Why Some men don’t “get into” worship

Thoughtful responses

(Responses are only published with permission of the writer and when Keith Drury thinks they add to the discussion)

From Sam Bills  samuelbills@hotmail.com 

The paradox of the man-isolating romantic motif in worship- make-out music as Steve Deneff calls it - is that for men it is self-inflicted.  Women like Fanny Crosby may have popularized some of the romantic clichés we use to describe a relationship with Jesus, but most of the romantic type songs (those with choruses you can sing in your girlfriends ear Sat. night and then to God Sunday morning) are being written by men.  Most of the songs on your list of “college-kid-hip” worship songs from your website, that fit with the romantic motif idea are written by men - Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin, Andy Park, etc.

 

Without calling them sissies and discrediting their manhood - I think what they are doing is very much a part of being human and even manly. Men have historically brought sexuality into worship.  (not to sound too Freudian)  take the Romantic poets of the 18th and 19th century whose worship poems about nature can also be read as love poems to your romantic interest - or another example are male sailors who talk about their ship as if it were a woman they were sleeping with (using the feminine pronoun - as in “she’s a good ship”).  Even patriotism has a romantic tone to it (think about the way we refer to our country in patriotic songs like “God Bless Americaie “Stand beside her, and guide her” just to name one) Because of Jesus’ unique revelation as a man - men cannot easily begin to call Jesus a she - but pragmatically this seems to be exactly the case.

 

These make-out worship songs seldom use the masculine pronoun “him” or “he” but use the more intimate and conveniently gender-neutral “you” They echo refrains like -and I, I’m desperate for you -You’re all I want, You’re all I ever needed -I’ll hang onto you I would venture to say that what men envision in singing and writing these songs is a gender neutral Jesus - making for them a connection between their sexuality - a desire that men are well acquainted with - and what it means to worship God.  Sexuality has for ages been the bridge for men to learn what it means to desire God - take John of the Cross’s “Dark Night of the Soul” for example - which contains passages so romantic they are choice for weddings.

 

What is troubling about all this - because ultimately I am agreeing with you and have had my own struggles with singing love songs to Jesus - is that it is rooted in bad or non-existent worship theology.  Why do we sing these songs in church anyway?  Most parishioners and sadly even worship leaders have no clue why singing songs is part of what we do in Christian worship (unless of course they have read your newest book :))  As Robert Webber has said, the “Crisis of Evangelical Worship” is the absence of a worship foundation rooted in a Trinitarian doctrine of God.  Worship that is not triune tends to use the name of Jesus as a “generic” name for God - removing Jesus from his revelation as a human and specifically as a male. You are keyed in to an important issue that not enough people are sensitive to.  Movements have tried to combat this idea, and make men comfortable in worshiping, with slogans like “Real men worship”(I think Promise Keepers used this one) - or by putting manly type men up front to lead the singing and show that singing to Jesus doesn’t mean you are gay. Interesting that the romantic motif songs you are talking about are being sung in mostly evangelical churches (ie churches that are predominantly anti-gay) and churches that have taken a pro-gay stand (eg certain diocese of the Episcopal church) are very conscious of gender issues in worship and tend to be very Triune in worship. You draw the implications out of that...

 

If we stop making Jesus out to be a woman in evangelical worship (and do away with the romantic motif), but continue to worship God in a way that is less than triune, we will simply switch the love metaphor.  We may opt for worshipping Jesus as a buddy - sing songs about going hunting or hiking with Jesus (no more of that schmoozy stuff), but switching metaphors will still not give us balanced worship of the Triune God.  It will just mean that women will be writing these articles and saying, “how can I relate to a Jesus that I have to go hunting with”.

 

  

 

Drury, John John.Drury@ptsem.edu

 

Sam: I just read your response today.  Wow!  that was so good ... noting that use of sexualized singing/poetry to everything men adore, not just God.  I might add the same imagery is used for the church itself -"her", "she", "mother", "married to the church". 

 

Your turn to the Trinity of God was a turn I would endorse, and found to be the most compelling aspect of your whole response.  Switching from sex to hunting won't do.  Which all goes to show that someone interested in leading worship is better off studying Religion/Philosophy than Music alone if they want to be a worship pastor worth their weight in communion wafers.  (I remember the time you got stuck in the middle of a prayer in chapel when you were afraid you might accidentally imply Modalist heresy in your prayer!) Anyway, your theological training is showing.

 

As for the different views on gays, I suspect our conservative denominations breath far more fire on the gay community of late precisely because we have no other sexual sin left to hate (except maybe premarital sex, though opposition to that is waning).  Remarriage after divorce is mainstream, masturbation is in (even for Dobson), complete bedroom freedom for married people (oral sex, etc.), the unquestioned teaching that sex IS for pleasure and not procreation.  Pretty much anything goes for us nowadays, EXCEPT homosexuality (as well as pederasty and bestiality).  So of course it gets all the heat.  And for now the mass homosexual community within evangelical churches will just stay in the closet because they like it more (b/c of the

worship????) and either genuinely desire to be transformed OR are simply waiting for us to come around.  Will we?

 

Peace,

John

Ps - for more on the intimate connection of Theology, Worship and Ethics, see Geoffrey Wainwright's tome "Doxology"

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

FROM; Josh Garlow JoshG@SkylineChurch.org

I just read your article on Men and worship.  Thanks for the insight.  I can relate to the awkwardness of singing love songs to another man. (It's like singing "I love you Bob") As a Worship leader to those from age 18 to 97+, you have given me an perspective that I believe will help. Your stats are right.  Guys are way harder to reach. 

            If I've had any success, It's because I try to lead like the football quarterback, not the president of a glee club. (No offense to the choir. I'm a choir guy, but that doesn't fly with the rest of the world). 

I've found that using songs that etc.  put the focus on the Majesty and Glory of our God. His Power. (such as "God of Wonders" "My Glorious" "The Wonderful Cross" "Prepare the Way.") This seems to work with the guys.  It puts us on His team fighting a battle, not on a dinner date. On the flip side, there is definitely a time and place for intimacy.  Singing of His love for us, and telling Him of our love is crucial. But, If the guys can first see it as a team thing, where they're fired up for Jesus, the head coach or star player,  then I think they will open up to seeing the power of Jesus in there lives on an intimate level. I could go on, but I won't. Thanks for the article. 

 

--Josh Garlow

 

 

 

FROM: SLinculver@aol.com

Keith,  Thought you were right on the money (for the most part).  At Chicago Christian H.S. we have tried to get the guys to participate more in the Chapels at any level.  Singing is very difficult.  We've addressed it directly, talking about raising hands, ways to worship, what is being a man (defined Christianly)...  I have tried to be a model, though I still cannot raise my hands without feeling like a duffus or a fake just trying to be a model.  I do not want to be a griping poo-poo artist (we have plenty of those).

 

We hired Chip Dykema a couple years ago, a former student of yours and still considers you one of two of the best teachers he has known.  At the time I was saddened and angry that we hired a nonreformed Chaplin, not because he had no God given ability and no heart for kids and the Lord, he does, without question.  I thought it violated our bylaws and our mission and was a move in a particular direction by deception instead of dealing with it openly and head on.  (You have also expressed concern for those Reformed Churches/Institutions that evolve into more Armininian ways without serious reflection).

 

Could it be that our discomfort with the songs and hand motions are legitimate in some way?  I have come to believe that guys like me are just insecure?  I have heard too many time to "get over it." Are services too prescriptive (raise your hands "this way or that way",  if you believe it you WILL DO ____________)   I grew up in doctrinally oriented churches, but the new trend is "doctrine of what you must do with your hands or else".  Who are the bigger Christian fascists?

 

I have always thought Jesus has become too female.  Though God the Father is obviously decribed at masculine (I guess there are Bibles that take care of that), he is without physical form.  It is Jesus that is God incarnate.  Jesus was all man biologically.  Yet he takes on the nurturing role (like Mom).  He talks about being reborn.  He weeps.  So when we sing about our love affair with Jesus, he become the female softening agent to God the Father.  That makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe I should just get over it?

 

This is mostly rambling, but hey its email.

 

Thanks,  Stu               Chicago Christian H.S.

 

 

FROM: Steven           (Last name and address withheld on request)

I am writing in response to your article on why many men resist "getting into" Worship.  I've long enjoyed your writings and typically find them informative, helpful and well thought out.  However, I found your article on men and worship to be an exception to your typically high standards.  Please understand that I do not write out of a desire to criticize for the sake of being critical alone and anything I say that comes across as critical I hope will be taken as constructive and not combative criticism for that is definitely the spirit in which it is written.

 

I do not presume to disagree with the basic premise of your article.  I do not debate the fact that many men have a problem "getting into" worship, rather I wish to question your closing thoughts in this particular article.  Frankly, I believe you have missed the mark on what the proper solution to this whole problem should be.  It is my opinion that if men have trouble entering into the worship services (and in particular the worship songs) the problem is not with the song lyrics but rather with the men themselves.  Men are notoriously insecure at expressing their feelings in our culture but the solution to that "problem" is not found in denying our insecurities; it is found in overcoming those insecurities and coming to the realization that expressions of love do not diminish our masculinity.  In this sense I believe you have avoided the real solution to this problem and settled on a lesser solution; a solution that not only denies the reality of the problem but falls only slightly short of "gay bashing."

 

As a former, self-identified, gay man myself I honestly found what you said and the implications of what you said about homosexual men to be somewhat offensive.  To suggest that songs of love to God would somehow "stir up homoerotic tendencies in these men" is a preposterous notion.  To categorically classify all gay males as if they were incapable of thinking of another male without it being sexual is simply not accurate or fair.  Gay men or no more attracted to every, or even most, men they see than heterosexual men would be attracted to every, or even most, women they see.  It is also inaccurate and unfair to say that "most gay males have...weird ideas about Jesus, John..." etc.  I have a brother that I love very deeply and my feelings of affection for him are very strong but they certainly are not erotic nor are my deep feelings of love for Jesus erotic in nature.  To suggest that singing our love to Jesus is fanning the flames of inappropriate sexual desire and is somehow easier for us because we are gay is lack of knowledge at best and highly offensive at worst.  Never have I equated any expressions of love for Christ with some kind of erotic love.  If other men are incapable of distinguishing between erotic and non-erotic forms of love then it proves my point; it is the men themselves that need help, not our song lyrics.  And if you are going to alter the song lyrics to make men more comfortable in worship instead of addressing the real problem then where do you intend to draw the line in this form of decision making?  Do we ordain openly gay ministers on the premise that we don't want gays to be uncomfortable in our worship services?  This "solution" you spell out in this instance seems so totally out of character for you that I'm left scratching my head and wondering whether you actually believe this or if this was some kind of knee-jerk reaction to gays in the news in recent days.

 

My last question for you is where did you get your research on how this kind of music affects gay men?  Certainly their may be a slim minority of gay males who eroticize everything male including Jesus and the disciples but to suggest that the majority do that is simply ignorance of reality.  Perhaps the majority (I do know that it is a very large number) of self-identified "gay" men are men who remain hidden away within the "closet" of the church because they have no intention of pursuing a homosexual lifestyle but find no comfort, meaning or direction from our churches that allow them to believe they are in fact just like other men and can heal from the broken thinking that has caused them to label themselves as gay in the first place.  Unfortunately the majority of churches, particularly holiness churches, are all too content to have those who struggle with same-sex attractions remain hidden away in the closet because they simply don't wish to face this issue or even attempt to help those who suffer this very painful brokenness.

 

Again, I hope this will be received in the spirit in which it was written.  Yes, because of my own background and having to struggle with the pain and anguish of being raised in church while struggling my whole life with same-sex attractions makes me particularly sensitive to any mention of the issue.  To any degree in which I've spoken too quickly because of my hypersensitivity to it I apologize.  Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts and questions and may God continue to richly bless your ministry in the years to come.

 

Sincerely,          Steven