Why have men left the Church?

There is a frequent and loudly stated view that men leave the Church because it is too feminine. It is very common in the US and is being picked up by a number of Churches in the UK.

I believe this is complete rubbish and have done so for a long time. For me there have been two main reasons for not accepting this view:

• Men still control large parts of the church. In many Churches women cannot be elders, priests, ministers, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes etc. Even in Churchs which have an official position of equality we are no where near achieving this in practice. Consider the relative numbers of women ministers, superintendents and district chairs in the British Methodist Church and you will see it lags a long way behind the men. The same is usually the case for lay committees and positions of authority. Those that claim that Churches are feminine have clearly missed the point that if this is the case then it is men who have made it so and hence that this seems an unlikely reason for there to be few men in the church.
• Theologically the position of these masculine groups is appalling. Earlier I linked to an excellent post on that by Pam (Masculine Christianity) that points out just a few of the obvious flaws in this position. The beliefs about behaviour that these "masculine Christians" claim are so far removed from the life and teaching of Jesus that it beggars belief. Yet Jesus had no problem attracting men (and of course women) to follow him, how did he do that without being one of these masculine men?

So, I reject the view that men leave the church because it is too feminine. It does not fit a male controlled Church and the suggested alternative of a masculine church bears no relationship to Jesus, his life and teaching.

But still the question remains. Why so few men?

My normal reaction is because the Church fails to demand proper discipleship. We don't make the same demands that Jesus (and the early Church) did. Demands such as:

• Give up your job and your career
• Renounce violence
• Stand up for the poor, for justice and do so with compassion and mercy
• Give of yourself tirelessly for others.
• Love your enemies, do good to those who hate and persecute you
• Sell all you have and give the money to the poor

I feel that we water Christian faith down and so people do not see it as exciting, do not give themselves fully and so do not have full life changing experiences. People see that we are not challenging them to be like Jesus and so they see us as weak hypocrites. But none of that is about tough masculinity or weak femininity but it is about following Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Lord of our lives.

Still I don't think this is enough. Why would us failing to live out the gospel, failing to be true disciples of Jesus seem to put of proportionately far more men that women?

So I was interested when someone explained a different view to me. It was new to me, although I am confident not newly created.

According to this view the lack of men in the Church relates back to the two world wars. There were profound differences in the experiences of men and women in both wars.

Typically men went off to war and experienced hell on earth and did so without the teaching or training or help to see God in the shit they went through. They felt abandoned by God and during that time of greatest need and suffering the Church seemed to offer nothing relevant or helpful. The Church had no theology of God in the trenches except the simplistic "God is on our side" statements.

On the other hand typically women stayed in Britain or in other communities. They had struggles too but in them the Church was seen as helpful and positive. Somewhere to be supported, somewhere to be part of a community, somewhere safe, ...

After both wars we then see men coming home with feelings of abandonment and failure towards the church and God. While the women have positive feelings towards both.

If this is the case then little wonder that the men gave up on Church and God while the women continued with strengthened faith. Little wonder that future generations see the men not going to church while the women do and perpetuate this into their generation, just following the example of those before.

I don't know how accurate this way of understanding what has happened is. However, I do find it ironic that the very things that drove men out of the Church (nothing to say about God being with us in suffering, nothing to say about God being there in that living hell etc) all came about from the very masculine way that Christianity was understood and practised at the time. Now we see people wanting to promote the very way of being Christian that meant it became irrelevant in the first place.

If we want men in our church, we don't need to become more masculine, instead we need to:

• become more Christlike
• support discipleship that is routed in the teaching and behaviour of Jesus
• build strong faith that understands how God will be in the shit with us
• build our understanding that God is found in the shit
• build strength and depth to our faith and discipleship so that it can survive hell on earth
• be courageous in following the teaching that Jesus actually gave, not a version built on our cultural preconceptions.
• tell and celebrate the stories of people who found Jesus in adversity, in pain, in suffering, in hell on earth. There are plenty of inspiring tales of people who gave their lives for others; of people showing love, & forgiveness; of lives changed for the better; of courage, steadfastness and determination of faith.
• work at honest and integrated lives that reflect the life & teaching of Jesus ie be authentic.
• do all this within a community that is strong enough to carry us when we can't hear Jesus and accompany us carrying the Christ light when we are stuck in the shit of life and can see no light, no hope and no God.

And by the way if we got these things even half way right we might well see more women in church as well as men.

Comments

[Sally]

excellent post Dave, may I add that I believe that it is the attitude that you have suggested above that will bring back not only men but the missing gerenations of men and women who have also left the church!

I look out week after week over a sea of heads, mostly elderly, mostly grey, and yes mostly female!

We really need to wake up and be the people Jesus has called us to be ( no apologies for mimicing an advert there).

[Jeremy]

I'm one of three brothers. We're all Christians and grew up in a missionary family, but we all struggle with church, so this is a thought-provoking post and deserves a bit of a reply.

All three of us dislike church services. I'm not a fan of singing, and I think much of our church singing is a distraction from real worship. I sit in a church building and I wonder how we ever thought those were a good idea. I learn more from reading books and from talking with good friends than from sermons.

I crave authenticity in my relationships, and church so often offers this strange substitute we call 'fellowship'.

I crave purpose and a sense of mission, people to share this dynamic faith in all that it requires. With church, as long as I attend and maybe join a rota, nothing more will be required of me.

In short, I agree - let's just be more Christlike! In practical terms, here's my two pence worth:

-make it okay to be part of the church without always attending the sunday services. The church is the community, so it should be fine to just be in the network, at a home group, without doing the sunday. If that sounds like it wouldn't work in your church, then maybe you don't have a church after all - you have a sunday service provider.

-do men's events without an agenda. Not a prayer breakfast, just breakfast, not 'fellowship', just hanging out. It's more important that men form deep friendships, and prayer will grow there, rather than imposing a top down ideal that will scare some men away.

-Go away more. Jesus spends most of the gospels traveling from place to place with a group of men. Go camping, surfing, hiking, in small groups. Light a fire and talk into the night, and you'll do more for keeping men in church than a thousand sermons on 'not giving up meeting together'. (I don't mean macho adventure weekends, by the way! It's just about creating space for meaningful conversation.)

-talk a little bit less about correct beliefs, and a little more about purpose - why we believe, rather than what we believe. This roots the faith in the real world, in the monday to friday, and re-engages all those men who aren't interested in the intellectual side of it.

I could write a whole essay here, so I'll stop. My own answer, by the way, was to join a house church. The smaller a church is, the easier these kinds of questions are.

[PamBG]

It's an interesting theory about the wars. I think that there are still more men in the pews in the States than in the US (although not more American men than American women). But the US's experience of WWII as a society was very positive. My dad had the same feeling of abandonment of God during Korea and became an atheist as a result.

Abandoning your job and your career is a huge challenge and I'm not sure that's right for every single person. From the perspective of 50 years ago, it would have been a huge challenge to men and today it's a huge challenge to both men and women. 50 years ago, most women would not have had careers anyway and the church was a place not only for friendship and support but for opportunities for leadership and feeling useful in the community.

One last thought. We need to remember that the Church is not God, no matter we believe that it somehow represents the Body of Christ. The Church is still a human construct and it is as fallible as all human constructs. I think a lot of people reject God because they reject the Church.

[Tim]

There's another simple explanation. Historically, men tend to identify with their careers more. When was the last time you heard a sermon in church about being a Christian at work?

[Tony Buglass]

One reason why men don't go to church in some sub-cultures is sociological. In the working-class home for many generations, there was a division of labour: the man was the breadwinner, and the woman looked after home and family. The family's religion was part of her job. So it was that my first appointment (serving largely working-class areas) not only had predominantly female congrgations, but also had large weekly women's fellowships. These were the "Sunday service substitue" for women whose husbands went to the pub or club on Sunday morning, and expected dinner on the table when they came in. Church on Sunday morning wasn't an option.

Sounds neanderthal, but it was true for a lot of families - and it wasn't so very long ago.

[Dave]

Jeremy,

There is a huge variety and possibility for music in Church, some with congregational singing and some without. I am surprised you think it can all be lumped together and say it is a distraction from worship.

If the music in one church service does not help you worship then fine, but why throw the baby out with the bath water.

I totally agree about being part of the church without joining Sunday worship. That has been a really encouraging feature with Hope 08 (and now 09) in Thrapston. It is also common with Fresh Expressions and also required as so many people work on Sundays.

Your thoughts on men's events are interesting. It does not excite me, I have always enjoyed mixed company better. So it is not something I am going to devote my time to developing in a big way (fortunately loads more happens than I can develop anyway which is as it should be, things should not depend on a minister).

However, I do want to stand up for being intentional about faith. History shows us repeating patterns of groups created that fail to be intentional and drift and lose contact with faith becoming entirely social and secular. Our denomination has plenty of experience of this and I would hope others learn from our experience.

I do also want to put the case for corporate worship in one form or another. It is a glorious waste of time (in that you cannot measure products created by it) that we offer to God, ie the primary focus is not what we get out of worship but what we offer to God.

Without worship you run the risk of turning into a social gospel group that is not being fed and (again please feel free to learn from our history) that leads to death.

As for the "go away more", it sounds good, but I suspect it needs a rather more affluent group than those I am among. Here choosing whether to pay an electric bill or buy food is a more pressing issue.

As for the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxis (right belief vs right action - which is what I think you mean by a focus on purpose). I believe both are needed and that often the pendulum swings to much one way or another. To never check that all you are busy doing is consistent with the gospel is just as dangerous as only talking about belief and not doing anything as a result.

I don't believe correct belief needs to be intellectual, the medium and the context influence this for example I enjoy theological debate on blogs but that is completely inappropriate in parts of the context where I serve. There the correct belief would be more likely expressed at the levels of "You are important, loved and valued, you can be forgiven, God can work for good in any situation, God does not see you as a failure or mistake etc".

Also by the way we have lots of small churches in Methodism :-) But I think it is over simplistic to see small Churches as the answer for all, if nothing else the resources of a larger Church can sometimes make more options available thus supporting a wider range of needs.

We absolutely agree that faith needs to be 24/7, rooted in everyday life. It is just I want to ensure that while throwing out the Christendom model of Church and worship that we do not end up with something that includes no worship.

[Dave]

Pam,

"Abandoning your job and your career is a huge challenge and I'm not sure that's right for every single person."

Yes not worded very well. But I do think the gospel needs to challenge every single person on their career and job by asking questions such as: Is this what I am being called to? Why am I doing this? Is this where I can best serve the kingdom?

Tim,

Well it depends on when you last hear me preach :-)

Tony,

Agreed and the question is how do we bring those men to faith (trying to be sensitive to Pam's valid point about the church) and help them be part of a Christian community for growth, support and mission?

I maintain that it is not by becoming masculine, but do you have any suggestions.

[Jeremy]

Absolutely, I wouldn't want to be throwing any babies out with the bathwater, and none of the things I mention above are either/or situations. It's always both, and about balance. It's more that there isn't sufficient balance in many churches, that we are skewed towards certain things.

Like singing, I don't think the whole thing is a distraction, and I recognise the diversity and the vibrancy of communal worship. My problem is that we all know that the whole of our lives are meant to be worship, but then we talk about singing as worship every week, and only occasionally about the monday to saturday business of being living sacrifices. It just means we're in danger, especially with younger christians, of saying one thing and meaning another.

Sung worship will appeal to some more than others, in the same way that fasting or prayer-walking will be useful spiritual activities for some, and less so for others. If you're one of the people who doesn't really 'get' singing, that makes church quite difficult, because it's often the principle ingredient to our services.

That's not to say we shouldn't sing - but perhaps we should sing a little less often, or offer alternatives. I've got a feeling singing is one of the things that (some) men find boring about church.

[Chris E]

After both wars we then see men coming home with feelings of abandonment and failure towards the church and God. While the women have positive feelings towards both.

If this is the case then little wonder that the men gave up on Church and God while the women continued with strengthened faith. Little wonder that future generations see the men not going to church while the women do and perpetuate this into their generation, just following the example of those before.

This doesn't really hang together as an explanation. Firstly, the gender gap has been present since at least mediveal times - it didn't appreciably widen during the world wars beyond what you would predict from demographics alone (documented in various places - I expect the latest Rodney Stark book would also reference them).

[Jonathan Castro]

Men don't go to church because it's boring and they don't meet with God in it.

Jon.
Men Leave Church

[Dave]

Jon,

That is an interesting comment for someone who claims to be an atheist. It assumes there is a God and that Church is not helping men find God.

[Rhea]

Tim, the last church that I was a member of would actually talk about this A LOT. In reality...I hear about sermons discussing being a Christian in relationship to your secular job A LOT.