The Truth About Men & Church

I just could not resist posting this article.  It's a long read, but below is an excerpt, emphasis mine.  The article was written by a minister in the Church of England.  The results below are from a study done in Switzerland.


Father’s Influence

In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper.  If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.

A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church.  In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door.  If his wife is similarly negligent that figure rises to 80 percent!

The results are shocking, but they should not be surprising.  They are about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be; but they simply confirm what psychologists, criminologists, educationalists, and traditional Christians know.  You cannot buck the biology of the created order.  Father’s influence, from the determination of a child’s sex by the implantation of his seed to the funerary rites surrounding his passing, is out of all proportion to his allotted, and severely diminished role, in Western liberal society.

A mother’s role will always remain primary in terms of intimacy, care, and nurture.  (The toughest man may well sport a tattoo dedicated to the love of his mother, without the slightest embarrassment or sentimentality).  No father can replace that relationship.  But it is equally true that when a child begins to move into that period of differentiation from home and engagement with the world "out there," he (and she) looks increasingly to the father for his role model.  Where the father is indifferent, inadequate, or just plain absent, that task of differentiation and engagement is much harder.  When children see that church is a "women and children" thing, they will respond accordingly—by not going to church, or going much less.

Curiously, both adult women as well as men will conclude subconsciously that Dad’s absence indicates that going to church is not really a "grown-up" activity.  In terms of commitment, a mother’s role may be to encourage and confirm, but it is not primary to her adult offspring’s decision.  Mothers’ choices have dramatically less effect upon children than their fathers’, and without him she has little effect on the primary lifestyle choices her offspring make in their religious observances.

Her major influence is not on regular attendance at all but on keeping her irregular children from lapsing altogether.  This is, needless to say, a vital work, but even then, without the input of the father (regular or irregular), the proportion of regulars to lapsed goes from 60/40 to 40/60.

Here is the whole article; interesting stuff:  I love this quote:

"One does not need to go very far through the procedures by which the Church of England selects its clergy or through its theological training to realize that it offers little place for genuine masculinity.  The constant pressure for "flexibility," "sensitivity," "inclusivity," and "collaborative ministry" is telling.  There is nothing wrong with these concepts in themselves, but as they are taught and insisted upon, they bear no relation to what a man (the un-neutered man) understands them to mean.

Men are perfectly capable of being all these things without being wet, spineless, feeble-minded, or compromised, which is how these terms translate in the teaching.  They will not produce men of faith or fathers of the faith communities.  They will certainly not produce icons of Christ and charismatic apostles. They are very successful at producing malleable creatures of the institution, unburdened by authenticity or conviction and incapable of leading and challenging. Men, in short, who would not stand up in a draft." 

Love that! :)