But that was then. Nowadays, given free choice, men gravitate toward whole-body religious participation, with shout-outs, hammering-sawing-nailing-painting teams, rocking in place while chanting (NOT analyzing) the scriptures or prayers, even just moving up and down at various points in the service. I recently attended Muslim evening prayers and it was as good as a short gym workout. Reminded me of the energizers at youth meetings.

We mainliners and former mainliners will never attract male participants into the buildings we now have. We need gyms, workrooms, game rooms — all kinds of resources for reinforcing faith kinesthetically. Mega-churches don’t just preach from the Bible, they also honor the need to play basketball together before talking about this week in one’s family life. Research on gender differences is clear that while most women bond by sharing feelings, most men bond by playing physically; that’s what gives them the trust to share feelings.

There is also increasing evidence that these patterns do not hold as strongly for homosexual men and women, much less trans, so I just want to be clear about that.

That said, I’m grateful to the men and women who do make the decision to lead and serve in this way. But I have to think it is a much tougher and less respected job than in the past, when you look at turnover rates and congregational conflict. We talk peace but don’t always live it.

Although my boys participated until end of coming of age programs were done, the church really doesn’t offer anything for older teens or young adults, and from their standpoint, they only go to church on Christmas or Auction, or service type project- they believe “it isn’t really needed” at this point in their life- it doesn’t have relevance to them. They do treasure the extended family and supportive relationships we formed through the church, but are cynical about the same things most people at their age are cynical about- folks who talk liberal religious values, but are intolerant of others; those who want lots of services from volunteers and staff, but are not willing to share the load or help fund the resources- such that they saw the struggles over the years that the church went through and the impact on their parents of the involvement we had. As adults, we made choices to put up with certain stuff because of the good we get out of it; they don’t see the trade-off. Their needs for community and dialogue are met in other ways. We would need much different programming and resources to keep them engaged.

So being a religious leader is not even on the horizon. That said, one guy friend of my high school son is conservative Jewish and went to Israel for the summer several years ago and his plan is to become a rabbi. His family went through some very difficult circumstances a few years ago (about at the same time) and I believe that their rabbi and youth group were very important to getting through it (dad was arrested for internet seduction of a minor- like the 20/20 stings on TV- family now divorced, tough situation for the mom and 2 sons to deal with). So he has seen the impact of religious community on his life and he wants to impact others. He wore a headcovering in a secular high school when no one else did- I really have a lot of respect for this kid in choosing a challenging path and standing up for his beliefs at 16-18.

In my profession when I started school in 1983. we were told that our class was record breaking for the percentage of women in it. (38%) Now routinely entering classes in my professionare predominantly women. Every time a female student says to me ‘that this is a great profession for a woman’ I cringe. My concern is that (and this is a hugely biased & I apologize) Men go in to professions that make money and when men start abandoning a particular profession the writing is on the wall for the earning potential of that profession. Its not only ministry but as our culture changes the professional cards are being reshuffled.

I asked the hubby, “Why do you think there are fewer men going into ministry, specifically UU and Reform Judaism?” His response was that, off the top of his head, he could think of two possibilities: the first being that when a field becomes open to people who were previously excluded from it, it’s not unusual to see them entering it at a higher rate than others. At least for a while. The second is that he thinks religion is just more interesting to women than men - and that when women did run the temples and mystery religions, they didn’t do it in the same way the men who took over the churches did. Men imposed a highly hierarchical and closed system, and now that it’s loosening up a bit, and power being distributed differently - we see women migrating back. And perhaps men just aren’t as attracted to that model.

I hope I accurately conveyed what he said; I used more words than he did.

I agree. In the article, it’s happening as early as Bar/Bat Mitzvah. The same is true of mainstream Protestant confiramtion and our UU Coming of Age programs, in my limited observation.

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.”

Perelman is actually a deliberate ironic twist on our Puritan ancestors’ Calvinist theology, in which only an undeserving few were among God’s elect, and the rest were predestined for a richly deserved eternity in hell. Everyone was “totally depraved”, and nobody could be sure of their eternal fate, and certainly nobody could do anything to earn their eventual reward. However, if you wanted a clue as to whom God might reward in the hereafter, there was the obvious evidence of who already enjoyed God’s gifts in the present. In the practical if not doctrinal Puritan mindset, if you wanted to know what God thought of people, you would just look at whom he gave money and other privileges to.

Let those attitudes marinate for 200 years, take away the Calvinist preoccupation with predestination an innate human unworthiness, add a pinch of Emerson and his fascination with the Vedas, and — presto! — out pop the 19th century Boston Brahmins and their Unitarian theology of “salvation by character”.

If one were to say

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he DIDN’T give it to”

that would be awfully offensive. I think it’s pretty offensive Pearlman’s way, too.

CC
who has a basic objection to the entire “it’s God’s fault/decision who has lots of stuff and who does not” line of thinking.

PB, apropos of the discussion of the wealthy that went on here recently, I tripped over this remark of S.J. Perelman’s;

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.”

My recollection was that there was great student enthusiasm about Hicks wen his name came up–and that those engaged in the conversation were (all or overwhelmingly) female.

There’s certainly an “old guard” element in the faculty–mostly older men who were ministers. That may be a glass ceiling… or it may be a feature of the age distribution of the male/female demographics. The new provost (who is teaching, at least some…) is female.

But the male professors aren’t the draw. Heck, I didn’t decide to go to M/L because of certain professors. I went because it was UU–which I wanted…–and because it had the only program (UU or not) that I could find that would work for me. But given that a strong majority of the faculty are male there, and there’s a growing number of female seminarians there… I don’t think that’s the issue.

I think we’re looking too far into the process. It’s not that there is male interest that gets as far as seminary (or even, I think… looking at seminary) and turns away. There’s something happening earlier. I think.

So what would it take to keep men without keeping the inequality that has been our tradition? I note that M/L has just hired four more male ministers onto their faculty. Will that bring back the men? What will that do for the female students in the majority now?