The Gray Monk

« Restoring national pride | Main | New ministry? »

May 15, 2005

Men in Church

An interesting item drifted my way from the Blog, "Baldilocks". I have read this blog in the past, perhaps not as frequently as I would have liked, but just recently I re-visited and found this post entitled "Men, women and the church". Reading it certainly rang a few bells for me, even though I am one of the few men in church week by week!

I think the whole problem started back in the 1960's when people first began to experiment with the liturgy following Vatican II. The idea was sound, move the Liturgical Ministry closer to the people, remind them that they, too, are "ministers" of God. However, the reality has, as ever with human intentions, become something different. It is almost a case of the baby having been thrown out with the bath water. Instead of looking at what the church did do well and then at what it didn't do so well, they threw out everything and began to rewrite it all. Vestments, music, liturgy, and the concept of "sacred mystery" was all thrown away, and the whole swung between "Sunday School Fundamental" and "Entrenched Traditional". Neither "label" being very helpful or very descriptive of the reality.

What tended to happen was that the "modernisers" threw away the bits that they did not like and introduced their tastes in music, liturgy, and prayer style. Anyone who disagreed was labelled a "die-hard reactionary" or a "traditionalist" and left outside of the "vibrant inner circle" until they eventually left. Ever since this first wave of "modernisers" hit the church, the attendance figures for men have been declining, perhaps for the very reasons "Baldilocks" has outlined. Far too often I go to Synods and hear the same bunch of aging "modernisers" still arguing for the retention of or conversion of others, the worship styles, minstry structures, and "children's services" they introduced back in the 1960's and 70's! They are now the "traditionalists" clinging to that which makes them comfortable and "relevant". But is this where the church needs to be for today's young people? Is it actually what needs to be addressed if more men are to find the church "relevant" and attractive to their needs?

I think not.

Ask why most men come to church. Generally they fall into two categories: one, they believe it's relevant and have a deep seated faith which they hold to, or they are able to be part of a worshipping community and belong because they have a role such as singing in the choir, serving, or ministering. In both these areas they are being discouraged by the present structures and movements. Where there is a choir and a fine music tradition you will frequently find that there are a good number of men. Where the services are "ad hoc" and have Karaoki style overheads, rock bands, and informal groups of singers, there will be fewer men. The same goes for servers and ministry - the less liturgical dignity the fewer men you have taking part in it. Speaking as a man, I find it deeply disturbing and very uncomfortable to be at a service where I am treated as if I were a ten-year old being expected to take part in "activities" and display my liturgical "joy". If that were all I had on offer - I, too, would be absent from the pews!

Every time I go to a meeting about how to get the message of the Gospel out to the world, the focus shifts almost instantly to "youth". "Young people are the key to the survival of the church!" is the battle cry, and the rest of the meeting you can guarantee will be self-absorbed in discussing how "we can make services more relevant to our young". Tragically, it always reverts from this point onwards into a discussion about making the worship "relevant" or "accessible" to the young. This usually includes suggestions of scrapping choirs and organs and introducing guitars and "free-form" music and worship. It makes my blood boil!

The reason most adult males do not attend church regularly is that there is nothing there for them. They do not like to listen to sermons on "social responsibility" because they already are doing that in their own ways; they do not like to be treated like Sunday School kids with a mental age of 6 because they are nothing of the kind. The problem is that we offer them no spiritual awakening and no spiritual development or growth. In short, there is nothing for your average male to get to grips with in a church service or community these days, and it is almost embarassing to have to admit that you are a church-goer!"

If the churches wish to make themselves more attractive and appealing to the 49% of the population that is male (we hear a great deal these days about the "inclusion" of the supposedly 51% that is female!), then we also need to look at its structures, at the way it presents the message of God, and the way it presents itself. Does it really want to have the "Telly Evangelist" image that is so often the parady portrayed on television? Is the heirarchy and legalistic structure of the Church of England and most other "Anglican" Churches appropriate? Does it encourage the image of a pompous and self centred community, or does it show a welcoming and open image? Is the structure of ministry realistic? It would be very interesting to see what came out of a debate on this in the open. Sadly, if it were raised in public debate these days, the anti-Christian lobbies and media would pounce on it and ridicule every effort to seek a way to move it forward. Then again, perhaps we should not be afraid of that, and should embrace it!

I am convinced that we need to get our heads out of the 1960's view that "youth" and "relevance" are at the root of the problems. What we need is a church that is able to show, in its members, people who live by the Gospel message. We need to broaden our worship patterns in every single community and congregation so that we offer every member and potential member a style of worship with which they can feel comfortable. And we need to look very seriously at the hierarchy and at the means of selection for ministry.

If the Gospel of Christ is to survive as a driving force in the world of the 21st Century, it is the church at large that needs to think really radically and outside of its comfort zones to find ways to attract people to its message. The Gospel is for everyone, not just for the holy huddle in any particular church. The Gospel is for men, women, and children - and not just for the young or the women who feel they have to be the anchors, the ministers, and the leaders. If we are to address the problem of the vanishing male, we have to find a way to promote the ministry of men, something we have neglected very badly in our drive to raise the status of women and to drag young people into the church.

It really is time to look seriously at these issues. Thank you to Baldilocks for raising this serious deficiency in the Christian Mission.

Posted by The Gray Monk at May 15, 2005 09:18 AM

Comments

Posted by: Russell Newquist at May 16, 2005 05:32 PM

Posted by: The Gray Monk at May 17, 2005 01:24 PM