Why men aren’t buying our core product (part 2)

  • Sermon series flyer

    Right after Christmas, I received three cards in the mail from three local churches. (One of them is pictured above) This is not unusual; lots of churches advertise this time of year. What was unusual was the fact that all three churches were advertising sermon series on the same topic: relationships.

    In my last blog entry I explained why the Evangelical church’s “core product” has recently shifted from personal salvation to personal relationships. Church used to be the place that saved your soul; today it’s the place that saves your messed up family.

    As a young man growing up in church, I can’t remember ever hearing a sermon about relationships – much less a series. Sermons of the 1970s focused on evangelism, mission, personal holiness and discipleship. Most pastors didn’t see relationships as a topic worthy of the pulpit.

    They do now.

    American Christianity is in the process of rebranding itself. The gospel is no longer described as a life-and-death mission, it’s a “personal relationship with Jesus.” Many pastors and churches have embraced a slogan like this: “Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship.” Evangelistic organizations are dropping their mission-oriented names. Campus Crusade for Christ is in the process of renaming itself, “Cru.”

    These marketing moves are bringing people in the doors. With more than 40% of U.S. children born out of wedlock and family disruption common, people are looking for help with their relationships. A Gospel focused on relationships addresses a felt need in today’s broken world.

    There’s only one problem: the Bible hardly devotes any attention to interpersonal relationships.

    First, that term: personal relationship with Jesus. It never appears in scripture. Across 66 books of the Bible, never once are humans commanded to enter into a relationship with God or Jesus. This metaphor is the creation of 20th century preachers who wanted to make the Gospel appealing to their core constituency: women.

    Second, if you read what Jesus really said about relationships, you’ll be shocked. He did not come to bring people together, he came to divide them (Matt. 10:34-35). He said that any man who did not hate his family members was not worthy to be his disciple (Luke 14:26) He promised lavish rewards to those left their families behind for His kingdom (Luke 18:29-30). Not exactly the kinds of things you hear on Family Life Today.

    And third, if you step back and examine the broad themes of the Bible, interpersonal relationships would not even make the top ten list. The apostle Paul addresses relationships infrequently, often for the purpose of keeping the early church from slipping into immorality. Almost every Christian book and sermon on relationships is taken from the few things Paul had to say about them.

    Don’t misunderstand me. There’s nothing wrong with the church dispensing relationship advice, particularly in small groups. Parachurch organizations such as Focus on the Family and Family Life are doing commendable work. Churches are wise to offer counseling and conflict resolution. The Bible clearly endorses marriage, fidelity and comity between individuals. The greatest commandments are to love the Lord and our neighbor.

    But is this what the Gospel is really about? Is relational harmony the main reason people should come to church? Is it “core product” we offer to the world?

    Here’s my concern: if people come to see the church as “in the relationship business,” we set ourselves up for a number of unpleasant consequences:

    • More women and fewer men involved in church, since women are so much more relationally focused than men
    • Fewer young men in attendance
    • Further alienation of singles as teaching focuses more and more on marriage and children
    • Less focus on mission, evangelism and outreach
    • More passivity among the men who do go to church
    • A growing reputation as a feminized institution
    • Increased pressure to accept alternative relationships (unmarried, homosexual, polyamorous, etc.)
    • People blaming the church when their relationships go south
    • More “me” focused Christians
    • Fewer people accepting Christ’s gift of salvation

    The Gospel is relevant to every area of life – relationships included. But Christ did not die a horrible death on the cross so you could have a regular date night. We need to keep the main thing the main thing. Men are interested in relationships, but they’re motivated by mission. The Gospel’s message of redemption must remain front and center, even if it doesn’t bring as many people in the doors.

     

     

     

    Share:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Google Bookmarks
    • email
    • LinkedIn
    • NewsVine
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • RSS

    February 17th, 2012 | David Murrow | 24 Comments |

About The Author

David Murrow

David Murrow is the director of Church for Men, an organization that helps congregations reach more men and boys. In his day job, David works as a television producer and writer. He's the author of three books. He lives in Alaska with his wife, three children, two grandchildren and a dachshund named Pepper.

  • theriverhawk

    I’m a big reader and follower of your stuff on Facebook.  I’m going to graciously disagree with you regarding the “personal relationship with Jesus” part.  In the book of John, Jesus refers to us over and over as possibly being called his “friend”.  See John 15:13-15. How can we not say that it’s a personal relationship that Jesus wants from us and offers us?
     Now, I may agree with you in regards to how the church is now preaching relationship instead of salvation…preach on with that one! 
    Blessings!

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    I agree. The relationship is implied. But the term is never used.

  • JamielCotman

    I think one of the biggest things we lack in the body of Christ today, is man-on-man discipleship, or brotherhood.

    Not “relationships”

    Most guys don’t have a group of men that they can lock arms with to face adversity.

    Dave discusses this in Mens League.

    Jesus discipled his followers, AND ALSO, used them to disciple each other, pairing them in 2′s, and sending them out accordingly [Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:1].

    I think the reason why Jesus didn’t use the word, “relationship” is because it is counter-productive.

    It doesn’t FEEL masculine.

    Had he told those 70+ men, “Hey guys, want to have an intimate-loving-RELATIONSHIP? We will be together, touching, holding, and helping one another for the next…”

    …not only would they NOT have had a “relationship”, they would have beat him up!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrTLx_Qrk28&list=UU0Y6fWdLkc7C1wFt9DmO81g&index=7&feature=plcp

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMV8B6mT15c&feature=related

  • JamielCotman

     Also riverhawk…

    …men don’t connect with God, and each other the way women do.

    So if we are to achieve the beloved [though unmentioned in scripture]
    “relationship” status that the modern church wants, we can’t do it by
    discussing relationships. Men bond through challenge and action, in much
    the same way a football team does against an opponent!

    But if all we do is cuddle up, and talk-talk-talk-  about all of the
    naughty things that Bob is doing at home, ol ‘Bob’ is going to STAY at
    home every Sunday and watch football.

    We have to give him a mission [where there is a clear winner or loser]

    We have to give him a team [a band of brothers]

    We have to give him an enemy [a challenge to surmount]

    Only then will he see clearly the need to engage in any “relationship”.

    Like I said, he bonds through challenge and action [adversity even], not “talking” about relationships.

    The irony is, the church for men is doing MORE for relationships by NOT TALKING about it directly, than the feminized church.

  • theriverhawk

    Agreed Agreed Agreed!!!  I work in a relational ministry called Young Life.  We live it out before we talk about it.  We “earn the right to be heard”.  But we do end up talking about the relationship that Jesus wants with us individually.  In Matthew 7:21-23, he says “be gone from me for I never KNEW you”(my emphasis).  This word knew, is the same as a husband and wife on their wedding night.  They were intimate.  They give all they have to the other.  It’s what he is looking for from us;  n intimate, personal relationship.  I am glad to hear about the great work that Church for Men is doing.  Sounds like my kind of men.  I am a former hunting guide in CO, was on YL staff in Montana and now on staff and reside in Alabama.  I spend alot of my “face to face” time with kids in the woods, showing boys that following Jesus doesn’t mean you have to be a sweet little boy that never has fun. My goal in leading kids to Jesus is to first defeat the “metro sexualization” of boys these days and teach them to be Wild at Heart while having an intimate relationship with their creator.  Blessings to all the work you guys do!!!! 

  • Bryan

    Great!  But can’t we do this without using the word “intimate”?  For better or worse, right or wrong, that word implies sex in our modern culture/society.  I don’t want to have sex with God or Jesus.  Can’t we just call it something else?  How about a “powerful relationship”, or a “strong friendship”, or maybe even a “close friendship”?

  • Bryan

    OK, so I did some online research on this.  I’m no scholar or anything like that and I may be wrong, or my understanding may be incomplete, but what I found is this:  The greek word used in Matthew 7:23 is never used anywhere in the Bible in a husband/wife type of setting, or in any way relating to anything sexual.  There may be some derivative of this word, or some similar word used in that fashion – I don’t have enough time to look into it that deeply – but not this exact word from Matthew 7:23.  Actually, this same greek word is used in Romans 7:7 in relation to “knowing sin”.  Obviously, God doesn’t want us to “know sin” in a sexual kind of sense, although many, many, many of us do.

    Also, I know (understand) that the Bible often refers to the Church as the bride of Christ.  Yet, I can not recall any specific passage in the Bible that refers to any particular Christian individual person (key words here are “individual person”) as the bride of Christ.  In other words, there is no “personal husband/wife” type of relationship spoken of in the Bible relative to us (as an individual) and God/Jesus.

    Even so, if I understand all of this correctly, the Bride (Jesus) and His Groom (the Church) are not yet married, only engaged at this time.  So, even if there is to be an “intimate” relationship, the time is not yet right.  Paul says, “now I know in part, then I shall fully know, even as I am fully known”.

    Now I’ll admit that this may be a stretch, but it also appears that the “you” in Mathew 7:23 is plural instead of singular.  Again, not “personal”.

    So I’ll go a step further than Dave and say that yes, a relationship is implied, but there is never an “intimate personal relationship” implied – especially in the connotation that our modern culture uses that phrase.  The only person in the whole universe with whom I am to have an “intimate personal relationship” is my wife.

    As they say on C-Span, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.  I also admit that I am possibly wrong, and can hopefully change my mind if someone can conclusively prove to me that the Bible says otherwise.

  • joel

    I used to hear the phrase “RIGHT (proper) relationship with God” from time to time. That works better for me. It says that I know He is God and I am not.

    I think the key thing we’re missing in any “relationship” with God is obedience. In John 14 and 15 Jesus repeatedly tells us what a loving “realtionship” or “friendship” with him is all about – obeying His teaching and keeping His commandments!  He even tells us that the world will hate us for it (also our families, as Dave mentioned). Nobody would promote this kind of one-sided obedience model for an intimate, earthly “personal relationship”. It’s more akin to  a father-son relationship, or even soldiers on a mission for a general (Patton, Robert E. Lee) that they “love” because he leads them to victory over the enemy.

  • dingdong

    i am fast losing respect for church men – am i in the wrong business?

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    what business are you in?

  • dingdong

    Christian mens ministry.

  • dingdong

    Technically it is a personal relationship, yes, I dont think Murrow would disagree there. Its just the terminology we use in church that is so offputting to normal guys. You dont hear men talking down at the bar, “I have a great personal relationship with my doctor” – most men dont talk like that. We gotta try to see how we talk in church as the average guy on the street would hear us talking. My church sounds like a bunch of women, not men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Grice/1421102106 Mark Grice

    First off, in general I am loving the website and blogs. Great stuff! (Mostly) 

    I do have to disagree with the over-arching thesis, though, that we were not created for a relationships. I would not disagree with you on the amount of focus it is getting, but you are really running roughshod over a lot of scripture to say that it was not God’s intention. Going back to the beginning, when God creates man, he tells the Son and Holy Spirit “Let US create man in OUR own image…” which, implies intrinsically that He meant for man to have a relationship.Then, in Genesis 2, when He looks at man, He sees a creation that has exactly what most men crave: A great job (ruler of the earth) a great home (Garden of Eden) and a perfect relationship with God. That’s kind of a trifecta as far as I am concerned. But the creator says: “It is not good that man is alone…”How can you then say that God did not create us for a relationship? Before God created woman, it was “not good” because man was alone. It is part of the Bible from the very beginning. And Paul did, in fact, write more about it than your phrase “The apostle Paul addresses relationships infrequently, often for the purpose of keeping the early church from slipping into immorality” implies…Again, I find much of what I read here very solid and good. But I think we need to be careful not to be guilty of the same thing David is accusing the “Relationship People” of, and that is oversimplifying the Bible.

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    Once again, I am not saying that relationships are unbiblical or unimportant. Just answer me this: Is the chief purpose of the church to help individuals with their relationships? Is this why we exist?

  • joel

    Why are you losing respect for “church men”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Grice/1421102106 Mark Grice

    I don’t think you said relationships are unbiblical — but you seem to deemphasize them to the point that they do seem unimportant to you 00 at least onsofar as a mission of the church.  And I don’t know about things in Alaska, but where I’m from, Adolescent boys run from relationships. Grown men can handle a relationship.

    I would not say that relationships with individuals were our *chief* purpose… I would say that the church’s purpose is three fold: 1) To Praise God, 2) to educate and 3) to serve one another.
    I’m curious… What would you say the chief purpose of the church is?

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    Matthew 28:19-20. That’s the purpose of the church.

  • Joel

    I agree, with a whole-hearted “AMEN”. And Mark Grice, I think a lot of times we say men and/or boys “run from relationships”, when really what they’re running from is the types or styles of relationships a feminized culture and church expect of them, not the relationships that are true to their nature.

  • JamielCotman

     

    You: I do have to disagree with the over-arching thesis,
    though, that we were not created for a relationships.

    Me:  That wasn’t the
    overall thesis. The overall thesis was that, whether or not men are created for
    relationships, we don’t ‘relate’ in the same way as do women. [talking,
    singing, hand holding]

    You: you are really running roughshod over a lot of
    scripture to say that it was not God’s intention. 

    Me: Again, he wasn’t saying it was not Gods intention, but
    that current methods of bringing men to Christ are ineffective, – ruining Gods
    intention.

    You: I don’t think you said relationships are unbiblical –
    but you seem to deemphasize them to the point that they do seem unimportant to
    you

    Me: I would say the opposite. He IS emphasizing
    relationships, only in MAN language. Men don’t connect with God and each other
    the way women do. I don’t want to read about a God who wants an intimate loving
    relationship with me, I don’t want to pray to a Jesus that wants to hold my
    hand, and wrap me in his arms. These “relationship” illustrations provided by
    the modern church, are the very things that keep men from having a relationship
    with God.

    In fact…

    Go look at some of the bestselling men’s magazines, such as “Men’s
    Health” or, “Ask Men” online. You won’t see ONE segment dedicated to “relationships”.
    There is one for “Sex”, “Women”, even, “Dating” but NONE for relationships,
    even though it helps guys in that area. Why? Because that word is not in a man’s
    every day vocabulary.  Guys in the locker
    room don’t talk about their relationships, they do however discuss women, dating,
    and sex, because there is an implied goal. So whether it’s with God or others,
    we have to promote the ‘goal’ of the relationship, the ‘team’ that helps him,
    and the ‘enemy’ that is after him [war, not relationship if you ask me], before
    men feel the need to engage.

    Men are achievement, not relationship driven.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Grice/1421102106 Mark Grice

    David, Thanks for the dialog. I’m going to end the thread here because, in the end, I think we agree a lot more than we disagree. As you said in the forward to your book — even if I disagree with 10% of what you say, I am not about to discard the other 90% we agree with…

    That being said, I’d love to grab a cup of coffee with you sometime and discuss all of this more! 

    Keep up the good work.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Grice/1421102106 Mark Grice

    I think Men are a little more complex than you give us credit for…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Grice/1421102106 Mark Grice

    OK, if you are saying that the term “running from relationships” is a metaphor for running from a relationship defined wholly in women’s terms… I can agree with that. But might I suggest we change the metaphor then? There must be a more accurate way to communicate that thought…

  • Bryan

    OK, I’m revising and extending my remarks.  It seems that some translations use the word “married” in Romans 7:4 (the NIV uses the phrase “belong to”).  But, maybe the NIV version is more accurate looking at the context from the previous chapter.  Whatever the case, Paul is talking about the legal aspect of the “relationship”, not the ooey-gooey, curl up in Jesus’ lap with a cup of hot Chai, or the “intimate” aspect.  Anyway, if I hear another preacher say that he is “in-love” with Jesus, I think I’ll puke.

  • Bryan

    OK, I’ll admit.  Maybe I am wrong.  Looking again at the Romans 7: 1-6 passage, it does say “that we can bear fruit to God”.  I don’t know the original Greek, but I suppose that it’s possible that this could mean “bearing fruit” as in “bearing children”.  Even so, Paul makes his point without all of the ooey-gooey so in-love with Jesus kind of terminology that we hear from the pulpit and worship leaders today.