Have Men Lost Their Voice?

Yesterday was Trinity 2. It was also Father's Day, a day that many will claim is a commercial invention to sell cards and poor CD compilations of 'driving hits'. 

I have made an observation this year. When it was Mothering Sunday I heard much about its value and how such a day allows us to celebrate the motherhood of the Church etc. The social meejyah was replete with images and sloganeering for and by mothers in support of themselves and the wonderful work of motherhood that they rightly embody. 

The thing is, the only reference I saw for Father's Day wasn't from a blokey geezer dad-type person. No. Not a single bloke uttered a mere morsel of self-congratulation about their paternity and all the blessings and joys that proceeds from it. No.

All I saw on Father's Day was written for and by mothers who are themselves single mothers and therefore the mum and dad of the piece. 

Now, this isn't a post making a complaint about women and their apparent desire to self-congratulate on the internet. There are far worse things to do with one's time. Perhaps Father's Day is a relic of a former age? Well, the restaurant I was sat in was filled to capacity so I sensed that that argument didn't work. 

The thing for which I chastise myself this day is when, during church notices yesterday - having asked if there was anything else to mention - was confronted simply by a sole male voice who uttered "Father's Day". I felt somehow naughty for mentioning it in church for fear of chiding the Mum's Onion (who don't like me at the moment - again). Speaking as one of the brotherhood of males called to parenthood, I ask simply whether we men have lost our voices? Are we afraid of offending?

It certainly seems so!

Men and the Church Part 2

So, let's do this thing. As I thought about how to approach this, I worried about the fullness of it - and so I must remind you, faithful reader, that this is a blog, so as much a scrapbook or notebook for ideas. If you are looking for a full treatise on the subject - you may find your glass less than full! One may follow if this leads me to a roll!

So, why are we here? Some of us identify a problem, and that is that there are too few men in our churches. In my preamble, I touched on labels and how they trouble me, partly because they are what they are, but also because they ignore the differences in men. We should always, and with urgency, drop the labels.

Any strategy that seek to attract people into anything needs to acknowledge at the outset, that those people are all different. Different in needs, tastes, personality, age and so many other things. Oddly, in for retailers, it is a far easier proposition. For example, the flooring industry knew that its target market was women within a fairly specific age-range. So, it marketed to them. The makers of Peppa Pig merchandise can be fairly specific about who they ply their wares to. For the church it is less easy. We want to be attractive to men, but how can we be attractive to all men all of the time. 

We can't! Of course we can't. 

Let us consider 'men' for example. We range from Mickey Rourke to Rowan Williams; Alan Carr to Alistair Darling' Peter Tatchell to "Pastor" Terry Jones; Hulk Hogan to Hillary Benn; Tony Blair to Tom Jones; Bill Hybels to Boris Johnson. How the church sets out its stall has to acknowledge these differences. There isn't a concise model of 'male human' - how much more boring if there were.

Oddly, on one point I can be sure that all men would agree - we would not welcome labels that are prefixed un- de- or non- . Such labels would have the happy effect of equalizing all differences in a shot. 

For me, the only way is to stop trying to please all of the people all of the time. The difficulty with that is that you please no-one not never! Easy said, yes - but how many efforts exist that are just one-stop Men traps. Surely, a better way is to make the distinction between what we think men want and what men actually want. I don't want to be told what I want or need, I want someone to listen to me say what I want and need, and then maybe help me realise that hope (not make it happen for me, importantly). Listen to me, hear me (there is a major difference there, often ignored). 

The first 'D' in this little journey is about a mindset. A mindset that seeks to 'fix a problem', apply models that look great on flip-charts, will be bankrupt. A mindset that divides men into categories fewer than the sum total of all living males on this earth will also be bankrupt. A mindset to celebrate difference, engage with it, make the distinction between what we think and they think about it all, and of course, dropping labels - there has to be a penny or two profit in that!

Part of me regards this is a statement of the blinking obvious - then I wonder...

Men and the Church Part 1

There have been rumblings on this blog about being a man in the church, and how tough it is at times. This may come as some surprise to those of you won over by the notion that 'discriminating-Church' is a male dominated domain. Yes, it might be male led, but it is a long way from male dominated. Church life, on the ground, is a very matriarchal enterprise believe it or not, and us men are rarer than a rare-beast's Welsh rare bits.

Last weekend I indulged myself with a whine about it all, and quite rightly, someone made the challenge about how I would attend to the shortage of men  in our church life. I am going to meet that challenge over a number of posts. 

As it is all the rage to articulate cogent thought in terms of mnemonic acronyms, I am opting to make DISCIPLES of men in the church. Apart from  the original concern as offered above, I have been grumpy about an offering on this subject that will make its appearance some time in February. For clarity, I think it is a worthy course of work, tackling a tough issue up-front and I wish it every success. I am grumpy because of its labels ('un-churched' and 'de-churched' are pejorative in the extreme and evoke terms like 'unwashed' and 'deloused' - to me) and also because I offered to help with it a long time ago, and am still waiting for the call! Anyway - these are my motivation for writing. 

So, regard this as the contents page to this thread - I will work with it for a few days.

D - dropping labels, differences, distinctions, difficulties

I - involvement and how

S - spiritual dimension of men, stalking targets

C - community and committing, church and children 

I - individuals and image

P - pub and places, problem, what problem? poor-selling of salvation

L - listening for the right reasons

E - enablement, enthusing, exceptions

S - settling down, seeing it through

Naturally, other things will emerge that do not fit my neat pattern here. I will wang them in somewhere, don't you worry. Chief among them would be 'trying too hard', and it is that facet of such efforts mentioned above that I worry about. That is for later. I think that this area of thinking is sparsely populated, and this will, of course, be only my perspective. It will be a perspective born of some difficult facts hidden in my past, a long time in a job that I didn't love so the bills could be paid, a work history in retail and a business skill-set, normal and healthy male appetites and weaknesses, having a young family and caring for their needs, and a simple love for God (not to mention lumpy testicles, being the at dead centre of the target age bracket for target-heathen-geezers, oh, and being male). I believe that this all qualifies me to write on subject. So I will. 

Grasping The Nettle

In a post written yesterday, I found myself happily and gladly advocating the place of women in a given sphere (here, blogging). I am delighted to do that, but I count myself as one who really doesn't care about gender, but rather quality of being. Yes, there are things that I appreciate about women as distinct from men, and vice versa. For me, that is where it ends. In my post, I argued that there is no disparity between male and female bloggers (none that is imposed, or caused, at any rate).

After writing that post (and then defending myself a fair bit elsewhere) it occurred to me that in my defence of my post, I was, de facto, defending men as a whole single group. There has been much written about how much women have been and are discriminated against. Some is right, and some is wrong (from my own perspective as a human being). 

Let me say to all of you reading this, it is bloody hard at times being a man in the church today. 

Why? For the vast majority of us men who support everybody and anybody despite gender, we are still the implicit baddies in every article written on the subject of the discrimination of women. We are disarmed to comment about how we feel for fear of accusation. We daren't match the plethora of women-specific interest groups with men-specific interest groups. The vast majority of men in the church are not the ones who have drafted difficult legislation, marginalised women in the expression of their faith. Yet we are bound and gagged, at grass-roots level. I want to celebrate how it is to be a man in the church, to celebrate what we bring to things. I want to talk about what makes me tick, what floats my boat without fear of a pointing finger (I started writing this blog partly for that reason). Little wonder that men fear church life, or frankly refuse to engage except for being the taxi-driver on a Sunday or the obedient husband or ferrier of kids. Not a million miles away from here, men are sought like rare beasts under the titles 'un-churched' or 'de-churched' - such unhelpful labelling as I could imagine. (For clarity, I should point out that I am speaking about church local as distinct from Church institution - in other words, day-to-day church at community level)

I can hear a chorus building now. "But Cloakey, this is how it has been for women for centuries", and yes, that would be correct, and an appalling truth and one I acknowledge freely. But what have women quite rightly done? They fought past it towards a place of equality which in some ways is not yet fully realised. But part of me wonders if it not 'payback time', a little of our own medicine. Well, at times that is how it feels. 

I acknowledge that some women have cause to feel discrimination, and there are men who for many reasons, some sincere, some misogynistic, seek to maintain a disparity between men and women (and let us not forget the women who hammer those nails too, of which there are plenty). They are a slim minority of men. The rest? Barring a couple of percent of them, they fled (because that is what men do, sadly) for ever. 

So, not all men are bastards. Some of us aren't so bad. Many of us get it wrong at times, but want to get it right all of the time. Yes, some of us even wear black clerical shirts, practice their faith under the banner 'Anglo-Catholic' and find a way to accept women as equals in life and in ministry. Actually, the majority of that group are that way inclined, if the truth were known. And so too, it is the case that most women are not discriminated against in the Church. If you want to be a bishop and you happen to be female, you may make that claim, for example. My experience of being male in church life is that on a Sunday we are the tiny minority, and the other six days of the week. 


(Postscript - This post in no way seeks reduce the pain caused to women through discrimination. I acknowledge is effects at alive in some quarters today. Discrimination of all types, and against anyone is wrong and should be identified and countered by us all)

What Maketh a Man?

I was pawing through a gentleman's magazine during the course of the week (not the sort where the ladies get their giblets out, now behave, or sit at the back of the class) - and I made an astounding discovery about how it is to be male.

GQ Magazine is a thick old glossy affair for gentlemen of distinction and taste. It had articles about blokes, a few articles about blokey toys and their place in the market of blokey toys. There was much in there to please Steve Jobs (the geezer from Apple - Mr. iPod, you might say). There were articles on wholly inaccessible motor cars - or perhaps it is just me who can't shell out for an Italian super car right now. You could read about the very best pongy pongs to spray all your muscular fluffy body, the best in thermal jimmy jams, silk scarves and preposterously pointy business shoes for doing business in. I read a copy that told me about the most influential men in our country - chief among them being the Prime Minister and his Chancellor (no surprises there then). It had a long waffly article about how vile Google* is, and I am sure I remember an article about how to romance a laydee. 

All of things were sort of predictable. They are the mainstays of gentlemen's magazines - a little chest puffing, a little power-grooming, a little sabre rattling - ugg. What was a surprise was the adverts. Ever mindful that advertisers advertise to their market, it seems that we men are motivated not by breasts and bottoms, but by

... watches

I counted thirty separate adverts for over-priced chest-beaty watches - ugg. This outnumbered ads for mobile smart phones three-to-one. This outnumbered ads for boy-perfume by five-to-one. This outnumbered boobs by thirty-to-nil (a very respectable magazine for respectable married geezers who have wives who don't like naughtiness in the house, on the Habitat coffee table). But watches ...

Now, it may surprise some of you, given the sensitivity and pathos with which I utter forth on this blog, but I am in fact a male - blokius cloakii. I might not be the furriest, but I have a deep voice, a protruding throat, little use for a brassiere and I break wind in the lounge - I am a man. I have two wrists, which though greedy, limits my use for a selection of watches - accustomed as I am to the use of a singular watch. When I wake in the morning, the first thing I think about is 'why?' followed closely by the eternal quest for caffeine - but not 'God in His Heaven be praised, for this day I may be granted grace to wear my watch'. 

So, I wonder why a magazine for gentlemen is replete with adverts for watches, all beyond my budget I might add. They are beautiful things, interesting things, status-escalating things. Perhaps I am missing something, and have been putting my watch on in the wrong place, I just don't know. It's not like men have any kind of reputation for lateness, is it?




*This post was written using Google Chrome - and the spell-checker on Google Chrome didn't recognise the word 'Google' - d'uh

The Might of Women

This is Woman - she is to be feared.

Not because of her mighty claymore sword, not because of her intimidating glare. Not because of her feminine charms and not because she looks acceptably good in a leather skirt.

No, this is Woman and she is to be feared by all who behold her (except for a few days a month when she unclean and should be ignored, and more properly mocked for her weakness).

But I hear you asking 'why?'

I will tell you why: because Woman is mighty even enough to defeat the grace and love of none other than 

...God. 

She touches the matter of communion, and even the power of the Holy Spirit is neutralised by Woman. With her frightening Woman Ray and her alarming Female Photon she will break the connection that holds God and his church together - whatever she touches becomes Godless. The world may only be safe in the hands of none less than Man, the conduit of all the mighty universe-forming powers of God. 

Can Man save the day from Woman? 

Will God be vanquished by this scourge of the known Galaxy?

...tune in next week for 'The Ludicrous Opinions of Some Christians' to find out. If you missed this week's thrilling episode, it will shown again on the Sacramental Assurance Player

[This is a work of irony, by the way - before you comment that I am a 'traditionalist']

The Father, the Son and the Only Bloke

I was sent a flyer through email last week, inviting me to a seminar dedicated to getting men (back) to church. It is to be called 

Reaching 'Unreached Men'

Perhaps a little perjorative in its titling, as it makes it sound like if you are not a God botherer when you are a lost lamb - men won't thank you for that. But anyway ...

I am unable to go, as 'life' happens, but I would have loved to, for good and healthy reasons as I have a specific interest and a specific perspective:

1. I am a man. The pants-tackle will confirm that, as will the gruff voice, and the fact that films with Hugh Grant make me feel queazy. Yes, dear readers, I am a man, dammit.

2. I am such a bloke as the seminar seeks to reach - and my ordained status only makes me an anomaly to the ordained, not to geezerdom. I have spent many good years working with the 'unreached' geezers in retail, know a little about what makes them tick, and share a heart with them on the whole.

I think men can be (mostly) sub-divided accordingly, each needing a specific 'approach' (sorry, fellas, I am now guilty of treating you like lab-rats too)

Blokus Grunt-Monkeii: Something of a majority state, I am quite clear that I fall into this category. 

  - Pragmatic

  - Family motivated, financially 'hand-to-mouth' on the whole

  - Sports interested

  - Retailing, manual/skilled labour, all that sort of thing, tired and needing of a beer in the evening

 Blokus Hairgeleii: The next largest state of man

  - Mostly graduate, or at least diploma'd, have some saving in the bank and a stonking mortgage

  - IT, Banking, management - all that sort of thing

  - Famly motivated (less likely to have kids that the other lot above, careers first, you see)

  - Sports interested, problem solvers, wine quaffers

Blokus Modernmanicus: An important, but slightly smaller subset

  - Caring professions, teaching, nursing etc etc

  - Almost universally graduate, union minded

  - Family motivated, gin and tonic types (or fancy Lagers)

  - Less sports interested, and less likely footy or wuggah for those who are sports interested

Homo Tweedicus: A small but influential subset

  - Movers and shakers, and often seen with a gold signet on their little finger

  - Sport is a minority interest, and almost always wuggah - brandy or single-malt types

  - Family motivated, but in the wider thirty generations of N and N sense

  - Orxbridge, or Durham if they bummed out

  - Politically minded and financially affluent

There are others, of course (Blokus Shavedheadimus - for those who love extremism; Homo Homo Blokus - for those who like other blokes; Laddus Hoodicoverupus - an intermediate state, sort of like a pupation state before full fledging into manhood and so on and so forth ...)

So, how does the church reach the 'unreached men'? The eternal question ...

My modest offering, born of my own perspective only, are these:

1. Meet men where they are, and in what they love to do. In simple terms, be a visitor to a pub once in a while - most usefully in a dog-collar. Get to know people and do not, and I mean it, do NOT use the 'G' word [God] - game over if you do, unless of course they rasie the subject unprompted. Build relationships with people, enter into chats with them, be interested in them without a heart to convert them - being an infectious Christian will do its own job (and God does the converting, not you)
2. Men want to feel in control of their own lives and more especially those of their family - engage with men at that level. Provide for their children, get to know them. No dad is immune to the goodness that a person shows to their offspring, believe me. 
3. Don't try and save men (in the Christian sense) - respect the caveman side of all blokes. Men don't need saving mate, and that's a fact - they are the hunter gatherers (even if they aren't really) - and to save one who saves others will earn you a poke in the eye. 
4. Talk work - what do they do for a living? We know that Jesus was a carpenter, so there is no failing in being just a little interested in what people do all day. Be interested, get to know thir work, and for God's sake, don't judge them. Binmen are as vital (if not more so) than merchant bankers. 
5. Most blokes have stuff to do on Sundays (I was in 'the wilderness' for two years due to working patterns, so Sundays were a dead loss [and no, I wasn't in the wilderness, just busy, so be careful about terminology) - they will put their family before church every time
6. Do not presume that because someone works in shop, supports Man U, has a tattoo of a spiderweb across their face, owns a Staffy etc etc that they arent committed Christians (just perhaps not a churchgoer) - someone made that mistake with me once and tried to introduce me to the Lord, which is fine, but they didn't ask the right (or any) questions and made some appalling (and offensive) presumptions about me (I was testing my vocation at that time too)
7. Men are interested in their own things. For me, it is fast cars, jet aircraft, rock music, films that expose giblets and gizzards, real ale, etc - I am not the same as my wife in my tastes or most of those who attend any given church on any given Sunday. Talk Aston Martins or Eurofighters with me, or the virtues of Exmoor Gold, and I will quickly become interested in you and what you stand for. The Christian contageon will do its work in proximity, not from a distance.
8. Think flatpack construction - men get there in their own way and prefer to work it out for themselves. Men's Curry Nights, a trip to a beer festival, tickets to the next Air Tattoo - they will do you better than a Service (or other in-church) initiative - to men they represent the Instruction Manual. Give men the opportunity to make their own connections, and they just might  - some might not, so be ready for that too. 

This is a daft brief list. I could batter on for days about this stuff, but for now will call 'Time'. I congratulate the fella from Grove on his initiative with his Seminar, and wish him every success. We need more men in our churches and even with my collar on, I feel like a minority. In St Mary Aylesbury, there are more Zimbabweans than men under 45 - six times as many.   

*Caveat - this is an English/British perspective for those who read this on distant shores!

On being a bloke IV

I have recieved some kind comments from those who have read this piffle, and who recognise the difficulties that I do in fitting in to a church that is largely composed of all other types and brands of people, and not us. There is something of the 'sheep and goats' to it - but us fellas feel a little like the only goat in an entire field, nay county, of sheep. This is problematic both for us, and how we fit in, and for those called to cater for needs of all people. 

It is fair to say, and accurate, that the majority of churches are largely devoid of fellas - certainly if we broaden that to males between 20 and 50. This is not a universal state of affairs by any means, but almost a mathematical certainty in those churches of a more sacramental 'bent'. This is a worry - it was a worry to me as a member of the laity, and no less a worry now that I am ordained. Sadly, being male (while utterly out of our control) brings with it the reverse stigma in a lot of ways that women have had to contend with for generations. Those of us who are 'pro-women', rejoice in the equalised 'voice' that is emerging, but we geezers ponder a factor that is perhaps less visible. It is almost a factor for immediate apology being a proud bloke in a church. I have never in my life sought to limit the ministry of any person, male or female, but neither can or will I be sorry for being man. It's a tension that is hard to resolve. For me to stand up and be a proud fella puts me in danger of accusation (or so it feels). Being proud of who I am does not make me sexist - but I do fear for how my generation of gentleman feels - especially those of us at 'our end' where the 'anti' camp is at its most vociferous. Some have assumed, quite wrongly, that because I and another of my closest friends is carflick, that we are by default anti-women. Nope, not us ....

So, what to do - how do I live as a proud man in a church that doesn't cater for us. I am speaking as one who does the catering too - what to do, indeed! I would go so far as to say that modern day non-charismatic non-Alpha (yes, there are two or three humans who are 'not interested' [please stop sending me unsolicited propaganda]) church life is about as interesting to the typical geezer as the BNP tick-box is to most voters. It just isn't. Sorry! But what to do. I want to cater for all people, not just the well-populated 50+ female band, love them as I do. I know God loves us, but I haven't worked out how I can help build a church where we feel that we have a place.