGERS come close to the USMC collective brotherhood effort.
So much of contemporary male education/socialization runs counter to the “We’re all in this together” ethos of the USMC. I think that is why men recall and keep in contact with guys from their bootcamp cohort group but won’t be able to tell you whose discussion group they were in at last week’s mens retreat.
As I once told a friend, their is a great deal that the Marines could teach men at our churches (and vice versa).
Report comment to moderator
i’m reminded of “fight club,” in which the x-generation of men struggle with meeting societal indicators of success, yet lack the thing that makes them men. you need to have a proper balance between opportunities for men to have a cry and make war-cries.
eldridge writes in ‘wild at heart’ the today’s christian male often serves in an immasulated version of christianity, that every man instinctively desires a battle to fight and a woman to rescue. but men in church are often forced to be nice guys to have the danger surgically removed from their hearts so that they will be safe and be marriage material for a wife that will eventually be the spiritual head and lose respect for the poor sap. eldredge writes that we often focus too much on the Jesus that says turn the other cheek and put away the sword…we overlook the Jesus that humiliated the moneychangers in the temple, that shut down the pharisees to the point that they wanted to kill him, the Jesus the stood between the adultress and the rocks of her accusers.
now, i’m reminded of clint eastwood’s character in ‘unforgiven,’ where he had been changed by a women he loved, and now that she’s gone, there’s only a matter of time and circumstance before he goes back to boozin’ and killin’. yes, the unchecked male needs to be addressed, but rather than immasculation, the aggressive male factor needs to be rechanneled into positive areas that will give men a sense of fighting the good fight…as we all imagined ourselves to be doing when we were young.
Report comment to moderator
The members on some dating sites like tallhub.com claimed that they would rather chating online than going to church.
Report comment to moderator
#26 Joe, thanks for bringing up John Eldridge. I was going to comment on his book ‘Wild at Heart’, which does NOT represent the biblical point of view.
The answer is not for men to march off into the wilderness to pound their chests and eat raw meat. The answer is not to act like Gladiator or Braveheart. Biblical role models were men of integrity, fortitude and passion, but also of righteousness, not vengeance.
There is a good critique of ‘Wild at Heart’ by Daniel Gillespie in the book ‘Fools Gold’, edited by John MacArthur. It exposes many of the fads that are running through the church. One of them is ‘Wild at Heart’.
Four problems are identified with ‘Wild at Heart’:
1. Insufficient view of scripture Eldridge appeals to movies, books and even his own supposed revelations from God, but provides little biblical authority. Supposedly God told Eldridge that he was Henry V at Agincourt.
2. An inadequate picture of God He says real men shouldn’t necessarily be nice guys, since God wiped out the Egyptians. He emphasizes God’s wrath and power, but ignores his mercy and kindness. He calls God wild at heart (p.29).
3. An incomplete portrait of Christ He correctly identifies Christ as a model for masculinity, but he focuses on Christ’s second coming with power and overlooks his meekness and grace. Eldridge calls Christ “fierce, wild and romantic to the core” (p.203).
4. An incomplete portrait of man In chapter four he shifts the blame for personal sin onto wounds that every man supposedly carries. Eldridge misconstrues man’s purpose by saying “our design is revealed by our desires”. (p.48) In other words, our passions and pleasures define who we are.
In conclusion, ‘Wild at Heart’ accurately identifies a critical problem within our churches. Men need to be strong, resolute and of solid character. However, Eldridge’s views are unscriptural and flawed in theology, Christology and anthropology.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner #25: i like that. there is something about a brotherhood that is created when the men as a group experience something together and how they through common goals and discipline they became close comrades.
men in church don’t have much reason to cohere like that. they grunt in unison whenever the pastor might throw in a word about football, but otherwise, they’re silent observers while the women titter and chatter.
i have an experience…i recently, for the youth ministry i work in, had gone togther with some fellow workers whom i’ve only marginally known to a week long training to be certified for our on-site rope course. we had to live in a cold tent, surrounded by alienish boy-scout leaders from all over the US (who were providing the training with which we had no real affiliation). the course which focused on team building exercises, trust building, and then the high element certification. it was hard, physical, and exhausting, but we pulled together and i never expected to make friends like i did because of it. we suffered the same in the nasty weather, and went toward the long goal…i guess that’s how boot camp works and stuff…you don’t really bond because you love the organization, you bond because the individual( by your shared experience, in trial and triumph) becomes your brother or your sister.
if church was like that, even if i felt the task was the most menial…that if i could feel connected and that others were sharing and we suffered the same or like how it says we mourn wih those who mourn or celebrate with those who celebrate…if our shared experience changed us and we saw the change in others…shoot….
and xion, i agree…i don’t think eldredge plundered the depths of sound theology on ‘wild at heart,’ yet i feel he identifies something as you have said.
with the addition of the blog on xxxchurch.com, i wonder if a lot of men are inactive because of hidden sin (a.k.a. internet porn)…. i wouldn’t be so quick to scoff at that thought, it’s prevalent…very.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, have you read Wild at Heart? Your post sounds suspiciously like you’ve read the opponents without checking the original source. I have, and I don’t completely disagree with your quote. However, it isn’t a theology text. Criticising Wild at Heart for being “incomplete,” “inadequate,” and “insufficient” is like criticising chocolate because is isn’t steak.
There’s good and bad in there. From what I’ve seen, I’d say that Eldridge has a better handle on the Church’s “man problem” than David Murrow and Anthony Bradley have.
Report comment to moderator
#29 “I wonder if a lot of men are inactive because of hidden sin” Good point. But I think churches could do more here. If any man waits until he is sin-free, then no one would serve. The pastor needs to convince the men that sinners must serve, since that’s all we’ve got. God uses imperfect people to accomplish his perfect will.
I think the reason that hidden sins remain hidden is because Christians are the only army that shoots its wounded. A church that accepted failings with grace and challenged the men to ’sin no more’ with love would have a lot more openness and probably a lot more involvement in service.
#30 Stubob – No, I didn’t read ‘Wild at Heart’. As I said, I was quoting from a critique in the book ‘Fools Gold’ produced by John MacArthur.
If someone claims to be Henry V at Agincourt, I don’t see the need to read his book. But even Daniel Gillespie’s critique acknowledged that Eldridge had a good handle on the problem. It was his solution that was flawed and unbiblical.
Report comment to moderator
To press the point on hidden sin further Joe, I can give you some examples.
A friend of mine was disallowed from serving in our church because he was divorced when he was young. Even though he has been a godly man, faithfully married for decades, his past supposedly disqualifies him. But what about Paul, a murderer and Peter who committed felonious assault and denied Christ? No one forbid them from serving.
Another example is a man who was caught by his wife looking at Internet porn. The church cleaned up his computer and suspended his membership until he repented. He did repent several times, but each time would fall back into it. The church asked him to leave.
The worst part of all this is that I am sure that some of the men who kicked that man out also struggled with the same sin. So the church is really a whited sepulcher, a facade of hypocrisy, all shiny on the outside, but afraid to mention the hidden rottenness for fear of public humiliation.
We speak about sinners as though they are people other than us. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’. If the subject is sin, then there is only ‘us’. There is no ‘them’. We should not speak of murderers and adulterers and rapists and liars and cheats as them. We should call them part of ‘us’ and acknowledge that the grace of God is sufficient.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, you’re right about the church shooting its wounded. The more I think about this, though, the more I think it may be less that the church has a “man problem” and more that men have a “church problem.”
As to the Henry V bit, I’d have to see an original quote, in context, before I’d give that allegation any attention. For all the time you’ve given to reading about Eldridge, you could have gone to the source and made up your own mind.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes the wound has to be shot in order to heal.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I came late to this conversation.
I’m sure my take on this topic will not be popular, but here goes: I think part of the problem goes back to original sin: The man, Adam abdicated his God-given role, and the woman, Eve userped it. God put all things in order when He created them, and the man and the woman reordered them to suit their desires.
This same scenario is repeated time and time again. (And I am a woman saying this.) It’s not about who is better at spiritual things, it’s about whose God-given role it is.
David was of the kingly tribe of Judah, not the priestly tribe of Levi. He was a man’s man and he poured out his heart in the Psalms. He was a sinner just like the rest of us, a murderer even, and yet God called him “a man after My own heart.” David didn’t ever forget who he was or Whose He was. I can almost see him on the outside looking in at the priests in the tabernacle. If the tabernacle had glass windows, David’s nose would have been pressed against one because he had the heart of a priest. But his God-given role was king. So he worked within the boundaries that God set for him and still contributed significantly to the spiritual life of Israel.
Would that women in church would operate similarly in church today, and subordinate their desires to what God has (and hasn’t) given them to do. What a mighty witness that would be!
If women refused to userp the roles of men, I daresay there would be more men fulfilling them.
Report comment to moderator
#25 Sawgunner,
There is a lot to what you say about a brotherhood. My husband spent a 26 year career in Special Forces and I saw that kind of comeraderie on every A-Team that he was ever a member of.
How do we allow our men to be manly men in church? Maybe we could come to Quantico and see these manly men at worship in the chapel. My family has worshipped in many military chapels and have found fewer touchy-feely experiences than we have in civilian churches.
Military chapels, on the other hand, have their own drawbacks.
Maybe we should study male role models from the Bible, with an emphasis on their blatant male qualtiies. Or maybe we should study some brave martyrs who were also action guys.
Report comment to moderator
34-
That makes a lot of sense! How do you go about this?
Report comment to moderator