PeaceBang

14 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Although the article examines Reform Jewish congregations, what it reports is a sociological trend that is broader than Judaism. The same thing is happening in many other faith communities, and the resulting potential for communal and spiritual impoverishment is similar, too.

   Although I like to think of myself as a reasonably open-minded and not-terribly-testosterone-poisoned guy, I nevertheless feel compelled to witness that men in community need to feel valued for their masculinity, not for their success in repressing it. The feminization of faith has closed many of the customary outlets for that, but without opening up any new ones — which I think is one of the points of the article. Despite the best of intentions, female religious leaders praising women for their toughness and men for their flower arranging will not draw many disengaged men back into the pews. [Good point, Faust. Of course my post wasn’t meant to draw anybody back into the pews, but to say taht the men in my congregation are leaders in ways beyond the traditional ways. As are the women. And that’s how I think it works best. - PB]

   Just a few weeks ago, I heard a female UU pastor, of whom I am otherwise quite fond, preach a Father’s Day sermon affirming the value and difficulty of good fatherhood as gender roles evolve, but dismissing the validity of the traditional image of “God the Father” because so many human fathers in practice fell so far short of the abstract divine ideal. I appreciate the good will it required even to tackle the topic of Father’s Day, but what liberal priest, minister or rabbi these days would dare speak similarly against divine motherly images or failed human mothers on Mother’s Day!? [Well, given that our culture isn’t steeped in images of the Divine Mother and our Bible doesn’t much include Mother-God per se, there wouldn’t be much point, as most people haven’t internalized a feminine God concept. As far as preaching on failed mothers, I’ve done so several times and know a good number of colleagues who also do on Mother’s Day. Just off the top of my head, I know colleagues who preached this year on “the good-enough mother,” on forgiving mothers for not living up to romanticized ideals of motherhood, etc. My favorite Mother’s Day sermon was called “Disney’s Missing Mothers–” on the dead mother archetype in Disney. -PB]

   Comment by fausto — June 23, 2008 #

2. I’m trying to understand what it is that so many men feel they’ve lost - apart from the seat at the head of the table?

   Comment by h sofia — June 23, 2008 #

3. Good question, hafidha. But I have to note that it’s not that simple. My own class cohort in seminary is obviously mostly female. So are the previous couple years. There’s something going on that’s led to fewer males seriously considering seminary, young and older. Damned if I know what it is–but for UUs, I really, really don’t think that it’s that we don’t get to be the implicit vessel of God The Father. Heck, there are now a couple generations of UU men who grew up UU and didn’t grow up with that idea (as if that’s what those in the generation of the merger did…).

   But to be honest, it’s a concern I have. Not because I’m unhappy with all the women in ministry (the search committee I was part of unanimously found and recommended a woman as our first choice… and when she turned us down, again found and unanimously recommended a woman who is doing a superb job now). But it being one of the roles (as with almost all…) that shouldn’t have any gender-related bias… the fact that we’re not hitting balance is troubling.

   It’s troubling because it means that for some reason many young men and older men aren’t seeing it as a calling for them–which is a loss for all of us.

   It’s troubling because the feminization of careers has not, in the past, been beneficial for women. Equity is, but if women take over… the cultural history is that the career is socially then devalued and then backwatered economically, too. Bad for women, and for whatever men remain in the career, too.

   I’m not the only one. I’ve a male mentor who very warily told me that he was encouraging me as much as he is because of his own concern on the very same issue–and because he doesn’t know how it can be articulated without being seen or understood as anti-women ministry. He’s enthusiastically encouraging men into ministry because he feels that the trend we have towards a mostly female clergy is bad for the movement, the clergy and for women and men.

   But it’s a topic that’s well worth thinking on. We don’t seem to attract men to church as well as we attract women. Now we don’t attract men into ministry as well either.

   We ignore the underlying cause(s) — whatever they are — at our peril, I think. And suggesting that men, particularly younger men, who really didn’t grow up in a society where they think they get to sit at the dead of the table and play at boss… aren’t into ministry because that’s gone… is just off the mark. No offense, Hafidha; I understand you were just pondering “aloud.”

   fausto, I think you’ve touched something. Our (female) minister preached about fathers… and had to work through the whole complex of problematic fathers and not this father, but…. But as a side note, she observed that the cultural image of the father — look a the media now — tends to the buffoon and the incompetent. Heck, that’s true in advertisements, too, frequently.

   Insofar as ministers may be seen as in some manner being a parent… who wants to take up a role that’s expected to be the beloved, but at best bumbling idiot?

   As the father of teen boys, I struggle with the question of what their models (other than me, the poor kids) are. Certainly not the cultural alpha males (they’ve heard me enough about enough of the politicians and celebrities and… to have a jaundiced eye for them). But what’s the perceived role and place for young men — and men in general? I look around in our community and see strong women affirmed and held up as models for young women and girls. But the men? Other than acknowledgements of some pillars of the church who are in their 70s and 80s and are there all the time doing whatever needs doing… and that’s not a model for youth looking at life and careers in young adulthood. For what they can be 60 years from now, perhaps. But there’s a lack….

   Maybe there’s a link there.

   Comment by ogre — June 23, 2008 #

4. Is there a lack of women in masculine churches?

   (My impression is that there isn’t.)

   If not, why does this only work one way?

   CC
   who assumes the answer is “for the same reason you read Treasure Island as a kid while your male classmates wouldn’t read Little Women, and all black kids read lots of white authors but white kids only read Toni Morrison when their English teachers make them.”

   (On the whole. I’m sure everyone else here was a very enlightened child.)

   But wanted to throw that out there.

   Comment by Chalicechick — June 23, 2008 #

5. I would like to point out that long before women came into ministry most of the people in the pews in UU and Mainline churches were women. The Religious Right gets a higher percentage of men. So for a long time “the church” (I don’t know about synagogues.) has been seen as something for women headed by men. Since the 80’s leadership has shifted to be more reflective of the people in the pews, but men are still over represented in leadership as compared to their numbers in the church. Still, there is some kind of “tipping point” where male flight can be like “white flight” in a neighborhood. Neither is what we want, but I doubt it has much to do with “light weight sermons”. I have heard plenty of baseball sermons. In UUism, I find far more good women preachers, people who have both intellectual depth and relevance to life.

   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?

   Comment by KJR — June 23, 2008 #

6. KJR… four? Damn, I’m not keeping up. I’m only aware of one (Hicks). The others may just be the formalization of what was already in place there last year.

   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.

   Comment by ogre — June 23, 2008 #

7. Totally off topic:

   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.”

   Comment by ogre — June 23, 2008 #

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

   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.

   Comment by Chalicechick — June 24, 2008 #

9. 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 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”.

   Comment by fausto — June 24, 2008 #

10. C’mon, little dawgies, stay on topic here!

    Comment by PeaceBang — June 24, 2008 #

11. Ogre, good points as usual. I appreciate your thoughtful response to a genuine question. In particular, I liked your concern about financial compensation (economic value) accorded to ministry if/when it becomes a “feminized” field. Certainly that has happened many times in our nation’s short history (at least, according to Gloria Steinem and Riane Eisler). And that’s a problem.

    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.

    Comment by h sofia — June 24, 2008 #

12. good point ogre.

    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.

    Comment by Juana la loca — June 24, 2008 #

13. If you think about “leadership” models of the past (captain of the ship, military hierarchy) and today (flatter organizations, pushing decisionmaking down, everyone wants a voice), some men would be attracted to the “new model” and others to the old. If you aren’t attracted to the “shared leadership” model which is what many congregations want, why would you put yourself in a role where you are criticized, overworked, underpaid…. There are a lot of other careers out there with the ability to lead the way you want to… BEing a minister can be a tough, tough job.

    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.

    Comment by cincinnati mom — June 24, 2008 #

14. So far as I can tell, the one thing that got large numbers of significant numbers of men into any kind of sit-still-and-listen worship format was legal enforcement. Remember Servetus and his losing gamble that he would be safest going to church? He reasons that in Calvin’s Geneva any non-church-goer was easily visible — although, alas, he was visible in the congregation as well.

    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.

    Comment by Elz — June 25, 2008 #

Leave a comment