Why Men Hate Going to Church

Review:
Why Men Hate Going to Church
David Murrow
Nelson, 2005
Pb., 232 pp. $14.99

 
    Why do men hate going to church? According to author David Murrow it is because modern church life is dominated by women. As a result, "almost everything about today's church – its teaching style, its ministries, the way people are expected to behave, even today's popular images of Jesus – is designed to meet the needs and expectations of a largely female audience. Church is sweet and sentimental, nurturing and nice. Women thrive in this environment. In modern parlance, women are the target audience of today's church" (p.14). Men, however, are bored to death by all of this, and for this reason have largely dropped out. They have little interest in joining a girls' club.
    Murrow's book is certainly thought provoking. He delves into the differences between male and female psychology, and shows why men feel so out of place in church. The question is, what to do about it? How can the church attract more men? Murrow has plenty of suggestions. Because men, according to him, are more aggressive but less verbal than women, he suggests having strong, forceful leadership, clearly defined goals, a high standard of quality, physical activity, competition, along with fewer unison readings, less singing and shorter sermons.
    Many of Murrow's insights and suggestions are indeed valuable. The truth is, many churches today do offer up what Murrow calls "velvet coffin Christianity": "show up on Sunday, participate in comforting rituals, listen to a pabulum sermon of familiar truths; then go home and forget all about your faith until next Sunday" (pp. 26-27).
    But in some ways we cannot help but think that Murrow's book itself is part of the malaise of modern Christianity. Like so many other books on the market today, it takes an essentially sociological approach to what is really a spiritual problem. We conduct surveys, we examine people's perceptions, feelings and beliefs, and then we devise a strategy to reach the selected "target group." We have been searching for decades for effective methods and strategies, but what has it gotten us?
    There are, in fact, serious problems with this whole approach. First of all, a sociological survey does not make value judgments. It does not distinguish between virtues and vices among the respondents. A vice is thus often confused with a "need." A good example of this in Murrow's book is his discussion of men's alleged "need for greatness," in Chapter 12. According to Murrow, men have a "need" to be recognized for their accomplishments, and he makes some pointed barbs about the "humility police," certain churchgoers "who see it as their job to humble anyone who might get praise or credit" (p. 98). Murrow insists that "it is no sin to recognize men for the good they do" (p. 102). To support this assertion he appeals to Mark 10:35-45, in which James and John approach Jesus and ask to be given positions of honor in the kingdom. Jesus replied by saying, "If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others" (v. 43). Murrow interprets the words "if you want to be great" as an endorsement for the quest for greatness. But the whole point of the passage was the exact opposite of this. Jesus was encouraging a servant attitude. It may be a sociological fact that men crave recognition, but that does not mean that the church should be in the business of stroking male egos!
    But more to the point, a sociological analysis of the church's problems overlooks the spiritual and supernatural dimension of true religion. What exactly is it that should draw men (and women) to Christ and transform their lives? Is it music and architecture, technology and organization? No! The New Testament church had none of these things! They relied instead on the power of the Holy Spirit working in hearts and minds – convicting, illuminating, and regenerating. Most churches today, however, have lost that dimension, and the gender gap is the result. Women are in church for the wrong reasons (the music, the flowers, the fellowship) and men are not there at all. The church has become a social club, and a social club that appeals to just one particular demographic group. But in true Christianity men and women from every walk of life are drawn to Christ. The common interest that brings them together is not their social backgrounds or cultural tastes. Rather, it is their common interest in the Savior.
    Is the church too feminine? It undoubtedly is. But the standard must be God's Word, not what polls and surveys tell us men want. The real question is, are we measuring up to what Christ wants us to be? Where we have failed, because we were content to be a women's social club, we must repent. But the answer is not to become a rowdy bunch of jocks. It is to become sons of God, who know Him and serve Him truly.

 

 

THE BONDAGE OF LEGALISM

Van Gogh:The Prison Exercise Yard, 1890

Review:
Breaking the Bondage of Legalism:
When Trying Harder Isn't Enough
Neil T. Anderson, Rich Miller, and Paul Travis
Harvest House, 313 pages
In their book Breaking the Bondage of Legalism: When Trying Harder Isn't Enough, coauthors Neil T. Anderson, Rich Miller, and Paul Travis, all associated with Freedom in Christ Ministries, address a very real, and in some circles a very pressing problem. Many of us are familiar with churches with stringent rules of personal conduct, and for some in these churches, the psychological pressure can be crushing. Mssrs. Anderson, Miller and Travis describe the problem, examine the underlying causes, and prescribe a remedy. A book like this is certainly needed, but does it hit the mark?
The first problem in dealing with a subject like this is how to define the word itself. The term "legalism" is often used loosely to describe an oppressive system or mentality involving rules and regulations, but it is not always clear exactly who or what is in view. Much to their credit, our authors attempt a formal definition. "Christian legalism," they tell us, "is seeking to attain, gain, or maintain acceptance with God, or achieve spiritual growth, through keeping a written or unwritten code or standard of performance" (p. 37). The definition, it will be noted, is broad and sweeping. It could include justification, sanctification, and assurance. Sometimes the word appears to refer to an excessive attention to detail. Sometimes it seems to mean reliance on human effort. At other times it means having one's assurance of acceptance with God based on personal performance. Our authors would no doubt say that legalism means all of these things and even more.
The problem here is that the authors have defined "legalism" so broadly as to exclude from the Christian life any objective standards and any personal effort to meet them. They claim that at the heart of legalism is a pernicious falsehood, viz., the belief that "my Christian growth is primarily dependent upon my efforts to maintain Christian disciplines or practices rather than upon God's grace" (pp. 40-41). What they have done here is to place "Christian discipline and practices" in opposition to "God's grace." But it is a false dichotomy. Why does it have to be either / or? Doesn't the Bible present it as both / and? Did anyone grow spiritually without Christian disciplines and practices?
Some aspects of "legalism," thus defined, are clearly Biblical. Christians are required, in fact, to "keep commandments," and, to some extent, the quality of our relationship with God is conditioned on our obedience. Our Lord Himself said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21). The Bible is filled with specific injunctions that govern all aspects of our lives. Does a truly spiritual Christian simply ignore what the Bible says about these things?
To their credit, at the end of their book the authors do maintain that to develop and maintain a relationship with Christ does require time spent in prayer, and this, in turn, will result in a Christ-like life. Their theory of sanctification is this: ". . . as you develop your intimate relationship with the Father in prayer, and as you learn to lean on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, you will begin to live like Jesus. You will find that it is not trying to keep laws, but trusting in the Lord, that keeps you from sin and enable you to walk in righteousness" (p. 229).
All of which brings us to a deeper concern we have about the authors' book. Modern day legalism, as they describe it, is mostly confined to certain groups, viz., conservative "Holiness" and Pentecostal churches, and so-called "Independent, Fundamental" Baptists. Once we move outside of these circles we are far more likely to encounter the exact opposite problem: lax moral standards and pervasive worldliness. For every professing Christian who is caught in a "legalistic" church there are probably at least ten (admittedly not a scientific estimate) who cannot seem to make the connection between their profession of faith in Christ and the way they live. Their personal lives are virtually indistinguishable from those of their unsaved neighbors. Their pastors rarely mention the word "sin," Christian ethics is never discussed in a systematic way, and church discipline is virtually non-existent. Some churches today don't even maintain formal membership rolls. The members of these churches may feel good about themselves, but their relatives, neighbors, and coworkers are likely to think that they are hypocrites. For the majority of Christians today the authors may be flogging a dead horse.
Nevertheless, our authors have much to say that is valuable and worthwhile. They point out that our salvation rests on the finished work of Christ on the cross, and not on our own merits. They note that God genuinely loves His children and desires their good. They point out that the key to success in the Christian life is union and communion with Christ. And they are largely correct in their assessment that these critical perspectives are often missing in legalistic churches, and that this, in turn, will tend to rob Christians of their sense of assurance. Some of these Christians are, in effect, back where Martin Luther was before he discovered the doctrine of justification by faith.
Our feeling is that it is not the presence of rules, but the absence of a relationship – a meaningful relationship with Christ -- that is the problem with legalism. What we need is a genuine revival.

Related articles:
Religion or Christ 
What is the Church Supposed to be Like