The Patriarchy Connection: David Murrow and the Church for Men

“Why do men hate going to church?” asks David Murrow in an article that appears on a website titled “Church for Men.” 

(Read the whole article at, http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/why-do-men-hate-going-to-church/)

The name of the website is a curious one, for is there a church that is for women? According to Murrow that answer is, yes. The church we all call “church” is, according to Murrow, too feminine, too safe, too dull. Men need a church that is exciting, that gives them an opportunity to seek adventure, to live a little.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a little; we all should. But why does Murrow think that women don’t want to live a little too? Why does he think that the church has become too safe because of women?

It is unfortunate that Murrow doesn't recognize the real culprit. Patriarchy insists women should be domestic, shun adventure, and seek safety. Why does Murrow act so surprised when they do? The problem seems to be that Murrow thinks there should be more men in the church; more men would mean more adventure, more risk-taking, less of all the fluff and stuff, the stuff women and old people like. But how to get the men to come?  By creating a church for men.

It seems like such a good idea. A church where men can be men, unchained from the female devices that keep them down. In his church men can smoke, talk about sex, and even dance! It’s a great church! It looks just like the Victorian gentlemen’s club!

Is that what it takes to bring men back to the church?

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex or dancing, and although smoking is not exactly healthy, it is just about as evil as eating too much red meat. But why does Murrow think women don’t like sex and dancing? Why does he feel that he must exclude women from the church in order to allow men to engage in such practices? According to Murrow, women don’t like adventure:

How did Christianity, founded by a man and his 12 male disciples, become the province of women? There is a pattern of feminization in Christianity going back at least 700 years, according to Dr. Leon Podles, author of The Church Impotent: the Feminization of Christianity. But the ball really got rolling in the 1800s. With the dawning of the industrial revolution, large numbers of men sought work in mines, mills and factories, far from home and familiar parish. Women stayed behind, and began remaking the church in their image. The Victorian era saw the rise of church nurseries, Sunday schools, lay choirs, quilting circles, ladies’ teas, soup kitchens, girls’ societies, potluck dinners, etc.

Firstly, we must note that women were excluded from leadership 700 years ago when Thomas Aquinas created his twofold subjection, which subjected the woman from creation. The Catholic Church, for example, recognizes that women deacons disappeared from the church in the 13^th century, but doesn’t seem to understand why. How can the church have become more feminine in the past 700 years, when the women have been excluded from leadership the entire time? The medieval witch hunts weren't directed at men; they were directed at women; women who challenged the all-male rule of the church. Secondly, what is wrong with church nurseries, Sunday Schools, choirs, soup kitchens, potluck dinners? Try to take them out and see how many people, men or women, will come to your church.

The early church, of course, met in homes, wherefore there was no need for nurseries and Sunday Schools for the children. But they did have potluck dinners; they called them Agape dinners—the original Communion. They also had soup kitchens; they often fasted in order to provide food for the poor with the money they had saved. These are activities that the early church cherished. How are these the creation of women?

This thought leads us to the next complaint of Murrow’s: he claims that women have made Christianity a religion of the gentle, sensitive, and nurturing, focused on home and family. He calls this the “feminine spirituality.” Men feel out of place; they don’t like to be extra polite. With this I heartily agree! Being polite is a cultural value, not a spiritual value. But why does Murrow think women feel the need to always be polite? Isn’t it what patriarchy has taught them?

“If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything all!”

“Don’t be unladylike!”     

Murrow fights against the very construction he has helped create because suddenly he is in the receiving end. He doesn’t like the church because the church forces him to live like a woman. No wonder he is upset! But creating a church for men isn’t the solution; we need to create a church in which both men and women are free to experience the freedom they have in Christ. Let’s hope Murrow will join the egalitarian movement; it’s the only way he will get what he wants.