Yes, I have finally returned from Emory and the Youth Theological Initiative.  Thanks to all of you that mailed me.  Your cards and letters made my days!!

I wasn't planning on blogging again until August, when I'll recap YTI and that sort of thing.  But, there was something that was brought to my attention that I wanted to share with ya'll.

There's an article (Article: "Are Churches Too Feminized for Men?") on the UMC.org home page that bothers me in many ways.  I wondered if I was alone in that in the metho-blogosphere? So I thought I'd post.

This article bothers me o na number of levels:

1. We in the UMC just celebrated ( in May and June ) the 50th anniversary year of Clergy Rights for Women.  Big hoorahs were made, articles were published and Annual Conference themes were set with this focus in mind.  Why merely 2 months later is this article, which clearly goes against the gender ideals set forth in our Social Principles, published??

          ". . .that every effort be made to eliminate sex-role stereotypes in activity and portrayal of family life and in all aspects of voluntary and compensatory participation in the Church and society" (BoD pgph. 161, 162f)

2. A concern is raised in this article, that churches with female clergy in charge need "teams of men and women in worship" so that men can relate. What does that say about how the church is socializing men, if they can't handle a female leader? This was never a concern when churches were led primarily by men.

Imagine an article in 1903 entitled "Are churches becoming too masculinized?"

3. The stereotypes employed, describing femininity and masculinity. The relational aspects of church are, in this article, decidedly "female".  And, therefore femininity is seen as a negative and detracting in regards to church membership.  The masculine alternative which appears to be set forth in these articles is "strong" "powerful", and therefore positive.

Honestly, I could find many more problems with this article, and probably will.  I'm planning on thinking this through again and re-publishing.  But I thought I'd go ahead and get this out there. . .

What do you  think?

Comments

[beth]

I think: Well said and right on! Great post. You are especially on in point 2 - no one would make the same suggestion in an opposite situation.

Glad you're back to the blogosphere!

[gavin]

that's just bogus. i know the old boys clubs still exist within the church. and what about those metho-baptist churches?

[David]

Natalie,
Welcome home. Hope YTI was all that you hoped for and more. They have worked long and hard to develop an amazing program.
Peace,
DC

[David]

Natalie,
Quite a stir you raised. Got Gavin involved and then gotmethinking hard too,both of us found away to incorporate you into our blogs.
Peace,
DC

[Lucia]

Really, Natalie, I think we all just need to join Titus 2 women and learn how to arrange flowers.

[natalie]

Lucia, I love you.

[Larry]

While I agree overall with your critiques of the article, I do want to know what you think the church needs to do to recapture the hearts of men for the next generation. Don't waste your time with Murrow's book - I read it thought it was aweful.

[natalie]

Hmm... Honestly, I -- this is a short answer, I apologize for it not being any longer -- think that the church needs to try to be the church Christ would have us be.

Authenticity is something that 'captures' the hearts and minds of young people today: young men as well as young women. To be 'real' draws people in. We (as young people) are looking for folks to be honest and open about their lives and about Jesus. I believe that many more young people than one would think 'know' the Gospel or what the Gospel is about. But, like Gandhi, young people don't have so much a problem with Christ. It's those -- or many of those -- that call themselves Christian that present a problem.

I don't think we desperately need new songs in worship -- songs that are "masculine" or otherwise :) -- or new leadership necessarily. We don't need newly developed programs, or charismatic "hip" teachers. Although, certainly these things and others surely would be welcome and appreciated.

I think the key thing ( and, as Thomas Merton said, "Here I stand. But, I may be wrong!) is not to worry so much about 'pleasing young people' or attracting young people' as much as we as the church worry about pleasing our God.

Our God is real and alive. Our Christ lived on our Earth with us. The Holy Spirit is present. That, is what young people want to hear. And they/we know what a radical thing that is. We want to see it lived out by those who say they Believe.

Seeing real authentic people -- with all of the struggles that come along with being in sin-- meet Christ -- with all of the joy, atonement, Love, and glory -- in every day life would and is capturing the hearts and minds and souls of the "next generation".

I hope that made at least some sense. Feel free to jot me an e-mail or reply back here if I was too helter-skelter.

shalom,
natalie

[denise]

good follow up. i agree whole-heartedly.

[Robin Russell]

Hi Natalie and all,

I'm glad to know my article on men and the church has sparked such a lively discussion!

You might be interested to know that I've received LOTS of comments from men who say the article was spot-on, as far as how they feel. And they are asking for more information on the new UM Men's program, Wesleyan Bands of Brothers.

You might also want to check out a rebuttal we published from Perkins School of Theology prof and pastor Elaine Heath, who says the reason the church doesn't attract men is not that it's "feminized," but that it's lost its soul.

Here's a link:
http://www.reporterinteractive.org/main/Feeds/tabid/116/newsid/1076/Default.aspx

Cheers!

Robin Russell, Managing Editor, the United Methodist Reporter

[jason woolever]

We have to ask what is the main agenda of our churches. If we don't care if American non-Christian men who don't naturally feel inclined to follow women go to hell, then we should just move forward without looking back. But then again, many United Methodists don't believe in hell, so of course anyone's pet social agenda takes precedent over evangelism.

[jzbixtq vwrtu]

erti tshwmue dhgof hsynjz nimhv gmdjq kcjxaehr