The Masculinity Myth: The Real Reason Men Don’t Go to Church
Today during worship, we were singing a song about God being our loving Father. As we sang, I realized it was the kind of song manly-men Christian pastors hate. It’s the sort of song they rail against while crusading for the resurgence of “real men” Christian masculinity. As we sang tender words about a tender, loving, heavenly Father, I immediately realized why some men are so angry at spiritually wimpy men and bold Christian women. The thought just popped into my head: It’s Cain and Abel all over again.
Although it’s probably one of the most profitable growth areas in Christian publishing, I’m not a big fan of the “what’s wrong with the church” book genre. In the past four plus years as a Christian talk radio host, I’ve received a large steady flow of books attempting to address the “what’s wrong with the church” writing prompt. Invariably, these books blame the lack of church growth on fatal flaws within church leadership, structure and theology. They assume that healthy churches grow and unhealthy churches decline. Consequently, if the church is to be healthy again, it needs to find a way to reach the people who no longer call the church their home.
“Why don’t men go to church” is a subset of the blame the church publishing niche. These books seem particularly popular as they make great reads for frustrated wives tired of attending church without their husbands. They’re also great reads for bitter men determined to justify and fortify their reasons for abandoning the body of Christ. Let’s face it, as the church declines in size and membership, the demand for church criticizing material will continue to increase.
The church isn’t masculine enough?
Almost every book, post or tweet concerning the plight of Christian men eventually blames the church for not being masculine enough. The theory is men don’t go to church because church is geared to the needs of women. There’s too much sharing of emotions, too much hugging, too much singing, with too many effeminate leaders giving the ladies what they want: a church with no testosterone. This theory suggests that men don’t go to church because churches don’t meet the masculine needs of men. Many widely respected preachers seem to adhere to this concept that the church has been weakened by an overabundance of femininity.
The first time I heard an author accuse the church of being too feminine, I was annoyed by the accusation. Over time, my annoyance hasn’t waned. Since I am a pastor, those who advocate for a more masculine church expression will likely label me as one of those effeminate, emotional male leaders who is ruining the witness of Christ to real men. Don’t worry, while making my argument, I’ll make sure I don’t cry in front of you and endanger your ability abide in the room with me.
Calling the church too feminine is sexist
Most arguments that blame the church for the absence of men are rooted in sexist assumptions. If you believe men don’t go to church because the church doesn’t meet their needs, then you are implying that women go because more of their needs are being met. What if more women go to church because their faith has a greater integrity. What if more women go to church because they have chosen to persevere and demonstrate a moral fortitude that contrasts the weaknesses of men. What if women are more willing to work in community, more willing to repent, apologize and forgive. Maybe men are so emotional they are unwilling to learn how to abide in complex community. Maybe instead of following the moral lead of women, men have isolated themselves from the church to keep from having to mature and grow up.
There is another twisted, sexist logic to blaming the church for the refusal of men to participate. Instead of correcting those in rebellion, we attack those who are sincerely trying to be faithful. We tell the regular church attender that they are the problem, not the ones who abandoned the body of Christ. We tell the male leader who has remained, even in the face of tremendous cultural rejection, that He is the problem for the church’s inability to reach more men. Blaming the actions of the most dishonorable on those who are most faithful is an affront to the integrity of those who are actively supporting the church. To blame faithful women for the unfaithfulness of men is once again blaming the victim for being abandoned.
The masculinity logic is broken
I know these strong words will offend some, but I am being intentional to prove a point: the logic that men don’t attend church because it isn’t manly enough is just plain broken. Certainly there are congregations that have a more feminine expression based on the makeup of their leadership. Regardless, if one truly believed that the church was too feminine, they would not isolate from the church. Instead, they would actively work to facilitate a more balanced expression of masculinity and femininity in their church settings. The assumption that one can only change the church by leaving the church is not an act of noble masculinity; it is an act of disconnected, misguided brokenness. It is an act of isolation which is common among men unable or unwilling to learn how to abide in community.
Although some use the perceived femininity of the church as an excuse to stay home, others have used this argument as the basis for church transformation. They have formed new church expressions that have a strong focus on the role of men and the need for men to be manly. They create worship expressions and church structures that promote what they believe is a greater respect or appreciation for the needs of masculine men. Invariably, these church cultures also spend a fair amount of time telling women how to submit to the masculine lead of their male-centered church expression. Which brings me back to Cain and Abel.
Contrasting worship
The story of Cain and Abel is the story of conflicting and contrasting worship expressions. Scripture states that “in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. And Abel also brought an offering – fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock” (Gen. 4:3-4). At first glance to the modern reader, there doesn’t seem to be much contrast between these two offerings. Cain worked the soil, so he brought a product of the soil, Abel kept flocks so he brought a product of the herd. God’s response to Cain and Abel demonstrates that their offerings were very different.
The adjectives that accompany Abel’s offering are the key to understanding the worth of Abel’s offering. Abel brought God the “fat portions” of the “firstborn of his flock.” For the original reader of the Genesis account, “fat portions” was synonymous with best portions or choicest portions. Although our low fat society has a difficult time embracing this truth, the “fat portion” was the portion you reserved for the most honored guest. Along with being the choice portion, Abel’s offering was also from the firstborn. In other words, Abel gave God his first and his best.
In contrast to Abel’s offering, Cain’s offering is described as “some of the fruits of the soil.” Cain did not give God his first and best. Instead, he only brought God “some of the fruit.” Cain kept his first and best fruit for himself, while giving God what was leftover. Consequently, “The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor” (Gen. 4:4-5).
So what does this have to do with people and churches who think Christianity should be more masculine? For me, the answer is in Cain’s response to God’s discipline. God disciplined Cain for Cain’s benefit. Abel offered a worthy offering to God that contrasted Cain’s unworthy offering. Instead of repenting, Cain grew angry at Abel’s worship expression. For Cain, Abel’s worthy worship expression was the problem. It’s almost as if Cain resented Abel’s worthy choices contrasting his wicked choices. In response to this resentment, Cain tried to eliminate the competition by killing Abel. Instead of looking at his own sin and failing, Cain chose to tear down and kill the contrasting righteous expression of his brother.
This pattern of tearing down the righteous expression of others to defend an unrighteous expression seems to be the underlying force behind churches that tear down a strong feminine expression of worship to make room for a more masculine expression. To put it plainly, men refusing to give God their best have fallen into the rebellion of Cain. God does not accept leftover offerings and leftover worship. The absence of men in the church is ultimately the result of men rebelling against God, of men feeding themselves the best and choice fruit, while giving God little or nothing in return. In contrast to the Cain offering of men, we have the Abel offering of women. Despite the rebellion of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, women are still faithfully giving their best to God. They are giving their first and best fruit to God.
Sadly, in some circles, a response to the worthy offering of women has been to blame women for the lack of spiritual integrity in their male counterpart. As mentioned previously, there are proponents of a more masculine church that blame the bold commitment of women as the reason for the lack of commitment by men. As far as I’m concerned, this is no different from Cain’s resentment of Abel. Sadly, when humans are disciplined by God, we have a propensity to blame others for our rebellion.
Some of the strongest proponents for a more “masculine” church usually deal with male and female contrasting worship expressions in the following ways: they yell at weak men and blame strong women.
They yell at the men and tell them to be more manly
At some level, these churches and leaders recognize that men have not given God their best. In response to this problem, they often try to rally men like an angry coach or drill sergeant. The assumption is to make men more manly, we need to treat them like our culture’s best examples of manly men. Without having healthy family examples of their own, these “masculinity” leaders often go to Hollywood to find their examples of real men. Sadly, these cartoonish portrayals of masculinity often contrast the way Jesus lived and the words he spoke.
They blame women for the faults of men
Leaders who champion a resurgence of Christian masculinity often also decry the presence of strong femininity or strong female leaders. They frequently speak of feminism as harming the ability of the church to reach men. They view women in leadership as a threat to men being able to follow God’s lead. They portray powerful women as a hinderance to men being able to participate fully in the advancement of God’s kingdom. In other words, they blame the weakness of men on the strengths of women. In my opinion, this is simply Cain resenting Abel. If Abel wasn’t such a show off, Cain wouldn’t look that bad. If women weren’t so strong, men wouldn’t look so weak.
Obviously I’m talking about a general trend that certainly does not hold true of every man or every woman. However, I do believe that there is a certain segment of the church that has embraced a false notion of how the church can reach both men and women. In response to the rebellion of men, there have been some who’ve chosen to berate the men and accuse the women of causing the failings of their male counterparts. To me, this is Cain and Abel all over again.
The answer to man’s rebellion
So what’s the answer? It seems God’s response to Cain is the best answer to men and their unwillingness to participate in the gathered community of Christ.
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it’” (Gen 4:6-7).
I believe God’s words to Cain are applicable for all men. God has called every man to give his best offering. If we don’t give our best, it will put us in a very weak position, where sin will devour us. Our response to God’s discipline must be to follow Abel’s lead by giving our first and best to God. Abel is not the problem, righteous women are not the problem, it is our sin that is the problem. Thankfully, God will help us if we repent of our anger and follow his lead. I sincerely believe that if we repent of our rebellion and follow Abel’s example, we will pay far less attention to the masculinity or femininity of the church and far more attention to the condition of our hearts.
Ad if church needs to be like fight club or men won’t come? No, I think you’ve hit the real reason: prideful resentment. Good work, Doug
Hi Doug, I’ve never commented on your blog before (I don’t think…?), but your tweet about it certainly caught my attention. To this point, one of the best analyses I’d read of this issue had been this post, http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-feminization-of-church.html?utm_content=buffer70b9c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
but I appreciate yours very much. I love the idea of all of us being required to give our best offering; I would never have thought of this topic in relation to Cain and Abel. It’s good to hear these thoughts coming from a man, actually. I frankly have had it with the “church is too feminine” argument, mainly because of one of the points you articulate so well: that women end up being blamed because men are not stepping up (to lead or serve or whatever). The implication is that women contaminate things. If women get too involved (in ANYTHING, really), that will make that thing less palatable to men, so men will pull back — which is, as you say, out and out sexism. What really hurts is to hear WOMEN lamenting the increased presence of women, e.g. an older woman in my church who says how “sad” she is when she sees that all the ushers are women, or whatever.
Making the church “more masculine” according to our cultural definitions is not the answer: not more football analogies or recasting of the gospel as a great adventure for those who enjoy extreme sports. Worshiping God and serving one another in love should be our focus. I also think we should have more sermons about sexism. (And by more, I mean one.) (And by about sexism, I mean against sexism.)
i found this interesting and worthy of reading. Thanks for your insight. I am not a “religious” man but, consider myself to to be a “spiritual” man. I do find myself longing for a church that meets my needs both spiritually and as a place where I am allowed to be a man. My wife is far ahead of me in her walk with Christ but, she respects where I am in my walk and in my life as a man. I believe that when a church and its leadership provides for all of us(man or woman) they will find we are different in breadth and depth. We are and always will be different in our needs. Finding balance in all things in life is difficult but, worthy. We must always strive for our own truth and strive to lead as leaders of our families. Be strong and kind in all things as the Lord is both strong and kind.
This is very thoughtful and thought provoking. Thank you! This does seem like great instruction from the Holy Spirit. I’ve heard very few, good, applicable explanations of this story. Very helpful.
This is like a breath of fresh air! And I do agree it is revelation from the Holy Spirit…a revelation that needs to be shared far and wide. Thanks for having the courage to swim against the flow and also to advocate for women. Greatly appreciated! I’m sharing this on our ministry Facebook Page.
Interesting perspective and very compelling read. I wonder if a distinction should be drawn between men not going to a church service vs. men not “going to church”. It seems to me that the church service is only a single facet to something so much larger than just that one weekly event.
Several years ago, I started volunteering to help with the kids ministry on Sundays. Many people complemented me for my service and sacrifice, but the truth is, I volunteered because I was bored sitting in a church service. I think a lot of men prefer to be doing something, rather than sitting in a service. For those men, I suggest they may want to think of church outside the Sunday event and look for ways they can help out.
I feel as close to God while hanging out with 2 and 3 yr olds as I do the adults in a sanctuary. Closer even.
This is fantastic Doug! I would also add that most churches are still led primarily by men. In many churches only men are allowed to lead worship, pastor, serve communion, serve on elder boards, etc. How then is the church too feminine? It seems like a myth to me. Instead, I’d say the church isn’t feminine enough. We need women and men serving alongside each other, not this lopsided church that favors men above women.
Great blog!
Thanks for a very thoughtful and thought provoking article. The “war on masculinity” has been being waged for some time. It has left men desperate to hold onto any semblence of their manhood and, as you rightly point out, left them like victims defensively blaming others for their plight. The cure is indeed in the sacrifice. Not in the one’s we make but in the one that has been made for us.
This was an excellent article and, unfortunately, as applicable today as it was 11 years ago when it was written. I had also been reading similar articles that said the reason men don’t go to church was because church was to feminine. I did find this perplexing as church is created by men, run by men, and in some extreme cases of sexism, run for men. Even if you scratch out that last part out, church is still created by men and run by men. Men are the pastors, deacons, trustees, and treasurers as well as the builders and contractors. Definitely in my religion this is true as it is considered a sin and usurping authority over a man if a woman holds any of these positions. So, if men are running everything, why would they voluntarily make church feminish?
Especially in churches that are very male focused and, I hate to use the word “sexist”, but sexist churches are still low in male attendance. Unfortunately, I grew up in a very male centered church where women were very low valued, and and the men were high valued and often told that a sinful man was often the fault of a woman. One would think this would compel more men to come to church and scare more women away, but even in this church the female attendance was higher.
Finally, I asked a man that went to church what he thought about the “church is to feminine” argument, and he said he thinks only a small fraction of men believe this. He obviously doesn’t and he doesn’t believe this explains the majority of the men who leave church or choose to never come in the first place.
Brilliant. I sometimes wonder where the masculine ideal some Christians lionize came from.
The trouble with this article is that it is based on a flawed assumption, namely, that “going to church” is synonymous with being obedient to God in one’s personal life. Those in church leadership often seem to judge other people’s spiritual lives based on whether they turn up for church services or participate in church life. Some men, myself included, are absolutely fed up with the ghetto mentality of Christianity, and long for the church to stop being so inward looking and to start engaging with the serious problems of society. Church leaders may berate men for not going to church, but I would like to ask if these churches are actually feeding the poor, caring for the homeless, visiting the lonely (irrespective of creed), and providing intelligent, well-informed, compassionate and engaged (rather than detached and self-righteous) moral leadership?
I have sat in church countless times listening to denunciations of “the world” and urging the flock to evangelise (presumably in the hope that numbers in the church will be bumped up with a concomitant positive effect on revenue), but I have seen very little real, compassionate engagement with society. I am fed with it. God is fed up with it. Jesus went out and engaged with the lost (by which I do NOT mean “the damned”), the broken and the confused and He had very little time for those who were more concerned with religious observance, no matter how theologically correct (hence the truly shocking parable of the Good Samaritan).
Blaming men for the problems of the Church, which are largely due to its insularity and ghetto-mentality (along with its craven neglect – even contempt – of the poor and needy in some parts of the world), is frankly “below the belt”.
Flawed logic in assuming that it is sexist to suggest men don’t go to church because their needs are not met. The suggestion assumes equal motivations for males and females. ie that either sex would go if their needs are met. Assuming equal motivations is not sexist.
The question however, is, why don’t as many men go to church? Is it because church is feminised and so has an unbalanced representation of God, or, because they are not as spiritual as women?
I’m not sure on the first question, (is church slightly feminised) , it is possible some churches may be in some areas.
On the second question, are women generally more spiritual. I think I would have to answer yes. The male:female imbalance is actually much greater in many parts of the world, such as China, Russia, etc, with some church communities being from 60-90% female. Why? Not sure, may have to do with women in general having less power in the world than men, and hence by circumstance and neccesity having more humility. Just as Paul not many rich were among the church, the poor, oppressed, dispossessed tend to have humility that opens them to God.
…then, again, perhaps men (and most of the populace) has pulled away from a church that is more interested in sin than people. A church that knows about law but not relationship. A church that has lost its way trying to “do good” in a way that is big and broad and “relevant” in a media-culture and has not realized that for the most part it fails to connect with the real heart of people and now does more damage than good. Perhaps, just maybe, it is because the church no longer gets it right. Because anyone who thinks they have the corner on the market on right and wrong and “we know God best” and then separates itself into opposing camps based on minutia like “how to baptize” or weather bread becomes “real flesh” all seem like a bunch of morons with no sense of what is important. Perhaps a religion that wants to control politics seems to be a church that wants to control its followers while preaching a God who believed in free will. Perhaps a church that wants to be political and doesn’t notice a Christ that didn’t get into politics and was betrayed by a man who believed he would be starting a coup…perhaps that church seems intellectually insincere. Perhaps the church that believes that society’s problem is “not enough church goers” when their Christ never established a church…well, perhaps they seem a bit too self important and unaware that God is available to men with, or without their leadership, with or without their judgement. With or without their being there to help them loose their way in all the minutia and BS that confuses our reasons for being here with the reasons the church wants us to be there. Maybe, just maybe, you aren’t asking the right questions. Perhaps first you should ask…Do we even know God anymore? Is what we do even needed? Could we be getting it ALL WRONG?
I like the article because it does acknowledge that there is a problem of lack of men in the church and over the last few years there has been a significant increase in books, articles, discussions about this very subject which is amazing. Here in the UK statistics average around 40/60 and some areas there are 30/70 ratio of men and woman church attendance. At the same time men are leaving the church. Over the last 20 years 38% of men in church left. At the same time 50% of men under the age of 30 have also left. To me its a problem that the church cannot seem to be able to engage with its own believing men let alone non believing men!
To add the largest cause of death in men in the UK of under 50s is suicide. We talk a lot about a fatherless generation, children growing up without their dads, boys need fathers as role models, girls need fathers for affirmation. The statistics are clear bring a father to Christ there is a 92% chance the rest of the family will follow.
There is huge potential for change if the church can engage with men.
I have the upmost respect for church leaders but I also think they do need to listen to men and woman in their congregations who to be perfectly blunt are generally outside the church bubble and see things different. I run a business and if I didn’t listen to my clients then I think the business would slowly sink. I think same goes with the church and men are voting with their feet and walking away. I am sure sometimes books that talk about problems with church annoy church leaders but I am sure many of them have inspired new church movements if those leaders allow them to reflect of what they are doing and how they can do things differently.
So what do we do about this? Well the answer is not just telling men to “man up” and get on with it and learn to fit in which I think this article was saying. While I do agree men need to step up to the plate and take a lead it is also important for the church to engage and encourage men to do this by standing alongside each other. This is happening more and more now in the UK with churches being encouraged to set up mens groups. There are also mens festivals and away days also where there is already some amazing stories of lives being changed and men meeting Jesus for the first time and wives and children following. There is also evidence of increase in church attendance amongst churches who engage with men.
Not only that but men are also standing together against big issues that are blighting society. Violence against woman, porn, trafficking. Also getting men engaged with social issues such as mentoring young people and caring for ex offenders. Includes getting ex offenders into positive church mens groups. Not only that there is a new movement of fathers and children’s groups which is a new way of engaging and bringing together fathers. We are not being exclusive or trying to create a men only church. Its about creating space. Look in any church newsletter and there are often plenty of regular activities for woman esp mothers groups.
Why men only? Men need time together, they open up and able to be more venerable with each other and form open solid friendships. Often these cannot be formed in church settings. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you men need time with men.
The article talks about feminism – I am concerned that the term feminist is becoming a negative term. To me it means loving, caring, nurture. These are all positive traits but not all men can engage with these. Masculine traits are (for example) challenge, goals, active. Its about a balance its not about making church a hard masculine environment. But I believe it has gone to feminist in some areas and when it comes to engaging with men that is a problem. Its about balance.
Another issue I think came out the article was stereotyping. Not all men are hard challenging types. I am certainly not a hard bloke and I get annoyed when I am made to feel I should be a certain type of person. Thats is an issue but I think we just have to work with it. The bigger issue we have here is the many men and woman who are dying without knowing Jesus.
Lets look outside of our cosy little middle class church bubbles and see the bigger picture and engage with all of the community around us.
This is amazing, you are the only person on the internet who has had the spiritual insight to call out exactly what’s going on. Thank you so much. Thank you for identifying and naming the sexism what it is. Thank you for the theological application to Cain and Abel. Thank you for holding men accountable. I pray that your suggested solution will come to be in the hearts of believing men everywhere