Yeah, I'm familiar with a certain pastor of a certain church who ascribes to what you're saying and even takes it a step further to basically say that churches should target young men since they're the key to the church's future. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. =) I see the logic, but I can't help but think that Jesus didn't strategically target people who might have grown his ministry faster by nature of their influence. It does make sense that many women will probably follow their husbands to church and may be more likely to stay active if the husband is the initiator of attendance, but again, what's attendance? There are countless women bringing their children to church and leaving a sleeping husband at home in this country, let's give kudos to them instead of talking about how much more important their husband's leadership would be. My grandmother was the spiritual matriarch of my father's family when my grandfather was an alcoholic, and through her influence, all four of her children are strong believers today and her husband came back to the Lord. Women like her are what the church needs.
Susy
· 1 year ago
You might find some of the stats you're looking for here: http://www.churchformen.com/allmen.php
Also, are you familiar with What Women Wish Pastors Knew? (by Denise George for Zondervan). She surveyed hundreds of women and lets them share in their own words their needs and dreams and wishes for the evangelical church.
Kerri
· 1 year ago
Amen! About a year ago, the pastor of my church said the reason he believe "our church was so blessed, was because of its leadership of men." I could not believe his blatant dismissal of all the things women do for the church. I keep hoping and praying that one of these days this ridiculous attitude will change.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
While I agree with you, the larger problem in my mind is the fact that the church is marketing at all-- to men or women-- since when is the church in the business of marketing?
Jonalyn Grace Fincher
· 1 year ago
Emily- I know of whom you speak. Yes, Jesus if he ever does speak of targeting seems to have a thing for the week and humble, not the obvious "leader" types. I loved the story of your grandmother--thank you!
Susy- this is the website I was looking for. Thank you very much! It's making it into my article :) I have heard of this book, have not picked it up, but am glad you are sharing it here. For those who'd like to read more about Denise George see Susy's blog- link listed at right ------>
Keri- That sounds discouraging and yet, sounds like he was so focused on the change he saw in men, he just forgot about the faithfulness of the females, not to mention the children. There seems to be a sort of sigh of relief when the men finally step up and take control, as if people think FINALLY we know we are within God's perfect plan. I used to live like that and do all I could behind the scenes to get my boyfriends and one-time-fiance to lead as I thought he should. Ironic...
Anonymous- yes, a much larger problem, why is the church marketing?? That deserves it's own blog site. And another thing a friend of ours pointed out last night. When we only focus on the menfolk, we lose not just the ways women build a church, but we also lose the fact that children bring their parents as well. This is not something to market towards, but just more proof that God uses any to grow his church. So if God uses children (Mom, I want to go to youth group today) to bring parents, and God uses women to bring husbands, and God uses men to bring families, everyone loses when we just focus on the men.
My prediction is if this men in church movement continues unchecked we will find women leaving churches more than men. Then, we'll find the church doing the reverse trend in 10 years--catering to the women.
Paul F.
· 1 year ago
I think you're concerned with the right things, but do think one could make the case that the 'man-focused church growth' movement, properly understood, isn't all that bad.
First, I think church-marketing strategies are silly (and I've attended my share of churches that use them!). However, I would think those that do use them are (or should be) making actual changes to reflect their new strategies. Just marketing a church as being male-friendly without actually making the church male-friendly is like a fancy restaurant marketing via Facebook and MySpace without lowering prices and relaxing the atmosphere. They may get more initial traffic, but that traffic won't stay.
Second, if a church does actually make changes that are male-friendly (whether or not they also market those changes), that doesn't mean they are doing it to the neglect of women (single or married). I think it is a mistake to characterize the movement as "catering to men." Instead I think most in the movement would say they are instead renewing their focus toward men. Last year I paid a lot of attention to my front yard at the expense of my back yard. Now, I've got weeds and a not-so-lush lawn in the back. If this season I catered to the back yard, the front yard would deteriorate. However, if I increase my energy spent in the back yard, and don't decrease energy on the front, then I will see a great lawn in front and back (though those dang weeds seem awfully stubborn).
It seems you have presented this movement as if church leaders have one big pie of time and energy. If the men get more of the pie, then the women and children must get less. From what I've read about it (which is a very small amount) it seems like leaders are trying to make more pies by getting other men into the leadership roles to help direct the new focus.
I should note that I haven't read any of the books on this subject, so this reading might be more charitable than what is actually warranted. But from what I've read in interviews & blogs, this seems to be what they have in mind.
Jonalyn Grace Fincher
· 1 year ago
Oh Paul, While this conversation deserves a long, relaxing chat over wine on a balcony with Dale and Tina, I'll try to do your comments a little justice here.
1- A nice distinction between the marketing to masculinity (enter deer heads stage right) and being masculinity (now what do you think that is?...a book I'd love for Dale to write!)
2- If the church were just focusing on the men in an attempt to refuse to discount their needs I'd be very happy about this. And if you are correct to assume that they are trying to "manufacture more pies" by hiring more men to minister to men and putting more money toward men's ministry then THREE CHEERS.
However, it doesn't seem to be a both/and men and women it's an either men or women. If you look at movements like the men's fraternity and churches like Mark Driscoll's the leadership focuses primarily on men's needs, on male-dominated spheres, on male mentoring and then guard their positions of male leadership, preventing women holding power in a real sense (voting, visioneering, hiring/firing, preaching,etc). When you think about how men are the ones doing most of the church directing, planning, sermoneering (from pastor to elder) it becomes more obvious that in most church services the men have the power to cater to the men quite easily. So Sunday morning has become a "manly" time (e.g. Mars Hill in Seattle) so the idea of adding to that a men's ministry would be tantamount to (the fictional) Women's Auxiliary for Knitters of Steamboat (a group run by women) designing a separate committee just for cater to women knitters. You'd be like, "wait a second, don't you already do that every time you meet?"
Precisely! This is why I'm frustrated when church services designed by men and for men, pour more money and marketing into men's fraternities, men's BBQ, men's WWF nights, Super Bowl parties, ANY male activity that consistently denies women's participation. It's redundant and it robs slices of the "pie" from other members of the body (at least 3/4 i.e. the women and children). So when the leadership find men to be the most valuable ones to target a not so subtle message is sent: men are more valuable in church and therefore more valuable to God. That's what irks me.
Paul- could you send me a few links of the discussions you've read online that seem to be healthily building up men without ignoring women?
Abbie
· 1 year ago
I'm late to this discussion, but I totally agree. My mother took four daughters to church every Sunday, and my dad made us breakfast and told us how pretty we were as we left him at home. As an unchurched adult, I led my husband back to church so that our young children would have the experience of growing up with a strong spiritual foundation, such as I did. (In defense of my husband, he did not resist.) We found a church, and a year or two later, came the talk of marketing/demographics, etc, and I began to feel my relationship with that church fail. Isn't God's demographic everyone? And, I think that church leaders have failed to remember the best marketing tool of all....."if I be lifted up".
Jonalyn Grace Fincher
· 1 year ago
Abbie, Excellent comment! Glad to have your insight, your stories of how females brought children and your husband to church. So good to be reminded of the one who calls all men and women, boys and girls to himself.
All Comments
http://www.churchformen.com/allmen.php
Also, are you familiar with What Women Wish Pastors Knew? (by Denise George for Zondervan). She surveyed hundreds of women and lets them share in their own words their needs and dreams and wishes for the evangelical church.
Susy- this is the website I was looking for. Thank you very much! It's making it into my article :)
I have heard of this book, have not picked it up, but am glad you are sharing it here. For those who'd like to read more about Denise George see Susy's blog- link listed at right ------>
Keri- That sounds discouraging and yet, sounds like he was so focused on the change he saw in men, he just forgot about the faithfulness of the females, not to mention the children. There seems to be a sort of sigh of relief when the men finally step up and take control, as if people think FINALLY we know we are within God's perfect plan. I used to live like that and do all I could behind the scenes to get my boyfriends and one-time-fiance to lead as I thought he should. Ironic...
Anonymous- yes, a much larger problem, why is the church marketing?? That deserves it's own blog site. And another thing a friend of ours pointed out last night. When we only focus on the menfolk, we lose not just the ways women build a church, but we also lose the fact that children bring their parents as well. This is not something to market towards, but just more proof that God uses any to grow his church. So if God uses children (Mom, I want to go to youth group today) to bring parents, and God uses women to bring husbands, and God uses men to bring families, everyone loses when we just focus on the men.
My prediction is if this men in church movement continues unchecked we will find women leaving churches more than men. Then, we'll find the church doing the reverse trend in 10 years--catering to the women.
First, I think church-marketing strategies are silly (and I've attended my share of churches that use them!). However, I would think those that do use them are (or should be) making actual changes to reflect their new strategies. Just marketing a church as being male-friendly without actually making the church male-friendly is like a fancy restaurant marketing via Facebook and MySpace without lowering prices and relaxing the atmosphere. They may get more initial traffic, but that traffic won't stay.
Second, if a church does actually make changes that are male-friendly (whether or not they also market those changes), that doesn't mean they are doing it to the neglect of women (single or married). I think it is a mistake to characterize the movement as "catering to men." Instead I think most in the movement would say they are instead renewing their focus toward men. Last year I paid a lot of attention to my front yard at the expense of my back yard. Now, I've got weeds and a not-so-lush lawn in the back. If this season I catered to the back yard, the front yard would deteriorate. However, if I increase my energy spent in the back yard, and don't decrease energy on the front, then I will see a great lawn in front and back (though those dang weeds seem awfully stubborn).
It seems you have presented this movement as if church leaders have one big pie of time and energy. If the men get more of the pie, then the women and children must get less. From what I've read about it (which is a very small amount) it seems like leaders are trying to make more pies by getting other men into the leadership roles to help direct the new focus.
I should note that I haven't read any of the books on this subject, so this reading might be more charitable than what is actually warranted. But from what I've read in interviews & blogs, this seems to be what they have in mind.
While this conversation deserves a long, relaxing chat over wine on a balcony with Dale and Tina, I'll try to do your comments a little justice here.
1- A nice distinction between the marketing to masculinity (enter deer heads stage right) and being masculinity (now what do you think that is?...a book I'd love for Dale to write!)
2- If the church were just focusing on the men in an attempt to refuse to discount their needs I'd be very happy about this. And if you are correct to assume that they are trying to "manufacture more pies" by hiring more men to minister to men and putting more money toward men's ministry then THREE CHEERS.
However, it doesn't seem to be a both/and men and women it's an either men or women. If you look at movements like the men's fraternity and churches like Mark Driscoll's the leadership focuses primarily on men's needs, on male-dominated spheres, on male mentoring and then guard their positions of male leadership, preventing women holding power in a real sense (voting, visioneering, hiring/firing, preaching,etc). When you think about how men are the ones doing most of the church directing, planning, sermoneering (from pastor to elder) it becomes more obvious that in most church services the men have the power to cater to the men quite easily. So Sunday morning has become a "manly" time (e.g. Mars Hill in Seattle) so the idea of adding to that a men's ministry would be tantamount to (the fictional) Women's Auxiliary for Knitters of Steamboat (a group run by women) designing a separate committee just for cater to women knitters. You'd be like, "wait a second, don't you already do that every time you meet?"
Precisely! This is why I'm frustrated when church services designed by men and for men, pour more money and marketing into men's fraternities, men's BBQ, men's WWF nights, Super Bowl parties, ANY male activity that consistently denies women's participation. It's redundant and it robs slices of the "pie" from other members of the body (at least 3/4 i.e. the women and children).
So when the leadership find men to be the most valuable ones to target a not so subtle message is sent: men are more valuable in church and therefore more valuable to God.
That's what irks me.
Paul- could you send me a few links of the discussions you've read online that seem to be healthily building up men without ignoring women?
As an unchurched adult, I led my husband back to church so that our young children would have the experience of growing up with a strong spiritual foundation, such as I did. (In defense of my husband, he did not resist.)
We found a church, and a year or two later, came the talk of marketing/demographics, etc, and I began to feel my relationship with that church fail. Isn't God's demographic everyone? And, I think that church leaders have failed to remember the best marketing tool of all....."if I be lifted up".
Excellent comment! Glad to have your insight, your stories of how females brought children and your husband to church. So good to be reminded of the one who calls all men and women, boys and girls to himself.