Reaching Males

[Dr. Shane]

I really don't think service style has much to do with it. Different MEN like different types of services. Changing worship style will attract different types of men and turn other types of men away.

I think what has been shown to work is building personal relationships. The Biblical term is discipleship. It is not for the pastor or the director of men's ministry to form relationships with every single man in the church. That would be impossible in larger churches. However the leadership can organized a structure that encourages male members to form relationships with other male members. If a man has just one good friend that attends church and is active, he will be much more likely to attend and be active himself regardless what type of worship style takes place on Sabbath morning.

[olger]

That's the way I do it with MY woman.

Sorry Olger ... I know you are the "man" of your house.

I would expect nothing else, by George.

oG

[David Koot]

Hmmmmm. Been following this thread. I gotta say, in my evangelistic work, I have had excellent results with men--and these are regular guys. They lead out in religious exercises, they take initiative, they are involved. Not sure why that isnt the case in many churches, other than the possibility that the services have become feminized in many cases. Might as well have pink drapes in the windows.

Dave

[Bravus]

I was wondering whether it could also be patly due to our more divorce-prone culture? If there's a divorce it's unlikely both participants are going to feel comfortable continuing to go to the same church, and it may be simpler for the guy (particularly if the woman retains custody of the kids) to stop going to church rather than to find and fit into a new church as a single guy.

[David Koot]

I was wondering whether it could also be patly due to our more divorce-prone culture? If there's a divorce it's unlikely both participants are going to feel comfortable continuing to go to the same church, and it may be simpler for the guy (particularly if the woman retains custody of the kids) to stop going to church rather than to find and fit into a new church as a single guy.

Bravus, good fellow . . . I dunno. Personally, I have seen it go both ways on that. For me, years ago, church got very, very boring and it was hard at times for me to continue. I think it is that way with a lot of guys. But I have seen positive response among men to powerful, life-changing preaching. Calvary Chapel here in town has no problem attracting men. The pastor is young, dynamic, powerful.

Dave

Dave

[David Koot]

6. sticking to a liberal mainstream message

I must disagree, good fellow. It is Spirit-filled, life-changing preaching--preaching that calls sinners to repentance and holds people accountable, and that points them to the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world, that has drawn men to my observation.

Dave

[Bravus]

Can't speak for D, but I think he means 'mainstream Christian theology' - which would include the kinds of things David K describes - rather than preaching that focuses on 'niche' theological disagreements with other denominations that have few real-life implications.

[Woody]

Get more men by

1. starting on time

2. ending on time

3. using a fast paced order of service

4. not letting anyone behind the pulpit except the main speaker and one other helper per service (this will cut down on excess verbage and keep things moving.)

5. keeping the announcements in the bulletin and off the platform

6. sticking to a liberal mainstream message

7. preach the gospel and not "hands across the gulf" nonsense.

I like ALL of these suggestions. Thank you.

[D. Allan]

Can't speak for D, but I think he means 'mainstream Christian theology' - which would include the kinds of things David K describes - rather than preaching that focuses on 'niche' theological disagreements with other denominations that have few real-life implications.

You can speak for me, Bravus. Well, it would it wouldn't include "holding people accountable" for that ends up being the preacher (David Koot, in this case, unless I am badly mistaken [could be]), holding people accountable (ursurping the place of the Spirit.)

BTW, Shane, my suggestions do not touch on 'worship style' such as the type of music etc. Read 'em again.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I like ALL of these suggestions. Thank you.

Thank you! Redwood. Try 'em. You'll like' em.

And one more, a refinement - but an important one, start the service about 10:40 and end about 11:20. This will give everyone a chance to get to a restaurant before they are starving and to avoid some of the waiting for a table.

[Woody]

I don't mind the refinement ... but from personal experience I could not do a good job of supporting my helpmate if that were inacted. My wife goes till at least 12:30. She IS a bit long winded. But the solution is to have a potluck ... and it would save you some bucks compared to going out to the restaurant.

And besides ... if you are at Andrews and don't have enough cash ... you are in trouble if you dont' have the Andrews blessed credit card.

[Taylor]

Doctrines are very important and they should be preached about for in rightly presented they bring us back to Jesus. I think that practical messages, on how to live the Christian life, how to be an effective wittness in the community etc. Too often head knowledge doesn't transfer into heart change and I think the honest seeker, whether male or female wants to be a joyful infectious christian.

[Woody]

Yes ... I think the doctrines are important ... but let the person think for themselves and come up with the practical ways to apply the doctines. This should and can vary. Otherwise the church becomes as the Jews were ... exacting rules after rules and going further and further away from God.

The word of the day should be tolerance of belief.

[D. Allan]

Doctrines are very important and they should be preached about for in rightly presented they bring us back to Jesus. I think that practical messages, on how to live the Christian life, how to be an effective wittness in the community etc. Too often head knowledge doesn't transfer into heart change and I think the honest seeker, whether male or female wants to be a joyful infectious christian.

I have my doubts about that. That doctrines are very important.

Doctrines are teachings and the problem is that everyone wants to be a teacher. Too many teachers spoil the lesson! Let everyone be an auto-didact! Don't require people to give away their personal authority and responsiblity.

Doctrines often stand in the way of getting a clear view of Jesus!

[Taylor]

Rightly presented I truely believe that the teachings of the Bible which of course include doctrines do lead us closer to Jesus. The difference between success and failure is in the presentation, not in the material.

[Guest Male Man]

I knew the Feminazi's would be drawn out on this one.

Quote:

the gospel is about how to live peacefully with those around us

Nope. The Gospel is not primarily about this. The Gospel is sharing the Good news with those who don't have it and about building up the community of faith. Unfortunately that involves some disfellowshipping and other ugly stuff we don't like to talk about. Paul instructs us very clearly on how to deal with disrupters to the Christian communities we worship in.

Feministic services are still being confused with the idea that it is always women who are at the core of the problem. As I have said, converted men are the most difficult to deal with on this issue as is seen here already. Often, a converted male into the culture of feminism, distorts the argument that the churches run a feminine processing plant because they are obviously male and say "we see nothing wrong?". This is because a thing called inculturation has occurred and they don't even realise that they are not reaching men nor are they able to free themselves from what has become a very tame existence from the pews. This is why I link this problem to Laodiceanism - "we are fine thanks very much".

There is always the tendency to look elsewhere for the answer to the problem other than putting your own church under the microscope. Some churches are reaching males - good. The sad reality is that most are not as has been evidenced here by some sane comments.

As far as male versus female preachers - no problem there. If a female can get up and make her congregation gasp for air then she is doing her job. Who cares if it is a male or a female. When EGW spoke alot of people could not even stay in the room and she certainly held the attention of her audience. She had a gift of speaking and wasn't just up there because she was on the elders roster and it was her turn. Stop putting people in our pulpits who obviously have no gift and start putting young radical men (or women) into our pulpits. Take a risk in this area and stop being so safe and we will see the return of the men (and youth)we have lost.

Here's another test for ya. Take note of your Sabbath school class this Sabbath. If a husband and wife are present, who talks the most out of the two. Nothing wrong in the wife talking but does she dominate and speak more than her fair share. This environment tends to scare off visiting men. If thier mates have told them church is for women and they see this in action - what are they gonna think? I was once present where a new rough guy came into a rather classy SS group. He spoke up because he felt good but was cut to pieces by the resident Hyena. He said the word "bloody" and was startled into reality with the words, "I beg your pardon!". He never came again.

We need to start hearing the opinions of men who do not regularly attend church. All we have heard here is from those who are inculturated. Start talking to men on the fringes and ask them straight up - is the sermon boring the hell out of you? Some out of politeness and their own misinformed perceptions will answer no. But they have already voted with their feet - if church wasn't boring, they would be there in droves - the local pubs and sporting clubs proves that theory.

[carolaa]

In the last 3 S.S. classes I have been in, they have been led by men and most of the talking was done by men. I have seen a few cases where wives spoke ad nauseum, but the same can be said for a few husbands who hardly pause for breath.

In the last 2 church services I have been a member of, the majority of people, both men and women, start arriving right when the sermon usually starts. With the exception of 1 S.S. class I was in, people did not generally come for S.S., they did not come for announcements or preliminaries or song service - they came for the sermon. Then they either left or stayed for potluck. The sermon was what was meeting their needs.

I do agree with most of your suggestions. They are applicable to both men and women. I disagree with your characterizations of male/female. Both men and women can be extremely bored with church services; maybe women tend to be more obligatory about their attendance, but it doesn't mean they like it better. Maybe they are just doing what they can to keep it going and would appreciate some suggestions to make it better.

I would add a suggestion to your list. I think it's important to keep changing things and not do the same thing week after week. At least change the theme song quarterly and add a prayer response or something different. One pastor I know kept a record of hymns that were sung for opening/closing song and would not repeat a hymn that had been sung within the last year. Do scripture readings differently - one week a husband/wife reads it, another week a young person, another week a responsive reading, etc. Another thing I saw done in one church is that only one elder is on duty each week; he/she is the elder in charge, and it is his/her responsibility to find people (non-elders) to do the platform jobs such as congregational prayer, scripture reading, offering call, etc. Make the congregational prayer different too - one week the elder leads out, another week break up into groups of 2-3, another week do a responsive reading, etc.

Now, I have a question for you. I'm wondering how you perceive men feel about "welcome" time, where everyone gets up and walks around greeting people and shaking hands.

[Dr. Shane]

BTW, Shane, my suggestions do not touch on 'worship style' such as the type of music etc. Read 'em again.

Many consider a conservative service to be a traditional service and a liberal service to be a contemporary service. So terms like "liberal mainstream message" can be easily understood as applying to the type of service. If this is not applicable to the service, than what is "sticking to a liberal mainstream message"? The terms liberal and mainstream are not often used together. If this is just a "feel good" message 1 Timothy 4:2-5 seems to discourage that. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

After reading most of the posts here I have come up with what I believe is needed to answer your question. I take it from my experience and will relate what happened to me.

The truth of the matter is that men will start to attend church when they are forced to do something about it themselves. There's no one to blame and if you try to lure a man to church with games and events you're not really doing him a service.

As men we must take responsiblity for our slothfulness, weakness and lack of spirituality. I would say the first thing to do is to take a good look at Rev 3 and fall down in humility realizing that we are not Christ's at all and that discription is really what it is: a true discription of us all. When those who attend church do this, it will have a powerful impact on those men (and women) who are not currently attending church. It will have another result as well: some of those who are now attending will stop coming or perscute those who are revived.

We live in a self created, self-pitying mind set and that's why we give in and take the easy low road. We keep the front up as if all is well and think we are men. A man is only a man when he can admit how weak he is, how helpless he is and how much he really needs the help of God.

I was never more courageous, confident, reliable and prayerful as when I broke down and surrendered my entire life to God. I trusted Him completely for everything and I feared nothing, not a thing! And yet it was then that I wanted to be in church the most and was the most caring. It was then that I understood what it meant that The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion. Pro 28:1 The joy of the Lord will always displace fear, even the fear of death.

If you see a man not attending church don't try and make up ways to bait him, but ask him why he doesn't. Not in a confronting manner but just ask, why don't you serve the Lord? Don't ask the question unless you really care and are willing to give your life for that man. Pray for him, befriend him and let him come when he is ready.

As far as other religions: Their attendance can't be compared because they are fear based. All other religions have a "you must do this for God or else" motivation and therefore I believe it can't be compared.

I mean you can't say look at them, why aren't we like that? It is true that some look at Chritianity that way but for the most part forgiveness and love are the motivating factors. Well, they should be.

The day for men to stand is at hand; some will and some won't. The question I have is; those of us who are now attending, have we been a stumbling block or have we been a stepping stone?

Norman

[Bravus]

Quote:

I knew the Feminazi's would be drawn out on this one.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law on this thread.

"...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

[Dr. Shane]

I agree with Bravus.

"It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

An appropriate use of the term is Limbaugh's femenazi as he labels those groups that encourage abortion in America as they are encouraging infanticide much like the Holocaust's genocide. Limbaugh is often misunderstood as using the term femenazi to label people that are pro-choice but his use of the term is only toward those that ENCOURAGE abortion such as many Planned Parenthood clinics and active members of N.O.W. do.

It use in this tread is not related to any type of genocide or infanticide and thus is entirely inappropriate and uncalled for.

[Guest Male Man]

Quote:

The truth of the matter is that men will start to attend church when they are forced to do something about it themselves. There's no one to blame and if you try to lure a man to church with games and events you're not really doing him a service.

As men we must take responsiblity for our slothfulness, weakness and lack of spirituality.

This is a typical Laodicean feministic response. If the young people were missing from the church would you adopt the same idea?

I am not suggesting we lure men with anything, just get back to basics. The church has already and subtley changed towards weakness and legislated itself over time into a more secure safe environment for ease lovers. I'm calling for a return to clarity of our message and fearless preaching, with radical risk taking. I really don't care what is preached as long as those who are doing it believe it with 100% conviction. I would rather hear a "wrong" sermon done well than a "let's all be friends" sermon done badly. The majority of preachers have about as much conviction as a bank telling it's customers it cares for them.

The idea that this is somehow a mans problem because he is not spiritual enough or less spiritual than women says more about those who say it than the men they talk of. It highlights a deception where a person has allowed the feministic culture of the church to totally permeate their thinking. In short Classic Laodiceanism.

So in one foul swoop we dismiss the missing male problem with a simplistic view of the problem which is both lazy in it's conception and foolish in it's delivery.

[David Koot]

Been thinking about this thread and the question today. Okay, this was my take on SDA males when I was growing up, and then later on. From what I could see, the typical SDA male was a wuss. The kinds of things that would get my respect--unbending integrity, bravery under fire, unflinching in doing your duty, even though in harm's way, fearless dedication to the cause they believed in--just didn't seem to show up. I noticed this particularly in multi-generational SDA's. I just couldn't get excited about what I saw. And after that, it seemed like so many times leadership would cave for any number of reasons. No real integrity. Yeah, that had an impact on me. The term is 'wusses.'

Dave

[Bravus]

True in some cases, but I think that was likely a reaction to earlier generations' display of the negative flip-sides of those virtues: abusive use of authority 'just because I said so', pigheaded stubbornness in the face of reality, and so on.

For me, integrity, strength and courage are displayed in protecting others as well as in (sometimes) attacking others (or better, other ideas) in defense of truth. Note the proportions of time Jesus spent teaching about how to live with integrity in the world compared to the amount of time He spent on the attack. I mean literally, count up the sentences if you like. For every 'generation of vipers' there are several lost sheep and lost coins and women at the well and Golden Rules.

I don't think Male Man's caustic attacks on women fit into any model of true masculinity that I know of. And his approach of 'anyone who disagrees with me in any point is compromised and can be ignored' simply ends any possibility of real discussion.

And finally - does he remind you at all of someone we had here a while ago, from Australia, with the exact same set of ideas and issues?

[Guest Male Man]

Quote:

the typical SDA male was a wuss

And still is - sorry but the truth hurts.

"Caustic attacks" c'mon, your kidding right? This is the very hyperemotionalism that feminists try to pull every time. "He's being mean and he's just a nasty man" - "mummy"(or nan or whatever matriarchal figure hovers over this site).

You can reason it away however you like but Jesus got angry and wild when the situation called for it. You can have your weak Jesus who you see as sweetly smiling into your cotton padded world. Mine has sweat on his face and grits his teeth as he presses home His chilling call to the church to wake up and stop pipe dreaming before it's too late.