My thoughts:
1. This is not a well written book. I did not enjoy reading it and would not recommend it to someone else. If you gave up and didn't finish you didn't miss much---most of the book is just a rephrasing of his thesis presented in the first few pages.
2. My stake president encouraged the YM leadership in the stake to read this book. While the book is focused neither on mormons nor on the youth I think the idea has interesting applications there. Across the church there has recently been plenty of concern about the number of YM that go on missions...most of those who do not serve lose interest in the church as young men. Many of the traits Murrow identifies which drive men from the church seem from my experience to be accentuated during adolescence.
3. One recurring question in my mind as I read the book: how much should the church change to increase membership/attendance? Just because men do not attend does not mean the church should necessarily change. The church could give away money and get lots of people to attend but that obviously would not accomplish its mission. Are there things the LDS church could change to improve male interest without compromising its theology/mission? I think that's a relevant question.
4. Does the LDS church do a better job at this than the other Christian churches that are the subject of the book? Yes. Some things that came to mind as I read:
a. Lay clergy - Murrow points out that men lack respect for pastors who do not have real jobs or families. Men are more likely to view paid clergy as inauthentic or hypocrites.
b. "The great genius of this church is work" (Pres. Hinckley) - Is this not a theme often repeated in the book? The LDS church requires more of its members than most and as Murrow points out this may appeal more to men (action instead of just talk).
c. Family focus - In most congregations a woman attending without her husband is certainly less well off and happy, but for her eternal salvation it may make little difference. The eternal family in the LDS church has a very different set of incentives. This may make men feel they have greater responsibility and may also force church to become an event for families (and therefore both genders) rather than individuals
d. Priesthood - The LDS belief that individual men may have not just the power to "talk" about salvation but to act in God's name certainly lines up with some of Murrow's ideas.
e. Emphasis on works - Salvation in many churches is really about talking and feeling. Men are more interested in acts.
5. Has the LDS church also become more "feminized"? Are there changes we could make to be more inviting/interesting to men? I know this kind of question can be controversial or cause offense---certainly none is intended:
a. Dress and grooming - The dress code in the LDS church has changed over time. Formal dress is certainly a female preference (how many men want to get dressed up?). Are some men put off by this? I think so. Is it theology or tradition? I'm sure others may disagree but I don't see it as strongly theological. I worry it has become stressed too much in the church today.
b. Length/Number of meetings - Often lots of talk, not as much action. Are there more meetings today in the church than decades past? Yes. Are there reasons to have more? Maybe?
c. Education - This is a tough one for me because I so highly value education. But do less-educated men feel as welcome in the church today as in the past? I'm not sure. The active LDS members have become very well educated...that's a good thing...but if I were less educated I would feel intimidated in an LDS congregation.
6. Should I be more optimistic about inviting other men to attend church? I know plenty who are skeptical of religion...but maybe they have had very different experiences? Maybe I underestimate how attractive the LDS church is (obviously in a social sense) relative to other denominations?
All I have time for now. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Dudes and church--I’ve thought about this recently:
Let’s compare the priesthood session of conference to the relief society session. One of the messages we get at priesthood is that you need to do better--to a lot of people this translates to ‘you need to be harder on yourself.’ Relief society on the other hand, we often here the message ‘you're okay, don’t be so hard on yourself’ I guess what I’m trying to say is that our culture assumes that men and women are different. Assumes that men are tough and will respond better to reprimands than validation. . . just thinkin’ aloud.
I should throw in the caveat that I didn't read the book.
I think that a typical "worldly" non-member would be amazed that LDS guys could wonder if the church is becoming to feminine and not masculine enough. The leaders of the church are all males, at a general and local level. The scriptures are all written by males and are mostly stories about males. Of all christian denominations, mormons must be one of the most masculine, right? I think if we started polling women in the church with feminist tendencies we'd hear an earful about things in the church that are distinctly masculine, that we as guys probably wouldn't even notice. Like the sacrament meeting satire written by the BYU professor where the wormen are in charge and the men are in subordinate roles.
Ryan - given all that why are there so many more active LDS women than men? That is more the question here.
hmmm...
an invitation to speculate is not to be turned down! well, maybe it's because there are lot of men that are not social because they play video games and remain "man-boys" too long? Aren't men in our society less likely to form social networks in general, go to college, stay of drugs and crime, etc? I guess men have greater variability. This is true academically where they show a broader distribution of test scores. Men disproportionately fill our jails, too, as well as prestigious academic positions. Don't women have a tendency to be more gregarious and men are more likely to be nomads and loners? I don't know I'm just throwing out thoughts. Maybe men lag behind women in church attendance because maybe they are more likely to allow their doubts or misgivings about religion or churches to stop them from going to church? Maybe women are more likely to seek social connections from church, and men are more oriented towards "finding the right answer"? For example, women like to go to church to connect with other. They like to hear others talk about problems that are similar to theirs, and to be strengthened by those contacts.
As a man, I think this is really important for me to do. I'd like to do this kind of thing more. Sometime in the middle of my Boston years I realized that friendships are really important. We had some very close friends, both in and outside of the church. Moving to Illinois was painful because we were separated from our friends. I went to church in my new ward seeking people who could be close friends. The ward was full of young PhD students. I could tell that most of the men in the ward weren't actively looking for deep friendships with other men, which isn't too surprising I guess. I was still feeling lonely so I started inviting guys who seemed interesting to lunch. And I got some friends; they tended to be post-PhD, like me. Now I'm pretty good friends with one, and we see each other about every week. I like him because he's single, which means that he's not super busy with a family, he has time to come over on the weekends and get together at lunch, and he really appreciates the friendship. When we talk we tend to focus on intellectual things that interest us both.
So I guess I'm in favor of men like me becoming more "feminine" rather than more "masculine", and of men developing close friendships at church. Maybe that would be my answer to Jesse's question about improving church attendence for men: help men realize the importance of friendship.
I didn't read the book, so I think I'll stick to writing a comment. But it's been a very thought provoking discussion so far.
I think the comment I'm in most agreement with is Paul's that, most of the time, I have much more spiritual experiences with the Elder's Quorum oustide of church. When I do have spiritual experiences in church, they are typically in the first hour, or when I'm teaching.
Back to something in Jesse's original post, I was looking through the Pew Forum's religious demographics, and I was actually suprised to find that, according to their statistics, Mormons aren't significantly better educated than people of other faiths.
This got me thinking, the congregations I've been a part of outside of Utah have all been fairly well-educated. The congregations inside of Utah (except for at BYU, of course), have been less so. Is there a Utah/non-Utah divide?
Post a Comment