Actually, after I receive payment from Amazon for reselling the copy I purchased, my total out of pocket expense will be about 1/2 that. Reading your comments on the book has actually been more valuable than reading the book itself. I understand that it was the author's first book, and I did enjoy the end (for multiple reasons), but when I finished reading it I wanted to write my own book: Why Men Hate Reading Books about Why Men Hate Going to Church. The premise will be stated on the first page, but I will spend a few chapters quoting some people and rehashing my beginning statements.
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
Showing posts with label Why Men Hate Going to Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why Men Hate Going to Church. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Books Past, Present and Future
Greetings from IL. I'm currently visiting my parents in the Land of Lincoln. Ryan, if you want to get together for lunch on Monday. I'll be driving through Champaign on my way back to MD, though you may want to read this post before you decide if you're busy or not. I've been very intrigued by the comments here, and I've been wanting to post for a while. It's funny how hard it can be to find time for something when you're on vacation.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I finally got the
On a tangential note, I was called to the Young Men's Organization about a year ago, and I was very surprised because I didn't think they called people with my personality type to Young Men's. It's typically the more popular, manly men. For example, we had an activity this year where we built potato cannons. The majority of the YM's leaders and youth were very excited about this activity. It's very manly/cool to shoot things, start them on fire, etc. However, I was not at all interested in such things as a youth, and I have not acquired these tastes as I've grown older. I guess, according to this book, I've become too "feminized" for the YM's program. Now, I realize there is still a way for me to be helpful in YM, as not every youth is into guns, archery, and fire, but we are certainly not in the majority.
Books future:I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Virtues and Vices and Understanding the Difference
First off the recent Pew Center survey of religious feeling, particularly the gender demographics details, seem to be somewhat relevant. Looking at the data, what we see about a 45/55 male/female split in affiliation with Christian religions and the opposite in non-Christian religions (eg Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism). We also see dramatically more men than women identifying as atheist (70/30) or agnostic (64/36). Also, if you look at more of the Pew data, there is a definite correlation between religions with high male representation and less frequent church attendance. This would seem to support the basic premise of the book that man tend to favor belief systems that don't rely on frequent meetings. (Also, interestingly, there is a high correlation between high male identification and high average educational levels, which might indicate that men favor intellectual, rather than emotional or charismatic, approaches to belief).
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I hate reading about hating Church
I didn't really feel like this book applied so much. Sure, we lack male church enthusiasm here in town, but I think that some of the things he talked about, we already do well. And I really feel that if the local church functions as the the General leadership would have it (and I think a lot of this has to do with functioning priesthood quorums and committees as outlined in the Church Handbook), it can be perfect, and men won't hate it.
On Jesse's Comments:
2. I listened to a lesson by Gene R. Cook: The Church did a study--what is the major factor in getting YM to serve missions? Personal prayer and scripture study. What are the major factors in getting YM to have personal prayer and scripture study? Family prayer and family scripture study. So if you're missing those, the Church has a lot of work to do to help YM set that habit.
3. My elder's quorum president asserts that most men don't want to be in elders quorum classes. I think that it comes down to that statement by Stephen L Richards. He said, “A quorum is three things: first, a class; second, a fraternity; and third, a service unit” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1938, 118). Often, my quorum is just a class, and sometimes it's not a very good one. I've been in quorums that have real fraternity and act as service units--it has been then that I felt most fulfilled by being at church.
I wonder if instead of listening to the oldest high priest talk about the missionary experience he had in the 1950s every month, we could leave the building and go home teaching during the Priesthood portion of the block of meetings.
5. I told a Sister at church I was reading this book--she didn't believe me--she's reading the Twilight series. It seems to me that a lot of the women in the church believe that men DO hate going to church, and a good percentage of men are all too willing to let this perception go unchecked. I really think that we need our meetings to be so packed with spirituality that men will get over their inhibitions--spiritual things aren't necessarily weepy things. We have so much truth, we don't need a go for the guys sunday" with the bishop in Camo. I . Ward basketball is also good thing--i think more things like that would help men feel more manly.
6. I listened to a tape by Diana Hasler Hoelscher, "The missionary next door". She talks about how we can invite. Of the two conversions, the easiest is the social. It is easy to invite someone to play basketball. She says, have the missionaries there-they can invite them to hear the missionary lessons. If our friends don't accept, the missionaries don't care, they're getting transferred anyway. I think the challenge in inviting someone to church is that we don't even know who will speak, let alone what it will be about. I wonder if we could announce it down in the bulletin: "Next week: an exciting perspective on David and Goliath, by Brother Arnold Young.
I think I'm up for the book for July: I propose http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130. I'll put another post up specifically for it.
On Jesse's Comments:
2. I listened to a lesson by Gene R. Cook: The Church did a study--what is the major factor in getting YM to serve missions? Personal prayer and scripture study. What are the major factors in getting YM to have personal prayer and scripture study? Family prayer and family scripture study. So if you're missing those, the Church has a lot of work to do to help YM set that habit.
3. My elder's quorum president asserts that most men don't want to be in elders quorum classes. I think that it comes down to that statement by Stephen L Richards. He said, “A quorum is three things: first, a class; second, a fraternity; and third, a service unit” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1938, 118). Often, my quorum is just a class, and sometimes it's not a very good one. I've been in quorums that have real fraternity and act as service units--it has been then that I felt most fulfilled by being at church.
I wonder if instead of listening to the oldest high priest talk about the missionary experience he had in the 1950s every month, we could leave the building and go home teaching during the Priesthood portion of the block of meetings.
5. I told a Sister at church I was reading this book--she didn't believe me--she's reading the Twilight series. It seems to me that a lot of the women in the church believe that men DO hate going to church, and a good percentage of men are all too willing to let this perception go unchecked. I really think that we need our meetings to be so packed with spirituality that men will get over their inhibitions--spiritual things aren't necessarily weepy things. We have so much truth, we don't need a go for the guys sunday" with the bishop in Camo. I . Ward basketball is also good thing--i think more things like that would help men feel more manly.
6. I listened to a tape by Diana Hasler Hoelscher, "The missionary next door". She talks about how we can invite. Of the two conversions, the easiest is the social. It is easy to invite someone to play basketball. She says, have the missionaries there-they can invite them to hear the missionary lessons. If our friends don't accept, the missionaries don't care, they're getting transferred anyway. I think the challenge in inviting someone to church is that we don't even know who will speak, let alone what it will be about. I wonder if we could announce it down in the bulletin: "Next week: an exciting perspective on David and Goliath, by Brother Arnold Young.
I think I'm up for the book for July: I propose http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130. I'll put another post up specifically for it.
Men and the church
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)