Why do more women attend church than men?
That’s the simple question this book seeks to
answer and I think David Murrow has done a pretty good job. As a church
attending male, I am statistically a rare breed, for you see there is a gender
gap within our churches which grows day by day. Women seem to be in the
majority almost everywhere; be it select vestries or kirks, in our study
groups, choirs, prayer groups and even our outreach teams... so what is going on?
Well in this little book first published in
2005, but now revised and updated (with more up to date statistics) for 2011
David Morrow expresses succinctly, and often with a nice touch of humour, the
fears, boredom and dissatisfaction many men feel within modern Christianity. He
writes practically about what many of us have felt for a long time; that the
church, with all its lovey dovey worship songs, bright colours, “group sharing
times” and feminine ideals, is fast becoming a cold house for men.
That’s not to say that us men want darkened
rooms, with songs about death interspersed with long periods of silence and a
Scriptural message on how to go to war.
Rather Murrow’s book calls to the church to
re-address the balance, and to take a good hard look at itself. Where we speak
of “relationships” should we really speak of “cooperation”? Should we forget
the chatty door to door evangelism in favour of the logistical practical needs
evangelism? Is our conception of God becoming too feminine?
Could it be that the language of the average
church is just too “womanly” for men?
I can almost hear the chuckles coming from all
the girls out there, scoffing at the idea of men feeling emasculated in church,
but ladies I too must admit that I have felt many of the fears, and anxieties
expressed in this book. In fact reading other’s reviews of the book I can see
quite a big difference opening up to this book, with men generally praising it
for its honesty and ability to address our common problems with the current
state of the church, and women generally saying that it’s a good book but
ultimately the problem is with men, rather than the church.
Personally speaking I think this book is great
for anyone who seriously wants to learn about what had put men off Christianity,
and for anyone who wants to lay the groundwork before starting to revitalise
men’s ministry and attract them back in the church. It shows that men do have
gifts and talents that are truly needed within the church, even if Murrow often
presents “real” men as muscle bound, beer drinking, “i’m gonna punch you face”
types... which means that the rest of us men who attend church at present are “feminine”
and “girly”, which I found quite rude but well I got over it pretty quickly.
For Murrow it’s about giving men the
opportunity to live their faith in the local church, rather than expecting them
to leave it at the door... and before anyone asks I assure you it’s not
anti-feminist or anything like that, nor is it a book for Mr. Macho (though he
certainly gets high praise) out there, but rather an easy to read, and humorous
assessment of what is a worrying trend within our churches and what’s causing
it... which makes this a book as much for the men out there as it is for the
ladies.
**********************
This book was kindly given to me for free by the publisher "Thomas Nelson" in return for a fair and honest review. The opinions expressed are indeed my own.


15 comments:
Hi Wandering Pilgrim,
I have the rarity of a congregation that nearly always has more men than women in it. But certainly in the Western world, there are usually far more women than men who go to Church.
One explanation I have heard and that seems to be along the lines of Murrow's thinking, is that men like to 'do' whilst women are happy to 'be'. And the message of the Gospel is not what we can do for God but what God in Christ has done for us. Many men find that difficult to accept - they want to 'do' something for their salvation beyond believing in God's grace.
Was wondering...
In the Bible - Can you name any man - or women - who was - "Going to Church?"
Michelle
Was wondering...
I can’t seem to find anyone - “Going to Church” - In my antiquated KJV.
Could the simple reason for “Why Men Hate Going to Church” be...
It’s NOT in the Bible.
In the Bible...
Jesus never mentioned to “His Disciples” about “Going to Church.”
NOT one “Disciple of Christ” taught about, or mentioned, “Going to Church.”
There are NO men and NO women - “Going to Church.”
Seems to me, these “Men Who Hate Going to Church,”
are a lot more biblical then those who do...
Because, NO one - man or women - was “Going to Church” in the Bible. ;-)
What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is not always popular.
Was wondering...
I can’t seem to find anyone - “Going to Church” - In my antiquated KJV.
Could the simple reason for “Why Men Hate Going to Church” be...
It’s NOT in the Bible.
In the Bible...
Jesus never mentioned to “His Disciples” about “Going to Church.”
NOT one “Disciple of Christ” taught about, or mentioned, “Going to Church.”
There are NO men and NO women - “Going to Church.”
Seems to me, these “Men Who Hate Going to Church,”
are a lot more biblical then those who do...
Because, NO one - man or women - was “Going to Church” in the Bible. ;-)
What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is not always popular.
Thank you Chaplain.cz, I agree with you, in fact I’m at the stage of wanting to do something so badly that I’m going to hand in a letter to my Archdeacon on Friday after Communion asking him for a chat about my vocation to Holy Orders. Nervous as heck about it, and it’s taken up a lot of my time these last few days so please don’t think I’m ignoring you!
Amos,
You do raise a good point. The “Church” as we commonly understand is of course the body of believers rather than the building, which is actually the reason why in my old congregation we talked of the “Meeting House” rather than the “Church”. However while my religion is ultimately grounded on Holy Scripture my language is not.
Believe it or not the Bible was not written in English, and the word “Church” predates the English translation of the Word of God. It traces itself back to well before 900AD and comes from the Middle English word “chir(i)che” and the Old English word “cir(i)ce”, which in turn come from the Greek word for “Lord’s House”. It’s where the Scottish word “kirk”, the Dutch word “kerk” and the Old Norse word “kirkja” also come from.
Now I can see your point, “Church” is within the KJV used almost consistently as the English equivalent of the Greek Word “εκκλεσια“ (Ekklesia), but surely you are aware that the KJV was written with certain Episcopal friendly guidelines in place?
It’s common knowledge that King James gave Instructions to the translators of his version, so that Puritan influences would be limited. The Bishop of London made a qualification that no marginal notes would be included, because some notes in the Geneva version (especially those on Exodus 1:19, and II Chronicles 15:16) had caused offence to King James.
King James then made instructions to the effect that the translators would have to make their work fit with the ecclesiology of the Church of England and also made instructions that certain Greek and Hebrew words would have to be translated in a way that reflected the traditional understanding of the Church of England.
One such word that had to translated to fit with the traditional understanding was... drum roll please... the word “εκκλεσια“ (Ekklesia), which is properly translated as “congregation” but as that sounded far too Puritan James ordered that it be translated as “Church” (which would be translated “kyridakon” in Greek). That is why the word “Church” which properly means “Lord’s House” was used in the KJV, and that is why you and most other Christians now think the word “Church” Biblically means congregation rather than “Lord’s House”, when in the proper Greek and unbiased translations it doesn’t.
It is also why saying something along the lines of “I’m going to Church”, or asking “why do men hate going to church?” are both perfectly acceptable phrases to use in English; indeed even when translated into Greek they still remain perfectly acceptable Biblically.
To say that men who attend the Church – correctly understood as “the Lord’s House” – for worship are not being Biblical is madness, and there are numerous example of people within the Bible worshiping at the “Lord’s House” within both Testaments.
Don’t confuse semantics with dogmatics.
Hello, Wandering Pilgrim! This is Pearl of Tyburn from CAF. I just started a blog of my own, and I put your blog down on my profile as one I follow! The funny thing was that when I tried to do so the first time, the wrong "Wandering Pilgrim" blog came up! I didn't notice at first that you used hyphens to separate the words in your address. But, as you can see, I did finally find the wandering pilgrim I was seeking! You obviously have quite a talent fro writing. Just looking at the list of blogs you run is exhausting for me! I'm enjoying reading over your posts. Oh! By the way, if you'd like to check out the blog I started, you can find it by clicking on my username. You'll find it at my profile under "MY BLOGS."
God Bless,
Pearl of Tyburn
Wanderer
I appreciated the history lesson of the KJV. That King Jimmy was somethin else.
And the word chirche referring to “Lords House.”
If that’s accurate, and church, ekklesia, refers to “the Lords House,” - Then...
Aren’t believers - NOW - “the Lords House?” And NOT a building or a place?
Heb 3:6
But Christ as a son over his own house; *whose house are we*...
How can believers be “Going to Church” - chirche - The Lords House?
When believers are “The Lords House?” Can we go someplace that we are? ;-)
Seems God NO longer dwells in buildings...
Acts 7:48
Howbeit *the most High dwelleth not in temples* made with hands...
Acts 17:24
God that made the world and all things therein,
seeing that *he is Lord* of heaven and earth,
*dwelleth not in temples* made with hands;
Doesn’t Jesus/God, NOW lives in us. ;-)
Col 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles; which is *Christ in you,* the hope of glory:
1 Cor 3:16
Know ye not that *ye are the temple of God,*
and that *the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?*
1 Cor 6:19
What? know ye not that *your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost*
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
So, for me, it’s NOT sematics or dogmatics that are the challenge.
It’s making *Void* the “word of God” because of “Traditions of Men.” Mk 7:13.
What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “truth’ is not always popular.
When you believe the lie you start to die...
It is accurate, but you are mistaken. Ekklesia translated into English means “congregation” or “assembly”, the Greek word “kyridakon” translates into English as the words “Lord’s House” or commonly “Church”. You are confused in that you believe the word Church has the same meaning as the Greek “ekklesia” when in truth it doesn’t, and as I have already explained why the KJV translates it in such a way I won’t do so again.
None of you proof texts make any sort of sense, because on the one hand it can be plainly seen that you have no understanding of Greek, and on the other hand you are reading things into words that aren’t there.
In Hebrews 3:6 you seem to have missed the point that the sentence is metaphorical, probably because that point nullifies your questions.
You then read too much into things, no one has said God dwells in buildings, what has happened is that Christendom uses the Biblically based words “Lord’s House” to describe the place where the Lord’s people come together in corporate worship and thanksgiving... as is Biblically acceptable. You are then trying to make out that the Lord’s House is somehow a dwelling place of God when no one has said such.
Yes Christ is in us... no one has said otherwise, but yet again you misunderstand a comment and then based on faulty premise and false assumption launch into a series of questions as though they somehow contradict the original comment.
I disagree with you on one major point.
“So, for me, it’s NOT semantics [sic] or dogmatics that are the challenge.
It’s making *Void* the “word of God” because of “Traditions of Men.” Mk 7:13.”
I disagree with that statement because this is about you. What I have seen after a quick google search is that you seem to travel the length and breadth of the internet, armed with a 1611 KJV and your own warped interpretation, seeking out whom you may devour.
As hard-hearted as the Pharaoh in Exodus, you offer up false challenges to Christians in the hope that they will stumble and fall. Yet when they side-step your trap and try to help you see sense and truth, you rumble on like a juggernaut blissfully ignoring them.
You seek to remove any words, views, beliefs, practices within Christianity that don’t fit with your interpretation. Having no understanding of Biblical languages you seem to believe that you have a right to tell the rest of us what the original writers meant, you also seem to believe that you have a right to tell the rest of humanity what words may and may not be used to describe Christian concepts, whether it’s “Church” on my blog or “discipleship” or even “Reverend” and “Pastor” on numerous others, as though you are the one true guardian of Christianity. A self made Pope.
The truth is that you are not the last man standing for truth, nor are you a prophet of God sent out to call the rest of us back to the true understanding of the Gospel (which just happens to be your understanding). Rather you are one man σχίσμα, a person who out of strives to split the faithful by means of propagating false errors.
I mean have you never wondered why everyone else except you is wrong? Why over the last 2000 years only one person... namely you... has had the correct and true understanding of Christian faith?
If you disagree with my writing, I accept that, but if you are here on my blog for no other reason than to promote your own false opinions as though they are the only views acceptable to God then I would ask you to stop. Start your own blog by all means, but don’t use mine as your soapbox.
Back to the question of where have all the men gone. Perhaps it is the problem of submission to God, and reliance on self. Perhaps it is in the break up of families and the loss of the submission to the sanctity of marriage and the lack of belief in the terrible consequences of breaking a sacred vow.
Wanderer
I’m impressed with your passion and your ability with words...
Also your research - and your ability to follow my rambligs...
“the length and breadth of the internet” ;-)
If nothing else - you now see that I’ve been persistant and consistant.
Always pointing believers to {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}} who always has the preeminence.
And challenging “the Traditions of Men” that make “void” the “word of God.”
Mark 7:13
KJV - Making the word of God of “none effect” through your tradition...
ASV - Making “void” the word of God by your tradition...
NIV - Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition...
That should count for something with you. Yes? :-)
And - “If you disagree with my writing, I accept that,” You can even disagree
with the “why” of why I go - “the length and breadth of the internet”
(You never even asked.)
I’d like to leave you with just one little correction when you write...
“I mean have you never wondered why everyone else except you is wrong?”
Because you seem to be concerned with church history and biblical accuracy.
I believe there are many, from the past, and today, that were/are correct.
I’ll attempt to give you some of why I agree with those from the past,
and today, in the next comment.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Fold - One Shepherd - One Voice
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Wanderer
In my experience... And my simple research...
There were many groupes of believers, thru the centuries, who stood against
the Powerful, Institutional, and Abusive Religious Systems of their day.
If you’d like a list of Christians who were persecuted, tortured, and killed,
by other so-called christians, who had the Power, that can be provided.
Christiandumb is often a bloody sport.
I’ll leave you with ideas of the past, and today, I agree with,
1 - Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both Protestants and Roman Catholics because they did NOT believe in infant baptism. They also refused to attend state run churches. One reason given for not attending the state churches was that these institutions forbade the congregation to exercise spiritual gifts according to "the Christian order as taught in the gospel or the Word of God in 1 Corinthians 14." "When such believers come together, "Everyone of you (note every one) hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation," and so on..When someone comes to church and constantly hears only one person speaking, and all the listeners are silent, neither speaking nor prophesying, who can or will regard or confess the same to be a spiritual congregation, or confess according to 1 Corinthians 14 that God is dwelling and operating in them through His Holy Spirit with His gifts, impelling them one after another in the above-mentioned order of speaking and prophesying".
2 - The Religious Society of Friends - Quakers - A movement which stresses the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers.” Quakers were *officially persecuted* in England under the Quaker Act 1662 and the Conventicle Act 1664. Friends believe in continuing revelation, which is the idea that truth is continuously revealed directly to individuals from God without a need for any intermediary, objective logic or systematic theology. For this reason, many Quakers **reject the idea of priests,** believing in the priesthood of all believers. George Fox, described it as "Christ has come to teach His people Himself." Friends often focus on trying to hear God.
3 - Today you can read a book “Revolution,” by George Barna, a christian pollster, Who noticed a trend over the last many years. More and more christions were leaving the Institutional Church in order to find Jesus. That was similar to my experience with Jesus. I left “The Abusive Religious System” in the early 90’s. Through much pain, tears, and Spiritual Abuse. In the USA, there are now millions who have left the “501 (c) 3, non-profit, tax exempt, Religious Corporations, the IRS calls church.
So, I aline myself with those who were persecuted for believeing and teaching...
ALL believers have a living Christ with in them.
ALL believers can particapate whenever we come together.
ALL believers can hear from Jesus for themselves.
ALL believers can get direct revelation from Jesus.
ALL believers shall be taught of God.
Every one that is of the truth *heareth My voice.”
John 18:37
Out of heaven he made thee to *hear His voice,*
that *He might instruct thee*
Deut 4:36
As a woman of faith and a mother of 3 sons who're now ages 17, 19, & 23, this topic interests me. Two of my sons are invested in the local community of followers of Christ-the local church. The other doesn't see it as relevant. I pray for Christ's church regularly; it's one of the ways God wants to reach out to the world and it's one of the ways His body is strengthened and encouraged.
Have you ever entertained the possibility that: Women Are Just Naturally More Spiritually Minded - due to their own nurturing roles? Or, possibly, that: Men Are Just Naturally More Physical Oriented - due to their own role as: Hunter, Soldier, Provider, and Protector? Whatever a person focuses, most highly, upon is generally cultivated far more strongly than anything else!
The fact, that most of you - Within The Clergy - cannot perceive this, just shows how little of ' True Understanding ' that you factually possess.
Jeshurun,
Thanks for your comment, but I'm not a member of the clergy... I'm a young lay-man.
Murrow does a pretty good job of showing how Christianity has over the past 50 years became more feminine, and how ti has adopted more feminine traits into the faith. Where once male traits such as "achievement, efficiency, ambition, results and competition" where central to many ecclesial communities outlook, now we see "love, nurturing, caring, relationships" take centre stage.
This doesn't mean that Women are more spiritual than men, nor vice versa. Rather it simply means that for many men Christianity has become a cold house, with nothing to offer or interest them. It's a place for the ladies in their life, and not really the sort of place where they, and their faith can be expressed freely.
Murrow says this is down to many factors, rather than blaming it all on somebody else (like the clergy). For Murrow men need to get involved in Church, women need to help them reintegrate, and clergy need to be prepared to preach and teach all of the Gospel and not just the "fluffy" bits.
Murrow's point is that Church should be for all, and when it's not the Church just dies slowly. Like it or loathe it we need men in the church... and like it or loathe it we have our part to play in getting more men back in the pews.
Just discovered your blog - interesting. Although a Catholic, i will search out nuggets from your postings and I am sure will find many. You seem an intelligent lad.
Now about this: "That’s not to say that us men want darkened rooms, with songs about death interspersed with long periods of silence and a Scriptural message on how to go to war"
I think this is exactly what us males want! I leave you to meditate upon your own words. These are the things that made men to be men properly guided in and by the Church for centuries. Since the end of WWI and to an even greater extent WWII the churches have abandoned men and their training to turn male boys into adult men. At age 64 I am a prime example of never truly growing out of male boyhood. I even served in the military in the 1960's and can tell you I am today more 'hippy' than 'warrior/soldier/saint' which is what we were meant to be!. I dare say most of my generation is the same whether they have the courage to admit it or not.
Very interesting. Having been to several different denominational churches it seemed to me that, excuse the wording, the happy-clappy evangelical brigade brought in more families and men than the other church denominations I attended. Still far more women though.
I think it would be good for churched to have men and women only spaces for worship, with a co-opted service bi-monthly. That way men can hear and speak about their needs and fears, learn the position regarding biblical manhood, and visa-versa for women. The bible does speak to both sexes, Jesus, his Apostles and Disciples spoke to both sexes. There was a tribal existence in those days and of course no distractions to compete with learning ones religion. Culture changes with the evolution of technology and socio-political events.
I have always felt a need for separate teaching of men and women in 'church', and in school actually, with co-ed being adapted into the leisure time not the learning time.
Worth a try don't you think?
Post a Comment