Christianity is being feminized–men just don’t go to church anymore!
Worship is so feminine now, with all of its appeals to emotions.
Christianity has a “masculine” feel to it.
I had a conversation recently in which several men were bemoaning the “feminization of Christianity,” particularly worship. I asked them what they meant by this and one man illustrated it with a story: he was at a church one time and this guy was up front singing this lovey-dovey song he had written about how Jesus loved him and wanted to hold him or something and he–the one telling the story–thought it was ridiculous. This, he said, was an example of the feminization of worship. It makes men leave the church.
I pointed out that his example was about a man singing a song written by a man–himself–leading worship in a church in which (the man had told me) the only leaders were men. He nodded and reiterated his point. …This, it seems, is the result of feminizing the church.
I thought that was rather odd, to be frank, but the conversation has stuck with me for its message. I’ve had many like it over the past year or two. I’ve seen fellow bloggers post on this apparently insidious trend of the “feminization of Christianity.” A prominent apologist recently issued a similar complaint, noting that worship has gotten more “emotional” and therefore more “feminine.” Some theologians and books I’ve read have had similar concerns about this “feminine” aspect being brought into churches. Apparently, from my reading of these sources and the conversations I’ve had, the message is that this is A Bad Thing.
Do you really think that Christianity is masculine? What does that even mean?
What does it mean to say worship is “feminine” or “masculine”? Does that mean that if I, a man, worship, then my praise is somehow “manly,” while my wife’s praise is “womanly”?
I want to focus on this notion that “feminization of Christianity” is A Bad Thing. What does this say about men and women?
It seems to me that if feminizing Christianity inherently makes it somehow deficient, then that means females are also deficient. If “feminized” worship is bad, or at least not as good as “masculine” worship–whatever either one of those things means–then that means that what are identified as male patterns of worship have higher value. But can such patterns really even be identified? If “feminization of the Church” is to be avoided, while making it more “masculine” is to be lauded, then what does that say about our position, male and female, as the image of God? On the one hand, humanity, male and female, were each created in God’s likeness, in the image of God. On the other, we are told that “feminine” themes within Christianity are to be avoided and downplayed, while “masculine” themes are to be pursued and emphasized.
The most common answer I’ve gotten to questions about the nature of masculine or feminine worship is that that which is feminine is emotional or passive, while masculine is rational or active. I would like to ask: how is this reflected in God’s Word? Recall that God gets angry (Psalm 7:11) or grieved by sin (Genesis 6:6), takes pleasure in obedience (Psalm 147:111), delights (Zephaniah 3:17), etc. God is a God with emotions and whether we set this aside as anthropomorphism or not, it seems clear that Scripture understands God not rejecting emotions but rather, in some sense, taking part in them. But if God’s Word does not denigrate emotions and even attributes them to God, why should we not worship in emotional ways? And why are emotions treated as something to be avoided, as necessarily feminine and somehow not good, or at least not as good as that which is identified as masculine?
I’m not trying to advocate for one side or the other in the so-called “worship wars.” Instead, my point is that the narrative of complaints about the “feminization of Christianity” is misguided and far from the truth. Being female is not bad, nor is it somehow less perfect than being male. Similarly, having a “feminine” Christianity is not an imperfection. To be honest, I’d like to call my Christian brothers and sisters to a more complete understanding of God and God’s word.
There is hope for us that applies to us all as people:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28
These are words of hope, words of reconciliation. But they are also words which cut against the notion that in our church there is masculine worship vs. feminine worship; masculine music vs. feminine music; masculine sermons vs. feminine ones. “Nor is there male and female… you are all one in Christ Jesus.” My heart leaps at these words. These words tell me I need have no fear, for our God–a great God–has reconciled us in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Check out my posts on egalitarianism – the belief that men and women are equally qualified and called in the church and home (scroll down for more).
I found the image on Bing searching for images of worshipers in church and I claim no rights to it and saw no claims to rights upon it.
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 
Thank you J. W. for your words.
Posted by Lisa Guinther | June 9, 2014, 8:00 AMThanks for reading!
Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 9, 2014, 1:25 PMYour post made me think immediately of David, who wrote the poetry that is the basis for many of the worship songs that may be characterized as “feminine”…and yet also killed a lion and bear with his bare hands, took down the mighty giant Goliath and was a war hero. Nothing feminine in that. I think maybe we need a broadening of how we define “masculine” and “feminine.” While these words have essential meanings that are opposites, rarely is it that simple in a particular human being. Was David masculine because he was a fierce warrior or feminine because he wrote emotional poetry?
Posted by Justin Miller | June 9, 2014, 10:15 AMThanks for your comment. I think you’re on to something with David. I might suggest going even farther, however, and wonder about whether “killing a lion” is necessarily a masculine action. I think it is because we view it as such, but I’m not sure that there is such a disjunction. Your point about how both things we think are masculine and feminine coexist in such biblical (and modern!) persons is very well taken.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 9, 2014, 1:25 PMHear, hear! Maybe your best post yet. Sharing.
Posted by Robert Whitaker | June 9, 2014, 11:25 AMThanks for your very kind words!
Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 9, 2014, 1:23 PMMen do not want to sing about Jesus touching them and relating to Jesus like He is our boyfriend. It really is that simple. I have no problem with emotion. I think worship should be full of emotion. But I work in a machine shop. Most of the guys I work with would fell very awkward singing a llting melody about how tenderly they love Jesus.
Posted by Jim | June 9, 2014, 5:02 PMThe Bible is full of that sort of imagery, Jim. The reason men don’t like it is because they have been conditioned not to like it – they think that people will think they’re gay – that’s homophobia. I don’t like the ‘lovey-dovey’ stuff much either and I’m female. But I figure that’s my problem, not the fault or oversight of everybody else at church because they choose to worship a different way to me.
Posted by fluffybabybunnyrabbit | June 11, 2014, 5:07 AMI’m not sure the Bible is full of imagery about treating Jesus like a boyfriend. Could you give me an example of what you mean? As for the homophobia, maybe that is the case with some, but really, is it a flaw to say I’m not comfortable using that kind of approach in relating to Christ? I don’t relate that way to any male figure in my life, and while there are some cultural factors in that (i.e. contrast the way men in some Asian cultures hold hands while hanging out without any homosexual implications), isn’t cultural contextualization a valid principle here? IOW, I’m not saying this is an absolute principle that we should be dogmatic about, but a practical one. Just as someone like me needs to be a bit flexible and not make a snap judgment about the masculinity of a guy who enjoys the “touchy” style, worship leaders might want to take into account the cultural sensitivities of the men in their congregations and regions. This style just doesn’t play well with the kind of guys in my area.
Posted by Jim | June 11, 2014, 10:45 AMJim – could not reply to your latter comment for some reason so had to do so to the original one. No, the Bible does not talk about Jesus being anyone’s boyfriend! I meant imagery of the love of God and the love we should have for one another which is often put into song words, sermons, prayers and discussion. This is not physical or romantic love but the love of God!
I absolutely do not get the idea that we are compelled – either at church or by reading the Word – to think of Jesus as our boyfriend. That is my point: why do other people get that idea? My husband is a farm labourer and has spent many years in construction and fabrication workshops of various sorts. He does not get that idea from church either. So why do other men get that idea?
I can’t speak for all cultures, but for western white middle class men the thought of being seen as gay is a major stumbling block. It’s as if it’s the worst thing they can think of. Either that or they can’t get their heads around the fact that there is more than one type of love, and if they always interpret love as being physical or romantic then that is their problem – not their churches’ worship style.
If people don’t like their churches’ worship style they could always negotiate to include alternative styles or simply go elsewhere. I’d love to go to a church where we just sit around and have theological discussions – but my hubby is happy where we are so I stay there. I could go to another local church that takes a more emotional approach – many of my friends do – I don’t like that approach but I figure that’s MY problem, not that church’s problem and I can simply choose not to go there.
I’m just sick of hearing men complain about church being ‘feminised’ when it is their cultural perception of what is feminine that is the problem. Talking and praying and singing about God’s love is what King David did. Does that make him a girl? Jesus wept and showed love and compassion: does that make him a girl? Paul spoke of the profound love of God in a passage (1 Cor 13) that western culture has twisted into suiting marriage ceremonies – does that make Paul a girl? Of course not! It’s our PERCEPTION of such passages that is the problem.
My other problem with these ‘anti-feminine’ whingers is this: even if we do agree that in our current societies some worship styles are more ‘feminine’ than others (and I’m not saying they are – just playing devil’s advocate) what gives anyone the right to make ‘feminine’ sound like a dirty word: that it’s somehow ‘less’ Godly or even ‘weak’ to worship in a feminine style? This is just putting women down – again, and again and again. We’re sick of it.
I ask men to ‘man up’. And that doesn’t mean act the macho-man. It means finding your identity in Christ – who came to earth as much as for woman as for ‘man’. Christ. Not some culturally defined and completely arbitrary image of ‘manhood’.
Posted by fluffybabybunnyrabbit | June 20, 2014, 6:39 PM“what gives anyone the right to make ‘feminine’ sound like a dirty word”
When about 2/3 of the church is composed of women and this number is increasing, we need to acknowledge there’s a problem and that it’s not a healthy situation. Shaming and blaming men and telling them to ‘man up’ are a ugly feminist tactics that are not only unhelpful but are losing their efficacy with a group of young men who have developed deaf ears to this mantra.
Yes, there is a problem if a church worships by singing homo-erotic love songs to Jesus. But the real issue is suggesting that our definition of manhood is merely “culturally defined and completely arbitrary.” It’s not cultural when Paul tells Christian men to “act like men, be strong” and when Peter tells Christian women to develop “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.” Rather, there exist real God-created tangible differences between the genders. If fearlessly overcoming the dangers of a lion and a bear and showing the leadership and initiative to take on a Goliath to honor God and protect those you love are not masculine traits, then I don’t know what is. Even a cursory comparison of the lives of Ruth/Esther with David will bear out these differences. And when churches don’t provide men an environment that encourages them to exhibit masculine traits then the church will become increasing “feminized.”
Posted by B | July 9, 2014, 4:09 PM“Yes, there is a problem if a church worships by singing homo-erotic love songs to Jesus.”
I’m curious as to what this line means. I mean “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.” “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.”- Are these examples of homo-eroticism? I would like a definition of a homo-erotic song. And of course, I’m not at all arguing that all Christian music is good or even helpful.
“If fearlessly overcoming the dangers of a lion and a bear and showing the leadership and initiative to take on a Goliath to honor God and protect those you love are not masculine traits, then I don’t know what is.”
If ‘judging’ Israel and ordering them into battle or driving a tent peg through someone’s head are not masculine traits, then I don’t know what… Oh.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | July 9, 2014, 4:57 PM“Are these examples of homo-eroticism?”
No. These are Bible verses and I never consider Scripture to have that connotation.
“I would like a definition of a homo-erotic song”
One example would be any song that treats the love of Christ in romantic terms, applies it to the individual, and then is sung by a man. Below summarizes this idea for me (From http://magazine.biola.edu/article/06-spring/the-feminization-of-the-church/)
“A feminized spirituality began in the 13th century, Podles said in his book The Church Impotent. One cause, he said, was women mystics who popularized “bridal imagery,” the metaphor of an individual Christian as the bride of Christ. (The biblical metaphor is of the corporate church as the bride of Christ, not the individual person.) They also used erotic imagery to describe their soul’s relationship with Christ. This feminization explains the abrupt departure of men from the church beginning in the 13th century, according to Podles.
Today the bridal imagery continues. Many books, for example, have titles like Falling in Love With Jesus: Abandoning Yourself to the Greatest Romance of Your Life (Nelson Impact), released, ironically, by the publisher of Murrow’s book. This may be because Christian publishers know women are the main consumers of Christian books. Seventy percent of customers in Christian retail stories are women, according to Bill Anderson, the president and CEO of the Christian Booksellers Association and a member of Biola’s School of Business Advisory Board.”
And here’s a practical example of it – http://www.songlyrics.com/bethel-music/my-dear-lyrics/
“If ‘judging’ Israel and ordering them into battle or driving a tent peg through someone’s head are not masculine traits, then I don’t know what”
I agree. These are masculine traits. And just because there are a few examples of women who exhibit the occasional masculine trait is hardly support for the idea that these traits are characteristic of those women, women as a whole, or God’s ideal for women generally – which is explicitly stated as, “the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands.”
Posted by B | July 10, 2014, 1:11 PMA little off topic, but I think there is a trend for women to be more religious than men. (I wonder why?) Maybe thats what they also mean about “feminisation” of Christianity?
Posted by Daren H | June 10, 2014, 11:51 AMIf I may: this comes from a Victorian (1800’s) Idea that the business world was meant for men, and women’s place was to raise children, manage the home and women were thought to be in charge of the spiritual–because we “know” that women are more emotional=spiritual.
Mostly this attitude comes out of an idea that women were less evolved (Aldos Huxley promoted this idea) because they were primarily gatherers and child raisers and not hunters as men were. Medically, women were seen as having a more fragile constitution as well. All of these ideas were taught during the 1800’s and carried forward into the 20th century. If you are interested, I do have links to a paper I could post here that supports this idea.
Let me know.
Posted by Lisa Guinther | June 10, 2014, 1:37 PMYep – I’m interested!
Posted by fluffybabybunnyrabbit | June 11, 2014, 5:07 AMThanks for the reply. I see its roots in bad stereotyping and sexism, but I got the impression from an article on Beliefnet a few years back:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2010/05/women-are-more-religious-but-w.html
Posted by Daren H | June 11, 2014, 7:04 AMThis article is titled “Is Love enough” by Nancy Pearcey: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_familyinamerica.htm
Posted by Lisa Guinther | June 11, 2014, 8:08 AMI think the real problem behind the complaint of the feminization of Christianity stems from the hypersexualization of the world’s definition of love and how it has affected the lyrics in pop songs. We recently sang a song in church where one of the lyrics was about giving Jesus a sloppy wet kiss. Men incorrectly attribute lyrics like these to feminization because they bring to mind a female (singer) to male (Jesus) relationship. The real problem is the shallowness of current worship songs and their influence from current day pop songs.
Posted by Devin | June 18, 2014, 10:25 PMIf you want to know why the western church is referred to as feminized, try to introduce apologetics / logic / reason into your church and see who pushes back the most against it. It will most likely be the women. So, I have no problem with emotion or different aspects of the ‘feminized’ church but to carry out 1 Peter 3:15 requires we be ready with an answer via logic and reason, not just emotion and feelings. The church which combines the relational aspects (feminine) with the logic/reason aspects (masculine) of Christianity will be the church that begins the process of reclaiming secular societies for Christ.
But make no mistake, without the men leading and ‘on board’ the stats don’t look too good (see second half of article in particular)
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/how-fathers-teach-children-to-work-hard-and-believe-in-god/
Posted by Andrew | June 25, 2014, 3:16 PMEr, this was not so at my church. I brought it up to the leaders, all men, and they dismissed the idea. Probably because it came from a woman? I don’t know. I also asked the worship leaders (men) whether they thought that the worship songs were “feminine” and not appealing to men, and they disagreed, saying that the songs really resonated with them. I also went through our church’s popular songs, and found that the ones with words that were emotional were written by men, and the ones with words that were more theological in nature were written by females. That really surprised me.
Posted by Anonymous | October 24, 2014, 5:02 AMI don’t know, I think JW Wartick may be cherry-picking scripture to make his case for something closer to a uni-sex culture. I think his points are slightly off kilter and I think that our church services need to, in large degree, reflect the cultural roles of man and woman that have organically evolved over centuries. The church ought not, IMO, reflect the worse aspects of culture, and follow the radical aspects of the zeitgeist in it’s agenda to erase male/female distinctions and celebrate gay and lesbian unions. There is an agenda behind a lot of the sentiments expressed in these comments. I do not really see what JW sees when I read the Old and New Testaments. Rather I see fairly rigid roles for men and women, and that is not a bad thing,but a necessary aspect of every stable culture. Piper may lay his stress too far in one direction, but I think his may be more biblical.
I agree with what Jim has had to say in his comments and think that “FluffyBabyBunnyRabbit” clearly expresses a modern feminist view, which I think is antithetical to a healthy church and society. Maybe we need a better historical perspective, devoid of chronological snobbery. Look at the hymns written prior to the 1960’s; they were not chanting four word sentences over and over like Buddhist monks in meditation, nor singing about wet kisses for Jesus. The content was heavy on doctrine, and rather than feel-good emotion, the stress was a right understanding of God, man, grace, and redemption.
Posted by williamfrancisbrown | June 30, 2014, 7:14 AMHello in that wonderful that day in sun shine here and knowing that God is good even today and this no difference between man and woman in Christ and that will give me so joy and care to move on in love of God and try to be victorious for glory to the Father in Jesus name ,thanks and bless,keijo sweden
Posted by keijo leppioja | July 10, 2014, 2:48 AMLook, I get the point some of you are making, and on a certain level I concede some of your points. What I know though is that culturally speaking for a certain segment of the male population, certain styles of worship are a turn off. This is so trite and obvious as to be banal. All I’m trying to say is that it is biblical and helpful to recognize that just as some of you want to get rid of certain stereotypes about male/female personality traits and tendencies, others embrace those traits and tendencies and maybe trying to avoid putting stumbling blocks in their way is a good idea. Are those attitudes about gender wrong headed? Maybe, maybe not. So chalk it up as a weaker brother thing. The weaker brother shouldn’t be quick to slap the “feminine” label on certain worship styles, and those who like those styles shouldn’t be telling the weaker brother, “You need to get over your chauvinism and just start singing.”. If a guy who loves AC/DC, Korn, or just grew up associating congregational music with a Southern Baptist, countrified style comes in and wrinkles his nose at what he takes to be “touchy feely” music, instead of banging him over the head with “You’re just a dinosaur who needs to get over it”, accomodate him a bit. Give him a chance to sing in a way he can relate to a bit. I’m not saying put a hardcore screamo band on the platform. Just recognize that people are coming in from different backgrounds and even if you’re convinced the “feminine” style is appropriate or even better, let the guy arrive there when he’s ready. Just basic Romans 14 stuff.
If you tried the holy kiss thing with a lot of the guys I know, you’d get your teeth knocked out. Maybe in Asia Minor in 50 A.D. that sort of thing flew. We’re not in Asia Minor 50 A.D. Just because something in scripture culturally worked then doesn’t translate into it being the best idea in 2014.
Posted by yankeejwb | July 10, 2014, 11:07 AMI really appreciate this post! I was very surprised by a famous apologist’s claim about the feminization of Christianity. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was that felt offensive, but I think you have located it, by pointing out that feminization is not a bad thing. Being female is not bad. Perhaps advocates of the position don’t mean to imply that sort of thing, but it certainly sounds like they are bemoaning the feminization of the church, and inferring that women are causing it.
First, many modern contemporary worship songs are written by men. Second, most of the affairs of the church are managed by men. Although women make up the majority of the church faithful, their contribution is mainly in the carrying out of duties, like ushering, Sunday School teaching, cleaning up, creche. The leadership of most churches and denominations consists mostly of men, and hence, the management and direction of churches is in the hands of men.
So the question must be asked, why are these male church leaders “feminizing” the church? Perhaps men in church seem more “feminine” because we have put emotions in the feminine category. However, it should be no surprise that Christian men, or men who connect with God, are more emotional than men who are not Christians, because Christianity has to do with a relationship with God, and relationships have an emotional component. Being emotional is neither “masculine” or “feminine”; it is part of life and is neurologically governed by different parts of the brain. That women normally display more emotional sensitivity is a result of a socialization process, particularly in certain cultures. In some cultures, males display more emotions than males of the West (esp the John Wayne type), but that doesn’t mean that they are more feminized than they should be.
If advocates of the “feminization” position are pointing out the place of apologetics in reaching today’s male, then certainly, they have a worthwhile point. Use whatever is necessary to evangelize the Western male, who doesn’t seem to be terribly attracted to church, for various reasons which may or may not include the church’s feminine bend. It is true that males are more interested in apologetics, but I don’t accept that it is because of inherent features of being male. Females, who are brought up to be more relational, and often more vulnerable at various junctures in their lives, are often longing to connect with God, and yearning for a Savior. Males who are in that position, e.g. rural Chinese men who are poor, desperate, and suffering, are also likely to reach out to God and come to Christ in droves. Western males are brought up to stuff their emotions and take pride in independence and logic. Is it not a wonder then, that apologetics should appeal to them? Most of my female friends don’t see the need to come to God through apologetics because they have met God out of desperation, in times of need and despair. They are also intimidated by the topic because they were told, while growing up, that they were irrational, illogical and could not think for themselves. Is it no wonder, then, they will not relate to the topic of apologetics?
The observations of those who claim that the church is feminized cannot be denied. The conclusions that they come to, however, need to be seriously challenged.
Posted by Anonymous | October 24, 2014, 5:29 AMAt various points, I think the author and some of the comments miss the point. I don’t think that very many men are saying that it is wrong or weak for women to be feminine, nor are they saying that it is necessarily wrong/weak to deviate from a particular stereotype – nor are they saying “Being compassionate is too sissy” – nor are they looking to punnish women for anything – what they are saying is that it is unnatural and unhealthy for men to be conditioned out of their masculinity through a form of repeated repression which masquerades as ‘Holiness’ or ‘Godliness’. Ironically, it is similar to what women didn’t like have done to them many years ago.
Of course, some men may be an exception – but if you are not one of those exceptions (which by definition is the majority of men) then you should not (predominantly) be feminine.
I do think things are very out of balance, but the question of whether one gender possesses characteristics closer to God’s then the other, is just another false dilemma, birthed by the widespread lack of appreciation for God’s paradoxical / complimentary nature…. and IMHO, alot of people never appreciate it because there is too much shallowness
I agree with much of what williamfrancisbrown commented. Note that the author takes Galatians 3:25 completely out of context. This verse has nothing to do with gender equality (or any other liberal ideology) – it was a declaration, that because Christ freed us from the “law”, inheriting those PROMISES which God bestowed upon Abraham and his natural descendants (Jews)); was no longer restricted to any natural criteria (nationally, ancestry, gender, color, race, etc) , but by a spiritual ‘choice’ which in modern days we sometimes REFER TO as “Receiving Christ” or “Having a Relationship with God”
BTW: The issue here is not how MANY men or women are involved in a church (the majority don’t always rule) or what gender the song writer wrote the song. The issue is how men are expected to conduct themselves, what woman think a mans inspiration should/shouldn’t come from, whether a man should be full of strength/courage or full of lovely thoughts about Christ…..and other such stupidly false dilemmas.
I think the many liberals are afraid of what Christian men might do/think of women if things were to become a little more balanced. Would for example a man, being Christian, be obligated by God to punish those dirty sinners for feminizing his church ? If anybody has this ‘punishment around every corner’ type of thinking, they may have suffered emotional abuse in the past, have a misguided concept of God, or perhaps just paranoid!
Posted by Dave | February 25, 2015, 12:21 PM