This the last of the series Why Men Don’t Go to Church. The theme of this book is that churches are not manly enough for Manly Men. But in his book, “Why Men Hate Going to church” David Murrow starts off with this statement:
Author’s Note (Page 9). Let me say this in the strongest possible terms; the answer is not a male-dominated church. I am not advocating the “submit to me, woman,” brand of Christianity in which men are kings and women are pawns. Not only is this model unbiblical; it doesn’t create spiritually mature men. The answer is a balanced approach: teaching, practices, and opportunities that allow for both masculine and feminine expression in the church.
You and I both know that pastors everywhere have read this book. It came out in 2005, and they all wanted to find out what a man had to say about why men do not come to their church. Some adopted what he had to say. You see that exemplified in the Wild Game Event that I was mistakenly invited to.
They are trying to build Manly Men, but I actually agree with Dr. Al Mohler when he said this: In other words, real Christian men are those who have grown up to be men, not those who embarrass the church and confuse the Gospel with displays of adolescent misbehavior. Let’s hope this movement grows up before it blows up. (I wonder if he has told Dr. Patterson this).
We find David Murrow’s words about Manly Men being acted out by pastors who grab a hammer and nails and boards and start building a picket fence while preaching (oh, yes, I saw that), and pastors who use all sorts of manly props to get their message across.
You see his words about Manly Men when pastors and other leaders worry about “the feminization of the church.” Dr. Al Mohler and Dr. Paige Patterson are the top worriers in this matter.
The submission churches allow only males to take up the offering, and have only male deacons. They see these positions in the church as the last bastions of what is completely male volunteerism in the church. They hold on to these positions and will not let them go, even though there is nothing inherently male about what they do. In fact, serving food and drink, being connected to housekeeping, is female in culture.
But what these churches are actually doing with all these shenanigans, is proclaiming the husband’s authority over the wives, and over their families. They put a link to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 on their websites. They have so-called “women ministries” which is supposed to satisfy women’s need for service in ministry. They line their church libraries with books on the joys of submission. They link their websites to Dr. Al Mohler, with his many treatises on Womanhood, which is synonymous with submission.
bWe Baptist Women for Equality's Blog 
I have seen so much garbage on the Internet where men use Murrow’s book to support their misogyny, that I’m really glad to hear he’s not really saying, “everything feminine is bad; you women are ruining the church; church should be a man’s club so women should sit down and shut up.”
Maybe now that I know his book is not just another “divine right of males” tome, I might read it. . .
LikeLike
They took what they wanted from this book, and left what they didn’t want. They did not want to hear that women are equals.
LikeLike
I forgot to add the purpose of sheep which to be exploited for thier wool, and milk and to be slaughtered for thier meat. similarly churches need congregations to be exploited and to be used by churches to enrich the preachers and church leaders.
LikeLike
CJ, I am going to approve this one of your comments, in order to tell you and others that I believe that the church (body of Christ) serves very well here on earth. It could be better, and will be when women are allowed full freedom to serve.
Rants against Christians are not appreciated on this website. This is a website seeking women’s equality in our churches. We are Christians. We go to church. We worship our Lord.
LikeLike
Here is an excerpt from David Murrow’s website.
How did Christianity, founded by a man and his 12 male disciples, become the province of women? There is a pattern of feminization in Christianity going back at least 700 years, according to Dr. Leon Podles, author of The Church Impotent: the Feminization of Christianity. But the ball really got rolling in the 1800s. With the dawning of the industrial revolution, large numbers of men sought work in mines, mills and factories, far from home and familiar parish. Women stayed behind, and began remaking the church in their image. The Victorian era saw the rise of church nurseries, Sunday schools, lay choirs, quilting circles, ladies’ teas, soup kitchens, girls’ societies, potluck dinners, etc.
Soon, the very definition of a good Christian had changed: boldness and aggression were out; passivity and receptivity were in. Christians were to be gentle, sensitive and nurturing, focused on home and family rather than accomplishment and career. Believers were not supposed to like sex, tobacco, dancing or other worldly pleasures. The godly were always calm, polite and sociable.This feminine spirituality still dominates our churches. Those of us who grew up in church hardly notice it; we can’t imagine things any other way. But a male visitor detects the feminine spirit the moment he walks in the sanctuary door. He may feel like Tom Sawyer in Aunt Polly’s parlor; he must watch his language, mind his manners and be extra polite. It’s hard for a man to be real in church because he must squeeze himself into this feminine religious mold.
Apparantly worldliness is manliness for the Godly Man. Sorry, I am not buying it.
LikeLike
Welcome! Thank you for joining us. Please continue to stop by and read and comment.
LikeLike
This, at any rate:
“Believers were not supposed to like sex, tobacco, dancing or other worldly pleasures”
is a product of pietism, which was foundational to the movement started by John Wesley. A man.
LikeLike
Well Kristen, Wesley must have been,”feminized.”
Seriously though, Scripture itself admonishes us to view our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, and not to do things to our bodies that would be harmful to it. Scripture also warns against sensual pleasures, which covers a lot of dancing. And sex, I don’t believe that Wesley told anyone not to marry, or to abstain from sex with his/her spouse. On the other hand, Scripture itself, does teach that sex is for marriage, so any sexuality outside of that is particularly sinful.
LikeLike
If scripture teaches us that sex is only for marriage, someone forget to tell Abraham and Lot daughters. Do I need to give details? It seems that the Lord took care of the childrens born out of these none marriage situations.
LikeLike
Welcome! I am glad to have you stop by and read the blog and make a comment. I had to go and read all the comments to see what this was about and I am glad I did. You make a good point. I appreciate you taking the time to write.
LikeLike
GoodSense, it’s funny. In Baptist churches such as Shirley describes, women are forbidden to serve as deacons or elders; they cannot serve communion; they cannot take up the offering; they cannot lead a Bible study that has any men in it; they have no voice in any decision the church makes– and yet the men are leaving because they are not happy. Why?
The problem I’m having with Murrow’s book is that it’s behind the times. It’s ignoring the recent huge decline of female membership in churches. Churches that continue to tell their women that they’re second-class Christians while expecting them to do the vast majority of the cleaning, cooking and childcare needed in the building, yet without any voice, are going to shrink in size altogether.
LikeLike
Goodsense, You are right about the church being full of women in the offices, and as directors of childrens ministries, nurseries, etc. They are also the treasurers in churches. The reason for this is that women work cheaper. Therefore, the pastor can be paid more. There is no reason a church doesn’t hire a male as treasurer (Biblically, they should because Judas was a male and was the treasurer). Children’s ministries can certainly be directed by a male. But you know why they are not? Pedophilia comes to mind.
LikeLike
Goodsense, as you yourself know, we are not to the point yet of keeping women from children. But we do keep males from children and you know why. The subject you introduced was the abundance of women in the church office. That is what I addressed.
LikeLike
Goodsense, the paraphrase from 1 Tim that you quoted is nothing like what it actually says in the original text. As for your “you just have a problem with Paul” business, and your thing about “we should just consult the Bible” — the really sad thing is when Christians would rather cling to a certain interpretation of a passage rather than following its larger messages such as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “henceforth we regard no one any longer according to the flesh,” and “the Gentiles lord it over others, but it should not be so among you.” And then they pretend they are not interpretating the text– that they have absolute certain knowledge of what Paul meant, and the rest of us had better get in line with that.
I wonder what it is that causes people to cling to a traditional interpretation that is oppressive and unjust to a whole group of people, when it’s quite possible to look more deeply and see that a passage might not mean that at all.
LikeLike
I have already answered that question. I am arguing with your interpretation and with the traditions of men in interpreting these texts. I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to post a long, long argument here defending your position, and then follow it up with another “you’re arguing with God” statement, when the very fact that such a long argument has been written bears witness to the fact that this is an interpretation which is in dispute. Surely you know that there is a host of other scholars who take a high view of Scripture who hold to the opposite position than this one? Here’s a link to an essay by one such scholar. http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
It says in Proverbs that one person’s testimony will seem right until someone cross-examines. I’d urge you to study both sides of this issue.
LikeLike
Goodsense, my view takes the whole of Scripture, not just a few prooftexts, and reads them according to literary and historical context, as well as the nature of the New Creation kingdom of God as lived by Jesus and as understood by Paul.
Do you honestly think I’m going to say, “Oh my gosh, I’ve never heard your arguments before! I’d better stop being uppity and get back into my subordinate place!” Everything you’ve posted is just the same tired arguments that I’ve heard before, that I’ve carefully examined and found wanting. They’re the same kind of arguments that used to be used to support the supremacy of kings and aristocrats over commoners, the supremacy of whites over blacks, and so on. I’m not buying them. The gospel isn’t just good news for those who have the Y chromosome. It is for freedom that Christ set us free.
LikeLike
“Women are the pack mules of modern Christianity, but people still think is a men’s club. Why is this?”
Just maybe it could be because the pack mules are wearing bridles, and bridled creatures don’t get to join clubs– they just carry the packs for the ones who do.
LikeLike
Goodsense– I should probably add, though, that if your church allows women pastors, and doesn’t relegate them to just children’s ministry or hospitality, or name them “directors” in order to avoid giving them the title “pastor” — then your church isn’t really one of the ones I’m talking about.
LikeLike
Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive arguments.
LikeLike
Goodsense, you obviously haven’t actually read the Payne article I linked to, because his argument is built upon an in-depth analysis of how Paul uses certain Greek words. He goes through word-by-word and deduces from there what Paul meant in the passage in question.
(BTW, there’s no need to CAPITALIZE things for me as if I might not understand them if you don’t emphasize them. I’m a paralegal with an Honors BA in English.)
LikeLike
One more thing with regards to this:
“For your information I don’t know any arguing that isn’t in dispute by somebody. So, that’s not new!”
True enough– but that’s not the point. The point is that any time you’re reading a piece of writing, and the original author (such as Paul) is not actively involved in a discussion in which he clarifies his intent, the readers must interpret the writing. The fact that there are two or three schools of thought on what a passage means, is proof backing the deduction that interpretation is occurring by the people who are reading the texts. Therefore no one can say, “You’re just arguing with Paul” or “You’re just arguing with God.” If you’re not Paul, or God, you can’t say you know for absolute certain what he, or He, meant by the text. You are interpreting and you can’t get around that, or claim that you’re not doing it while every other reader is.
LikeLike
Goodsense, let me count the ad hominem attacks above, none of which have anything to do with the truth or falsity of my arguments:
1. You claim that I am “shouting.” This is an attempt to try to make me sound angry or upset so that you don’t have to actually address my points.
2. You claim that I am using “worldly views and thinking,” without actually addressing what it is about what I have said that is “worldly.”
3. You claim I am trying to find every means I can to disagree with scripture. This is a judgment of my motives. You don’t know me and can have no idea what motivates me, but you are setting yourself up as a judge of the reasons why I say what I do.
4. You insinuate that I want to re-write the Bible.
5. You say that I am “pushing” my views “off on others” when all I am doing is expressing them, just as you are.
6. You use derogatory expressions like “your reality” and “riding the same horse,” again, to paint me as an irrational, pushy person.
Then you claim that there is but one school of thought, Christ’s and Christ’s alone, while assuming without question that you are the one who knows exactly what Christ thinks about this subject. You have set yourself up as the judge of the Bible, that what you say it means is what it means, and that anyone who doesn’t line up with your way of thinking is being disobedient to Christ Himself. Exactly where you got the authority to do this is left unstated.
Finally, you continue to use capital letters to emphasize words, which is considered shouting in Internet etiquette, while you accuse me of being the one doing the shouting. This in spite of my request that you respect me and my education enough to understand what “inductive” and “deductive” mean– which, btw, you have misused in your last comment.
I too, see no reason to continue arguing with you. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no respect for me, and I do not continue discussions with people who do not treat me with common standards of courtesy.
LikeLike
Correction: what I meant to say was, “This in spite of my request that you respect me and my education enough to grant that I might understand what ‘inductive’ and ‘deductive’ mean.”
LikeLike
Goodsense, I think it is time that the conversation on this particular subject is over. Visit again sometime when you have something new to say. Goodbye.
LikeLike
And now you continue in the same vein by saying that my pointing out your use of ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned discussion is “crying.” I assure you sir, there is not a tear in my eye.
LikeLike
GoodSense, everything you have said to me has reflected a complete lack of grasp of any point I’ve actually made. Instead you appear to keep responding to a conversation that is going on in your head, and some version of me that you appear to have invented for your own purposes. I have not “cried” at any point, nor did I ever say “Let it go.” I will, however, comply with your apparent wish to “let it go,” and not engage you again no matter what you say. Yes, I’m giving you the last word. And I sincerely wish you a happy Easter.
LikeLike
GoodSense: the most unreasonable people are those who twisted a few verses of the Bible to claim entitlement and special “roles”. Every person is made in the image of God, regardless of race or gender. The Holy Spirit is gender blind. I heard so many men claim that even tho’ women may be smarter, more capable, more spiritual, more this, more that, but God only give them this role and that role. Sounds like sexism to me, pure and simple. The Church has officially done away with racism ( not that there are no racists there), but too many stubbornly cling to sexism and sought to oppress more than half the body while claiming that they “respect” women. The fact that we have to discuss what women can and cannot do is demeaning, disgusting, and humiliating. Such “theology” is toxic.
LikeLike
Goodsense: I thought I don’t have to explain this, but apparently I do: when we say the Holy Spirit is gender blind, we do not refer to biology, we refer to spiritual gifting & calling to serve. When you assign a ministry “role” (not biological function, as the restrictionists are so fond of trotting out) that has limitation to qualified women and then a “role” of ministry that has no limitation to qualified men, you are not treating them as equal, even if you claim or truly believe you do. You may be sincere, but sincerity does not mean being right. We are of equal value regardless of duties is correct, but to arbitrarily restrict qualified, gifted, and called women and tell them just because they don’t have a penis, they cannot serve, is wrong. GOd called Deborah to be the supreme leader of the entire nation. God didn’t think: oh, women cannot lead, I had better call a man. No, he didn’t, we shouldn’t either. And don’t tell me Deborah is not a “pastor”, so it is OK. Or, she is not in a “church”, so it is OK, or there were no men around, so a woman was called, etc. etc. I have heard too much rubbish on this one. You said: “The bible set down rules and roles for men and women”. No, the bible does not. There are plenty of books and articles on the subject, and I don’t want to repeat here. I see each individual as individual, not as a man vs a woman. Such division should not be allowed to stand in the Kingdom of God. Women had been oppressed and suffered greatly under men who held such erroneous positions. It is quite a tragedy. Only when you allow each individual to be as much as they can for God, without pigeonholing them to fit one of two gender stereotypes can the Kingdom of God flourish and the hurts stop.
LikeLike
GoodSense:
you said:If you considered what the Holy Word says as disgusting, demeaning and humiliating take it up with the Lord.
I consider some man’s interpretation of the Holy Word and their subsequent arrogance disgusting, demeaningi and humiliating to women, not the Holy Word itself. Their interpretation does not edify, but tear down others.
http://jamaljivanjee.com/2012/02/beautiful-sisters-a-historic-meeting/
LikeLike
Thank you for the link, Mabel. How beautiful and encouraging.
LikeLike
GoodSense: I did take up the issue with the Lord, and He gave me explanations similar to this:
http://jamaljivanjee.com/2011/09/the-universal-enslavement-of-women/
LikeLike
Goodsense: you said: I consider your interpretation and interpretation like yours’ to be a means to interpret the bible/Holy Word to fit your preconceived conclusion. ” I feel the same way about you.
“Basically Mabel, I could care less what you think, the bible is my guide not your view of the bible which you cnstruct to meet your insecure needs.” I do care about what you think because your theology is a tree that bears rotten fruits. I agree with you that the bible is my guide and not views of men who construct them to meet their need to have power over others. It is a sense of insecurity in their part. They are insecure unless they have all the control and the power.
Jesus expressly forbid any men to lord over others or elevate themselves to any high position. I understand that women are not to have authority over men the same way I understand men are not to have authority over women. Only God has authority over us. Whatever authority on earth we submit to, and there are times we have to submit to authority, is never based on gender or race according to Gal 3:28. What is a pastor? who is a pastor in the NT? how many times the word “pastor” appear in the NT? Why elevate it to such an all consuming status? If it is so important, wouldn’t the bible make it clearer? I asked my church the following 5 questions and had not gotten any answers.
1. What is the definition of “ordination” according to Scriptures.
2. Make a list of the functions of an “ordained pastor”. e.g. preaching (teaching the Word of God, explain it, exhort people to learn, etc. etc.), vision casting, caring, leading, serving, etc.
3. Which particular function the “ordained pastor” perform is specifically barred from being performed by women, per Scripture. Can you find an example in Scripture of women performing those functions? (yes in every case)
4. If women can function in every area of the church (there is no concept of “pulpit” and “church” as an institution in the bible), and they are used but not given titles, are you confusing Function with Titles?
5. If you are playing a game of titles, is that biblical?
GoodSense, you have a stony heart same as the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. They are so into the law written in stone that when they see Jesus heal on the Sabbath, they never cared about the person being healed, they just care about the law being broken. When men like you see that women are doing great works for the Kingdom, you are not able to see the fruits of the Holy Spirit, only the few proof texts that are poorly translated to support a rigid theology that seeks to oppress and not free.
However, I hope I never come to a point I can say ” I don’t care about you”. It is not Christian. My journey into the truths led me to where I am now. I used to be like you, but not any more, as I opened my heart to be led by the Holy Spirit. And I studied. If you close your heart to the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Truth, the Word of God became just that: words written in stone, not in the heart.
LikeLike
DFTT
LikeLike
Had to look it up! Means “Don’t Feed the Troll”
LikeLike
Back up, goodsense. You have the wrong person here and you owe Vernica an apology. She did not say that.
LikeLike
Goodsense, I am asking you to stop posting to this website. Readers, I am asking you to discontinue the conversation with goodsense. If I receive any more comments from goodsense, I will delete all previous and future comments from him.
LikeLike
Yes, GoodSense, you should leave the church in that case, because the position of “head pastor” is not Biblical. In fact, if your church has a “head pastor” at all, you should leave the church for its unbiblical organization. And I know you’re a stickler for what Scripture teaches.
LikeLike
On the subject of men not coming into the churches, why does everyone assume that this means there is something wrong with the churches? Might there not be something wrong with the men?
LikeLike
Welcome! We are glad that you joined the conversation.
LikeLike
Not because having a majority of women causes the decline, however. It’s actually because when a church is no longer ministering life to the congregation, the women are the longest to hold on and keep attending in hopes things will get better.
LikeLike
GoodSense: 99% of churches are run by men. Hence all the problems.
LikeLike
Jesus is building His Church. He’s a man too…
LikeLike
Welcome! Glad you joined us! Not sure of your point, but yes, Jesus was a man on the earth. He is a spirit now without a physical body. Would love to hear more from you.
LikeLike
Well, actually, I believe Jesus still has His glorified body in Heaven– but He didn’t come to earth just for men, nor did He die just for men. It is not as a man, but as a human that He became identified with us in salvation. So honestly, the fact that He has a male human body is irrelevant– unless church is only for humans with male bodies.
LikeLike
Sure, Jesus was a man while He walked the earth. But He was like no other man any of those women ever met or any woman today has known.
“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man — there had never been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, who never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!’, who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female. who had no ax to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as He found them and was completely unselfconscious-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words of Jesus that there was anything ‘funny’ about woman’s nature. But we might easily deduce it from His contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him and from His Church to this day.”
~Dorothy L. Sayers from essay “Are Women Human?”
Just saying.
LikeLike
The feminization of the Church? If there are fewer men attending because it has somehow gone feminine, read, “soft,” well, who is it that has insisted women behave that way?! Doesn’t anybody teach irony anymore? The whole issue would be laughable if it weren’t so idiotic!
I haven’t yet found a church in my area that respects women. I fellowship with a small group of women. We are not restrictive, however; men can join us but they have no special rights. We are an informal lot. Jesus alone is our head. I feel at this point that if I were to attend a church that subordinates women it would be tantamount to agreeing with that position. Can’t do it. Have very rich fellowship as is.
Blessings,
Phyllis
LikeLike
Just finished reading “The Resignation of Eve” and what you say is being expressed by many other women. I wonder if pastors care?
> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:16:05 +0000 > To: bwebaptist.women@live.com >
LikeLike
I am going to search for this book. It sounds good…the title alone makes me smile!
RE: pastors caring if women leave. I suspect they’ll start to get nervous once the dishes pile up in the church hall, the pews need a shine, the children have no one to tend them, and/or there are no male volunteers to go on the front lines of the most dangerous mission fields (don’t get me started on the notion that the only reason women “get to” teach or minister to men is by DEFAULT).
Or perhaps a pastor will start caring when his own dishes are not done, house not cleaned, children not tended, and he has to start manning up to all that. ;).
As it were.
I once read a book by a very famous Christian television personality describing his early years. He and his wife have four children. At one point, when he was just building his television empire, his wife was very sick with the flu as were a couple of his children (the kids were all under six or so, at the time, as I recall…very young, a couple were babies). It was left to him to take care of everybody for a few days. So–he actually put this anecdote in the book–he got down on his knees before the Lord wondering what was going on! Here he was building this television ministry to reach the world and he had to now do what? Take care of a sick wife and babies?! What was going on in the universe!! He was NOT supposed to have to do this work!
And THAT, sisters and brothers, is just one of the reasons some Christian pastors may never get it.
To brothers who do: I know you would find a “thank you” peculiar, as if you were doing some sort of favor to women, but thank you anyway for trying to explain this to the others (who would not think of listening to a, eeeeeeew, female!…).
Blessings and grins,
Phyllis
LikeLike
Purchase it from the Christians for Biblical Equality website http://www.cbeinternational.org. That way you are helping yourself and promoting women’s equality!
> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:46:42 +0000 > To: bwebaptist.women@live.com >
LikeLike