As though it were a new thing, there has been a lot of blogtalk and books written recently about why men don’t seem to like church very much. Perhaps some of the best insights I’ve encountered came from a 1991 book entitled Uneasy Manhood, written by Robert Hicks, who at the time was Professor of Pastoral Theology at the Seminary of the East.

Hicks’ book covers a lot of different aspects of a man’s life and offers some insights as to why men aren’t very comfortable in some of our roles. Here’s a few of the chapters:

    Uneasy Boyhood
    Uneasy Paycheck
    Uneasy Solitude
    Uneasy Fathering
    Uneasy Spirituality

It’s a very good read - I’d tell you to buy it, but you can’t find it: Hicks used the word “phallic” in the same sentence with “Jesus” and thus was literarily castrated - but I’ll glean some of his words from his chapter “Uneasy Sundays”:

First, most men compare themselves to the image of the minister. The media’s portrayal of the minister is one of the most often perpetuated exercises in systematic brainwashing. The clergyman is usually a priest or a priest type dressed in distinct garb, and of course, the producers choose an innocuous-looking, effeminate man for the part . . . To the average viewer, the minister lives in anonymity, on the fringe of life; he shows up only for cameo appearances at weddings, funerals, and presidential invocations.

“But the real problem lies in the fact that this life-on-the-fringe phantom (minister) becomes the model of both spirituality and masculinity for wives and women in general. The pastor is the perfect man, the spiritual man personified, the man a wife wishes her husband were like.

“This is a terrifying aspect about the ministry - knowing that women in the congregations are constantly comparing men like me to their husbands! . . . The man in the pulpit becomes a subtle enemy to most men. There is nothing appealing about his life to other men.”

Dr. Donald Joy speaks of ‘the deformed male as the norm in our society,’ which has taken two forms. One is the macho man who deals with his deformity by compensating for his insecurity through ‘acting’ manly rather than being manly. The other is the feminized deformed male who has given up on being a man and runs away from his manhood; he feels more comfortable on the feminine side of life . . .

“The minister holds a pivotal position in our culture to model both realistic manhood and more realistic spirituality. For this to happen, however, a change of thinking on both sides of the pulpit or altar must occur. The average man asks, ‘What do I have in common with this man, and why should I listen to him?’ The new males, the postwar babies who have been educated, if not brainwashed, into thinking that integrity is related more to vulnerability than to performability, ask, ‘Are you for real? Do you struggle where I struggle? Are you going to shoot straight with me about your inner life?’ . . .

“To do what needs to be done to reach and win men for the church, the leaders must figure out whether they want the appearance of perfection or honesty in their ministers.”

Another reason Sundays are uneasy for men is that they don’t understand the game. Men appreciate having clear leadership and knowing the rules of the game being played. In their absence, every man must figure out what in the world the pastor is trying to do and what the church is all about. A minister needs at least three years of study to figure it out, and then he spends the rest of his life trying to implement it. The man off the street doesn’t have a clue, especially if he is a convert late in life. One man told me when he first started attending the church, he though the Epistles were the apostles wives! . . .

“In preparation for one of the Lausanne conferences on evangelism, Dallas businessman Ford Madison was asked to speak on the role of the layman in world evangelization. He surveyed various men who were actively involved in their churches to get a feel for what they thought their pastors really expected of them. He asked, ‘What do you think your pastor expects of you as a layman?’ Ford said he was surprised by the results. The number one expectation was for men to give money. The number two perceived expectation was to attend and support all the church programs. The third, in Ford’s words, was, ‘Don’t rock the boat.’ . . .

“Men perceive the church a certain way and then act in accordance with their perceptions. If the perceptions are off, their actions will be, too . . . Once men see what the church is all about and have a personal share in its ministry, they feel at home there . . .

Until men look upon ministry as more than attending a meeting or making decisions, we will continue to lose the best men. In a little book he wrote in 1947, Elton Trueblood asked, ‘Why is it that the church is not getting the best men?’ His question intrigued me, and his answer continues to haunt me. He replied, ‘Because they are the best men . . . the best men are not interested in trivial things’ . . .

“Christianity is no trivial pursuit. As C.S. Lewis concluded, if it is true we should not sleep at night. But the way Christianity is presented and lived out in the church, it is often reduced to the most insignificant trivia. It’s no wonder men want no part in it . . . If we do not call men to true Christianity and challenge them to invest their lives personally, not institutionally, I fear we will continue to lose the best men . . .

“I have seen too many good men leave the church or church leadership because they were tired of playing the games and they saw a lot of what the church was doing as a waste of time. We must recapture the church for men, defeminize it, and make our appeals to men where it will cost them something more than their money or their time. Christ wants their lives.”

How do we reclaim men for the kingdom of God and get them into the doors of the church? I wish I knew a surefire answer. But two images come to my mind . . . one is the image [of] the sterile, cold, formal, flowery image of church with over half its audience women. The other image is the most recent Flyers hockey game I experienced, and I do mean experienced! I looked at the audience, by far more men than women. What were they wearing? Anything! Some were dressed for the stock exchange; others for the Philly meat market. How did they behave? Were they passive, quiet, unemotional, refined gentlemen? Hardly. They were involved, vocal, upset, yelling, celebrating.

“I thought to myself, ‘Here is a man’s world, a place where he can let it all out, be himself, wear anything he desires, and they still let him in. And he actually pays to come!’ But what about the church? No, there a man can’t be himself: he has to watch what he says, act appropriately, and wear a neatly pressed and coordinated suit and tie. Then it hit me: We’re all dressed the way our mommies always wanted us to dress. We’re all nice, clean little boys, sitting quietly so we won’t get into trouble with our mothers!

“Am I suggesting we turn the church into a hockey game? Of course not . . . But I do know that men will come to something and pay for it when we identify with it. It’s obvious we don’t feel that way about church . . .”

To be continued . . .


2 Cor 1.13