Men were challenged in church on Sunday to step it up and date. The fact is, there just ARE more women in church than men.

Anyone up for Polygamy? (Lindsay, your daughter is on the far left)

Women could be heard saying, “that was such a great sermon. I am glad the men heard that.” It was excellent, but left me with the question of what or who needs to change?

So then I started imagining myself as a man.

A daydream I try to keep to a minimum.

As much as I would love to say that women and men have the exact same needs from church, it wouldn’t appear that way from looking at the bulletin. We are different.* That’s why there are Women’s Retreats, Ladies Night Out and Women’s Forums.

There are some men’s groups, but for the most part, the feel is that they are generally based around accountability and the “do you struggle with porn and other addictions.” Sounds like a hoot.

But outside of the multiple women’s clubs and the XXX guys group, is it possible that men are less hungry for God, or have we created a system that has filtered men away from the gospel found inside the walls of a church?

In his book Why Men Hate going to Church, David Murrow quotes business guru W. Edwards Deming who says, “Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you’re getting.”

What and how did this system get started?

For the answer to what the system is at church, observe your own. Each one is different so I can’t make any blanket statements, but just look around, how many more women are there than men?  The reasons for how could stem from the Second Great Awakening in 1838 as well as the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the family unit.

Sounds boring, but trust me, it’s fascinating.

Total Truth, a book by Nancy Pearcey, explains the history on these events and how it effected men and women differently. The Awakening of 1838 was incredible because it encouraged women to read the Bible for themselves instead of solely trusting a man’s interpretation of scripture.

The downside to The Awakening is that “…they began to speak of women as being more naturally religious than men…”

This was magnified during the Industrial Revolution. Before it began, most had a family trade that they were apart of. The unit consisted of both father and mother working together, all the while equally teaching and caring for their children. Because of the Industrial Revolution, work was removed from the home and the father was absent, causing the roles of men and women to alter drastically.

Sermons and manuals on child-rearing, (which would be the equivalent of Parents.com today) was a huge social presence. As a result of the Industrial revolution, this was the first time these items were only addressed to the mothers.

The fathers were simply removed.

The negative effects this had for women, was that they were taken from being equal producers with their husbands, to household consumers who were dependant on their husbands paycheck. Not to mention being socially isolated with young children all day.

The new work ethic outside the home threw men into a “competitive world of commerce and politics.” The masculine character itself was redefined. The home was now seen as the place of virtue (women were in the home) and the world was seen as corrupt (men were in the world).

Originally when the family unit was at home, the fathers had the responsibility of “moral and spiritual leaders” but now were being told they were “naturally crude and brutish.” Churches shifted towards the more “virtuous” parishioners and the men were no longer viewed as fit for the role of spiritual leader, nor did they view themselves this way.

There is ALWAYS something new. Even if we aren’t in the market to buy, it’s in our face.

Watch. Read. Buy. Repeat.

I am starting to think that my adaptation to constant newness must have an impact on my expectations of church and ultimately God.

On Sunday my pastor spoke about how he fears every sermon will be a new infomercial. Something people are intrigued with for thirty minutes, and then forget about when they shut it off. (unless it’s the The Perfect Brownie infomercial. So perfect.)

It’s true, Church can be a very voyeuristic activity where one is sitting back entertained. How we feel about God on Sunday can be due largely in part, by how we felt about the sermon. If we get goose bumps from hearing or singing something new, it = real encounter with God.

It appears if there is no new feeling in the pew, then overtime, negativity arises.

The amount of negativity I hear regarding “the church” as a whole would make me conclude there is rampant heresy going on in and around the pulpit.

However, I think the heart of the issue lands on what I am familiar with. I remember going to a church in college that I didn’t really enjoy. I went because it made me feel better about myself, and as a pastors daughter it was tradition. I always complained about how shallow the sermons were. Then again, I was also living a life that in some corners were pretty dark and hypocritical. I didn’t want to believe the sermon could have substance so I came up with reasons in my head why I was above it and didn’t need to engage.

A couple years later, when I was back visiting my college I attended church to see old friends. This stage in my life was different. I loved the Lord because of what he had done in my life, not out of duty. I remember praying before the sermon began. I asked God to humble me and allow me to learn instead of having negative expectations.

“Got Love?” was the sermon’s title. It was a pretty cheesy title and “seeker friendly” as they say in the biz.

Oddly enough, I was encouraged and learned something new from this basic sermon. I don’t think the pastor had changed, but my heart towards God and listening for truth had.

Nothing was new. Everything was new.

Our voyeuristic nature didn’t come out of nowhere though. In our state of “finding a church we like” churches often want to be liked. We mutually feed one another and the cycle can become unhealthy.

I wonder if in our age of “authenticity” talk we need to be more aware of why we are negative or unstimulated in church.

Are pastors being forced to create stories and teaching styles to “get” us each week. It’s a time of teaching, not a talent show. I should like a pastor because of his substance not his style. Having style is a bonus, but if it’s all style, that could mislead me from the substance.

Why? Because the Bible is only one book. I can’t dress it up too much. What do I expect? It was here before I was born and it will be here after I die. Pastors have only so much to teach and when they finish, they repeat. Nothing new.

Time to learn. Apply. Change. Repeat.

Questions:

1) Do we have realistic expectations of church?

2) Have we created a culture where the church has to convince us to buy in?

3) Can authenticity be culturally defined or is it timeless?

When I come into contact with people who’s writing or speaking I admire, I try to play it cool, but it never works. Like yesterday, I was at Pepperdine University and had the privilege of spending the entire day with a relationship researcher and author who has impacted me greatly. Before noon, I had already said the following: