Does attending church threaten a man's masculinity

[darlene]

I like what you say about having the young adults participate in the church and its services, Ed. There are many young adults who are very spiritual and have a lot to contribute. The problem I see is with some (note some) of the young adult's negative attitude. (Now I'm the one that will experience a deluge here! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />)

[there buster]

Perhaps you did not mean exactly what you posted, but I need to be certain that what I wrote was understood. We don't have young people participate, we give them control. They lead, we participate.

Anyone over 45 knows all the things we shouldn't do in church. In fact, we know so many, that we don't have much of anything left to do.

The youngest people don't yet know all the things they shouldn't do, and so they do some of them. And those older ones who are open to the Spirit and open to learning often are surprised that some of the things they thought shouldn't be done ended up in bringing new depth and meaning to worship.

Young people don't want to participate, like giving them scripture reading, for example, in a traditional service. They've figured out it's largely cosmetic, and are reluctant to do it. Give them charge of the service, and they do some really interesting things.

Now, in our church, I still do most of the dialogues (sermons, kind of). The younger ones want our wisdom and experience. But they also want to demonstrate their competence as adults. Not by being permitted by the older folks, but as a matter of prerogative. The law says they're our equals. We treat them as such.

And while I agree that some young people have a negative attitude, for every young person with a negative attitude you can cite, I'll cite two older people not only with negative attitudes, but arrogance to boot.

[darlene]

Yes, I would agree. Many young adults do an excellent job at leading. I do understand that that is what you meant. I guess I'm thinking about the Young Adult Division at our camp meeting. Many young adults do not even come and many of those participating are older than young adult age. They are the negative ones. Too bad they don't stay away from that division and leave it just to the young adults. We have gone to calling that division "The Bridge" instead of Young Adults but, I guess they need a place to fit in too though it means the true young adults don't come.

The solution? I don't know.

[there buster]

Not that you are in the least at fault, here. I just want to ask a question. Why should there be "camp meeting" for the adults, and "the Bridge" or anything else for the young adults? it sounds like the young adults aren't being treated as part of the regular church--not treated as adults at all.

Why shouldn't "camp meeting" cater to the young adults who will-- or will not-- be the leaders of the church in the future? If the older folks want separate meetings, why not make them the subset, you know, meetings for "Senior citizens?"

[darlene]

I do not know why we have a Young Adult Division at our camp meeting other than we have a building/tent for every division; from 0-2 Years to Adults. It has always been that way. I do know that the young adults do not want to join the main pavilion because they do not like the music. At least that is what they have said.

You were at our camp meeting last year. Did you not speak at the Young Adults? Or was it the Youth? This year we bought a huge new tent for 'The Bridge.'

[there buster]

I'm quite sorry to say I was not at BC campmeeting last year. As it happened, I did not get to any campmeeting at all, but I did spend some time at GC.

Again, I mean no criticism whatsoever, and certainly not of your conference.

Many conferences have nothing for young adults at all. My point is that young adults are the future of the church, of all the conferences. They don't like the main campmeeting in most places. Wouldn't it be wise to change campmeeting to cater to their tastes, instead of their parents and grandparents? That's my question.

This is my continual concern. Instead of asking why young people don't like the current ways of presenting the message, we need to ask why the older generations simply cannot tolerate, and will not countenance the changes necessary to keep the future of the church in place.

In the early days of the Advent movement, youhg people led the way. In 1844, Ellen White was 17, and James White was 23. Among the pioneers, only Bates was over 40, and most were under 30. Too many Adventist congregations today resemble the Methodist and Congregational congregations that disfellowhipped the Whites for their radical ideas.

[darlene]

Sorry, it must have been the year before that you visited us. Anyway, I agree with you concerning the Young Adults to a large extent. You are also right about the early pioneers being young and they did well in their leading. They also seemed a lot more committed to the Advent movement and more mature than today's Advent young adults. (At least many that I know) I personally don't have a problem with the young adults leading out in the church, however, I do have a problem with the negative spirit of some.

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

Not that you are in the least at fault, here. I just want to ask a question. Why should there be "camp meeting" for the adults, and "the Bridge" or anything else for the young adults? it sounds like the young adults aren't being treated as part of the regular church--not treated as adults at all.

Why shouldn't "camp meeting" cater to the young adults who will-- or will not-- be the leaders of the church in the future? If the older folks want separate meetings, why not make them the subset, you know, meetings for "Senior citizens?"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Just as a point of fact here, not all of us are Boomers or X-ers. Some of us are in the lost-between-the-cracks "Cusp" generation. At this point we're neither the old, nor the young -- we're just sick of being marginalized and passed over from both sides. When we were younger everything was the Boomers, the Boomers, the Boomers. (That is, the grownups, the grownups, the grownups). We figured we'd get our "turn" in time, when we became grownups, but when we grew up, all of a sudden everything was the "X-ers", the "X-ers", the "X-ers" (that is, the kids, the kids the kids!)

Nobody gave a rat's patoot about us. We could take a flying leap for all anyone cared. We didn't exist. When we were kids everyone was focused on adult needs and when we became adults, everyone became focused on the needs of the youth. We never got a turn and never had a chance. We did all the hard work trying to GET you "old farts" to care about us and our needs and contributions when we WERE "the youth" but by the time anyone started to get a clue it was too late for us; we were no longer "the youth" anymore.

So it's all right for Boomers like Ed to be "generationally" deferential and self-denying, graciously and gallantly acknowledging his generation has had their turn and it's time to focus elsewhere. But there's a whole bunch of us on the cusp, in between, who are pretty unhappy about the fact that we're expected to go along with that and jump on the "youth are all that matters" bandwagon when we are now too old to be considered "youth" ourselves, when we never got a turn to begin with -- and now, never will.

Just passing along a reality check here for anyone who cares -- not that anyone will. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

I'm pretty close to your age, Nico, I think we established a while ago. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I get where you're coming from, definitely - and find it tough to find a tent to go to at camp meeting, and a place to fit in. It's complicated by the fact that so many of our generation have disappeared from the church (obviously there's a complicated cause-effect-feedback loop there): Sue and I have been the only couple our age with kids this age at basically every church we've attended. But I think some of the things Ed is talking about really do address this: most camp meetings now have the 'Big Tent', the 'Youth Tent' and something in between called 'The Bridge' or whatever other name, notionally for the 25-45 or so age group. In time that will become big enough to take over the Big Tent and push the older members into a smaller tent, but I dunno... that doesn't seem like a solution either.

Part of my problem is that I'm 42 but like music and ideas that are too radical for most of the youth. Moving to bad middle of the road pop music in church did nothing to address my needs or interests...

Maybe it's all too postmodern of me, but moving beyond 'generations' as a fixed construct to some more fluid self-definition and some more fluid form of worship seems to me to offer more. I've raised this point before: how exactly is moving from a boring, week after week 'three hymn sandwich' structure to a boring, week after week 'seven songs and a sermon' structure (with an associated movement toward singers up the fornt performing and the congregation sitting passively) progress? A church service that actually had some variety, individuality, originality, suprises and interactivity would be much better for all of us... even if it mightn't always be comfortable. And I think that's what we'd get with youth leadership and the kinds of changes Ed is describing.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So it's all right for Boomers like Ed to be "generationally" deferential and self-denying, graciously and gallantly acknowledging his generation has had their turn and it's time to focus elsewhere. But there's a whole bunch of us on the cusp, in between, who are pretty unhappy about the fact that we're expected to go along with that and jump on the "youth are all that matters" bandwagon when we are now too old to be considered "youth" ourselves, when we never got a turn to begin with -- and now, never will.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually, that's a pretty common Boomer lament. It was the "silent" generation that held on to the reins long into their dotage, and drove by far the vast majority of the Boomers out.

We had one elder who always complained that he came back from the War at 26 and was made a "junior deacon." So he made certain that no one under 40 took any church responsiblity.

As far as me being deferential, because I "had my turn" in fact, I was never even allowed to have the sermon until I was 43. And although I was speaking around the world, I was quickly sidelined at the local church, which returned to its dysfunctional ways, after only two years.

So, I didn't get much of a turn, if that's what matters. At the same time, a man several years older than me continually opined, "when will it be my turn?" Even though he served as elder several years, he didn't feel the church services met his needs.

IF every generation emulates the selfishness of the generation before them, we're in real trouble.

This isn't about the "youth are all that matters," it's about being a responsible parent and fulfilling the Elijah message.

And if there's a bandwagon in our churches to cater to youth, it's not in any church I've visited in the last decade.

The Elijah message is about turning the hearts of the fathers to the children. Why? Because their hearts are somewhere else

It reminds me of the parable of the man who went to Hell, and saw people sitting at a vast table filled with food. But they were tortured and starving, because the spoons and forks had very long handles, and they were strapped to their arms. So they couldn't get the food into their own mouths.

Then he went to Heaven, and saw exactly the same thing, except there everyone was well-fed and having a good time, because they were feeding each other.

In our current church plant, are things done to my taste? Not at all. For my sensibilities, the service would be quite different.

Yet at the same time, I have been tremendously blessed by giving up control, by letting go of the need to have it my way. Interestingly, when we model giving away power, of ministering rather than being ministered to, the next generation does just the same. If we feed them, they just might feed us in return. We tried it. It actually works.

[Bravus]

(edit: Ed and I posted at the same time)

[darlene]

By the way, we have quite a few young adults participating in our Main Pavilion (adults) at camp meeting and yes participating up front and we have quite a few older young adults participating in The Bridge. What is it that makes the difference? I don't know.

I do hear what you are both saying, Bravus and Nico, and I'm sure there are changes that need to be made. One of my jobs happens to be Single Adult Ministies and time after time I hear all kinds horror stories and complaints about singles not being accepted in the church and how they are treated. It is very sad. Yes, this church needs to change! However, I guess I look at things a little differently than some; I believe change begins with me. What I do and how I respond to the negatives is what will begin to bring about change. And so, I'm really working at it slowly by surely and yes, thank goodness things are beginning to change in our area.

[Nicodema]

Well for me the lament has less to do with getting my "way" and more to do with simply not having any place to be involved and engaged. Everyone is so busy trying to get the youth involved and engaged -- which I think is great and the right thing to do, by the way! -- or else locked down into their groups "holding the reins" as you put it. Originally coming into the SDA church AS a "youth" (age 16) I thought it was my AGE that was marginalizing me -- that I was not being "permitted" to "do things" because I was deemed "too young" or "too inexperienced" -- a condition I figured would go away once I hit mid or late 20s at the very least. Of course I was intensely involved in the occult by that time so I didn't get to see what might have been had I stayed in the church the entire time from 16 to, say, 27 -- but my occasional wistful forays back into the church here and there didn't give me any reason to believe things were any different. And by the time the clamor to focus on the youth began to be heard and echoed (and I still remain puzzled as to why you're not seeing more of it when it is ubiquitous where I am!) I was already late-30-something and way past my expiration date for the "youth" tag. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

One missing piece to this puzzle deserves mention: the assumption that any married/childbearing woman between 20 and 35 had but one place in the church: more babysitting (under various glorified titles). Forget your actual talents and calling as a human individual; your womb marks you as fit only to wipe runny noses, change nappies, and blather in baby talk even when you're looking for something more meaningful than what you do at home every day 24/7 already. (Don't even get me started down that avenue in memory-hell ... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" /> )

Anyway I appreciate as always you sharing your experience as it helps me gain a larger view of things than merely my own. At this point I suppose my grousing & kvetching is essentially moot anyway, for I myself have just plain given up on hoping and/or waiting and/or looking for anything else/more, and I guess my next step is to work on just not caring anymore -- which I do rather well when I'm off with my own little pastimes and amusements and not focusing on thinking, feeling, or remembering any of this.

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bravus said:

Part of my problem is that I'm 42 but like music and ideas that are too radical for most of the youth. Moving to bad middle of the road pop music in church did nothing to address my needs or interests...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I totally hear you and relate & agree to this~!!

Newer is not necessarily better. I get burned out 10x faster cycling through the same 7-10 CCM choruses Sabbath after Sabbath than I EVER did cycling through the same 150 known out of 700 potential hymns. And having to listen to "worship leaders" who couldn't hold a tune if it had a handle on it and came in a bucket -- or, conversely, stay on key but with a voice that could grate steel at 50 paces -- while golden tonsils languish unappreciated, lost in the crowd, is just salt in the wound. Good grief if we're going to have to endure horrible singing let it be from the whole lot of us at the very least! The whole performance/audience dynamic is, I think, what needs to just get flushed, period, in all its forms, before church can really become the dynamic experience it craves to be.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Maybe it's all too postmodern of me, but moving beyond 'generations' as a fixed construct to some more fluid self-definition and some more fluid form of worship seems to me to offer more.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'll byte - what does that look like?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I've raised this point before: how exactly is moving from a boring, week after week 'three hymn sandwich' structure to a boring, week after week 'seven songs and a sermon' structure (with an associated movement toward singers up the fornt performing and the congregation sitting passively) progress?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

In a word -- it isn't.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

A church service that actually had some variety, individuality, originality, suprises and interactivity would be much better for all of us... even if it mightn't always be comfortable. And I think that's what we'd get with youth leadership and the kinds of changes Ed is describing.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Provided we had ingenious youth with genuine spiritual vision to provide that leadership, yes. But what I'd like to see is precisely this kind of transition -- to dynamic, original, inspired, visionary leadership -- without regard to age whatsoever. Makes no difference to me who scraps the yawnfest for something HAPPENING, whether he/she be 18 or 78 or somewhere in between -- so long as it HAPPENS for crying out loud. Know what I mean? Youth alone does not convey ingenuity or vision. A 23 year old whose idea of doing things different begins and ends with "switching to modern music" is no more fit to provide dynamic leadership and spearhead change than the old codger whose idea of being faithful begins and ends with "old guard style". See what I mean?

[Nicodema]

P.S. I have no idea what you all are talking about re: "the Bridge" or whatever. Camp meeting in these here parts are strictly either Big Tent track or Youth track. On Sabbath they have "young adult" or "collegiate" Sabbath school but the cutoff age is strictly defined as 30 for that group -- and it's just for Sabbath school; there isn't like a "track" for that during camp meeting. Never heard of this "Bridge" business.

[LifeHiscost]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

olger said:

I agree Ed.

olger

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And how far do you take that effort, where is the dividing line? As I recall some of the most notorious of the "church changers' would take a person out in a boat, throw them overboard and hold them under for awhile. Letting them up after awhile, if they hadn't recanted their position, they were pushed under until upon coming up they at last recanted. For those who believe in that method it seems to me it would be only right to join the group that found it comfortable in that atmosphere.

[:"red"] "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." [/] Romans 14:5 KJV

If the Lord, Who is not subject to err, could hazard the correct keeping of His eternal day of worship to that extent, why would we who are subject to err, consider our way to supplant others manners, enough reason to ignore those differences in others.

OTOH, if one could consider the willingness to discuss and negotiate the more desirable, in our own eyes as well as in others, perhaps a church might change, especially when it was not a hazard to the salvation of the soul.

[:"red"] "and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God. " [/] 2 Chron 33:13 NKJV

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />

[LifeHiscost]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

If we feed them, they just might feed us in return. We tried it. It actually works.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Maybe if each generation would feed the ones Jesus came to feed, there wouldn't be the constant jockeying and complaining about being ignored and mistreated.

[:"red"] "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." [/] Matthew 8:20

KJV

[:"red"] "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." [/] Matt 10:38 NASB

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />

[LifeHiscost]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

In the early days of the Advent movement, youhg people led the way. In 1844, Ellen White was 17, and James White was 23. Among the pioneers, only Bates was over 40, and most were under 30.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And they were serving and attempting to motivate others to serve in the capacity of serving the unbelieving, although perhaps it was more often other Christian churches as opposed to outright unbelievers.

[:"red"] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." [/] Mark 10:46 NASB

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />

[there buster]

On the music thing--yup. What I call the "standard Contemporary service" (how's that for irony?) looks a lot like "the Kingston Trio goes to church." If you know who "the Kingston Trio" was, it all makes sense. In short the so-called "contemporary" service looks a lot like the 1970's. It's only contemporary because the service before that came from the 1890's.

So when we planted a church for today, we went beyond the "standard Contemporary service"

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I'll byte - what does that look like?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I can't speak for Bravus, but our service looks something like this: 12-15 segments, from 1 minute to approx. 13 minutes long. Most are about 5 minutes. I can only give you an approximate order, because it changes literally every week, yet regular attendees can see some similarity.

An aside, I think that both novelty and familiarity are needed. Novelty for interest and familiarity for comfort.

----------------------

Video opening and welcome 3 minutes

Letting go: a segment designed to help us shed the week and prepare for worship 3-5 minutes

Call to worship: usually scripture 2 minutes

Connecting with each other (a la connecting to the internet): different ways of greeting each other (it's actually quite a ministry for one of our members to come up with new ways of turning us from a crowd into a congregation. 3-5 minutes.

Connecting with God: opening prayer

Songs 2- or 3 usually

Dialogue (sermon with interactivity) segment one: 7-13 minutes

Story (highlighting some relational spiritual truth) 5-10 minutes

Children's action song: 3 minutes

Humorous insight: 1 -10 minutes

Precious moments (combination testimony/need prayer request): 7-13 minutes

Songs 2-3

Children's story: 3-6 minutes

Dialogue segment 2) 7-13 minutes

Children's action song.

Application : short lesson reinforcing dialogue topic, but using other learning styles/senses.

Dialogue segment 3 (if needed): 7-13 minutes

Songs 2-3

Standby (we don't disconnect from God or each other, we just go on standby); benediction

---------------------------------

Other segments we might have:

Worship Dance (I don't do it, but it is beautiful. And no, I'm not going to debate it. Scripture endorses it)

Personal Psalm

Various special features:

"Chocolate Theolgy" by David Augsburger

"LuLu Brimley's 2nd chance Christian bookstore"

(both of those from Christianity Today)

"10 reasons to know you're in the wrong congregation"

"10 reasons to know you're at a bad baptism"

Video or live Drama

--------------------------------------------

Any member who wants to have a dialogue can do so, usually within a week or two.

Anyone can come up to our worship coordinator before 9sometimes during ) the service and offer a segment. It's the coordinator's job to move/cut/substitute segments to keep us from running over too long.

There is a snack table in the back, to which people can go at any time and help themselves.

Many of our segments --all of the dialogue segments-- include video or computer generated graphics.

We're intergeneratal, so NO ONE is relegated to babysitting. We expect the little ones to learn to be quiet part of the time, and we expect adults to participate (as able) in the children's action songs ("Head and Shoulders" can sometimes be a bit much). Worship is not for one group or the other-- it is for all groups.

Children quickly learn to fill their cups with cheerios or goldfish crackers and sit during some segments --often on the front row-- because they know before long they'll have something aimed primarily at them.

Worship is subject to two basic dangers: Falling into a rut, and attempting to "get the experience again."

The rut is self-explanatory.

When everything works just right, we experience a moment where the hair stands up on the back of our necks because we realize that something supernatural has occurred.

The great temptation then is to "do it again," to repeat the steps that led to that experience. But we cannot. God cannot be summoned, like some cosmic bellhop. There are steps we can take that help the worshiper get ready for that process, but that's the best we can do. Trying to do more leads to manipulation.

Anyway, what we have learned is that spontaneity is important, and, paradoxically, preparing for spontaneity requires lots of planning.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And how far do you take that effort, where is the dividing line? As I recall some of the most notorious of the "church changers' would take a person out in a boat, throw them overboard and hold them under for awhile. Letting them up after awhile, if they hadn't recanted their position, they were pushed under until upon coming up they at last recanted. For those who believe in that method it seems to me it would be only right to join the group that found it comfortable in that atmosphere.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Odd you should bring that up. Interesting to note how many experimental congregations have been "drowned" by the orthodox. Those who "believe in that method" seem to run most congregations and too many conferences now. Coercion is all on the side of the traditionalists. They populate church boards and Executive Committees.

If you wish to lecture some on that attitude, start with the traditionalists.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Maybe if each generation would feed the ones Jesus came to feed, there wouldn't be the constant jockeying and complaining about being ignored and mistreated.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If we can't find a way to spiritually feed our own children, with whom we have so much in common, it is folly to think we will be able to feed others, with whom we have less.

Reluctance to face this simple fact appears to me to spring from the simple fact that we refuse to recognize that the failure to reach our children is our failure, not some cosmic inevitability. And if we refuse to face that failure, then we won't ever change what we're doing enough to reach anyone.

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

From at least adolescence forward, women are creatures of regularity, security, routine. They are the life-bearers, and the rhythms of their bodies affect everything about them.

Boys are aggressive, looking for action and challenges.

These brain and hormonal differences make males naturally more aggressive and risk-taking; but their logical brains, if properly trained, give them the ability to calculate those risks.

Women, by comparison, are risk averse, again preferring regularity. One obvious reason is that a break in routine of menstruation can be a signal of trouble. So slow and steady, regular and safe is just fine. Of course, safety and security also are necessary for pregnancy, child bearing and rearing.

Religion thrives on ritual and ceremony--regular and repetitive. So women like religion, it feeds their God-given need for safety and security.

Whereas the Spirit and spirituality are unpredictable. Men are drawn to the challenge and the adventure, but women are a little unsettled.

For example, sermons often remind us of our sins. Women think of this as "reminding." Men think of it as "nagging." In fact, the role of the pastor has become increasingly as the role of church mother--visiting the sick and elderly, comforting, etc. It's not that men don't have a role in these things, but it's a different role.

Devotions are promoted as quiet time, where we sit and engage in introspection. Men need and benefit from introspection as much as women, but the come at it in a different way.

Let me try to draw some contrasts;

Feminine sermon -- showing us where we've failed, telling us how to improve.

Masculine sermon -- challenging us to become what we might be.

Feminine exhortation -- One-way, like a mother instructing her children

Masculine exhortation -- Dialogue, even debate, challenge

Feminine lyric -- "Jesus I am so in love with you."

Masculine lyric -- "Rise up, Oh men of God."

Feminine prayer -- "watch over us and guide us."

Masculine prayer -- "show us the way, give us the strength"

Is this beginning to make sense?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Tons of sense. I always felt more like a man than a woman internally (mentally, emotionally). I never fit the typical "female" mold. I always felt like a freak of nature who was not entirely human, and this just confirms what I have known all along.

The problem with it as a template, though, is that it does not admit or make allowances for people like me. Instead it tries to tell me I should be something I decidedly AM NOT just because my biological form has one set of genetalia as opposed to another. The things you describe as "male" are all things *I* (a biological female) am. So where do people like me fit in this picture?

[cricket]

You are no freak of nature. You are every bit as human as are all the other people on this forum. For some reason though, many members here tend to think they must fit these molds and shun those who admit to being otherwise.

Cricket

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

darlene said:

After some minutes, the pastor took the fire tongs, carefully picked up a brightly burning ember and placed it to one side of the hearth all alone. Then he sat back in his chair, still silent. The host watched all this in quiet contemplation. As the one lone ember’s flame flickered and diminished, there was a momentary glow and then its fire was no more. Soon it was cold and dead.

Not a word had been spoken since the initial greeting. The pastor glanced at his watch and realized it was time to leave. He slowly stood up, picked up the cold, dead ember and placed it back in the middle of the fire. Immediately it began to glow, once more with the light and warmth of the burning coals around it.

As the pastor reached the door to leave, his host said with a tear running down his cheek, “Thank you so much for your visit and especially for the fiery sermon. I shall be back in church next Sabbath.”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That was a really neat story, but it doesn't resonate with everyone.

For some, church IS the place where they experience what it feels like to be an "ember" set alone to one side, whereas in other walks of life, wonder of wonders, they are included, appreciated, and treated as an indispensible part of things. Why should they not rather prefer the company and settings where they are warmed by the hearthfire instead of the one where they are overlooked, ignored, bypassed, or pushed to the side?

And why would anyone continue to seek out such an experience week after week? Honestly...

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I never fit the typical "female" mold.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nobody quite fits any mold. The point is that if we have services which offer a range of things, more people will feel welcomed. It would be just as bad if services were exclusively male-oriented.