Book review: The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity by Leon J. Podles.
Podles starts with a premise that may seem counter-intuitive: the modern Western church is dominated by a feminine spirit that drives masculine men away. Podles begins by offering evidence to demonstrate the truth of his premise. Then he looks at the history of the Christian church to figure out why and how we have arrived at the current crisis.
Definitions of Masculine and Feminine
After showing some evidence that the modern church is dominated by women, Podles spends several chapters defining masculinity and femininity. Femininity is characterized by:
- union
- communion
- fellowship
- immanence
Masculinity is:
- separation
- self-sacrifice
- transcendence
Formation of gender identity
Podles offers a bizarre biological and psychological explanation for the difference between men and women: a girl is born and identifies with her mother, then matures to adulthood with an “identity [modeled] after her mother’s.” Boys, however, identify first with their mothers, but must eventually break from her and form a new male identity. This painful separation is often re-enacted in cultural rites of initiation into manhood. This rejection of women and formation of a new identity is uniquely male, and thus anything that involves separation or isolation or apartness can be considered masculine. Anything that involved continuing union or fellowship can then be considered feminine.
Podles’s psychology is junk, but if you can suffer through those chapters, he moves on to an insightful examination of the history of the church. In particular he focuses on the origins of bridal mysticism.
The Heresy of Bridal Mysticism
The Bible refers to the church as the bride of Christ (feminine), but individual believers are sons of God (masculine). A confluence of events in the 12th and 13th centuries resulted in a “massive influx” of women into the church. This provided fruitful soil for a new heresy: bridal mysticism. Thirteenth century preachers taught that each Christian is a bride of Christ. They used sexual metaphors and the romantic imagery to describe the relationship of Jesus to individual believers.
Bridal mysticism took root and continues to thrive even today. The effect of this heresy has been to equate Christian spirituality and morality with that of a feminine receptive bride. Men today are asked to view themselves as brides of Christ rather than sons of God. This romantic imagery is incompatible with masculinity, and consequently drives men from the church. The few men left in the church are meek, gentle men who feel at home in a feminine environment. The stereotypical Christian man is shockingly un-masculine.
Practical ideas
The Church Impotent offers an interesting interpretation of church history and the origins of feminized Christianity. Podles does not focus on the present-day church, though. For the modern church that is struggling to attract strong Christian men, The Church Impotent has little to offer.
“For the modern church that is struggling to attract strong Christian men, The Church Impotent has little to offer.”
Were you making a statement about the value of the book for Christian men, or were you being clever and making a statement about the value of the church?
I agree that the Christian church is rather feminine in many ways. We think of churches–rightfully so, I think–as places where we find care and nurture, and those are often thought of a feminine characteristics. But what about things like forgiveness and teaching? We also find them at church–are they feminine?
You also say that Podles doesn’t focus on the present-day church, except to point out that it is “dominated by women.” So he offers no practical suggestions for making church more likable by men?
“So he offers no practical suggestions for making church more likable by men?”
That’s right. Other than to stop preaching heresy, he doesn’t give any practical advice. For practical advice you can read Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow.
This sheds some light on why I must like men’s retreats so much. Just leaving for a weekend and spending a lot of “separate” time with myself, other men and just getting taught and worshiping really fulfills me. I find that I dislike many of those “feminine” aspects of normal church - and when the men are all together for a weekend I find the community a lot less convoluted.
I have never found this “feminine” aspect of church to be evident. In the churches I have been too througout my time as a Christian I have experienced an almost asexual environment, I guess like the innocence small children have amongst themselves.
This is not the first time I had read an article like this and it really surprises me that men are leaving the church claiming it is too feminine. What are the “man” qualities that are not in the church? And are these qualities that are supposedly missing in concert or conflict with the fruits of the spirit?
I don’t think people are consciously leaving the church and saying it’s too feminine. It’s more subtle than that. The gospel is presented in romantic, sexual terms that men cannot–and should not–accept. For example, David Murrow says in his book Why Men Hate Going to Church:
With imagery like that, it’s no surpise that men aren’t interested in church.
What are the “man” qualities that are not in the church?
Looking at Podles list:
* separation
* self-sacrifice
* transcendence
I would say separation and transcendence are often missing. My wife and I j7ust had this discussion and one of her responses was “I don’t see how you can incorporate separation into church.” To which I responded that that was a very feminine thing to say. For example, if you have church women planning something, it seems to be that they commonly want to have collective participation and that the activity often involves bringing people into to work on something together. However, I like the idea of churches “separating” - forming small groups, even equipping individual believers for person study and personal worship. You only bring people together to support this separation-type practice - not the other way around.
Transcendence to me, is all about focusing on the abstract nature of God and simply contemplating him. David’s Selah if you will. Again, the activities in church are so often about doing small action-type things - pot-lucks, outreaches, etc.. what about simply contemplating the wonder of God? What about engaging the church in discussion and Q&A?
Fair points - I have just never experienced that. At the churches I have been part of Q&A nights with the pastor happened - one was an Anglican church the other was a Community based church and small groups were also common and encouraged.
As for self-sacrafice this is a Christian quality. I read the point and intellectually comprehend it but just can not relate to it through personal experience.
I would say the answer is to ensure the focus of the church is biblically orthodox and the rest will fall into place.