# Church makeup as an indicator of evangelism flaws?



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

From another post, concerning the SBC and an overseas church that has a high proportion of women/children:



> When a Pastor actually has the backbone to criticize efforts to evangelize children and women primarily (at the expense of the men) then you know you have a man who wants to honor Scripture.



From several weeks ago, the same issue: 



> If they did come to Church, the lack of male leadership and Biblical knowledge in the Church is very telling - a Church that had missionaries from the Southern Baptist International Mission Board for 50 YEARS! Where are the mature men? Where is the knowledge? THIS is the significant weakness in the approach. The focus is on decisions and not on discipleship.
> 
> It is my estimation that you have to do both but a Church really must focus on building up its foundation first. We are called to make disciples and that means bringing in families, especially the men, and building up something that begins to sustain itself. If all you do is convert women and children then when you leave the Church dies and, while noble that somebody might have had saving faith in the few you converted, you're leaving them to a spiritually impoverished existence and the "light" dies out when they go.
> 
> ...



From a book my church recently went through: 



> Friends, all the apostles were men. This does not minimize the role of women; it maximizes the responsibility of men. The Holy Spirit apparently anticipated the problem of Christian history, that men would tend to easily abdicate their responsibility and turn it over to women. So, today we have mission groups in our churches called “Women’s Missionary Society.” Thank God for concerned, Godly women; but this is primarily a man’s responsibility! You see, if you capture a man, the God-appointed leader in society’s basic unit, you stand an excellent chance of capturing everybody in his constituency; but if you capture one of his constituency first (wife, children), you may never capture the leader or any others in his constituency.




(emphasis mine)

At any rate, the 3 quotes above have a common theme: a lament of the weak male presence in foreign church plants. 

Last summer, I spent a couple of weeks at another Baptist church plant in Asia. 

The same problem was evident; a majority of new church members were women. The men present didn't seem to want to take leadership responsibilities. Further, I've seen the same phenomena in churches here in America. And a few weeks ago, I read (can't find the link...) of a Presbyterian female missionary worker (forgive me if I am using the wrong terminology there...) working in the Middle East in a church with a strong need for women workers because the majority of the new converts were women. 

All of the above adds up to this: 

Around the world, *something* is causing our churches to fill up with women and children who do not reproduce disciples through their own families. It goes without saying that everyone on this forum agrees on God's Sovereignty in this matter; all we can do, as Christians concerned with or involved in evaneglism, is to examine our own roles in evangelism and look for areas where improvement can be made. 


What are those areas? 

Based on my limited experience, there is no shortage of seeker-friendly, non-offensive preaching, no shortage of Christians willing to serve so strongly that they negate the responsibilities of new converts to step into servanthood, and...what else? 


This isn't a small issue - it cuts to the very heart of a huge problem within the SBC and undoubtedly other evangelical/protestant denominations. I emphasize its impact within a Baptist circle only because I'm Baptist, have little understanding of the health of other denominations, and don't mind admitting that Baptists need to 'fix' something....but what?

How do the following contribute to this problem? 

-seeker friendly evangelism
-missionaries willing to babysit new converts
-bad evangelism methods as a result of weak theology, especially the doctrine of Regeneration and exactly what it means to be regenerated.

On the latter point, we only have to look at domestic SBC churches to see where these errors come from, and where they're heading. 

Will the so-called 'problem of Calvinism' (yes, it's been called that...) that is currently rising within the SBC address these issues directly and/or result in indirect improvements? 

Speaking of men, what is the root behind all of the male converts who don't seem to be taking responsibility for properly raising their children? In America, it can be blamed on materialism to an extent, but that's not the case everywhere. And why do so many American women make poor choices in mates, ending up unequally yoked? What is the root of all this? 

What other questions need to be asked/addressed in light of the apparently widespread phenomena of churches primarily full of women/children that don't seem to produce disciples of subsequent generations?


Are all of these problems truly interconnected, or am I trying to see something that's not really there? Are they all a result of man-centeredness? What steps need to be taken to address them? Does anyone see these same problems in their local churches?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2007)

Chris,

Outstanding post. Great analysis of the situation. I'm heartened to see this being discussed in the SBC.

A few thoughts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2007)

Doh! I hit reply by accident.

A few thoughts:

1. I searched for and found a thread I started back when I initially joined the PuritanBoard (about a month after). I posted it from the old board because I don't want a really old thread resurrected.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15028

I was really surprised at the time that my concern, which you are echoing here, did not resound more at the time. I was new but, literally, the post was received as if I thought we should exclude children from Evangelism.

A fascinating aspect of that thread were the Presbyterians that defended the idea as a change in cultures and that maybe going after children is the best way to go after all.

Even _more_ fascinating is a response from a man who used to post under the name Martin Marprelate. Anyone who remembers him knows he was a rabid defender of credo-baptism. The debates he and I used to get into on that subject still make me shudder. I learned a lot through those interactions.

Anyway, even Steve (his real name) thought getting to the parents through the kids was a good idea.

That's actually one of the only threads that people have sent me a PM and told me they thought I was messed up on and that I should love children more. It was really shocking to me at the time.

That's a long way of introducing the fact that even Calvinists like to go after the "low hanging fruit". Children are easy to evangelize, parents are recalcitrant. Easier to have a VBS than it is to meet men in the marketplace of ideas and interact with them. Enough said about that because I'm going to be accused as a children hater again.

2. There isn't enough instruction for men to sink their teeth into intellectually. I've said this a million times that I cannot stand to here a man whine that theology is hard to understand and they don't have time to read God's Word. I'll then hear uneducated men in heated conversations over Sports. The statistical minutia that they can rattle off from the top of their heads is amazing. We don't feed that desire for knowledge that men have enough.

I think part of the problem is the cheesy and lame curriculum that passes as Adult Sunday School material that guides people through a study. It's not ALL bad but 90% of it is for imbeciles. I don't even go near the SBC curriculum. I teach directly from the Word. ADULTS EAT THAT STUFF UP! If you have a teacher that knows the Word and causes men (and women) to have to THINK and ponder then they will pursue it.

I just started a men's Bible study in our Church. I'm with you with the "Women on Missions" thing. What decisions are they going to make for the Church in terms of missions anyway? They met every month. Now the men are going to meet twice a month and we're going to learn the Word so we can teach it to our families. Build outward. Start from a core of men. Teach them to be men. Transform their families as THEY teach them the Word of God and it will grow from there. It's slow but it PLANTS DEEP ROOTS.

3. I don't have time to go into all my "complaints" but I'll hit on one more pet peave: Worship forms and songs these days are downright FEMININE. They are pagan too which is worse. We sing the same few lines over and over and over until we're emotional (it just makes my more sorrowful and angry and more desirous to pray for those who are still immature in this area). I don't say this as a "me vs. them". I'm not mad at them. I just want more for them. We export this cheesy, emotional, neo-Pentecostal excrement all over the world. Well, a lot of American men have gotten used to singing like a bunch of women longing for their lover to come to them but I don't think too many other cultures really gravitate towards it. I can think of a bunch of songs that, if you didn't know were Praise Choruses, you would say: "That's a chick song."

Enough said.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2007)

Hey Chris and Rich;


Yes, great post. 


I will throw out a few points to maybe defend or maybe stir the water a bit:

--*Mission work is , as strange as it sounds, a man's job that is more often than not done by women. *

After from the Catholic monastic movement a large number of those serving overseas have been women. If a married couple goes than that makes 50%, but there are many, many single women serving in service roles. They seem to serve overseas without as many temptations as single men (the rate of gross sexual sin was quite striking in the history of mission work in some parts of the south pacific because all the women ran nude..so the mission boards actually shipped some of these men designated wives from back home...and it worked).

At one point the CHina Inland Mission was over 2/3rds women village workers.


*Also, the most receptive ages of faith and the most formative years are being 4 and 14. *

You have heard about the 10/40 Window that shows, geographically where the most needy areas in the world are. Missiologists have also coined the phrase the 4/14 window, since most people that call themselves Christian trace a conversion experience - by their own accounts - to a period in their life between the ages 4 and 14.

This statistic might show the wisdom of the reformed "nurture" and catechism approach.

A young tree is more easy to bend and an old hardened sinner who has squandered much grace seems more likely to be passed over by God's grace.


*
Too, almost every mission work attracts women, childen and the poor as their first converts. *

This is not just true for baptists but for most mission work in the history of missions. They are the under-class and God seems to give us a promise that the poor, feeble and the like will be the most blessed often byt he Gospel.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Doh! I hit reply by accident.
> 
> A few thoughts:
> 
> ...



I read a few posts into the thread. Interesting stuff. I can certainly see going after children - it falls under the general heading of preaching the Gospel to every creature - but I wonder if we're too optimistic in our assumption that evangelized children will attract parents. I can't think of any examples of adults testifying that their children brought them to Christ. It would be a rare occurence. 

I've seen some baptist VBS results. Little kids asked 'who wants to go to Heaven', declared to be saved, baptised, and virtually never seen inside the church again, then maybe ocassionally spoke of by people who wonder what happened to 'that kid that got saved last year?'. This seems to lead ultimately back to a lack of teaching on what regeneration is and how it occurs. 



> 2. There isn't enough instruction for men to sink their teeth into intellectually. I've said this a million times that I cannot stand to here a man whine that theology is hard to understand and they don't have time to read God's Word.



Would you consider some sort of desire to read God's Word to be a normal result of regeneration? Should we suggest to people that a desire to engage in some sort of study of Scripture is the norm for regenerate people? Jeremiah 31 says we'll be taught of God. Can we not assume that a failure of this prophecy to manifest itself is really evidence of a lack of regeneration - else we make God a failure?????



> I'll then hear uneducated men in heated conversations over Sports. The statistical minutia that they can rattle off from the top of their heads is amazing.



I'm reminded of the parable of the sower, and the seed choked out by the cares of this world. 




> We don't feed that desire for knowledge that men have enough.


I've been saved almost 3 years, am just now finding men to disciple me.




> I think part of the problem is the cheesy and lame curriculum that passes as Adult Sunday School material that guides people through a study. It's not ALL bad but 90% of it is for imbeciles.



I'm 7600 miles away from you, so I doubt that you heard the big baptist 'amen' when I read those words.  




> I don't even go near the SBC curriculum.



We're on the same page here. 




> I teach directly from the Word. ADULTS EAT THAT STUFF UP! If you have a teacher that knows the Word and causes men (and women) to have to THINK and ponder then they will pursue it.



 

I've noticed something fascinating: I've been saved almost 3 years. I don't mean I spent my life in the Word and then went to some greater level of commitment; I mean I went from death to life 3 years ago.. There are parts of Scripture I've barely read; other parts I've now read 4-6 times at most. I'm not a genius, by any stretch. But I'll have lifelong Christians ask me questions and hang on every word of my answer, as if they think I was some sort of Bible guru. Don't get me wrong, I love that, I love being able to help people in that way, I could happily spend my life in one long Bible study.....but it shouldn't be this way. 

When I was in Asia last year for a couple of months, I was asked to teach a couple of classes every week for about 6 weeks. Classes were small as they conflicted with other goings-on at the church, but...get this: 

Towards the end of my stay, I noticed a group from the church gathered for small-group study one saturday. I walked over and joined them. They were studying my outline from the previous week. Feasting on it. I was humbled almost to the point of tears. They had to be starving to dig into my paltry little outlines. Before I left, I had a couple of church members pull me aside and ask me some odd questions - one of them was about predestination. It was almost as if the issue had never been discussed (from any perspective) and they had saw the concept in Scripture and wanted to know more. 

Have we forgotten 'If you love Me, feed My sheep'? 




> I just started a men's Bible study in our Church. I'm with you with the "Women on Missions" thing. What decisions are they going to make for the Church in terms of missions anyway? They met every month. Now the men are going to meet twice a month and we're going to learn the Word so we can teach it to our families. Build outward. Start from a core of men. Teach them to be men. Transform their families as THEY teach them the Word of God and it will grow from there. It's slow but it PLANTS DEEP ROOTS.



Have the men been receptive to this idea? 



> 3. I don't have time to go into all my "complaints" but I'll hit on one more pet peave: Worship forms and songs these days are downright FEMININE. They are pagan too which is worse. We sing the same few lines over and over and over until we're emotional (it just makes my more sorrowful and angry and more desirous to pray for those who are still immature in this area). I don't say this as a "me vs. them". I'm not mad at them. I just want more for them.



I'd like to hear more on this - I, too, have seen music used to manipulate emotions. It concerns me. 



> We export this cheesy, emotional, neo-Pentecostal excrement all over the world. Well, a lot of American men have gotten used to singing like a bunch of women longing for their lover to come to them but I don't think too many other cultures really gravitate towards it. I can think of a bunch of songs that, if you didn't know were Praise Choruses, you would say: "That's a chick song."
> 
> Enough said.



I'd love to see some modern music written by men who hadn't been emasculated by their culture. 

Speaking of which....I'm not sure how long it's been since you lived stateside, but the US culture is growing so emasculated so fast it's insane. Television depicts men as an army led by Al Bundy. Women are 'empowered' for reasons that ultimately boil down to either lust or greed. Not sure where it started....

I have more thoughts here, but I'm hoping this will expand and we can explore some more. 


Rich, the church you're in now: Does it have frequent visits from US short-term (volunteer-type) missionaries? Do you find consistent weaknesses in the theology you see expressed by the volunteers or other Americans?


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 15, 2007)

This is great stuff, y'all. Keep it up! I'm finding lots of gold in this discussion - these types of conversations are what keep me coming back to the PB so much.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hey Chris and Rich;
> 
> 
> Yes, great post.
> ...



Stir away. These stagnant waters are deadly. 



> --*Mission work is , as strange as it sounds, a man's job that is more often than not done by women. *
> 
> After from the Catholic monastic movement a large number of those serving overseas have been women. If a married couple goes than that makes 50%, but there are many, many single women serving in service roles. They seem to serve overseas without as many temptations as single men (the rate of gross sexual sin was quite striking in the history of mission work in some parts of the south pacific because all the women ran nude..so the mission boards actually shipped some of these men designated wives from back home...and it worked).



This is something I've struggled with as a single male. (no, not gross immorality, just the awarenss of the possibilities...)

The obvious solution would be to be married - which, of course, brings its own limitations. At any rate, I'm an old hard-headed baptist in regard to the notion that church leaders (pastors, deacons, elders) should be married. This idea definitely makes me leery of going overseas as a church planter. Without a spouse, I'm simply not qualified - whether we look at Timothy/Titus, or whether we look in Genesis at Adam's lack of boldness - his utter silence in the face of creation - until he was given Eve. 

At any rate, like I said, I struggle with this notion. When I was in Asia, I was surrounded by single, attractive women. I didn't go looking for romance and went out of my way to avoid even the appearance of anything less than strict professionalism, but nevertheless had to deal with the fact that my singleness amongst hundreds of single women, while working alongside a church where the converted women had few male choices available, was grossly obvious. 

The upside, here, is that there ought to be plenty of single women workers from amongst whom to find a mate, should it please God to grant me one. At any rate, great point, Trev, and one worth further consideration. 



> At one point the CHina Inland Mission was over 2/3rds women village workers.



Hmmm...



> *Also, the most receptive ages of faith and the most formative years are being 4 and 14. *
> 
> You have heard about the 10/40 Window that shows, geographically where the most needy areas in the world are. Missiologists have also coined the phrase the 4/14 window, since most people that call themselves Christian trace a conversion experience - by their own accounts - to a period in their life between the ages 4 and 14.
> 
> This statistic might show the wisdom of the reformed "nurture" and catechism approach.



I have a bit of a problem here - if we truly believe the doctrine of depravity, and we truly believe in monergistic conversion, age shouldn't matter. I was converted at 29. I greatly fear that many of these childhood conversions are the result of pressured/manipulated evangelism methods. That's certainly the case within domestic churches that I'm familiar with. 

On the other hand, I have to agree that it is infinitely wise to nurture our children on the Word. I don't have kids, so I can't wax further here...

Are you familiar with the 'person of peace' approach? Often the person of peace is an older leader in the community. 

Here's a document that delves into that: 
http://www.wsaresourcesite.org/Files/Storying/Bible%20Storying%20in%20the%20Worthy%20Home%20by%20J.O.%20Terry.doc




> A young tree is more easy to bend and an old hardened sinner who has squandered much grace seems more likely to be passed over by God's grace.



Good point - I hadn't considered that. 




> *
> Too, almost every mission work attracts women, childen and the poor as their first converts. *
> 
> This is not just true for baptists but for most mission work in the history of missions. They are the under-class and God seems to give us a promise that the poor, feeble and the like will be the most blessed often byt he Gospel.




Have you ever seen the 'ee-taow' story? Virtually a whole tribe was converted, men and all. 

http://www.oasistradepost.com/Products/Eetaow/eetaow.html


I certainly see th epoint about Christianity often being a religion of underdogs (the poor, the tired, etc..) but does that mean we should target the poor, tired, feeble, etc? 

Does the presentation of Christ as a gentle man knocking on the door of a sinner's heart show Christianity in such a weak light that men (with their pride) are disinterested, leaving us to gather up women converts who may see 'gentle Jesus' as an alternative to abuse or whatever else life has thrown them? 

I'm certainly not suggesting we should stop trying to reach thoise folks, but you have to wonder if more men might not respond to a bold, mor eBiblically sound presentation of the Gospel - not a 'Jesus loves you' approach that too often is presented so weakly.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> This is great stuff, y'all. Keep it up! I'm finding lots of gold in this discussion - these types of conversations are what keep me coming back to the PB so much.



These issues are 'near and dear' to me. I wish I was better equipped to address them, to be honest.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2007)

I've been typing so much today already that I'm starting to exhaust my enthusiasm.


trevorjohnson said:


> Hey Chris and Rich;
> 
> --*Mission work is , as strange as it sounds, a man's job that is more often than not done by women. *
> 
> ...


Great post Trevor. I like the very practical, in the field, stuff. So many Christians are so terribly naive about the temptations of the world. Even if women don't run around nude it's still a temptation.

I think if evangelism is going to work for women and children then you need to try to sustain it somehow. I would hope that the goal of cathecizing would be to produce men that could grow up to lead Churches. As it is the approach that just goes after women and children and doesn't seem to be concerned about the fact that all the men leave the Church when they grow up is very flawed.

I'm not saying you're doing that but that's the situation I found myself in with the Church. Evangelism of women and children primarily could be seen as a first stage? Fair?



Chris, Yikes. Lots here.


Chris said:


> I read a few posts into the thread. Interesting stuff. I can certainly see going after children - it falls under the general heading of preaching the Gospel to every creature - but I wonder if we're too optimistic in our assumption that evangelized children will attract parents. I can't think of any examples of adults testifying that their children brought them to Christ. It would be a rare occurence.
> 
> I've seen some baptist VBS results. Little kids asked 'who wants to go to Heaven', declared to be saved, baptised, and virtually never seen inside the church again, then maybe ocassionally spoke of by people who wonder what happened to 'that kid that got saved last year?'. This seems to lead ultimately back to a lack of teaching on what regeneration is and how it occurs.


That's my beef with the approach. Religion is fun for little kids but that's the only outlet. Grow up and there's nothing left for them: except moms who want their kids in Sunday school. Dads stay home.



> Would you consider some sort of desire to read God's Word to be a normal result of regeneration? Should we suggest to people that a desire to engage in some sort of study of Scripture is the norm for regenerate people? Jeremiah 31 says we'll be taught of God. Can we not assume that a failure of this prophecy to manifest itself is really evidence of a lack of regeneration - else we make God a failure?????


I don't like to assume that the people in the Church are not regenerate. I want to believe the best of them. Thus, I teach them how to appreciate and love the Word. Some are uninterested. Some fall upon it ravenously.




> I've been saved almost 3 years, am just now finding men to disciple me.


Yep. Sad isn't it? Breaks my heart.



> I've noticed something fascinating: I've been saved almost 3 years. I don't mean I spent my life in the Word and then went to some greater level of commitment; I mean I went from death to life 3 years ago.. There are parts of Scripture I've barely read; other parts I've now read 4-6 times at most. I'm not a genius, by any stretch. But I'll have lifelong Christians ask me questions and hang on every word of my answer, as if they think I was some sort of Bible guru. Don't get me wrong, I love that, I love being able to help people in that way, I could happily spend my life in one long Bible study.....but it shouldn't be this way.
> 
> When I was in Asia last year for a couple of months, I was asked to teach a couple of classes every week for about 6 weeks. Classes were small as they conflicted with other goings-on at the church, but...get this:
> 
> Towards the end of my stay, I noticed a group from the church gathered for small-group study one saturday. I walked over and joined them. They were studying my outline from the previous week. Feasting on it. I was humbled almost to the point of tears. They had to be starving to dig into my paltry little outlines. Before I left, I had a couple of church members pull me aside and ask me some odd questions - one of them was about predestination. It was almost as if the issue had never been discussed (from any perspective) and they had saw the concept in Scripture and wanted to know more.


I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN. It's like beggars fighting over a scrap of food. That's what breaks my heart about the American Church and the Church here. I go to my in-laws Church and I want to stand up and scream: "FEED THESE PEOPLE!" It makes me so sad. I'm consumed by a desire to help them. I could have gone to a Church that didn't frustrate me. It's taking a turn only after almost 2 years of frustration. Thank God for this pastor. He's not perfect but he believes God's Word. But even he is vulnerable: 25 with a new child and another one on the way. Pray for his wife who is homesick.

I've watched a Filipina walk the aisle about 10 times crying. Why? Because I'm convinced she's never had rest in her soul because the preaching was so horrible. I cry for her. I cry that she's walking the aisle because the place that is supposed to be guarding and proclaiming the Truth has so corrupted it with pietism and revivalism obscures the Gospel. It makes her seek the blessing. I stay because I want her to understand the Gospel.

There is an old Japanese woman. A Christian for 50 years. Completely shunned by her family who worship their ancestors and Buddha. She is despised by them for Christ's sake. Is her theology sold? No but she trusts Christ more than her circumstances! I was on the verge of leaving and my wife came and she said to her: "Oh, you're husband teaches the Bible so good. I'm glad he's here." How can I leave her with SBC curriculum?! So I stayed for her.

This is very emotional for me. This world is starving for the Word and I sometimes wish I wasn't in the thick of that hunger. It is very hard to witness. But I CAN'T LEAVE! God help me if I do.




> Have we forgotten 'If you love Me, feed My sheep'?







> Have the men been receptive to this idea?


Half the men in the Church showed up for the first meeting. This is what I taught on and will begin teaching through Romans at our next meeting. They ate every morsel. They sat there for 45 minutes. I have to tell you that my Sunday School classes are identical. It's been steadily growing. I don't allow for much interaction because I present so much material but people don't complain even though they've grown accustomed to the "everybody share what you feel" about the Scriptures methodology of most classes.

I had one friend in the Church ask me if I was taking on too much as I already teach the Adult class on Sunday mornings and now I have to prepare for this. I told him that this is one thing I'm compelled to do. It is a challenge but I love teaching this to people who want to learn.



> Speaking of which....I'm not sure how long it's been since you lived stateside, but the US culture is growing so emasculated so fast it's insane. Television depicts men as an army led by Al Bundy. Women are 'empowered' for reasons that ultimately boil down to either lust or greed. Not sure where it started....


I've only been in Okinawa for a couple of years. I'm surrounded by Americans and we still get American TV. What's fascinating to me is how much the emasculated culture of American Christianity is exported to other countries. That's more evident when you see Japanese acting like Americans in Church but being Japanese the rest of the time.



> Rich, the church you're in now: Does it have frequent visits from US short-term (volunteer-type) missionaries? Do you find consistent weaknesses in the theology you see expressed by the volunteers or other Americans?


We do. We have a pretty steady stream of missionaries from the U.S. and other countries that come to our Church. I actually have an opportunity to work on some of their theology. The most consistent weakness I see is the desire for decisions without making them disciples. I don't believe we've fulfilled the Great Commission unless the person is in the Church week in and week out. Going out and making friends and getting decisions accomplishes nothing that is Scriptural. That is a hard habit to break. I've been trying to work on some of them and have a very close relationship with one couple particularly prone to this approach as well as neo-Pentecostalism. They are, unfortunately, leaving this Summer. I almost wish I had another year with them because I fear they'll go back to Lon Solomon's Church in Northern VA and fall right back into their immaturity. I hope not.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

The notion of foreign (or domestic) churches filled with women and children but no men:

How much of that can be blamed on the 'Jesus loves you and wants to be your friend' modern evangelical theology?

Do typical head-of-household men find it easier to kneel at the foot of a Cross than to jump on the 'Jesus wants us to be happy' bandwagon?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2007)

Wow another great post. Rich, I know what you mean by being fatigued by much typing today, but some of the threads have really had some practicality lately that hits home.

I was going to leave off pecking on the PB today and climb a big mountain. But, it is rainy season, the skies went to black and the heavens dumped on me suddenly and violently during hour 2 of my ascent --until my trail was actually flooding and I fell down part of the hill. Not much blood just a hurt ego and some advice from a few farmers that i passed. So.... I'll save this mountain until after rainy season. I came back shivering violently (remember Indonesia is tropical and usually very hot..it's a huge rain if it makes you shiver and actually get cold). For now, there's always the PB:



Rich;

Yes, there must be a sustained approach, which means that foreign missionaries shouldn't be doing the long term work at all. They should be empowering their gifted men in order to empower others and for long term sustainment. Many missioanries do not have a complete view of discipleship. They want converts, numbers, and to move on. These are good things, but before one moves on, there must be left an infrastructure capable of doing the rest of the tasks. 


People forget that the Great Comission is more like.."as you go DISCIPLE the nations...." People think that going and making the convert is the main part of the Great Commission. People try to make a convert and leave. Discipleship takes time.


Chris; Come over to Indonesia and find an Indonesian wife. She can also help you learn the language for the purpose of ministry. Kill two birds with one stone.


Chris; Also, yes God is sovereign, but God does create patterns into the world and one of these sovereignly ordained patterns seems to be that most people who become Christians do so at a young age. An old sinner is a hardened sinner and God punishes sin and blindness with more sin and blindness (Romans 1).


Rich, this also further confirms your take on catechism and nurturing up children in the church. Those first impressions seem to be the most lasting. These things are not contrary to the sovereingty of God anymore than missions is contrary to God's unshakeable plan to save His Elect. 


Chris, also, it appears that women and children and the poor do often come to Christ more easily. This may not be due totally to poor evangelism methods of a castrated view of Christianity. This may be just the way God put together the world. In the Gospel of Luke just how prominant of roles do women play? The men fled but the women stayed.

In India for decades the missionaries often ignored the poor and targeted the upper class. They were after influential persons and they targeted the rich and educated. But the church grew at a trickle. But, one man (I can find his name if you want) dared to baptize some of the untouchables and evangelized all regardless of caste and a large people movement occurred. Thousnads professed and stayed true to their confessions. My conclusion: We should target whoever will hear.

Chris, concerning targeting children to the exclusion of their parents:

Most missionaries would never dream of bypassing the parents to get to the children but would prefer a whole family approach -IF POSSIBLE. Or..even a whole tribal approach. Whole tribes DO turn to Christ as a unit. And whole families do too, sometimes..though we rarely see this in the West.

BUT...
What if you were in a Muslim country and you were trying to find a less than rock-reisstant crack in the culture? Children being capable subjects of salvation, are sometimes targetted specifically even if their parents are resistant and efforts toward them are diverted to more hours with the children. The missionaries thus "shake the dust of their feet" of the resistant and sometimes violent parents but stick with their work among the children.

I cannot blame those who care about the salvation of the childrens' souls even if it bypasses the parents. This is less than ideal, but what is the alternative? 

Christ does come and tears parents from children and disrupts families very often. Your enemies will be from your own household. This contrary principle, in tension with the family principle, must not be forgotten.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 16, 2007)

To add another  to the discussion, perhaps another reason that mostly women and children are converting at this point in these cultures is that God is making foolish the wisdom of men through the weak things of the world? Is it a coincidence that Peter exhorts believing wives to win their unbelieving husbands by their godly conduct? Yet we find very little if any exhortation specifically toward husbands of unbelieving wives. Even Paul in 1 Cor 7 seems to have believing wives primarily in mind. Perhaps such a pattern of women and children first is a proper way to introduce the gospel into another culture, that through these "weak" people their gracious character exposes the pride of men and will eventually bring them to conversion as well. I'm not detracting at all from what has been said regarding criticizing methods and curriculum thus far, those are certainly important. Its just another possibility that God may be using in his providence in our current missions situation, to use these women and children to raise up another generation of godly men who will go forth and lead the church there.


----------



## Chris (Feb 16, 2007)

> Is it a coincidence that Peter exhorts believing wives to win their unbelieving husbands by their godly conduct? Yet we find very little if any exhortation specifically toward husbands of unbelieving wives.



Y'know, I've wondered before why wives were instructed in that regard, but husbands weren't. 

Food for thought, I suppose.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 18, 2007)

I do want to know, though: _Where_ are all the men? I'm talking the old-fashioned, build-a-soapbox-racer-with-your-boy, likes to swing an axe to split firewood, goes out hunting, red-blooded men who raise boys to be men. On a secular plane, these sorts of rites of passage for boys should never have been done away with. Stong men made strong families. Put that in a Christian setting and you should have a remarkably solid base for manhood. Even in a secular setting, would it not make a significant difference?

I know from what I see here, from what I've heard from Trevor and Rich and many others on this board that they do still exist, that not all of them have taken the metrosexual approach to life but I can't believe that the only men fit to train a boy for adulthood are to be found on the PB and in rural America.

I don't want to dumb this thread down, but I can't figure out where everyone has gone. Men HAVE been emasculated in such a way as to make them nearly unrecognizable to those of a generation or two before. Have you ever read a Popular Mechanics from the 1930's or 40's? They show you how to do stuff on the metal lathe you have in your garage (!). Or how to build a spot-welder out of junk. These days the most you can hope for is building an oh-so-stylish bookcase out of Norwegian pine. However, this necessitates the use of all 40 DeWalt power tools available on the market (those are now men's fashion accessories), without which you're just not going anywhere.

These points are more N America-based and may have little to do with evangelism abroad, but why the huge change? Surely man's role in other countries has evolved similarly - it can't be a North America phenomenon and does this not have something to do with the general state of the issue being discussed?

:rant off:


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Feb 19, 2007)

Pick it up if you want to read it. There is exactly a book that has already been out on the Topic. 

Why Men Hate Going to Church
By: David Murrow
Thomas Nelson / 2005

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?isbn=0785260382&event=AFF&p=1017002

I read it back when it came out, but gave it away to someone else. 
I recall most all of the content being how men have been emasculated, and cut out of the church. 

It covered things like architecture going away from solid stone and marble buildings, that would symbolize strength and longevity, to buildings that have curtains, and seats that match the floor, and carpet and flowers everywhere. There was, as some here have mentioned already, a section on music being "Jesus is my boyfriend," music. Sermons are relational, and the Christian faith is all relational, and the last things guys want talk about is how a “relationship” is going. How the pulpit is now a stage and on a stage you will find drama, and guys typically do not want to go watch a play. We want the fight, the warfare, the battle stats, the motivational "give'em everything ya got," speech. He even talks about how male pastors that grew up in a feminine church style, prefer it. they don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of other guys who will fuss and fight over wording, and doctrine all the time, they would rather have a bunch of women tell him how great he's doing, and how moved they were by his sermon. 

I maybe just a little off on the content, but not much. Just talked about with a friend, and now we are not sure if that is all in the book, or one or two points above may be from conversation that sprung up discussing the book.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 19, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> To add another  to the discussion, perhaps another reason that mostly women and children are converting at this point in these cultures is that God is making foolish the wisdom of men through the weak things of the world? Is it a coincidence that Peter exhorts believing wives to win their unbelieving husbands by their godly conduct? Yet we find very little if any exhortation specifically toward husbands of unbelieving wives. Even Paul in 1 Cor 7 seems to have believing wives primarily in mind. Perhaps such a pattern of women and children first is a proper way to introduce the gospel into another culture, that through these "weak" people their gracious character exposes the pride of men and will eventually bring them to conversion as well. I'm not detracting at all from what has been said regarding criticizing methods and curriculum thus far, those are certainly important. Its just another possibility that God may be using in his providence in our current missions situation, to use these women and children to raise up another generation of godly men who will go forth and lead the church there.


I think a distinction should be made between women and children converting or rather being more readily reached in extremely or even oppressively patriarchial (on the latter, I'd specifically mean Muslim ones) societies and the western increasingly matriarchal society.

The former seems a good example of the weak and foolish being used to shame the men. The latter would appear to be far more because of the feminization of the Church.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 19, 2007)

This is a great post and a very thought provoking one.

I would like to differ with the conclusion that today's uninvolvement by fathers with their kids is indicative of modern effeminate religion. _Where are the fathers? _They are where they always were...away from the home and with the guys.

I think fathers have ALWAYS been un-involved. They have always done their own thing and left the care fo the children to the mommies.

The life of the home (women and children) has always been far from the life of men in their little groups.




Also, in a closed culture, you cannot blame the missionaries from reaching anybody they can reach. Some portions of society do seem much more receptive.



And also...a more biblical faith IS a relational faith. A religion that fusses and fights all the time over small manners of doctrine IS sub-Christian. If agape love is feminine then a Christian MUST be feminized. 

Even a pagan that likes to argue can be a calvinist - it certainly gives him a mighty club to beat his opponents. That is why I usually steer clear of many apologetical-loving types, because often they seem to love propositions and besting someone with witty combacks then loving souls. But most people come to Christ, not because someone talked to him about presuppositionalism, but because he saw the effect of Christ's love in their lives, families or they were touced relationally due to a Christians love or prayers. Call that wimpy or girly if you like. Heart knoweldge is more vital than head knowledge despite what many on the PB would assert. 


The Great Depression style masculinity and stiff-upper-lippedness is no more Biblical than our relational touhcy feeling culture now. HOw many times did David and Paul weep and God is described as a nursing mother and a mother hen - very feminime symbols.


Of course, there is nothing feminime about being willing to go to the gallows for your faith. But to us Westerners rasied on John Wayne and Marlboro commercials, we want a Cowbody Christianity many times instead of The apostle John leaning on Jesus' breast.


----------



## Chris (Feb 19, 2007)

> they don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of other guys who will fuss and fight over wording, and doctrine all the time,



I wish some southern baptists would re-discover the beauty of fussing and fighting over wording and doctrine.....!!!!





As an aside....in one of CH Spurgeon's lectures, he referred to how being a young pastor would result in having to fight off temptation from ladies who were enthralled by....young pastors. 

Times have changed. Times have changed.


----------



## KMK (Feb 19, 2007)

It is interesting how passionate everyone is about this subject. I agree that it wouldn't be possible to express my frustration through a keypad. 

I am a refugee from Purpose Driven (seeker sensitive) and Methodism (lately effeminate even to the point of lesbian pastors)

Trevor says that it has always been that more women attended church than men. He knows more about history than I do but it was my understanding that the reformers, the puritans, the scotts, heugenots etc were not that way. Perhaps this is a misconception on my part.

Nevertheless, many of the churches around here are effeminate, with maudlin preachers and flowery worship leaders and 'love' being the central theme. By and large I don't think that stuff resonates with the male soul. It does not with mine. 

The situation at my church was so femine when I started preaching that I preached on male headship one Sunday and a man stormed out!

I was reminded recently how negligent I have been in not praying to the Lord of the Harvest to send men for discipleship! Jesus commands us to do so in John 4!

I think feminism is the root cause of so many ills in our society today: prohibition, public school, decline of the family. All for the reasons that you all are posting here on this thread.

BTW, I highly recommend a book (like any PBers have time to read books) called Family Man, Family Leader by Philip Lancaster. It is available through Vision Forum. It changed my life.


----------



## etexas (Apr 15, 2007)

As an Anglican this strikes a DEEP chord with me! As you know the Episcopal Church in the US (now known as TEC The Episcopal Church), is forgive me...emasculated. Homosexuals, women Priests and Bishops. It is hard being an orthodox Anglican today! We try to defend the Church with the Word of God, and they call us hate-mongers! No we do not hate, we love , it is because we love that we the Traditional Anglicans are trying to call back those going astray. It will take a move of God. People, Presbyterian friends, Baptist Friends, please pray for the continuing Traditional Anglicans. I do not want to hijack this thread, but I have had a couple of PB people who have asked About the state of Anglican affairs in North America. If there is enough interest let me know. Send a message. My final note is this the lovely Episcopal Cathedrals on Sundays are half empty, elderly women and sometimes grandchildren (on Holy Days), elderly gentlemen...a few. Young men and families....hardly any these days. The orthodox Anglican bodies have a good number and we are lucky! But it is a sad state overall. Pray. Grace and Peace. Again if there is ample interest I will start a seperate thread at some point.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 16, 2007)

You know, Max, that might not be a bad idea.

Moderators or administrators: What's the odds of having a denominational forum where those of us in our respective denoms can post info (not gossip!) about what's going on in our denominations ? I think this particular thread was very VERY productive (as it demonstrates that some of the same issues happen across the board despite any of our denominational distinctives).


----------



## Chris (Apr 16, 2007)

> I do not want to hijack this thread



Hijack away, brother. I think we'll find that the errors you see aren't very different than the errors I see.


----------

