140 replies to this topic

[J.A.A. Purves]

e2c, on 29 July 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

But to say that emotions have no place is - as Greg P has just said - making me think that church (and life) would be bleak and sterile indeed. We've all got emotions; God gave them to us.

I'm afraid I can't help it, but I've got to ask who precisely is saying that emotions have no place in church?

If anyone anywhere has actually said this, I'm quite interested in who that is because he or she would have a whole number of fascinating things to say about topics I'm particularly interested in at the moment.

And if no one has actually said this, why bother arguing against the proposition in the first place?

[Holy Moly!]

bingo.



(which is not to say i find the peculiar tenor of feeling-sharing happening in churches these days to be particularly productive, but that's a a function of suburban market capitalism manifesting itself as anti-intellectualism blended with lack of patience for ambiguity and mystery blended with an addiction to tv-style narrative arcs amounting to emotional pornography. It takes some real jujitsu to double back and blame "effeminized culture" when it seems especially rampant in churches where women remain excluded from the highest levels of leadership)

[Greg P]

Persiflage, on 28 July 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

If a particular church has a problem with losing men (because it's so focused on emotions, feelings, relationships, nurturing, etc.), that church probably tries to reach people by making them feel a particular way. So if we're reaching less men because we've created an environment that makes women feel good, then why not try and create an environment that makes men feel good? The assumption being that men choose whether to go to a particular church because of how that church makes them "feel." An assumption made by the Man Church advertisement.

That assumption is actually true. And that pretty much goes for anything in life. It's a reality of human nature. We gravitate towards things-- people, relationships, careers, art-- that make us feel a certain way. People who claim they would attend a certain church no matter how it made them feel-- the 'ol "i'm attending strictly out of obedience to God" schtick-- are most likely lying.


Edit: Your example of Jesus commanding his disciples to harsh, matter-of-fact obedience is a slight distortion. He always appealed to the emotions of his followers. He tweaked their emotions to get at the conscience and prompt a response. The difference was, emotional appeals were a means to an end as opposed to much of the evangelical church where emotions are the end.

Edited by Greg P, 29 July 2010 - 08:21 AM.

[Cunningham]

Greg P, on 29 July 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

Edit: Your example of Jesus commanding his disciples to harsh, matter-of-fact obedience is a slight distortion. He always appealed to the emotions of his followers. He tweaked their emotions to get at the conscience and prompt a response. The difference was, emotional appeals were a means to an end as opposed to much of the evangelical church where emotions are the end.

Is not worship the end at a church?

[Greg P]

Cunningham, on 29 July 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:

Greg P, on 29 July 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

Edit: Your example of Jesus commanding his disciples to harsh, matter-of-fact obedience is a slight distortion. He always appealed to the emotions of his followers. He tweaked their emotions to get at the conscience and prompt a response. The difference was, emotional appeals were a means to an end as opposed to much of the evangelical church where emotions are the end.

Is not worship the end at a church?

I guess in a broad sense "worship" is the end of all life; that is if you define NT worship as the devotion and sacrifice of your life to Christ in the daily routines of life. But I assume by "worship" you meant specifically the song service on Sunday gatherings and the flow of emotions that may or may not accompany that? To which I would say no, it is not the end. In fact, I think human interaction/fellowship/support is far more important as a weekly discipline than singing or sermons. So in my mind, the end of NT church gathering is edification through fellowship, not "worship".

[J.A.A. Purves]

e2c, on 29 July 2010 - 12:37 AM, said:

i'm extrapolating from your ongoing comments deriding the sharing of feelings, etc. Feelings = emotions, among other thing. And from your posts on this and other threads, you appear to be equating them with women and unmanly, "feminized" behavior. Is there a disconnect here that I'm not seeing, or is there - maybe - one for you? (Not meant in a snarky way at all.) Edited to add: I think Holy Moly! was making much the same point, albeit a bit more directly than I just did.

Ahhh - you're just extra-po-lating. Back in high school debate, we called that sort of thing responding to Proposition A (which is being advocated) by arguing against Proposition B (which is not being advocated). Using this technique is tedious, whether in a discussion or debate, because it spends time discussing an idea that only you are assuming anyone cares anything about.

In this case, Proposition A would be the objection against repetitive, non-stop appeals to (an sole focus on) emotion in the church, which, while it has its legitimate uses, cannot be used to prove anyone is feeling the power of the Holy Spirit, to teach doctrine, to force anyone to worship God, or to keep very many men in your church (thus the statistics showing the 3-1 and often 5-1 women to men ratios in church attendance). Proposition B is that emotions have no place in the church, something I'd guess any reasonable person would acknowledge as different from Proposition A. The Church for Men crowd that you seem to ridicule is primarily concerned with the lack of men in the church, and then the fact (from many guys' perspectives) that your average Sunday church service is a touchy-feely, warm & fuzzy, feel-good, comfort zone service full of an often quite noticeable majority of women that is not intellectually stimulating or spiritually challenging.

It just seems playing-it-safe to me to take time pointing out that emotions are given us by God, that feelings have a place in church, that it's not morally forbidden to cry, etc. when it has literally crossed no one's mind to argue otherwise. Holy Moly’s comment, on the other hand, seemed to be an exercise in sarcasm - and it was funny. Speaking of which -

Holy Moly!, on 29 July 2010 - 02:11 AM, said:

bingo. (which is not to say i find the peculiar tenor of feeling-sharing happening in churches these days to be particularly productive, but that's a a function of suburban market capitalism manifesting itself as anti-intellectualism blended with lack of patience for ambiguity and mystery blended with an addiction to tv-style narrative arcs amounting to emotional pornography. It takes some real jujitsu to double back and blame "effeminized culture" when it seems especially rampant in churches where women remain excluded from the highest levels of leadership)

I have to say that first sentence of yours is something of a philosophical work of art. I'd just propose to explain my apparent skill at jujitsu by suggesting that the fact that there are far more male pastors than female pastors does not mean the church is not influenced by "effeminized culture." This is particularly true if the majority of church-going men are generally more effeminate than average. In other words, some might say the less masculine a man is, the more likely he is to attend a Christian church or even be a pastor. If teaching and exhortation in the church really is amounting to levels of "emotional pornography" as you pointed out, that would explain why we have created a generation of Christians in the church who spend millions of dollars consuming thousands of Christianized versions of the Harlequin romance novel you find in the average Christian bookstore. Maybe this is actually indicative of a cultural trend?

Greg P, on 29 July 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

Persiflage, on 28 July 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

If a particular church has a problem with losing men (because it's so focused on emotions, feelings, relationships, nurturing, etc.), that church probably tries to reach people by making them feel a particular way. So if we're reaching less men because we've created an environment that makes women feel good, then why not try and create an environment that makes men feel good? The assumption being that men choose whether to go to a particular church because of how that church makes them "feel." An assumption made by the Man Church advertisement.

That assumption is actually true. And that pretty much goes for anything in life. It's a reality of human nature. We gravitate towards things-- people, relationships, careers, art-- that make us feel a certain way. People who claim they would attend a certain church no matter how it made them feel-- the 'ol "i'm attending strictly out of obedience to God" schtick-- are most likely lying.

Sure. Everyone, male and female, prefers to feel good, I know I certainly do. And yet, at least outside our culture since the 60s, there remains the idea that your actions should not be determined by your feelings. Especially if we take basic Christian doctrine seriously, how we feel will often be closely related to our old sin nature. Basing your actions, let alone important life decisions, essentially on whether it feels good is actually an entire philosophy - Hedonism. I believe Christianity, while occasionally hedonistic, is against Hedonism. The reality of human nature is that we are all sinners. I currently attend church right now. Part of being a sinner, indeed, part of the Christian life, is choosing to do what you know you ought to do, even when you don't want to. Every single Sunday morning, I would much rather sleep in past the morning service, and then spend the entire day pursuing various little pleasures. I can get pleasure or feel good by going to church, but honestly, if that were my main reason for going to church, then I would go much less than I do.

Quote

Your example of Jesus commanding his disciples to harsh, matter-of-fact obedience is a slight distortion. He always appealed to the emotions of his followers. He tweaked their emotions to get at the conscience and prompt a response. The difference was, emotional appeals were a means to an end as opposed to much of the evangelical church where emotions are the end.

Yes, Christ used appeals to emotion rightly. There is a place for that. I don't think we could describe the "Follow me" command as harsh, but we can certainly describe it as a challenge to go against your fears, feelings, nature, and comfort zone - to go, basically, outside of your self. There is something narcissistic about basing your evangelical church experience on how it makes you feel. And yet, that is what (yes, even including the advertisement for "Man Church") Christians within western evangelicalism appeal to.

So what is the point of all this? Obviously the church has had problems throughout all of church history - we are all human after all. There is at least one problem in the modern Christian church that is behind why less men are attending church now than used to historically attend church percentage-wise 50 or more years ago. The male to female gender gap has consistently & demonstrably grown larger over the last 100 years; and it can't just be explained by population, ages of death, career differences, etc. Thus, this "Man Church" advertisement, and Church for Men, Wild at Heart, Douglas Wilson, Mark Driscoll, etc. are all making attempts (whether rightly or successfully or not) to address this problem. And their attempts to do so at least bring the problem's existence to our attention. It is up to every individual Christian to exert influence and leadership in order to address any church problem. This discussion can easily explore how that might happen.

[Holy Moly!]

Persiflage, on 29 July 2010 - 06:03 PM, said:

This is particularly true if the majority of church-going men are generally more effeminate than average. In other words, some might say the less masculine a man is, the more likely he is to attend a Christian church or even be a pastor.

Some might say that. Would they have even an ounce of data to back it up? Probably not.

Quote

If teaching and exhortation in the church really is amounting to levels of "emotional pornography" as you pointed out, that would explain why we have created a generation of Christians in the church who spend millions of dollars consuming thousands of Christianized versions of the Harlequin romance novel you find in the average Christian bookstore. Maybe this is actually indicative of a cultural trend?

People generally buy a lot of crap regardless of whether it's Christian. I do actually agree with you insofar as I think a lack of intellectual rigor in churches leads to poor consumer choices about devotional materials. But that's reflected in people buying silly hypermasculine crap just as much as buying silly hyperfeminine crap.

[Greg P]

Persiflage, on 29 July 2010 - 06:03 PM, said:

Sure. Everyone, male and female, prefers to feel good, I know I certainly do. And yet, at least outside our culture since the 60s, there remains the idea that your actions should not be determined by your feelings. Especially if we take basic Christian doctrine seriously, how we feel will often be closely related to our old sin nature. Basing your actions, let alone important life decisions, essentially on whether it feels good is actually an entire philosophy - Hedonism. I believe Christianity, while occasionally hedonistic, is against Hedonism.

True. Christians don't base important decisions on some feminized, sin-tainted faculty like feelings , they just follow the "leading of the Spirit".

Quote

I currently attend church right now. Part of being a sinner, indeed, part of the Christian life, is choosing to do what you know you ought to do, even when you don't want to. Every single Sunday morning, I would much rather sleep in past the morning service, and then spend the entire day pursuing various little pleasures. I can get pleasure or feel good by going to church, but honestly, if that were my main reason for going to church, then I would go much less than I do.

See, I don't think that's true. You would not feel good about yourself if you skipped the Sunday service and went hunting. The decision to obey something you think is right, regardless of feelings, is based largely on, uh... feelings. Your conviction about being a Sunday-go-to-meeting-man is based on some feelings and personal notions you have about certain Bible passages. The point is, you may try and assert that your religion is different and that somehow in this touchy-feelie era of American Christendom you've chosen to let external, objective verities guide your path, but if you'd be honest with yourself you might realize that emotions guide much of this naked "obedience" you espouse.

Quote

There is at least one problem in the modern Christian church that is behind why less men are attending church now than used to historically attend church percentage-wise 50 or more years ago. The male to female gender gap has consistently & demonstrably grown larger over the last 100 years; and it can't just be explained by population, ages of death, career differences, etc.

In the spirit of objectivity, can you link to some solid data?

As I stated earlier, I'm in a agreement that there's a serious problem in the American church. Regarding the Man Church and other men's ministries that focus on talking about godly character and studying about "biblical manhood", I find such activities about as impotent and pedestrian as you can get.

Edited by Greg P, 30 July 2010 - 08:06 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Hmmm. I don't think "feelings" necessarily translates to "emotions". Emotions are certainly one KIND of "feelings", but the word can also refer to someone's "instincts" or "sensibilities". When Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker to "stretch out with your feelings", he wasn't asking Luke to experience EMOTIONS as he used his lightsabre; quite the opposite (cf. Yoda's teaching that Luke would know how to distinguish good from bad when he is "calm, at peace, passive").

[Greg P]

Good point, Peter.

[Andy Whitman]

At the risk of introducing secular humanist relativism and other diabolical traits to the discussion, it's possible that different churches appeal to and better meet the needs of different types of people. I'm fairly convinced that much of what has passed for "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics in this thread can be explained by different orientations that are best encapsulated by the T-F (Thinking/Feeling) scale in the Myers-Briggs taxonomy. These orientations are not related to gender (indeed, I am a strong F), but rather have to do with the innate hard wiring of the personality. Because I am a strong F, I can no more envision attending a buttoned-down liturgical service than I can envision expressing my love for my wife by opening a thesaurus and reading her all the synonyms for "love." Love is not a laundry list. But I also recognize that much of that is driven by my internal hard wiring, and I wouldn't want to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on everyone. I suspect that the folks (okay, men, but that's an unfortunate consequence of mistaken organization) who attend "Man Church" are classic Ts in Myers-Briggs terms.

[Rich Kennedy]

Greg P, on 30 July 2010 - 07:44 AM, said:

See, I don't think that's true. You would not feel good about yourself if you skipped the Sunday service and went hunting. The decision to obey something you think is right, regardless of feelings, is based largely on, uh... feelings. Your conviction about being a Sunday-go-to-meeting-man is based on some feelings and personal notions you have about certain Bible passages. The point is, you may try and assert that your religion is different and that somehow in this touchy-feelie era of American Christendom you've chosen to let external, objective verities guide your path, but if you'd be honest with yourself you might realize that emotions guide much of this naked "obedience" you espouse.

I think that you vastly oversimplify the multi-millenial habit of corporate worship and the individual's encounter with scripture passages that highlight this habit that goes beyond the Christian tradition. It also seems to be a characteristic of all major religions. Until recently, it has been what the faithful do. You may not like lectures, insipid music that most people seem to like, or at least appreciate in a worship setting. And you see little value in hanging out with these same folks afterwards. Fair enough. Not all churches fit easily into this oversimplified pejorative, but leave that aside. How do you "read" those passages that imply that it is good, proper, and beyond question that christians meet together, commune together, restore their relationship and communication with God together even as they are expected to do most of this outside the group as well? At this point, I'd say that it is beating a dead horse to give negative protestant examples. How is this rightly done? How can not getting together be squared with a tradition confirmed and embraced by both Testaments?

Quote

As I stated earlier, I'm in a agreement that there's a serious problem in the American church. Regarding the Man Church and other men's ministries that focus on talking about godly character and studying about "biblical manhood", I find such activities about as impotent and pedestrian as you can get.

Not many of us disagree with you here. Your solution is to just do it? I like that even though the definition of "it" might be weak and I think that is the problem. There might be as many concepts of what a man is as there are people (with women clearly having a variety of opinions on this as well). What does a church do, then. I've said that it must work organically. Even a guy who just sets out to do it might need a plan, or at least some goals about the concept of manliness that he wants to mentor in someone else.

Edited by Rich Kennedy, 31 July 2010 - 02:19 PM.

[Joel C]

e2c, on 30 July 2010 - 12:32 PM, said:

Andy, I suspect you're right, although I have to say that liturgical doesn't automatically equal T (or logical, cut and dried, "buttoned-down"). There's plenty of room for F types in liturgical traditions! (At least, in the ones I'm familiar with - Lutheran, Roman Catholic and Episcopalian.)

Very true. I am a strong F, and I attend an Anglican church. Granted, my particular congregation isn't high liturgy (we're an upstart AMiA church), but it does hold to the traditional mold of the Anglican service. I find it immensely satisfying. I sometimes think it's unfortunate that feelers get tagged as exclusively "emotional", and thinkers get tagged as exclusively "analytical". Even as a strong F, I am not effusively emotional in most situations. I actually appreciate the liturgy of my church, as it allows me a sense of order and quietness (which admittedly may also have something to do with my introversion). Even more, as a feeler, I have a well-developed sense of when something is truly emotional, and when I'm being manipulated, and in that sense, as a feeler, I cringe at the contrived sentimentality that predominates the approach to liturgy in many evangelical churches.

Quote

And - as far as I understand it - even the apparent dichotomy between T and F is much more nuanced that it might seem at 1st glance. Everyone's a mixture of both; isn't the Myers-Briggs more about seeing which traits (and not just "thinking" v. "feeling") are predominant in a given individual?

Yes. What's more, I find it frustrating that people polarize feelers from being "reasoning" people, and thinkers from being "emotional" people. The T/F scale measures decision-making, not emotional access or expression. It divides between decisions made through the lens of values, and decisions made through the lens of data. Hypothetical argument: A third party says something naive or incorrect. The feeler may choose to say nothing so as to avoid embarrassing the individual in question, but it doesn't mean that there wasn't a logical weighing of the variables in the situation at hand, so as to come to that decision. Conversely, a thinker may point out the error of the individual's comment, so as to put right what was logically left as a mistake in the air; but it doesn't mean that the thinker had no emotional investment in the making of that decision, and to the contrary, may feel that he is, in good will, doing the third party a favor.

The thinker/feeler paradigm, both in the MBTI context and apart from it, has been over-simplified, especially in the church, and has been used as a tool through which to affirm old stereotypes of male/female approach to worship in the church. Unfortunately, the statistical fact (though probably now outdated) that 75% of men are thinkers and 75% of woman are feelers, even if true, has been muddled with a false polarization between emotion, and the lack thereof. I think that there are a lot of "ghosts" in the evangelical psyche coming from dangerously unqualified statistics like the one above, and whole ideologies are built on that (and liturgical structures, no less!).

Edited by Joel C, 31 July 2010 - 04:51 PM.

[Greg P]

Rich Kennedy, on 31 July 2010 - 02:16 PM, said:

How do you "read" those passages that imply that it is good, proper, and beyond question that christians meet together, commune together, restore their relationship and communication with God together even as they are expected to do most of this outside the group as well?

I read those passages probably the exact same way that you do, Rich. I don't reject any of those things you find "good and proper". I simply reject the notion that joining a denominational club is the sole way to access those benefits.

Quote

How is this rightly done? How can not getting together be squared with a tradition confirmed and embraced by both Testaments?

I'm not sure. I personally enjoy "getting together" with my christian friends and do it as often as i can. No forsaking of the assembly for me, brother. However, I will not join another local Sunday Chapter at this stage of my life; not yours, not anyones. I have no real venom, only mild irritation and occasional revulsion for those kinds of affairs.

Edited by Greg P, 31 July 2010 - 10:22 PM.

[Rich Kennedy]

Greg P, on 31 July 2010 - 10:09 PM, said:

I read those passages probably the exact same way that you do, Rich. I don't reject any of those things you find "good and proper". I simply reject the notion that joining a denominational club is the sole way to access those benefits.

I'm not sure. I personally enjoy "getting together" with my christian friends and do it as often as i can. No forsaking of the assembly for me, brother. However, I will not join another local Sunday Chapter at this stage of my life; not yours, not anyones. I have no real venom, only mild irritation and occasional revulsion for those kinds of affairs.

So you are saying categorically (this is not a rhetorical trap) that there are just no real options for you. And, of course we know that "getting together" is not a largely social label in this particular context.

[Greg P]

Rich Kennedy, on 01 August 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

So you are saying categorically (this is not a rhetorical trap) that there are just no real options for you.

Not necessarily. It's not a matter of "options" for me. I simply have no interest or need in joining a local club. It's not like I have a laundry list of hybrid features I'm looking for in a church and just can't find the perfect match. It's that I find no internal need for what is offered. If I was convinced that taking in a concert/sermon double bill every week was something God commanded me to do, i would find the closest Protestant church and join. There's a mega church about a half mile from my house, literally a stones throw from Larry Mullen Jr.'s castle, that could work just fine for those purposes.

My club member friends try and tell me all the time how I'm "missing out". After 20+ years as a club member, it's hard not to come off condescending as I smile and pat them on the back. They mean well.

But it's utterly baffling to me that those of us who opt not to join one of these weekly religious franchises, but find viable christian community through other means, are regarded as somehow less spiritual or lacking something vital. I could easily flip it around and encourage people to find other ways to connect with God and his people besides the spectator religion of song-n-sermon attendance. But I don't. If people get something out of that routine, then fine.

Edited by Greg P, 01 August 2010 - 02:27 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Greg P wrote:
: If I was convinced that taking in a concert/sermon double bill every week was something God commanded me to do, i would find the closest Protestant church and join.

I sympathize. But what about, y'know, Communion? Even when I didn't belong to a specific community -- even when I found my best, most meaningful Christian friendships in online discussion groups such as this one -- I still made a point of visiting churches every few weeks at least in order to partake of the Body and Blood.

[Greg P]

Peter T Chattaway, on 01 August 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

Greg P wrote:
: If I was convinced that taking in a concert/sermon double bill every week was something God commanded me to do, i would find the closest Protestant church and join.

I sympathize. But what about, y'know, Communion? Even when I didn't belong to a specific community -- even when I found my best, most meaningful Christian friendships in online discussion groups such as this one -- I still made a point of visiting churches every few weeks at least in order to partake of the Body and Blood.

I think home groups and informal gatherings can provide an excellent opportunity to celebrate Communion. We hosted a Thursday night meeting at our house for a few years, where we practiced this. I always found such small-group observations more meaningful anyway; I mean the whole practice, from a logistical perspective, seems much better suited for intimate settings.

[Rich Kennedy]

Greg P, on 01 August 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

I think home groups and informal gatherings can provide an excellent opportunity to celebrate Communion. We hosted a Thursday night meeting at our house for a few years, where we practiced this. I always found such small-group observations more meaningful anyway; I mean the whole practice, from a logistical perspective, seems much better suited for intimate settings.

That's well and good, but even this sounds like an option from the past.

[Greg P]

Rich Kennedy, on 01 August 2010 - 10:43 PM, said:

Greg P, on 01 August 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

I think home groups and informal gatherings can provide an excellent opportunity to celebrate Communion. We hosted a Thursday night meeting at our house for a few years, where we practiced this. I always found such small-group observations more meaningful anyway; I mean the whole practice, from a logistical perspective, seems much better suited for intimate settings.

That's well and good, but even this sounds like an option from the past.

Not too distant. We moved again in April.

But even so, Rich, I am not dependent on religious meetings for my sense of well-being or "connectedness" to God. They are resources I have within. And for those resources that are without, I know where to tap into them. And for those opportunities I sometimes miss out on through my own ignorance or personal shortcomings, I don't lose sleep over.

Most formal religious meetings are like sitting through an episode of iCarly for me. An FB friend posted a link to a Mark Driscoll sermon this morning. I listened to the entire thing and I'm pretty certain I've met my quota for 2010.

Edited by Greg P, 02 August 2010 - 09:34 AM.