Feminization of the Churches

By Albert Dager

From Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?

On the subject of major problems with the churches today, we find an excellent statement from Robert Hicks regarding how the churches have become feminized:

I have seen too many good men leave the church, or church leadership, because they were tired of playing the games and they saw a lot of what the church was doing as a waste of time. We must recapture the church for men, defeminize it, and make our appeals to men where it will cost them something more than their money or their time. Christ wants their lives (Robert Hicks, Ibid., p. 155).

Its true that the churches have become feminized. Even many churches that stress male leadership have succumbed to the feminization process.

Most church ministries are geared toward women; churches may have as many as five or more women's ministries and nothing for men outside of a once-a-month prayer breakfast and an occasional retreat--much of the time for the latter being devoted to fun and games. Women's Bible studies abound both inside and outside the local body. Yet Scripture says that if a woman wants to learn anything she should ask her husband at home. Today, however, this biblical admonition is impractical for many couples. The reason is that the churches have let them down by withholding sound biblical teaching for the men, as well as proper discipleship. Consequently wives often know more (or think they know more) about the Bible than their husbands do. And not all they are receiving is biblical.

We must not lose sight of the dynamics within the modern church that have led to Promise Keeper's existence. It is the pathetic, feminized church that has created the conditions for such an organization to come into being. Unless men do take their rightful place, the churches will remain powerless, simply because the Lord does not bestow honor where the men are weak.

The problem of male weakness is not confined to the churches. In fact, it's because of the feminization of the churches that the nation as a whole has become feminized. Dr. Tony Evans, writing on "Spiritual Purity' for Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper says it well:

I am convinced that the primary cause of this national crisis is the feminization of the American male. When I say feminization, I am not talking about sexual preference. I'm trying to describe a misunderstanding of manhood that has produced a nation of sissified men who abdicate their role as spiritually pure leaders, thus forcing women to fill the vacuum (Tony Evans, Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, op. cit., p. 73). (Italics in original)

Evans suggests a radical but proper approach to men reclaiming their role of leadership where they've abdicated it to their wives:

I can hear you saying, I want to be a spiritually pure man. Where do I start?

The first thing you do is sit down with your wife and say something like this: Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.

Dont misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back. If you simply ask for it, your wife is likely to say, Look, for the last ten years, I've had to raise these kids, look after the house, and pay the bills. I've had to get a job and still keep up my duties at home. I've had to do my job and yours. You think I'm just going to turn everything back over to you?

Your wife's concerns may be justified. Unfortunately, however, there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. Be sensitive, Listen. Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!

Having said that, let me direct some carefully chosen words to you ladies who may be reading this: Give it back! For the sake of your family and the survival of our culture, let your man be a man if he's willing. Protect yourself if you must, by handing the reins back slowly; take it one step at a time. But if your husband tells you he wants to reclaim his role, let him! God never meant for you to bear the load you're carrying (Ibid., pp. 79-80) (Emphasis in original).

Perhaps Evans could have advised the men to just start taking the lead without the preliminaries. But he is essentially correct in his position. Unfortunately, his sound advice is offset by not-so-sound advice from Gary Smalley. Writing in the same Promise Keeper's book, Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, Smalley relates the story of his friends, Jim and Suzette Brawner, and how they dealt with their son Jason's unapproved actions. Smalley tells us that although both Jim and Suzette came from families with dysfunctional elements," they managed to raise three "emotionally healthy children. This quote is rather lengthy, but it's necessary to understand Smalley's unbiblical mind set which permeates many of his writings:

Recently Jason came home for the first time from college. He was unusually nervous because, as a part of his initiation into the swim team, he had been coerced into wearing an earring. None of the men in his family had ever worn an earring, and it just wasn't done among their circle of friends. Jason felt the roof might come off when Mom and Dad saw him.

Jason pulled into the driveway and found his mom. She was so excited to see him that she gave him a big hug before she noticed his ear and gasped. Then she laughed. 'What a great joke! she said. I assume it's one of those stick-on kinds?

"No, Mom, this is the real thing Jason answered. I had my ear pierced. Everybody on the swim team has an earring and I was the only one who didn't, so I gave in.

Suzette became nervous, not because she was upset with her son, but because she wondered how her husband would react when he got home. After taking Jasons laundry and getting him something to drink, she called two friends. Then, while Jim was still at work, she made a trip to the home of one of those friends and discussed how she should handle the situation.

Both Jason and his mother were anxious as Jim arrived home.

When he walked in the door, Jason said, Hi, Dad, I'm home for the weekend.

Jim immediately hugged his son--n the side opposite the earring--then said, Well, how's college going? He hadn't noticed, and Jason just kept waiting for the explosion. Finally, Dad saw it. Hey-y-y, what's this?' he said '

Jason thought, Oh, no! He's going to rip it off my ear.

Suzette gently suggested, Now, dont overreact.'

But Jim didnt react at all. Calmly and sensitively, he asked, 'What's going on?'

Jason answered, Dad everybody on the swim team has an earring. I knew youd be upset, but Dad, I was the only guy who didn't have one. The seniors said either I do it or, you know, I'm in trouble.

"If you want to wear the earring that's your business, Jim answered. 'It's not up to me. Only God knows how much I love you. Personally, I wouldn't wear an earring. but hey, I understand the pressure you were getting.'

Suzette calmed down immediately. 'I thought you were going to be mad, she told Jim.

"No, we need to support our son,' he said. 'Actually, I'd like to do something about it, but I don't think anything would help (Gary Smalley, Ibid., pp. 105-106).

Smalley lauds Jim for his "sensitive approach to a potentially explosive problem. But what's really going on here? Is this how a godly father should act? Notice a few key elements to this story:

1) Jason knew his father would be upset. If so, why did Jason have his ears pierced and wear an earring? Jim evidently succeeded in raising "emotionally healthy children," but this example raises the question of whether they are parent-honoring children. A child away from home has many opportunities to have his love and honor for his parents challenged. To Jason, being a member of the team was more important than honoring his father who should be his head. Had Jim raised him to be a biblically-oriented child, Jason would have stood his ground rather than succumb to the counsel of the ungodly, even if it cost him his spot on the swim team. At the least he would have called his father and sought his counsel.

Now, we all fail at times. This is not meant as an indictment of the Brawners. Rather, it is to point out Smalley's unbiblical mind set in offering such an example for male leadership.

This is not a trivial matter, the earring is nothing in itself, but it became a symbol of Jason's failure. Additionally, rather than say, I don't think anything would help, a godly father would instruct his son on the need to remain faithful to God's Word (honor your father and mother) rather than acquiesce to ungodly peers. Jim need not have ripped the earring from Jason's ear, but a stem rebuke was certainly in order. With all their talk about being men of integrity, Promise Keepers allows teachings that lack integrity. One must question if they know the biblical meaning of integrity, or if they hold a definition tainted by worldly wisdom.

2) Suzette ran to her friends for advice on how to handle Jim. If this were a godly home instead of an emotionally healthy home, she would have instructed Jason to remove the earring rather than risk his father's displeasure. She would also have instructed Jason on honoring his parents according to the biblical mandate. And she would trust her husband and back him up no matter what his reaction to Jason's folly.

3) Jim's response, God only knows how much I love you," is a cop out for his own cowardice. His Smalley-oriented mind set does not allow him to correct his son in a biblical manner, but to accept his son's actions in spite of the sin behind them. Suppose Jason told him that initiation for the swim team required him to engage in homosexual acts. Would Jim's unconditional love be reflected in acceptance of Jason's decision to acquiesce?

Smalley tells us that Jason was 19 at the time which, according to society, would make him an adult. But he was still under his father's roof, so to speak, even though away at college. And even if he were on his own, the admonition to honor one's parents precludes doing anything that would offend them, It is the law of love that compels us to forego personal desires or expediency for the sake of others.

So again we have a dichotomy: Promise Keepers tells us to be men--to take the lead as men should. Some teachers, as we've seen, eschew the feminization of the churches. But other elements teach as God's truth lies that are based on a feminizing requirement for unconditional acceptance and sensitivity to unrepentant sinners. Dad is still the one to be feared for meting out righteous punishment, but mommy will intercede by throwing Gary Smalley's "sensitivity training" at him.

(For an in-depth analysis of Gary Smalley's and John Trent's philosophy on husband-wife relationships see our special report, Gary Smalley: The Psychology of Matriarchy.)

Yes. feminization of the Church has been a problem. And despite their call for rejecting this feminization, promise Keepers' openness to certain teachings keeps that feminization firmly entrenched. Their answer to the problem of feminization will either fail, or will result in the exchange of that problem for other problems. For even if there were success in achieving full masculinity of the churches, there is no guarantee of that masculinity not posing as many problems (albeit of a different kind) as feminization carries. Male leadership in and of itself is insufficient for adherence to the biblical mandate that demands doctrinal purity and unity in the bond of love. Men who teach error within the Church lead it nowhere closer to obedience to the Lord than women who teach, whether truth or error. Both operate outside the biblical mandate. And the eclectic approach of Promise Keepers blurs the lines of distinction between truth and error.

PROMISE KEEPERS INFORMATION

WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE ONLINE CATALOG

BACK TO THE PROMISE KEEPERS ARTICLES LIST

BACK TO THE MAIN FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST NEWS SERVICE TOPICAL LIST