I don't know much about the group GodMen, but for what Driscoll preaches I fully agree. When you look at the biblical Jesus, he in many ways was never afraid to offend someone, purposefully mocked some (the Pharisees), caused some people to fall down when he said "I am he" (John 18:6), and all of this while being the gracious, loving, children and prostitute welcoming Savior he is. Amazing!

But somehow how we have lost that hardcore reality of Jesus, and only have heard preached the gracious, loving, welcoming one. And then we forget the freaky words he said about hell and the strength with which he said it.

No, I am not offended, I am encouraged

Well that just reeks of ignorance... Taking a white, American cultural version of masculinity and forcing Jesus to fit it. And then using words which obviously aren't carefully chosen that can offend people. He has a right to say what he wants but if it's for the cause of the gospel Driscoll wants to use words like that?

Yet another example of the modern church missing the point. I'm all for men doing things they enjoy just like women and children and anyone else should. But when you assume Jesus is that way... gesh.

I think i'll go read "Wild at Heart" now...

In principle, I agree that our images of Jesus promote a sissy shepherd.

At the same time, as mentioned above, we should be careful not to make Jesus conform to our image of being a man.

"and only have heard preached the gracious, loving, welcoming one"

what exactly is wrong with that?? why does LOVE get qualified with "only"???

call me crazy, but i think the world could do with a MORE loving Jesus, not a less loving one.

can i suggest instead that it is our weak ideas of what love means that need to be reorganized?

Driscoll's Jesus that has to be macho enough so that Mark can't beat him up flies in the face of the Jesus that was in fact beaten up. I guess Jesus wasn't big and macho enough to save those roman guards that beat the tar out of him.

In reference to Mark Driscoll's description:

It is possible to describe Jesus in manly, masculine terms without using derogatory put-downs. You are not tough because you are a heterosexual, and using offensive language -- I will not try to guess the reason, it doesn't matter-- doesn't reflect His character and desire to save those you marginalize and belittle. Making someone else look small to make yourself look tough is ridiculous. Making someone else look small to make Jesus look tough is disgusting.

I thank God for Brandon's courage in writing this article. I made sure to write a letter to the editor, too.

The promoters of the new Christian masculinity are right about one thing: this is dangerous. I totally get that Jesus gets portrayed as "meek and mild," especially for children and young people. His edge is worn away to meet whatever agenda is being driven. What agenda could possibly drive the "feminized" Jesus?

Politics.

Creating a passive Jesus is about creating a subdued, domesticated, middle-class Jesus who doesn't rock the boat. That kind of Jesus won't disrupt the principalities and powers. That kind of Jesus fits in just fine with all the middle-class Christians who want to be affirmed in their comfortable suburbia, refusing to get their hands dirty or spill their blood for a Jesus that scared the powers so badly they killed him. If the GodMen and their leaders (Driscoll, Eldridge, etc.) want to show their so-called masculinity, let them give up their positions of power and privilege and put themselves into war zones as agents of Christ's peace. Doubt we'll see that though because arguing about Reformed theology with a few raunchy words sprinkled throughout is a safer masculinity.

The truly tragic thing about this debate is how ahistorical it is. These debates have been raging for centuries! We fail to see again and again the connection between power, politics, sexuality, and gender. Early monastic writings are a ripe field to consider here. Monastic leaders repeatedly defended all true virtues as exclusively male, while encouraging women to adopt them! They're filled with examples of "masculine" women saints (endorsed by men, of course), only one example of how flexible our gender identities really are. It's sad that these men associate love - a character trait of God - as exclusively feminine and anti-male.

American Christians have also debated the so-called feminized Jesus from the masculine Jesus. Once again, I encourage folks to read Stephen Prothero's lively book American Jesus. He has an entire chapter tracing this argument through the 19th and 20th centuries.

This is not about endorsing homosexuality (though Driscoll's remarks seem amazingly homophobic) or anything like that. This is about recovering a wild and loving disciple to the true God-Man.

Sounds like Driscoll's projecting his own insecurities again.

Mark, go see a therapist. Your men's group will thank you.

So...tell me, if two men came up to you to come to their respective churches and check them out, and the first said...

"the church has produced "a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. … Sixty percent of Christians are chicks," he explains, "and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks."

and then the second said...

"In the process, we must remember that the purpose of discipleship is not primarily to become fulfilled men or women, but rather to be transformed into the image of christ."

which church do you think you would want to go to?

That's just great.
The answer to our problems is swinging the pendulum the opposite direction?

The unhinged ahistoricism of North American Protestantism is lovely.

And who knew? Teaching a deep, passionate, love of God revealed in Christ must mean that we don't have to take seriously the only self-description of Jesus' character given us in the Gospels: He said he was lowly and had a meek heart.

This is not mutually exclusive from the temple cleansing Jesus, but Driscoll is clearly one of those people who is looking for some kind of justification for his love of the "brutal" part of his self-righteous "brutal honesty".

What's even more sad is this Driscoll guy claims to be "preserving" the truth.

Honestly, I'm so glad he's back on the scene these last couple years. Life's been boring since he disappeared for a while after first making his name by flaming people at public gatherings.

The formula still pays off apparently.

He's just as guilty of making Jesus into his own image as anyone else--the image of his own working-class roots--he just likes to prooftext more with bible verses.

Apparently, if you're a traditional literalist though this is considered deep, insightful and bold.

What a waste...

The other point I would add to this debate, in addition to the danger of a hyper-masculine Jesus, is the lack of theological thinking behind this movement. I have read "Wild at Heart", heard exerpts from Brad Stine and Driscoll on this issue and have been saddened by their attempts to make Jesus more macho. It is a blatant attempt to make sacred some of our basest urges that, in my opinion, are more reflective of Adam's Fall than original creation. The fact that these folks never ask which of our "manly desires" is God's design and which is a result of our Fall into sin reveals a lack of theological precision and is troubling to say the least.

For the sake of full disclosure...I am a pastor and I know firsthand the frustration of looking around and asking myself questions like, "Is this really what Jesus died for? So we can come here each week, dress up real nice, sing some nice songs, hear the Bible read and proclaimed, and then go back home? That's the extent of God's vision for the church?" To be sure, I have endeavored to change things, made some people mad, pushed some buttons, but true change can be pretty tough sledding at established institutional churches. (Which is probably why I am leaving to start a new church this summer!) So I am very sympathetic to their point of view. The church is a very weak, passive, broken Body in North America these days. The church desperately needs to recover its sense of purpose and God-given mission! The church needs to be willing to risk its life and dare great things for the sake of the Gospel. When this happens, I think you will find that men and women of God flock to such places.

What makes me boil is the negativity towards Driscoll now - even though he hasn't done anything. For all you Driscoll bashers, realize that his sermon was preached in 2006.

Seriously you Americans come across so stupid sometimes. You get so divided on issues that don't make sense. If some guys want to become sissy's - let them. If other guys want to express their God given masculinity in their faith - let them.

When Jesus was on earth the first time round, He sure was humble and submissive - to His Father and as an example to show proper love and compassion. To hypocrisy and religious institutions, I don't see a shred of humility.

Furthermore when He returns, I think the sissy feminized Jesus followers are in for a shock when they see their King dressed in a robe which is blood soaked from crushing His enemies.

Something to think about while you're getting over this issue.

I wonder if the men at these Godmen meetings take the time to allow other men to lie on their breast? I mean after all, that's what manly Jesus did.

Some great comments. Really. DJ said it well when speaking of a 'white American' idea of masculinity.

Dorsey made an interesting point with his 'two men scenario.' It actually raises a separate point of clarification in my mind. That is, the rhetoric used by some of the more recognizable individuals mentioned in the article really has nothing to do with recapturing a masculine Jesus, but rather slamming a church that does not make room for certain aspects of certain personalities (and honestly it's not limited to male personalities). In some ways I respect that for what it is. I'm glad they are making room for people who want to 'kick the devil's teeth in' and then go kill an elk with their bow. I just wish the 'men's movement' would recognize that they are not speaking for all men. It sounds like in their minds you're either 'with them' or your something less than a man. I guess I'm a little turned off by this machismo, but recognize that there are worse things going on in the church. I'm certainly not offended by the article. It dealt with the issue fairly, yet poignantly in my mind.

While I agree with portions of the article, I get frustrated with the all-or-nothing talk. Paraphrasing, God don't want no sissy boys, God wants men who are kicking butt and taking names. That just smacks of high school PE teacher tactics.

"Grow a pair"? I have a pair, thank you, but I choose not to wave mine arrogantly in everyones faces.

I also strongly disagree with the assumption that men have a corner on the masculinity market, and women have total domain over the femininity market. True masculinity and true femininity are, for most parts, polar opposites. God is the only one who is wholly both. As humans we are on the scale somewhere in between. Yes, some men have more true feminine traits, and some women have more true masculine traits. That doesn't make them any less of a man or woman. Putting it plainly, masculine does not equal male, and feminine does not equal female.

God wants men. God wants men who are authentic. God wants men for who they are, and not what other men think they should be. Some men are those manly man types. Other men are less so. Both are still men. Taking shots at those that aren't as "manly" is nothing more than being a bully under the Christian flag.

what a superb article by Brandon O'Brien

I'm wondering how women got to feminize the church when so few get to lead in it...

"What makes me boil is the negativity towards Driscoll now - even though he hasn't done anything. For all you Driscoll bashers, realize that his sermon was preached in 2006."

What should make you boil is having someone like Driscoll telling you how to man-up and be a non-chickefied dude in a "chickified church"...perhaps you should reread the article again...or better yet...perhaps read Jo Saxton's astute observation...here, let me quote it for you...

"I'm wondering how women got to feminize the church when so few get to lead in it..."

Jo's question has an answer. Nearly every committee in most churches are filled and run by women. Nearly every Sunday School teacher in the church is a woman. Most every volunteer in the church is a woman. That is how.

Facts are this. While most pastors in this country are men, nearly every other structure and contact person in the church is a woman. Women make up nearly 65% of the church attendance on any given Sunday and nearly 75% of volunteers. That is huge influence.

Most men treat church as something for women, children of men with nothing better to do. Many pastors are soft. Couldn't fix a car, couldn't drive a nail, couldn't hit a ball, couldn't hunt or fish. Most men I know do not and see no point in connecting with a pastor like that. Many women love pastors like that.

We sing song about kissing the face of God, we use the word intimacy in church (which means sex to every guy outside the church) to refer to our relationship with God. We decorate our churches with flowers, no guy does this in his office. We make everyone hold hand to pray, no guy does this. We then beat up any image of a male that is rugged as a stupid, redneck, under developed chauvinist.

Nearly every image of Jesus I have ever seen (45 years in the church 27 in ministry) is a soft, teary eyed, flowing hair, guy who you might think never sweat, smashed his finger, had a callous, or got angry.

It is not okay to make Jesus Rambo but it is okay to ask, why do men not like the church. My goal is to build a church me will love, not stereo type Jesus or demean women.

Nothing like a little potty mouthed Mark Driscoll to get the comment lines flooded...

LayGuy,

Nice.
But the blood on Jesus' robe could easily be his own.

Since it says he appears in the sky already wearing a robe dipped in blood.

Nobody's had their rear handed to them quite yet in the scene...and a careful reading shows that just the appearance Jesus is the end of the battle, the appearance is the victory.

Your need for God to be about death and destruction says more about you than anything else.

So there's something for you to think about while you get over your arrogant anti-american bigoted tantrum.

Besides...
what does it matter if Driscoll said this in 06 or yesterday or 10 years ago?

If it's being brought to our attention now take it up with CT/Out of Ur.

Your little anti-american tantrum isn't justified by the "time" argument.

"Facts are this. While most pastors in this country are men, nearly every other structure and contact person in the church is a woman. Women make up nearly 65% of the church attendance on any given Sunday and nearly 75% of volunteers. That is huge influence."

Influence?
Leo, my dog influences me, but she doesn't get to tell me whether I buy her lamb chow or chicken chow.
She eats what I put in front of her.

However, I think what Jo is addressing is this...
Do women have the same access to senior leadership positions as men do?
You know...Sr. Pastor, Pastor, Elder, officer of the church, Deacon, etc.
Or, are they limited to Women's and children's ministries?

65% of attenders is women...

ooooh. That's so overwhelming and intimidating.

whatever.

I can do basic maintenance on my car.
I like to fish.
I can drive a nail.
I can hit a ball.

But that doesn't make me a man.
And, frankly, if you think it does make you one that's pretty bankrupt on a good day, and pretty asinine on the rest--which is most of 'em.

Those things have nothing to do with your character, your soul...

Sheerahkahn, Not trying to reach your dog but I am trying to reach the guy down the street. This post is not about do women have access to positions of leadership but do they influence the church. I have no trouble with women having positions of leadership in the church. I do however think it is turning a blind eye to not acknowledge their influence in spite of a lack of titles. If most volunteer positions in a church are held by women, then doesn’t that make for significant influence in culture and in the masculinity climate of a church?

I am not saying that we need a tougher Jesus, I am saying we need to make sure we are intentional about building a church men will love. Reach a child and about 5% of the time the whole family will be reached. Reach a woman and about 20% of the time the whole family will be reached. Reach a man and about 90% of the time a whole family will be reached. If a church is not cognizant of what it takes to reach a man or is indifferent to what it takes to reach a man then we are not doing our best.

Skeptical, this is not about value of men and women, it is about finding a way to redeem people and building churches that do a great job at reaching men. Most do not do a good job of reaching men. I never said any of those things have anything to do with character or soul, that is your own defensiveness reading into my words.

No.
Actually it is your words.
You explicitly connected certain activities to males. You explicitly connected any pastor's perceived failure to engage those activities as contributing to an environment where males don't have a sense of their masculinity being celebrated, accepted, or whatever.

So again, No.
It is your words and what you actually said.

But thank you for doing the only "reading into things" on this thread.

It would be you reading into my critique of the silliness of your examples and what they actually communicate.

I'm glad though that you want to do better than most churches.

Considering the mess the average evangelical is, it really won't be that hard.

Good luck with that.

I am a Korean-American Missionary in charge of taking care of other missionaries in Asian countries. I realize there may be a need for such a ministry - but from my experience - this Caucasian culture driven macho thinking has caused some problems in our part of the world. Particularly in terms of getting along with Asian Missionaries. From where I live and work- I don't think it will help transform men who can be used as missionaries in my part of the world.

Another Mark (Galli) makes the point much better (in 'Jesus: Mean and Wild'): without implying that it mean he also drives and SUV and owns a gun, we must remember Jesus is not nice.

Just as some men use big cars (and other things) to compensate for small egos (and other things), I wonder if some pastors likewise feel the need to offend people.

"Making someone else look small to make yourself look tough is ridiculous. Making someone else look small to make Jesus look tough is disgusting."
J. Cantrell,
It seems to me, that special Christian subculture, developed here because of men’s incredible laziness for the Lord, became so “non-feminized” that it became too scary to be ignored.
I'd rather consider an opportunity of making someone else, Lord Jesus himself, in this case, great enough to be worshiped in godly fear, as well as in love. If, of course, we are talking about living God who will judge one day this entire world of people he is in love with. We’re also talking about God, who commanded his children to eliminate both their, and his, enemies all! There is consuming-fire quality in his character also, and we are not to forget about it. (Heb. 12: 29) Interestingly, in Soviet Union preachers were prohibited of telling about God’s final judgment. It seems like some folks don’t like this kind of message even within the church.
Not having had the pleasure to read the books that are being discussed here, however, I could assume that subject of these hard qualities of our God is absolutely timely and must be boldly preached from every pulpit, big or small, of this nation. Just to give God's people more full, true, picture of our salvation.

Gosh I go away for a day and had no idea what one line could spark!
I am aware of the stats and how many women there are in the church, and I know exactly what you mean by influence. But surely you can see that this idea that the church's problem with losing guys is that is too girly is a bit weak? The descriptions provided about what makes the church feminized - flowers, liking a soft pastor, appreciating the images of Jesus in a dress with flowing locks, holding hands - like - seriously? Its a VERY narrow perception of womanhood and it alienates many - as does helpful phrases like "chickified church"!
I'm with you - the church needs to be a place which men love, but lets face it - its not just men leaving the church in droves.
I'm not attracted to some effete picture of Jesus or his masculinity, or songs which say intimacy hundreds of times. I am attracted by the radical message of salvation, the radical life he lived, the power of the cross, and a vision of the kingdom of God transforming a messed up society. The man who cleansed the leper, raised the dead, confronted evil and changed the world.
What I am saying is perhaps the reason why men AND women aren't so into church is because they are not getting access to that anymore, that we are not out there doing the business anymore.If you want to reach men and women - lets go to where they are and live this thing, be this thing, and introduce people to this radical savior (a savior whom I think we all admire!)
Telling men to grow a pair, and church chickified - whether valid or not - is woefully inadequate in comparison, dontcha think?

Could somebody point me to the portion of the Scriptures that apparently only certain people "truly" love that says that the work of Christ was to help me fulfill some dolt's personal expectations about how I should be?

First - it is not the pastor's fault that men don't come to church or come to Jesus...I believe that is called sin.

Second - since when did "rebel" become synomous with "macho?" One need not be a big, muscle bound man to start a rebellion...

Third - if you want to make Christ "look" better - feel free...but at the same time, read a little of Kings or Chronicles as to what happens when we set up idols.

Forth - who cares what Christ looked like? I promise there will be no mistaking Him the next time...

Oh...and this from one of the sissified pastors leading a church...who cares how I look - I would rather people saw the LOVE OF CHRIST through our church than what I look like (not pretty). Thus, the constant prayer "Lord, hide me behind the Cross." People need to quit coming to church to see a pastor, and start coming to see Jesus! Folks...it ain't about us!!!

Leo, great post.
I love Ultimate Fighting and Wild at Heart but a fruit of the spirit is not whether you can armbar someone, have big muscles and are in touch with your inner William Wallace.

The problem with men being bored and uninvolved with church is because we are not doing church the way God intended not because it isn't "manly" enough. Men need to be more like Jesus not Randy Couture.

The sermon is from 2006 but I haven't seen any indication that Driscoll has moved from his position. He can chalk up any hurt feelings or criticisms to being "sissified". Thing is you can't shame people into changing or maturing. I understand the appeal, men want to know they are "okay" and want respect. If I look like the cool crowd I'll fit in and be accepted; and this just promotes more inauthenticity and religiousity - but hey! at least it kicks butt!!

I wonder what Driscoll does to minister to all the emo kids in Seattle?

I think many miss the point. It is not as if someone sat in the back room a church central and said,"let's create a problem becasue the church needs another one." Men not loving or engaging in the church is a real problem. 25% of married women in the hcurhc attend church alone. most of the kids in that home, especially boys will not attend church as men.

To simply blame men does nothing to bring men into a relationship with Christ. To simply say that men just need to change is not brining any more men back into the church. Most of the volunteers in a church are not men. Is it possible that is because a system we use is broken?

I am not advocating Driscoll's method but I think the church is effeminate.

Leoskeo, while I am quite sure you did not mean it in that way, your statement "men not loving or engaging in the church" as a statement IS the problem. We are not called to love a church, a pastor, a building, or any of the such - we are called to love God, then love our neighbors. I don't simply blame men, but I call them to task for not truly taking the time to understand the Gospel, or to address their sin - in fact, I take to task a great deal of the world in that, including myself.

I agree - men need to be in church...but so does the upcoming generation, which seems to be deserting the church in droves. Again I state - it ain't about us! Unfortunately, we live in a day that seems to want to make it about us, to the detriment of the Cross.

interesting post on the World blog, by Tony Woodlief - discussing that Christianity is not about you. "Many of us have an expectation that religion exists, like antibioitics and air conditioning, to make our lives more comfortable." We have quit worrying about our relationship with our Risen Lord, and begun to worry more about our relationship with the building in which we are supposed to worship...

Thoughts?

Leo,your argument here is against one I am not making. Jesus loves the church so should I. Men do not love a church or love the church nor do many distinguish between the 2.

As for it not being about us. True, but it definitely involves me. God's introductions of himself often included his relationship with people. His introductions of himself include his interactions with people. God intertwines himself with people, is the center of everything but not to the exclusion of me. In fact just the opposite.

I believe one reason we see people leaving the church in droves is the absence of men. Church to many men feels like going to a chick flick. Nothing wrong with a chick flick but most men don't want to go.

Like it or not, Jesus Himself established the church as the primary venue for His followers to turn the world upside down.

Hebrews 10:24-25 says, "And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the manner of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near." You men who claim to follow Jesus but aren't willing to step up to the plate in the body of believers--what you're doing is sin.

I propose a three-point solution:
1. Stop being so passive.
2. Get off the Web and GET INVOLVED.
3. Make your voices heard. Maybe then, things will change.

Oh, by the way...I'm a woman...hope that's not a problem for anyone.

Shannon! Oh dear! Another example of a woman trying to influence the Church! Whatever next? Seriously, your blog was to the point. Is the problem really that fewer men than women are saved, and so do not even have the beginnings of a relationship with the King of kings?

Macho Jesus, huh? What is masculinity anyway?

In Kenya men walk around holding each other's hands as a sign of friendship. In China men play with each others hair and hold hands also. Here that would seem very un-masculine.

And does the church really portray a hippie, weakling, effeminate Jesus? Mine does not. And I really don't know anyone who does. Sure Jesus got tough sometimes, mainly when speaking up for the poor and oppressed. But "Ultimate Fighting Jesus" is a sub-standard Jesus, just as much as the sissy Jesus is. Great article pointing out the blatant theological, cultural, and contextual mistakes made by well meaning guys.

What is sad is that so many of you seem to miss the point entirely. This is not about feminism or chauvinism, This is not about the value of men and women or who is who in the ministry. This is about the FACT that men struggle to connect in the church as it exists in this country. It is not about china, India or some other country. It is the FACT that men in America find that the church is too feminine for them.

My dad rarely went to church. his view of church was that it was for women, children and men with nothing better to do. He almost always had something better to do. When I began my church, I invited him, told him that I was working hard to build a church that the average guy would love. He said he would try it out. to this day he is faithful to serve and participate in the life of the body. Why? I chose to alter some small but important things in what we communicate, what we sing, how we expect men to express themselves, added a ton of laughter and excellence. His comment, "if church was like this years ago, I might not have wasted so much time outside of it."

Looks like another version of flashy multimedia "show" ministry with little connection to the Bible and the historical Jesus.

I think the history of gender-based ministries (and all of their offshoots--young-single, young-adult, young married, college, career, middle-age with teen children, etc etc. etc.) have done great damage by driving numerous wedges within Christian communities. No wonder men don't/wont feel welcome. It's time our church communities unite ourselves (in ways that cross genders, generations, economic and marital statuses) rather than constantly coming up with groups that dissect and divide the community using some sort of class status. We can learn from each other and we have a lot of common wisdom to share.

I don't if anybody is saying it's about feminism/chauvinism, etc. etc.

What I take issue with is your assertion: that "it is a FACT" that men in general are not connecting with the church.

Says who?
The story about your father is anecdotal, not research.

I have yet to be in a church (and believe me, I've seen and worked in a ton) where Driscoll's description holds water.

If there is an issue with connecting with men IN YOUR COMMUNITY, well, we'll pray for you. But I can point you to a ton of churches where this doesn't obtain.

To make general comments about "effeminate" Christianity just doesn't wash.

And it's offensive to the many others who do not experience Christianity or Jesus this way.

To cast things along this "divide" is unhelpful, and inaccurate.

And that's why you get the reaction you're getting.

If a lot of men aren't going to church, then maybe there's something wrong with them and not the church. A little personal responsibility anyone? But oh no, we must blame the women! A tried and true Christian tradition. Church got you down? Blame the women! High gas prices and global warming got you down? It's some woman's fault! They've sissified the economy!

Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but really, put the responsibility and blame back on where it's due: with the men who would rather watch TV, go to a ballgame, etc, than to worship God.

I think Kathy, whoever you are, is on to something.

Skeptical, your name says it all. Average church attendance in this country. 61% women, 39% men Population split otherwise is almost 50/50. That is a large gap and it is growing. 25% of all married women attend church without their husbands. On any given Sunday there are nearly 13 million more adult women in attendance than men and mid week church activities are 75+% female. (Church for Men)

So even if my story about my dad is as you say antidotal, it is also representative of the facts. We can beat up guys as just simply bad Christians but the reality is that approach will get you what we have right now. Kathy, no one here blamed the women. I have served in ministry for nearly 3 decades and been in the church for over 4. I see it all the time. My church right now is about a 50/50 split and I actually have a nearly even split with men and women volunteers. We do some things different. If you read my words without the huge lens of defensiveness, you would find I do not advocate a more macho Jesus, just an intentional and purposeful approach to reach men. In the past few years I have had a number of women thank me for the fact their husbands now attend church, engage in family prayer and even are growing deeper in their walk with Christ. A few have even said, my husband treats me better when he is around here.

Wow.
Thanks Leoskeo.

First off, it's "anecdotal".

I don't even necessarily disagree that it's a good thing to get men to church, what I've objected to all along is to cast it as an issue of "effeminence".

Diagnosing the problems along these lines is unhelpful and perpetuates stereotypes that cuts both ways. It also trivializes issues of gender identity by making it about the "window dressing" of a church.

It also obscures the heart of the gospel and plays into the "spiritual consumerism" that is so prevalent today.

I particularly like how you constantly level the charge of "defensiveness".

Could it be that you just don't want to look more carefully at your flippant jump onto the latest bandwagon of diagnostic jargon?

Then again, if that jargon keeps things "simple" for you, I'm happy for you.

Another thing,

nice use of statistics.

To jump from that to a diagnosis of "effeminate" christianity just isn't warranted.

Actually Leoskeo, many do blame women for this problem. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. Also, you said that I am looking at this situation "through the huge lense of defensiveness." I'm sure you didn't mean for this to sound condescending, but that is the way it comes across. Many of us will have different opinions on the problem of the lack of men in the church, and that's okay.