Why Men Stay Away From The Feminized Church

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1805033' date='Mar 12 2009, 04:26 PM']The Pope said Christ is genderless?[/quote]


No, he said God is neither male not female. As I said he went on to qualify that and I am not the right phatmasser to go into greater depth. He did, as I recall, add as part of his qualification that the fact that God mannifested himself as a male in the figure of Christ is important. I have not read that book since 11th grade and really don't want to try and propperly give his explanation.

[takebacktonight]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1805037' date='Mar 12 2009, 04:28 PM']The problem, in my observation, is not so much that there are the "feminine" attributes in the Church, but rather that many of what are considered "masculine" attributes have been pushed out - notably assertiveness and decisiveness. And I use the word "attribute" because these attributes need to be employed by BOTH genders (for example, both mother and father will need to be able to be assertive in order to say "NO!" to their children - and yes, this qualifies as a confrontation - when the need arises). Unfortunately, "confrontation" is a dirty word among many Christians today - many will say that "keeping the peace" is the most important thing.

BOTH attributes are needed by BOTH genders and so BOTH need to coexist.[/quote]

I'm not sure about the Catholic church not being assertive and decisive...

But I do agree with you that everyone has become too PC and scared.

[takebacktonight]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1805040' date='Mar 12 2009, 04:29 PM']No, he said God is neither male not female.[/quote]


It's difficult to conceptualize an omnipotent, divine being.

I can see the Pope's reasoning that God is neither male nor female because God doesn't have a physical body..

I wonder....does anyone know if the Church makes a distinction between sex, and gender?

[Socrates]

This problem was addressed from a Catholic perspective in the book [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Impotent-Feminization-Christianity/dp/1890626198/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236907012&sr=8-1"][i]The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity[/i], by Leon Podles[/url].
While one may not agree with everything these people say, I think they have some legitimate points. The "feminization of Christianity" is indeed a problem, in both much of "mainstream" protestant churches, and, unfortunately, in many Catholic parishes.

I think the problem is less so in solidly orthodox "conservative" parishes, such as my home parish, where there seems to be a pretty healthy balance between men and women.

It seems this topic periodically comes up on Phatmass, and every time I address it, there's a mob of angry women at my throat . . .


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1804837' date='Mar 12 2009, 12:34 PM']I find this hilarious. Are their churches dominated by female preachers? If the answer is no, then just as many men are preaching "feminized" Christianity. Maybe these male preachers should recognize that they are losing male members and ask themselves why. Or maybe male preachers can give female preachers some kind words of advice.

Furthermore, I severely dislike that the blame is being placed on women, that men are leaving the church. Maybe it's not JUST the style of preaching, but the members' [i]personality[/i] and [i]"me-first" faith[/i] that pushes them to leave and search for a church more to their liking. That's why Catholicism is so great, there's no room for subjective interpretation.[/quote]
I think the word "feminization" tends to cause problems and misunderstandings.
The problem isn't women or a feminine presence in the Church, but rather the lack of a masculine or manly presence which ought to be present. I do think feminism in the Church has contributed to the problem, however.
I think "emasculation" might be a better, more accurate term to use, though "feminization" is commonly used in our language to describe loss of a strongly masculine character; ie. "the feminization of the workplace," "feminization of the military," etc.

I agree that the problem isn't so much women as unmanly men leading parishes (another reason a preponderance of homosexual or otherwise effeminate men in seminaries is a problem, but that's probably another debate).

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1804868' date='Mar 12 2009, 01:05 PM']Okay, I see what you're saying. Also, I don't think it's wise to say "women are nurturers" and "men are adventurous." While both statements are [i]true[/i] they should not be [i]compared[/i] because then it sounds like men can't be nurturers and women can't be adventurous. Therefore, while these Christian churches seem to appeal to one's emotions and feelings, it's ridiculous to think "Emotions...feelings...okay, we're turning into feminists!" What a stupid conclusion.

[i]Why[/i] do they have to label that preaching "style" with a gender? They make it sound as if men are not as emotional as women. Just because men don't DISPLAY their emotions the way women do does NOT men that they experience LESS emotion. One of my priests is very passionate and animated during his homilies. Uh-oh, is that too much womanly emotion, will there be any men left in the pews this Sunday?

Anyway, just do a search on YouTube and watch clips of the Christians who flail around "possessed" by the Holy Spirit, or the Christians who shout "AMEN" to their preachers every five seconds with their arms raised, and tell me you see more women than men. Plenty of men go for that sort of thing too.[/quote]
You should read the article carefully before jumping all over it.

The "feminization" it's talking about is NOT the emotional, pumped-up "on-fire-with-the-Spirit" holy-roller Pentecostal type of preaching (a brand of religion, which, for whatever else one might say about it, I've never heard described as "feminized"), but rather the soft, touchy-feely "therapeutic" feel-good type of emphasis found in many "mainstream" churches today.[quote]…many people think of church only as a nurturing place that addresses personal needs, Pearcey said. Think: sitting in circles, sharing feelings, holding hands, singing softly, comforting members. An example of the feminization of the church is its music. Typical praise songs refer to Jesus as a Christian’s lover and praise his beauty and tenderness.[/quote]

While it's true that there are plenty of women such touchy-feely croutons does NOT appeal to, it's still an undeniable fact that overall, more women than men are drawn to (or tolerate) this sort of thing than men, for reasons discussed in the article.

Think of how women are more likely to watch soaps or Oprah, while men are more likely to watch sports. Stereotyping, perhaps, but not without a basis in reality.


Interestingly, I've seen signs that (at least in Catholic circles) things may be starting to change with this regard. Our pastor recently announced the need for more volunteers for parish duties, and how now (unusually) it was mostly [i]women's[/i] positions that were vacant.

Also, there was a recent survey of students at "Catholic" universities, which showed dismal results regarding things like sexual morality, support for abortion and homosexuality, and closeness to the sacraments.
Surprisingly, the results were worse for women in every category, especially "closeness to the sacraments."
The surveyors blamed feminism for this.
Not sure if this can be called good news, though.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='takebacktonight' post='1805048' date='Mar 12 2009, 03:38 PM']It's difficult to conceptualize an omnipotent, divine being.

I can see the Pope's reasoning that God is neither male nor female because God doesn't have a physical body..

I wonder....does anyone know if the Church makes a distinction between sex, and gender?[/quote]
God the Father has no physical body, and therefore cannot technically be called "male," though the male sex reflects in a pale way the Divine Fatherhood of God.

God is properly referred to by the masculine gender. He should not be thought of as some sort of androgynous being or an impersonal "it."

[takebacktonight]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1805362' date='Mar 12 2009, 09:42 PM']It seems this topic periodically comes up on Phatmass, and every time I address it, there's a mob of angry women at my throat . . .[/quote]

Right...because that is not a gross stereotype or anything.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1805362' date='Mar 12 2009, 09:42 PM']I think the word "feminization" tends to cause problems and misunderstandings.
The problem isn't women or a feminine presence in the Church, but rather the lack of a masculine or manly presence which ought to be present. I do think feminism in the Church has contributed to the problem, however.
I think "emasculation" might be a better, more accurate term to use, though "feminization" is commonly used in our language to describe loss of a strongly masculine character; ie. "the feminization of the workplace," "feminization of the military," etc.[/quote]

This is actually an extremely old idea that has popped up in many forms; the notion that femaleness is the result of a lack of maleness. Up until the 17-18th century, women were considered to be underdeveloped men. The female reproductive organs were thought to be an inverted version of the male organs, and therefore, more primitive. To scientists of that time, people were biologically same, only half of them were underdeveloped. Females in those days were, in essence, a lesser species worthy of subjugation. (I will have sources all ready for you in the morning).

We still hear shadows of this development talk when we say homosexuals are not fully developed, thus, the 'effeminate' nature of many gay men...

Which brings me to the question...what exactly are these inherent 'manly' qualities you speak of?




[quote name='Socrates' post='1805362' date='Mar 12 2009, 09:42 PM']I agree that the problem isn't so much women as unmanly men leading parishes (another reason a preponderance of homosexual or otherwise effeminate men in seminaries is a problem, but that's probably another debate).[/quote]

I'll be sure to tell my priest to go hunting more often. While I am at it, I'll write a letter to the Pope suggesting he lay off the lace and the fancy shoes...

Are you really suggesting that a main issue with this so-called 'problem' with mainstream Christianity is that there is not enough male influence in the Catholic church? Let's face it: no matter how you slice it, the hierarchy is very much a patriarchy, and will remain so for many years.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1805362' date='Mar 12 2009, 09:42 PM']Also, there was a recent survey of students at "Catholic" universities, which showed dismal results regarding things like sexual morality, support for abortion and homosexuality, and closeness to the sacraments.
Surprisingly, the results were worse for women in every category, especially "closeness to the sacraments."
The surveyors blamed feminism for this.
Not sure if this can be called good news, though.[/quote]

I went to one of those so-called 'Catholic' universities. There was more immorality there than any other campus I've set foot on. Yes, at my school, I would be willing to bet that not many men would support feminism, or abortion rights, or homosexuality on a survey. However, these were also the men who were raping and abusing the girls, and beating the gays (or suspected gays) while the administration stood dumbly by.

Forgive the girls for questioning their faith in an environment like that.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='takebacktonight' post='1805682' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:28 AM']Right...because that is not a gross stereotype or anything. [/quote]
I don't see how that is a stereotype.

[takebacktonight]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1805700' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:37 AM']I don't see how that is a stereotype. [/quote]


Women who strongly oppose a point of view being characterized as an angry mob is not a stereotype?

This 'manly' woman is keeping her cool though.

Edited March 13, 2009 by takebacktonight

[ardillacid]

[quote name='takebacktonight' post='1805714' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:44 AM']Women who strongly oppose a point of view being characterized as an angry mob is not a stereotype?

This 'manly' woman is keeping her cool though. [/quote]
Dude, really.

[takebacktonight]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1805737' date='Mar 12 2009, 11:58 PM']Dude, really. [/quote]


I've been schooled in this stuff, gimme a break! oops...let that giggle slip. I forgot I am supposed to be humourless too .

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1805033' date='Mar 12 2009, 05:26 PM']The Pope said Christ is genderless?[/quote]

Gender is part of creation; male and female together are a reflection of God's image. Since God is not part creation, "he" is without gender. So the divine nature of Christ is without gender, though the human nature of Christ is male.

Cue the hypostatic union... good name for a band, I think.

Edited March 13, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[desertwoman]

I guess being in all black churches most of my life, this doesn't really compute with me. The preacher always gives a sermon from the heart and we have pews full with men.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1805900' date='Mar 13 2009, 07:15 AM']Gender is part of creation; male and female together are a reflection of God's image. Since God is not part creation, "he" is without gender. So the divine nature of Christ is without gender, though the human nature of Christ is male.

Cue the hypostatic union... good name for a band, I think. [/quote]
Gender is a linguistic category. That said, the divine nature is without sex, but God has gender in the New Testament, i.e., God is Father.

As far as God being male is concerned, the Logos became man by assuming human nature from the Holy Theotokos, and so the second person of the Holy Trinity is truly -- after the incarnation -- male.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Church Punk' post='1804876' date='Mar 12 2009, 02:11 PM']I dont hear this said much, apart from 2 sources (the Tridentine Mass and Opus Dei, especially from most dioceasen priest, they almost always side with a femine approach to preaching. And you might as well forget any groups at a parish. Being a mid-twentys male, I find almost nothing appealing that most parishes have going on outside of Mass.

...This is why I think many men are drawn to Opus Dei, this is perciesly what I hear them preach, how to be holy in your daily work- industries and business, during sports, at home with family, alone.[/quote]
Yeah! Opus Dei!

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1804882' date='Mar 12 2009, 02:17 PM']John Eldredge, anyone?[/quote]
I see what you mean. He touched on this in "Wild at Heart". I think he had some disputes over "churches" because of his realization of this issue. That's what I was told anyways.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1806166' date='Mar 13 2009, 04:39 PM']I see what you mean. He touched on this in "Wild at Heart". I think he had some disputes over "churches" because of his realization of this issue. That's what I was told anyways.[/quote]

His books seem to be pretty controversial, but that's why I always liked them. Some guys took the macho message a little overboard, but he can also throw down some solid theology of the body without even knowing it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='takebacktonight' post='1805682' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:28 AM']Right...because that is not a gross stereotype or anything. [/quote]
Actually, I made that remark with tongue firmly in cheek - the "old timers" on here will get what I'm saying, sorry if I offended any newbies.

And, after all, stereotypically, it is [i]men[/i] that are prone to forming angry mobs (usually with pitchforks in hand).

So, yeah, you can put down your pitchfork.


[quote]This is actually an extremely old idea that has popped up in many forms; the notion that femaleness is the result of a lack of maleness. Up until the 17-18th century, women were considered to be underdeveloped men. The female reproductive organs were thought to be an inverted version of the male organs, and therefore, more primitive. To scientists of that time, people were biologically same, only half of them were underdeveloped. Females in those days were, in essence, a lesser species worthy of subjugation. (I will have sources all ready for you in the morning).

We still hear shadows of this development talk when we say homosexuals are not fully developed, thus, the 'effeminate' nature of many gay men...[/quote]
All very interesting (though I'd say of dubious accuracy. I'm sure even in the most primitive and unenlightened of times, people were aware that an undeveloped man is not a woman, but a boy). However, it's basically unrelated to my my points about problems in the Church.

I think there is support for the idea of homosexuality being related to psychological development issues - though for reasons totally unrelated to those you mentioned.

[quote]Which brings me to the question...what exactly are these inherent 'manly' qualities you speak of?[/quote]
I speak of qualities such as courage, strength, and the willingness to sacrifice and stand up and fight for what one believes in, and to protect those weaker and their honor.

I think everyone knows (and respects) a manly man, or a "real man," when he sees one.

(Now, before I get jumped on, I do not mean at all to imply that women are a bunch of cowardly weaklings. A real woman has a womanly strength all her own, but one that tends to be more nurturing, and less confrontational.)

Praising manly qualities in men in no way denigrates womanly qualities in women. The two are complimentary.

[quote]I'll be sure to tell my priest to go hunting more often. While I am at it, I'll write a letter to the Pope suggesting he lay off the lace and the fancy shoes...[/quote]
Traditional priestly vestments have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, dumb fundie mockery to the contrary.
Please deal with what I (and the article) actually say, rather than bringing up straw-man nonsense.
There are many priests who are very manly - true spiritual leaders of men. They are not the ones who are part of the problem.

[quote]Are you really suggesting that a main issue with this so-called 'problem' with mainstream Christianity is that there is not enough male influence in the Catholic church? Let's face it: no matter how you slice it, the hierarchy is very much a patriarchy, and will remain so for many years.[/quote]
Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.
The Catholic "patriarchy" has nothing to do with it. (The problem is worse in many "mainstream protestant" churches which have female ordained ministers).

And yes, I regard it as a problem in those feminized parishes where the priest is one of the few males in sight, surrounded by a flock of altar girls, female lectors and EMs, and a congregation made up mostly of old ladies.

And Christ chose only men to be his Apostles (the first bishops/priests). If you have a problem with "patriarchy" in this regard, you have a problem with Christ Himself.


[quote]I went to one of those so-called 'Catholic' universities. There was more immorality there than any other campus I've set foot on. Yes, at my school, I would be willing to bet that not many men would support feminism, or abortion rights, or homosexuality on a survey. However, these were also the men who were raping and abusing the girls, and beating the gays (or suspected gays) while the administration stood dumbly by.

Forgive the girls for questioning their faith in an environment like that.[/quote]
I'm sorry you had to go to school in such an environment.

I probably didn't make myself sufficiently clear, but the survey I was referring to (wish I had it available, read about it in the [i]National Catholic Register[/i] a few months ago) was about old secularized liberal schools which had largely become Catholic-in-name-only (CINO). They showed an abysmal lack of Catholicism in the areas mentioned in [b]both[/b] male and female students alike. It was just that things were somewhat worse, contrary to expectations, among the women (even in areas of sexual morality and sacraments).

I'd be willing to bet the bank that those guys who were raping and abusing women and beating people up were NOT close to the sacraments (nor probably much active in their Faith at all).

And I don't think there's any evidence that men who are pro-life, etc. are more prone to be abusive of women than those who are pro-abortion or opposed to traditional sexual morality.
(Someone once said feminism has created a utopia for caddish men.)

I went to one of the few schools which is authentically Catholic ([url="http://www.christendom.edu"]Christendom College[/url]), where the professors take a yearly oath of fidelity to the Magisterium, the sacraments are emphasized, and the campus rules and activities strive to make the Catholic Faith a part of daily life - the whole nine yards - and about as conservative a college as they come. And basically the whole college was against abortion "rights," homosexual activity, or feminism.

I can tell you for a fact that problems of rape and abuse of women were basically non-existent. It was an environment where women were treated with respect, and chivalry (an important part of Christian manliness) was encouraged. It was a place where girls could feel safe walking the campus at night. There was also practically no serious violence among students.

Call it repressed, rigid, what-you-will, but certainly it is not a place where rape and violence flourish, such problems being much more prevalent on campuses where lax morality and religious/moral relativism are the rule.

If you are attempting to insinuate that Catholic orthodoxy somehow causes or correlates with abusive behavior in men, I'm afraid you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Socrates

[Sarah_JC]

Excuse my rant:

I personally found the article a pile of mildly offensive rhetoric. Especially the later paragraphs starting with "Most women...". Women don't want to be comforted and not confronted on the sinfulness. Some do, but probably an equal portion of men want to avoid being confronted about their sinfulness. That's not why I go to church. I go to church to learn how to follow Jesus and be a better follower. Sure, sometimes I need to be reminded not to be too hard on myself, and forgive myself and love myself etc. But that's not the main point. That's what I need to do to stop being distracted from the main point.

I agree with words like "emasculated" and "impotent" to describe the effects of a lack of men on many churches. This indicates the loss of something. But "feminization" as femininity is a good and holy thing, would only be a good thing. If the church was more "feminized" there'd be a lot more self-sacrifice, life-giving, and receptiveness to the will of God. Which would entail preaching the truth whether you wanted to hear it or not.

This so-called "feminized" church must have a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary, no? I mean, you can't get more feminine than Our Lady. And the manliest men I know have a strong devotion to her.

If the "feminized" church is not devoted to Mary, and not feminine in its receptiveness to the Holy Spirit... then it's not really feminine. More like the "androgynized" church.

God bless

[Nihil Obstat]

You think it would be safe to say that the most 'manly' church could also be considered the most *truly* 'feminine'? Speaking from a Catholic perspective, of course.

It seems to me that when the emphasis is in the right place, things tend to work themselves out fairly decently. Masculine where healthy, and feminine where healthy, both completing and perfecting each other.

This is actually a little bit off topic though, considering I tend to agree with the original article, in theory.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Sarah_JC' post='1808564' date='Mar 16 2009, 11:12 AM']Excuse my rant:

I personally found the article a pile of mildly offensive rhetoric. Especially the later paragraphs starting with "Most women...". Women don't want to be comforted and not confronted on the sinfulness. Some do, but probably an equal portion of men want to avoid being confronted about their sinfulness. That's not why I go to church. I go to church to learn how to follow Jesus and be a better follower. Sure, sometimes I need to be reminded not to be too hard on myself, and forgive myself and love myself etc. But that's not the main point. That's what I need to do to stop being distracted from the main point.[/quote]

The author did make some generalizations, though I'm not sure if he intended them to be offensive so much as stating the truth about how women relate to one another and God, which is different from how men relate. We all need to be challenged, for example, but I would reckon that women prefer to be challenged through the experience of faith while men prefer a more direct "getting your hands dirty" challenge. Of course, there are exceptions and your mileage may vary.

Now, the intriguing thing about Marian devotion is that it does help men grow into godlier men. I can't help but believe that the male priesthood and Mary's role in our faith have helped Catholicism and Orthodoxy avoid the worldly feminization (in contrast to godly and holy feminization) that has afflicted much of Evangelicalism.

[quote name='Sarah_JC' post='1808564' date='Mar 16 2009, 11:12 AM']This so-called "feminized" church must have a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary, no? I mean, you can't get more feminine than Our Lady. And the manliest men I know have a strong devotion to her.[/quote]

Indeed... that's one of those paradoxes of our faith. This article is obviously talking about worldly feminism, which emasculates men and confuses our roles; but holy feminism helps us find our way and makes men stronger. That is what makes Mary (and holy women in general) attractive to men seeking holiness.

Something to think about, at least...

[Guest]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1804932' date='Mar 12 2009, 02:25 PM']Except Adam and Eve did not KNOW they were naked until AFTER they ate the fruit. [/quote]

But that storys not even true though right ?