Why Men Hate Going to Church

[TonyDanza]

Not speaking for men in general, but for me personally. My dislike is audience participation. I don't want to stand up and be recognized because it's my birthday, I'm visiting, it's Father's Day, my turn to lead prayer, or whatever. I sometimes wish we had one of those Mega Churches in our area where one could just blend in with the crowd.

 

 

You should try Six Flags over Jesus..here in Louisville.

[Alabama Larry]

Raised in Alabama my Grandfather was a Baptist Preacher so every Sunday, night, & Wednesday I was in church. I know no other way, but as an adult I can make a choice and I'd feel so weird on Sunday morning not going to church. In my job I had to be away from home for 4 weeks twice and on Sundays I went to church in Atlanta and Cumberland Maryland.

[scooterbob]

Let me throw out an idea that may be controversial. Many see church services as often emotional events rather than logical events. For example, I see a strong parallel between revivals and pep rallies. Everyone gets fired up but the fervor wears off in a day or two. Women tend to be more emotional than men. Therefore, could it be that women are more attracted to church services because of the emotional factor whereas men are sometimes turned off by it?

 

I think that most areas have a church or two that the youth refer to as "Six Flags" as mentioned above by Tony Danza. We certainly have one in this area.

[spindoc]

Let me throw out an idea that may be controversial. Many see church services as often emotional events rather than logical events. For example, I see a strong parallel between revivals and pep rallies. Everyone gets fired up but the fervor wears off in a day or two. Women tend to be more emotional than men. Therefore, could it be that women are more attracted to church services because of the emotional factor whereas men are sometimes turned off by it?

 

I think that most areas have a church or two that the youth refer to as "Six Flags" as mentioned above by Tony Danza. We certainly have one in this area.

Personally, I like being taught. I like studies, where points are brought out and related with scripture to other scripture references. I'd love to be able to say that I understand fully everything I read, but admit that sometimes I get caught up in "finishing a chapter" or something to that effect and fail to truly grasp what I've read from time to time. When we have a sermon that brings out points that I have not fully understood or possibly not discerned the way that the speaker has,,well I enjoy that. Almost like a lecture format. When I am in tune with the Spirit and the speaker, I don't pay attention to time. However, I can say that I've felt just the opposite. I doubt that anyone who's honest with themselves and has gone to Church for any length of time hasn't felt the same. So, what I think is that there is a happy medium. If we are to be about our Father's business, which should include obviously getting folks in the Church to hear the message, I believe that we should be timely and orderly. Not for my benefit, but for the edification of the lost person, so that they will return assuming that they have not made a decision/choice about Christ. This is not to say that once they do that the order of the service doesn't matter, only that it is IMO that we can typically have orderly and timely services for the most part that are palatable for sinners and enough to feed the sheep.

 

Goodness, after rereading this,,,,talking about verbose!

[titletownclown]

Let me throw out an idea that may be controversial. Many see church services as often emotional events rather than logical events. For example, I see a strong parallel between revivals and pep rallies. Everyone gets fired up but the fervor wears off in a day or two. Women tend to be more emotional than men. Therefore, could it be that women are more attracted to church services because of the emotional factor whereas men are sometimes turned off by it?

 

I think that most areas have a church or two that the youth refer to as "Six Flags" as mentioned above by Tony Danza. We certainly have one in this area.

 

I believe there is a lot of truth in what you say.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Personally, I like being taught. I like studies, where points are brought out and related with scripture to other scripture references. I'd love to be able to say that I understand fully everything I read, but admit that sometimes I get caught up in "finishing a chapter" or something to that effect and fail to truly grasp what I've read from time to time. When we have a sermon that brings out points that I have not fully understood or possibly not discerned the way that the speaker has,,well I enjoy that. Almost like a lecture format. When I am in tune with the Spirit and the speaker, I don't pay attention to time. However, I can say that I've felt just the opposite. I doubt that anyone who's honest with themselves and has gone to Church for any length of time hasn't felt the same. So, what I think is that there is a happy medium. If we are to be about our Father's business, which should include obviously getting folks in the Church to hear the message, I believe that we should be timely and orderly. Not for my benefit, but for the edification of the lost person, so that they will return assuming that they have not made a decision/choice about Christ. This is not to say that once they do that the order of the service doesn't matter, only that it is IMO that we can typically have orderly and timely services for the most part that are palatable for sinners and enough to feed the sheep.

 

Goodness, after rereading this,,,,talking about verbose!

You and I are similar in this regard but the author of the book would say we are the exception to the rule.

 

In education it is pretty much known that a long lecture is the least effective way to teach. And yet, what is the most common method of instruction in churches.

 

Reading and listening to a lecture is not an effective way to teach men, especially unchurched men. Men that are there for one of their first times.

 

Now spiritually mature men, might be a different story.

[spindoc]

You and I are similar in this regard but the author of the book would say we are the exception to the rule.

 

In education it is pretty much known that a long lecture is the least effective way to teach. And yet, what is the most common method of instruction in churches.

 

Reading and listening to a lecture is not an effective way to teach men, especially unchurched men. Men that are there for one of their first times.

 

Now spiritually mature men, might be a different story.

Well, I agree, however, the lecture need not last for an hour. We have currently been in a study of cults and the occult on Wednesdays and frankly, not one message has lasted longer than 30 minutes. It would be my preference if he'd continue and just keep going, but I understand why it is the length it is. So, I don't get the impression that anyone thinks it's too long. On the other hand, I have been in some that were longer and could see the typical restlessness that ensues. So, again, I think that there is a happy medium. I suppose the format is what I enjoy.

[HHSDad]

Personally, I like being taught.

This just made me think of something and I was wondering if other men felt the same way. Have 10 guys each talk five minutes to me and I can usually pick out the preacher in the bunch. They must teach them that melodramatic sing-song manner of speaking. I think its supposed to be their compassionate, emotional voice. Drives me crazy. Their sermons are just like that.

 

Now my question. If you are going to attend church every Sunday, which would you rather listen to, The Apologist or The Evangelist?

 

For me, its The Apologist.

[ladiesbballcoach]

This just made me think of something and I was wondering if other men felt the same way. Have 10 guys each talk five minutes to me and I can usually pick out the preacher in the bunch. They must teach them that melodramatic sing-song manner of speaking. I think its supposed to be their compassionate, emotional voice. Drives me crazy. Their sermons are just like that.

 

Now my question. If you are going to attend church every Sunday, which would you rather listen to, The Apologist or The Evangelist?

 

For me, its The Apologist.

The author mentions this too. These type of preachers men take it more of them putting on a show than that what they are saying is heartfelt. The chapter speaking directly to pastors mentions using things from their lives helps men identify with the message.

 

They want to know that the pastor knows and understands where they are in their life.

 

And when you are doing all of the other things, men take it more as you entertaining and worried about putting on a show and it loses it's effectiveness.

 

That is NOT to say that the preacher doing this is not truly meaning his message or sincere but that the way it is taken is that it is more about the show than the message.

 

I am telling you guys, very interesting book and I recommend it highly. Right up there with "12 Ordinary Men" to me.

[spindoc]

This just made me think of something and I was wondering if other men felt the same way. Have 10 guys each talk five minutes to me and I can usually pick out the preacher in the bunch. They must teach them that melodramatic sing-song manner of speaking. I think its supposed to be their compassionate, emotional voice. Drives me crazy. Their sermons are just like that.

 

Now my question. If you are going to attend church every Sunday, which would you rather listen to, The Apologist or The Evangelist?

 

For me, its The Apologist.

Well, I suppose in generalities, it's difficult to not to stereotype. I can say that I have enjoyed both at times. However, I can also recall some that their "style" made it difficult to "hear" the message. So I suppose I would prefer a combination if that is possible. Boy, is that clear as mud? But I can say that most outside of the bible belt may have difficulty in relating to what we in the bible belt have become accustomed to.

[5wide]

I think the problem with some sermons, just like so many other orations, is twofold. First, the speaker thinks that quantity equals quality. Instead of making his point clearly and moving on, they beat the subject to death. The other problem, moreso with sermons than other speeches, is that preachers feel that they have a timeslot to fill. Whether the subject demands it or not, they are going to speak for 40 minutes so that they get out at 11:50; before the Methodists, but after the Presbyterians. Gotta make sure you get your table at Frisches.

 

I agree with both points here 1) some preachers feel like the longer they preach the better, and 2) some feel like they have to preach to a set time.

 

I disagree with both mindsets. I don't feel like a preacher should just ramble on for the sake of having a long sermon and I don't feel like a preacher should lock himself in to preaching until 11:25 AM.

 

I'm not against longer sermons at all. In fact, if the preacher is lead by the Spirit to deliver a longer message then I think he should. I don't necessarily think it should be a weekly occurrence to preach for a long time, but there are times when he might feel called to do so. On the flipside, if he can deliver the message in 15 minutes then he should do that too. So what if it doesn't last until the normal closing time. That's just my take on it. In a nutshell, I think a sermon in the 30 minute range is probably ideal. So, if I were a preacher, I'd shoot for that time range on average, but if the message I felt called to give was shorter or longer, then it would be just that.

[5wide]

I grew up Old Regular Baptist and those were the worst services to sit through.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree. The preaching style isn't conducive to learning, IMO. At least at the one I attended. For a child, which is what I was, I could hardly make out anything they were saying once they got going, so I was basically getting nothing out of it. I think it's very important for children to be able to understand some of what they're saying. Where I went, if you didn't know the Bible well, it was hard to follow along or get anything out of it. I know that because I've gone back on occasion and it makes much more sense now. I think churches should really make sure they have things geared toward children and teenagers to keep them interested and help them learn. They are the future and that should be a priority.

[HHSDad]

I grew up Old Regular Baptist and those were the worst services to sit through.

I grew up Southern Baptist. While I was in the Marines, I started attending a Free-Will Baptist church in North Carolina. Every week was fire and brimstone and how we're all on the road to hell. Within a month's time, I was done. What man wants to be beaten down week after week?

[scooterbob]

Excellent observations by Oldbird and HHSDad. I believe that many of us bear the mental scars from those highly negative experiences. I believe that there are many church services which result in more people being driven away from than brought into the Church. I would also think that the networks run by Marcus Lamb and David Cerullo, with their constant begging for money and their "the more you send us the more you will be 'blessed'" theology, do the same.

[Alabama Larry]

Scooter, this is not meant for you, but this worked for me. I bought a Bible that had a footnotes to help explain scripture. Also I got Bible study books and other material. I broke down the New testament. Then I started to listen to different Preachers on the radio, if I heard something I didn't want to hear or the format I changed the channel. I called different Preachers and asked for sermon tapes. The church is there so we can worship God with other believers, to gain an deeper understanding, listen and participate with music, develop friendships, the church does save you, Jesus Christ through him is your passage way to Heaven. You don't need church to Love Jesus, but it helps. And finally were are told to attend a church in scripture.