Kay Bartel and her husband, Fred, went to church every Sunday after they married.
She joined church groups, organized church events and volunteered for church projects.
He put $5 in the offering plate.
“That was the extent of his religion,” said Rocky Hill resident Kay Bartel, a 70-year-old Protestant whose husband died in 2000. “He never did do anything else.”
Bartel and her husband reflect a persistent, nationwide difference in how women and men view the role of religion in their lives – a difference confirmed in a recent poll of Connecticut residents for The Courant. Thirty percent of women, including Kay Bartel, ranked their religious beliefs as “extremely” important in their lives compared with 22 percent of men in the telephone survey conducted last month by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut.
A significantly larger percentage of women than men also reported attending religious services at least once a week and praying every day, according to the poll, which included the responses of 225 men and 263 women. The margin of sampling error is 4.4 percentage points.
“It’s a nationwide phenomenon that women tend to be more spiritual than men,” said Monika McDermott, research director of the center.
This “religion gender gap” has baffled experts for decades.
WOW how amazing!! I mean should we be really be surprised that having totally feminised God’s Holy Church that it no longer appeals to men?
Consider it:
1. Seeing wet spineless men who fear conflict as ideal Bishop material
2. The heretical but widely accepted push to call God ‘she’ – whilst leaving Satan as ‘he’ of course!!
3. The ordination of women which threatens to turn holy orders into ‘mums hobby’ once the children leave home.
4. The touchy feely sixites hogwash which has replaced the gravitas and awe found in prayer book Mass and English Missal…
5. The widespread notion that all feminine qualities are Godly but that male ones are not. Hence our total refusal to talk of fear before God today, or of righteous anger etc
50 yrs ago men DID go to church and get involved. But then we persecuted anyone with strong convictions and only promoted the wet middle men …you reap where you sow my friends.
I suspect there’s a social component involved here — in most areas of life, women seem to be more “connected” than men.
If we were honest about it, I think we’d agree that most men don’t have time to be “connected.” Nor, frankly, do most wives want them connected beyond the life of the home.
I wish I could push back on rugbyplayingpriest a bit, but his comments, which are no doubt characteristicly in your face, resonate all to well. I am a priest in a three point rural Canadian Anglican parish, and the fact is women have complete dominance in our diocese. From the walls to the hangings my anchor parish looks like a giant frilly quilt. There is nothing masculine about the people in the pews or the environment. Two years in, I have actually had every initiative to “reach” men in our parish slapped down or subverted by the matriarch and her cronies. And it doesn’t help that most of the men in my area look at me on a Sunday morning and wonder why I am wearing a dress.
#1, I agree that the Episcopal Church has become pretty infiltrated by clueless feminism. That being said, I do think that the Christian religion has always appealed to women specially, even from the beginning. The irony is that feminists fail to see that Christian tenets actually provided a hugely better deal for women than the alternative, and striking down Christian moral fiber and rules in the name of “liberation†eviscerates the New Covenant that was so much better for both women and honorable men. I’ll explain here, but the point is that even orthodox Christianity has always had a special appeal for women.
Here’s my argument: The world of relativism and the law of the jungle is a man’s world. The ancient Roman empire was completely male-dominated, tolerated or even celebrated sexual deviancy and promiscuity, and treated women shabbily. The family suffered (and was a fundamental part of the unsustainability of the bloody Roman frat party). The strength of Christianity’s New Covenant included as a fundamental premise that sexuality must be honored for its procreative purpose, that promiscuity and bisexual straying should not be tolerated in the baths, military, and cults, and that it should be disciplined and trained to preserve the importance of the woman. That included a ban on homosexual acts as well as marriage with a woman as the only proper place for it. Christianity’s New Covenant also made clear the importance of personal responsibility and the reprehensibility of offensive/empire-building war (God’s peace being the noble goal). This was in the end a revolutionary as well as strong way of life inspired by God.
Feminists who try to shoot down Christian orthodoxy do so at the peril of their daughters, because in its place is the cocky nihilism of the unrestrained male who doesn’t care about marriage, the moral equivalency of “doing what feels right†and “finding who you are†that allows a guy who is dissatisfied with his marriage and aging wife to decide homosexuality his “truth†(Jim McGreavey, for example, but see also Larry Craig, Gene Robinson, and a whole host of others), and tolerating pure strength as the path to success.
Further, smart women traditionally would favor men who stood firm in their orthodox Christian faith, because women knew that the guy had a moral compass and was ready to mutually submit to the New Covenant. If young women no longer are taught to see the value of the orthodox Christian faith, they’re more likely to be attracted to all the other stuff they find attractive (but which is not sufficient for a long-term, wise marriage). Sexual liberation is a huge win for non-orthodox males, for obvious reasons.
This is also a fundamental reason why issues of sexuality are fundamental parts of orthodoxy. The Anglican debate is not just something cooked up by people who think gay sex is icky. It’s an important part of the deep structure of the Gospel.
Over-feminized Christianity like in modern TEC is also doomed to decay, as we have seen and will continue to see with TEC. They ain’t restraining the evil Male, because animal party Guy just won’t go to TEC. They’ve eviscerated the Christian New Covenant, though, and that is to the ultimate degradation of women (as well as responsible Christian men). Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it….
I wonder what it is about Orthodoxy that seems to confound this doubtlessly valid generalization? One of my colleagues went to Greece last year, and was shocked to see as many men as women, if not more men, in church. My understanding is that here in the US, men are much more prevalent in Orthodox churches than in the churches of other denominations.
Only slightly tongue-in-cheek: Part of the gender gap might also be an age gap…as you get older people in church, you’re going to see more women, just because those are the ones who are still alive!!!
As a youth minister, this is something I’ve been looking at for the past 8-9 months because I was trying to figure out how to get more boys in church… One of the things I’ve been dialogging with others about is the fact that in some ways the reasons for the age gap and the gender gap coincide. To speak in broad terms, youth are looking for something to die for, they understand that suffering and love go together, and they are willing to lay down their lives for their friends.
Now, Christianity should be a natural fit for them except that we’ve managed to, as Kenda Dean put in in [i]Practicing Passion[/i], sanitized the gospel of suffering. And thereby, in my opinion, cut it off from both reality and really, the core of the gospel.
Youth want something to die for, and they also only view something as true if you live it, get out there and actually do it, and I think that’s an attitude that tends to appeal more to men as well… One book on why men aren’t in church suggested that the church is not only aimed at women, but is aimed at about a 65 year-old-woman or so, and thus eliminates the appeal for both men and that missing 18-35 year-old gap.
One thing that is overlooked here is something no study will dare conclude: that most women do not like churchgoing men. It is a sign of weakness, and weakness does not appeal to women. I’m not sure why it is a sign of weakness – perhaps anytime a male shows submission to higher power (parents, whoever), it hurts him with women.
Anyway, boys figure this out really early on. Church will generally appeal to them only if it makes them cool among their peers. I wouldn’t doubt that this is why patriarchal Christian theology became popular – the boys have to show strength somehow.
You think that’s true, Sidney? That hasn’t been my experience. Maybe true in high school or something, but as girls mature into women, they’ll go for the stable, churchgoing man. Sure, if he is weak-kneed, that’s a minus, but it’s equally a minus if he’s weak-kneed and not a church guy.
My three best relationships, and ones in which my girlfriends were absolutely, 100% into me lock, stock, and barrel have been built around our common faith.
In my experience, there is a major age factor. For high school girls, stable values guy doesn’t get many bonus points. It is hard for high school guys to see the virtue in it, but you patiently grow in faith, and you will be richly rewarded about 5-10 years later. I ain’t saying that is a winning pitch for EYC-age guys, but that’s my experience.
*sigh* the church is so broken! If Jesus as warrior king coming to the cross to rescue all of humanity from captivity to sin isn’t a strong enough image for men to look up to, then I don’t know what will help draw them in.
I think in a way we’re still stuck in the leftovers of a bridal mysticism (among other things) that’s hung around actually since about 12th/13th centuries (Bernard of Clairvaux and such), and that whole Jesus came to rescue you and wants to be your lover, come be part of the bride of Christ thing doesn’t fly too well for most guys.
In terms of the whole guy/girl thing… there’s a whole other set of things going on with dating in high school that’s for a different post all together! But in short, the “hook-up” culture wouldn’t include very well a guy (or girl for that matter) who was grounded in faith and had moral standards that would preclude that sort of activity would be on the outs, so in a way, that could be what Sidney’s getting at, but I think perhaps there’s more going on then “women don’t like churchgoing men…”
#9,
My increasingly jaundiced perception of modern women is they are not seeking real men, but beta males who will bring home a paycheck and conform to their wives’ demands that they act more like women.
#9
Well, this continues to be my experience into my mid 30s. I have never dated anybody from parishes I’ve attended. Of course, I have observation bias: I don’t encounter many women my age in church, and there also may be a factor that women in ECUSA tend to be more liberal – maybe such women tend to prefer the bad boys. It does seem astounding, though, from women I do see in church, how many of them married men who never showed up before or after marriage. They just don’t seem to care about sharing this aspect of their life, which probably is liberal theology coming home to roost again. (I.e., if your people don’t think that their world view is unique, they’re not likely to think it’s important to share that culture with a spouse.)
When I worshiped in a non-denominational, evangelical church, it seemed to me that the men were very connected and active in the congregation. There was a clear emphasis in that church on spiritual formation, called “discipling,” for everyone, including men. I recall that the pastor would assign men he considered to be spiritually mature to befriend and help guide other men who were new to the faith.
I think this emphasis on formation might be one big component missing in a lot of mainline churches.
The basic truth is here. Contemporary Christianity is a woman’s religion because its emphasis is on lovelovelove, and this has become the warm fuzzy feeling that so many have remarked on. The priesthood has not altered this siliness on bit, and the RC emphasis on Mariolatry has made it worse.
Why would a man want to listen to a religion that peddles soft, weepy, emotional, sentimentality? Well, he wouldn’t, and there you have it. This is made worse by the number of Anglican priests who are remarkable for wishywashy handshakes, damp brows and oleaginous smiles.
The Puritans did not have this trouble, and the reason was clear: The religion was energetic, juridical, punishment-strong, and morally demanding. It was a religion of power, not of love.
If the Anglican’s intend to do anything about this, they are going to need a new breed of priest, one whose greatest strength is a vigorous intellectuality, and one who will loook at the Christian version of love and make it clear that this is a tough, hard love, dangerous, difficult, and risky, a religion with the mark of the sword and the scales of justice on it. In short, a necessity of viewing Jesus as the warrior-prince in a world where one must fight for the to get breathing space. This means less emphasis on the beatitudes and the soft, cloying femininity that has stuck to Christianity like dog hair to a black sweater.
(Incidentally, I never understood the raison s’etre of the beatitudes. They never made much sense. Why would the meek inherit the earth? What does this mean? And the poor in spirit? Why would they be rewarded with anything, for if one is poor in spirit, then they lack the wherewithal to believe in anything. I continue to wonder why the beatitudes are where they are and what Christ meant by them. They have created a picture of a Christian who is emotionally and spiritually emasculated.I cannot imagine a man who reads these and who is not utterly dismayed with what is apparently being said.) Larry
I might add this: Why should any man worry about the state of his soul and salvation when there is not a reason to do so? Is there a reason? What is it? Will lawn sleeves, an alter guild, incense, and the Eucharist pursuade him?
Men need evidence; this is the way they are. They need to touch the wound the spear made before they will believe. This is why they choose science for their beliefs and football for their enthusiasm. They are real. You can read the statistics. And they deal in knowledge, what you can see, feel, and measure. This is a man’s nature. It can be surpressed and crushed, as the gender feminists have done quite successfully, but this won’t make men religious, it will merely make them homosexual-like, and this has happened, hasn’t it?
Well, I will say it again, if you want men in the church, there must be a rapprochment between science and religion, and even as we speak, the demand for the readjustment is bearing down on us as science is making Christianity irrelevant, since science can do what it says and Christianity chatters, gossips, and goes to synods and conferences. The genes are being spliced even as I write and this will change mankind irrevocably; and Rowan Williams is going to chatter once again with the Americans chatterers in an America which has become a Tower of Babble. And will he reach for the sword, swing it powerfully and cut of a head that needs beheading? This would be the man’s way.
And one of the things we have all noted is that the vigor, the assertiveness, the willingness to risk and take chances, the willingness to engage in a fight and throw down the gauntlet – in short, the willingness to do the man’s thing – is coming from Africa. And this is why Africa will draw men and tEC will draw women and homosexuals. Larry
Now the discussion is getting silly. Both the alpha-male form and the beta-male form are compromises in evangelism that reflect a church that doesn’t know what to do anymore. Conversion — genuine conversion — is not a manipulation of masculine or feminine psychology. We’re desperate. We don’t know what we’re doing. And it shows.
Witness the recent statements coming from the leadership of TEC that the teaching of the atonement is nothing short of ‘divine child abuse’ and needs to be abandoned; that hell is a myth with no basis in modern theology; that sacrifice is not a valid concept; that there is no need for a savior because all ways lead to ‘the divine’; that we need to do away with the concept of Jesus as the Way because it is not inclusive enough; that Christianity needs to be neutered (my choice of word) because it is too violent; that hymns need to be re-written to remove any reference to imagry of war, battles, marching, blood, etc., because these take away from the image of Jesus as Lamb of God and we don’t want the Lion of Judah.
How is this NOT alienating the men of the parish?