Lots of theories exist on this topic. Here’s one that caught my attention because it referred to men and our ministry to them:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s01-ussc.html

You’ll want to read the article before you continue reading this post.

The part that interests me is the “60% male” theory. Why would they say that 60% male population in the sanctuary make a difference as to whether you grow or not? Okay, I’m out on a limb here because the article raises the issue then says NOTHING about it in the text I have.

To make a general statement, there are some differences between males and females with regard to the things that they value. Note that there are several exceptions to this, but this supposition/stereotype seems to be driving the statement.

Men tend to be goal oriented. Women tend to be oriented towards security.

Security implies a lack of change. Goals are about movement. Hmmmm…

Does this mean women perhaps can’t change as easily or maybe don’t want to as readily? Does this mean that men are less likely to be stubborn in wanting things to stay the same?

I don’t know. I have some ideas, but no real statistical data on that particular stereotype. So I’ll refrain from commenting further. But I do know that men who attend church make a bigger difference in the lives of their children.

Check out this data from a 1994 survey of Swiss religious practice :

* If both father and mother attended church regularly then 33 per cent of their children became regular churchgoers, a further 41 per cent irregular attenders and about a quarter not practicing at all.

* If the mother was a regular church attender but the father irregular then only 3 per cent of their children became regular church attenders, 59 per cent irregular attenders and 38 per cent non-attenders.

* If the father was non-practicing and the mother regular only 2 per cent of children were regular and 37 per cent irregular church attenders. 61 per cent did not attend church at all.

* Surprisingly, if the father is a regular church attender the children’s religious practice varied in an inverse relationship to their mothers’ practice. If the mother was regular 33 per cent of children were regular. If she was an irregular attender then 38 per cent of children were regular. If the mother was non-practising then 44 per cent of children became regular attenders.

* Even when the father is an irregular attender and the mother non- practising 25 per cent of the children were regular attenders and 23 per cent irregular attenders.

In summary, if a father does not go to church, no matter how regular the mother is in her religious practice, only one child in 50 becomes a regular church attender. But if a father attends regularly then regardless of the practice of the mother at least one child in three will become a regular church attender.

How does this compare to your experience?

I think, for me, there is a real mandate to change the way I lead the ministry to reach men and help them build their discipleship. It may require some real changes for all of us. Or it may not.

Publisher’s Weekly reviewed a book entitled “WHY MEN HATE GOING TO CHURCH” by David Murrow. Here’s their synopsis, found at Amazon.com.

Murrow, a television writer and producer, asks and effectively answers the question: “What is it about modern Christianity that is driving men away?” Just 35% of American men say they attend church weekly, he reports, and women make up more than 60% of the typical congregation on a given Sunday. Murrow contends that the church caters to women, children and the elderly by creating a safe, predictable environment. This alienates anyone fond of risk taking, including young men and women, but men are affected most. In order to reach men, Murrow suggests, churches must “adjust the thermostat” to embrace the masculine spirit: let men lead; give them tasks; encourage pastors to show strength and teach men through object lessons, letting them discover truth for themselves. Two of the best outreach methods: start rigorous mentoring programs and help men make friends with other men. Murrow bases his conclusions on what he claims are legitimate biological and cultural gender differences. He is aware that these observations might offend, and his thesis will find few takers among those who believe that the church needs less, not more, male influence. But Murrow’s work is quite likely to get an enthusiastic reception from many Christian men. It contains sharp observations that will provoke much discussion—and, perhaps, some change.
[Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.]

I’ve spoken to Dan Schaeffer about Murrow’s ideas. Dan is the author of Spiritual Fathers and the leader of the Building Brothers movement.  I’m posting this from Lakeshore where I’m learning some of Dan’s ideas and principles. You can find out more about Building Brothers at http://www.buildingbrothers.org.

Dan is encouraging a deeper change than just the thermostat. The environmental changes in a congregational setting must be accompanied–and perhaps preceded–by intrinsic changes to the way ministry is perceived and pursued in the local context.

What the heck does that mean? It means that we have to challenge men to answer some hard questions and deal with the reality of the answers. It means that we have to remember that we do not follow a Tame Jesus. We must recognize that there is more to the ministry of reconciliation than just getting ourselves reconciled to God. We must change the way we reach out to one another and effect real change in the way we live our lives.

I’m going to be pressing our men to think differently about how we minister to each other and to other men. Fortunately, I have a lot of help. Jerry Brownlee and Bob Doyle are here with me to make sure that I’m taking good notes and learning this material “right side up.” I’m thankful for their enthusiasm and willingness to take time out of their schedules to learn more about ministry to men.

More on this very soon.