Gender and church

[zoegirl]

Okay, I didn't want to derail the other thread about worship music but this whole idea that men are leaving the church for ....fill in the blank reasons has me just pondering this.

For instance, in the websites that I have visited, one called church for men says this...

Men are failing to engage in church life because their brains are not suited to its highly verbal style. And our conversation and vocabulary center on relationships. When the church returns to the visual, hands-on teaching style favored by Jesus, men will understand and respond. A renewed emphasis on mission, concrete objects and an accompanying de-emphasis on relationships will help men engage as well.

And I have to wonder....what?!?!? Since when are men allowed to use this to somehow rationalize the absence in church? I worry that in an effort to help strengthen men we are unwittingly....dumbing them down...

Hear me out: Let's see, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Tolkien, shoot all of the mainline Classical writers, the ones that have people actually wanting to scream about the Dead White Eurapean MALES...that's right...MALES.

Another lovely quote:

As I travel the country, nothing I say creates more controversy than this: men would benefit from shorter, simpler sermons. In my Go for the Guys Sunday Action Plan, I advocate a one-point sermon, ten minutes in length, built around an object lesson.

People are freaking out over this. I get comments like:

* David, you have a low regard for men’s intelligence.
* Short sermons “dumb down” the gospel.
* With Biblical illiteracy such a problem, we need more teaching, not less.
* We don’t need shorter sermons; we need better ones.
* My pastor is so interesting I wouldn’t mind if his sermons were longer.
* The apostle Paul preached for hours, and many were saved.
* Men just need to learn to pay attention.

Let’s take these one at a time.

Now, I'm not necessarily for huge, 45 minute sermons but it does seem rather tragic that ten minutes....ten minutes?!?!? is all he thinks guys can handle? Isnt' this a bit....insulting? I mean, help me out, guys, would you support only ten minutes?

Again, I'm not advocating for 45 minutes, but come on ....ten minutes?

Also, going back to the music thing....they are sooo into labeling one type of music "feminine"

Here’s one of the great, unspoken assumptions of worship today: more emotional the response, the truer the worship. Great worship results in sensation, passion and good feelings. The worship leader’s job is to help the people generate a warm, gooey feeling in their hearts about Jesus. Tears are the best gauge of God’s presence.

In order to generate this emotional response, many worship leaders repeat slow, dreamlike choruses over and over. And over. Simple songs now run 7 or 8 minutes long. This repetitiveness lulls the congregation into what I call a “worship coma.” This technique is not unlike a common practice in Buddhism known as “mantra” or repeating a phrase over and over. Mantras permit the worshipper to empty his mind and create a feeling of peace and euphoria.

No problem here...I agree heartily with this...

Whether passionate emotion equals true worship is not what I’m here to debate. I’m merely pointing out the fact that if ooey-gooey feelings are what we’re shooting for, worship will be much easier for women than men. Women are much less inhibited about showing emotion in public. They can access their emotions more easily than men. So a worship leader who’s trying to get the congregation to feel something will subconsciously target women, because gals are more likely to respond emotionally.

now again, I don't have an issue with this primarily....but why in the world is this such a polarized issue with regards to gender? Are women supposed to simply rest on these mantra-like songs? What about challenging the women as well? Why in the world are we supposed to settle for this gunk?

Or about this take on why men will watch 3 hour football games:

Sports promoters know the male brain and they tailor their presentation to guys. A sporting event is really ritual combat. It’s a battle between the forces of good (the home team) and evil (the visitor). Player introductions build on this theme. Like rival armies, the opponents march into battle sporting their colors, symbols and uniforms.

Games are heavy on physical movement with lots of objects flying through the air. The most exciting games are those in which the teams are evenly matched so the outcome is uncertain. Most sports offer time-outs (except soccer). These breaks allow men a reprieve from the tension, and give them a chance to stand up and move around. Food is a big part of the experience. Finally, a win allows men to bask in reflected glory, while a loss teaches men to deal with disappointment in a healthy way.

In short, sport is built for the male brain.

So according to this, men simply want action, but not too long, of course, they need breaks for their itty bitty attention span and, of course, food.

Believe me, I'm not advocating that there are no differences between the genders. It just seems a shame to me to read this, because a lot of it seems to be catering to some of the weakness prevalent in this society (soundbites, video games) of men. It also seems to be catering to the weaknesses of women as well, limiting their capacity to think (gee we're just bask in the emotional sludge of the music and talk about our *feelings*) instead of challenging them as well in the battle.

It just seems sometimes that we are, in an effort to combat this idea that there are NO differences between the genders, catering to the weaknesses of each gender (men are not as verbal or relational....let's just talk about sports and battles!) and women are the emotional ones (they can sing the "feminine" songs)

[zoegirl]

And just ot clarify.....I think guys are absolutely great....I just wish that this "guys and church" stuff that is all the rage didn't all come off as "guys are just gerat big oafs who can't handle church unless we make it only ten minutes, sing about battles, and bring food because of course, our poor brains just can't handle talking about anything else for too long".

And not to let the women escape, I wish more women could get out of this emotional sludge and get back into the battle as well.

[BavarianWheels]

I have this to add:

De Quervain is only too right in this respect: " 'Where the holy day becomes a day of man, society and humanity wither away and the demons rule...' " (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III: p. 53.)

.
.

[jlay]

Ugggg. Zoe post too long. Me no read.

[zoegirl]

bahaha...

[zoegirl]

I have this to add:

De Quervain is only too right in this respect: " 'Where the holy day becomes a day of man, society and humanity wither away and the demons rule...' " (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III: p. 53.)

.
.

too true....

[J.Davis]

Hello zoegirl..

Okay, I didn't want to derail the other thread about worship music but this whole idea that men are leaving the church for ....fill in the blank reasons has me just pondering this.

For instance, in the websites that I have visited, one called church for men says this...

Men are failing to engage in church life because their brains are not suited to its highly verbal style. And our conversation and vocabulary center on relationships. When the church returns to the visual, hands-on teaching style favored by Jesus, men will understand and respond. A renewed emphasis on mission, concrete objects and an accompanying de-emphasis on relationships will help men engage as well.

And I have to wonder....what?!?!? Since when are men allowed to use this to somehow rationalize the absence in church? I worry that in an effort to help strengthen men we are unwittingly....dumbing them down...

Hear me out: Let's see, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Tolkien, shoot all of the mainline Classical writers, the ones that have people actually wanting to scream about the Dead White Eurapean MALES...that's right...MALES.

Another lovely quote:

As I travel the country, nothing I say creates more controversy than this: men would benefit from shorter, simpler sermons. In my Go for the Guys Sunday Action Plan, I advocate a one-point sermon, ten minutes in length, built around an object lesson.

People are freaking out over this. I get comments like:

* David, you have a low regard for men’s intelligence.
* Short sermons “dumb down” the gospel.
* With Biblical illiteracy such a problem, we need more teaching, not less.
* We don’t need shorter sermons; we need better ones.
* My pastor is so interesting I wouldn’t mind if his sermons were longer.
* The apostle Paul preached for hours, and many were saved.
* Men just need to learn to pay attention.

Let’s take these one at a time.

Now, I'm not necessarily for huge, 45 minute sermons but it does seem rather tragic that ten minutes....ten minutes?!?!? is all he thinks guys can handle? Isnt' this a bit....insulting? I mean, help me out, guys, would you support only ten minutes?

Again, I'm not advocating for 45 minutes, but come on ....ten minutes?

I only said that typical male stubbornness, a desire to handle things (pain and suffering) himself is most likely the reason there are not more men in church, not that men were leaving the church for some reason, there is a big difference there.

Concerning the rest of this (not your comments) it’s ridiculous. These are simply the words, ideas, beliefs and excuses of men who want to have an excuse to dismiss God or the things God said to do. I don’t agree with or support any of this nor do I feel a desire to defend the thoughts or actions of such men. I only hold myself to defend my words and am happy to do so concerning the things I have said in the other thread or here but these weaklings can come and speak for themselves, and I will speak against them.

Also, going back to the music thing....they are sooo into labeling one type of music "feminine"

Here’s one of the great, unspoken assumptions of worship today: more emotional the response, the truer the worship. Great worship results in sensation, passion and good feelings. The worship leader’s job is to help the people generate a warm, gooey feeling in their hearts about Jesus. Tears are the best gauge of God’s presence.

In order to generate this emotional response, many worship leaders repeat slow, dreamlike choruses over and over. And over. Simple songs now run 7 or 8 minutes long. This repetitiveness lulls the congregation into what I call a “worship coma.” This technique is not unlike a common practice in Buddhism known as “mantra” or repeating a phrase over and over. Mantras permit the worshipper to empty his mind and create a feeling of peace and euphoria.

No problem here...I agree heartily with this...

I never said that there was such a thing as feminine music, that was derrick09. I said…

I do not believe that either sex has an inherent preference for one type of music over another.

And then I gave a reason for why some men might suggest that certain types of music is feminine. The reason being that it evokes tender emotions that conflict with his instinct to be strong, supportive and sacrifice his needs or impulses (based on commonsense and the circumstances) for that of the woman (or even a child for that matter). It’s an inherent instinct, ingrained into men (with the nature God approves of) and it is not easily undone.

Concerning the music (not saying that you are doing this), I am sure that the quote above is some kind of attempt to discredit anointed music. As I said, worship leaders keep things simple in order to make it easy for people to worship God without having to concentrate on learning a song. Also, many hymns repeat and have no effect, many musicians who are unsaved can repeat the same chords and words over and over for minutes, hours or any amount of time and I assure you that all you will feel is boredom…lol. Two musicians can play or sing the exact same song but one can feel better or much better than the other, there is a reason for that. And I (or another musician) can play a song that does not repeat and still, people cry and act just the same as they would during short repeating songs.

And beyond all the Goosebumps and nice feelings…A serious, tremendous, amazing effect can arise as a result of worshiping Jesus, an effect so great and so awesome that no one, man or woman would be foolish enough to believe that such a thing could be produced by any human means. The quote above (concerning the true power of God during worship) is no better than the excuses made for why God can not exist.

It is very possible that everything that is felt during a worship service is not God. A true Christian would have to be there to know. But that statement makes no effort to make it clear that there is the true power of God during worship and the fakes.

Whether passionate emotion equals true worship is not what I’m here to debate. I’m merely pointing out the fact that if ooey-gooey feelings are what we’re shooting for, worship will be much easier for women than men. Women are much less inhibited about showing emotion in public. They can access their emotions more easily than men. So a worship leader who’s trying to get the congregation to feel something will subconsciously target women, because gals are more likely to respond emotionally.

now again, I don't have an issue with this primarily....but why in the world is this such a polarized issue with regards to gender? Are women supposed to simply rest on these mantra-like songs? What about challenging the women as well? Why in the world are we supposed to settle for this gunk?

Again, the quote above is completely ridiculous. None of God’s musicians would subconsciously play for anyone but God, nor did I say anything that would suggest what this persons quote is trying to conclude. The goal is to help people get in a mindset that is focused on God and create an atmosphere that is free of confusion and disruption as well as playing music that both the audience and God will be happy with. There are many different ethnic groups and many of them are accustom to their native music, that’s what they like. I have played everything from Classical gospel, jazz gospel, hip-hop, rock, country, reggae, swing, latin and everything in-between gospel and still people (men and women) respond in a worshiping or praising God manner. It has nothing to do with trying to make people cry in order to create some ridiculous illusion of a spiritual experience (which is what this person is really getting at). The person from the quote is simply not a worship leader and comes from his own twisted selfish point of view, understanding nothing concerning what he speaks against with only the intent to defend is own cowardly need to dismiss God for whatever weak reasons he may have.

Or about this take on why men will watch 3 hour football games:

Sports promoters know the male brain and they tailor their presentation to guys. A sporting event is really ritual combat. It’s a battle between the forces of good (the home team) and evil (the visitor). Player introductions build on this theme. Like rival armies, the opponents march into battle sporting their colors, symbols and uniforms.

Games are heavy on physical movement with lots of objects flying through the air. The most exciting games are those in which the teams are evenly matched so the outcome is uncertain. Most sports offer time-outs (except soccer). These breaks allow men a reprieve from the tension, and give them a chance to stand up and move around. Food is a big part of the experience. Finally, a win allows men to bask in reflected glory, while a loss teaches men to deal with disappointment in a healthy way.

In short, sport is built for the male brain.

So according to this, men simply want action, but not too long, of course, they need breaks for their itty bitty attention span and, of course, food.

Believe me, I'm not advocating that there are no differences between the genders. It just seems a shame to me to read this, because a lot of it seems to be catering to some of the weakness prevalent in this society (soundbites, video games) of men. It also seems to be catering to the weaknesses of women as well, limiting their capacity to think (gee we're just bask in the emotional sludge of the music and talk about our *feelings*) instead of challenging them as well in the battle.

It just seems sometimes that we are, in an effort to combat this idea that there are NO differences between the genders, catering to the weaknesses of each gender (men are not as verbal or relational....let's just talk about sports and battles!) and women are the emotional ones (they can sing the "feminine" songs)

I agree with this but it is mostly unrelated to what I have been expressing. There are differences between the sex and all the confusion comes form those who reject God’s way. A couple that is inline with God can have an amazing relationship where they respect, understand and truly love each other without any UnGodly perverse motives. I already gave my reasons for why men tend to resist (a brief summary above and a post in the other thread) certain songs and why one might associate them with a nature that is opposite of what his instincts demand.

[zoegirl]

I only said that typical male stubbornness, a desire to handle things (pain and suffering) himself is most likely the reason there are not more men in church, not that men were leaving the church for some reason, there is a big difference there.

Yes, you are right...in my thoughts I have heard others say this....but you did not....my bad

Concerning the rest of this (not your comments) it’s ridiculous. These are simply the words, ideas, beliefs and excuses of men who want to have an excuse to dismiss God or the things God said to do. I don’t agree with or support any of this nor do I feel a desire to defend the thoughts or actions of such men. I only hold myself to defend my words and am happy to do so concerning the things I have said in the other thread or here but these weaklings can come and speak for themselves, and I will speak against them.

no prob....thanks....I'm glad that this isn't something that seems to be held by many. A little history on my part.....I started looking into this when one of the guys I knew from that dating site spouted off about gender differences. His blog held that women all fall for those stupid precious moments "art" and that there was "feminine" artwork and "masculine" appealing artwork...his blog contained many other links that all seem to uphold this idea and really subscribe to these stereotypes.

I never said that there was such a thing as feminine music, that was derrick09. I said…

J.Davis wrote:I do not believe that either sex has an inherent preference for one type of music over another.

HOwever, you did say

playing the type of music ladies like. When the church has more men then women, I assure you that things will change because the majority of musicians will always tailor to their audience, otherwise… they will find that they have no audience. But there are a lot of churches that have a good balance of men and women and they play a large variety of music that is appealing to both sex.

where I then asked for clarification and then you gave me samples of what would be "ladies music" and "male music"...

But no worries....I agree that you have never said things akin to that website....Let me clarify myself. Your posts simply made me think about those other websites and since I didn't want to derail that other thread, I just wanted to get some discussion going. I'm not trying to take down that idea of men being the leader. I just have heard this model of the "male" church more lately and yet when I read about their reasoning it's rather a sad commentary on men.

And then I gave a reason for why some men might suggest that certain types of music is feminine. The reason being that it evokes tender emotions that conflict with his instinct to be strong, supportive and sacrifice his needs or impulses (based on commonsense and the circumstances) for that of the woman (or even a child for that matter). It’s an inherent instinct, ingrained into men (with the nature God approves of) and it is not easily undone.

I wonder, though, why the two (tender and tough) have to be mutually exclusive (I'm not saying I disagree that that's what guys are thinking....just wondering)...

Concerning the music (not saying that you are doing this), I am sure that the quote above is some kind of attempt to discredit anointed music. As I said, worship leaders keep things simple in order to make it easy for people to worship God without having to concentrate on learning a song. Also, many hymns repeat and have no effect,

I'll sneak in a commentary here that most worship songs repeat just as badly....at least with most of the hymns there are some wonderful lyrics that don't repeat

many musicians who are unsaved can repeat the same chords and words over and over for minutes, hours or any amount of time and I assure you that all you will feel is boredom…lol. Two musicians can play or sing the exact same song but one can feel better or much better than the other, there is a reason for that. And I (or another musician) can play a song that does not repeat and still, people cry and act just the same as they would during short repeating songs.

DOn't disagree....

Again, the quote above is completely ridicules. None of God’s musicians would subconsciously play for anyone but God, nor did I say anything that would suggest what this persons quote is trying to conclude.

Great....again....I know that you are not that extreme....I just wanted people's thoughts on this trend...

The goal is to help people get in a mindset that is focused on God and create an atmosphere that is free of confusion and disruption as well as playing music that both the audience and God will be happy with. There are many different ethnic groups and many of them are accustom to their native music, that’s what they like. I have played everything from Classical gospel, jazz gospel, hip-hop, rock, country, reggae, swing, latin and everything in-between gospel and still people (men and women) respond in a worshiping or praising God manner. It has nothing to do with trying to make people cry in order to create some ridicules illusion of a spiritual experience (which is what this person is really getting at). The person from the quote is simply not a worship leader and comes from his own twisted selfish point of view, understanding nothing concerning what he speaks against with only the intent to defend is own cowardly need to dismiss God for whatever weak reasons he may have.

true....no disagreement

I agree with this but it is mostly unrelated to what I have been expressing.

I know....those quotes were purely from that website and I know that you were not espousing those ideas....I was hoping for some male perspective on them....that's why I invited you over...sometimes when this whole idea of feminization comes up, I truly get confused and annoyed, because it seems sometimes (not attributing this to you) that it is used as an insult...as if
1) being feminine is somehow the worst thing any guy can think of as an insult (you fight/sing/worship like a girl) and
2) even the description of feminization uses a woefully sad depiction of what women are like...as if we are just wallowing in emotional sludge all the time, weeping, talking about relationships and ooey gooey mentality....

There are differences between the sex and all the confusion comes form those who reject God’s way.

No debate here...I just hope that as we maintain that there IS a difference, we don't limit each gender or focus on their potential weakness in an attempt to establish differences. No man should have to live up to this idea that he has to be the pillar of strength all of the time (that way leads to an early death, stress, and heart attacks) or some remnant of a caveman with no attention span and no woman should live under this idea that she is weak, either intellectually, spiritually, or rationally (I've even heard men on some websites declare that there are no righteous women, that all are essentially potential sluts...and that they have nothing worthwhile to say)....and these are supposedly CHristian men who are also espousing gender differences. You can imagine that I am wary of that phrase.....

A couple that is inline with God can have an amazing relationship where they respect, understand and truly love each other without any UnGodly perverse motives. I already gave my reasons for why men tend to resist (a brief summary above and a post in the other thread) certain songs and why one might associate them with a nature that is opposite of what his instincts demand.

No problem here between us J Davis....I think we are in agreement with each other with regards to the music. I truly am just wanting some male perspective here. Whenever I here an abstract concept such as the roles of men and women form various sources....I have yet ot find someone who can illustrate this abstract concept in concrete terms. other than spiritual leadership (which I have no problem with). Any thoughts on that? At work? IN marriage ?

[B. W.]

I needed a good laugh Zoe! Thanks!

The “worship coma” was what I was taling about on the other Music thread - and that was in a men's gropu no less!
-
-
-

Okay, I didn't want to derail the other thread about worship music but this whole idea that men are leaving the church for ....fill in the blank reasons has me just pondering this.

For instance, in the websites that I have visited, one called church for men says this...

Men are failing to engage in church life because their brains are not suited to its highly verbal style. And our conversation and vocabulary center on relationships. When the church returns to the visual, hands-on teaching style favored by Jesus, men will understand and respond. A renewed emphasis on mission, concrete objects and an accompanying de-emphasis on relationships will help men engage as well.

And I have to wonder....what?!?!? Since when are men allowed to use this to somehow rationalize the absence in church? I worry that in an effort to help strengthen men we are unwittingly....dumbing them down...

Hear me out: Let's see, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis, Tolkien, shoot all of the mainline Classical writers, the ones that have people actually wanting to scream about the Dead White Eurapean MALES...that's right...MALES.

Another lovely quote:

As I travel the country, nothing I say creates more controversy than this: men would benefit from shorter, simpler sermons. In my Go for the Guys Sunday Action Plan, I advocate a one-point sermon, ten minutes in length, built around an object lesson.

People are freaking out over this. I get comments like:

* David, you have a low regard for men’s intelligence.
* Short sermons “dumb down” the gospel.
* With Biblical illiteracy such a problem, we need more teaching, not less.
* We don’t need shorter sermons; we need better ones.
* My pastor is so interesting I wouldn’t mind if his sermons were longer.
* The apostle Paul preached for hours, and many were saved.
* Men just need to learn to pay attention.

Let’s take these one at a time.

Now, I'm not necessarily for huge, 45 minute sermons but it does seem rather tragic that ten minutes....ten minutes?!?!? is all he thinks guys can handle? Isnt' this a bit....insulting? I mean, help me out, guys, would you support only ten minutes?

Again, I'm not advocating for 45 minutes, but come on ....ten minutes?

Also, going back to the music thing....they are sooo into labeling one type of music "feminine"

Here’s one of the great, unspoken assumptions of worship today: more emotional the response, the truer the worship. Great worship results in sensation, passion and good feelings. The worship leader’s job is to help the people generate a warm, gooey feeling in their hearts about Jesus. Tears are the best gauge of God’s presence.

In order to generate this emotional response, many worship leaders repeat slow, dreamlike choruses over and over. And over. Simple songs now run 7 or 8 minutes long. This repetitiveness lulls the congregation into what I call a “worship coma.” This technique is not unlike a common practice in Buddhism known as “mantra” or repeating a phrase over and over. Mantras permit the worshipper to empty his mind and create a feeling of peace and euphoria.

No problem here...I agree heartily with this...

Whether passionate emotion equals true worship is not what I’m here to debate. I’m merely pointing out the fact that if ooey-gooey feelings are what we’re shooting for, worship will be much easier for women than men. Women are much less inhibited about showing emotion in public. They can access their emotions more easily than men. So a worship leader who’s trying to get the congregation to feel something will subconsciously target women, because gals are more likely to respond emotionally.

now again, I don't have an issue with this primarily....but why in the world is this such a polarized issue with regards to gender? Are women supposed to simply rest on these mantra-like songs? What about challenging the women as well? Why in the world are we supposed to settle for this gunk?

Or about this take on why men will watch 3 hour football games:

Sports promoters know the male brain and they tailor their presentation to guys. A sporting event is really ritual combat. It’s a battle between the forces of good (the home team) and evil (the visitor). Player introductions build on this theme. Like rival armies, the opponents march into battle sporting their colors, symbols and uniforms.

Games are heavy on physical movement with lots of objects flying through the air. The most exciting games are those in which the teams are evenly matched so the outcome is uncertain. Most sports offer time-outs (except soccer). These breaks allow men a reprieve from the tension, and give them a chance to stand up and move around. Food is a big part of the experience. Finally, a win allows men to bask in reflected glory, while a loss teaches men to deal with disappointment in a healthy way.

In short, sport is built for the male brain.

So according to this, men simply want action, but not too long, of course, they need breaks for their itty bitty attention span and, of course, food.

Believe me, I'm not advocating that there are no differences between the genders. It just seems a shame to me to read this, because a lot of it seems to be catering to some of the weakness prevalent in this society (soundbites, video games) of men. It also seems to be catering to the weaknesses of women as well, limiting their capacity to think (gee we're just bask in the emotional sludge of the music and talk about our *feelings*) instead of challenging them as well in the battle.

It just seems sometimes that we are, in an effort to combat this idea that there are NO differences between the genders, catering to the weaknesses of each gender (men are not as verbal or relational....let's just talk about sports and battles!) and women are the emotional ones (they can sing the "feminine" songs)

[J.Davis]

Hello Zoegirl…

I never said that there was such a thing as feminine music, that was derrick09. I said…

J.Davis wrote:I do not believe that either sex has an inherent preference for one type of music over another.

HOwever, you did say

playing the type of music ladies like. When the church has more men then women, I assure you that things will change because the majority of musicians will always tailor to their audience, otherwise… they will find that they have no audience. But there are a lot of churches that have a good balance of men and women and they play a large variety of music that is appealing to both sex.

where I then asked for clarification and then you gave me samples of what would be "ladies music" and "male music"...

But no worries....I agree that you have never said things akin to that website....Let me clarify myself. Your posts simply made me think about those other websites and since I didn't want to derail that other thread, I just wanted to get some discussion going. I'm not trying to take down that idea of men being the leader. I just have heard this model of the "male" church more lately and yet when I read about their reasoning it's rather a sad commentary on men.

Yes (you are cheating again cutting it short), I only said that to derrick09, as a logical reason for why churches are not completely void of the type of music that is perceived by a number of men as feminine due to it’s tender feeling evoking nature which men instinctively resist. The music is good for worship and helping people to get in a mindset that is focused on God and to create an atmosphere that is free of confusion and disruption. Both men and women like the music but a number of men (especially the ones that have not been with God for a long time) can be uncomfortable because they feel they need to resist the tender feelings. So it is not that the music is perceived as feminine, only the emotions produced by the music. And I said that if the number of men exceeded the number of women then the music would change. Meaning that God’s musicians will play whatever helps the most people get in a mindset that is focused on God and creates an atmosphere that is free of confusion and disruption.

If we have a room full of guys and a different type of music helps them get in a mindset that is focused on God and creates an atmosphere that is free of confusion and disruption then that is what the musician should seek to accomplish. Also, remember that I was talking to a guy who understands male instinct, we both understood what was intended by saying feminine (not the sound but effect produced by the sound))

Concerning the songs I posted, the first one was a quick example of music that creates tender feelings. The second one I posted because I know you like classical music and I wanted to see what you would say (how deep you were involved with classical music). You gave a good response.

I wonder, though, why the two (tender and tough) have to be mutually exclusive (I'm not saying I disagree that that's what guys are thinking....just wondering)...

They don’t have to be, it’s just about default instinct. A man can feel tender feelings and still act tough (which is a lot of what I have been saying) or they can feel harsh and still act tender. But that is about fighting instinct, something we all have to learn.

Concerning the music (not saying that you are doing this), I am sure that the quote above is some kind of attempt to discredit anointed music. As I said, worship leaders keep things simple in order to make it easy for people to worship God without having to concentrate on learning a song. Also, many hymns repeat and have no effect,

I'll sneak in a commentary here that most worship songs repeat just as badly....at least with most of the hymns there are some wonderful lyrics that don't repeat

Yes, but the hymns have been around forever and many church goers know them (and a number of non church goers). Musicians add more words to the popular modern worship songs as well, it just takes time for the Christian community to learn it all and choose what they want to accept. It worked the same with many hymns as well, just takes time.

I agree with this but it is mostly unrelated to what I have been expressing.

I know....those quotes were purely from that website and I know that you were not espousing those ideas....I was hoping for some male perspective on them....that's why I invited you over...sometimes when this whole idea of feminization comes up, I truly get confused and annoyed, because it seems sometimes (not attributing this to you) that it is used as an insult...as if
1) being feminine is somehow the worst thing any guy can think of as an insult (you fight/sing/worship like a girl) and
2) even the description of feminization uses a woefully sad depiction of what women are like...as if we are just wallowing in emotional sludge all the time, weeping, talking about relationships and ooey gooey mentality.…

In response to 1: That is only because it suggest that one is not being a man (everything his instincts demand), not that women are the lowest of all insults, no true man would ever feel that way about a women. Truthfully, us guys think you women are the best thing on this planet and physically speaking, the best thing in existence.

In response to 2: Women of God are serious, possessing a radiant beauty that demands praise, honor and respect, wielding magnificence and excellence that overshadows women of the world and reduces Godless men to little weak boys. The world does not define our women, we do not embrace their foolishness.

There are differences between the sex and all the confusion comes form those who reject God’s way.

No debate here...I just hope that as we maintain that there IS a difference, we don't limit each gender or focus on their potential weakness in an attempt to establish differences. No man should have to live up to this idea that he has to be the pillar of strength all of the time (that way leads to an early death, stress, and heart attacks) or some remnant of a caveman with no attention span and no woman should live under this idea that she is weak, either intellectually, spiritually, or rationally (I've even heard men on some websites declare that there are no righteous women, that all are essentially potential sluts...and that they have nothing worthwhile to say)....and these are supposedly CHristian men who are also espousing gender differences. You can imagine that I am wary of that phrase.....

The world will do as it will, as I said, all the confusion comes form those who reject God’s way.

True men of God have no need to limit women in someway or suggest that they be mindful of his position in some shameful attempt to make themselves feel stronger due to character, qualities or power that worldly men would deem threatening. There are differences, and real men only give that which is in his nature to the woman with no need or desire to take away that which is in her nature (because he is that strong). That is what strength is for, to lift and support. And when men are imprisoned by their own instincts, unable to break free and unaware of their crime, they rely on their beautiful women to use their strength to free them. Neither God or I ever said that one nature was better than another. Doesn’t a rose stem lose it’s glory without it’s soft petals? The stem and petals both have qualities that the other needs, both have their own strengths but one is softer, not better.

True men of God have no need to drag the things we desire from our women.. Because, our women are so intoxicated with love and passion that they desire to freely and willingly give of themselves. And don’t worry, real men of God have no problem lifting the weight God put on them.

As I said earlier, the weak men you speak of can defend their own actions, I am not one of them. I trust that a woman of God, such as yourself knows something is wrong with the men you speak of because they are not true men of God.

A couple that is inline with God can have an amazing relationship where they respect, understand and truly love each other without any UnGodly perverse motives. I already gave my reasons for why men tend to resist (a brief summary above and a post in the other thread) certain songs and why one might associate them with a nature that is opposite of what his instincts demand.

No problem here between us J Davis....I think we are in agreement with each other with regards to the music. I truly am just wanting some male perspective here. Whenever I here an abstract concept such as the roles of men and women form various sources....I have yet ot find someone who can illustrate this abstract concept in concrete terms. other than spiritual leadership (which I have no problem with). Any thoughts on that? At work? IN marriage ?

I think my post above summed it up pretty good. We both support the other using our own qualities. It varies for each couple because some people are stronger than others. But basically…guys want to support their lady in areas (which areas depends on the guy) she will submit to him because she feels he can do a better job at accomplishing or fulfilling the task, goal, dream, urge, or desire then she can. Willful submission, because he loves right…creating a desire to submit and trust him to handle the situation. Men of God just want to be her strength when she needs more than she can give. No true man of God thinks to himself that his lady is inferior. Only that he needs to be strong enough to lift her when it becomes necessary.

[Colin2000]

Hi Zoe,

How about, "Men are leaving the Church because women have usurped the function and position of the Priesthood in The Church!"

1. They have started kissing each other in The Peace!

2. They have also started absolving the male sinners when they really aren't qualified!

3. They take the mens toys away by using feminine Reason!

But not to worry, isn't Jesus wonderful! He loves the men despite their sin! Jesus has told us so, John.3:16 and all that!
An example, Jesus sitting at a table with His favourite woman, Jesus organised by His favourite woman, Mary perhaps?
Jesus sitting at a table with His favourite man, Loud voice from The Heavenly Throne, "Oh no, not him again!"

Yours in Christ,

Colin.

[zoegirl]

Hi Zoe,

How about, "Men are leaving the Church because women have usurped the function and position of the Priesthood in The Church!"

Except for the tinsy litle fact that non eo fthe churches I have gone to have women preachers....

1. They have started kissing each other in The Peace!

um...what??

2. They have also started absolving the male sinners when they really aren't qualified!

3. They take the mens toys away by using feminine Reason!

What?!?!?

But not to worry, isn't Jesus wonderful! He loves the men despite their sin! Jesus has told us so, John.3:16 and all that!
An example, Jesus sitting at a table with His favourite woman, Jesus organised by His favourite woman, Mary perhaps?
Jesus sitting at a table with His favourite man, Loud voice from The Heavenly Throne, "Oh no, not him again!"

Yours in Christ,

Colin.

I have to admit....not much of your post really makes sense...care to elaborate and clarify what you mean?

[Colin2000]

Hi Zoe, for starters,

Approx. eight hundred men/priests have gone to Rome from the Established Church in England after women were priested by a national synod her in England broke with tradition and Reason, The Word!

As a result of the antic's of TEC in America? It's Episcopal Church they say, eight hundred priests places have been filled by so called priested women!

Now women Bishops are on their way so two bishops, priests, and Anglo-catholic congregations/Churches are about to follow them next year to Rome.

Yours in Christ,

Colin.

PS. Could homosexual and Lesbian Bishops in American TEC. have something also to do with it I wonder? Men not shouting but leaving the Church to the women to get on with it perhaps?

PPS. I wonder whether if they are leaving because of the breakdown in family life and womanhood leaving her place in marriage and marriage been devalued at the same time??? .... Men are redundant you know so they feel they have to effeminate themselves to be accepted perhaps not taking into account The Pill, perhaps ?

PPPS. But never mind isn't Jesus wonderful and I positively refuse to kiss Him too! Then again?

[zoegirl]

Hmm, men leaving....

you know it's arguments like this that remind me of the book "The silence of Adam". I'm frankly tired of men blaming women. Deborah was able to be judge partly because there were no men to lead. Not because of some lost vision of "her place".

SO what is the place of women...you bring up marriage and that is the one thing that has been denied me...so without marriage where am I? Where would you place me? Where is my place in the church? Can I lead a Bible study?....not if there are men in the Bible study....can I teach high schoolers....I was even told at one church that I could not (because, of course, there are young men in there, of course, nevermind that I teach high schoolers....hmmm)....

I could teach women but of course I have nothing to teach them, considering that even among them I don't have anythign to offer them about marriage or motherhood. It seems that the only vision many have about women is tunnel vision...they can be mothers or wives in the church but not much else...



I read books that are about integrity and courage and adventures and the authors all act like this is a sole attribute of men.

[Colin2000]

Hi Zoe,

Men blaming women, so what's new! It sounds like another thread starting,
Who was to blame Adam, Eve, Satan!

Anybody but me!

But without Original Sin, No Jesus, terrible isn't it! We need an odd dragon or two you know!

However, some Church's may not have The Priesthood so women are readily available for the job perhaps?

Yours in Christ,

Colin.