Why men hate church

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by seekerman

One of the issues is with men not being a leader spiritually in home or the church so women step up and do it.

Amen.

Sadly, Christianity has become a religion that is all too often practiced "at church" and merely talked about outside of church. Evangelism is left for the "experts", along with teaching and preaching.

The role of men isn't being clearly established in a workable form. And sadly... a lot of women aren't buying into the biblical teaching with regards to male authority.

And frankly... on a personal note... sometimes I feel like Christianity as a whole neglects the very real and present need for male identity, male needs, male perspective, and male honor. Recently a Shiite Muslim family moved into our neighborhood. They are very good people. I am absolutely impressed with the social order of their home. The father of the home is held in the utmost honor.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Justin

Today's music is catered to women... "Hold me in your arms" "take me to that secret place"

There are more. All these "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs need to go. I mean, you could sing a lot songs as worships songs as well as songs to your loved one. They're interchangeable.

Balderdash. I've heard this same old lame excuse before, but it's not why men aren't going to church or don't like going to church. It registers at the bottom of the scale when you ask a guy why he doesn't attend church.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Justin

Today's music is catered to women... "Hold me in your arms" "take me to that secret place"

There are more. All these "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs need to go. I mean, you could sing a lot songs as worships songs as well as songs to your loved one. They're interchangeable.

Much of our "praise and worship" music boarders on blasphemy.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Much of our "praise and worship" music boarders on blasphemy.

Ok, I'll bite. How does it border on "blasphemy?"

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Good article with some very valid points. I also wonder about the idea that traditional church has robbed men of their natural authority. Instead of being a setting where men can meet and discuss scripture--or even church business--on an equal level, it's often more of the single-man government structure. Men would be more apt to be involved in church if they had more say-so over what goes on there and if teaching/preaching was more interactive and inclusive. The modern church structure where the pastor does most of the teaching/preaching and everyone simply listens is similar to me to the NT women being told to ask their husbands questions at home.

E.g., it's more of a passive, possibly feminine way of learning. Scripture seems to show that *church* in the local synagogue was different, with men taking an active role in the reading of scriptures and discussion.

I'm not for oppressing women in the church, but I do agree that men have been pushed into a passive, emasculating role. In the past, women have been accustomed to submissive, passive roles, so it was easy for them to fit into the traditional church picture. Men, not so much.

Essais, this is probably a place where "house-church" excels--it levels the playing field and makes church authority a little less intimidating.

Miss B - the eloquence and truth of your response struck a resounding chord with me. In fact, our family has turned to house church for the very reasons mentioned above... in house church we don't have to sit and listen to music that we don't agree with doctrinally, we don't have to watch the fashion show and feel that we can't compare, we don't have to listen to one man speak in a monologue, who can't be interrupted, and asked to clarify or to even just ask a question... and our husbands are in their rightful place according to NT scripture, leading their home in prayer, worship, and doctrine.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by houston

In some places men have their leadership cut off and placed in the offering basket. There are MANY churches where the pastor is the LEADER of peoples homes.

I grew up in this kind of environment. All it does is build up a kingdom of women, or passive/feminine men, and lots of sexual problems within the church. Any church that I know of where the pastor takes authority from the husband and brings it to himself, then in every situation, that church has been beset with all kind of sexually immoral situations that never seem to end. Both my husband and I have family members still involved in churches like this, and it is so sad...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

The article has several good points to think about.

IMO, the big 3 reasons I see for lack of men at church:
1) Pure laziness. They work during the week and want to sit and watch football on Sundays
2) Either no men's ministry or a very boring one (this is one area where I wish my church was better. The men's ministry hardly ever does anything, and when they do it's generally meeting on a saturday morning for breakfast. Woooot!)
3) Wimpy messages that focus more on Olsteen-style be positive, not negative, "you can do it!" junk; instead of preaching against sin and for living a holy life.

I don't believe the music has much to do with it; however, I'm biased, being the music minister at my church. Perhaps the skinny jeans trend turns some off, but not the music.

A major reason men aren't as interested in 'church' as they used to be I believe has to do with the lack of teaching and modeling concerning the proper role men have in the church and in the home. A man who just wants to plop down on the couch after work and watch tv is a man who has no clue (or doesn't care) about his role as a spiritual leader in his home or in his church (if he even bothers with church). People don't see church by and large as the kingdom of God involved in governmental functions of ruling and taking dominion spiritually and morally, and having a positive dominion-oriented impact on society. So, men just don't see much there to interest them, because there's really not much there to begin with.

As for 'men's ministry', churches ought to be teaching men how to be leaders, how to be one who 'is heard in the gates' of society, how to lead their family in the ways of God. But this is hard to do when Jesus is presented as a 'care bear' who exists to make everything all right or who exists to fulfill our wants. That is a presentation that is geared toward women, who need to feel secure and 'taken care of'. And that aspect of God's care is certainly necessary (can't leave women out!), but if that is the ONLY type of God being presented, or if mostly being presented, men aren't going to recognise that as anything worth following.

Men need several things to be 'fulfilled' -

1. A woman to rescue.
2. A cause to fight and die for.
3. A brotherhood to belong to.
4. A king to follow.

Jesus is a most worthy king to follow - he literally 'went to hell and back' for us. What man would not feel honoured to follow such a glorious and faithful leader? He is a great King, the greatest King, and it is an honour and a priviledge to serve him faithfully and valiantly.

Normal men do not resonate with the idea of expressing sappy, sentimental 'love' to another man... 'Jesus, come and take me away' just doesn't work with a normal guy.

Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it. In this manner men ought to love their wives. Yes, Christ is head of the church, and the man is the head of the woman, but the power of the chivalric aspect of sacrificing oneself for the "love of one's youth" cannot be underestimated.

(Of course, such a thing requires a woman who is not a quasi-lesbian brat who demands to 'wear the pants', but requires an actual WOMAN with true femininity...)

Christian men ought to feel they are a 'band of brothers', brothers in arms in the service of the king. Fighting a cause worth their efforts, worth dying for. What greater cause can there be than the salvation of mankind, and the enforcement of the Pax Christi upon this world of spiritual darkness?

All these things and more are essential to the God-endowed natural makeup of men... and most if not all these things are missing in 'church' these days. They are also missing in society, in general, having been replaced with effeminized Phil Donahue neutering (aka Babylonian castration) and a false 'machismo' which is nothing but an evil caricature of true godly manhood.

There is a reason 'sports', especially FOOTBALL (american football, not that goofy european kickball game) has such a grip on men... The team is alike a military squad, coach is the Leader, they work together to defeat the enemy... The exact same purpose was served by jousting and other tourneys in the medieval period, it provides a safe way for men to be men without actually needing to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war and ravage some poor town in the next valley.

And simply trying to fit 'Onward Christian Soldiers' into the worship service isn't going to cut it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Men need several things to be 'fulfilled' -

1. A woman to rescue.
2. A cause to fight and die for.
3. A brotherhood to belong to.
4. A king to follow.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Good article with some very valid points. I also wonder about the idea that traditional church has robbed men of their natural authority. Instead of being a setting where men can meet and discuss scripture--or even church business--on an equal level, it's often more of the single-man government structure. Men would be more apt to be involved in church if they had more say-so over what goes on there and if teaching/preaching was more interactive and inclusive. The modern church structure where the pastor does most of the teaching/preaching and everyone simply listens is similar to me to the NT women being told to ask their husbands questions at home.

E.g., it's more of a passive, possibly feminine way of learning. Scripture seems to show that *church* in the local synagogue was different, with men taking an active role in the reading of scriptures and discussion.

I'm not for oppressing women in the church, but I do agree that men have been pushed into a passive, emasculating role. In the past, women have been accustomed to submissive, passive roles, so it was easy for them to fit into the traditional church picture. Men, not so much.

Essais, this is probably a place where "house-church" excels--it levels the playing field and makes church authority a little less intimidating.

The bolded part is spot on.

[houston]

So what you're saying is that the problem is that men are walking in the flesh.