Any thoughts on how this plays out in the marriage relationship?

[mkgal1]

Then why are you so opposed to the ideas that led to it? Why do you seem to disagree with the notion that there's something wrong with the Church, something that drives some men away and keeps others disinterested?

From what I am seeing about the ideas of Murrow......I don't agree.

I don't disagree with the notion that there's something wrong with SOME churches. If the something wrong is that truth is not being taught (apologetics) .....then it may be a good thing that men aren't there. Apologetics is imperitive for everyone....IMO.

If the something wrong is that the songs are interchangable from church to top 20.....then, that should be changed. God isn't a human (although He took on flesh)....He is much MORE than that....and our worship should reflect that.

If the something wrong is paint color and furnishings....then, that ought to be changed. Everyone should be reflected in the decor. Asthetics should be a reflection of everyone involved....and should be neutral. It is also financially prudent to keep things neutral and not go with the latest trend.

If the something wrong is that men feel a certain style of socializing is expected of them.......then, they need to worry less about what others think...and do what is most comfortable to them.

And....if the changes are not made (the ones that are dependent upon the church changing)...then, the solution is to find a church that fits. There ARE churches where apologetics are the style of teaching.....where songs aren't about Jesus being a "lover of our souls"....where the style is neutral....and where clothing is "come-as-you-are"....and hugs are optional.

 

[FaithPrevails]

How does "less spritually minded" amount to anything other than less spiritual? Seriously, that's an honest question.

There is nothing supercilious about the statement being made. Being less spiritually minded doesn't mean they feel men are incapable of being spiritual. They are simply making an observation that men tend to be focused elsewhere.

You concur that men are not in church, correct? You have stated why - that the church has been feminized. What MK has been pointing out is that the things that are being suggested to draw men back in to church (by Murrow, specifically) are the things that have them focused elsewhere (ie worldly things). You can't really disagree with that b/c he does mention incorporating sports or cars/motorcycles into the church atmosphere and/or service to entice men. What MK is saying (IMO, anyway) is that she doesn't agree that those things should be needed in order to draw men to church.

It seems that the two of you are getting caught up in minor technicalities and it's preventing the bigger picture from being agreed upon.

JMHO

 

[dallasapple]

How does "less spritually minded" amount to anything other than less spiritual? Seriously, that's an honest question.

I think its a simple matter of men are less DISCIPLINED as I've said repeatedly and less willing to CHOOSE to make church attendence a priortiy..and that is from social conditioning.and its all boiling down IMHO to the simple fact you want to be entertained and your not.That is as well social conditioning..

And to be honest..the men refusing to go to church now?Is only further teaching the new generation of males that you dont have to go to church if you dont want to.

So take you Chaz..one male who will then demonstrate (lets say if you have 2 sons) ..to two males who see the man of the house not going to church becasue he doesnt like it you dont go...Those two sons have 2 sons and they see their dads not going to church then you have 4 boys not going..etc...

200 hundred years from now the men will be saying 'its inherent that men dont go to church"..they are born not liking that.

Dallas

 

[mkgal1]

There is nothing supercilious about the statement being made. Being less spiritually minded doesn't mean they feel men are incapable of being spiritual. They are simply making an observation that men tend to be focused elsewhere.

You concur that men are not in church, correct? You have stated why - that the church has been feminized. What MK has been pointing out is that the things that are being suggested to draw men back in to church (by Murrow, specifically) are the things that have them focused elsewhere (ie worldly things). You can't really disagree with that b/c he does mention incorporating sports or cars/motorcycles into the church atmosphere and/or service to entice men. What MK is saying (IMO, anyway) is that she doesn't agree that those things should be needed in order to draw men to church.

You have it right, Faith....that is what I'm saying. Also....I should have added earlier that an additional reason I could add to the reasons WHY men aren't in church is that they don't feel their attendance is necessary. That isn't necessarily b/c the church is feminized, but that pastors all over have been negligent (IMO) for teaching the real reason we should gather together. Women may attend more for the social aspect......and some men may come together for the "I'm a good person" reason.....but, are those reasons God wants them there? As Revelations points out (the book of the Bible...not someone posting here )....attendance and doing good things aren't enough.

 

[chaz345]

There is nothing supercilious about the statement being made. Being less spiritually minded doesn't mean they feel men are incapable of being spiritual. They are simply making an observation that men tend to be focused elsewhere.

You concur that men are not in church, correct? You have stated why - that the church has been feminized. What MK has been pointing out is that the things that are being suggested to draw men back in to church (by Murrow, specifically) are the things that have them focused elsewhere (ie worldly things). You can't really disagree with that b/c he does mention incorporating sports or cars/motorcycles into the church atmosphere and/or service to entice men. What MK is saying (IMO, anyway) is that she doesn't agree that those things should be needed in order to draw men to church.

It seems that the two of you are getting caught up in minor technicalities and it's preventing the bigger picture from being agreed upon.

JMHO

Ok so if we're not going to use the things that are what's drawing men away from church to draw them back, what do you suggest? See it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. We can't draw them back using just things of God because they're already disinterested by that. Not because of anything inherent to God or His ways but because we've been, for generations, only teaching a PART of them, the part that appeals largely to women. Why that's happened is beside the point and obviously can't be discussed here without someone thinking that it's women being blamed. But it's a fact that it did happen. Personally if we're talking blame I put far more of it on men than on women anyway. Men of the church, in what's proven to be a futile attempt to appease radical feminism, allowed the nature and character of the church to be changed.

Like I've said many times, the changes that are being suggested take absolutely nothing away from women. Nada, zip, zilch. Which is why I'm having such a hard time understanding the objection.

On the worldly point though, is there really anything inherently worldly about sports cars, or motorcycles though? They are things that certainly CAN become worldly if an inordinate amount of attention/focus is placed on them but just the fact that something doesn't specifically mention God or Jesus doesn't make it worldly. What's being suggested by Murrow is actually something that Jesus Himself did all the time. Take something that's important to His audience and use it to illustrate a point about God or Scripture or Heaven. Parables.

 

[mkgal1]

And to be honest..the men refusing to go to church now?Is only further teaching the new generation of males that you dont have to go to church if you dont want to.

Not only that......but, the ones that are going yet are complaining that for 700 years the church as been feminized--sends the subtle message to the next generation that men that do enjoy church aren't "manly men" (actually--it isn't so subtle--Murrow says that on his site). To me.....saying that all there is in the church are "neutered male leaders" sounds like a bully type of statement. Something said to put someone down.

 

[mkgal1]

Ok so if we're not going to use the things that are what's drawing men away from church to draw them back, what do you suggest? See it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. We can't draw them back using just things of God because they're already disinterested by that. Not because of anything inherent to God or His ways but because we've been, for generations, only teaching a PART of them, the part that appeals largely to women. Why that's happened is beside the point and obviously can't be discussed here without someone thinking that it's women being blamed. But it's a fact that it did happen. Personally if we're talking blame I put far more of it on men than on women anyway. Men of the church, in what's proven to be a futile attempt to appease radical feminism, allowed the nature and character of the church to be changed.

The Holy Spirit does the drawing. God has it covered, Chaz. Pastors CAN draw them back using things of God. God doesn't force His will on anyone.....neither should the church. Even in the Bible....we see that God is at the door knocking on the church door.....He doesn't trick His way in saying He found the church"s lost offering bags filled with 10 million dollars. He wants the ones that are willing to give their whole hearts to Him.....gladly.....and of their own volition.....not willing to let anyone or anything come between them.

I'm sure you have heard that immediately after 911.....churches around the nation had a rise in attendance. When people hit rock bottom individually.....they normally look to God and the church. In prosperous times.......church attendance is down.

 

[mkgal1]

On the worldly point though, is there really anything inherently worldly about sports cars, or motorcycles though? They are things that certainly CAN become worldly if an inordinate amount of attention/focus is placed on them but just the fact that something doesn't specifically mention God or Jesus doesn't make it worldly.

Yes.....there IS something "inherently" worldly (although....not sure that is the best word description)....but, material items ARE worldly. They rust.....break down.....pass away. They are not eternal. That doesn't mean we cannot or should not enjoy them. Just that when their value rises above God's value (in our opinion)....they are then an idol.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Ok so if we're not going to use the things that are what's drawing men away from church to draw them back, what do you suggest? See it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. We can't draw them back using just things of God because they're already disinterested by that. Not because of anything inherent to God or His ways but because we've been, for generations, only teaching a PART of them, the part that appeals largely to women. Why that's happened is beside the point and obviously can't be discussed here without someone thinking that it's women being blamed. But it's a fact that it did happen. Personally if we're talking blame I put far more of it on men than on women anyway. Men of the church, in what's proven to be a futile attempt to appease radical feminism, allowed the nature and character of the church to be changed.

Like I've said many times, the changes that are being suggested take absolutely nothing away from women. Nada, zip, zilch. Which is why I'm having such a hard time understanding the objection.

On the worldly point though, is there really anything inherently worldly about sports cars, or motorcycles though? They are things that certainly CAN become worldly if an inordinate amount of attention/focus is placed on them but just the fact that something doesn't specifically mention God or Jesus doesn't make it worldly. What's being suggested by Murrow is actually something that Jesus Himself did all the time. Take something that's important to His audience and use it to illustrate a point about God or Scripture or Heaven. Parables.

I don't think there is anything wrong with incorporating those types of things as long as it is done in moderation. I do have an issue with anyone who suggests that those things have to be/should be incorporated if a church wants to boost its male population. I think using special events as outreach are fine. I wouldn't want to see my pastor bring a motorcycle in and sit on it/preach from it on a Sunday morning.

 

[chaz345]

I don't think there is anything wrong with incorporating those types of things as long as it is done in moderation. I do have an issue with anyone who suggests that those things have to be/should be incorporated if a church wants to boost its male population. I think using special events as outreach are fine. I wouldn't want to see my pastor bring a motorcycle in and sit on it/preach from it on a Sunday morning.

Why not? If he had a point (from Scripture) that he was making that it illustrated, what would the problem be?

But in actuality, IMO, it's not the bringing in of things to attract men that's most important, it's the getting rid of the things that drive them away. The things that have been mentioned that make them vaguely uncomfortable. Like I've said, many guys don't even notice exactly what it is they don't like, they just don't "feel right" when they are in Church and can't really explain why. IMO, eliminating those problems will be more than enough.

 

[dallasapple]

Not only that......but, the ones that are going yet are complaining that for 700 years the church as been feminized--sends the subtle message to the next generation that men that do enjoy church aren't "manly men" (actually--it isn't so subtle--Murrow says that on his site). To me.....saying that all there is in the church are "neutered male leaders" sounds like a bully type of statement. Something said to put someone down.

I agree...I didnt even think of that..so the sons of the father who doesnt attend church..has a friend that IS going to church with his father..so he is goign to think or eve say to his friend..that he and his dad are "feminized" that they enjoy going to church.Becasue after all thats the neutered "unmalny" version of Christ they are drawn to....

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

Yes.....there IS something "inherently" worldly (although....not sure that is the best word description)....but, material items ARE worldly. They rust.....break down.....pass away. They are not eternal. That doesn't mean we cannot or should not enjoy them. Just that when their value rises above God's value (in our opinion)....they are then an idol.

Ok then, Jesus used worldly things too to illustrate his point, to get the person's attention. When he spoke of sowing seed and of the 10 or 100 fold increase, was he not using worldly things (food and money) to make His point? That's just one of many parables where He took something that was important to His audience and used it to make His point.
I mean if we're going to take worldly=bad to it's end point then Church's shouldn't even have buildings because the building will eventually decay and fall down.

 

[mkgal1]

Ok then, Jesus used worldly things too to illustrate his point, to get the person's attention. When he spoke of sowing seed and of the 10 or 100 fold increase, was he not using worldly things (food and money) to make His point? That's just one of many parables where He took something that was important to His audience and used it to make His point.
I mean if we're going to take worldly=bad to it's end point then Church's shouldn't even have buildings because the building will eventually decay and fall down.

I would say that is about things on earth....not "worldly". If farmers didn't farm....and fisherman didn't fish....people would starve to death. Those aren't "worldly" things.....those were things people knew....were familiar with....like the woman at the well....Jesus talked to her about living water.

 

[dallasapple]

I would say that is about things on earth....not "worldly". If farmers didn't farm....and fisherman didn't fish....people would starve to death. Those aren't "worldly" things.....those were things people knew....were familiar with....like the woman at the well....Jesus talked to her about living water.

I also doubt Jesus was using those things to "entertain" a certain gender to try and keep their attention so they wouldn't become bored and walk off.Or in this case under an ULTITMATUM ..make this fun for me..entertain me ..dont bore me ...or I wont listen at all....

And I dont get how a "motorcycle" is "important" to human beings in the example of Chaz saying using "important' things to demonstrate his point.

That's just one of many parables where He took something that was important to His audience and used it to make His point.

In the case of motorcycles?What Im saying is motorcycles are NOT important to the church audience..Im sure a tiny % of them may use a motorcycle as their main form of transportation or something..but to the majority of the "audience" motorcycles are not anything "important" in their daily life..

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

I would say that is about things on earth....not "worldly". If farmers didn't farm....and fisherman didn't fish....people would starve to death. Those aren't "worldly" things.....those were things people knew....were familiar with....like the woman at the well....Jesus talked to her about living water.

And the food that farmers grow and the fish that fisherman catch will spoil and decay just like those other things. That was the criteria you used for something being worldly, isn't it?

Certainly an inordinate focus on food is worldly too, just like an inordinate focus on those other things is. That one is, at some level required for life and the other not doesn't really have anything to do with wether or not one is worldly and the other not.

It seems to me that you are just calling those other things worldly because you don't like the idea of them being used as object lessons in Church. Why not? If they are what some guys know, and they are being used to illustrate a Scriptural principle, what exactly is wrong with it?

 

[chaz345]

I also doubt Jesus was using those things to "entertain" a certain gender to try and keep their attention so they wouldn't become bored and walk off.Or in this case under an ULTITMATUM ..make this fun for me..entertain me ..dont bore me ...or I wont listen at all....

No one except you here in this post has said anything at all about entertainement or ultimatums. You can't honestly think that's what's being said, no one with the ability to read and type could possibly think that so I can only conclude you are making stuff up to disagree with.

 

[JanniGirl]

[quote=chaz345;57385150]

Like I've said many times, the changes that are being suggested take absolutely nothing away from women. Nada, zip, zilch. Which is why I'm having such a hard time understanding the objection. quote]


Can I honestly ask how turning our churches into meeting halls for men be entertained by sports, hunting, cars, etc is NOT taking away from 1. God as the focus and 2. women in general?

Would I really want to watch, week after week, my pastor address the rather short attention span of the male congregants using only sports, war, cars, hunting, (ie worldy items) in order to communicate a message? How many "fight" songs would we have to sing (or, because some of the guys don't like to sing, let's just get rid of that all together?)


How about just delving into the Bible? Personally, I cannot remember the last sermon that was delivered at my rather ordinary church that was que'd up for women. I have to listen to more than my fair share of sports analogies (and you can guess my interest in that) and war-time tales. Honestly -- when was the last time that a "show" was put on for the benefit of women at YOUR church? -- I can't fathom what that would even look like . . . . hmm. Really. The preacher isn't talking about who's winning on Idol, or the latest diet/work-out trend. He's not referring to fashion or hair or makeup.

In fact, if I had to come right down to it . . . . I should be REALLY irritated (and perhaps, stop attending) because if there's any sort of gender skew, its definitely in line with male interests rather than what the wordly women are interested in.

But, guess what? My commitment to God is what draws me to church, not any sort of "social hour" or pet-sermon by our preacher.

 

[dallasapple]

No one except you here in this post has said anything at all about entertainement or ultimatums. You can't honestly think that's what's being said, no one with the ability to read and type could possibly think that so I can only conclude you are making stuff up to disagree with.

But I do think thats exactly what its about..boredom.And thats why more men choose to stay home..if the sermoms can "entertain" them somehow with things like the pastor sitting on a Harley sure you'll show up..

Because otherwise what you are talking about is NOT beign being spiritually inferior..but as I suggested before the typical male having some sort of disablilty.

There is NO reason why any man would NOT be able to focus..and listen AND understand what the pastor is talking about without a "prop" such as a motorcycle .So his insistance on having one there would simply be to ENTERTAIN him ..


Dallas

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been closed, since it appears that civil conversation is not an option.

Mod Hat Off​