In cultural studies, there has been an ongoing debate about whether our concepts of childhood and adulthood are socially constructed. When you look at somebody like Michael Jackson, is he supposed to be a man or a boy? He's the quintessential 'Peter Pan syndrome' case.However, recently it seems that our definitions between what a boy and what a man are seems to have been blurring. Now forty year olds are playing video games, rock climbing, and acting the fool with their friends; and boys are running businesses and looking older than ever...
In the Times recently offered an article on this subject in relation to a new show called 'Love Monkey' - which never made it past the first couple of weeks of airing.
Is this representative of a culture of male Peter Pans? Are guys not taking on a sense of responsibility these days?
We were discussing this in our office a couple of weeks ago, particularly in relation to a debate going on on why men hate church.. Part of me wonders whether or not there is a connection between this Peter Pan cultural phenomena and the growing absence of men who participate in the everyday life of the local Christian community?
What are your thoughts? Is this something you have experienced? Why do you think it is so? How do we change this?
30 comments:
So you’re suggesting that the reason guys don’t like to go to church is because guys are immature? How does that explain all of the girls who don’t like to go to church?
This has to be the most popular topic among all Christian blogs. Every time I turn around, somebody is writing about how they don’t like church anymore. In fact, Joel over at: http://canadiansalvo.blogspot.com/ is the most recent one to ask this question.
This question can’t be answered in the space I have here to write a comment, so I’ll just leave you with a few bullet points.
Lack of Authenticity
Lack of Intimacy
Lack of gifted artists on stage
Lack of inspiration
Lack of fun
Lack of depth
Lack of good teachers
Little connection with what we’re doing in our church services, and how Jesus instructed us to live our lives and spend out time.
These are harsh, and probably seem a little bit harsher without explanation, but I (for one) am tired of having to pretend that our church services are anything but the most boring and uninspiring presentations on God’s planet.
Now, here’s where somebody comes along and says something to the effect of “you get out of it what you put into it”. Thanks for that in advance. And my response will be, “why should I put anything into it? I get better fellowship, more intimate worship, deeper Bible study, and accountability (at all) out of my small group than I do the Sunday morning service. And where two or more are gathered…so why should I have to attend the Sunday morning gig?” Answer? So people will believe that I’m a Christian.
Nice.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the posting.
You seem to really get into your responses - sorta 'hot under the collar'... I LOVE it! This is what this forum (and form) of dialogue is all about!
[Also - I remember Joel way back from Toronto days - we played tuba together!]
I hear what your saying about the limitations of the church service, and I'm right there with you... but isn't this just our modern, individualitstic need to have EVERYTHING tailor-made to us??? We have iPods which we tailor-make to ourselves... Do we now need iChurches???
While I hear (and resonate) with what you have to say, we also need to admit that this is a bit of a 'MY'opic response!
What I am noticing is the lack of male presence in the church. Janet Ashcraft and I were talking about this in the office the other day - how so many of the young boys who come to our Corps are coming with their Granny/Mom/sister... This isn't to say that this is also happening with girls, too, but I am wondering whether guys move away from church because of an absence of male role-models... and whether this is because most of our guys are out doing what THEY want to do. And whether we can put a cap on this massive hole?
Adolescence is often about discovering who 'I' am... and while I understand the process of self-discovery is on-going, it seems that when this spans into the twenties, thirties, and forties, these men don't have TIME to help a kid figure out who they are in a local community (church) because they are too busy trying to figure out who they are themselves. Therefore, Sunday mornings are spent doing things which they want to do rather than being there for the next generation. Church is just an example of where this absence is most obvious. This plays out in a ton of different parts of everyday life.
In stating this, I'm not advocating a Promise Keepers, 'let's hold our hands together and cry' response; or even suggesting that guys need to become serious and sombre... What I am talking about is intentionally living for others - the next generation... and that this type of response goes against the grain of the expectation (and ideology) of our current social construction of manhood.
I'm not sure of the solution... Does anyone have any ideas?
Let's talk some more!
Steve
I wonder if it has some to do with desensitization of the male gender, as encouraged by the popular culture / media / society / etc.
If we're interested in the reason why men in general do not find church appealing (and not limiting ourselves to the already saved, but disgruntled evangelicals), perhaps a hardening of the hearts of men has something to do with it. Even if worship services were as consistently "authentic, intimate and inspiring" as we'd like them to be, I still think that the average modern man will only find that experience appealing if they have a tender heart that is open to spiritual matters.
That's a big "if", as I see it. Is sensitivity a nature/nurture issue? Does this fall into that great spiritual mystery of the elect vs free will? Perhaps yes on both. The referenced article makes some good points about how men are very much preoccupied in worshiping masculinity (in any number of readily available forms), and are being conditioned to do so beginning in adolescence and continuing far beyond.
I'm not sure how much we can do to combat this warped sense of masculinity, but I don't think that altering the worship format will do much if we can't even get them regularly in the door to begin with. I do believe that despite the barrage of societal influences about what defines a man, men still look to each other as a measuring stick for what defines masculinity. As a openly Christian man in the business world, I think there have been times when I've had a greater witness than I realize. On a rare occasion, I had a brief conversation with a spouse of a friend at work who remarked, "..you know, Bill really has a great deal of respect for you as a person."
I was challenged by that to not only be "in the world and not of the world", but also to be in the world, and take responsibility for trying to influence the world - one man (or woman) at a time.
salvationist too, you may be on to something. The things of church (ie: singing, hugging, public response) seem to be things that are more geared toward the female mindset, at least in our culture. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't appeal to men, I'm just saying that the unsaved men I know shy away from these things somewhat, for whatever reason.
As for what it takes to bring people into church, I am not convinced it is as complicated or as dependent on us as some would like to think. While we are instruments of God, the reality still is that God moves where He may, according to His Will. I was in a Salvation Army Corps a couple of weeks ago that broke every rule of modern church growth theory. The people leading the worship couldn't carry a tune, or a rhythm, in a bucket if they had to. An inordinant amount of time was given to the children (and their prayer requests for cats, dogs and all the rest). The message was delivered by an uneducated person. And yet . . . the place was literally packed. A gifted, young adult married couple that came in at the beginning of the service had to sit on opposite sides of the chapel because they couldn't find two seats together. This particular couple (both with college degrees)has recently left their lifelong home church (which, by the way, has all the wonderful, inspirational singing, small groups, preaching and the like) to join this motely crew because "this feels like we've come home."
The only things I noticed that jumped out at me were that 1. The officers knew the names of everyone associated with the attenders of their corps (including all the sick pets and unsaved aunts and uncles) and 2. from what I have seen, these officers (despite their perceived lack of musical and platform ability) have pure hearts.
I hesitate to claim we have much at all to do with where God moves except that we have a responsibility to allow Him to purify any sin that may be in the camp. It may sound overly simplistic, but I think the key has to do more with truly loving those God sends our way and staying pure in His sight.
"so that no one may boast before Him."
We certainly should seek to understand the things around us, but ultimately the answer is found (as always) in Him and not in us.
Tim I standing up in the middle of an NYC subway while reading about lack of authenticity and lack of intimacy
And then you started talking about boring services and gifted artists?
When was church ever supposed to be entertainment and who in their right mind would ever think a thithes driven weekly service could ever compare with multi million dollar productions.
Of course churches should strive to be Relevant but not entertainment.
If church is to be relevant why not scrap the entertaint ment factor all together Make church look more like a small groupfocus on times of sharing and supportive prayer instead of porrly written drama and worship that has been thrown together.
the churches described in acts and paul's letters seem to describe church more. Like we would cell groups
Steve,
The problem with the church is that it feels like a duty. It should not feel that way. It is not Peter Pan syndrome, in my humble opinion. It is that love has turned into duty. It is a chore for men and women to go to church because we think of it in just those terms. We are concerned with a place where instead of a people who. Jim talked about a gathering where everyone was known and loved. That is not a place of duty, it is a place of belonging. It has nothing to do with customization but everything to do with kingdom values. That is loving your neighbor and living as a community grace to bless the community at large. Worship has very little to do with it, in a Sunday Morning sense. Immaturity is not the issue. The fact is that we have assigned value to the wrong things. Number one is keeping the right appearance by filling a pew. Real church is like what we have experienced at Vailsburg this week. It is not just a maturity thing. It is a transformational experience. Really, how many places are offering those experiences to men and women?
Steve,
Haha. Wow! I must have been truly ticked the day I wrote the above comments, but I do stand by them. I probably just wouldn’t post them on a public message board again.
If I’m going to take the “lack of inspiration, etc.” out of my thought process, then I’d probably also mention the fact that women will seek out intimacy and significant relationships, while men have to have these things thrust upon them. In this case, women might be more apt to go to church seeking relationships, while men aren’t likely to do so. Factor in my belief that people find church services boring, and you’ve left very little reason for men to go to church.
Steve Carroll, I don’t disagree with a thing that you said. In fact, I agree whole heartedly. But the fact is, many churches have taken the “Christian entertainment” approach to church and, if you’re going to go there, do it well or don’t do it at all. As for me, I’m with you, I find much more authenticity (etc.) in a cell group than I do the Sunday morning gig.
Steve, I hear a lot of people take the Ichurch route in arguing against people’s desire to have their needs met through the church service, but that’s exactly what we’ve been trained to do. We’ve all been led to believe that the church service is church. And, we’ve all been led to feel guilty when, in fact, our needs aren’t met through it. And, when we go elsewhere seeking to get our needs met, we’re called disloyal, or a church hopper, or immature. And maybe it’s true. Maybe we are mature. But what happens when we begin to grow, and study the Bible, and realize that the Sunday morning gig isn’t really a New Testament mandate? What happens when we become mature enough to realize that a cell group is just as much church as the Sunday morning gig? And what happens when we can say that yes, we spend time in worship, Bible study, prayer, and fellowship with a small group of believers and that this, for us, is church. Do you think that the larger congregation will accept this?
And, if you’re answer is yes, then answer this one. Why are teenagers, who are involved in weekly cell groups and a weekly youth worship service, still expected to attend the Sunday morning service?
Part of what the Sunday morning gig does is brings people together beyond their own demographic. Teens who are involved in a small group or youth group or whatever, are usually (not always) in a group that resembles themselves. The beauty of the body of Christ is that as we mature, we begin to realize what each of us brings to the community. We desperately need those in the body who are not like we are. The difficulty often, is that the gulf that exists between generations is usually larger than the one we see between races.
I'm not saying this coming together needs to happen within the context of a Sunday morning worship service, but in my experience, that is the only time that the modern day church brings all the various subdivisions together. And it is our ability to come together in love that shows the world we have something different about us, namely Christ.
Steve - Have you read John Elderidge's "Wild at Heart"? In it, he addresses this issue, arguing that men are not in church because our modern mentality and expectation within the chruch is to make a man "a nice guy" - and that we are created to be much more; the church experience doesn't challenge us to be who were created to be.
In presenting the matter, Elderidge suggests that as boys we seem to have some connection (instinctively?) to who we should be in the way we play and the dreams so many boys long to live out. He suggests that as we were made with the imprint of the Creator on us, men were created for a "battle to fight", "an adventure to live", and " a beauty to rescue". It may be simplistic (and I obviously can't go into the deeper details of how he expands on each of these issues), but he argues that men simply do not find that in the common church experience, and thus are either absent physically, or emotionaly/spiritually if they do make it through the doors. In this sense, I think it gets back to your question about a "Peter Pan syndrome" and/or a lack of responsibility... Perhaps the church has not challenged the sense of responsibility - or at least the heart of what makes a man a man - enough. And so I agree with Larry about the need to be transformational - in this sense, being re-created in the image of our Creator.
In some senses we see this not only in men, but in boys too - our whole approach to teaching and programming traditionally seems to favour the way girls are wired. Rick Bundschuh takes this to task in his book, "Passed Thru Fire". Who are generally the keen kids who connect with traditional youth ministry programming? Probably girls. Who are the ones who are usually seen as most disruptive? Guys.
Maybe it's not a "man" issue (generationally), so much as it may be a "male" issue. Are we doing a good job of connecting with guys, period?
So why can’t the adults join the teen service?
Hi Salvationist Too,
Thanks for the comments. They're great.
Personally, I think that the idea of masculinity is more nurutre than nature. Our ideas of masculinity are largely socially constructed by the role models we have in our lives. This goes back to debating why boys play with toy soldiers, construction vehicles, and sports paraphanelia and girls play with Barbies, babies and cooking products - are these objects chosen by kids naturally or is this because they are reinforced through parental consumer choices, media representations and peer pressure?
With that being said, Douglas Rushkoff in Merchants of Cool (see my posting on this show from a couple of months ago) talks about the "Mook" male identity - the Johnny Knoxville representation which has been a fairly popular construction of malehood in recent years. This idea has carried over into the current evangelical idea of what a guy is supposed to be like... (Seeing that we tend to 'knock-off' pop. culture representations to present a "christian" alternative - whatever that means!)
So how does the Mook nale constructed identity connect with candles and highly emotive worship? Should the church co-opt to the needs to the Mook male? Is the socially constructed idea of evangelical church in need of renovation???
Somehow Jesus seemed to connect with men and women - he could navigate the wild-hearted spirit of Peter (and a bunch of zealots), but he could also appeal to Mary and Martha... yet he also connected with the very un-Mook apostle John 'the beloved.' Can we follow in Jesus footsteps?
Steve
Jim,
You are totally right. I think what this generation is looking for is not the latest knock-off version of church - they want AUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIP! We seem to forget that over and over and over again as each generation passes.
I just returned from Vailsburg, Newark where the Corps Officer knows a ton of gang members, kids, and adults - not just their names, but also their everyday challenges. She walks to the store and takes people along with her. She has the homeless walk into her kitchen while she is preparing a meal for half the kids in the neighborhood and she helps them out! There church building is one of the worst I've ever seen and you suffer from clausterphobia after 5 minutes in that place, but it is PACKED with people - and I'd go back there any day! Why? Because she GETS IT! She understands what people are searching for and desperately need. The presence of Christ communicated through the medium of the BODY of Christ - which is an authentic, godly, truly-concerned community.
And guess what? She has a ton of young men who come almost daily to the Corps... It's so simple, yet we consistently unnecessarily complicate this issue!
Steve
Steve Carroll,
I think I would come somewhere between yours and Tim's solution.
I would argue the need for a contextual aesthetic to the people who are your target group in church - with the recognition of need for aesthetic fluidity that accomodates the stretch and pull of a rapidly changing culture. To reduce the arts down to simply being entertainment is to have a low view of God-given creativity.
However, I don't think that the arts should be what navigates our churches. This, in many ways, is putting the cart before the horse. Arts are the expression of the people. This enters us into the does art imitate life or does life imitate art debate... Yes, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, but artists are human beings and thus the source/creator must come before the creation.
However, before our discussion of people and what people produce, the most essential aspect to a healthy ecclessiology is whether or not our churches are Christo-centric. Christ must be the source of vibrant community which produces the aesthetic expression of that body of believers.
Thoughts?
Steve
Larry,
I agree with you. We need to get away from the, "by the pathway of duty flows the river of God's grace" heresy (which is a far more theologically inaccurate song than Father Abraham!). I think what we saw at Vailsburg could be likened to organic church - not super-sized by chemical additives!
However, I think it's also worth asking WHY there is a systemic lack of male presence in our churches, and whether or not there is any correlation with societal values.
Steve
Jim,
I completely agree with your second post. I think that what's happened is a breakdown between the roles of older and younger men. Everyone seems to have become so self-centered (either protecting/defending what has already existed or revolting an establishing a new regime), that we have totally forgotten that we're all supposed to be on the same side.
The generational divide/culture wars need to cease fire. This could be the very issue that is the cause for the implosion of the local community church in N. America.
Steve
Kevin,
You make an interesting case. (I'll check out your recommended reading!). I think many of these questions to relate to the nature/nurture conversation Salvationist Too raised.
I had a similar conversation with Robin Rader a few months ago. She discussed how much of worship seems what we have called 'efeminate' - very emotive, very relational, very romantic. Many traditional hymns are very masculine - war songs, battle hymns - a socially constructed 'male' idea of worship. Maybe there is a need to bring balance to these expressions to accomodate the Pauls and the Peters, the Marys and the Marthas...? Although, I question whether these ideas should be considered masculine and feminine?
This relates to a debate Larry is having on his blog about the gardner versus the warrior models of church...
But does this then reduce church down to accomodating our felt needs? When did it become so much about US and so little about JESUS???
Thoughts?
Steve
Tim,
I think you're hitting on the limitation of the homogeneous model of church. Why have we structured our churches according to generations and cultures?
The second generation of the homogeneous model is replacing generation and culture with TASTE cultures. I like my church with a techno beat, I like candles and Gregorian chants, I like brass bands and tamborines... but this is STILL homogeneous - it's a willing, hegemonic splitting of the united body of Christ into apartheid taste communities. I don't think this is the solution.
Steve
steve,
the generational wars will not cease. for as long as time has been there has been this tension...note the prodigal son, cain, and others in scripture and the number of sons who overthrew their own king fathers throughout history. this has happened in all cultures. why is this? it is because of fallen nature, not a refusal to grow up.
i think we too often try to intellectualize why people don't participate in church and dress it up. it is not societal trends, it is sinful nature. isn't that it comes down to? i think we are trying to intellectualize the conversation and to really think too much euphemising the whole experience to call it societal and try to figure it out. we in the church have been sinful and formulaic in our approach to everything. it is values not societal trends. some would argue that the societal trends reflect sin. it is sin. the fact is that what we see as church is a fallen reproduction of what God intended. our values in the church have driven people both male and female away. it is, however, the best we have. in my years as a co i have found that all guys want relationship. they don't mind a tear. they don't mind candles and liturgy. the reason they don't become part of church (not worship) is sin ours' and theirs'.
Hi Larry,
I agree that the generational wars are a part of human nature, but this is also something that has been overcome at moments in history. It might sound utopian - like a lion sitting with a lamb - but this is an ideal which we should embrace rather than say is impossible.
I agree with the statement that this is sin - theirs and ours. This is the obvious theological reasoning for it. However, I think that it's worth viewing this from multiple lenses - theological, cultural, psychological, developmental... It can't hurt us. I don't think this over-intellectualizes the issue. I would consider this as being critical thinking on the subject - which is something we should willingly do with fear and trembling!
Thought isn't the same as justification.
You know that Larry - you teach it yourself! :)
Steve
I’d like to say, first of all, that I’m also not happy with breaking the church down into generational lines. I think, in some cases, it’s been necessary, but I don’t think it’s been healthy. My goal in bringing up the “teen service” was not to suggest we break the church up more or even that the adults start attending the teen service. It was simply to break down some of the arguments we use in defending the service or even in keeping everybody together. If we truly believe that, then why not join (often) the only growing congregational worship service in our church? Why ask them to join yours?
Larry, any problem we have in the world ever is going to come down to sin. But doesn’t that answer, in some ways, take the responsibility out of our hands? I mean, I know an awful lot of Christians who don’t like or relate to the Sunday morning service, and it has nothing to do with the church’s values vs. theirs. They share the same moral values as the church, they just don’t relate or get anything from the service. And sure, some will argue points along the lines of “well, they should be willing to try harder, it’s the church.” But I stand by my own argument that we ARE “the church” and that lots of other things are “church”, not just a corporate service.
To take the argument even further, the cell group that I am a part of has as many people attend as quite a few (quite a few) Corps that I know of. But we meet in a house on a Wednesday night. Is it any less church, or any less corporate than a Sunday morning meeting. And, lest anybody ask, it is a very mixed group of people. In fact, it’s more mixed than a lot of congregations that I know.
Tim,
I have structured my argument outside of Sunday Morning. Look at it again. I think you will notice it. As for the "sin argument" taking it out of our hands, not sure how you can say that. Last time I read the Bible sin is our fault. It is our disobedience to God. In fact, I believe that taking the argument that society or immaturity causes men (or women for that matter) to be disengaged in the body of Christ (not just worship meetings) takes the responsibility out of our hands. It is easy to blame a societal picture or image. "I have no choice; I am a guy." That to me is shirking responsibility.
As to values, we have valued the wrong thing. We have valued doing rather than being. It is not so much a moral agreement. It is an assignment of what is important and of top priority. I contend that we have our priorities (not necessarily our morals) out of whack. When that happens and we value things like doing instead of being then that is sin. It is our responsibility, with the help of the Spirit to get our priorities in order as a church. You are right, it is relationship. It is Jesus's command to love God with all of our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. If church was that. If we were that and lived that, it would give people one less cop out.
Larry,
When I suggested that “it all comes down to sin” takes the responsibility out of “our” hands, I was referring to the church, not we the people. In other words, when we say, “hey, they don’t like to come to church because of sin” it absolves us of any responsibility to make our churches relevant.
Tim,
Should our churches seek for relevance or authenticity? In our search for relevance do we not sometimes lose the authenticity of the Body? Is searching for relevance sinful? Isn't a lack of authenticity a sin and therefore our responsibility as the church?
Whew. You lost me there.
I didn’t quite get your question, but I will say that we shouldn’t have to “search” for authenticity. You’re either authentic or your not. Relevancy, on the other hand, is something that we have to do on a week by week basis. Is our church relevant to the needs of this community? Is it relevant to the needs of this culture? As Francis Schaeffer put it, “it is the responsibility of every generation to translate the gospel into it’s own language”
It is about us; it is about Christ... it's about us becoming like Christ.
Too often our methods, structures and anything else the church delivers dillutes or distracts from being who we are created to be and focuses on becoming "nice guys". Is that how Christ was perceived by those he came in contact with - a nice guy? No, he lived the untamed heart of God.
I think whether if it's by lack of relevance and /or a failure to be authentic, we miss the mark at being re-created in his image. And that falls short - which is at its core, sin - of reflecting in ourselves the One whose image we bear. It's no wonder at times that men seek fulfillment elsewhere - the church promises a new creation and delivers a new schedule...
Hi all,
I think we're all arguing different sides of the same coin.
1. I think that we all recognize the need for authenticity and relevancy.
2. That the root of this issue is sin, but that it manifests itself in everyday socio-cultural situations.
3. That there's something that can be improved on and that we must do our utmost to see this become a reality.
Steve
steve,
if you had said that in the first place we would not have argued. less is more. ;)
But Larry,
I want to get at least 30 comments on this post - so I can feel at least half as important as your 60 comments per post! >;)
There's your thirty. : )
Thanks Tim!
Now I can sleep at night - knowing I'm half the man Larry is! :)
Steve
Post a Comment