Why Men Hate Going to Church Comment

[fmckinnon]

Hey Ya'll -

My sister forwarded this to me, from a friend ... I thought it would be a great thread to feature this month ... see below:

Note: This is not MY OWN writing - this is copied from the person who sent it to me ... I'm pasting it below for discussion.

I read this comment from David Murrow, author of the book "Why Men Hate Going To Church". I'm curious on your thoughts on this. Just wondering....


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was standing in church a couple of weeks ago when these lyrics popped up on the screen:
Your love is extravagant


Your friendship, it is intimate


I feel I'm moving to the rhythm of Your grace


Your fragrance is intoxicating in our secret place


Your love is extravagant

Spread wide in the arms of Christ is the love that covers sin


No greater love have I ever known

You considered me a friend


Capture my heart again

When I saw the phrases "moving to the rhythm" and "spread wide" I just about fainted. Lyrics like these leave little doubt: today's praise music targets love-starved women. (Gals buy about 75% of the praise and worship CDs) I don't know any man who follows Christ for his "intoxicating fragrance."

Meanwhile, the masculine hymns of a generation ago have been banned in most churches. We no longer sing of battle, blood or sacrifice. Onward, Christian Soldiers is forbidden. Rise Up O Men of God has been gender neutralized. We've retired the action songs and replaced them with relationship songs.

There's nothing wrong with worship songs that evoke strong emotion. I'm not afraid to admit that just last Sunday I was moved to tears by a worship song I heard in church. But we cross the line when we imagine Jesus as our lover rather than our leader.


WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[El Ben]

I'm officially bracing myself. When you mentioned this at lunch, it sparked a mental debate with myself that is STILL going on. Thanks, Fred, for firing up the voices in my head, as if they don't bother me enough already! :)

[fmckinnon]

can't wait for the voices to be put onto the forum!

[russhutto]

But we cross the line when we imagine Jesus as our lover rather than our leader.

I don't agree. I think Jesus is both.

Check out this passage in 1 John 3 (16-20 NIV)


This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence

20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

I see Jesus not only loving us, but backing it up with action: laying down His life for us. So, if we truly love others it will look like this. If we're not laying our lives down for one another, we're not truly loving. And, if LAYING YOUR LIFE DOWN for a cause (brother/sister) is not fighting the good fight, then I don't know what is.

I see where the author of that thought is coming from, but I don't agree with it. I think we do have to be careful to not paint a wimpy, sappy, mushy picture of Jesus as a leader. But as a servant leader Jesus didn't come to kick in the doors, kick butt, and lead a political revolution, per se. He came to bridge the gap, to cross the chasm, to extend the arms of love to mankind. He fought an even greater battle than any action flick or war movie we've ever seen, He layed down His life, denying the flesh and submitting to the will of His Father. All of this He did, BECAUSE He was an expression of love to us from the Father.

I also see myself as part of the BRIDE of Christ. I am and will be loved by Jesus. He is the lover of lovers. I have no problem with that, even as a man filled with Madden playing, UFC loving, mythbuster watching testosterone.

Jesus is both LOVER & LEADER.

I think men hate going to church because they're lame. Just kidding. I think it's all in perceptions. Men perceive "religion" to be a crutch. Men are more independent than women. Women go to church more because it fulfills a lot of different needs in their lives. Men don't like to go, because they don't like to admit they have needs.

I personally don't think it has anything to do with the song selection. Well, at least not at the deep core of the issue. I think we could do a better job of painting pictures of God's love and His fight for our love, whether in song, message, studies, and even our actions as the "church"


I don't know any man who follows Christ for his "intoxicating fragrance."
P.S. I think if we did a better job at teaching "worship" and how it looked/looks Biblically then people would understand that this isn't a reference to following Jesus based on his cologne, but to the sweet smell of praise and a pleasing sacrifice in the place of worship! Haha.

[SaintLewis]

An incredible/terrible book I once read by Michael S Horton called "In the Face of God" is almost entirely about this subject.

[El Ben]

You know, I've been thinking about this, and I think I've come to an interesting conclusion. I'm just throwing this out there, so don't set me down in stone on this one:

First, I'd like to tackle on of the underlying issues before heading right into the whole"men hate going to church" thing.I've been trying to approach this situation from the perspective of a non-believer, but then I got to thinking...As a nonbeliever, what right would I have to criticize the worship practices of an organization I'm not even a part of, and as a believer, what business would I have in letting a non-believer's opinion change how I worship corporately? Either:

A.) My corporate worship experience is outreach-based with the intent of reaching lost people.

or

B.) My corporate worship experience is meant to be a time of Body ministry and edification. (This is my personal preference.)



Now, to move on to the issue at hand. The issue, I think, that Fred's friend brings up is valid. In many ways, the church has been emasculated over the years. This has been, in my opinion, been due to a lack of godly, motivated men, and ultimately, the breakdown of the family unit. With the divorce rate higher (in most cases) in the Church than in the secular world, the traditional family model has become a thing of the past.

Reality finds many young men starving for the attention and love of their father rather than empowered by his approval. They lack confidence, are sometimes insecure in their masculinity (which explains the rampant promiscuity increases from the last generation to the current one), and struggle with the mechanics of loving and receiving love from a strong, caring father/mentoring figure that they have lacked for most of their life.

This translates into some difficulty when it comes to having a relationship with a God who manifested himself in the form of a man, and the fact that this man chose to die instead of fight back because he supposedly "loved everyone." To a man who is uncomfortable with (due to the consistent lack of) the idea of being loved by another man, this creates a similar reaction as to a situation in which he would rebuff the amorous advances of another man.

It also doesn't help that the image we have (thanks to the arts) of Christ is a pale, thin, effiminate man constantly depicted in his underwear or hugging a baby sheep. This isn't quite the image of the tall (Galileans were among the tallest Judeans), suntanned (they were also dark-skinned), and well-built (from his strenuous work as a carpenter) man's man that Jesus probably was. One possible reason for the emasculated church is this skewed mental image of Jesus. To be blunt, most unsaved people probably view Jesus as a well-intentioned, weak, cowardly man who would rather hide behind "universal love" than to fight for what he believed in.

I've pretty much wracked my brain right now. I'll write more later.

[russhutto]

Good points, Ben.

I also believe that there is a pretty wide gap between those who HAVE experienced a strong, loving father-figure's love/approval/affirmation in their lives and those who have not.

I can see even in my own personal experiences how easy it is to overlook this huge difference in the way we relate to God, others, and the world around us based on how we were/are loved by a positive male father/mentor figure.

[chipshot0701]

My take on the lyrics to this song are simply this: The author has been moved by the love of the holy spirit and is feeling led by it. And wanted all of us to share in it.
I'm a simple kind of guy and I like to keep things simple ;)
The lyrics and music for this song came to me instantaneously and I was able to compose it in less then 10 minutes. I don't take the credit for this as I was led by the Holy Spirit and I am just his messenger.

The Greatest Gift by mike carter

(chorus)
The greatest gift God ever gave me
is Love sweet love and the wisdom to share it
with all my friends and all my family
and all of those who come around me!
(verse)
God gave me the light to see,
plants, birds and fish in the sea
he gave me sunny days to watch the clouds make faces
and sunny days to use imagination.

He gave me words to use to express my feelings
miracles to keep me believin'
love and friendship and holy places
and a wonderful world with wide open spaces

but the greatest gift God ever gave me
is Love sweet love and the wisdom to share it
with all my friends and all my family
and all of those who end up around me!

[SaintLewis]

An incredible/terrible book I once read by Michael S Horton called "In the Face of God" is almost entirely about this subject.

Just to note, I wasn't necessarily suggesting you read that book, unless you don't mind being angry as often as you're challenged/encouraged.

I really like Mark Driscoll's quotes on this: "I’ll be happy when we have more than just prom songs to Jesus sung by some effeminate guy on an acoustic guitar offered as mainstream worship music. He's got a point.
"It's hard to worship a guy who you can beat up" Driscoll says.
I agree with him, I think.

[jim_snedeker]

Need help selecting more guy type songs? Don't forget the various PK conference music recordings.

Thanks for all your insights!

[fmckinnon]

Hey Everyone -
I'm going to feature this thread this week, and will be sending out a mass email shortly - if you blog or have personal mailing lists, I'd encourage you to copy/paste the thread URL above (to make it easy for new people to find it) and encouarge them to come post their thoughts here. This could be some great discussion!

For the Kingdom,
Fred

[russhutto]

I was thinking more about this over the weekend.

I really believe that we as Believers have a responsibility to paint the clearest picture of Jesus that we can. That means both sides of this issue. What I mean is that Jesus has qualities that are inherently more LOVER, and He also has qualities that are more FIGHTER. The amazing thing is that they are not separated by a huge line. Jesus is not like the batman villain Two Face. He doesn't flip a coin to decide which He'll be that day.

I think we as the church have done a bad job of sharing Jesus with the world. Especially men. I think women naturally connect with our corporate gatherings because of the perceived acceptance and "relational" benefits that are associated with church. Women are more social by nature. Men tend to be the lone rangers.

Within the last 50 years, there has been a shift in the way the church worships. Not that it has been bad, it may be that it's just been incomplete. We've fallen head over heels in love with Jesus, the Lover and have all but neglected Jesus, the Fighter. Now this is a very general statement, and I'm sure it's not true for every situation, but why DO men hate going to church?

I'm with Driscoll. I think men aren't "drawn" to a savior that is pale and wimpy. I'm sure God could physically reveal Himself to everyone if He so chose, but He doesn't and He hasn't (at least not in a Saul of Tarsus conversion experience sense). He has called US to reveal His qualities to others (with the guidance and help of the Holy Spirit). He's called US to draw men and women to Him. We shine His love. We tell the nations. We make Disciples.

But what have we done with that calling? It's almost scary when you think about it. Like an eternal game of "telephone" you know, the game where you start with a phrase and whisper it into the ear of the person next to you, who whispers it into the ear of the person next to them, and so on, until when it gets down the line the phrase is completely and totally different than what it started as...

As the Church, we're not so different. God has given us all the "phrases" and painted a very clear picture of what He's like in Scripture. Problem is, we pass along the phrases as we "hear" them, and after a while they aren't the same as when they started. End result: we end up with images of Jesus that are not complete, inaccurate, or totally wrong. We need to be careful that we're not passing along these tainted phrases, because it could literally be the difference in someone's deciding moment in their spiritual journey.

I believe that's why a lot of men don't like to go to church. Because they've "heard" about Jesus and He's been described to them in an incomplete, inaccurate, or totally wrong way. The image they perceive has been painted wrong.

In this case, the church is to blame. Sure, men are loners and less likely to jump in to a corporate environment more than women...but are they really less likely to? Think sports. Men flood stadiums, arenas, civic centers, etc. to participate (whether actively or passively) in something they are passionate about. The thing about sports (at least that I can draw an analogy from) is that both passion and power are involved (or should be). The players are lovers of the game, lovers of the fans, lovers of the team. They play with passion, with love so to speak. But they are also fighters. The game is on the line, everything's riding on them, no guts no glory, bring home the prize! You see both love and fight in this situation. Men are drawn to it.

So, am I suggesting we suit up and start having full contact services? No, but that would be interesting. But I am suggesting, at least in our times of corporate worship, that we learn to paint a whole picture of Jesus. Not just another Jesus. But THE Jesus,the One who is the passionate lover AND the determined fighter. What that looks like in a time of music and singing is singing about ALL the qualities of our Lord, not just the sweet, mushy ones.

[El Ben]

Good points all around, but I thought of something else that could keep men from coming to church and that is this:

Men hate being confronted with their mistakes.

One big thing that Jesus (through the Holy Spirit) does in our lives is reveal parts of ourselves that need to change. Statistically, women are less resistant to change than men are, and to me, that makes sense. Men are, by nature, competetive, image-driven creatures. Coming to a place that challenges your way of living and system of thinking are not easy.

Say, for instance, Bob likes to party hard on the weekends, play the field with the ladies, and even messes around occasionally with weed. Bob knows that if he goes to church, then his lifestyle will be challenged, and he will be forced to come to terms with the fact that either A.) He is wrong and needs to change or B.) He is wrong and should ignore it. For most men, it's easier to simply go ahead and pick B.

It's not that they don't know that they are not living according to God's standards, but that they don't really care to. Women are more open to change and often are more moved by the concept of the gentle, loving savior who will rescue them from the mess they are in. Men want to rescue themselves or either say that they didn't need to be rescued to begin with.

Whatever the case is, I don't know that it is so much the CHURCH's fault as SOCIETY's fault. In fact, I'm not even sure that it's ANYONE's fault so much as basic psychology.

[russhutto]

I agree, Ben. I do think though, that WE as a church can look at the "psychology" of this issue and change to better reach people.

Plus, if we've failed to see that men are a bit more resistant to change, less likely to admit needs, and just generally not ready for the emotional/spiritual confession and life-change that comes with christianity - then I believe it is partly our responsibility for being so blind.

Bottom line, not everyone is going to worship with us and join the family. I can accept that, BUT I do think we have shirked our responsibility as a "culture" - we haven't presented the fullness of what it means to follow Christ for both men and women.

I don't know, I guess I'm just seeing a lot of myself in the "church" and the "we" that I'm talking about, and I know I'm guilty of not bridging the gap between men who grew up with a great father figure (myself) and others who really haven't. I think I'm seeing more and more the need to truly build relationships with people in and especially outside of the church, regardless of if they ever come and "join" our flock or not.

[Brooke]

I guess I'll be the "girl's" opinion here :p

My dad is a classic example of what you guys are talking about. For years, my mom took me and my little brother to church, while my dad stayed home, or played golf. It wasn't necessarily that he had any strong opinion about Jesus or who He was (that I heard anyway), but he definitely hadn't had any "God" experience to peak his interest in church. He was also a wonderful father figure. He loved us more than anything in the world, he just didn't go with us to church.

It wasn't until I was 17 years old that my dad came to really know God and start going to church, and honestly, I have no idea what changed. He would tell you that it was us, his kids, that got him involved, though I don't remember anything being any different than it had been the previous 16 years of my life.

On to the worship....if my dad was typing, he would tell you that he loves worship songs. He goes to a little church where they still sing out of the "red hymnal", so he craves the contemporary worship that most of us are used to. He's also a pretty sensitive guy, who had a strong father figure in his life (and still does). So personally, I don't think that the worship songs have much to do with men hating church. Ben, I think you had it pegged when you said that men are more resistant to change than women. It's a much deeper thing than "feminine" worship songs.

Also, I must mention, that though many songs are for Jesus in particular who was obviously a man, there are many songs that focus on God and the Holy Spirit. I may be alone in this but I personally think that God and the Holy Spirit have the complete qualities of the masculine and feminine being. Spirits aren't gender specific. The Holy Spirit in particular has strong feminine qualities - comforter, teacher, etc. So who's to say that worship is feminine or masculine. It's just the result of a perverted society that is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of agape love between people of the same sex. Sexuality has been abused beyond recognition in our world. (A good book that deals with this is "Sex God" by Rob Bell)

So there's my 2 cents, whether or not it's worth that ;)

[russhutto]

Great post, Brooke!

Glad to hear from a female perspective...I just don't have that
cause I'm a dude!!

Thanks!

[rmckinno]

I think that today’s church has allowed the world to dictate what a man is supposed to look like. Though I do agree that a man is built by God to look for a fight, he is also purchased by God to be the bride of Christ. I like the way that John Eldredge put it in Wild At Heart: Every man is looking for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a woman to save (my memory may be off, but that’s the gist of it anyway).

What I see as sad is that in order to be a “man� today, you’ve gotta be all tough and in control. That’s the exact opposite of what Jesus called us to be. He called us to be humble, tender/pliable, and loving. The one whom Jesus loved was the kind of man who laid his head down in Jesus’ lap! How “manly� is that?

Also, looking at the words to that song, it is apparent that an extremely intimate thing is happening. Song of songs is provocative, to say the least. But why do men always have to see things so one-sided?

“spread wide� caused one man to almost faint. Well, I guess he could only think of a woman in the bridgrooms bed chamber, and that’s sad. I can easily spread/open wide the way to the most intimate/secret parts of my spirit-man and allow the bridegroom to have His way with me. That’s what it’s all about - giving ourselves FULLY AND WITH SWEET ABANDON to the One who went trough hell to be with us.

We’ve been decieved by the world around us as to what a real man is.

At the same time, I think it would be great to bring back some of the old songs - bringing them up to today’s style. Some people are combining the “intimate� and the “war� together. I love the song “Smashing Idols� from Morningstar. It’s a wonderful example of combining the two.

We are too “caged� into one view of what the church is supposed to be, what a man is supposed to look like, what sin is, what “doctrine� is right, etc. The list could go on and on. We have got to get past all this mess, and then we could actually LIVE.

I love the comment left on one of the entries: Jesus did not come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people live.

Longest entry ever for me, but I appreciate the platform.

God bless you all

Rob McKinnon

[chipshot0701]

I've noticed that the most faith-filled men at our church, those that attend everyweek and particpate are wonderful fathers and dads that don't worry too much about hitting the golf course. They care about spending time with family not spending time on the softball diamond. They are softer muscled yet stronger in greater ways. The aren't machismo. And ego does'nt rule.
I don't see them as femine at all. I am one of those men. I stay fit and trim, love to play sports yet love to share AGAPE love with as many others as I can.
So, how do we introduce the power, internal strength and mighty love of God, The Holy Spirit and Jesus to those machismo men? What can we do differently at a service on Sunday to keep them interested?
I want to hear how some of you are successful at getting those men to commit to coming every Sunday.

BTW, you people are great! I love reading your comments.
Mike

[dtpuga]

Often times I think we all just peg a minor issue as a 'good reason' not to go. I know plenty of 'macho' dudes, BESIDES myself ;) , at our church that passionatley engage in worship, no matter the song. One guy is like a real life Jack Bauer and works for the Government, another guy can just about lift every weight in Island Health at one time. And that is just an example, haha.

My experience in youth ministry taught me that what affected passionate worship more than anything was not song selection. It was personal encounters with God. "Dudes" aren't afraid to worship something they deem worthy of worship. Just go to Sanford Stadium in Athens in the fall and watch the Bulldog fans. What we need to do is not cater our worship to them, and instead, SHOW them God. How to do that is another thread, haha.

But, since we are here, as for the issue of song selection...Let me clarify, YES, I do think that some people may have issue with song selection. I just think that everyone can pick a reason if they don't wanna go. Personally, I would laugh out loud potentially if we broke out Onward Christian Soldiers or something like that. Maybe I am just a jerk though. As far as Promise Keepers worship goes... well, two years ago I was on a trip with about 20 guys from out church and across the board we found the worship rather lacking. It was a place full of mostly Bible belt believers and I hardly felt like it was hitting any seekers in their seats. If I am blunt, I would have to say it was a great experience for people that were used to traditional services and wanting a fresh exposure to contemporary worship. But again, maybe I am just a jerk.

No matter what we do we aren't gonna hit everyone on every Sunday. And one worship serice is not gonna nearly meet the needs of every person. Isn't that the beauty of the Body in the first place. I say let the leader lead the way the Spirit leads. Did that make sense?

Travis

[chipshot0701]

Travis I read your reply and agree that there are macho men that attend. I bet those men you are talking about-the ones that can bench press 350 lbs and stop a Mack Truck in it tracks have a strong and deep faith in Jesus. Which I have found creates in people a softness of the heart that some in this world do perceive as feminate. That softness of heart allows macho men to listen to the mushy songs without feeling like a girlie girl. Again my question is how do we reach out to the men that don't attend EVERY weekend? Do we target their spouses? Their kids? That is what we do isn't it? Maybe we should put in rock climbing walls and pipe the sermon into the room! LOL
Seriously, there are mechanics at my dealership that have the typical life problems. Some are drinkers, some are depressed and some are just living to get by. I invite them to "come and see". I show a positive attitude at work and they see how happy I am yet they are affraid to "come and see".
Is it because they haven't hit bottom and its time for them to face Jesus?

peace n out!
mike

[fmckinnon]

I think a rock climbing wall would rock! (no pun intended). Seriously, we go to such efforts to create attractive environments for kids ...

[rmckinno]

I think the church ought to step out into a massive evangelical adventure to re-claim the male population. I know that with God there is no gender, but I also know there is something special about men in God's eyes. Men were created to lead. Period. (Sorry if that offends any ladies out there). It's just what the Book says.

Anyway, I am re-reading Wild At Heart. If any of you out there have never read it, please go get a copy. As I have already said, every man is looking for a battle to fight, an adventure to live and a beauty to save. You offer that to a man, and they will come. "Build it and they will come". What a field of dreams - to see men come into the Christ with no pre-conceived ideas about what a "Christian man" should look like.

Rock climbing would be great! While many are singing about God's intoxicating fragrance, he could climb the wall. I know there are many things in the body that would make me want to "climb the walls".:p

[dtpuga]

Mike,
Great point/question.

I guess all I was trying to say is that I figure there is much more to the men in curch issues than feminine worship songs or whatever.

And I don't really have an answer. I would probably be a best-selling author if I even THOUGHT I had an answer.

Maybe the big problem is that we think people have to COME to church to meet Jesus, to worship Jesus, to be impacted by Jesus. Most drastic Biblical life change seemed to happen outside the walls of the church. I dunno, I'm thinking as I go here.

I am definitely NOT saying that church is only for believers, we have experienced plenty of life change within our services and stuff like that.

Maybe for many people the Sunday service just isn't a good place to start.

Any thoughts?

Travis

[russhutto]

Depends on how you lok at it...I guess.

Culturally, church IS the place to start. (little c church)

Our primary "worship" gatherings should be structured to not only edify, train, and equip believers, but should also be a MAGNET to those who aren't believers - to those who are far from God, those who are seeking answers in life, those who are testing the waters, those who are running from the past, etc.

The problem with most of our gatherings is that they really try hard to be the total package for the believer, while mouthing that we have a heart for the lost, but not putting any resources or heart into the effort. Don't get me wrong true worship is evangelistic by default, but how often is what we "do" on sundays true worship? Again, I'm not trying to bash the church, but I've seen so much of the same thing again and again when it comes to church.

Intentions: good. Fruit: non-existent (per se)...

It's not a GREAT thing when the average church sees 2 or 3 converts per year. It's not a good thing when a lot more than half of students leave the church when they move out of the house.

It is a good thing to recognize that we have problems, to seek God's guidance, and to GO BIG, taking risks, and using resources to try new things. I'm so glad to be a part of a discussion forum where people are doing just that! You guys rock!

Worshiping God is constant. The ways we reach people should and will change.

[rmckinno]

I agree with you there. The church (little c) has become a place with very little power. After 9-11 we had the biggest influx of people ever, and in less than six months we had a huge exodus. People came looking for comfort, purpose and "a reason" for it all. They found, for the most part, a social club of folks that said they had all the answers, but looked just like them! (Notice that I said, "for the most part" - there's always a remnant).

Men are searching for a purpose. We're driven that way. I look at all the things that women have in the church: retreats, breakfasts, showers, etc. What do the men do?

It's true that men have been left out of the equation - even in the worship issue. Men have to be re-trained as to what a real man is, but they also must be drawn! What can we do to draw them?

Jesus was a "fisher of men". A fisherman needs bait to draw the fish. We need to bait men by what we have to offer. Worship is one of the most powerful ways to draw people. It's what most people are drawn by, and that's not a fluke, but just a "given".

What if we did a poll? What do men want from the church? I'd love to see that one. Heck, I'd love to fill one out!

[C Hutcheson]

Yep, boredom has to be one reason. I've seen my own father become frustrated with the lack of action in church, having sat through numerous board meetings where nothing could get done without gaining unanimous approval from every elder, and then another meeting had to be scheduled to discuss logistics... I mean, how difficult is it to get approval to take some of the youth fishing? What should be family oriented ministry has been dictated by our modern society and become board-regulated business. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with leadership boards and church government, but sometimes it's a buzz killer.

Men were made to be movers & shakers. If we aren't accomplishing, we aren't fulfilled. In similar fashion, if a church isn't accomplishing, it isn't fulfilling - particularly for men, and therefore is a waste of time. There are many variances to be considered, but in my opinion, and based on my own personal feelings, an ineffective church will be ignored by even true men of God.

I know that in my personal life I've set up a barrier to lean away from churches that offer nothing but "just another meeting". And it's a difficult area full of decisions, because our time is short, and why should I waste my time in a "body of believers" that are church growth-absorbed, and not Christ-absorbed?

Commenting on the original post, I see the point being made. With all of the seemingly feminist, soft and romantic lyrics, it would make sense that a warrior might not be comfortable singing those songs, especially if he or she is not an emotional person. (Just a side note: My wife is NOT a romantic person! I'm the sappy one in our family.) However, a real man would be involved in the grit-and-grime aspects of ministry if that is his calling, no matter the style of music or the lyrics, whether it be punk rock in the youth band, hymns in the congregational service, or some of the sappier, never-ending worship flows reminiscent of some Morningstar / prophetic types.

This is an area that could be expounded upon greatly, and I wish I had time to read all of the other posts. I think part of the bottom line with men not wanting to go to church is simply what I stated earlier. The culprit is boredom, of which several aspects can be compiled... Ineffectiveness, too "feminine", too weird and / or irrelevant (for those of us who went through the "laughing" movement and saw it's extremes), and basically church being out of touch with reality and following after it's own charismatic whims.

[russhutto]

I think it all still boils down to a lot of what Chuck is saying.

Boredom.

And I really believe that it's not boredom that stems from bad programming, auditorium decor, or poor song selection but more from feelings of discontent and uselessness. It IS the churches responsibility to train and equip the saints for the work of ministry. As a general rule, we just haven't been doing that.

How this translates into affecting men: Women deal with it better and stick around longer because they are more emotionally wired than men. They connect with friends faster in large groups and generally have a lot more to talk about than men. Men, on the other hand want to DO something. They don't want to sit around and "connect" with other men over tea. They don't want to come over and over to a place that doesn't place a high value on their showing up and participation. We haven't done a good job of "creating" ministry for people, especially men.

Now, this doesn't mean that every single man that walks through the door into a church gathering should have an "official" ministry, but more times than not I've seen that if you give a man something to do, he's more likely to feel needed and valuable. If you just ask him how he's doing, and then move on to the next guy, there's nothing tht grips his heart (from the natural side of things).

Now, before we leave out the Holy SPirit side of this equation, I want everyone to know that I am not saying that the WHOLE responsibility of changing men's lives and making them feel useful and valuable to a church family rests solely on the church. A lot of the onus is on us. Hehe. But we have to be constantly listening to the creative voice of the Holy Spirit to guide us. This means every day of the week, not just in programming for a message series, or a potluck, or a worship set.

There is NO church gathering in existence that can fulfill ANY person's needs in ONE weekly service. We can point them in the right direction. We can give them great scriptural truths to chew on. We can provide an intimate atmosphere of worship where people can respond to God's presence...

But we can't be everything everyone needs in one to two hours. Specifically, unless we are connecting with men throughout the week in some shape form or fashion, it doesn't matter which songs, what kinds of programming ideas, how many manly movie clips we show, or how many references we make to UFC. How do we do that? That's where common sense and circumstances come in to play. BOTH are influenced by the Holy Spirit.

Common sense says people group with other people based on common interests. Go with it.

Circumstances - ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in your specific circumstances. He might lead you in a different direction than a men's breakfast on 7 a.m. Saturday mornings.

Well, I'm rambling, but I've got to run for now.

[rmckinno]

John Eldridge said it in "Wild at Heart": When you go to church, look around at the men and ask yourself "What does a christian man look like? Don't listen to what the pulpit says they do, but look at the men you see there. It's plain to see. Christian men are bored". (paraphrased)

Common interests say alot, and I agree. Go with it. One church I attended got together a men's group called "Brothers, Sportsmen and Friends". They get together in the spring and summer and shoot skeet and have periodic cookouts. I think it's a wonderful idea to do that, and we had alot of success in it. The only problem was that the few men in the church who had never shot a gun in their life had no interest in coming. They got left out.

It was a good start. We just have to come up with programs that don't even leave the "one" out. We can do that. It opens up an opportunity to begin to train them up to see things correctly - to see [I]themselves[I]correctly. Then they can sing anything without having their masculinity threatened. They will have more of a desire to DO something.

[worshipers24_7]

Please forgive me...I'm not a man, and don't pretend to understand why men do what they do or think what they think (LOL!)
But, my 2 cents, if I may...the Lord, of course, is a man, a Father, and a very macho one at that...I mean you don't have to read much of the Old Testament to see that He's a pretty tough dude. BUT, you also don't have to read much of Song of Solomon to see that He gets quite expressive when He stops, focuses on us, and just starts telling us how much He loves us...I mean, I'm a girl - I like the sweet stuff - but I'm still blown away by the way He describes His love for us...He's mushier and more affectionate than I am! If you ask me, our songs to Him don't even touch the level of passion and wooing that His "Song" to us did. (Not to mention, the song of His life...giving His life for ours, etc...that takes this to a whole new level.) Hmmm...
Anyway, I'm not looking to express a big revelation here...I know this reiterates an idea that has already been expressed by at least one of you...but, perhaps understanding this facet of God as the Lover, the Man of Pure Passion, would help the men who struggle to identify with these initimate songs of worship. After all, it's really not about identifying with the songs, or the preaching or even the people at church...it's about identifying with Him, isn't it??? He's the one that we should aim to learn from. How does He express Himself? I mean based on what I've heard Him say in His Love Letter to us, if God was going to get up and sing a love song to us with His guitar, I kind of think it would be a little more than our senses/emotions had bargained for. I think the power of the love emanating from Him as He released His truest expressions toward us would surely break us on contact. It'd go far beyond His words (as should our worship to Him), although I'm thinking that His words would be pretty striking. Interesting to think about that though...what would His spontaneous words to us be, if He did show up to seranade us...I kind of think He'd beat our sappy songs hands down...and I can't imagine trying to offer Him anything less than the fullness of my expression in return...but that's just my opinion...
Anyway, just more food for thought...
I agree with our one friend...LOVER and LEADER...that's who HE is, and men would profit much by learning to identify with Him as both!

[C Hutcheson]

I understand what you're saying. A good point to make is that men are just as passionate as women, possibly even more so, but often times we view expressions differently, or we have a different mind-set as to how to express ourselves, whether by our own nature or by our society's standards.

Many people joke about how you can "never understand a woman", but in like fashion, men are often as misunderstood.

[worshipers24_7]

Absolutely agree with you! Only point I thought good to make was just that if the Lord, the man of all men, chose/felt to express Himself in such an intimate fashion, then perhaps it's more of an intrinsic part of man's nature than they sometimes realize...after all, we were created in His image and likeness...I think men definitely have LOTS of expression in them...LOTS of passion in them...so much so that at times it frustrates them because they don't know how to fully express it...
I would just like to see more men (and women too!) confident in a place of abandoned and heartfelt worship before God...HOWEVER they choose to express themselves and however it might come out...that's all :-)

[rmckinno]

Touche' on both posts! I stress again what I said earlier: men have bought the lie about what a real man is supposed to look like. Most men I know have a real hard time even greeting one another with a hug, much less a "holy kiss"! I just hope that we can bring them to a place where they can re-learn what the "Man of all men" says about men. Whatever it takes, we need to do it.

[russhutto]

I would just like to see more men (and women too!) confident in a place of abandoned and heartfelt worship before God...HOWEVER they choose to express themselves and however it might come out

Me too! Problem is getting to that point. It's not that men don't have the capacity or even the desire sometimes to just worship, it's just that in our little "c" church culture we don't exactly do a banner job of equipping ANYONE to do it. I mean we have great music, yet people are sitting around waiting on what? We have great bible study and sermons, but people aren't digging in for themselves...why? Something's missing somewhere.

We, men (and women), who are further along in our expressions need to walk people who are new to the expressions of praise into and through the depths of worship. Think about swimming. What happens if you chunk an infant into a swimming pool. They swim. No lessons, no thought, they just swim. It's built into them. But somewhere along the way, we forget how to just swim. We forget that it's built into us and we have to "re-learn" how to float, how to dive, how to paddle, etc...

Worship is the same way. We're doing a great job of providing an atmosphere in which people can "swim" in, and there's a lot of people swimming saying "come on in!" But the pool that we swim in is very daunting, very foreign, and very scary to people who have "forgotten" that they could even swim in the first place. We ARE created to worship. We ARE created to express our adoration from the depths of our heart. I don't deny that a bit! In fact, I'm all about it.

I guess what I'm throwing the flag on, is the fact that we've got a few "select" people swimming in the pool, and even a few lifeguards who "watch" the edges of the pool, but there's not many people who are giving swimming lessons. There's not many people who are training and equipping people to worship with their lives, let alone their songs.

I'm not talking about worship conferences or books on how to build a worship team. I'm talking about building people. When people understand that they are needed and valuable to a community, they'll more than likely open up and join in the activity of that community whether it's bible study, singing, potluck dinners, or whatever. We need to be reconnecting people with what it means to live lives of worship. The singing, the expressions of a grateful heart, the dancing, and clapping, the kneeling, all of those will overflow from a heart turned towards God and others. Teach people to serve in a family of believers, teach them to give, pray, and fast for an audience of ONE, teach them to put others' needs ahead of their own, and as they do, something so incredible and supernatural begins to happen, they are filled. They are given to. They are blessed. They begin to realize what this whole faith journey is all about. Our ultimate example, Jesus, didn't come to teach us how to be self-sufficient, He came to show us what Love looks like, He layed down His life. That's what a man or woman of God looks like.

Doesn't matter if they spin and twirl, although that's awesome to see. It doesn't matter if they sing deep emotional songs or not, it doesn't matter if they can hug or "holy kiss" someone else...haha.

Now, again I'm not slamming those deep, heartfelt expressions. They are and will be a huge part of our corporate and even individual worship experiences, but if only THEY are the measure of whether men and women are experiencing a deep connection to God and to others, then our gauge maybe a little skewed. Show me a church family where people come in and dance and shout and bow and kneel and sing "deep" worship songs, but don't care DEEPLY for each other, and I'll show you a church where a facade of worship is. Show me a church where people go out of their way to make others feel valuable, where people "feed" themselves during the week, and where visitors are highly valued and I'll show you a church where worship goes on 24/7, not just for one hour on Sundays.

Ok, I'm rambling yet again, but I feel strongly that worship is so much more than just music and singing...and we HAVE to get a hold of that if we want to see people impacted on more than a superficial level. Music will go out of style, people get tired of singing the same songs, but a heart of worship now that's a different story.

[rmckinno]

You are so right on!

What it all boils down to is one issue, and one issue only: our hearts.

An infant doesn't have to learn how to suckle. A dog doesn't have to learn how to bark. A bird doesn't have to be taught how to build a nest. And if you take a beaver who has never even SEEN the water in its life and set it out on a lake, you can just bet it will start chewing trees and building a dam. It's just built into us all by God. He created us and said "it is good".

I love the swimming thing. What causes us to forget how to swim? We allow our hearts to be distracted from our "real" nature. We look at ourselves in a mirror and forget what we look like when we look away. We are drawn away from what matters the most.

When our hearts are focused on the one and only true and living God, we will be living epistles of true worship, and "whatever the expression", it will be powerful and beautiful.

It's all about the heart! I personally know a guy who I thought was totally lost when it came to worship. He just stood there. He didn't sing, dance or anything like "I" thought true worship would look like. So I took it upon myself to try and get him to see the light.

He smiled at me when I fumbled at trying to broach the subject and began to describe to me what his experience in worship was. Tears streamed from his face as his love for the Father manifested as he told me how he stood there with his eyes closed, the music and atmosphere all around him, lifting him up into the very throne room of God. How he "basked in the light of the worship of the saints". I was so blessed, and I was so ashamed. His heart was in a better place than mine.

It's all in the heart.

[SaintLewis]

This is in response to the overall topic, not the specific responses already posted.

While living in Athens, GA I lived with the pastor of a 100-120 person L'Abri (http://www.labri.org/)-related (L'Abri was Francis Schaeffer's ministry) 'non-denominational' PCA-churchplant (meaning that the church was an outreach ministry of the PCA church (http://www.pcanet.org/) when planted 30 years earlier, and was pastored by a PCA-ordained minister, but was actually an independant church) called University Church (http://theuniversitychurch.org/). The church, though small, churned out Bible-teachers, theologians, musicians, and authors (I've counted over 117 volumes of professionally published works that have come from members, or former members, of this church in the past 30 years - not counting about 30 cd's, many of which were on major labels): the teaching time encouraged discussion and even sometimes debate (in fact, there was a time during the service where those in attendance could stand and add to, or detract from, the content of the sermon, which may be discussed RIGHT THERE in the service among the congregation) - we had Bible studies where we'd literally re-translated the book of Jude from photocopies of the three earliest Greek manuscripts! It was essentially a mini-seminary - a worldview training school. That's all to say, attracting men in such a hard-core environment, that deeply engaged the mind, was no problem what-so-ever - we were by far by a majority a male congregation, with almost all of the women, with only a few exceptions, being the wives or girlfriends of the men who attended. Having read Ann Douglas' SPOT ON "The Feminization of American Culture" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFeminizatio n-American-Culture-Ann-Douglas%2Fdp%2F0374525587%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks% 26qid%3D1177421732%26sr%3D8-1&tag=worshcommu-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325), I can point out that many of the traits of this Church are much more common with the church during the Puritan era of our country, when - it is interesting to note - the church was predominantly male driven, rather than what it's evolved into today. Thought that might add something to this discussion.

SAINT LEWIS (http://www.myspace.com/saintlewis)

[russhutto]

I think I would love to be a part of that group!

Just a generalization related to this topic: men do like a good debate, like to be task/goal driven, and in church history context, I can see how a fellowship like this would in many ways look like the early church.

[rmckinno]

I have heard that it has been prophesied globally that the next real revival would break out in peoples' homes. I can believe that. It would be a great place for things like this to happen. I've considered trying to start something at my house, but I find myself in the same place most men do: Where would I get the time???? But that could be another thread all in itself, huh?

[C Hutcheson]

When you look at what it's going to take for revival in this country, well, it's going to take more than a 9/11 incident, or even several 9/11 incidents. I believe we are in an era where rampant violence and darkness is about to surface.

But, the LIGHT will also increase!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it takes an event on the scale of 9/11 to wake people up or to bring revival. But let's sadly note that when we look at the overall state of this country, we see that the United States is full of spoiled youth, sadistic leaders, lovers of self, while our communications outlets are constantly streaming useless entertainment, abortions, rampant violence, soft porn, hard porn, music with dastardly degrading lyrics, and all sorts of unholy dietary offerings. This country is asleep in lethargy, and much of the church world is following suit, and therefore I feel this is a major point as to why men aren't giving of themselves more to the church. Men desire to be strong - we are made to be movers & shakers - and the church isn't doing much of that now.

There is an evangelist that I'm sure many readers here would recognize his name, and I remember hearing him say that he almost wishes the United States would enter another Great Depression or have some major catastrophe that would shadow 9/11. His point is that people turn to God in their greatest time of need. None of us want catastrophes or tragedies, but the fact is that people are forced to face truth during times of hardship. In our Christian walks, these are the times of growth.

Personally, I had come to the conclusion a few years ago - after serving at a church that became "dead in the water", and I had realized the futility of serving a "church body" where people weren't the ultimate prize. The goal of a church should not be to grow, but to feed. In feeding and serving others, a body will grow. It's better to give than to receive! Forget about church offerings or people numbers. Offer the word, show truth, feed the people - spiritually and physically, and in doing so without preconception or altered goals of "church growth", then we will see true growth - even revival.

Of course, there is always the question of, "What is revival?" Some would say it's when the Holy Ghost comes down and takes over. Some would say it's when souls are saved (which could happen in any denomination, whether open to the Holy Ghost or not.) Some would say revival is when a whole community experiences God in a manifest way. It could happen on a street corner or in a corn field. In my opinion, what we generally deem as revival can basically be described this way...

Revelation happens, which leads to reality of truth, which leads to repentance, which leads to redemption, and if these events happen in the lives of enough people, generally we call this "revival", because we view "revival" as souls saved.

But isn't "revival" an act of being "revived"? Don't our churches need to be revived? Don't our personal lives and families need to be revived, whether we're saved or not, or whether others become saved or not? The truth is, when we are walking in a "revived" state of being, others will notice and will want what we have. Having said that, it's a sad state the church is in when the world - and men - want nothing to do with us.

We all need to be revived. Just some questions for thought... Did the prophets of old need reviving? Did the disciples need reviving? Did King David need to be revived? Or did they "revive" themselves daily on the Word of God?

[C Hutcheson]

I've read recently that at the turn of the century, the "powers that be" actually constructed the feminist movement to cause the moral break-down of the family unit. If you subscribe to that conspiracy theory train of thought, it would make sense. With the rise of feminism, the moral fabric of a family is broken down. When the family is weak, the community - and the church - is weak. If the leaders of the world are seeking power, then the best way to attain that is to have weak serfs. It reminds me of what is happening with the global warming trend right now - just another distraction perhaps orchestrated to keep the masses disoriented.

And not even mentioning the possibilities of the injected evil and moral downfall brought on by the feminst movement - unbridled (sinful) liberty, rampant and unchecked lesbianism / homosexuality, the confusion of God-given maternal and spousal roles...

I have read recently that many depression clinics deal with a vast majority in numbers of men vs. women that are being treated. There is definitely a trend here. The whole feminist movement wasn't about women's rights, but about the destruction of the male figure and family strength. It was disguised as a "women's rights" movement. This seems far-fetched, I know, but what has the feminist movement done in the past few decades that has benefited women as a whole? I dare say not nearly enough as has been touted, and much of it uselessly.

Also, I have read from former feminist leaders that the feminist movement as a whole has done more to undermine the roles of men than anything that has come along in the history of the world. This from the leaders of the feminist movement in the 60's and 70's! Even they recognize the degredation of the male role in this country! It doesn't take a rocket scientist recognize that most middle and lower class men in this county are not of moral fabric.

Anyhow, just ranting a bit.

[fmckinnon]

Moderator Alert, Moderator Alert (grin!)

Interesting thoughts, Chuck .. but let's try and keep the topic limited to the discussion of the original post - about the lyrics in the worship songs, and what affect that may have on men not enjoying church, etc ....

I think your comments have relevance, but I can see the "thread" taking a turn in a different direction, so let's keep it on course.

[C Hutcheson]

Well, "enjoying" church is a question in itself. Jesus said "My burden is easy, and my yoke is light", but does that make it enjoyable? Of course, for those called and walking in revelation, it is a joy to our lives. For those "In His Service", the service and the accomplishments are the joy! But do we make it "enjoyable" for the unsaved?

The whole aspect of entertainment and its draw for people has arguments on both sides... Do we draw by entertainment, or by the Word of God? Do we cater to the current trends and "go with the flow"? Areas to ponder.

Earlier I was just stating some various aspects that were running through my mind of the "why" aspect of men not being involved in church, and in my opinion it doesn't have that much to do with "worship", although I'm sure that could be a factor.

I'll have to go back and look at the original question / thread!!! Sorry to get off-base!

[worshipers24_7]

I would just like to say that I absolutely agree with the response to my quote about seeing men/women worship more freely...LOVE it!...of course much has been posted since then that I also agree with...man this topic is HUGE when it starts going. Definitely, 110%, worship is about MUCH more than music...it is our life...and you're right...the expression will follow (however it may) when the heart is hooked up. I only addressed the actually expression of worship before (as related to music since that's how the discussion started...sorry - got in late on the conversation), but oh yeah...if we're really going to talk about worship, then we have to talk about life...no way around it...because if you don't live worship outside the church, as you said, you only play worship inside the church!

[El Ben]

Alright, I'll hop back on this bandwagon.

Why do men hate going to church? Well, first of all, what kind of men are we talking about? Are we talking about believers or nonbelievers? Well, let's discuss the believers first.

Why male believers may hate going to church.: The only guys I've ever met that were believers and didn't like going to church were guys who weren't plugged into anything. Guys are, by nature, doers. We want to get our hands dirty, build things, and maintain the structural integrity. You show me a man plugged in to the church and involved in a capacity where he is appreciated and affirmed as a man, and I'll show you a man you just can't keep away. I worked in a ton of volunteer capacities at a megachurch for three and a half years and the men who were involved loved the church, the pastor, and the work that they did for church. You couldn't keep them out. They were the guys waiting for the janitor to unlock the doors at 6:30 so they could go in and pray before the headed to the gym. If a man has some ownership in what he's involved in, you aren't gonna get a ton of complaints about "prom songs to Jesus" (not that I'm saying those are right or wrong), and you're not going to get any whining about how he just doesn't feel like he's a part of it. Men are meant to be the priest of their household. That's the way God created us. Doesn't it make sense that he would build us with leadership tendencies when it comes to being priests (ministers in various capacities) in the church?


Now brace yourselves, because I'm about to step up on my soapbox. Please forgive me if I offend you.

Why male nonbelievers hate going to chuch.: Well, first of all, male nonbelievers can hop on the boat with female nonbelievers about going to church. Of course they don't like going to church, they're nonbelievers! I've yet to meet a nonbeliever who actually likes going to church. There's a reason for this. Take, for instance, when Paul talked about meetings that believers would have in the New Testament church. He never once talked about being relevant to nonbelievers or structuring sermons so that they aren't too confusing to nonbelievers. I just think it's interesting that all of Paul's teachings on how church should be conducted were based on the assumption that the majority of people in these gatherings would be (should be) believers.

He talks constantly about edifying the body of Christ and building the group of believers when you gather together. Maybe the church is so anemic today because they haven't been fed meat. What if the church, which was meant to be a place of discipleship and growth, has become a spiritual nursery where we coddle the spiritual babies and the needs of the other believers. I know we preach on the soapbox of small groups and how that's where you're supposed to get all that "stuff," but why is it not allowed in our Sunday morning gatherings?

I understand that some people are geared differently, but why? Evangelism? Don't get me wrong, I believe in the power of the alter call just as much as the next guy, but praying a prayer with someone you may never see again and the concept we in the church world know as "follow-up" aren't nearly enough. Here's how I see church working in the New Testament:

-The public gathering (Acts 2-5, ex: Solomon's Colonade) was a place for believers to devote themselves to prayer, communion, the teaching of the apostles, fellowship, and worship. The main focus was the edification of the believer through the 9 spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 and through the five fold ministry of the apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, and evangelist.

-Evangelism occured when:

A.) miracles happened in the public gatherings (healings, deaths [see Ananias and Saphira], and miraculous occurences such as the Acts 2 encounter when the disciples spoke in tongues).

B.) believers brought nonbelievers into their homes to share in fellowship with othe believers.

C.) believers shared their faith outright with others.


-Discipleship was put in motion through believers serving in the local church (i.e. the deacons of Acts 5, spiritual amorbearers like Barnabas who served leadership, Timothy, ect.) In essence, you were discipled as you served. It was not some free thing that was tossed carelessly around. If you wanna be discipled, okay, but you had to serve the Body somehow. Look at Jesus, he was always giving his disciples stuff to do in addition to teaching them. Discipleship was not cheap. It was not simply taking someone under your wing. It was taking responsibility for them.



I could go on and on, but the whole point of what I'm saying is that maybe we've got it wrong when we try to make out like church is for the nonbeliever. No, that's wrong, let me rephrase. Maybe we hurt ourselves when we try to specifically gear our gatherings to either nonbelievers when they're really not all that interested in coming to them in the first place. Maybe we hurt ourselves by coddling the baby Christian on milk when we could be feeding our veteran Christians meat and training them to take care of the babies.

I know that this seems like it has nothing to do with the topic, but I'm thinking that it's all a matter of the root of the problem, and maybe this is it.

[C Hutcheson]

Good points, Ben. Understandably, if non-believers aren't seeing something in us, they aren't going to come & be a part. Likewise, if believers aren't seeing something in us, or our church, or our worship, they aren't going to come be a part.

As a "charismatic Christian" for most of my life, I have seen a lot of the goofy, have been a part of some of the goofy (out of good intentions, of course), and have eventually come to a contemplative state of mind and asked myself, "Why would any normal person want to come and be a part of this melee?" I think it would do us good to ask ourselves that very question, and then go and seek the scriptures about what God's Word says.

As a believer, this personal viewpoint never ceases to amaze me, and it's this... When I visit a church I've never visited before, you can almost immediately detect the taste, flavor, character or personality that that particular church has. There seems to be a factor that must be accounted for, yet is missing, referring to Paul's mentioning of "being all things to all people". And of course, this carries over into our musical and vocal worship. This is one reason I don't particularly have a problem with heavy styles of music, as long as it's from a heart of worship. It is for a particular group of people. Different styles draw different peoples.

But my point is this (concerning worship and a church's character)... Many times there is an underlying "peer pressure" - for a lack of a better term - in most churches that is felt by believers and non-believers, visitors and regular attenders, to WORSHIP a certain way (or to dress a certain way, to believe a certain way, etc.) Regarding this underlying feeling of conformity, no matter how strong or slight, how would this fit into the true teachings of liberty in Christ Jesus? **Side Note / Question: How does your particular church worship?**

If we are to be all things to all people, then we must understand who / what / where / how / and why the people are the way they are. Relating to the topic at hand, we must know about men, if we are to answer the question of worship and men's involvement.

Hope this doesn't seem like I'm on rabbit trails, which I will be the first to admit. There are many avenues of this topic which warrant much discussion. The statement Ben makes of "church being for the believers" is a VERY good point! A sinner is not a part of the church until he is "in" and "of" the church, having been baptized into the kingdom.

Here's an interesting question... Do we use 'worship' to draw people into church and keep them, or to even provide a contemporary means to worship in song, or do we approach it totally different from the aspect of "this is how you live daily" and our Sunday morning services are a group culmination of your daily lives? As a musician, I have considered this at great length. Being a musician, music has nothing to do with my daily worship, as strange as that may sound to some. Music is more of a tool for me. However, my heart's cry is what I consider to be the expression point of my worship.

Now, at what church do I feel free to express myself? What flavor do I prefer?

[rmckinno]

I like the way you posed the question about what we use praise and worship, Chuck. It provoked a question in me that I will just throw out.

But first of all, let me qualify myself (or dis-qualify). I've been a worship leader or a member of the praise and worship team pretty much since I got saved in 1984. But I am not doing anything but standing in the crowd right now. So I'm not "on the front lines" anymore. All I can do now is pull from what I've known and what I would think, feel or do if I were a leader now.

Having said that, here's my question: What method do we use, as the worship leader (who has an awesome responsibility to lead God's people into a holy place that God's presence can inhabit), to decide what songs are sung? Do we pick the songs that we like? Or the ones that we wrote? Or the ones people come up and ask us to do as requests?

Or do we allow the Holy Spirit to TELL us what songs we are to sing? I always knew that I heard from the Spirit when the pastor would get up and fuss at us for "preaching his sermon" in song before he had a chance to. That meant that we were on the same page with the Holy Spirit without even realizing it!

What I'm trying to say is this: If we are being led of the Spirit as to which songs we use in our services, and one of them is a "prom song", then we are exalting ourselves above God if we have the audacity to gripe about the words, the tempo, the "feel" . . . you get what I'm saying?

We'll never please everyone. And as I said earlier, it's all about the heart. I think the church as a whole needs to experience a new move of the fear of the Lord.

And that's MY soapbox! :D

[russhutto]

What's truly beautiful about this discussion is the diversity of perspective. There are so many slighlty differing opinions and even approaches to this whole subject matter. I tend to agree with everyone's points, not because I can't make up my mind, but because I'm not sure that everyone who is posting is actually bringing up opposing arguments, as much as we're adding different perspectives to the whole picture.

I want to point out one HUGE difference in the way we do "church" today and the church of the New Testament time. From my understanding, it appears as if the church consisted of 3 main elements:

1) Prayer large corporate worship
2) Fellowship small corporate worship
3) Apostolic small corporate worship

1) The early believers continued to meet in the synagogues, as Jesus did, for times of prayer/worship.
2) The early believers met in homes "breaking bread" and hanging out with one another, just generally doing life, and becoming "family"
3) The early believers gathered on special occasions periodically to "hear" from the apostles of the faith, leaders of the church who traveled all around the known world planting house churches and encouraging those in existence to continue on.

Now, I'm not suggesting we should or even could duplicate those 3 main elements in exactly the same way, or that they are doctrine, or whatever. I'm just pointing out that the "method" in which we try and accomplish the same goals is extremely different.

Maybe that's not such a good thing. I think it's why every so often, in the history of the church, there is always some sort of shift to smaller, cell-like home churches. It's not because big is bad, but because real life change, and deep relationship can only happen in the context of small groups, that meet more than once a week.

Problem is, we as the church try to package it all into 2 hours on Sunday. I wouldn't have a huge problem with the majority of our little "c" churches if this weren't the case.

Back on point, this comes in to play when we talk about the "songs" we sing, and whether or not they are "drawing" MEN, or are "enjoyable" to men, or whatever. Just as a previous poster said, men are DOERS. Not just singers. Sure you've got the artsy worship leader type (hehe) that breaks the mold, but in general men aren't knocking down the churches door to "sing" our songs. Believers or those who aren't.

I tend to believe it's because of the "system" of church. Not because of the song selection. We try and cram as many people as we can into a room, and "feed" them a prefab sermon, after trying to draw them into singing, clapping, dancing (i.e. worship), and then having them make some sort of challenge commitment that week and then saying, "see ya next week!"

I have no problems with a structured service, sermon, worship time, altar call, etc. I just think we do more damage as a whole when THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE OFFER AS A CHURCH.

I'll be the first one to admit, that even in an exciting time of growth and discipleship at our church, we still lack A WHOLE LOT when it comes to actually BEING the Church.

[rmckinno]

I agree. I don't think anyone has opposed the other. And there are definitely more than one perspective out there. I think that's the best thing about this forum. Just like God gave us five perspectives to His person in the five-fold ministry, it takes all the perspectives together to get the whole picture. I'll be honest with you. This pumps me up!

Cramming it all into one short time together won't work. I agree with that altogether. It takes a life of living to be a real christian.

[El Ben]

I agree totally and whole-heartedly with Russ about not being able to cram the sum total of Christianity into a service on Sunday. It's such a journey. Sometimes it's grinding through the tough times and others, it's riding on a wave of pure euphoria. I don't anything will argue with us on that one.

Another point I would like to make has to do with this whole "men not liking church" thing. I worked for a catering company to help pay my way through college, and being in a service industry, you learn a lot about consumer dynamics. For instance, if a restaurant has lousy service, then it is the customer's perrogative to leave and not come back. Basically, if the customer's need is not being met, then he/she leaves and seeks out a place where that need can be met.

Maybe we need to take a step back as the church body and ask ourselves "If we're having a hard time getting men to come to church, then what need are we not meeting?" It's like my mentor, Jason Spears used to say: "You have to read the need." I hate to relate church to economics, but maybe somewhere along the lines, our supply and their demand are getting crossed wires and mixed signals. Just a thought.

[C Hutcheson]

Hey, Ben, you're right on target. Jesus said we're gonna be fishers of men. Well, we have to put out that little bit of tempting bait to get 'em to bite!!! It's simple economics on the most basic level. Give the consumer - or fish - what they want, and snag 'em.

Sometimes we make it so complicated, and I'm particularly guilty of over-analyzation! It's all about presenting truth. You can't make some fish bite, but that doesn't mean you don't go fishing. Depending on the weather, the season, the bait or lures used, and other factors like barometric pressure, fish will bite more aggressively than at other times.

[El Ben]

I agree with your principle totally, but I think it's safer to relate "fishers of men" more to evangelism than walking out a Christian life. I think what you're talking about is more a "feeding the sheep" thing, and I teetotally agree with you.

Different species of sheep need different types of food. Some need shelter, some don't. Some need special attention, some don't. I'm right with you on that one, Chuck.

[C Hutcheson]

Oh, Ben, your insight is truly Ben-i-full.... (I say that in the most complimentary way!!!) How's it going with the keys lately? I'm with you on preferring to lead worship either just on keys or singing, but not both. Ehh, it depends on the song.

Earlier I was referring to the lost, particularly when discussing "fishing".

Hey, I ordered a Korg MicroX today! Looking forward to getting it & checking out the software, which can be used as a plug-in with your DAW. I mainly bought it for a couple of mission trips I've got coming up because it's small and has its own carrying case, but it's a really cool keyboard for the $$$, particularly with the software included. Besides, I needed a good small MIDI controller for my home studio, anyway. You been playing a lot lately?

[SaintLewis]

I think it's why every so often, in the history of the church, there is always some sort of shift to smaller, cell-like home churches. It's not because big is bad, but because real life change, and deep relationship can only happen in the context of small groups, that meet more than once a week.

Problem is, we as the church try to package it all into 2 hours on Sunday. I wouldn't have a huge problem with the majority of our little "c" churches if this weren't the case.

Back on point, this comes in to play when we talk about the "songs" we sing, and whether or not they are "drawing" MEN, or are "enjoyable" to men, or whatever. Just as a previous poster said, men are DOERS. Not just singers. Sure you've got the artsy worship leader type (hehe) that breaks the mold, but in general men aren't knocking down the churches door to "sing" our songs. Believers or those who aren't.

I tend to believe it's because of the "system" of church. Not because of the song selection. We try and cram as many people as we can into a room, and "feed" them a prefab sermon, after trying to draw them into singing, clapping, dancing (i.e. worship), and then having them make some sort of challenge commitment that week and then saying, "see ya next week!"

I have no problems with a structured service, sermon, worship time, altar call, etc. I just think we do more damage as a whole when THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE OFFER AS A CHURCH.


I hope you don't mind that I edit some thing out - I just wanted to focus on these specific things you mentioned here. VERY GOOD POINTS!

First, I absolutely think that the small group format is not only important, but essential to the health of the church, especially larger congregations. How else can Biblical discipleship take place (watch how Jesus does it and imagine trying to do it that way with 2000 people without implementing a small group/cell structure - I can't work)? I've also found that the small group model, especially is discussion is encouraged instead of a one-way teaching model, is very engaging for men - it is empowering, engaging, & brings out some positive aspects of the 'warrior' in all of us. I honestly think that is why our old church was so engaging for men, to a degree that the church primarily only interested most women in as much as they saw positive spiritual growth in their husbands!

Anyway - a pat on the back, Russ. Thanks so much for sharing!

[El Ben]

I haven't been playing as much as I'd like. I try to make time every day to sneak down to the sanctuary and get in a good hour to keep myself up to par and to work on songwriting, but the day gets long with all the stuff I have on my plate right now.

I know what you mean about the midi controller thing, too. I can't wait until I have enough saved up for a macbook pro with pro-tools so that I can do sampling. I might have to get ahold of you then to get the downlow on the best midi controllers.

Anyways, to get back on subject, I appreciate my insight being ben-iful. :)

[El Ben]

First, I absolutely think that the small group format is not only important, but essential to the health of the church, especially larger congregations. How else can Biblical discipleship take place (watch how Jesus does it and imagine trying to do it that way with 2000 people without implementing a small group/cell structure - I can't work)? I've also found that the small group model, especially is discussion is encouraged instead of a one-way teaching model, is very engaging for men - it is empowering, engaging, & brings out some positive aspects of the 'warrior' in all of us. I honestly think that is why our old church was so engaging for men, to a degree that the church primarily only interested most women in as much as they saw positive spiritual growth in their husbands!


I absolutely agree. It all goes back to getting your people engaged, involved, and ultimately, giving them ownership over their own salvation. I know for a long time, I thought that my pastor was the person in charge of my spirituality. Once you get people plugged in to knowing that they are responsible for the depth or lack therof in their own spiritual lives, you empower them to take their faith into their own hands and live it out.

I LOVE THIS STUFF!!! I'm so excited. I taught on fasting last night to my students in preparation for the week-long fast we're going to be doing in preparation for our missions trip (split up into meals by day) and my students were EXCITED about fasting. I've never seen anything like it. I was talking to another youth pastor friend of mine last night and he said that when you start getting people plugged in to doing Christianity for themselves, they get excited about it.

[russhutto]

"You have to read the need."

I think I would have to honestly say that the most basic "need" of all men (and women) is acceptance. To be loved.

It's the basic, driving force in all of us. It's why we strive so hard to get god jobs and go to good schools. Sure there's some greed involved to some degree, but I don't think you can honestly separate anyone's dreams, ambitions, goals, etc. from the need to be accepted.

Ultimately, it's why God sent His only Son, Jesus, to lay down His life for ours. So that we could be redeemed and "legally" accepted by the Father. We go through life striving to fill the "God-void" so to speak. Of course, as Ben was saying, this may be more along the lines of Evangelism, as opposed to "discipleship" - but the role of an evangelist is 1/5 of the "ministries" listed in Ephesians 4:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&version=31).

One other thing I'd like to point out about that passage is that evangelism is actually included in the list of ministries that are used "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Paul includes evangelism in the tools used for service (works of), and its pretty clear that as a whole evangelism plays a large part of the "building up," "unifying," and "maturing" of the Body. This is not to take away from what Ben was saying earlier about the need to feed our Believers meat. I totally agree, but at the same time teaching your "sheep" to "fish" is a big part of maturing them.

This is where our perspectives are probably a little different, but I believe the main purpose of church is to edify and build the believers (while of course bringing honor, glory, and renown to God) and that a significant part of that is to evangelize. If we're not evangelizing and teaching our flocks to evangelize, in EVERY single gathering, be it sunday, wednesday, or whatever, we're not truly maturing them as we should.

There's been too many spiritual hoops to jump through for too long in the church. I believe that we've created an almost unwinnable game that hurts evangelism in our churches. We don't literally say this, but we portray the idea that, "If you go through this class, or sit through X number of years, or serve on this committee, or do this or do that, then you are mature."

When in fact, a maturing Christian is one who looks outward, serves others, and can indeed feed themselves. I believe we should, to use an old cliche, teach people to fish so that they can provided for themselves, as opposed to giving them a fish, so that they become spiritual beggars.

Granted, we STILL have to teach, train equip, etc. but how many Bible studies does it take? How many "meaty" sermons do we preach every year? How many life-changing sermons do people get in an average year? 40-50? How many can they actually recall? How many do they actually apply in their life?

I don't think the problem is with the "food" being served, I think the problem is with the "service" staff. We need to move people out of, what we call at HOJ, the "I" chair...You know, feed me, feed me (especially the ones that have been sitting at the table for years and years). Those are the ones who complain about the "depth" of worship, or the "style" of the music, the ones who won't commit to a small group, but want to go "deeper" on Sundays. Nothing wrong with going deeper, but there is NOTHING more vital as a Believer than being able to dig deeper into the Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and sharing those insights with others EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. We live in a culture of catering. We cater to people's whims, not their NEEDS.

I'm rambling again, but I just feel like the issue at hand, MEN "liking" church is not really the correct approach to view this from. I feel that we should be asking ourselves does CHRIST like the church. His Holy Spirit is the ultimate gauge. Not that we don't have to "feed" the sheep, or "throw out the nets" we do, but until we seek the voice of guidance in our respective situations about what it is we should be doing to reach men, it doesn't matter what we come up with, does it?

[SaintLewis]

I think I would have to honestly say that the most basic "need" of all men (and women) is acceptance. To be loved.

I agree - but I think it's important to keep in mind that the way men and women experience 'love' and 'acceptance' is often QUITE different. For instance, women speak something like 80% more words on average more than do men (in fact, science has shown that the mere act of a woman hearing her own voices causes their minds to release certain positive mood-altering hormones - the same hormones that men's bodies release only after the physical act of 'pro-creation', to be as subtle as possible), and when they communicate with one another those conversations are primarily about the relationship itself (ie - they're talking to grow the relationship with the person to whom their talking) and to work through their own emotions, where men communicate more often to find out specifically what it is that they should DO about something: our communication is often 'problem-solving' in nature, and seeks to ultimately work towards action, and it is in DOING THINGS together, not necessarily talking, that men feel accepted and loved. This leaves us needing quite different things in order to feel 'loved' and 'accepted'.

The American church in particular is doing a great job of fulfilling the 'love needs' of women - what can the church do better to fulfill the 'love-needs' of men more successfully? My old church did it well - it empowered men. Mars Hill Church in Seattle (Mark Driscoll's church) is a mega-church that is doing an AMAZING job of being 'attractional' to men. What about those forms of church makes so many men really WANT to be there?

Yes, a great dialogue -let's keep this going.

[russhutto]

but I think it's important to keep in mind that the way men and women experience 'love' and 'acceptance' is often QUITE different.

Most definitely, the only reason I brought this up was to address a point earlier about meeting people's needs. I just feel that if we begin to address the BASIC needs of people (men & women) a lot of other things, like whether or not men sing certain songs or not, become a little less pressing.

I feel like we're trying to put a bandaid on a severed limb. The problem is not that we sing "girly" songs in church, it's that we CAN'T SEE that singing girly songs is a stumbling block for our men. Most of the people in charge of "selecting" these songs are either women, OR more likely, very creative, emotionally in-touch, artsy, right-brained men. That is a generalization, I understand, but think about it. Most worship leaders are very creative people. These people are the minority, not the majority, but yet we go on singing, writing, selecting songs that are good for "us" but not necessarily the entire population of men who we are trying to engage.

Once again, rambling but my thoughts hit me like whirlwind sometimes, and I just type them as they come.

[El Ben]

Stupid songwriters... :)

Anywho, I'm kinda feeling the burn of that last comment. As much as I hate to admit it, I'm kind of a touch-feely, right-brained kind of guy when it comes to worship, and I bet I let that influence my worship sets more often than I should. DARN YOU FOR BEING HONEST!!!

[russhutto]

Actually, me too! Maybe that's why I'm so adamant about being changed, because I've seen myself over the last decade and a half leading worship with great intentions, but not necessarily SERVING those that I was trying to lead.

My ultimate epiphany came when I began to dig into the life of Jesus here on earth, and what it means to be a servant leader. I've been one of those leaders who thought "follow me to death, through thick and thin" was achieved by being right all the time and by bulldozing my way into the hearts of people. (insert buzzer sound here). Wrong.

Jesus didn't come to trample those He "led" He came to serve those who followed. In all reality, He actually came to be the servant of all, but you know what I mean. Anyways, I digress.

My point is that, I've actually changed my views on leadership styles, and that regardless of personality styles WE all can learn how to serve better, and better, and better...because it's a process. We don't just become 100% servants overnight. It's a character building journey, and I've spent many years stuck in the "know it all" category, actually my wife still thinks I'm there sometimes...haha.

I say all that just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I'll turn 30 tomorrow. By no means am I old, and by no means am I a whippersnapper, either. Kind of right in the middle I guess. I've been part of "church" my entire life. I, like many of you, long for more than just the same old, same old. The last church I was a part of (which I love like dear family) never grew, and I saw the same faces over and over for 12 years. We were a close group, but in the light of Scripture I believe that we were dysfunctional. We missed out on a huge element. There has to be a point in the life of a church where they realize that evangelism is PART of discipleship, not necessarily 2 different, separate things. We had a foundations class that took 2 YEARS to go through. Needless to say I wasn't thrilled about that. 2 YEARS!? All in all, the church was (and still is) a great place, but the views on outreach and discipleship were too "typical" and not really Biblical.

This is where my perspective comes from, and I am quick to challenge those who might be in the same boat, JUMP OUT!!! Walk on the water!! I'm at a totally different place, a church whose focus is outward, through service, missions, small groups, outreaches, etc. These are NOT TO THE NEGLECT of discipleship, because in teaching people to reach UP and OUT, we're discipling in a more complete manner, than by just "feeding" people on Sundays.

And again, I'm EXTREMELY guilty of being the creative, right-brained guy. I studied music comp in school, play just about every instrument known to modern worship teams, write, sing, draw, paint, dance, etc. So, the burn is ON ME first and foremost!! Haha.

[rmckinno]

Jesus didn't come to trample those He "led" He came to serve those who followed. In all reality, He actually came to be the servant of all,

If we could all get a hold of this simple concept, we would see most all our problems solved. In II Cor. 11:3, Paul says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

And what is this simplicity? Walk as He walked. And how did He walk? As a servant to all. Too good, man!

This provokes a question in me: "How did Jesus serve?" The answer rang out the He served like this: Whatever I see the Father do, I do. And whatever I hear the Father say, I say.

Which brings me back to the subject: How are we choosing the songs we lead with? The key? The tempo? Or asking the Father what He's singing? I believe if we do that and really want to hear, He will either give us a new song or one in our books. THAT is one really "simple" way we could lead. And if we're doing that (forgive my bluntness here), the ones who complain don't want the things of God anyway.

"My sheep hear my voice . . . "

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. (John 7:17)

[russhutto]

We just have to make sure we're "hearing" what God wants us to serve others with, not what we like to worship with!! Haha.

I'm guilty of basing a lot of my worship leading on personal preferences, choosing this song over that one because I like it, instead of singing a "new song" or grabbing and oldie because it will best serve God's purposes in that moment. Lord help me!

[rmckinno]

That's the whole point, I guess. How many of today's church worship leaders are there because they are mature believers who can hear the voice of the Lord, and how many are there because they are excellent musicians and singers?

Could be a whole new reason why men hate going to church? Most men can spot a fake a mile away.

?????

[El Ben]

:::WARNING::: Sarcasm Alert :::WARNING:::

But how can we hear God's voice when obviouslly he doesn't speak today? Didn't you guys know that anyone who says that they hear from God is instantly a whack job? You crazy Charismatics will be the death of the Church. :D

[Lodeharper]

Well, each one has a right to think of Jesus in whatever way. So may whether Jesus is a lover or a leader, it doesn't matter as long as the person has a personal relationship with Him.



__________________
Berta
2007 Lexus GS Hybrid Navigation System by Lexus U.S.A. (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/lexus-u-s-a-2009/2007-lexus-gs-hybrid-navigation-system-8657.html)

[rmckinno]

Well, I've definitely gotten alot to think about in this thread. I totally stand in awe of you guys/gals who stand up and lead the people in worship and praise. It really is sad that people don't know just how "hard" a "job" you have. I'm personally glad I am not in that position right now.

God bless you all!!

[SaintLewis]

Well, each one has a right to think of Jesus in whatever way. So may whether Jesus is a lover or a leader, it doesn't matter as long as the person has a personal relationship with Him.

I'd qualify this statement by saying that each of us has a right to think of Jesus in whatever BIBLICAL ways (ways in which He's revealed Himself), as long as we have a personal relationship with Him...
I only add that because I've met a good many people who THINK they have a 'relationship with Jesus', but the Jesus they trust in is so contrary to the 'revealed' Jesus that he could Biblically be comparable to nothing short of a demon - the total antithesis of the real Jesus.

My personal goal is to think of Jesus how Jesus thought of Jesus - I think that is part of "renewing your mind"...

[El Ben]

I also think that it's important that we don't confuse Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Just keep in mind that the Holy Spirit inside us is the leader and comforter. It's dangerous when you start throwing around "Well, Jesus told me this, or I felt that Jesus wanted that."

My theology professor put it this way: God the Father was the divine manifestation for the Jews in the Old Testament, God the Son was the divine manifestation that bridged the Old and New Testament, and the Holy Spirit was the divine manifestation for the believer in the New Testament and beyond.

I don't know that anyone really knows Jesus outside of what the Holy Spirit and the bible reveals, and I consider what the Holy Spirit reveals of Jesus, and of the Father, for that matter, to be just as valuable and relevant as what the bible says about them, and considering what Paul says in first Corinthians chapter 2:

9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"-- 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God

Will God ever reveal himself in a way contrary to the scriptures? Absolutely not, but there are plenty of things the bible never overtly says about God. Sometimes, getting to know those deep things of God takes more than even an in-depth study of the scripture. It takes communion with the Holy Spirit. Not that any of this is on topic. :)

[chipshot0701]

[
Quote----> Men are searching for a purpose. We're driven that way. I look at all the things that women have in the church: retreats, breakfasts, showers, etc. What do the men do?

It's true that men have been left out of the equation - even in the worship issue. Men have to be re-trained as to what a real man is, but they also must be drawn! What can we do to draw them? <----------

Have men really been LEFT OUT? or do they just not create their own equations to be a part of?
Personally I create my own equations....I help the Sunday School programs with music, and I get down and dance with them when we have choreography. I attend special bible sessions and studies, I lead the praise music. I go to soup and supper invites. etc etc.
My point is that we party if we want to right? We golf if we want to right? So we also worship IF WE WANT TO. The equation is there...right behind the entry way to the church.
I agree about re-training more men about what being a true Christian is all about.
HOW ABOUT ----> a Christian sponsored Pro Golf circuit? Any one out there have any expertise at all on how to run a golf outing??
peace n love
mike

[chipshot0701]

That's the whole point, I guess. How many of today's church worship leaders are there because they are mature believers who can hear the voice of the Lord, and how many are there because they are excellent musicians and singers?

Could be a whole new reason why men hate going to church? Most men can spot a fake a mile away.

?????

You didn't use the bigot word!

lol

good point my friend.

[El Ben]

Bigot word. I'm slow. Please help! :)

[chipshot0701]

big·ot [ bÃ*ggət ] (plural big·ots)


noun

Definition:

intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views


[Late 16th century. < French]


big·ot·ed adjective
big·ot·ry noun

Example: You may have come across a strong willed person that refuses to accept that religion is meaningful and Christ exists. And no matter how much proof you show that person they still fight you and will not listen.

Peace n prayers!!
mike

[El Ben]

Ummm...I do know what bigot means, I think I just understood the statement:

"You didn't use the bigot word."

I assumed that meant that there was a word that could have been construed as biggoted that you didn't use, when the context was "You didn't use the word bigot there."

Sorry. Syntax error! My bad. Too bad you can't convey tones when you type, huh?

[MarkSooy]

As has been the trend in the 20th Century, and now in the 21st, the American church has simply lagged behind the culture and then replicates the culture within its own subculture. This is another example.

Clearly, the "feminization" of American Culture started in the 60's, and though lagging, the American Evangelical church (not completely, since I'm sure there are some exceptions) has followed. Feminizing just about everything in sight.

Scripture does establish male leadership of the home and church. We, as men, must pick up the mantle and carry it. This is not meant as an over-arching authority over women. The church would be ill-served to eliminate the skills of women who are strong leaders.

Men are drawn to sports instead of church since it is there that men can be strong and dominant. The church now must go against the general cultural trend and allow men to once again be strong and dominant. Pick up the mantle -- men -- and lead!

[fmckinnon]

Hi Mark,
I couldn't agree more - sounds like a good observation!

For the Kingdom,
Fred

[rkweblog]

Hey Ya'll -

My sister forwarded this to me, from a friend ... I thought it would be a great thread to feature this month ... see below:

Note: This is not MY OWN writing - this is copied from the person who sent it to me ... I'm pasting it below for discussion.

I read this comment from David Murrow, author of the book "Why Men Hate Going To Church". I'm curious on your thoughts on this. Just wondering....


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was standing in church a couple of weeks ago when these lyrics popped up on the screen:
Your love is extravagant


Your friendship, it is intimate


I feel I'm moving to the rhythm of Your grace


Your fragrance is intoxicating in our secret place


Your love is extravagant

Spread wide in the arms of Christ is the love that covers sin


No greater love have I ever known

You considered me a friend


Capture my heart again

When I saw the phrases "moving to the rhythm" and "spread wide" I just about fainted. Lyrics like these leave little doubt: today's praise music targets love-starved women. (Gals buy about 75% of the praise and worship CDs) I don't know any man who follows Christ for his "intoxicating fragrance."

Meanwhile, the masculine hymns of a generation ago have been banned in most churches. We no longer sing of battle, blood or sacrifice. Onward, Christian Soldiers is forbidden. Rise Up O Men of God has been gender neutralized. We've retired the action songs and replaced them with relationship songs.

There's nothing wrong with worship songs that evoke strong emotion. I'm not afraid to admit that just last Sunday I was moved to tears by a worship song I heard in church. But we cross the line when we imagine Jesus as our lover rather than our leader.


WHAT DO YOU THINK?

This book really is hyperbole and something that I think can be somewhat damaging to the local church if taken too seriously. Yes, we need to learn the culture of men, women and youth, etc. However, men hating church attendance is NOT just about music according to this book. How about long sermons? The goal is not to make the church for men, but to simply make sure the needs of men are considered, which they often are not. The author makes this his point. So, a course correction is due. But, really it is moving from 60% to the feminine to a balance.

Now, the book is pretty good in its theory, but horrible in its application--ESPECIALLY when talking about music or the arts! Most pastors are pretty lame when it comes to understanding the arts and its proper place in faith and culture. This author follows suit. In reading the whole book, I think the idea of meeting men's real needs as discussed in the book is right on. But, the author would not know how to relate to latino men or asian men as I find his analogies are for white boomer men who have never used a skate board or bmx bike. It is ethnocentric and really a "boomer" perspective that is too narrow to be taken seriously by someone like me.

Just my two cents.

[MeredithLCurtis]

I find that in choosing songs, I gravitate toward songs that are full of gentle, tender phrasing, which is fine and good. However, in leading worship, I notice that there are some songs that are definitely easier for men to worship with than others. Something I do occasionally is ask NON-MUSICAL men what songs they enjoy. Most worship team guys like a wider variety of music and find it easier to worship with all kinds of songs. I try to listen in to brothers in the Lord outside of the music world because they can have a very different perspective what makes worship easier than I do.:)
One thing, in general, is that men tend to be drawn to faster, "heavier" songs. I try to drop the keys in songs so that my voice is lower, making it seem less "girly" and sometimes I add more on the bass or drums to give a slower song more of a kick.:)
Is it my imagination, or does it seem to help men to "warm up" with very energetic praise music before the slower songs? If they have a good long time to love God with their strength, it seems to make it easier to press in for the more gentle songs and enjoy the Presence of God. Again, I don't see men who sing or play having the same issues. I don't think that women are more "spiritual" or anything--I think men need to worship God with strength!!! And of course, you can never generalize too much; everyone is different when it comes to giving God their praise & affection.:)

[Jimmy Purchase]

i guess I’m a little late on putting my two cents in.

but I saw someone used Mark Driscoll's quote on prom songs to Jesus. I am a firm believer in we need to stop singing songs on how much we love Jesus because its homosexual to do so. Jesus is our Lord and our Savior but he is not our Boyfriend. He is a all powerful ultimate fighter Jesus who has come to save people from Gods Wrath (This is called the Gospel) And that’s why i hate most Christian hit radio "worship" songs because they are not Gospel centered. And Because God is the Gospel, anything not Gospel centered is a sin... Idolatry

[fmckinnon]

Well, wow ...

To say it's "homosexual" to tell Jesus we love him is a bit ridiculous at best, and a twisted interpretation of the love of God. I hope and pray that you can see that the word "love" has many interpretations, and I sincerely doubt that anyone is expressing "eros" (sexual) love to Jesus in those songs, anymore than Jesus is expressing it back to us. What's the difference in Christ telling US that he LOVES US? Is that homosexual? Of course not. C'mon Jimmy, what are you trying to stir up?

[dtpuga]

I could MAYBE agree with the statement that some people may fear that it is homosexual to sing songs about 'loving Jesus.' MAYBE. However, to say that actually singing them IS homosexual... that seems, well, a tad unbiblical. Maybe I need to dig in a bit more and research that. I am open... to change that is.
HaHa.

travis

[Brooke]

I have to agree with Fred. All through the Psalms it talks about God's love. They describe it as unfailing, wonderful, great, and so on.
Saying it's homosexual for a man to say "I love Jesus" is a bit ridiculous. It's no more homosexual than a man who says "I love you" to his earthly father or brothers.

It's hard to think that there's anything wrong with saying I love you to Jesus, who loved us so much that he laid down his own life. If that were the case, then I guess it would be considered adulterous for a married woman like myself to tell Jesus that I love him...see how silly that sounds!?

[SaintLewis]

i guess I’m a little late on putting my two cents in.

but I saw someone used Mark Driscoll's quote on prom songs to Jesus. I am a firm believer in we need to stop singing songs on how much we love Jesus because its homosexual to do so. Jesus is our Lord and our Savior but he is not our Boyfriend. He is a all powerful ultimate fighter Jesus who has come to save people from Gods Wrath (This is called the Gospel) And that’s why i hate most Christian hit radio "worship" songs because they are not Gospel centered. And Because God is the Gospel, anything not Gospel centered is a sin... Idolatry

I must say that, thought I - to a degree - agree with you, I think you're being a bit 'over-the-top'. Biblically worship is very multifaceted, and even Mr. Driscoll - whom I read & listen to ad nauseum - would agree...do you subscribe to the podcast where you can hear the worship songs they play at Mars Hill, Seattle? Some of the same kinds of songs you're disparaging are played by Mars Hill's worship teams.

Occasionally, there may be room to believe a certain worship song verges on 'homosexual' - for instance, songs that use the Song of Solomon as the text for a worship song really end up doing some nasty things to the the Word of God, in my opinion (reading ideas into it that aren't overtly there - or at least most solid evangelical bible scholars don't see them), mainly by diminishing the fact that it is a book about human sex, and that I personally don't think God wants to 'have sexual relations' with me. Yes, the Bridal metaphor as used in the Bible is legit, but Word is pretty clear on what that means and sets some basic limits for the metaphor - to try to read God's love for us overtly into Song of Solomon, a book that - in Hebrew terms - explicitly speaks of both men's & women's sex organs, and semi-graphically describes the act (them gardens ain't gardens, and them fruit ain't fruit)...well, that's sorta nasty. So, to that degree, I agree with you. But to NEVER sing "I love you"? - I get off the boat before that stop. Have you ever read the Psalms?

I guess my point is, and has always been on this topic, there needs to be a balance. If you sing all songs like "Your Love is Extravagant" (a song I don't much like either, both lyrically and musically) you're just as off base as if you sing nothing but "Holy Holy Holy" every week. Engage with your heart (emotions), soul (spiritual life), mind (intellect) and strength (actions) - pick a mixture of songs that encourage all four of those to happen during a Sunday service, and - God-willing - it'll also encourage those 4 things to occur during the REAL ins-and-outs of worship: the day to day LIVING that is worship.

[SaintLewis]

Jimmy - as you sound like you come from the 'Reformed' side of things (as do I), I encourage you to read both John Piper's "Desiring God" and Sam Storm's "The Singing God" - both are profoundly scriptural, by reformed authors, and both address both having a passion for God, and God's love for us...and they do so in a way that changed my heart, personally. I especially think the latter may draw a number of Biblical ideas to the fore-front that may alter your perspective on this somewhat. Blessings!

[Jimmy Purchase]

you guys are right, i didnt mean to say you saying you love Jesus is wrong, I meant saying your IN love with jesus. There is a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. I understand that God loves us and i understand that God loves his church (which is us) but i dont think that God is IN love with us and i dont believe that God is IN love with the church. The perfect biblical example is the book of Hosea. We are the cheating wife, God is Hosea. When we sing songs about how much we love God or Jesus, the next day we fall right back into sin (cheating) and then Sunday morning we tell God how much we love him and ask for his forgiveness and then monday start all over again. but someone people like singing R&B love songs to Jesus, but its not my style for sure.

[Brooke]

Respectfully Jimmy, I'm not sure I totally agree. According to the word, we are the Bride of Christ. Marriage is a small "picture" of the perfect union of Christ and his people, and I think God IS in love with his church...we have to remember that sexuality is a thing created by God for Humans in a marriage relationship. I don't think that God wants to "be sexual" with his church, but the connection we have/will have is, I believe, going to be so much more intense and intimate than any sexual relationship that we could ever have here on earth.
Once again, the worldview of sex and sexuality has distorted what we as Christians see when we think of love.

[SaintLewis]

Well, let me just say that you may be playing with semantics here, Jimmy - what is the difference between being 'in love with' and 'loving' someone - the line is a thin one, at best.

But also, I do believe that God LOVES the church the same way the Father God LOVES God the Son, as we - the church - are IN CHRIST - His Body... as such love is the deepest I can imagine - God's love for God - then as those 'in Christ', through our participation in Christ we are loved as deeply as love can be known, and if that is not 'in Love', I don't know what is. Sure, I affirm this - God's love is first and foremost for himself and his own glory, but we receive His affections just as intensely, for we - being not only created in His image, but being restored to that perfect image, and standing before Him IN His perfect image - that is, God the Son, Christ Jesus - enter into that perfect love relationship already present within the God-head.

For those who are not Jimmy, I just said - in theological-jargon: God the Father is in love with us in Jesus Christ, His son. That's all. ;-)

[El Ben]

Wow...boy, this discussion just flew waaaaaaaaaaay out into left field. Personally, I have trouble seeing how the content, specifically the tone and syntax, of a worship song attatches or detattches value or impact from the worship of the believer. I've lately been wondering if we as a "worship culture" have become so supersaturated with music that we need to go through a season of removing it, kind of like Soul Survivor church (where Matt Redman leads worship.) Check out the story here. (http://www.crosswalk.com/1253122/)

While I agree that church has become somewhat feminized, and I do agree that it is a problem, I honestly believe that it is perhaps the least of our "problems." In fact, I think it's something that will fix itself given enough time, seeing as how (it seems to me, at least), that church is beginning to remasculinize (if that is, in fact, a word).

I hate to be the wet blanket here, sorry.

[russhutto]

Personally, I think the whole "love"/"in love" thing is something that the world has come up with to escape the commitment required of one's heart to make a relationship last.

It's easy to say I love you but I'm not in love with you anymore as a cop out as you head out the door.

True love is love. Either you choose to love someone/something or you don't.

Being "in love" seems to me to be another way of phrasing the "self-gratifying, warm, fuzzies" that we all experience in fleeting moments in relationships.

How does this all apply to the Bride/Church?

I don't know.

But I know God is love. I know that out of hope, faith, and love that love is pretty important. I know that God loved the world so much that He gave up His Son, Jesus, to pay the penalty for the sins of the world. I know that Jesus is the lover of my soul. I know that he who doesn't love, doesn't know God, because God is love. I know that love never fails. I know that God's love is everlasting. I know that if I'm not "in love" I am dead.

I know that fear runs from love.I know that I can love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. I know that if I say I love God, but don't love my brother, I'm a liar. I know I am loved by God. I know that there is no place on earth, whether the highest mountain, or the deepest part of the ocean, where I can go and be separated from God's love. I know that God's love stretched across the chasm of sin, through the life/death/resurrection of Jesus.

Now, on to the other topic. I know the whole song of solomon "worship" can be a little tricky at best. I know that God doesn't have sexual relations with us. BUT, one can see even the most intimate act of union between man and woman as a parallel to the love God has for His Bride.

Not in the literal sexual acts, but in the hearts for one another in the writing. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to be singing about "pomegranates, doves, and does" in a corporate "worship" environment, but at the same time there's nothing at all unbiblical about being passionate about God and responding to His passion for us.

I think one HUGE issue with sexuality is a puritanical view that has ruled the church for too long. Sex is not dirty. Sex is not evil. Sex is not even a chore we put up with solely to bring children into the world. This intimate union is the ultimate expression of a man's strength and commitment to HIS bride and hers is an expression of her vulnerability and commitment to HER husband.

That being said, I really don't believe that our songs should be sexual in nature...unless of course it's you and the spouse, ALONE with candles and a Barry White track playing on the stereo...haha.

I think people who can't see God and sex in the same sentence usually have a problem with very intimate worship responses. They make it their goal in life to point out what they perceive as sexual, inappropriate, and "vulgar" in all aspects of life. Not that that's always a bad thing, BUT I do believe that going off on "You're Love is Extravagant" while noble, is not really helpful.

Personally, I'm tired of the song. I don't really care if anyone likes it or not. That's not the issue. The issue I believe in "church" has more to do with people being TRUE FOLLOWERS of Jesus, than what style of music we sing, whether or not the lyrics are intimate in their expression, who gets to be up front, what color the drapes are, etc.

We've got a mission. That is to show the world Jesus. That is to be Jesus. That is to train and equip others to show the world Jesus and to be Jesus. So what if a church sings very intimate songs? So what if they don't? Is the driving force behind what's going on bringing people to maturity in Christ?

Very soapbox in nature. But I get weary of hearing criticisms from what appears to be "christians" who are no more like Jesus, than the next guy. I want to SEE Jesus being exemplified. I want to SEE Jesus in people's lives. I want to move past racial, denominational, and theological perspective barriers.

Sorry if this is harsh. It's really nt directed at anyone on this forum, more so the guy who says rock music is of the devil and that Michael W. Smith is a Satanist...haha. You know who I'm talking about...he has a website somewhere.

[SaintLewis]

Smithy isn't a satanist?! Serious!? ;-)

[Jimmy Purchase]

i couldnt agree more with what El Ben and what Blindeyesopen said. My problem with saying i'm in love with Jesus isnt a sexual problem. Like Blindeyesopen said, "Being "in love" seems to me to be another way of phrasing the "self-gratifying, warm, fuzzies" that we all experience in fleeting moments in relationships". key phrase "Fleeting moments" saying your in love with Jesus isnt something to be taken lightly. Its like when your wife or girlfriend buys you a present, sure you loved her before she baught you the present, but now you feel all warm inside, like you just saw the titanic. the next day, you dont have that feeling anymore.

For the record, i do love Jesus.

now this may just be a ME problem, but i have trouble singing about how i am in love with Jesus. while i'm worshiping i feel all joyful and warm inside, but when i hit my office on monday i'm not in love with Jesus i'm in love with my office. i'm not thinking about Jesus' love, i'm thinking about my office work. I'm back falling into din. I do not feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so was all that stuff i sang to God a lie?

[Jimmy Purchase]

Smithy isn't a satanist?! Serious!? ;-)


hahahahaha

[SaintLewis]

Jimmy, I'm with you on this - as I've said in another thread, I have a hard time actually 'worshiping' (in this case I mean "focusing my whole self - emotions, intellect, spiritual life, and actions - towards God) God when the worship leader relies too heavily on the 'me-centered confession'-type songs (lyrics like "I love You", "I praise You", "I worship You", et etc.), however I do believe that we should indeed be STRIVING to worship God with our whole heart, and pushing with all that we are to be "in love" with Him, in the sense that you describe it: radically emotionally enamored with Him. And when we're not 'there', and a song comes up in a worship-leader's song list (or even in my own set-list), I encourage myself, and, if I'm leading, those in the audience who may also not be 'there', to make it a prayer, trusting that God's Spirit can bring about in my heart what I - in the flesh - lack in my love for Him. It doesn't mean that we need to drop those sorts of songs altogether. Again - BALANCE.

[rkweblog]

It is fairly ignorant to say that the Bible does not frame things in language that is close to sexual in both the OT and NT (eg. "know God"). But, I am cautious to put forth this since there really are indeed songs today that cheapen what this mystical union with Christ really is. Whether one thinks it is homosexual or not to say "I love you" is really a strange perspective and a distraction. I think some are "worship-phobic" and deny the powerful, sweet, and scary experiential side of the Christian life. And yes, there are those that exploit experience, too. I would rather be John who laid his head on Jesus than Judas who snarled at the extravagance of the woman who spilled expensive perfume. I would rather be both the warrior Kind David and the worshiper David who played his harp and disrobed to the horror of his wife. It is pretty manly to play a harp and dance with passion for your God, I believe. Driscol has an opinion, and I am happy for him for his opinion and important perspective. But, look at the scripture and be careful to frame things based on our cultures view of a man as an ultimate fighter. A real fighter is one who has a cause other than being paid by money and fame to be watched in a caged ring, half-naked by other men. A real fighter is one who is there to protect his family, nation's borders and godly ideals. I worship a fighter who is there for us, not there to be watched beating up others for no reason other than entertainment. I'll punch you if you disagree with me, too!;)

[SaintLewis]

Driscol has an opinion, and I am happy for him for his opinion and important perspective. But, look at the scripture and be careful to frame things based on our cultures view of a man as an ultimate fighter. A real fighter is one who has a cause other than being paid by money and fame to be watched in a caged ring, half-naked by other men. A real fighter is one who is there to protect his family, nation's borders and godly ideals. I worship a fighter who is there for us, not there to be watched beating up others for no reason other than entertainment. I'll punch you if you disagree with me, too!;)

To defend Driscoll, the way he states things make him - although entertaining at times - also all too easy to misunderstand. Having followed him for years (I've heard at least 4 years of his sermons, read both his books, and innumerable blogs/articles, your definition of what a true God's man should be is pretty much exactly the point that he's getting at - one who provides for and protects his family, and stands up for the word of God and Godly ideals.

[El Ben]

Wild at Heart by John Eldredge is another great book on this whole subject of men being men . I didn't really like it at first, but then I realized that I didn't like it because it challenged me, then I started liking it and applying it.

It can get to be a touchy subject sometimes, admitting (as a man) that you aren't the best man you can be at times.

[russhutto]

Yeah, I almost quoted from Wild At Heart in my other post, but it was getting lengthy, so I had mercy.

I like the part in the book that talks about a man offering his strength and rising to the occasion, and the woman being vulnerable and opening herself to him.

It's a very intimate portrait of one of our most intimate acts as humans, but it's a beautiful picture of our relationship with Jesus. If one is grossed out by it, then maybe one is looking at it with the wrong glasses on?

Worship is not only "offering" to God gifts of gratitude for what He's done. It is not only a "response" to His actions. From my understanding, worship is being honest, being vulnerable, being open to God's strength because of WHO HE IS. There is a reason that one of the most "common" forms of worship within and outside of the Biblical worship is being prostrate before the object of worship. It's a sign of humility, of lowering oneself before the greatness of the one worshiped.

I think in our society, as posters before have been saying, the ideals of manhood in the culture's view, and the ideals of manhood in God's view are somewhat different. However, I do believe that the culture's view of man is not an absolute opposite to God's view, but a twisted, perversion, a dim shadow, of what it should be. Why? Because the enemy of our souls wants to "castrate" us as men. He wants us to be powerless and empty, believing we are full of vigor and strength. I believe that part of the enemy's scheme is to feminize the church, while OVER masculinizing (is that a word?) the world, creating a blatant distrust and standoffishness of tough guys who are not Believers to the "feminine" (perceived) guys who are Believers.

This is not the only problem within the church. Obviously, there's a slew of others, but one of the main problems in our culture is fatherless-ness. Men are pursuing the tough guy route, while leaving their families behind, creating an entire generation of men who have no father. Thus, the entire generation gets trapped in a cycle of distrusting male figures, and modeling their own masculinity by what is found in popular culture. We need mentors. We need fathers. We need real men to father real men, physically and spiritually, in families, and in the church family.

[El Ben]

Well-said.

I heartily agree 100%.

[stephen_can_man]

In regards to song selection I try as best to support the message. It's easier to use a set of songs, familiar and new, that are thematic in choosing how to lead people to Christ. Being a servant as a worship leader is the hardest part. I try to incorporate all of these things on a rotation in our weekly worship set:

Multiple tempos
Theme
Songs that men like
Songs that women like
Secular songs
Standing and sitting songs
Performance and worship songs
Interactive/anthemic Songs
Reflective/Contemplative
Old and New
Songs that we have written

I try to let my song choices follow what the pastors and staff have decided is the direction for that week/series. Then I filter it through the talent of the musicians I am working with. Keeping the above things in mind and being intentional about who you are trying to lead with each element is important. In the times when unchurched people normally come to church, we incorporate elements that are more familiar to them. We plan our messages and series around those influx times or just after a series on evangelism. A good relationship with the senior pastor and a great creative team can help with reaching diverse groups. But remember...you can only reach so many people at a time, if you scatter too much, you will lose them all. But, if you get too narrow in your reach, others will be left out. You can reach men if you are intentional. The place where most worship leaders (and pastors) fail is in the planning, preparation and focus of the service. Creative types usually arent good at organization, ever see a tye dyed shirt fit a pattern? Nevertheless, if you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Now its time for me to go make disciples...and plan a meeting!

[stephen_can_man]

sorry my last post ended up in the wrong place. somewhere we were talking about crafting a service to reach men...

[BillyChia]

"I would rather be both the warrior Kind David and the worshiper David who played his harp and disrobed to the horror of his wife." (Written by Rich, the quote deal is not working for me.)

I was just thinking about David today and this odd dichotomy. The last time I read Kings all I could think was "Man, David's a pansy."

It's hopeful for me to think how God made a wuss like David such a powerful warrior and king. I think maybe he can take a wuss like me and do something powerful as well.

[ErcPreach]

This is not an earth-shaking response to this thread, but when I read the title, I was reminded of what I learned in seminary about John & Charles Wesley. Charles was the musician of the family, and sometimes critic, but he really "caught it" from Brother John when he penned "Jesus, Lover of My Soul" - "let me to thy bosom fly!" Apparently that was a little bit racy for John, but the song is still around after all these years, maybe not at every Christian concert, but sung in some quarters.

I agree about some of the images in many of the worship tunes today. There seems to be a very thin line between religious ecstasy and sexuality, and some get the two mixed up. If anyone reallly wants to hear songs that touch the heart of men, just go to a Promise Keepers conference. I remember several years ago at a PK conference in Atlanta in which some of the older hymns with a modern touch literally touched the heavens and ushered us into the throne room when the thousands of men lifted their hearts and voices to God, with tears streaming down their cheeks. It all depends upon the anointing of the Holy Spirit, amen? But masculine imagery is definitely needed in praise & worship circles!

[Klampert]

Honetly I think this is changing...I think more and more men are liking church. Our worship has changed from the old vineyard hossana stuff where it was all lovey dovey...honey on my lips verbage to more masculine verbage.

The issue really comes down to is church as a whole in the last 20 years has become very feminine.

Men like man stuff...Im not saying that every guy should be handed a sword at the door, but they have to feel like when they come in that they would not be embarrassed telling buddies at work about it.

[russhutto]

We just had a UFC party at our venue, and there were many new faces. Of course, this wasn't a worship service, per se. But it was an opportunity to meet new friends, maybe bond over a little mono a mono ultimate fighting, and just generally provide something that our non-believer male friends would enjoy attending.

It went well. We had about 30 men in attendance, the majority of them coming from the gym where our pastor trains...yes....he trains in MMA. Our church also "sponors" the water coolers at that same gym, so every time dudes grab a drink, they see "House of Joy" staring back at them.

Personally, I'm scared to jump in the octagon, but it's fun for our pastor, and he really sees it as an extension of our church body.

Cool, eh?

[Klampert]

wow an Ufc party...how cool...Im not much of a fighter guy...but how stinkin cool

[El Ben]

Holy crap! I LOVE UFC!!! That might be one of the coolest things I've ever heard of. Also, my pastor is the local gym mascot. He's pretty much one of the swollest guys ever. His arms are bigger than my head.

[fmckinnon]

I'm 'wondering what UFC is?

[russhutto]

UFC = Ultimate Fighting Championship...

You know where 2 guys get inside a cage and bash each other 'til bloody and toothless...

You know the "sport" our wives HATE!

UFC is Mixed Martial Arts. It's like the best of wrestling (real wrestling), kick boxing, jujitsu, judo, boxing, and other lesser known forms of martial arts like sambo, and other martial arts of international origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC

Haha. Actually it's becoming more and more mainstream, and at our venue we're all about taking what people are interested in and using it as a drawing card for "relational" events.

[noddablogger]

I think the "men hate going to church book" is a excuse for men to live a pride-full life. Worship is about things like: submitting to God, Giving worth to God, hearing gods will, sacrifice and Yes intimacy with God. Men(myself included) struggle with this concept/reality. That doesn't mean we are exempt from communing with God and trying to know him intimately. I am a beer drinking, sport watching, peel out in your car kind of guy, (I occasionally even eat hot wings and very spicy stuff!!)but I know that God wants to have an intimate realtionship with me and I strive to understand how the respond to that.

The problem is we are seeing this "intimacy" as physical in a human sense. God is connecting with us in our Spirit not our physical bodies. This changes what intimacy is. Men see this as a male female(sensual) encounter- deal. When I have an intimate encounter with God I sense his power AND friendship. I agree with the earlier post refering to God as both powerful and a friend.

Another point that hasn't been made: In every congregation there are both male and FEMALEs present.
If we take out the freindship/intimacy songs-we are only picking songs for the inept, macho, dudes who probably won't respond to ANY song.(laced with sarcasm!!) We must pick songs that will help men, women and ,in larger churches, multiple-generations worship God.

We should do a mix of both types of songs. Personally I feel led to pick songs depending on where I feel God wants to take the congregation on any given Sunday. I may have a propensity for "Butt kicker" songs. But worship is not about my preference. This is a tough lesson I learned LONG AGO!!

To sum up my opinion- The book is lame!! I read it

The author should team up with Rick Warren to write a new
book: The purpose driven testosterone life!!! LOL

[KingsCourt]

I think the reason that Men don't go to Church, is that there aren't enough pastors that are willing to stare out at an audience of men, and tell it like it is.

I need someone willing to hit me between the eyes with the truth. I need someone to grab the sin in my heart by the throat, and strangle it with their words.

I have several pastors like that at the Church I currently attend. They are funny, sensitive straight shooting men and even one woman, who are not afraid to talk about what is happening to our world, and what the questions are that we all struggle with daily.

They are willing to broach the hard subjects with honesty and with suggestions for solutions which are found in the Bible, and Jesus Christ.

They recommend passages in the Bible and even books like "The Case for Christ", "The Case for Faith", and "Wild at Heart" which help support Christians who struggle with their faith, and being a man.

Bottom line, it is a war that we are in against the evil one, on a daily basis, and if we aren't fighting it, we are losing it.

[SaintLewis]

I think the "men hate going to church book" is a excuse for men to live a pride-full life.
Worship is about things like: submitting to God, Giving worth to God, hearing gods will, sacrifice and Yes intimacy with God.

Yes, it is - and as long as a church maintains that healthy balance they probably won't struggle too much with having male involvement - it's the congregations that emphasize the "intimacy with God" to an extreme, and to the lack of those other things, that 'real men' (figure of speech) tend to not be interested int



The problem is we are seeing this "intimacy" as physical in a human sense.

Since I can only imagine that this is in reference to Jimmy's & I's posts, can I say this: I don't think that intimacy is physical as such, which is why I can understand why folks (like Jimmy, and sometimes myself) can be so critical of some songs that seem to speak of it in such a way. That's all.



Another point that hasn't been made: In every congregation there are both male and FEMALEs present.
If we take out the freindship/intimacy songs-we are only picking songs for the inept, macho, dudes who probably won't respond to ANY song.(laced with sarcasm!!) We must pick songs that will help men, women and ,in larger churches, multiple-generations worship God.

I agree with you - balance is the key (this should be my tagline: I think I say it in almost every thread): balance! balance! balance!

[free_by_grace]

Below is excerpts from a blog I wrote on Father's Day about our church, which has an uncharacteristically high male attendance... Maybe there's something in it to help another church increase its "testosterone presence"

Sunday, June 17, 2007

A church that has men

This morning our pastor recognized Father's Day by describing the male strength of our church...
...The church I attend is different. Looking out on the crowd I'd say we have close to 50% male attendance. What a blessing this is... men who are interested in things of God. Our men's ministry is completely volunteer-run, no paid men's ministry pastor. There is a team of men who have a passion for ministring to men who share the leadership roles, and there are man-friendly activities, accountability groups, and many many opportunities for men to get involved all over the church.
MAN - the Men's Adventure Network is one of the arms of the men's ministry, and its goal is to get men together to do manly activities like fishing, archery, hunting, hiking, bowling, etc. One of the activities coming up for MAN is a shooting activity, a.k.a. target practice. Unfortunately it was announced in the bulletin as a "MAN shooting activity"... on Father's Day.
It gives me a sense of pride to be involved in a church where the male role is so present and active. I would hope that other churches can learn from a church like this where men play a vital role and love to attend church. I don't know what all makes it so successful, but I am sure thankful for that...

[El Ben]

Anyone up for a TWC all-guy-no-girls-allowed-because-they-have-cooties-fishing trip? I'm only half-kidding. I could definitely dig some off-shoring with some of you cats.

"some of you"= no one tell Shannon that he's not invited.

:)

[Klampert]

Id love a get together...anybody live in the north east? .lol

[SaintLewis]

"some of you"= no one tell Shannon that he's not invited.

:)

Awww.
That makes me sad.
I used to love fishing but haven't been even once since moving down here.
Now I've lost my only chance.
:-(

[russhutto]

deep sea fishing makes me sick...literally...heh.

[fmckinnon]

shannon -
I'll take u, man! It's sinful to live here and not go fishing! We'll use El_Ben to chum up the water.

[russhutto]

Manly men love going to church.

[El Ben]

AAAAAHHHH!

Say ***NO*** to necroposting!!! Especially at 1:30 AM!

[russhutto]

AAAAAHHHH!

Say ***NO*** to necroposting!!! Especially at 1:30 AM!


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=necroposting (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=necroposting)

Dang it. I'm a noob if I necropost. I guess the fact that this topic is STILL a sticky was bugging me...at 1:30 a.m!!!

Anyways, questions:

1) What are some practical ways we can involve men in ministry?

2) What types of special events have you used to target men?

3) Do you have a specific men's ministry in your faith community?

4) What ways have been successful in reaching men?

5) What ways have been unsuccessful in reaching men?

*** I guess I'm looking for some experiential and practical ways that we as a larger community have tried, succeeded and failed at in engaging men and integrating them into our faith families.

[telecaster55]

Without going into the whole "How do we present Christ to a lost world, particularly men?" debate, I will say that the lyrics of the song in the original post are extremely personal, smack of an esoteric kind of experience that no one else can indulge in, and border on the "Jesus is my boyfriend" kind of lyric (not necessarily thinking on a sexual level here). I would NEVER use those lyrics in my church.

Back in the "Jesus Revolution" days, people liked to talk about how Jesus "made me higher than I'd ever been before" (also a song lyric). To that, Randy Matthews once said, "Jesus isn't just another high to get you through the night." To which I would add, "Jesus isn't just another boyfriend to go out on a date with."

[fmckinnon]

Hey,
Great post - thanks for reviving this thread! I tend to agree - more and more I'm understanding this point of view and I notice how this can be very true!

[mandyt]

When I saw the phrases "moving to the rhythm" and "spread wide" I just about fainted. Lyrics like these leave little doubt: today's praise music targets love-starved women. (Gals buy about 75% of the praise and worship CDs) I don't know any man who follows Christ for his "intoxicating fragrance."


What a discussion! wow..... I didn't have the time to go through every page of this, so I'm not sure if this has been stated yet:

"Your Love is Extravagant" was written by a man....Darrell Evans. :eek:

I guess there's at least one guy out there who's following Christ for His "intoxicating fragrance."

[Mike Darley]

Okay, who let the skirt on the all guy's thread? ********Stevie Nature takes a puff on his manly stogey******

[mandyt]

Okay, who let the skirt on the all guy's thread? ********Stevie Nature takes a puff on his manly stogey******

LOL!!!!

I wear pants when I lead worship, too! ;)

[C Hutcheson]

Don't you miss those horse-drawn carriage days where men worked in the fields and went off to war, and the music of the day had to be performed 'live' and there were no CD's or MP3's or streaming audio? Oh, for the days to return when guys had to "nail it" the first time in the studio! Yep, the men were men, the women were women, much unlike today where the men are women and the women are men, and the poor kids grow up not knowing National League from American League, Homer Simpson from Lebanese.

Which, of course, I've been a part of MANY churches and have been involved with leadership where the general thought by the pastors and leadership is somewhat like this... "Musicians are unbalanced pansies with strange tendencies, unmanageable, highly charged emotionally, prone to outbursts, and they are a means to an end (of the church service.) Musicians & singers are more prone to homosexuality because they are more expressive & artistically inclined. They need to be controlled or the service will get out of hand."

The previous quotation is a paraphrase of numerous statements I've been privy to over the years having been closely involved with various members of church leadership. There seems to be a particularly strong leaning in the previous train-of-thought within the churches & leadership associated with Rhema Bible School (based on my experiences). This is not to say that the statement does not warrant some truth! Musicians and singers usually [I]are[I] weirdos and creeps (and I include myself in that group - that being musicians, not weirdos & creeps.) But seriously, we are usually more sensitive to certain things being artistic in nature, so we are looked at differently, and we also see things differently from most.

This has been a very interesting thread for me, because I see a generic pattern within the praise & worship community in the U.S. that we don't really investigate, and this thread is a good start. We've all seen the ultra-expressive dancers, flag folk, wailers, wide-eyed and teary-eyed altar huggers, and those who just generally walk or dance around gracefully as if their fluid movements are invoking some sort of spiritual energy. (And we wonder why we are even having this discussion in the first place!) Don't get me wrong, I have had my times of dance - sometimes wild and uninhibited for over an hour at a time, by myself in the church sanctuary late at night, and even once outside in the back yard. My dancing times before the Lord have for the most part been alone with no one else around - because they would have thought I'd lost my mind. There have been other times when the children at the church got a celebratory train going around the sanctuary, everybody holding hands and running around the sanctuary during worship, and I joined right in (and was the only adult to do so.) So I'm not being critical of the ultra-expressive. But we've all seen the folk who are always moving in slow-motion during worship, rubbing "air anointing" on folks when they are praying for them, and all sorts of things not "normal" to un-churched folk.

Recently, at a men's meeting that my dad attends, there was prayer for a newer individual in the group, who quite honestly wasn't even good & saved yet. There was one older fellow, a visitor, obviously of the older, Jesus movement "loving" persuasion, who came over & started praying for this unsaved fellow who had asked for prayer. Well, this well meaning elder gentleman started rubbing his hands on the unsaved man's legs in one of those smooth, mystical ways as if imparting something or coating his legs with a spiritual ooze that will guide & keep him walking upright. Well, it's all fine & dandy, I suppose. But even my dad noticed how strange and just plain goofy this appeared - and my dad's been in full-gospel churches for over 30 years. Why is it we have to be or do these crazy, fluid, spooky & mystical movements & expressions - especially when visitors are around? Is it our own way of trying to emotionally or physically or spiritually be "intimate" with the Father, or others for that matter? How much of it is necessary? How much of it is just a show? How much of it is just simply what we've learned? How much of it is actually instructed by the Holy Spirit?

Maybe I think too much, and I'm not trying to be critical here, but it's no wonder we aren't winning that many folks out of the world. We really do act strangely at times. Christ is real, healing is real, love is real. Why do we Charismatics always feel the need to be "spiritual" in the feminine / love / compassion / ultra-emotionally hightened sense during worship? Is it because we don't feel love or haven't felt love or passion before in other areas of our lives and are missing out & trying to find it in this avenue? Are we not fulfilled in our daily walk with the Lord and are seeking more in our means of worship? It just appears to me - at times - that we seek something that we should already have, or should be walking in, other than in a worship service.

And I suppose my argument, or "beef", if one might say so, is that we seem to get all goofy during worship services, and I'm sure that's part of the reason why this thread was started in the first place. Do we really need to act like we're moving in slow motion, or have the expressions on our faces like we are constipated and are greatly in need of relief? How much of the different "expressions" are actually necessary in public worship? How much of television and media has affected our worship, with all the amplified emotions of daytime drama and flagrantly intensified scenes in movie after movie?!?

I can see it now... This could start a whole other thread in regards to our outer worship and how it affects the evangelism of those visiting within our churches, because inevitably some will laugh at our outer forms of expression, while some will simply be confused, while yet others will simply wipe their hands of us and write us off as utterly goofy, and some might actually think we're into some psych-e-dellic spiritual trip, and want to come along!

I hope y'all don't think I'm nuts. I just look at things from a strangely practical point of view, or either a practically strange point of view. All comments welcome, and subject to a strangely practical - or practically strange reply.

[C Hutcheson]

I wanted to mention once that I was in a Morningstar associated service, and the young woman leading worship, bless her heart, was obviously in that ultra-expressive, far-out hippie vibe, which is cool. I have nothing against that. But it caught me as quirky when she "called on the blood of the Indian warriors" during a section of prophetic worship that was flowing into a war-like theme.

Now, for those who are un-initiated in prophetic type of worship, and just say you've been a good ol' Baptist all your life, then you come into a worship service like this - the music is good, the folks are into it, they are having a good time, the words of the songs are good & uplifting, and then the hippie-vibe chick up front leading worship calls on the "blood of the Indian warriors".........

Uhm, does anyone else find that a little off-base? I've been around the weirdest of the weird, and this one threw me for a loop. How much more would this sound odd to a visitor? I mean, this wasn't even Biblically sound - so who knows how it would sound to someone not familiar with a prophetic worship service??? I mean, just how goofy are we willing to get before people realize, "Hey guys, this ultra-freedom form of worship isn't particularly getting us any closer to the throne or winning any large number of souls."

From an evangelistic standpoint, the feminine worship ain't gonna be drawing in any local rednecks. But then, I would never want to inhibit or prohibit someone's freedom of expression to Daddy. But there is a time & a place. I would rather get goofy & dance like a wild man before God on my own, and maybe say crazy things that would be relevant to me and no one else, rather than subject the whole crowd to something that might be well meant, but not necessarily Biblically sound. Just my crazy thoughts here....

[russhutto]

Hey Chuck,

I'm liking your train of thought here. I think an important question would be to define what is "goofy" and what is "appropriately wild" in worship settings, AND which setting (corporate or individual) are most of the "expressions" of worship that are mentioned in the Bible actually expressed...

[Mike Darley]

You bring up a good point. I became a believer in a Charismatic church and saw some of the weirdest stuff. I got into a little trouble w/ the law and my mom forced me to go. Let me tell you, I wouldn't have come back if I wasn't forced. Anyway, God was gracious and I became a believer. One of the issues I had in personal evangelism was that if I had a friend become a believer I was scared to invite him to church. We learn in 1 Cor. 14 that our goal in our services is to build up one another. I'm not sure waiving our arms around wildly or rubbing the annointed air really serves this purpose. Maybe we want start up another thread on this. I think it might be fun to have a post on the worst of the worst of what we've seen in church. Let's not limit it to charismatic churches. I've seen some bad stuff in all types of churches.

[C Hutcheson]

Maybe it would be a good idea to expound upon the weird stuff we've seen. We don't want to focus on the negative or the crazy stuff that has happened, but maybe it will help us learn what to look for, who we are, where we came from, and where we're going (and also to satisfy my own curiosity of what happens in other churches!!!)

[ErcPreach]

Let's face it guys and gals - our God's ways are not our ways, amen? If Jesus, for instance, was around today, can you imagine the uproar it would cause if He used plain out old spit to bring a miracle about? Or how about washing in a particular river to cleanse a leper in the case of brother Elisha? When I get on the other side, there are a lot of stuff I want to ask Father, but probablly there won't be any need at that point! I remember one night at the Brownsville revival when a young lady shot arrows at God knows what all the service. And another time I was attending a service in which what appeared to be gold dust was all over the place. Or for that matter, how about just getting knocked down on the floor and appearing as a dead person for however many minutes or hours. It's happened all down through history. The good John Wesley was amazed at people being thunderstuck (as he called it) in his services, which was clearly not of the Anglican tradition. If we get hung up on the manifestations, rather than the Manifester, we can eventually rationalize ourselves right out of the faith camp. All I know is God is God and if He chooses to do weird stuff (in our thinking), then so be it. The danger comes when people start gauging the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness of a worship service by whether or not somebody keels over, dances, balances beans on his/her nose, etc. When we consider our thinking ability and God's grand plans for His people, we come to a stone wall eventually - kinda like a gnat trying to grasp the principles of nuclear physics. God is God - we are not. Thank you, Lord! But what is the purpose of these strange things? Are they to be used as evangelistic tools or is it being obedient to God? Are we temporarily devoid of our logic for the sake of the gospel? Who knows? It's like a song I used to play in a dance band many life times ago, "It's Not for Me to Say!". I know I chased a lot of rabbits in this diatribe, but how sovereign is our God, and how much free-will do we have? And when should we apply it and under what circumstances when it come to worship? Let God be God and every man/woman a liar!

[russhutto]

Right on Erc,

I think the original topic is in danger of being hijacked by this new branch of ideas here (http://www.theworshipcommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4817#post4817), so I think we should carry this conversation on in another topic thread (http://www.theworshipcommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4817#post4817).

[chipshot0701]

its all about the C WORD!!!

COMMITMENT, COMMITMENT, COMMITMENT!!!!!!

ASK ANY SINGLE WOMAN OVER THIRTY, SHE'LL TELL YA......
MEN HATE COMMITMENTS!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAH

[chipshot0701]

I would love to fly down there and join all of you for some deep sea fishing!!!!!

when is the best time?

I just ate some Thrasher Shark that was sent up to a friend of mine and it was YUMMMMYYY

peace n love!
mike

[robert.adams]

Women are more relational than men. Women will share how they're feeling, men will swap stories about work. Christianity is built around relationships, the kind of behavior women are more naturally comfortable with than men. Jesus was tough when he had to be, and he wept when he needed to. He took his throne at the right hand of the Father, and he submitted himself to death on a cross. If men became more comfortable with the Jesus that wept, and the church became more comfortable with the Jesus who conquered sin and death, our churches would be full of men.

[Brad Loser]

I saw this thread and skimmed through it - - - my, my, my...certainly has stirred some strong opinions. Not sure if mine is strong, but I'll throw it in the mix.


Jesus went after men...we need to as well! We shouldn't ignore women - BOTH genders are equal in God's sight and carry equal importance and significance. With that said - our church services (painting with a broad stroke here) are not very masculine. In a lot of churches the services are built around subjective experiences and emotions - - which WE THE LEADERS have created by using certain songs, talking a certain way, lighting a certain a way etc...

I think that we would all agree that women are much more subjective and men are much more objective (again, a broad stroke). If that is the case - then we NEED to be doing songs and plan creative elements that contain much more objective truth about God and His character and His works. When we paint a clear and compelling picture of who God is and what He has done - THAT WILL capture our hearts and produce the deepest of affections and emotions, BUT IT MUST BE ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH.....which most men "get" a lot easier. Sadly, to many modern worship songs focus on my needs, my desires, my feelings, my response - and too little on magnifying Gods greatness and recounting his great and mighty deeds - the greatest of which was the crushing of His Son on our behalf so that we can approach this awesome God with confidence....now that sounds masculine!

[robert.adams]

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. They will all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." John 6:44-45.

"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever." 1 Chronicles 28:9

God has given to us the leading of worship, but it is God who draws us and those we lead to him. God's Spirit in us teaches us what to do in worship when we are willing to listen and humbly learn. It is for us to seek God and magnify Him before worshippers, encouraging them to devote themselves to glorifying God. It is for God to draw those whose hearts are humbled and pure to Him.

Is God's church, those who gather in His name, inspiring "wholehearted devotion and a willing mind?" Are the hearts of men motivated to devotion to God? Are men submitting to be led by God, or insisting on leading others in their (our) own strength? God did not mistakenly create men as they are. He is pleased with His work of creation, and wants to use men as he made them (us) to advance His kingdom. (Gen 1:28,31) For men, this issue demands self-reflection and openness before God.

[yod1948]

men need to be challenged and women need to feel secure.

it's more than the music but the popularity of particular songs reflect who is in attendance

[Pastor Andy]

Please check out my book "Plugging Into Real Worship" at www.aplogansr.com. The book illustrates examples of how people (both men and women) worshiped God, and how He responded to them. Men are more practical in that they look for what benefit they will receive. This book provides them a look at benefits a loving God gives to those who worship him. The Holy Spirit compelled me to write the book to educate spectators in hopes of making them active participants.

[MeredithLCurtis]

Great idea for a book, Pastor Andy! Men and women certainly do respond differently! Be blessed!:cool:

[chrisjane]

It really seems that unsaved men despise and fear the emotionalism that goes on in churches, especially charismatic churches.

[windbag]

I haven't had the time to get through all eleven pages of posts on this subject, but wanted to chime in with a couple thoughts. First, in response to the initial post, there was a period of time when many P&W songs were becoming very sensual. I'm fully aware of the Song of Solomon, so somewhere in there there is a balance to all this. I'm uncomfortable with emphasizing that element.

There is an intimacy with God, but I don't think it's physical, erotic, or sensual. Jesus indicated that our glorified state doesn't make provision for a sexual relationship, at least that we won't pursue it. P&W music has bounced off the guardrails over the years, testing the limits and coming back to the centrality of worship of Almighty God. Songs like this are fringe elements.

Some of our notions of how men and women think are cultural, not science. Women don't necessarily have a bent toward teaching or spirituality, it's our culture over the past couple of hundred years that promotes that idea. I'm not trying to sell anything, but let me recommend the book Missing From Action by Weldon Hardenbrook. It was written pre-Promise Keepers and all the men's group stuff that has descended on us the past twenty years. Hardenbrook nails the American male right between the eyes, but without condemnation and offers insight into how to live a godly, manly life without caving into the pressure to become girly-men.

For you women who don't like being called "sons of God", well, you only have to endure that here on earth. We men have to deal with being the bride of Christ for eternity.:)

[Hickeroar]

There's a great book out kinda on this topic, titled "No more Christian nice guys."

[Hickeroar]

It really seems that unsaved men despise and fear the emotionalism that goes on in churches, especially charismatic churches.

Well, Christianity is foolishness to the lost, yaknow? I can understand it in that context.

I think even to saved men, charismatic ideas are intimidating. Getting true freedom in worship and your spiritual life requires a sacrifice, and for so many men sacrificing pride is nigh unto impossible. It's a process, sometimes long, that men must go through. Those outer "traditional" layers have to be shucked and it's a painful process.

[free_by_grace]

At our church they encourage you to start a small group or ministry rather than wait for the church to start one... and as such we are likely going to create another men's group focused on an outdoor activity: Geocaching. It's a popular treasure hunt game where you find something hidden at coordinates.

Creativity and a little initiative and it could be a great opportunity to build community within some of the men of the church and also bring in some unchurched men to something not so churchy. They might not enjoy music and a sermon, but getting out with guys to do something fun and be able to share about life and pray for each other might be just the right in-road.

[chipshot0701]

well done!

[alangustin]

I just now got around to checking out this thread. What awesome discussion has taken place here! I confess I haven't read every single post, so if I repeat someone else's thought, forgive me.

The pastor and a couple of the elders at the last church I was involved in really wanted to address the issue of why it was so hard to get men to come to church. They tried this and that, and failed at this and that. There was a men's group meeting on Sunday nights, but it was an offshoot of a ministry from outside the local church. Leaders from this minstry, "Real Man Ministries" would come up from Phoenix (a 70 mi. drive) to facilitate these meetings - which took the men through a year-long journey of discipleship. At the end of the year, the men would receive a sword. Not some whimpy, dime-store sword, but a full-blown, very sharp, very expensive sword and wood wall mount. How's THAT for manly?

The problem is, it really didn't do anything to get more men to come to the regular services on Saturday night or Sunday morning. So, even though "Real Man Ministries" could be considered a success, it was a failure regarding increasing the number of men joining the church, or even getting men to show up.

Toward the end of my season at this church, I saw the pastor finally get a point that I had come to believe was true...

It takes an investment of time to effectively form relationships with men before trying to get them to come to church regularly. I think this reveals a basic dysfunction of many churches today. Everyone wants to think "fast-food" culture as it pertains to attracting people to God's house. Discipleship has practically fallen by the wayside, due to the "busy" nature of today's society.

If it isn't convenient, it won't fly. Now, the question should be asked, "Convenient for whom?" Should discipleship happen according to the leader's schedule - or the one being discipled? I realize this dilemma cannot neccessarily be solved in a cut-and-dry fashion. But I suggest that it is we, "churched" ones, that are being lazy.

"Give up everything and follow me"? What does that really mean to us? Am I willing to give up on MY agenda to offer my time and energy to pour into another man who is lost? I have to answer that question; and when it is asked of me (either by another person, or the Holy Spirit), I am ashamed of my answer. What does MY "outreach" really look like?

Back to worship music and its effect on men...
I believe that men who express their disdain for the "Jesus is my Lover" type of songs don't really know Jesus. Either that, or they are just looking for an excuse not to come to church. In either case, hasn't the church fallen short in the area of true discipleship? Once one truly comes to know Jesus, all these arguments about songs fall away and become unimportant. Of course we need to consider the seeker, and those new to the church. THESE are the ones we should try to "cater" to.

As a guy, I think I would find it irritating if every single song was telling me to "kiss the heart of my Lover - and by the way - your Lover is another guy".
By the same token, how would the the women feel if every song was "Mighty Warrior", or "The Battle Belongs To The Lord" type songs? As with all things church, there needs to be balance.

Just my humble opinion.

[Smitty]

Great comments, Alan.

You nailed it.

Smitty

[Pastor Andy]

That was one of the major points of Jesus' ministry style. He poured Himself into 12 men...and look what happened? My prayer has been and continues to be, Father, give me 12 men so that I can do likewise.

Pastor Andy Logan
All Nations Word and Worship Center
www.aplogansr.com
www.aplogansr.wordpress.com

[simplyfloyd]

I see your observation, and for most churches you are right. However, there is a generation that is rising up, and I am apart of it, that is extremely miliatant in our worship.

In the bible, the levites, the tribe of judah, they would go crazy dancing in the streets, blowing their trumpets, and calling on the holy one with all types of songs, and dance...

Where is that type of praise in the church? most of us sit there while worship teams consistantly cosey songs that make people feel at home...

watch out though, there is a movement that is sweeping the nation, the army is being gathered and the instrumentalists, the singers, and the dancers are being trained and the leaders are taking their place where the whole realm of worship in the church will change, or churches will die.

Simply because churches are not getting to the throne room of God...

sorry...I totally went of here...my bad....what was the question?

[fmckinnon]

simplyfloyd - that's awesome - how 'bout sharing some of the songs that stir up this in you?

[MarkSooy]

simplyfloyd -- Could you please give some kind of more specific justification how your inferences to Old Testament worship apply to the New Testament church? Anything that shows your point from the New Testament would be appreciated -- since I don't recall a "militant worship" being part of the New Testament church...remember there are distinctions between the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Body of Christ as the people of God.

[windbag]

I see your observation, and for most churches you are right. However, there is a generation that is rising up, and I am apart of it, that is extremely miliatant in our worship.

In the bible, the levites, the tribe of judah, they would go crazy dancing in the streets, blowing their trumpets, and calling on the holy one with all types of songs, and dance...

Where is that type of praise in the church? most of us sit there while worship teams consistantly cosey songs that make people feel at home...

watch out though, there is a movement that is sweeping the nation, the army is being gathered and the instrumentalists, the singers, and the dancers are being trained and the leaders are taking their place where the whole realm of worship in the church will change, or churches will die.

Simply because churches are not getting to the throne room of God...

sorry...I totally went of here...my bad....what was the question?

I appreciate your zeal, but how do you know that "most of us sit there while worship teams consistantly cosey songs that make people feel at home..."?

I work with young people, not as a youth minister, but in my business. Lots of young people. Dozens, maybe hundreds, over the past few years. This militant, in-your-face style of Christianity is contrary to Jesus' teachings, particularly Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount). Our enemy is not other people or other Christians.

The world will know we are Christians by our love for each other, not how loudly we denounce the world system.

[Smitty]

"Militant" worship? Who are you militant against? God?

Smitty

[windbag]

I should have learned by now not to post when I'm in a rush. I didn't complete the thought I started in my previous post...

The reason I brought up the fact that I work with youth is this: many of them are professing believers, and the past 3-4 years in particular, this in-your-face style of Christianity has been very popular and prevalent within that age group. My observation, watching them interact with their peers, is that that approach to evangelism is generally counter-productive. It comes across as very judgmental and harsh. People are turned off by being reminded that they don't measure up.

I've found that people, although they will often deny it on the surface, have a fairly good grasp on the fact that their lives are filled with sin. They generally don't need confirmation on that point. What we, as ministers of reconciliation, can do is offer the solution to their problem...namely, Jesus.

Boldness isn't a fruit of the Spirit, but love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control are. It's hard to fit militant into that list.

Some great Charlie Peacock lyrics:

This is what it's like to be loved
This is what it's like to be forgiven
This is what it feels like to be alive
To be living in a way
Where you don't have to fear
Being zapped by God
'cause you don't measure up
Afterall, that's the point


My $.02

[Smitty]

Great words, windbag. You know, I have a continual struggle with wanting the worship experience to be just as good as I can make it, and God has to constantly remind me that, just as He meets us where we are, that is how we are to present worship to those who seek...where they are. It doesn't have to be perfect, or "new" or "cutting edge"...it just has to BE there.

I would just like to advise Mr. Militant Worship that the bible is literally filled with examples of one of the most important lessons God has ever tried to teach us...that Obediance begets Significance. Only AFTER we are obediant does anything we do have any chance of becoming significant.

MY 2 cents.

Smitty

[milepost13]

...there is a generation that is rising up, and I am apart of it, that is extremely miliatant in our worship.


I went to a church once in OK where most of the men brought their guns in with them...it that what you're talking about?

Seriously, though, if you're really saying "do this...or the church will die" I've got to call you out as a false prophet. I hope that's not what you're saying, but if so, it's a junk message that people have been crying for years (since the beginning of the church) and yet, Christ's bride is still alive and well and growing.

And what the heck does that have anything to do with this thread anyway?

Nate

[rocket955]

I went to a church once in OK where most of the men brought their guns in with them...it that what you're talking about?

Seriously, though, if you're really saying "do this...or the church will die" I've got to call you out as a false prophet. I hope that's not what you're saying, but if so, it's a junk message that people have been crying for years (since the beginning of the church) and yet, Christ's bride is still alive and well and growing.

And what the heck does that have anything to do with this thread anyway?

Nate

I don't think men hate going to church just because of the music. Early in my walk being in church was like going to a quilting bee. It seemed like the church was set up by women for women and most of the men had the charm of Mr. Rogers. I grew up in the 60's and at that time American men did not attend church (for what reason I don't know)so church services were built around women and children. Lately I'm seeing the trend reversing. There are no men in the churches that I go to that come off like Mr. Rogers and what I've seen in scripture about Jesus neither did he .He spoke with authority. God took me as I am, and I am as He made me, a man.:)

[matherton]

I am new here and it has been interesting to read this thread. I read this book a couple of years ago and it is a good read. I don't agree with all of what he says but I do find myself siding with him quite a bit.

When I was in college (as a music major) my experience was that many of the guys in the program were not the manliest guys around. Now I am not faulting that at all, God's kingdom needs and uses all kinds of people. It just takes a cursory reading of the New Testament to see many different personalities. Strangely enough when I went to seminary (Southwestern in Ft. Worth) I encountered much of the same thing. I understand that there are exceptions to every rule but I've always been frustrated by this.

In high school I was a baseball/basketball player and also sang in the choir. Needless to say it got exhausting maintaining a presence in both places. I wish I knew why but this has always been an issue.

In my current church we have an inordinate number of law enforcement officers. I would say we have like 30 out of an adult group of 600. Not to mention a good number of blue collar "men’s men". It is almost comical how they check out when we do certain types of songs. I have found that for us the best way to combat this is to do songs that talk primarily about God's greatness, and power like, "Hallelujah" (seven stories up), "Lord of All" (Stanfill), "Great in all the Earth" (Starfield). I also infuse scriptures regularly that talk of God's power, greatness, goodness, and ultimate ability. It seems like when we spend significant time talking about God's "masculine" qualities it is then easier to highlight "feminine" qualities as well.

I know that no one plan will work for everyone but this is how we try to deal with the issue.

[gregrjones]

I'm sorry but I don't see the feminization clearly in the lyrics of the song in I John 3. Just because this passage talks about love doesn't mean that it is framing Christ as our lover as a man and woman would think of each other.

I agree with the original poster that the lyrics of the much of contemporary Christian music is too "male unfriendly". No, I don't think lyrics are the primary reason men stay away from church, but this is a symptom of the larger problem, and that is the softening of the church and its approach to worshipping God as a whole.

[rocket955]

It comes across as very judgmental and harsh. People are turned off by being reminded that they don't measure up.

I agree windbag, That is the main reason I don't like going to church on Fathers Day.

[chipshot0701]

I am 46. Started attending church 6 yrs ago on a regular basis. Before that time I never went to church. Simply because I didn't see the point of it all. It wasn't very interesting or did it offer the excitement that we have come to crave in our lives. ie. fast action sports, a fast paced or a daredevil life style. Church just seemed to be boring. I mean lets face it. Men want to be entertained. Its the culture we live in here in America.

Only when I began to actually study the bible and its meaning did it intrigue me enough to attend regularly and get deeply involved.

Ever notice how the churches with the most growth in attendance offer the big musical stage with dramatic lighting and more excitement? The coffee and snack bars with smaller round tables that have bar stools around them. Hot fresh cookies with windows that give a great view of the landscaping.


Wonder how long it took them to figure that one out? After all, most of my friends would rather be out on their 4 wheelers (quadriphlegic makers) on Sunday mornings then sitting in a boring old church. Actual quote from a friend.

[Robinskeys]

This is just based on observations I've made with my dad and my husband...

If men see all the crap and politics going on in church, they are more likely to say "forget it. this is ridiculous. it's not worth it" while more women have a tendency to stay in order to "redecorate", fix things up, maybe make a difference... or to stay out of guilt... and there aren't many guys out there that stay anywhere out of guilt and 'confused emotions'. :eek: :cool:

I think it goes back to how the church for too many years had an effeminate effect on men. Not all churches, and it wasn't right, but they've been expected to dress up (oh yay), sing 'girly' songs more often than not, sit in a poshly decorated 'sanctuary', even, as others said in previous replys, been made to set aside the men God made them to be to be the idea that someone came up with for the 'perfect Christian man-in-a-box"!

There's also been a distinct lack of true discipleship and accountability on all counts for what roll being a follower of Christ should play in the individual lives of men (or women, families, teens, children... you name it!)...

[TTP7734]

I think for some men it's a little more simplistic than what we've been saying. Alot of guys don't like complicated communication and prefer conversations... sermons that get right to the point. It seems that alot of pastors are concerned about a lack of depth in their men and to a certain extent, their whole congregation. Yet they teach topically and spend twenty minutes saying the same thing six or seven different ways and half of the guys including me are sawing logs. Staying awake for an hour's worth of sermon was never much of an issue when the pastor was teaching cover to cover, expositionally. In those days we got the full counsel of God and couldn't wait to get to church. Most of the guys in our church, at that time, would be dragging the families to church, and not just on Sunday morning! Now days, depth is gone, replaced by the 'Emerging Church'. And hymns, what hymns... how do ya' spell that? If ya' want a real eye opener, down load an audio version of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards and then listen to a sermon from any of our mega churches on TV. What a concept, preaching about the God of the Old Testament! Just my two cents!

[gregrjones]

It seems that alot of pastors are concerned about a lack of depth in their men and to a certain extent, their whole congregation. Yet they teach topically and spend twenty minutes saying the same thing six or seven different ways and half of the guys including me are sawing logs. Staying awake for an hour's worth of sermon was never much of an issue when the pastor was teaching cover to cover, expositionally.

Interesting observations.

I don't think the problem men have is with Pastor's trying to present the same topic in different ways during the sermon. After all, this is exactly what the Bible does. John 3:16 is also found in Genesis 22 (Abraham offers Isaac as a sacrifice) and in the story of Noah and Joseph, etc., etc.,

I see the problem being that it requires creativity to present the same topic in different ways. Most Pastors that I've observed simply aren't creative. And isn't the lack of creativity among Pastors a great sticking point that has been discussed in so many ways in this very forum?

Furthermore, it seems that most Pastors and congregations don't value creativity in a Pastor and understand how it enables them to keep the message interesting by presenting something in a different way.

Expository preaching does reach the analytical person, but there is a reason that even Jesus didn't preach this way. Jesus preached using narratives. The reason that He did this was because a story can reach everyone no matter what their disposition is.

When I was a little kid, I was exposed to Eastern philosophy/religion and Zen Buddhism through the first Star Wars movie. I would have never read a book expositing the subject, but the movie reached me as a kindergardener as well as people who were totally different than I was.

This is the power of art that we Worship Leaders have. Andrew Schlesiger (sp?) said "Let me write the songs of a nation, I don't care who writes its laws." for a reason.

[windbag]

If men see all the crap and politics going on in church, they are more likely to say "forget it. this is ridiculous. it's not worth it"

You're spot on with that observation.

[russhutto]

To me the last few posts about preaching styles and creativity are just symptoms of a much deeper issue.

We, humans (men and women), won't EVER be engaged or grow spiritually if all we expect from our "church" experience is 52 so called life-changing sermons a year.

Sure we need teaching and encouragement, but we've all but created a spiritual fast-food joint by packaging all things "spiritual" into a 1-2 hour package that our attenders can zip in, consume, and zip out.

Don't get me wrong I love church. Let me restate that I love Church. It's just the Sunday gatherings I have a hard time with.

[Smitty]

I COMPLETELY agree with Russ on this!

Church, like all successful relational endeavors, MUST be composed of BOTH "Give" and "Take". Look at it this way:

Give = 1
Take = 2
Church = 3

It takes a 1 and a 2 to make 3. Two ones is not enough. Two twos is too much. There is only ONE way to do it.

Smitty

[TTP7734]

Back to worship music and its effect on men...
I believe that men who express their disdain for the "Jesus is my Lover" type of songs don't really know Jesus. Either that, or they are just looking for an excuse not to come to church. In either case, hasn't the church fallen short in the area of true discipleship? Once one truly comes to know Jesus, all these arguments about songs fall away and become unimportant. Of course we need to consider the seeker, and those new to the church. THESE are the ones we should try to "cater" to.

As a guy, I think I would find it irritating if every single song was telling me to "kiss the heart of my Lover - and by the way - your Lover is another guy".
By the same token, how would the the women feel if every song was "Mighty Warrior", or "The Battle Belongs To The Lord" type songs? As with all things church, there needs to be balance.

Just my humble opinion.

Alan, I think I understand what you're saying, but I still think that the problem is symptomatic of today's church trying to be 'user friendly' and the pastors, who are truly supposed to be teachers, simply not covering the whole Word of God. We sing alot of songs about Jesus, our Savior, our Redeemer, etc, etc, but somehow we've tucked away the God of the Old Testament. How can we fully understand and sing about the characteristic of our Jesus if we don't have a clue about His Father and His characteristics. I still maintain that today's 'teachers' are slacking off if they're not taking us through the whole Bible, cover to cover! Again, just my opinion!

Sure do appreciate your insight, Alan.

[NickAlexander]

I just discovered this thread. (And here I was, thinking I was breaking new ground with the Jesus Is My Boyfriend/How He Loves (http://www.theworshipcommunity.com/forums/random-fellowship-babbling/4008-jesus-my-boyfriend-how-he-loves.html) thread).

I'm still reading thru the epic novel that's listed here, but suffice it to say, I think I have something of merit.

Years ago I was involved with a college campus group that came out of the charismatic renewal. In fact, they had "households", which are kinda like "fraternities", except that they were devoted to radical daily living of the gospel, with daily morning prayer, commitments to stay faithful throughout the year, etc. It was where I had learned guitar, and more importantly, worship.

The songs that we did back then, I'm not sure how many people here would recognize. The vast majority of those songs came out of charismatic covenant communities--a mid-70s to early-90s experiment that still has pockets of life in areas around the world today. These communities were an extension of church, in which several rich businessmen--now believers--all got together and purchased a huge big lot of empty land, plowed a street down it, built houses, and had all these families (some of them quite large), move in. And in addition to church life, there was community engagements, morning prayer, weekly Lord's Day dinner celebrations, men's groups, women's groups, and their own school.

I mention this because, of all the different groups/churches/rallies/conventions/retreats I have attended, there was no group that really touched upon Christian masculinity, in my experience, than those who had attended this group.

I mean, the college group had their own field hockey team, that beat the fraternities' field hockey team. The guys were very astute in sports, very strong in stature, and didn't flinch when it came to things like, paintball.

And this carried thru in the worship. Song titles included: "Go Forth In Great Confidence","God Is Raising An Army", "Born Into A Battle", "Fight the Good Fight of Faith", "We Are Men of Jesus Christ", "Press On", you get the idea.

Here I was, a freshman from a very different place, probably the wimpiest guy on the block, and I was wondering why this group didn't sing "For Those Tears I Died." But I stuck with it, and they grew on me.

Now I look back, some twenty years later, with a wistfulness in my eye. I'm sure there are songs of this sort being written today, but they are few and far between. I look at the growth I incurred when I was part of a men's group, and I find that I'm in the age group where most guys have checked out, and most men who do participate in such are retired. I look at the Promise Keeper albums, and while there are some good ones there, a vast majority are wimpy songs being sung with masculine gusto.

And as a relatively new father, I know I'm going to need all the help I can muster. (But at least modern technology has made me reunite with many of my old friends, along with like minded warriors).

Nick
http://www.nickalexander.com/home

[fmckinnon]

Hey Gang,
If you're on this thread, you'll want to chime in on this roundtable discussion tonight, live. See here:
Worship Leader Roundtable: Join in TONIGHT! : TheWorshipCommunity.Com - Worship Leader Resources, Articles, Forums (http://www.theworshipcommunity.com/worship-leader-roundtable-join-in-tonight/)

[NickAlexander]

I missed the roundtable, but I listened to it in its entirity last night.

It was a good session.

But I wish I was there to ask this question: suppose there does exist worship that appeals to masculine sensibilities... how can anybody know about it?

There's no question that there has been a huge shift in the p&w scene since the mid-90s, where Christian radio has become far more embracing of praise and worship, and indeed, a vast majority of worship leaders gather new songs from radio airplay.

But the current Christian radio format does not target men. It targets thirty-something soccer Moms. They even have a code name for this person: "Becky." (There was a series of articles that addressed this in Christianity Today.)

So I would suspect that if there was a fantastic series of praise songs that speak to masculine spirituality, it would be promoted entirely without the benefit from radio. Which means an entire segment of the worship leader population may not ever be made aware of such songs.

Thoughts?

Nick
http://www.nickalexander.com/home

[mikeymo1741]

I'm not sure it's as much the songs as it is the atmosphere. Both have their weight, of course.


We do several "male" weekends throughout the year - at least two men's encounter weekends, plus a father-and-son campout. Worship is a large part of these events. We don't particularly program "for men." We use the same songs we use in corportate worship with the whole church, and these guys get into it. I've been to men's conferences and seen the same thing.

My conclusion is that the environment is as important as the song. If men hold back when there are women in the room, then the song doesn't matter.

I agree about the radio thing. I can't listen to that stuff.

[yod1948]

But the current Christian radio format does not target men. It targets thirty-something soccer Moms. They even have a code name for this person: "Becky." (There was a series of articles that addressed this in Christianity Today.)



This is why there are so many feminine type of songs...



So I would suspect that if there was a fantastic series of praise songs that speak to masculine spirituality, it would be promoted entirely without the benefit from radio. Which means an entire segment of the worship leader population may not ever be made aware of such songs.

This is already happening at any given moment. Welcome to my world!

[nomad100]

Very passionate on this subject as a warning. I couldn't read the whole thread, but my two biggest complaints about church are Un biblical doctrinal rules, and the emasculation factor. Which i think is relevant to why men don't go. I see a connection between the emasculation factor and divorce being so high in the church.

I didn't grow up in the church, and as soon as i started going mostly girls liked to point out all the things wrong with me. Manners, how i dressed, music i liked, how i kept my hair, how i spoke. When i went to masters commission it was worse because the girls there were extremely overly sheltered. It's been a big stumbling block in my life and caused me to not pursue ministry for many yrs. Until recently where i've had several christian men and woman really poor into my life and make me realize who i am is okay.

It's not just lyrical content, this week a girl picked out music and every song was fluffy sounding. The previous weeks the pastor picked out the music and it was rock'n. Most straight guys don't like to hear fluff. We don't listen to Maria Carrie or who ever is popular now, it hurts our ears.

[stephen_can_man]

Good points Nomad. Maybe I should read a little further back into the posts here, but what about all of us starting a thread with "Men Friendly" songs?

[Robert]

I tend to agree with some of the others on here that these things are only a 'pathetic' excuse. How 'fragile' is the 'Man-hood', of these 'big stong men'?
If they are able to come up with an excuse why they will not attend church, they will. If it is not this excuse, it will only be another.
What it really comes down to, THE TRUTH, is that there is something else they would rather be doing, that God is not important. I will not 'force' my Lord on to someone who does not 'hunger' for Him. 'HE' will not 'force' himself on someone who does not 'hunger' for Him.

[yod1948]

I tend to agree with some of the others on here that these things are only a 'pathetic' excuse. How 'fragile' is the 'Man-hood', of these 'big stong men'?
If they are able to come up with an excuse why they will not attend church, they will. If it is not this excuse, it will only be another.
What it really comes down to, THE TRUTH, is that there is something else they would rather be doing, that God is not important. I will not 'force' my Lord on to someone who does not 'hunger' for Him. 'HE' will not 'force' himself on someone who does not 'hunger' for Him.

Is church attendance a realistic measure of one's dedication to the Lord? I don't think so.

The reason men don't go to church has more to do with rituals and manipulation than "not hungering" for the Lord, imo.

In other words, some men are never going to sit through a religious exercise that holds no reality. When the church gets a grasp on what is important to these men, they will come.

[stephen_can_man]

I tend to agree with some of the others on here that these things are only a 'pathetic' excuse. How 'fragile' is the 'Man-hood', of these 'big stong men'?
If they are able to come up with an excuse why they will not attend church, they will. If it is not this excuse, it will only be another.
What it really comes down to, THE TRUTH, is that there is something else they would rather be doing, that God is not important. I will not 'force' my Lord on to someone who does not 'hunger' for Him. 'HE' will not 'force' himself on someone who does not 'hunger' for Him.

With this line of reasoning, it could just as easily be turned back around and said that you are not hungry to reach people who are astranged from God. I don't think this is true of you and I don't think that men are slackers either, they are just people.

There is a reason why Paul says that we can become all things to all people that we might win some. Musical style, environment, and a lot of other things do influence people who are just coming to Christ or who are young in the faith.

It is also important to make a distinction between the levels of maturity of a person. If a Deacon was ticked off that the music was wimpy and stopped coming to church, then I think that the above statement applies. But is every man at that level of maturity? Should we not be conscious of the different preferences of our church? Not that it is the end all be all, but I think it should factor into our decisions.

[Robert]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Sorry guys. I say it like I see it. If 'Manhood' is so fragile to feel threatened by 'love', then surely it is doomed to crack and break. When it does, look out for the tears men. These tears filled up, flowing over are able to wash us clean. Don't be too hard to feel love, emotion, brokenness.

[Robert]

Some of our wives would love to see us become 'real men'/ men who allow themselves to 'feel'.

[yod1948]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Sorry guys. I say it like I see it. If 'Manhood' is so fragile to feel threatened by 'love', then surely it is doomed to crack and break. When it does, look out for the tears men. These tears filled up, flowing over are able to wash us clean. Don't be too hard to feel love, emotion, brokenness.


My response had more to do with equating "church attendance" with "true faith"

I don't think they are necessarily the same thing.

[NickAlexander]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Sorry guys. I say it like I see it. If 'Manhood' is so fragile to feel threatened by 'love', then surely it is doomed to crack and break. When it does, look out for the tears men. These tears filled up, flowing over are able to wash us clean. Don't be too hard to feel love, emotion, brokenness.Robert, I can only speak for myself, but I was raised on nothing but "love, emotion, and brokenness." It's not enough. It's a huge irony that the feminization of our churches, under the misnomer of "embracing brokenness", is , to me, the central cause of that same brokenness.

If you don't agree, you can go about your own merry way. But don't chalk it up to a flimsy excuse. It betrays a blatant disregard for the needs that many men have today, and the deaf ear that many church leaders have.

Nick
http://www.nickalexander.com/home

[nomad100]

being emotional doesn't make you a real men. Girls are designed to be more emotional than Guys and that is natural. That kind of thinking goes along with the false image of what a Godly man is. My girlfriend is impressed with how in touch with my emotions i am. She was initially attracted to me because of my Masculinity.

You can go on all day and justify why how the church does things is right, but in the end it's has to be judged by it's fruit. If the church is not reaching men it's lacking fruit plain and simple.

My spiritual health is not based on my church attendance, and until recently i stopped going to church for about a yr. I grew more this last yr away from all the church games than i had in along time. When God delivered my from my social anxiety. I was however not outside of the body of Christ, just because i didn't attend church.

[yod1948]

I was however not outside of the body of Christ, just because i didn't attend church.



and that was my point...there are a lot of men like you.


Christian radio is clear about their demographic being women between 18-40. This is the music most people hear and therefore this is the music most churches will choose from.

Since the demographic is aimed at women, it seems natural that less men would relate.



I find that there are men in the church with talent/abilities that the church needs but they are never allowed to use these gifts because it threatens someone's position as an elder or whatever. Men want to "do" things and if they aren't given that opportunity, they will go somewhere that seems to appreciate this God-given need. Often we do better to build outside of the church anyway, imo.

This isn't true in every situation, of course, but it is true in too many of them.

[Robert]

Yod, of course I have heard this before. I reject it completely. We need fellowship. Period. Yes people are able to have 'faith' without attending church, worship, pray together etc. If you or others fel that you are able to stand alone, I will not argue. So be it. I have found personally, that when I connect with a fellowship, a Pastor and people who 'love me'....are concerned for my actual 'growth in the Lord'.....that I have seen and changed things inside of myself. I have had many many misconceptions of what 'I thought' was truth, faith, my walk with the Lord.....exposed as utter misconceptions, delusions of strenth, misunderstandings of scripture etc, etc, etc. There was an old sixties band called 'Blind Faith' who summed this up nicely in a song. "Do what you like".
Who am I Lord? Who am I to suggest what another man should do? I can only testify of the abundant riches that I have received through some of the most amazing fellowship on God's green earth. I can surely 'lead' a horse to water, but in the end it is 'you' who must 'thirst' for the water of life. If anyone has tasted the water of life...what fool would not desire more? Speaking for myself, I will return as often as possible to drink deeply from the well.

[NickAlexander]

Robert,

Nobody is denying about the need for fellowship. What you are advocating is that fellowship be the primary goal, at all costs, even at the cost of death by fluff. What you are ignoring is the very real possibility that fellowship could be maintained and even thrive, if only mens' needs were being addressed--themes similar to what John ("Wild At Heart") Elderedge has eloquently established.

If you so agree that men need fellowship, then I suggest you listen. Hard. You cannot change the reality just because you're fortunate to come to a personal place where you happen to be comfortable.

Nick

[nomad100]

Well most of us see change is needed, how to do go about making a change?

[gregrjones]

I tend to agree with some of the others on here that these things are only a 'pathetic' excuse. How 'fragile' is the 'Man-hood', of these 'big stong men'?

I don't think it's a pathetic excuse.

Why do you think the Bible is so Paternistic? Could it be that the wisdom of God is showing us that a masculine approach to worship is more inclusive of both genders than a more feminine approach?

We can argue as to why, but does this not best explain the masculine dominant presentation God gives of Himself in scripture?

[Don_Z]

Men and why we are left behind.

Since coming to these forums, I have sort of caught the gist that the vast majority of the singers, musicians and worship leaders are focused on the contemporary area of music. I see a lot of discussion on how to move away from the rigid traditions of the past and onward to the flowing youthful feel of the contemporary service.

There are a few things I think should be discussed that perhaps are overlooked or maybe I am just not seeing the back line discussions happening and therefore I become more and more concerned… Are we doing this the right way? Are we leaving people behind for the sake of personal taste?
This discussion about “Why men hate coming to church” brought this thought to my mind.

The bible is constructed in two parts: tradition and contemporary principles. We learn from where and how things started and then we learn how we are to do things now. Music has a past as well. We can read the Psalms of David or look through our old hymnals to see where we have been. We should never look at these things as a joke or grimace at the weight of the lyrics or stiffness of the musical lines.

These people knew how to worship without distraction.
Why do men hate coming to church… I have admit that before I went on the Emmaus walk this answer was easier to give. Men look at God in awe… fear. Men see Christ as a figure to give our respect to. The new ‘happy clappy’ method to worship is asking men to look upon the Savior as less of a ‘in charge’ type of person and more of a best friend type of relationship. Men are not comfortable with that.

Men want to give obedience to a commander. We want to give control to a general, a leader, a Creator, an all powerful being that has the grace to offer us salvation. The new music caters to a different clientèle. It talks about feelings and love and things that cross the line from man-speak to lady-speak. (It is perception more than actuality that rules here)

Traditional music used to cover the bases for this gruff style of worship. The lyrics were direct and to the point and no punches were held. Men understood these things.

After my Emmaus walk, I saw the other side of things. I understand God’s grace as it swings towards the side of love and I see how there is room for all music. The key is that we have to have all music in order to keep tapping everyone’s feelings about worship.

I am a fan of the truly blended service as opposed to the all traditional or all contemporary service. I think that when you split the church into separate services you split the people as well. You have to help the congregations learn from the past and also see where God is leading them. This keeps us together as a people under His Word.

Men are always going to find an excuse to play golf or watch a ball game. We have to engage them at the level where God resides for them. Men and women do not think alike and men that have not been blessed by the Holy Spirit do not ‘get’ the subtleties of all this new music. We have to work harder to bring worship to them and not leave them behind.

Peace.

Don Z

[milepost13]

I think the fact that this discussion has mostly revolved around music and not the bigger picture is indeed proof that the church doesn't have a good handle on why men aren't going to church. Although it is important, the kind of music that our churches use probably has less to do with how many men are coming than we think...it's a much bigger issue than music and lyrics.

Nate

[nomad100]

but the music of the church tends to reflect the churches personality. I'm outreach minded so when i can i tend to play in a way that would bring i unsaved people. Can't do that all the time.

[Smitty]

True word, Nate!

A large part of the reasons (there were others, to be sure) that Pam and I left our most recent church (we may have found another, BTW...I'll let you know) was the extremely narrow vision of the leadership.

I don't know about all of y'all, but I need to do more than sing and play music. I need to demonstrate to those who don't know, the love and grace that God has shown to me. I NEED to do that.

For me, the "bottom line" is very simple. If we aren't able to share with others what has been shared with us, then we aren't the people we claim to be. Period.

Smitty

[nomad100]

True word, Nate!
extremely narrow vision of the leadership.
Smitty

Narrow minded leadership can be so discouraging, and limiting.

I agree 100% Music is only a small part of what we should be doing.

[yod1948]

I think the fact that this discussion has mostly revolved around music and not the bigger picture is indeed proof that the church doesn't have a good handle on why men aren't going to church. Although it is important, the kind of music that our churches use probably has less to do with how many men are coming than we think...it's a much bigger issue than music and lyrics.

Nate



You are right, of course, but the style of worship is a huge part of the problem for men, imo.



I probably wouldn't enjoy a football game as much if all the players started wearing pink either. Does one aspect ruin the whole game? No..but it taints it enough to cause a problem of focus.

[nomad100]

Guys that have grown up and accepted church as okay will disagree with us who expect more. The ones that go along with the flow are the ones who advance in the corporate aspect of church and keep going with the flow afraid of rock the boat. This is not an absolute but true enough to be considered a norm.

btw, i don't like watching sports but girls are cute in foot ball jerseys!

[Smitty]

Good observations, Yod and Nomad.

I was "raised up" on church...so it has never seemed un-masculine (is that a word?) to me. On the other hand, the obvious catering to the "softer sex" makes me angry at times.

Smitty

[Don_Z]

Now in defense of the other side...:p

We absolutely need to have a balance. That was my point. If we leave out one demographic simply to grab another, are we doing God's work? or are we simply reversing the roles of our forefathers by running off the other side?

Men and women are not wired the same. We all know that, or at least should know that. Music is an emotional thing and if we are gearing our music to one particular area, then we leave a whole bunch of guys out in the cold. Men do not connect the same way. When we connect, it is powerful but it does not happen through "Love" songs all the time.

Relationships in general are broken down into Love and respect. Women require love, men... respect. I am not saying that a little of the other side cannot rub off but disrespect a man and he is out of there, Tell a woman you do not love her and you have lost her forever... Tell a man you do not love him but respect him, he sticks around... Tell a woman she is loved but not respected and you have all the domestic issues that we see today. They stay because "he loves me"... (I am painting with a broad brush here)

So how does this translate? You have to think about what triggers our hearts. Man want respect and they are wanting to GIVE respect to someone that can lead them. It takes time and mucho energy to develop more intimate feelings about Christ and your other relationships.
Women want to feel loved and they want to feel safe. They are far more open to God's grace. They get Christ's message faster than men because they accept His love immediately.

So who do we have to work harder on? That depends. Do we cater to the basic instincts of man or force them to come out of their box? The answer is in this thread... They are clearly not coming out of their box...

Maybe we have to start with meeting these brothers half way. Start looking at our music in such a way that we look at the message of the lyris from a gender message.


Is this masculine or feminine?
Does this promote Love or Respect or both?
Does this song reach the Traditional mind?
etc...


Who knew that we had so much to look at when all we simply wanted to do was play and sing for the Lord?

I am only bringing these things up because I think that if we do not address the whole of Christ's vine, we will miss some important salvation opportunities that will simply fall away because it was easier to prune the leaves that huddles together and we missed the ones that were off alone.

I know that we cannot please everyone, however could become more aware of the golden opportunities awaiting us in our midst.

Peace to all of you.

Don

[nomad100]

very, very, very well put!

[Robert]

Nick and Greg, the 'profound' truth still remains that, 'If men do not go to church....they are not in church. For 'whatever' reason. It is just that simple. And yes, I am sure they can 'survive' on thier own....but there is a tremendous wealth in fellowship that they miss out on. The 'skinny of it'...is that if they are offended by some/any thing...in the church, to the point that they choose not to attend.....they just plain 'are not hungry' for it. If they are hungry enough, they will get past thier fragile manhood and go to church.
Someone here suggested that we need to create and understand how to make it more atractive for them.....I disagree. I could no more manage someone else's salvation, any more than I can manage someone else's alcoholism. They must first want it.

[Smitty]

I agree, nicely done, Don!

Smitty

[Smitty]

So, Robert, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be advocating a "we'll let them come to us if they want to" approach. That seems a little bit odd to me, because the very man whose name we claim...Christ...did just the opposite. He met seekers WHERE THEY WERE, which is what the post modern church MUST do.

No one needs to manage anyones salvation, nor should they attempt to. However, there are MANY things we can do to make men feel more welcome in a setting that most would agree has become overly, and overtly, feminized.

We should do those things.

Smitty

[nomad100]

Sorry to be Blunt but Robert, people with mindset like yours is why the church is dying. The Church is not Jesus it's supposed to represent him. It's supposed to reach out to people in his name. Meet people where they are at, once if fails to do so it dies and deserves that death! Why would someone come to a church that has no interest in reaching him where he is at?????? We are not born spiritually mature!!!!!!!!

Your mindset offends me!


WHY WOULD SOMEONE BE HUNGRY FOR SOMETHING HE'S NEVER TASTED

[russhutto]

After reading the last few posts, I'm beginning to feel as if though we're spinning our wheels concerning ourselves with making the church gatherings more appealing to men, IF we don't make an effort to approach this on a more personal level.

Someone will always have a problem with our music. Someone will always have a problem with our drapes. Someone wil always be turned off at our preaching.

We're called to GO, not to build it and they will come. Although I know we have good intentions with our corporate gatherings, I think asking ourselves if they appeal to me or not is almost moot if we're not asking ourselves individually "Can I befriend on a personal level the very men that won't come to church because it's too girly?" And if so, "Am I willing to BE the Church to them, maybe even the only Church they ever experience?"

I LOVE our church gatherings, but sometimes I think we can't see the Church because the church is in the way.

[Don_Z]

We are in a time of testing. We can simply take the wide, nicely paved road and allow all the already decided Christians to come to us and be satisfied with that or we can take the rocky mountain path and seek out the 80+ percent of people that either no longer are coming to us or never have been to church because they have no clue what God's love is...

Do you think the Lord would want us to be lazy in His name?

No one said that serving God would be or should be easy, but we serve Him because He loves us...

[nomad100]

if we all did a better job at showing the love then music would matter far, far lesss

[yod1948]

In my previous comments, I was talking about christian men.

But just to clarify...are we talking about christian men who have stopped attending church or are we talking about men who are not saved to whom the church holds no attraction?

[russhutto]

Honestly, I had to go back and look!

The OP is about songs. Being too intimate. Being targeted towards love-starved women. The question was "Where are all the manly man hymns of a few generations ago?" (my paraphrase)

In that context, I guess I'd have to say men (IN the church need to get over themselves and realize that God IS a Lover as well as a Warrior King. And at the same time WE as WLs and songwriters need to get over ourselves and realize that not every person who comes to church is as artistic and "in touch" with that softer side that WLs seem to flow in so easily.

I think there could and should be balance both ways. But in all things, we should follow the leading of the Spirit. One Sunday we might be led to sing about love, the next about justice, or the next about both, or even neither.

[Smitty]

"We can't see the church, because the church is in the way"...BRILLIANT!!

Smitty

[Zeke101]

I know my views aren't to popular, but here are a couple of observations.

a)You want "manly" songs in church? write them and bring them to the church. I agree we need more songs about the other aspects of God, his strength, his power etc..

b) to those who worry about appealing to people who aren't saved, I'm sorry if this offends, but here goes; Stop it.

This is WORSHIP music. We are worshiping GOD, not begging people to join us. It is not our responsibility to bring people to God, HE calls them. We lead people in worship, we spread the Gospel.


I think that is my biggest issue when I read worship forums. The hubris to think that the music we play is whats Important. it isn't. whats important is how we walk and listen to God. We are suppose to edify God, not man.

[Viclyn]

I think this question goes much deeper then gender and music. At the heart of this discussion is what church is and what its purpose is. It is also about how the great commission now looks like in our social context.

I think we need to face a reality that people don't want to come to church. I don't believe it is because of the music (masculine or feminine) or because of the church building or because of the teaching. It is because, quite frankly, we aren't very attractive as Christians.

I know this is generalizing but I wished we (I) worked as hard at how I live my day to day living and be the church outside of the walls of "a church" as we do to create an atmosphere where people feel "comfortable."

I really believe that fellowship (rather than "the church," for we are the church) is to prepare and encourage the saints to go out and fulfill the great commission. I'm not sure "comfort" and appeals to manliness necessarily do that and yet we are bending ourselves backwards to appeal and to make people comfortable. I don't see where Jesus made people comfortable nor appealed to a certain demographic. I think he confused people and made the leaders of the church uncomfortable, and yet he attracted thousands. He attracted them because of who He is (have you ever noticed that it is difficult to match verb tenses when you talk about Jesus) and He will continue to attract them if we show them who He is in us.

I think our energy would be better spent thinking and praying about how we can go out and be the church to people outside of the walls of an organized fellowship than whether or not a song is masculine or feminine based upon human hang-ups.

[russhutto]

Viclyn, I definitely agree, read many of my posts of late.

At the same time, however, I feel like to totally disregard observations about worship style/content (especially when it's out of balance) is not representing a good example of SERVING the insider. This where I'd agree with Zeke (to an extent), worship music is just that worship. We shouldn't be concerned with pleasing people and negelcting true worship.

Again, at the same time, however, I disagree with zeke in the sense that I believe TRUE WORSHIP is evangelistic by nature and so music that is true worship will "overflow" into the hearts of the outsider. Obviously, it's the Holy Spirit that is flowing and not the music itself, but I think we can all agree that when we serve others well in our music prepraration and execution BOTH the insider and the outsider can be influenced while worship is offered to God.

For a good read on this (and creative worship in general) I recommend Ben Pasley's book "Enter The Worship Circle" - it's a bit artsy, but has some very good insight into the dual nature of what we call worship music.

[Zeke101]

Actually Russ we agree that true worship is evangelistic. that is why I said we are called to worship and spread the gospel. The Holy Spirit will reach out as God wills and touch those whom He wants to call. WE can only feel humbled if He decides to use our music to do that.

We don't make that decision. We can only decide to Worship in spirit and in truth, with genuine Love using WHATEVER song we happen to be playing.

I don't think we're that far apart on this. Certain people just have a more eloquent way of saying it than I.

[yod1948]

whats important is how we walk and listen to God. We are suppose to edify God, not man.

Isn't that a given? After that presumption, this is still a valid discussion.

Worship is a powerful weapon of warfare within and without the congregation.

I still believe that the "church" (generally speaking) is doing a poor job of challenging men to take their place in the Kingdom and since this is a WL forum and most of us are musicians, then we are addressing our part in that endeavor.

In the late 90s to early 2000s I did a study of the Psalms because I was concerned about all the "God pays attention to me" songs coming out. I was somewhat surprised to find that almost half of the Psalms of David mentioned "me" but in every single case, the focus was always in relation to God and that gets lost in half of the "me" songs coming out today.

At that time (I'm not as current now as I was then) too much of the worship music I was hearing was effeminate and experiential "me" songs...some to the point of being overly sensual and superfluous. Almost lukewarm.

I hope that has changed.

[Lance]

Forgive me if I'm repeating something that's all ready been said. This is a pretty long thread and I don't have time to read it all. Sorry.

The imagery for these so-called wimpy songs is usually drawn right from Holy Scripture. The picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ has always been a rich mine for songwriters and artists to dig from and if some men finds that threatening, maybe it's because they're not secure in their own masculinity.

Personally, I love the poems of St. John of the Cross which draw on the type of imagery found in Song of Songs. I've thought of writing some songs based on his poems before.

[Don_Z]

perhaps we could put barb wire around our churches and make it a members only club as well. This way we do not have to bother about those that are lost. Only wait for those that are easy catches to come to our door.

Yep, that sounds exactly what Christ has asked us to do..:(

This topic has been an eye opening experience for me on the condition and attitude in God's house.

[yod1948]

if some men finds that threatening, maybe it's because they're not secure in their own masculinity.

.


For some that might be true...but I don't think that is what we're discussing here.


Assuming you are a male; did you wear pink clothes to school? There is a stigma for men who gravitate towards the "girly" world. And then there are real men.

If you read this thread, you'll see we're talking about real men who have lost interest in the modern church.


And again, I believe it is because they want/need to be challenged in their faith instead of patronized.

[Viclyn]

I didn't read where people wanted a member's-only club. It's just a disagreement on the purpose of that Sunday morning or evening fellowship.

Jesus chose to really teach and disciple 12 people. He doesn't seem to apologize for focusing on the 12 in order to prepare them to go out and win others. I wouldn't call the disciples a member's-only club but an effective way to do ministry. You pour into 12 then who pour into 12 more and so on and so on.

I think that data is proving that "If you build it, they will come" mentality is not working in Northern America anymore. I believe the Saints need more of individual discipleship, accountability, and encouragement to go out and be the light we are called to be.

I still find it interesting that the complaint is about songs that are more feminine are almost all written by men and are mostly sung by men. Do we really think that it's just because worship leaders are more emotionally sensitive? Really?

I think if you feel that your services are too female sensitive (which is a real generalization as well by the way--not all of us are emo) it might be as a result of a balance issue. Not all songs are love songs and many talk about the power and might of Christ and our Lord. Maybe your worship is just imbalanced and just needs a slight tweak.

[Don_Z]

Well let's look at it from a different angle...

How do we shall we? What do we do with those that do not like contemporary music? They have friends and family in they church, have been going there for years or perhaps generations and now the church has left them behind to pursue this new fad in music. The last fad involved keyboard heavy riffs, this one is guitar rock heavy... It is still 'of this generation.'

So they do not get the worship that they need, desire, deserve. Ok, we have solutions, we segregate. We put services together just for them, but do we attack those services with the same passion as the others? Are we as committed to the worship in those as to our praise team led or band led services? Or are we simply appeasing them until there are not enough of them left to justify having a service for them anymore... Sort of like a greasy wheel that you can no longer hear? I am simply asking these questions in general. Only you can answer these honestly in your situation...

The same applies to this scenario with men. If we do not search for and at least make an honest effort to bridge the gaps for people then we come up short. If we are true in our intentions and they still do not come, then it is not one us...

Ezekiel 3:20-21

20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."

[Viclyn]

But Don, then aren't we programming our services to please people rather than God? Our worship should be an end in and of itself. It isn't a means to an end. I believe if you foster strong relationships and build those bonds of fellowship on a one on one basis, on a weekly basis, then it won't matter so much if the songs say I Love You Lord or if you are playing it on a guitar or an organ.

I know we should all be about facilitating worship but it should be facilitated by a vision of God not the likes/dislikes of the people. If you can show me where Jesus catered to the culture or the gender of the participants or where the early church did it, I'll be glad to look at that from a scriptural point of view. However, what I read is that Jesus spoke in a way that actually confused people including his disciples knowing that those who would have ears would hear.

Now if God has given your church the vision to be a manly-man's church then you should be obedient and think of ways that do encourage and equip the men of your church. But I still believe that it is too easy to blame "the church" for inability to reach out and be the church. We want "the church" to attract people rather than work on letting Christ dwell in us so richly that we are the church to others. Music is too easy of a scapegoat.

[nomad100]

There is a problem it's evident by the fruit stop arguing to keep things how they are. Just because you can make a spiritual sounding comment doesn't validate it. So frustrating it is to me to hear "church people" justify how things are. We are God's tools, worship at church is a tool. Worship is not defined by music. If we change styles/lyric content of music to better suit the people, God is glorified by that, because he doesn't care about style.

I went threw masters commission, when we were home for a service i absolutely hated it. Worship was so bad, it was more that i had to endure it. I would try my best to have the right mindset but it was hard. So for me someone determined to worship it's hard how much harder is it for someone that is not a mature christian.
When you can hear the drum pads of the electric drums louder than what is coming form the sound system something is wrong.

[russhutto]

Let's keep this discussion on the right track, folks. We're not here to attack each other.

I think Don has some valid points. Though, I believe that creating a buffet style "church" isn't the solution. I mean one that caters to worship style preferences.

Honestly I believe we should pick one thing and do it well. If that one thing has a few sub-categories, that's fine, but I think we please no one when we try to please everyone.

The thing about corporate gatherings these days is that they've become our PRIMARY avenue of evangelism. We DO "build it and they will come." If we didn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That being said, I think we all can agree that as we develop friendships with people, strong, vibrant relationships, we'll see "church" in a totally different light. As those friendships revolve around living out love and being light in darkness, things like music style (though important) become less of a point of division and more of a point of unity.

We shouldn't do music styles because it's the preferred music of the movers and shakers of our church. The movers and shakers of our church should pour their hearts, time, and resources into WHATEVER style of music BEST SERVES the community our corporate worship gathering exists to serve.

That means the old timers who prefer only piano and hymns should put that aside if the community NEEDS something different. That means the young whippersnappers should put aside their amps and electrics if the community NEEDS something different.

I think THAT is the the kind of blended service we need. One where our hearts and purpose is blended into one vision and we're all on the same page, NOT one where we try and make everyone happy enough to stick around.

[musicianinthestates]

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe this off, or redundant, but...

what about the bureaucracy of everything? So much red tape; velvet rope; scapegoating - lead pastors who okay minor repairs, then instead of taking a stand against complaints they side with the frustrated members who complained that so-and-so did it and let them take the heat.

Or the lack of activities they would like to participate in?

All assumptions here seem to point to men not liking service, for whatever reason, but a church is the body of people, not just a service. maybe its the inner workings or lack of participatiblity that scare us off...

P.S. I know participatibility isn't a word, but it should be!! :D

[Viclyn]

Hey Nomad, want to take this outside? That's how men handle it, right? Just kidding.

First, if you look at what I am asking to do, you will see that actually what I am calling for is a radical shift from the traditional way of doing church.

We have been trying to attract people with our large gatherings and have been doing things this way since the "seeker sensitive movement" in the late 70's early 80's. That was quite successful in bringing people to Christ however, that methodology is not working anymore and may have sent the wrong message of what church is for. People now "church shop." Being part of a body should be a supernatural thing--where God wants to plant you and where He wants you to serve, not where the seats are comfy and the music is your style. Do you really think God cares about the style of the praise?

What you see now is rather than new Christians coming to church we have just large switches in church attendance. When a pastor changes and people don't like the new pastor they move to another church.

If you knew me, you know I am about balance and I was leading a church primarily of older people doing choruses but I never forgot to include hymns and older choruses because they were familiar and helped the congregation worship better. So, I'm not against discussing and even tweaking things to help people worship. But as one who has been on a programming team for 10 years and have read blue card after blue card(what we called our "comment cards"), no matter what you do, you aren't going to please everybody and its an endless unending circle that will have you chasing your tail. You make your services masculine and then women will feel left out. Do a hymn sing and your younger generations get left out. Add an electric guitar and people start turning off their hearing aids. And if God has called you to this church with all of these varying interests and "needs" what are you going to do?

The problem is our flesh wants to be pleased but our churches were not built to please people. Or at least they shouldn't be. They are to please God. Now that is going to look different for the different calls God has put on these churches. I was serious when I said that if you feel the need to be a church that wants to help and equip men because God says so, then who is anybody to say anything? But you better look at more than music and whether there are pretty curtains on the windows. Because that isn't the real heart of the problem.

If we are going to generalize then here is my generalization. Men have difficulty with church because it calls them into a relationship. A very intimate relationship. This is difficult for men in an hour and a half. It has to be fostered and trust has to be built. Women seem to be able to go to that place fairly quickly (although we get out of it just as quick.)

So, if you have a church that isn't fostering relationships outside of that church service, you are going to lose the men. I'm saying do church outside of church. That isn't keeping things the way they are; that is switching focus from the big gathering to more discipleship relationships.

[windbag]

According to Paul, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles or men and women, when we are in Christ. Paul also admonished us to put on the mind of Christ. He didn't mention that we were to filter it through our gender. Is it possible that the mature believer can shed the earthly, fleshly identity and truly worship in spirit and truth? Can we come to the place where worship is neither macho nor feminine, but simply spiritual?

It seems to me that some of the disagreement over this issue boils down to wondering why others don't worship like we do, which is rooted in insecurity (fear). If we all are going to be genuine and unique in our worship, that will require courage to be different and acceptance of differences we see in fellow believers.

[nomad100]

could it be that music is one of the strongest outreach aspects of the service and we should approach it as such?

[chipshot0701]

That was along time ago. Just goes to show me that this is a very serious issue.
I work with men of all ages everyday....I try to get them to come to church on normal Sundays, special music days, and special services. The reply I most often get isn't about the music or that church is geared toward women. The reply is usually something like this....Why? I'm fine just like I am. Or, Why, I don't need church, I feel fine like I am, I don't have any problems in my life.
My reply is usually something like this..Just come and see. I would like to have you hear me play, its alot of fun and I'll buy you coffee.

Now with some of the guys I should offer a beer, pizza and a football game but that isn't going to happen....however; maybe thats how I could get them to church the first time, maybe I should do that.

I've noticed that men aren't like women in the respect that women need other women....to talk to, to listen to and to share with. Men on the most part are lone wolfs. Independent. To most men they see fellowshiping as a big uh oh! I mite have to talk to people, some one mite ask me about my feelings etc. Men do not talk about thier feelings!

[nomad100]

For me sunday service is not only a time for christians to get together, but sunday service needs to be seeker friendly. Someone testing going to church will more than likely come on a sunday and that's your one chance to get their attention. Small groups is where discipleship takes place, and spiritual maturity is developed.

[Don_Z]

I want to thank all of you for digging deep. I am always testing myself to see if what I am doing as a Worship Leader is pleasing under God's eyes. Over the past several years, I have grown sensitive to the issues of inclusion and segregation of church services. The older generations are sometimes being left behind in favor of what is cool and hip. Likewise, the outcasts are left out because they too do not find a home in the main stream churches of today.

I feel like we sometimes miss opportunities. Christ talked about our taking care of the poor, hungry, thirsty and imprisoned. Some of these men are prisoners inside of themselves. We should at least make the efforts to blend our worship so everyone can feel like they are a part of the whole. If they choose not to come, then the matter lies with them at that point. We have done what we can and God will not judge us for not having tried.

[NickAlexander]

My devotional page for today actually addresses the issue of masculine spirituality.

In addressing the fishermen of Fano, Italy:

"In you there are values that must remain and be further developed.

In you, there are also precious spiritual values that must remain and be further developed:
A religious spirit rich in feeling expressing itself in confidence in God
in the meaning of prayer,
and in the Christian education of children;

A deep respect for the family expressed by confidence in the woman, wife and mother,
by love for your own chidlren and by fidelity in marriage;

A keen sense of solidarity, which, through living in a group, feels the need to help one another and relieve those in need.

These are values of greatest importance that you must not let disappear or be uprooted."
(Pope John Paul II, Aug 12, 1984).

[johnp]

I have wrestled with this in my own heart. We live/worship in an industial area and most of our men work in that line. It has been a struggle to find a balance in what will "work" in our church. We are in the southern part of Texas, and that is a challenge in itself.

One thing I realized is...men/women from this day and time write those songs. We have to trust that we know ourselves and our generation enough to tap into the heart of our churches. Every church is different, and you have to find the vein of where you are.

I will say this; Focus on the Family did a study, and according to their findings, if you reach the men 95-ish% of the time you will reach the whole family. Reaching women on gets you 45-ish% in most cases. That has changed the focus of our staff.

[nomad100]

probably cuz men have spiritual authority over their family.

but i understand your use now.

[dshih87]

I agree with the point of this post, but I strongly caution, even rebuke, the idea that what will bring men back to churches is a a return to audacious music not lacking in testicular fortitude. I believe underlying this seemingly harmless and genuine desire is a church value system that places numbers in higher priority than truth. I'm not saying that they are incompatible, but there is no doubt in my mind that we are so MUCH more concerned with filling our pews than filling our pews with Bible-believing, Christ-centered, gospel-driven men and women Christians.

If we seeking to identify a solution to the lack of men in church, which is a symptom, we CANNOT treat the symptom. We must identify the pathology; is the real issue that our worship music is emasculated or is it that we have not been teaching our men that Christianity is bold, fearless, daring, gallant, and manly?

[gregrjones]

I agree with the point of this post, but I strongly caution, even rebuke, the idea that what will bring men back to churches is a a return to audacious music not lacking in testicular fortitude. I believe underlying this seemingly harmless and genuine desire is a church value system that places numbers in higher priority than truth. I'm not saying that they are incompatible, but there is no doubt in my mind that we are so MUCH more concerned with filling our pews than filling our pews with Bible-believing, Christ-centered, gospel-driven men and women Christians.

If we seeking to identify a solution to the lack of men in church, which is a symptom, we CANNOT treat the symptom. We must identify the pathology; is the real issue that our worship music is emasculated or is it that we have not been teaching our men that Christianity is bold, fearless, daring, gallant, and manly?

It is BOTH. Whether we like it or not, the style of music we use communicates and therefore teaches. So if our worship music is emasculated, this reflects on how we present Christ Himself.

Yes, the music styles are a symptom and masculinizing them alone won't attract men, however the masculinization of worship music needs to happen as one component in the church's attempt to reach men and restore the masculinity of Christianity.

In conjunction, we need to preach the TRUTH of Christ instead of a demasculinized "niceianity" that bears no resemblance to the truth that we both cherish.

[sycamoredave]

I think we are loading a bunch of blame on music, when in reality, we own the blame ourselves. With contemporary music, it has become ok to say that if I don't like the style, I cannot worship. Whether it is masculine, feminine, hard rock, rap, bluegrass, country, traditional, etc., people make decisions on personal preferences, as opposed to the spirit. We need to look a bit deeper. Worship in spirit and truth would suggest that a couple conditions have been met prior to worship - that you have truly given your heart to Jesus, and that you know the truth about what the source of any value is - the Grace of God. I know just as many women who have music issues as men. We need to move on to the real issue - shallow faith.

In terms of men not participating, I blame part on culture, and part on women. Our culture suggests men need to be strong and independent, causing distance from a faith that suggests giving our heart to Jesus. Women like to blame what goes wrong on the men. Many times they are right, but often, the "girl games" drive men away. This may sound like a shallow argument, but I would challenge you to say you have not seen this. A lot of guys I know say "why should I put up with this?", and just stay away.

The only way to get men to participate is to build a culture of respect, love, and substance. There has to be an absence of "games", a genuine affection for the person, and a "mission" that makes sense. Jesus has to be real, personal, and help us connect the dots. Those that are mentors have to be sincere, accountable and transparent. Messages have to make sense. Music has to create real worship. Time needs to have value.

There are lots of songs I don't really care much for, and the fragrance song mentioned way back in the OP is one of my less favorite ones. At the same time, I understand the message, and find value in it, because it obviously does reach others, or it would not be so popular. I find great value in worshiping with others, not just on my own. I am moved to passion by the surrounding worship, as much as the song. In the end, it really isn't about me, it is about God, and that is the point.

Blessings indeed...:)
Dave

[SaintLewis]

Maybe so, but I don't think it's a music style issue if I struggle to sing songs that are bordering on erotic to a guy - Jesus - and I'm a worship pastor. I think overlooks that there are some real issues to be addressed, and that it is true that church music, in particular, has leaved very effeminate over the past many years.

[sycamoredave]

Style preference is personal. Erotic, or sensual, as in appealing to the senses without the erotic part? Would you also propose that Song of Songs has no place in the Bible? We are getting pretty far down the road toward picking on women here. Are we focusing on a few songs here that we don't like, and blaming them for why guys are not in Church? There are a ton of songs that are very moving, and very much appealing to men, and we do them as well. So if it is all about the music where are the men?

This is an excuse argument. Lets move on to the real reasons, including the fact that men don't know how to reach men very well, and women have trouble relating to men on a faith basis. Our culture of outreach and communication is very much impaired. Music style is an excuse for our lack of commitment to outreach. I stand guilty as accused.:(

Dave

[SaintLewis]

Song of Songs is about Sex, and is only about God in as much as God wants us to enjoy good married sex. As so, it's one of my favorite books! :D

That said, I do think that there are a lot of church's that 'camp' on effeminate worship songs, rather than the 'meaty' stuff - thankfully, there is a move towards 'truth' and 'proclamation' in some circles now, which is generally a good move, I do believe.

For instance, "Christ is Risen" by Matt Maher - a great example of a passionate proclamation song that men seem to LOVE to sing (even more than the women)! Even Matt Redman is very aware of the issue, and working hard at writing songs that are more 'masculine' in appeal. The issue is real, and it's beginning to be addressed.

That is said by a dude that has very little trouble being a very expressive worshipper, but just feels awkward thinking about getting all romantic on Jesus.

[Stephen Nettles]

as a guy... i feel like ALL OF CHURCH IS DIRECTED AT FEMALES. How many of us have just squirmed through a whole service? I'll be honest... after I'm done playing worship I often head back stage or up to the tech booth. Or just go somewhere where I can do something... why... because shallow teaching and cheesiness kills me! As men... we want action! We want to do something. We want to get out and make a difference in the world. Unfortunately... most churches not only sing mostly girly songs... but they never do anything... they are glorified social clubs...

... ya... i guess I'm the angry wounded young guitar player that most churches have... I'm working on it guys.

[Smitty]

I guess that makes me the angry wounded middle-aged guitar player!

I feel your pain, Stephen...I truly do...and I agree with you.

Let's TALK less...Let's DO more.

Smitty

[yod1948]

Amen! Let's "do"....can I schedule "it" between 10:23-11:42 AM on August the 7th? Need that confirmation soon so I don't double book it.

:D Everyone is so busy that if we don't schedule time to "do", we won't getter done.





Yea, Steve, welcome to the WC.

I've been saying all that same stuff as long as this conversation has been going.

[Viclyn]

Um...whose running your children's ministry? Who often is organizing things behind the scenes? Count how many women are involved in church ministry and count how many males are involved and see which gender is "doing." We don't get to be in leadership but leadership definitely let's us "do." No one has prevented any male from doing at least in any church I've been in. I have come up with an idea and had to endure the 3rd degree and then it doesn't necessarily get supported. The same idea presented by a male got a seal of approval and instant support. Doesn't seem like allowing guys to "do" was an issue.

I'm now an angry female because now I'm the reason church is "cheesy."

The songs are mostly written by males, directed by males and most sermons are written and delivered by males. Church isn't directed to me most of the time and I am often prevented from doing certain things because I'm female. I'm often treated with less respect and have to negotiate leadership all the time. Church is often just as uncomfortable for me as it is for you. Because I don't have a husband, I'm often not taken as seriously as somehow it makes me less knowledgeable about God. Pastors can't be in a room alone with me because of what it will "look" like. Talk about uncomfortable.

What you are assuming as effeminate is coming from a male perspective. I don't assume what is male because I'm not. I can generalize I guess but because I don't think the gender issue is really the heart of the matter, I won't. Maybe your church is cheesy because it is cheesy. Your assuming it is cheesy because it is directed at females. Really? I have to endure sports, golf and fishing analogies in sermons, all males in visual leadership, and the idea of women's ministry is to throw a tea party. I'd rather go do something too. There are so many assumptions in your premise of what is female that it is laughable.

I may not like the songs you are talking about any more than you do. Maybe it isn't because they are emo but because they are just bad.

I don't think you are going to solve your problem with the perspective that it is a gender thing but rather a problem of superficial ministry. It may be a problem of imbalance of head and heart. Some ministries focus too much on what they feel about God rather than what they know about God. Then there are those that focus too much on what they know than what they feel. If your church is too much on the emo side that isn't because they are directing it at females, it is just the way your church is approaching what they know about God.

Quit blaming it on feminization and help your church balance.

[sycamoredave]

Um...whose running your children's ministry? Who often is organizing things behind the scenes? Count how many women are involved in church ministry and count how many males are involved and see which gender is "doing." We don't get to be in leadership but leadership definitely let's us "do." No one has prevented any male from doing at least in any church I've been in. I have come up with an idea and had to endure the 3rd degree and then it doesn't necessarily get supported. The same idea presented by a male got a seal of approval and instant support. Doesn't seem like allowing guys to "do" was an issue.

I'm now an angry female because now I'm the reason church is "cheesy."

The songs are mostly written by males, directed by males and most sermons are written and delivered by males. Church isn't directed to me most of the time and I am often prevented from doing certain things because I'm female. I'm often treated with less respect and have to negotiate leadership all the time. Church is often just as uncomfortable for me as it is for you. Because I don't have a husband, I'm often not taken as seriously as somehow it makes me less knowledgeable about God. Pastors can't be in a room alone with me because of what it will "look" like. Talk about uncomfortable.

What you are assuming as effeminate is coming from a male perspective. I don't assume what is male because I'm not. I can generalize I guess but because I don't think the gender issue is really the heart of the matter, I won't. Maybe your church is cheesy because it is cheesy. Your assuming it is cheesy because it is directed at females. Really? I have to endure sports, golf and fishing analogies in sermons, all males in visual leadership, and the idea of women's ministry is to throw a tea party. I'd rather go do something too. There are so many assumptions in your premise of what is female that it is laughable.

I may not like the songs you are talking about any more than you do. Maybe it isn't because they are emo but because they are just bad.

I don't think you are going to solve your problem with the perspective that it is a gender thing but rather a problem of superficial ministry. It may be a problem of imbalance of head and heart. Some ministries focus too much on what they feel about God rather than what they know about God. Then there are those that focus too much on what they know than what they feel. If your church is too much on the emo side that isn't because they are directing it at females, it is just the way your church is approaching what they know about God.

Quit blaming it on feminization and help your church balance.

If we all spend a few minutes and read through the last page of this thread, we are back to just what I originally said - we have ourselves to blame. We are finding lots of others to blame, including the opposite gender, young, old, etc. People (note I did not say guys or gals) who do not take an active role, refuse to lead, are not part of a ministry, and then want to complain, are simply adding to the problem. This discussion about music, fishing stories, and lack of substance is a clear barometer of the shallow faith and ministries we find ourselves in. If you were called by God to be where you are, be there now, be active, and take a leadership or mentoring role. Do not just sit in the back and snipe. If things are not good, DO something. If you are not in a ministry where you can be effective, pray, and DO something about it. Yup, not all music is great. Yup, somebody else is getting what they want and I am not. Yup, I am hurt that no one complimented me on my song. Yup, yup, yup. Grow up. We need to be more focused on the fruits of the spirit, on ABBA, on Jesus, to know that we are loved, and to love others than this other stuff. I am totally guilty of all this stuff, and am currently in the middle of a similar bunch of discussions in my Church, which by the way is 75% female. It is not the ladies fault that they show up, or that they have the passion to take leadership roles, or that their leadership has an influence on worship. Guys, quit griping and get a grip.

Sorry, rant over. Some day maybe I'll tell you how I really feel...:rolleyes:

Blessings...
Dave

[Mike Chase]

My wife and I have talked about the lack of male involvement in our church a lot in the past, and while we have no answers, here are some thoughts.

1) The modern evangelical church can focus too much on Jesus and the Spirit at the exclusion of God. Similarly, the qualities of God that are shown and talked about have changed from when I was a kid. We no longer see God as someone who is loving, yes, but also holy, mighty, holding the power to destroy as well as create, in the same way that we used to. Not that any of that's excluded, of course, but it's not where the focus is. You can't worship the triune God fully if you're limited to thinking about a comforter, encourager, saviour, and best friend but you don't understand God's holiness, might, the fact that he's a judge, etc.

2) If church is reduced to an emotional experience, as some churches are, many males are going to start to disconnect unless they have something like parental or spousal approval keeping them involved. Not that most of us guys need to have things our way, all the time, but it's much easier to relate if you're presented with a full picture. Only then can you say, 'I don't relate to this part, but I can see how others would, and this other part is something I really identify with'. The pressure's on the pastor and worship leaders to keep things balanced.

3) Some churches, such as mine, don't have many activities or ways to serve that really interest males. As far as serving, I'd be choosing between playing on a worship team, doing sound, teaching Sunday school, or doing odd jobs like counting money or pouring communion wine. Sure, just about anyone can do some of the small stuff, but if you don't play anything and aren't a good teacher, you're somewhat limited. Our church meets in a former warehouse that we rent, so we don't have much in the way of building maintenance or property care to worry about, both things that would appeal to males. As far as activities, it's been maybe 18 months since there's been any male-focused social activities beyond an unofficial weekly pub night. There's no small group for men right now, though there's talk of starting one.

Not that the focus should ever be on activities or even service, but it makes it much harder to connect if you can leave on a Sunday morning and say, 'Well, that didn't really appeal to me all that much, and there's nothing for me during the week'.

[skyescraper]

Um...whose running your children's ministry? Who often is organizing things behind the scenes? Count how many women are involved in church ministry and count how many males are involved and see which gender is "doing." We don't get to be in leadership but leadership definitely let's us "do." No one has prevented any male from doing at least in any church I've been in. I have come up with an idea and had to endure the 3rd degree and then it doesn't necessarily get supported. The same idea presented by a male got a seal of approval and instant support. Doesn't seem like allowing guys to "do" was an issue.

I'm now an angry female because now I'm the reason church is "cheesy."

The songs are mostly written by males, directed by males and most sermons are written and delivered by males. Church isn't directed to me most of the time and I am often prevented from doing certain things because I'm female. I'm often treated with less respect and have to negotiate leadership all the time. Church is often just as uncomfortable for me as it is for you. Because I don't have a husband, I'm often not taken as seriously as somehow it makes me less knowledgeable about God. Pastors can't be in a room alone with me because of what it will "look" like. Talk about uncomfortable.

What you are assuming as effeminate is coming from a male perspective. I don't assume what is male because I'm not. I can generalize I guess but because I don't think the gender issue is really the heart of the matter, I won't. Maybe your church is cheesy because it is cheesy. Your assuming it is cheesy because it is directed at females. Really? I have to endure sports, golf and fishing analogies in sermons, all males in visual leadership, and the idea of women's ministry is to throw a tea party. I'd rather go do something too. There are so many assumptions in your premise of what is female that it is laughable.

I may not like the songs you are talking about any more than you do. Maybe it isn't because they are emo but because they are just bad.

I don't think you are going to solve your problem with the perspective that it is a gender thing but rather a problem of superficial ministry. It may be a problem of imbalance of head and heart. Some ministries focus too much on what they feel about God rather than what they know about God. Then there are those that focus too much on what they know than what they feel. If your church is too much on the emo side that isn't because they are directing it at females, it is just the way your church is approaching what they know about God.

Quit blaming it on feminization and help your church balance.

Wow! Viclyn - you're right on!

[yod1948]

I don't think you are going to solve your problem with the perspective that it is a gender thing but rather a problem of superficial ministry.


My congregation doesn't have that problem. We challenge men quite directly and get them involved in "doing" the work of The Kingdom. We tend to focus on the Father as much, if not more, than the Son. After all, He came to do the Father's will.

What I've said is an observation about why men are not involved in the Body as a whole and not about any particular individual churches, and I stick by every word of it.



You've got business entrepreneurs and skilled craftsmen sitting in back rows and being "taught" by someone who has a degree from a seminary and no real-world life experience other than that in many cases.

Challenging men to be subservient to the "kingdom" of a particular church is exactly what will cause them to leave. Either we are given a vision for building the Kingdom of God or men are disinterested.

Give men a real challenge where they can use their skills and they will serve. Give them menial tasks and they will stay home to watch sports or go fishing instead.

I don't blame them. Especially during football season.

:-)

[danielled]

Give men a real challenge where they can use their skills and they will serve.

I think this is true for anyone, man or woman. Could part of the problem potentially be the consumer mindset of church goers today? Church can become a source of entertainment where we choose to go or not to go depending what kind of 'band' plays there and what songs they do, how good the coffee is, what dazzling lights and effects they have and how entertained they will keep our kids. If it's not quite what we're shopping for we go elsewhere or don't go at all.

If church is a place where we find true community, encounter God, and can be a part of something bigger than ourselves (namely building God's Kingdom) we're not so worried about which song was sung or if the church is bent slightly towards the feminine or masculine.

[Wannabe a Worshiper]

I heard a news blip the other day that the average American man is more comfortable in a lingerie shop than he is in church.

[windbag]

I heard a news blip the other day that the average American man is more comfortable in a lingerie shop than he is in church.

I'm not, so does that make me above or below average?

[Stephen Nettles]

i do agree that most in leadership tend to be men. you do have a point there. i'm not denying that. i'm refering to doing outside of the church building mostly... theres a hurting world with lots of need around us but our churches just like to sit in our own little bubble. for the record i've moved a lot growing up so i've experience a whole lot of churches... this isn't just coming from one church experience. as far as the music goes... yes it is written by men mostly... but these men are pressured to right politically correct music that for some odd reason tends to lean towards the touchy feely side... don't get me wrong.. i'm an expressive passionate guy that is rather affectionate.... but its overload.

and while so many men are in leadership... they are catering to their audience... which is dominately female... look around your church or youth group some time... generally there are a lot more women in attendence.

[Stephen Nettles]

btw... i have some horrible spelling mistakes up there lol

[gregrjones]

I'm now an angry female because now I'm the reason church is "cheesy."

Quit blaming it on feminization and help your church balance.

Viclyn, please don't take these posts personally. And guys, I'd ask you to not stereotype the women.

I am convinced that this issue is because so many Christians have bought into "nicieanity" instead of Christianity. So much of the church thinks following Jesus is simply about being nice. This starts with Sunday school teachings for small children and never seems to end.

Many of the males in church leadership that I have observed seem to have more effiminate natures or have at least bought into this niceianity thing.

The same Christ that wept when Lazarus died, boldly said "Lazarus come forth" in front of a crowd of skeptics. The same Jesus that said "let the children come to me" also turned over the money changers tables.

Balance is the key. Such a balance comes from looking at all of Scripture with an open heart and a discerning mind. We worship leaders can lead the charge in a holistic approach to our faith (heart and mind).

It is obvious how music engages the heart. Without neglecting that, we can focus minds on the theology of the lyrics, probably choosing songs with deeper messages, and even our musicians/worship teams on the music theory and the more intellectual sides of music.

We also need to have a faith that takes risk and calls us to action. As worship leaders, that sometimes means taking a bullet or two and inviting others to do the same.