David Murrow
ISBN 0-7852-6038-2, 2005
Read: 2006 September 25 over a few days
Reviewed: 2006 January 3
Jim Tyberg recommended this for his ÒSmoke and ChokeÓ get together, a semi-formal, semi-regular menÕs group where some of the attendees will occasionally indulge in a vice or two.
The observation among these men, all of who are or have been highly active in church, was that their wives thought this was all a silly idea and if men donÕt like church they should just get in and fix it. This kind of misunderstanding is one of the points addressed by the book and one of the good reasons why it was written.
Murrow quotes voluminous statistics that should be worrisome to institutional church leadership. The biggest demographic of people not interested in the church as we know it, are men under fifty. This is not true of religions in general. Muslims, for instance, have masculine roles for men and that faith is neither dying nor irrelevant to its practitioners. Meanwhile, back in Christendom, men with integrity just donÕt go and the ones who do are mainly the compliant, dominated types.
True, there is a sense in which this is stereotypical like saying that all cats are female or only women play the piano and the author acknowledges this. ItÕs also not true that there are no men or no young masculine men in churches today, but at the same time Murrow has several points to make, many of which resonate with me and other É shall we say, Òabout aged fiftyÓ men at church, including those in TybergÕs group.
One category is summed up by the claim on page six, referring to older men, ÒMany of these lifers come not because they desire to be transformed by Christ but because they enjoy participating in comforting rituals that have changed little since their childhood.Ó
Although I was raised to eschew such things (ÒtraditionÓ was a bad word in my upbringing) and would claim now that I do, I still fall into this ÒcomfortÓ category.
Also, there is the whole Òsitting stillÓ thing. Sociologists know well that there are different ways of learning and appropriate behavior and they donÕt all involve sitting still and being lectured for long periods of time. The centerpiece of Protestant worship, on the other hand, is just such an activity. It goes back generations. There used to be people walking up and down the aisles thumping people to keep them awake. This method of teaching, common outside the church too, confuses efficiency with effectiveness.
I donÕt say this lightly or with novice inexperience. My father was a preacher and always made his living leading these very churches and delivering those very sermons. A correspondence I had just this season with my first babysitter confirms my own status. She was to sit with me in church and keep me from being disruptive while dad was in the pulpit and mom was in the choir. She hid pieces of paper in the hymnbook for me to find to keep me occupied during the otherwise far-beyond-me activities of sit-still worship.
Indeed, from that moment to this IÕve had serious questions about the centrality of worship in the churchÕs role and the forms that we use: Singing certain approved things, reciting others, looking at our shoes or laps and talking to God (seems strange doesnÕt it?), giving, and listening to long lectures of highly variable quality.
Murrow asks us to look over the program of the church. How many things are feminine, relational, pleasant, being nice (Lucia festival comes to mind) and how many are masculine, conquering something, accomplishing something. Quoting from Gordon Dalbey on page 28, ÒThe current lack of male participation in our churches seems clear testimony that men will not be tamed by a program based exclusively upon feminine virtues.Ó Murrow continues, ÒMen will gladly be tamed by an organization with masculine spirit, however. The military, sports teams, and even street gangs have no problem attracting enthusiastic men. These organizations feel right to me. Church does not.Ó Did I mention the Muslims?
In addition, Murrow claims that the church needs masculine qualities to survive. We seem to be in a vicious cycle. Lack of real men doesnÕt attract real men but real men are needed.
Men donÕt like being controlled. A controlling, proper environment like church is not where men want to spend a lot of their time. Men fear failure. In many cases, a man teaching elementary aged Sunday School is a setup for failure. Indeed, many jobs in church are predefined and a typical male canÕt fit into them (Murrow classifies piano/organ as feminine, for example) but they are crammed in anyway, or quit.
He also talks about generation gaps, and such as the need for intermission in long, boring services. If we have to tame everything so that itÕs not upsetting to women or children, men will soon be at the shoot-em-up movies rather than in church.
My training is typical. Jesus is portrayed (see page 134) as always Ògentle, tender, and accepting.Ó Read the actual Bible, however, and youÕll see that, ÒHe was ill mannered: He walked into a dinner party and immediately began insulting His host. Truth is, the Jesus of Scripture is more General Patton than Mister Rogers.Ó
I have to admit, this book is where I first saw the idea that much of what we consider Christian today has nothing to do with Christ, it has everything to do with the standards of behavior from Queen Victoria. Ever since, I have been looking with this in mind and see Queen Victoria everywhere, from bowing in prayer (not Biblical but Victorian) to squelching disruptive outbursts.
Queen Victoria was, of course, a woman.
Then there is the imagery of love throughout the liturgy. Flying to JesusÕ bosom may well sound ideal to a woman who wants to be loved (but not touched) by the perfect man, but this sort of ideal is repulsive to men, at least straight ones.
He also talks about the sociology of men. They need spiritual brothers; they need bands of brothers, tight with causes.
I told Viann (my wife) that she canÕt complain anymore about these matters until she reads the book. Murrow acknowledges that some of what he says is stereotypical, perhaps for effect or connection, and that it would be easy for any given person, male or female to get hung up on some point that he makes and discard the rest in disgust. A serious reader should not do this, of course. He did significant searching before writing it and found little or nothing already written on this topic. MurrowÕs notions might well be seminal for rigorous, formal research. There are probably a half dozen PhD dissertations in here. Somebody alert Fuller Theological Seminary!