Jesus was a feminist and so am I [BBC Religion Online]

Wow.  The “feminisation” of worship?  What should we have?  A few rousing choruses of  “I’m a man, yes I am”  and then copius back slapping and loud guffawing? 

One of the major ways my wife AND I were brought back to the kingdom back in the early 90′s was through the music of the Vineyard and guys like Brian Doerksen and David Ruis.  (I’ve never met Brian, but I do know David and if you want to go up to him and try calling him a “girlie man”, you go right ahead)

Both of these gents spoke from their hearts in their worship about what Jesus had done for them and how much they loved the Lord.  This is actually the first time I’ve even heard of this topic and I’m honestly surprised that this has even come up.

Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about the masculinization of the church.  And wow, yes, how often have I felt as a woman that I’ve been tolerated and not treated as an equal.  *sigh*  

God is neither male nor female.  He is Spirit but we are made in his image.   Both sexes reflect God’s glory.  I totally agree with the comments above regarding the passion and the exuberance that is expressed in the Psalms.  I’m not sure one of the Psalms was written by a woman and yet there is great joy, great exuberance, great passion expressed in those Psalms.  ”How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord Almighty, my soul longs, yearns for the courts of the Lord.”  Does someone call that ‘feminine?’  I hope not … it’s the cry of the heart of a worshipper.  

We are the Bride of Christ.  Men, you’re a Bride.
We are sons of God.  Women, we’re a son!  And everything that it meant in the 1st century to be a son … we have that inheritance …. it’s awesome!  

Instead of separating ‘male’ and ‘female’ worship we need to stay focused on the center and that is Jesus!  

Vicki, I’m sad that you’ve been asked to show your worship list to see if it was ‘too feminine.’  
We’re all vessels of God, we all have unique gifts … and if we’re criticizing styles as being ‘too masculine’ and ‘too feminine’ I feel like we are falling off the cliff of ‘straining at gnats and swallowing camels.’  We’re totally missing the point!  God, help us!

The modern concept of what it takes to be a man is often times rooted in pride and arrogance.  God’s concept of of a man is humility, meek, yet strong and a leader…much like we see in Christ.  A man is supposed to look very much like Christ and love his spouse as Christ loves the church…so what would that look like by the modern concept of manhood?  Christ shows unconditional love, and yet it almost seems that a man is “whipped” if he loves his wife in a similar way.  I believe the strength that many men try to portray (often physical) is actually the strength we are to have spiritually by leading in humility, love, firmness when necessary, yet gentle. 

Jesus was a “macho man”, maybe not by modern standards…but isn’t His standard THE standard? 

Whenever we find our standards do not match up with Christ, it is never that Christ has fallen short…it is that we have become misguided in our perspective.

This includes what it takes to be a true man.

I find this very interesting especially for hundreds of years the church has been run by men, so does that mean the feminization of the church would be their fault? I think for years Satan has been playing with men to not be emotional especially since science has been proving that its emotions that help us cope with issues and help us remember things clearer and to be able to bond healthily to others. Why is it emotions are only feminine? What I see in the scripture, strong, powerful men like David or Paul were very much in-touch with their “feelings” and “Manly”. The scriptures where very man driven, there are very few scriptures about womens lives then there are for men, so wouldn’t we be looking at the emasculating of the church? Unfortunately because of womens lib and the way the enemy has been steeling both male and female identities this is a struggle with in the church body.
On top of that I feel that we are soo blessed in this day and age with the men and women who are worship leaders that are hearing God’s heart and are leading us to the throne room of God each time we worship, like Matt Redman, Joel Houston or Kim Walker. By what they write to me does not seem male or female it seems more of the point of uniting us as one, no gender is important as it is, us just worshiping our God and King. What we should be looking at is, does worship give God his due glory? and do we honestly know how sacred worship is? We are the ones privileged to worship our God in Spirit and in truth and does that mean we need to worship in a “gender right way”? How far are we going away from true worship if we are worried about it being “gender appropriate”. If worship leaders are just leading us in worship, not worried about what please people to sing but what pleases God, this wouldn’t even be an issue. When we go to worship God its ALL about Him not about us. So the big question is what does God want to hear from us? To me worship isn’t about getting people in because its “popular” or that it makes me “feel” good, its about pointing to God and being in awe!
Thanks Vicky this is awesome that you put this up.

I appreciate your unique perspective on this situation  After several controversial tweets I had to explain my view on this subject as well: http://imadeintruth.com/post/11443868620/a-non-rant-on-the-over-femininity-of-gospel-music

I LOVE the discussion going here!  

My personal theory is that if men worshipped without getting all in a tizzy about what some other guy might be thinking, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  STOP worrying about what other people think of you, just for an hour or two on Sunday morning, and worship God.  It’s not uncomfortable to sing those lyrics if you are thinking only about Jesus.  If those lyrics don’t reflect the way you feel about God, sing some that do.  

It’s a little harder for women to just relax and worship when our song lists are being inspected and scrutinized, but we should be doing the same thing.  People tend to relax very quickly when the people around them are relaxed.  

Perhaps the problem is partly that there are some bad songs out there. Songwriters might not be making the leap between words that are great sung one-to-one and words that when sung in public are, frankly, silly.

I find it hard singing ‘Jesus is beautiful’ because for me beauty is a physical attribute. I can’t see Jesus, so how can I use that description? (even after a kind friend talked me through all the uses of ‘beautiful’ in the Bible). ‘Jesus love songs’ do veer into uncomfortable territory for me too because they use language more suited to a physical relationship. It’s partly why I have come to prefer Hymns A&M – tried and tested, less personal and more about God than me.

In terms of stereotypes… I don’t think we should be too worried about an afternoon’s Twitter banter. I think most of know that huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ beer drinkin’ is not an adequate description of masculinity and strength. Without that common stereotype the ‘masculine songs’ would not have been funny. As with everything, real life is a bit more complicated than that. Some women like beer and football (me). Some men like gin and Downton Abbey.

I frequently feel in church like the Punch cartoon (That’s a fanastic suggestion Miss Jones, perhaps one of the men here would like to make it) and have long since stopped trying to use my actual talents. Instead I will clean & make tea, because that’s what women do. My church now has a men’s group that meet in the pub. The suggestion for an equivalent women’s meeting? “Wine and Wives.” I’d have cried, if I hadn’t been laughing so much.

Great topic. First thing to say is that it appalls me that the church still oppresses women in the ways you describe, making you feel tolerated rather than equally valued. This is simply wrong, anti-scriptural and un-Christian. I don’t think it’s just the church’s men who are responsible for this either. I was very uncomfortable at a worship conference I went to last  year that in eight bands, while there were women leading and singing backing vocals, I didn’t see a single woman on stage playing an instrument. Why is this? Vicky, the church needs you! (Actually, I did spot you in the audience …)
One of the women in my band at church recently commented that a lot of my song choices were very male. Not in the lyrical sense you talk about, but (apparently) there are other aspects of songs that might make them male or female. I guess worship should aim to be balanced or gender neutral, and should cover the whole range of human experience, male and female, regardless of the gender of the worship leader.Another thing that I don’t understand in all this is why, even with all the awful treatment the church has dished out to women over the years and continues to do so (please don’t stop highlighting this!), nonetheless most of our congregations still have more women than men.  What on earth must we be doing to put the men off? In that context I don’t think the odd lyric of “Jesus I love you” is either here or there (he is My Best Friend, after all).  And I don’t think it helps either to misrepresent godly maleness as fighting, drinking, power-tool-wielding or whatever – as other comments have rightly said. But if only I knew the answer …

Random thoughts from a male worship leader who likes reading chic lit – make of that what you will.

The whole #machoworshipsongs thing was based on a “serious” issue? Wow. I mean wow.

I’ve never had a problem with singing emotionally deep worship songs… in fact I love doing that. The only time I object to feminisation is when an existing song is changed to suit modern sensbilities. Prime example for me would be “Father God, I Wonder”. To me singing “Now I am your son, I am adopted in your family” means more to me than singing “now I am your child”. Being a son… I have an insight into what that kind of relationship means and it matters a lot to me. I think rather than getting hung up on the opposite gender imagery archetypes, we should embrace them. I have no problem learning more and more what it means to be a lover of God or part of his bride… women should have no problem learning the concept of sonship.

All that matters is that we grow into a more wholesome fully developed relationship with God… and the more we restrict that to our own human sensibilities, the more slanted and self centred our relationship risks becoming.

I do think there are cases where over-feminisation is a problem in society, but worship of God is certainly not one of them.

Someone said “most of them”, and I said it was a red herring. See above – professional men excel at delivering consumer products for female markets in many spheres. The question is surely whether that’s the market and, if so, why. The gender of the composer seems irrelevant to me, unless we believe that only men can talk to men and vice versa, or something.

Good thoughts Vicky. As you say, this debate has been raging for a while. Here are a couple of posts where we’ve covered it at Musicademy in the past:
http://www.musicademy.com/2011/05/the-feminisation-of-worship-songs/

http://www.musicademy.com/2009/09/the-mandy-test-romantic-lyrics-in-worship-songs/ (and there’s a great Asbo Jesus cartoon to go with this one!)

But we each relate to God with our own identity, which is largely socially defined. That’s not slanted, it’s the only basis on which we can relate. God made us social beings and put us in families and commnities. Worship isn’t about forgetting who we are or where we are, it’s partly about being released to be who God has really made us to be where God has placed us. And, in the creation narratives, about the only specific given is that God made humans in his image – both male and female.

Hmmmmm – if the church is feminised that may be because Christianity has offered opportunities to use their gifts and skills which the secular world by and large denied. 

When I was 7, I found a book in the school library that I read again and again – it was (very politically incorrectly) titled ‘White Queen’ and told the story of Mary Kingsley, a female missionary. I had no connection with the church or Christianity at the time apart from school assemblies but I still found the (no doubt heavily edited) story very exciting. I only learnt later that at the time a woman who had a sense of calling to devote her life to full time God’s work would probably have to go abroad as a missionary or become a nun to fulfill it. 

So maybe the howls about feminisation – wherever they come from – do have something to do with threat, as women become more able to take up traditionally male leadership roles in the church. (I know some churches have had gender equality in ministry for some time,  but there are also churches which don’t ‘permit a woman to teach’ so across the board women are still not on an equal footing.)

The Twitter banter from my perspective kicked off with the suggestion that worship songs should be more like football chants as men like going to football matches.  I have no idea where this suggestion came from or whether it was serious!

It struck me as so wonderfully ironic that the way ahead might be to adapt the church to appeal to such a stereotypical image of manhood and my own contributions – and I suspect those of other people – were satirising that and not men.       

It interested me that a lot of the beer/woodwork jokes were coming from men and I wonder if that expressed a certain amount of frustration that men are already stereotyped in the church as emotionally constipated ‘Doc Martin’ type characters who only attend because they’re scared of their wives. 

If that’s really how we see men in the church no wonder they don’t get much out of attending.   

      

I’m probably both lazy and ultimately shallow. But I think I do have a little experience about what it means to straddle cultures, as I speak a language my parents do not speak to all my neighbours and to my children. I speak and write French fluently. I can “do French culture” quite well. But here’s my dirty secret. When the front door is shut and no-one is watching, my wife and I watch Dr Who and Monty Python in English, because that’s what really “works” for us. You see, that’s how lazy and ultimately shallow I am!

All normal-range men and women can operate in social contexts they don’t find natural to a greater or lesser extent – we give clinical names to those who can’t. But it doesn’t mean that everyone feels at home in all those settings, any more than fluency in French makes French my “heart language”.

Church does culture, big time. If the target is attending services and participating (by that strange, passive definition of “participation” we use in blended worship), I can tick that box. But most of the time it doesn’t “work” for me. Maybe that does make me axiomatically lazy and ultimately shallow. But that assumption on the part of people who lead worship strikes me as a little smug and self-serving. It could just be that some of the concerns expressed by those you claim to serve are legitimate…

Hehe.. fresh from another recent dialogue about church music (although singing is worship, does calling it that give the false impression that the rest of life is not also worship?)

I saw a couple of the #machoworship posts, and they were amusing because they ran with a dodgy stereotype. More seriously though, I just think the whole question of ‘is it masculine /feminine enough?’ to be completely missing the point! It seems to be the result of a self-focused (perhaps ‘seeker sensitive’?) culture where we think, not only that worship is about me, individually, but that church is about meeting my perceived wants. Perhaps there has been too much focus on the personal aspect and not enough recognition that when we join together to sing, we are doing so congregationally (together – we should also have songs to one another that encourage eachother and proclaim the gospel to one another), and to proclaim who God is and what He has done.
Having said that, I am wary of so-called ‘God is my boyfriend’ songs, whether sung by guys or girls (though I wonder if I need to re-think this in light of the fact that Jesus is my betrothed?). I tend to think that if I could substitute ‘Jesus’ or ‘Lord’ with my wife’s name, or she with mine, then there’s something a little amiss. I think it’s the difference between emotion and sentimentality.

I like singing emotionally. I get very stirred by  lots of songs (hymns quite often, actually) and some of my most memorable times of singing were on Boys’ Brigade camps with a couple of hundred other guys belting out songs like ‘Salvation belongs to our God’ (one more tangent – I think church bands are often too loud – you should be able to hear the congregation!).The emotion, I think, needs to come as response to gospel proclamation, and declaration of what God has done, and, I think that predominantly, songs need to be written so that congregations can sing them together, not just as a group of individuals having a private moment (there’s a place for that, but if a song is all about how the song-writer feels, parts of our congregations are not always going to share that feeling. The gospel, however, is true no matter how we are feeling).

For what it’s worth my view is that there is a big difference between maleness and macho’ness – the world/church can definitely do with a lot less macho’ness.

Thank you for your post.  I feel mightily concerned by the whole masuclinity/femininity debate as it boxes people into their genders, and often stops them from being all God wants them to be.  I believe the model for humanity, either masculine or feminine should be Jesus, not David.

David was a murderer and rapist (Bathsheba was not his affair, he raped her).  The Bible even states that Josiah, rather than David was Israel’s greatest King and David wasn’t allowed to build a temple because he had fought to many battles.  I am not saying we shouldn’t appreciate David as a man after God’s heart but it must be Jesus we look to for how we should live.

I think perhaps the reason men are not in Church has more to do with the masculinity the world insists men should have.  From birth we treat our daughters and sons differently and tell our boys not to cry or “be a girl”.  Masculinity is no more fixed than any other human trait, it is society that wants to box men (and women) in this way.  A box that Jesus refused to be pushed into.  In essence men are told that commitment, vulnerability, emotions (beyond happiness and anger) and gentleness are girly and should be avoided for “real men”.  Surely it is the challenge to this masculinity that will enable men to access Church, rather than conforming to the world’s view of masculinity.

We need to understand also that there are very serious consequences to the men/women debate.  Abuse and violence against women happens because of abusive men’s views of women and men.  They perpetrate abuse against women because they believe women are inferior.  Perpetrator programmes to intervene with abuse of women do so, in part. by challenging the set understandings of masculinity and femininity.  Organisations trying to engage men in ending abuse of women do so by breaking men out of the “man box”.  This is not only about worship songs, this is about women being murdered, abused and raped.  (I know this may sound dramatic, but it really isn’t)

Perhaps we should also consider the power dynamics, from the fall of humanity until the present day men have held the power in all areas of society including the Church.  Jesus did not model this, instead modelling egalitarianism and mutuality.  Even though Jesus did this, very quickly the Church reinforced societies view of men as the ones who must hold the power.  We must be careful when we talk about the lack of men in church to remember that men still hold the power in church.  I feel Vicky that your comparison of men’s worship song problems and women’s lack of voice in the church does not really do justice to the true harm that does to women. Women are devalued and put down.  They are refused the ablity to use their gifts,and in some places expect to be raped of beaten by their husband because “that’s what Christina women do”.

Perhaps a more important question is how do we challenge all gender boxes and work on the model Jesus gave?

Great post! I want to tackle the questions firstly be rephrasing the question:

What if the idea of ‘masculine’ worship songs is really a cry for worship songs which pack more of a punch? Now, I’m not saying the Gospel of Christ’s love for us and our engagement with that lack gusto, just that perhaps, more often than not, the music is somewhat flat and predictable. Maybe the drama and suspense and mood is stripped out of the music by the ever-present ‘acoustic-electric’ guitar and soft synth keys. 

Perhaps the masculine psyche doesn’t realise that what it wants is not fewer emotional songs, but songs which really push the boundaries about what it is acceptable to ‘feel’ in Church?

I love that you raise the idea of skewed masculinity in your post. Do we want to form our worship in such a way as to justify a broken masculinity? The Church must respond in the negative! Perhaps the great depths of a man’s heart and the feelings unique to his experience have not been explored in this current context. 

We know that many hymnodies of history HAVE connected with the men of their day (even the working men!) and this must encourage us to find new expressions today. 

However, I must disagree with one leading youth pastor and speaker who, when faced with this very same question, stated that he didn’t think anyone ‘filled with the Spirit’ could find fault with singing ‘I love Jesus’.

If that were the case, then I must lack the Spirit of God?!

To conclude, I’d like to raise the point about the Christian’s call to submit to the community. It is not edifying to have a church ‘worship war’. And frankly if a man can’t cope with a few tedious and flat worship songs to the point where he leaves the church or moves churches, I would ask a few questions of the sincerity of his faith.

Thanks.

YES – the phrase ‘feminization of the church’ classically refers to the withdrawal of the church/Christianity to the ‘domestic’ realm of emotional, moral life as opposed to the external, public realm of facts [think Descartes, Kant etal]. Women and Christians belong in the realm of emotions and values, men in the world of facts. So, historically men have been responsible for the feminization of the church, no doubt about it!
Interestingly, it’s the same separation that #occupy is all about – the removal of morality from the public sphere to the individual and domestic!

Great post and comments!
Here’s how it is for me – Jesus is not my boyfriend, and I don’t want to pretend that he is. But I DO want to learn to love him more and express that love more articulately.
I value hymns and songs that are about God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit, that help me inch towards a deeper understanding of the mystery of it all… and I really struggle with ones that are about me – even the covert ones which look like they’re about God but are actually all about his effect on me.
Worship leaders – please bring me God!

Although this is an important gender issue, I think it is derivative of a bigger cultural thing. Traditionally, the ‘feminization of the church’ refers to the Cartesian (etc) separation between the ‘feminine’, domestic realm of values & emotion and the ‘masculine’, public realm of facts. The church got largely pushed out of the public realm (or perhaps it went willingly) and into the domestic realm, and we’re still trying to sort ourselves out.

So, as I asked on Twitter yesterday, which stereotypically masculine traits do you think women most need to take on?

(I’ll resist the temptation to get into how come Jesus, who, unlike Paul, chose entirely male leaders, is somehow the perfect model of gender neutrality.)

My point four responded to the claim that church leadership is male dominated. If that’s right, it’s male careers we are talking about. If that’s not right, why does every other comment here say that it’s right?

It also responded to the assumption that male leaders obviously lead in a way that suits men more than women. Again, I affirm that Jean-Paul Gautlier is a man, but I don’t want to wear any of the dresses he designs. Almost by definition, successful leaders of either gender lead in a way that “works” on some level for their (female-majority, children-of-Christians majority) congregations.

Philip, I think I agree with you. But you might want to quote someone other than The Corrs to curry a little more favour with the ‘machismo’ side of the argument…

We should look more to people like David and Solomon, and be able to be open. More importantly though, masculine or feminine worship shouldn’t the the issue. Our worship is for God, not us, so it doesn’t matter if we don’t like a some lyrics or even the style of a song. If we are worshipping truly from the heart, God will be what is important. Unfortunately many people have forgotten this, and have lost their authenticity in worship.

Great comments!  I think we need to remember that both chauvinism and feminism find their roots in the Fall and capitulation to the sin nature.  What is popularly considered to be ‘male’ and ‘female’ today are WARPED characteristics of our original makeup–not the realities themselves; and so our goal should be, as you expressed, to simply push into a worship response to our God.  In Him, we will find what truly makes us human, both male and female.  I agree, let’s not worry about worldly qualifications and instead just passionately respond from the heart.

One of the things you said early on was how you’ve never seen anyone asks a male worship leader if his songs would be suitable for women to sing. I think part of the reason that is (at least for me) when I was in college that was a big deal. “When you are choosing keys for your songs, make sure that the range isn’t too high for a woman…” We had this whole, almost theory lesson on the acceptable church range for the singing congregation. On the other side, I led a men’s retreat earlier this year and after the first night, a man came up to me and said, “I’m so glad that you’re singing these songs in Man Keys.” They have a female worship leader at the church he comes from. 

I think the thing that has to happen, and I think you do well in this article, is we need to really confront the issue. Ask men questions about what it is they are really looking for. From a humorous standpoint, we got the #MachoWorshipSongs hashtag, which I spent a bit of time taking in this week. But I think if we get down to the heart of the matter we will find that maybe there are some skewed views of what femininity and masculinity are. That has, will and will continue to cause some resistance in the song portion of our worship seeing that worship is a time where true emotion can be expressed. I guess dealing with it is just another part of our job, huh?

Vicky, I think this article is excellent because it raises great questions and I think you give great answers. Personally, very rarely do I hear a worship song and say or think, “that is a chic song”. I pastor and my wife leads worship (writes a lot of our own stuff) but I cannot ever remember thinking that after a worship service in which she has led or any of the other great female worship leaders who I think are awesome. I have, however, had the feeling after a few sermons over the years that the preacher (man) had displayed Jesus as a wimp and even as effeminate. I think this is a much greater problem in the church today. Just look at the paintings of Jesus that we so commonly see, he almost always looks like a hippy or a sissy or a mixture of the two. The image the church portrays of Jesus in many ways resembles these paintings and they are not attractive to most regular guys who play football, rugby and hang in the pub. The church needs to work on this problem in general and especially in men’s ministry and programs. On the other hans, any man who has a problem telling or singing to Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit  about his love really has a problem. Probably didn’t get enough love from his own dad, mom and brothers and sisters (if you will let me psychoanalyze) or needs inner-healing (if I can be more spiritual). I am more concerned about men who aren’t applying Jesus in their man-hood and our preaching which often lacks this as well. I am equally concerned that in many churches there just isn’t appropriate ministry to the women in all of their femininity and womanhood. Most churches don’t follow Paul’s admonition (to his spiritual son and mentoree Timothy) to have the older men teach the young men and the older women to teach the younger women. What kind of disciples are we making if this isn’t taking place in our churches? The vast majority of worship is not necessarily gender neutral (nor should it be) but is fully appropriate for both sexes in any worship context. I also apologize to you on behalf of anyone who check’s your worship list because of their fear that the songs would be too feminine (there may be other appropriate reasons for a pastor or conference leader to want to approve worship songs – I personally never do but my worship leader is my wife). I ask myself what would these pastors have you do – act more like a man? It is sad to say there are a lot of chauvinist in the church in general and specifically in the pastoral ministry who think they should put women down. I think a real man wants to lift women up while simultaneously lifting men up too.  Once again thanks for raising these questions and for doing what you do. Blessings!!!

The word MACHO is spanish and simply comes from the spanish word for Masculine, masculino. Macho is not necessarily a bad word. In my church I want my men to be macho. I want them to man-up when it is appropriate and not be wimps in life. Men need to man up in the fight against sin in their own lives, they need to man up in service, they need to man up as good husbands and good fathers, they need to man in sexual fidelity. In general, the word macho is positive when used in spanish although machismo can often be understood as an overpowering or abusive man and no christian should stand for that. I think that is what you mean when you use macho, right? As a matter of fact, I get concerned when a man is not masculine enough in certain areas because he may not have an appropriate vision of manhood. Nonetheless, I understand that what you mean by macho is really chauvinistic behavior and I agree with you.

I agree with this. Some of the songs are so borderline romantic that it’s problematic. It makes me think of the whole “Jesus is my boyfriend” thing – if I’m supposed to have a romantic attachment to Jesus, what happens when I get a boyfriend? And if I’m using romantic language to worship Jesus, is there nothing reserved for a husband-wife relationship? Lots of questions raised by the language we choose to use.

This issue is so stinking deep… For me it goes well beyond just the songs we sing.

I think it is incorrect to say that the church has been feminized.  I think it more accurate to say that the 1st world has experienced an identity crisis, and that identity crisis has leaked into the church.  For most of human history man has had to scrape his existence out of the dirt, working hard each day to provide the essentials of life.  Essentially the truth of the world was: if you don’t work you die.  Men with families were providers and protectors, literally carrying the weight of their family on their backs.  In Genesis 3 God locks us in a struggle with the earth to provide our food… it’s part of our DNA.

In our modern world we (at least a significant portion of the population) no longer worry about necessity.  What drives our culture and our work habits is fulfilling our desires.  Information is the hot commodity.  Supply and demand rules.  Now instead of men toiling for their daily bread, we toil for an iPhone 4s so Siri can tell us if we need a coat today.  This results in some (I believe) odd behavior from our male population, who no longer need to provide and now spend their time picking out pants that make their butt look good and picking out what fragrance of AXE the ladies will like the most.

By many standards I’m a “manly man”.  I work on my own truck, I’m building a hot rod with my dad and brother, I watch sports and hang out in pubs, I know how to build things with my hands, I own gloves and work boots… I honestly have NO issue with women leading me in worship.  In fact, I prefer it.  Of course, maybe that’s because I’m also a worship pastor and totally in love with all expressions of art… And I was mentored by a woman when I began leading worship.  I don’t mind singing the word “beautiful”, though I do avoid it when I’m leading.  What I don’t like is romantic worship… like the Jesus Culture tune that sings “Dance/Romance me oh lover of my soul to the song of all songs”.  I don’t want to dance with Jesus or be romanced by him. 

The church IS the bride of Christ, but I personally am not.  

The Jesus I know and have a relationship with is deep, emotional, beautiful, nurturing, comforting… and a (pardon my french) total bad ass.  He’s a dude that to a scourging from the Romans and still carried a cross.  He was a dude who prayed so hard he sweat blood.  He was a dude who called disciples to their deaths in following him.  He was not an emaciated hipster wearing a deep v tee and skinny jeans.  When I worship Him I want it to reflect the Him I know.  I don’t want romantic expressions, I want expressions of love, admiration, wonder, hope, joy…

I also don’t like holding hands in prayer… unless it’s with a cute girl.  Then it’s fine. ; )

The movement in contemporary worship post the early 90′s and Toronto has been driven by the idea of intimacy – it has become a theological theme.

Before then there was plenty of worship with a more outward theme, one of spiritual warfare especially. Noel Richards comes to mind.

No comment, that would be too much like discussing my feelings.  

Another great blog! Another aspect that ties into this conversation but not discussed is the idea of the bridal paradigm. It is often misrepresented and miss understood. The idea is still represented in the bible and is just another illustration of god’s love. If we sing about it and someone does not understand it it can become uncomfortable.

I don’t think this is really an issue about feminine worship songs, but the cultural limitations of our words and the importance of helping people understand.
For example, saying “Jesus, you are beautiful” is strange to some because the cultural connotation of the word beautiful means something different than beauty as it applies to Christ.   It’s not intended to mean “Jesus, I find you attractive, and your smile makes me weak in the knees.” LOL.Example #2:  I used to have a problem with the song Breathe because connotation of the phrase “I’m desperate for you” reminded me of a clingy needy high school girl talking to her boyfriend.  Now I’ve mulled it over and associate those words with a branch that’s been cut off from the plant…without that source it’s dead…it’s desperate for the vine.  I now view that song very differently.

As worship leaders we should be helping people with the appropriate connotation of these phrases we are singing.  The songs don’t necessarily speak for themselves.  Metaphors can be confusing or misleading.  There is discernment in choosing songs to lead our congregations in..some cultures might connect easily with certain imagery and others not so much.  And finally, what songs are appropriate  for some people may not be appropriate for others.  There is no shame or condemnation in that, so long as we’re leading people effectively and in the right direction.

Hello,

I feel I must apologise and recant. Of course both of you are correct: theological rigour is not a male characteristic, but a general expectation of all Christians, and as Gill points out men are just as bad with the “more emotive stuff”. I wasn’t trying to say that the “feminine” attitude was to be blase about theology, but that is what came across, so I do retract what I said.

Having said that, I have generally found that many of the more shall we say “soppy” (rather than bringing in silly gender steriotypes which you were correct in pulling me up on) worship songs sung in Churches today tend to be less theologically rigerous than older songs, which I personally find far more emotive anyway. And in my experience, men are really put off by these soppy songs (and women are as well, of course). My church doesn’t sing these soppy songs (going more for older hymns), and I would say that the gender balence is not the standard 60/40 women to men ratio that is statistically true in the wider church, being much more around 50/50.

Let’s sing a well rounded picture of who God is.  What He has done.  How he demonstrated the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate courage to take all of our sins on Himself.  How He who had the  ultimate power willingly  suffered at the hands of men.   How He holds every molecule, every atom, every species, every beautiful thing, every planet, every star, and every galaxy in His hand.  How He exists as Father creator,  Savior Son, and Spirit Helper, and always has.

If we do that, that’s plenty macho for any man to sing, and plenty emotional for every woman to bask in.  And it is a limitless supply of material for our worship songs.

In short, lets start singing of Him who we worship and forget about singing about ourselves, and there is no problem anymore.

Gotta say, David is a great example for men in many ways – in his failures as well as his successes. Because in scripture we see David as a man after God’s heart, a man of courage and leadership, who took responsibility for his life and was obedient to God. But we also see David as man who made mistakes, did awful things, disobeyed God – but then see how God redeemed those mistakes.

The big issue here goes beyond songs, into the bigger discussion about what true masculinity and femininity are, how God designed them, how and who He made men and women to be. The macho thing was funny, definitely, but behind that is a deeper truth – that macho doesn’t equal masculine, just as feminism, whilst very important, at its most extreme became a negative. True masculinity and femininity are different to those – and they don’t have to mean ‘Mr Nice Guy’, the kind of wimpy image of Jesus we get and that we see in the church sometimes. To be masculine is not to be macho, but it’s also not to be wimpy nice guy who is a total walkover. Following Jesus is all about finding the balance, and this area is no different. 

Masculinity for me means taking responsibility, setting the example, taking the initiative, self-sacrifice and risk-taking, it means being willing to take risks but accepting the consequences of that & taking responsibility for that. There is something in the heart of man which longs to be the rescuer, to protect, to go on adventure, to take the initiative & take risks. We just need wisdom in that – to do those things in the context of a life lived around God and in obedience to Him – and accepting responsibility for our failures too and going back to God in those.

There are distinct differences between masculinity and feminity – though there are some traits which they share I think. Leadership for example – I firmly believe both men and women can lead, but they lead in different ways, masculine and feminine ways, but they are equally valid and equally useful. I know lots of amazing female leaders who have challenged and pushed me in my faith.

In terms of worship, historically most songs used in church have over the centuries been written by men – but they are love songs to God in one sense, so there will be a lot of emotion in some of them, hence the supposed ‘femininity’ of them. I am glad that we are seeing more and more female songwriters, and we need more of them – but our lyrics I think need to be more honest, they need to be more authentic. I think it’s not a matter of masculine or feminine lyrics, but just more honesty in worship. We often sing like everything’s okay, like we are totally certain, and it can become worship escape. I think we need more songs where we admit our failures, admit our questions and doubts, our uncertainties, where we cry out to God like Jesus did on the cross, which acknowledge His existence but also acknowledge our questions, fears, doubts and frustrations, recognise our sufferings. I think as we are more and more honest with God, we will encounter God in a deeper, fresher way which goes beyond masculinity or femininity, and is just true.

What do people think? Happy to discuss and to be proven wrong!

http://www.jamesprescott.co.uk

Worship is a declaration to the spiritual realms of the personhood and divine nature of God, our relationship with him, and the eternal victory won for us. Sometimes it’s on a personal level of what God the Father, through Jesus, has done for us; sometimes it’s on a corporate level of who we are as the church and our relationship to God; sometimes it’s declaring the awesomeness of God to all creation. If we sing too many songs with us as the focus, generally beginning with “I”, then we start to push God out of his rightful place. To that end, it doesn’t matter whether the songs are feminine or masculine in content or tone, it’s whether the worship, not just the songs, is focussed on God.

“Here’s how it is for me – Jesus is not my boyfriend, and I don’t want to pretend that he is. But I DO want to learn to love him more and express that love more articulately.”
That would apply to me too!”I value hymns and songs that are about God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit, that help me inch towards a deeper understanding of the mystery of it all… and I really struggle with ones that are about me – even the covert ones which look like they’re about God but are actually all about his effect on me.”
This resonates with me as well…strangely.
The thing is: I’m a girl…so where does that leave the so called feminisation of the church???? Am I a bloke in disguise, or is it that perhaps men and women cannot be accurately boxed up in this way? Facts for me are good, doctrine is a vital part of church music, emotion I can do without… The traditional understanding may be that women are emotional and men are not, but then the traditional understanding was that women were unable to think intelligently…maybe it’s time for a rethink and an honest addressing of the gender issues which underpin this whole discussion.

We are the bride of Christ.

We should look to people like David and Solomon who fought battles, built kingdoms, displayed extreme courage… and whose worship came out of that. A lot of the Psalms have titles that link explicitly to that changing-the-world lifestyle. The problem with making intimacy an end in itself in worship is that it almost inevitably ends up as “Me and God, God and me”, and the rest of the world can go to hell because I’m having a really intimate time with my personal Jesus. That’s absolutely not what David in particular models for us in Scripture.

I seem to have arrived at this one a little late :-)

We do have problems with getting the key right for some songs, i.e. getting it suitable for male and female voices, but that’s not really the issue here.

I honestly can’t say I’ve ever thought of any worship lyrics as too feminine, too masculine or anything like it. But then I’ve never gone looking for it. Maybe after a quick perusal of #machoworshipsongs I may see things differently!

isnt it interesting at the worship central confrerence last weekend.

Tim Hughes interviewed Matt Redman and Matt said he wished he could go back and change the words of his song( so i let my words be few, jesus im so in love with you.) Matt said he knew what he meant by writing it, but so many others thought it was too romantic.

Nick Herbert wrote a song called (say it with this song, jesus i love you jesus i love you always ill say it with this song jesus i love you always.)

i like both these songs, theres another old Delirious song (what a friend ive found) people also struggle with in the church.

i also love this song, i think far too many men live up to the stereotypes put on them.

Interesting discussion you’ve got going, Vicky. As for singing love songs to Jesus, all I can say is that I am not aware of any such songs in our Church — the Orthodox Church. However, the spiritual fathers of the Church say that we should overcome the sin of lust by developing an intense longing for God.

As for the femininity issue with God, I remember a priest once said that he went to some sort of gathering where there were people of different faiths and someone there started praying to a Mother Goddess. He said he had problems with that. I think that I would have problems with that, too.

God is three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father begot the Son in eternity past, but there never was a time when the Son was not. Father and Son are masculine terms. The Son came down from Heaven and became incarnate for us and for our salvation. He took flesh from His Mother. He was a Man and is still a Man. The two natures of the Incarnate Son of God are joined together without separation, division, mixture, or change into one Person. That means that the Son of God has one personality. Is His personality masculine or feminine? It is definitely masculine. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, not the Son. There is an analogy that has been drawn between Adam, Eve, and Cain and the Holy Trinity. The Father like Adam begets and He begot the Son. Cain was begotten of Adam and the Son like Cain was begotten by His Father. Eve proceeded from Adam and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (Remember that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. She proceeded from Adam. She was not begotten. She did not proceed from Cain, by the way.) I remember a priest once said that the feminine Person of the Godhead is the Holy Spirit because He is called the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. However, we still use the pronoun “He” when referring to “Him.”

Another thing to mention, although Jesus is a Man and has a Man’s personality, in some Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Him, He is personified as a woman. In Proverbs chapter 9, for example, it says: “Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn out her seven pillars.” (Prov. 9:1, NKJV) This is talking about Christ building a house, that is, a body, for Himself in the womb of the Virgin. The seven pillars are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 11 of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Later in this chapter, Wisdom says: “Come, eat of My bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.” (Prov. 9:5, NKJV) This, of course, is a prophecy about the Eucharist. The two elements used in the Eucharist are bread (Greek: artos – which is bread made with yeast, not azymos – bread made without yeast) and mixed wine (that is, wine mixed with water). Several of the Church Fathers used this verse, by the way, as a prooftext for the practice of putting water in with the wine used in the Eucharist.

In Greek and I think also in Hebrew, wisdom is a feminine noun. There is a woman Saint named Sophia. Her name means wisdom.

In our Church, we honor the Saints by singing hymns to them, but we do not sing love songs to them. We have hymns that we sing to the Mother of God. One such hymn is the “Axion Esti.”

“It is truly meet and right to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who without defilement didst give birth to God the Word: true Theotokos, we magnify thee.”

It is definitely truly meet and right to bless her. Didn’t she say: “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” ? (See St. Luke 1:48.)

Theotokos is a Greek word that means “Birth-giver of God.” The Third Ecumenical Council of the Church said that Mary is the Theotokos. The heretic Nestorius said that she is Chistotokos (Birth-Giver of Christ) but not Theotokos. Christians were calling her Theotokos long before this Ecumenical Council met in 431 A.D. There is evidence of this in second and third century Christian writings.

As for the Song of Solomon, there are prophecies of Christ in it. So, yes it is about Jesus Christ and His Church. It is also about the human soul and God. It is also about human sexuality. The relationship between Christ and His Church typifies the relationship that should exist between a man and his wife — an exclusively monogamous one. The 44th Psalm (Psalm 45 in Hebrew) is a Messianic Psalm. The King is Christ. The Queen has been interpreted by some of the Fathers as  referring to the Church. In the Orthodox Church’s hymns and prayers, the Queen in this Psalm is often designated as being the Theotokos. (Our hymns and prayers often interpret Scripture.) In verse 12 of this Psalm, it says: “Even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.” This is a prophecy about people asking for her prayers to her Son. (We can go directly to her Son and don’t need to go through her to get to Him, but it does help to have her prayers. After all, she is His Mother.)

The more we magnify her, the more we magnify her Son. She is very great, but her Son is far greater than she.

Steve

Just thinking some more about this from an Orthodox Christian perspective. Nuns are often referred to as brides of Christ. I do not think that monks are called that though. There are some unmarried woman Saints that are called in our hymns, “brides of the kingdom.” I think that St. Mary of Egypt is called that in one of the hymns we sing in her honor. She was not a virgin. She was a former prostitute who repented very deeply and sought an intensely close relationship with God out in the desert. I think that there are some virgin-martyrs that are called “brides of the kingdom,”
too.

As human beings, we do have passions. God created us with certain desires, but we often channel these desires in the wrong direction. That leads to sin. Some of the spiritual fathers of the Church say that we should eradicate our passions. Others say that we should transfigure them. I like the latter view. We need to channel our God-given desires in the right direction. Hunger for God and righteousness, rather than overindulging in food. Labor for God and eternal rewards, rather than labor for temporal wealth. Desire God and not illegitimate sexual pleasure. (I’m not opposed to sex, but it should be kept within a marriage. Sex itself is not evil, but sex outside of marriage is evil, because God forbids it and because when a Christian does that, he or she defiles his or her body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit and a member of Christ. — See I Cor. 6:13-20. I’m digressing from the topic. Forgive me!)

As a man, I do not think that I would sing a love song to Jesus, since Jesus is a Man. He is also God.

On the other hand, there is some of the literature of the spiritual fathers that talks about having “eros” for God. However, I think that they are using that word in a different sense than the erotic carnal love meaning that is usually attached to that word.

Maybe, it is OK for a woman to sing love songs to Jesus, but I think that a man shouldn’t. I do not think that Jesus is gay. He is celibate, but heterosexual.

Our services are liturgical. So, we do not have much trouble figuring out what to sing in church on any given day.

Steve

“Cage fighter Jesus”- Love it!

1.  Totally agree with you about Jesus.  I was referring to God as being neither male nor female.  Yes, Jesus was a man.  Yes, he refers to God as Father.  But in talking about God the Father, he said to the samaritan woman, “God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” John 4:24.  

Even though we call God, “Father” he is not a man.  He is Spirit.

2.  How many male worship leaders have been asked to show there song list to see how feminine they are?  I’ll bet the majority of times Vicky has been asked this question IS because she is a woman.  

If we can get that we’re sons of God in Christ and that we’re the bride of Christ then we’re talking in both masculine and feminine terms….. 
Its scares me to think that the church might somehow be afraid of singing of the beauty of Jesus…  and if it’s a choice between that or a Driscollian Cage Fighting Jesus I know where I’d rather be.

I find all the debate educational. Not because anyone found ( in Genesis) the explicit reason for God’s creation of woman or what His intended purpose for her is. 
Nor, is it because nobody found the way she’s to glorify God in relationship to conduct and attitude. ( hint , Paul, ) nor, that the order of headship in worship.
And, it not because the word “Worship” has been given a modern day meaning of people watching a band and a singer using $40,000.00 sound systems  trying to get an audience to sing instead of a it’s true meaning as a way of life expected for all God’s children. ( I say that in Love as a wake up because, more than one may think, subconsciously looses faith each time they’re asked to sacrifice )
The reason I find the debate about worship leaders gender educational is because I can’t find worship leaders as a position or function the Christ church in the Bible nor in the early church that the Apostles entrusted to their disciples.  At least not the church Jesus charged His Apostles to form.  So since the debate is only about something that is Man made I say it could just as simply be Woman made.

I truly post this with Love for my Bothers and Sisters in an effort to illustrate that the whole concept of modern day worship services have become a commercial function to attract people to fill the chairs and perpetuate the needed revenue to payoff millions of dollars of earthly treasure
to idolize. This attract those who likes to sing and experience the moment nor does it transform lives. It has though cause untold numbers to turn from Christ and Christianity because it has exposed the commercial and worldly condition of the Western democracy.

I know that may sound harsh but we must be honest first and step back and concentrate on doing what He told us to do right before He ascended to Heaven.  Make Disciples (not attendees), Baptized them into the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and then Teach Them To Follow His Commands.

The liberal church of the west today has traded the “teaching people to follow his commands” as He commanded for spending the time and the money intended for the needy to attract the public to something that doesn’t even exists in His Church. At least not the one He instructed His Apostle to establish.

We need to repent and turn this thing around. We may have been mislead but He is counting on us to come through with it.

Love in Christ,

Mike

I like manly worship like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_K9sjB2pKM MAN UP! URGH URGH! (and listen to psalters psalm 27 while your at it :) )

less of this ‘my jesus, by boyfriend’ nonsense! Eat steak, chug beer, get martyred…thats how i roll on a sunday.

on a more serious note though, to me this only represents a closing of the gap in gender roles in wider society, I read in the news that research shows men are becoming more ‘feminine’ by just being a bit more emotionally open, and obviously the role of woman has changed bit by bit in workplace and family.

I dont like calling Jesus a ‘beautiful man’, but I’m used to it by now, so whatever. 

Father, Son and Holy Ghost….this is the problem with modern worship…the question whether it is masculine or feminine is mute…the question that should be asked is it Godly. We must ensure that it is based on the word, we as worship art participants are there to Praise God, we are not there to perform for God or the Congregation. Let all the voices ring the Glory of God. I am begining to see that the truth and spirit regarding the relationship that God allows need be formost on the heart and mind. If it is not the truth you desire, why would we want to create God in our image, just do away with God…it is your choice, it is best to read 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and contemplate the ramifications? Man and Woman, together raising loving, strong and respectful voices to God, need it be more?

I believe the uncomfortable part is a result of the keys being used to “root the song”. I am not sure if it is laziness or the lack of intention musically. Secular music is sounding more “churchy” while church music is sounding more “secular”. Praise God with all your heart would suggest that you put some finger grease on it as well!

So true…As a man I like being emotive, not for the reasons of “feel” but because I do feel. I still believe that my expression of feelings need not get in the way of truth,

A good reading of Genesis may be required…God made man and woman with intenetion…no where does it say one is better than the other…both sexes have fallen short and too battle each other is another divide and conquer tactic by Satan. If one was to sit down and pro and con either sex, we might find ourselves confused.

Somewhat late to this discussion.  But some observations.

The “worship song” of this problematic personal-emotional genre is most widely prevalent in churches of evangelical or charismatic persuasion.  And it is these constituencies which simultaneously are very strong in trying to persuade us men to sing “Jesus is my boyfriend” whilst simultaneously being to the forefront in promoting “biblical” views against homosexuality.  Just think about that.  The preacher preaches against homosexuality one minute; the next minute we men are implored to sing “Jesus is my homo-erotic boyfriend”.  Of course no-one ever states that clashing juxtaposition out loud; too awkward!

We are told that Solomon was emotional and in touch with his feelings:  “just look at Song of Songs”.  Well, of course… but he was absolutely and completely writing about a private bedroom one-to-one human relationship with a woman!  And in the early, inevitably lustful stages of such a relationship.  That really doesn’t translate at all well into a corporate, public act of worship shared with many strangers, to the man Jesus!  (The SOS metaphor about Christ and the church is fine;  but that interpretation is a much, much later post-hoc retrofit about “the Church” (captial ‘C’, Bride of Christ);  it is not about me, the individual man in the church.

We are told that David was in touch with his feelings.  Really?  Try asking his wife, Michal, whom he deeply betrayed, time after time (even ignoring his Bathsheba adultery).  Indeed, even during their courtship, it is telling that while the Bible records that she loved him, it noticeably omits to record that he loved her.  Think on that.  He then pushed away this same wife who loved him (but did he ever love her?).  Then, after she had re-married, he pulled rank with the new husband because he wanted her back (still no record that he loved her; although the wronged husband clearly did)… then he chucked her away again. Then, to cap it all, he cavorts publicly with other girls in a “religious” ceremony whilst making the gob-smacking claim that he is “dancing before the Lord.”  No, thank you.  Despite the fact my own name is David, if THAT is what the modern evangelical/charismatic church recommends as a man being “in touch with his feelings” then the preaching and worship has gone badly and seriously awry.

Then we are told to sing these “Jesus is beautiful” songs (but of courser, it’s not homo-erotic, is it?)  all the while remembering that “he had no beauty to attract us to him; nothing in his appearance that we should desire him”.  Uh??  (Don’t songwriters properly read their Bibles at all?)

When a man follows a leader in our secular lives, or Jesus in our overall lives, it has nothing whatsoever to do with beauty.  It has to do with whether we respect that boss/leader; whether there is something to which we can aspire.  That might be a whole range of things for different people. A sporting man might follow his sporting hero;  the academic astrophysicist might follow an Einstein or Hawking;  a classical music man might follow a Beethoven or Ravel; etc.  And the Christian man will follow Jesus because of some attribute in the gospels that commands and demands our respect, not because of gooey-gushy “Jesus is my homo-erotic boyfriend” quack-pseudo-theology.   The men in the gospels were called to be disciples through thick and thin.  The men in the gospels have a pretty shoddy track record in this!  At the end, most were absent; Judas betrayed; Peter (supposedly “the rock”) chickened out.  Yet that attracts us because it sets a challenge.  Hand in hand with this we also note that the women in the gospels have a far better track record of loving faithfulness.  (By the way, that “loving faithfulness”, here attributed to the women, is one of the deepest, most profound qualities of the God revealed time and time again throughout the Psalms, and is miles removed from any gushing sentimentality.)

If the musical so-called “worship” of the present-day church is built on such appallingly shoddy theology, no wonder it is in deep trouble.

But have you noticed that men are mostly quite happy singing the traditional hymns in the traditional way? (And pause briefly also to observe how lively is singing, and unaccompanied at that, on football terraces!)   That’s because, for the most part, the hymns are based on shared, straight facts (on the terraces shared “facts” broadens to shared opinions!); they don’t coerce us into a forced lovey-dovey subjective emotional reaction.  Of course, if we went back to hymn-singing, that would dramatically undermine the megabucks commercial “worship” entertainment industry.  And that would be a Bad Thing, wouldn’t it?  Wouldn’t it?

Jesus did NOT say “pick up your guitar and coo me a gushy feel-good song”, nor anything at all vaguely resembling that.  (Beware: the “spirit and truth” from John’s gospel isn’t at all about this.)  But (correct me if I’m wrong) he DID say “take up your cross and follow me”.

what a friend i’ve found… great song. And Paul Oakley’s ‘like a fragrant oil’.. yes some emotive language but puts in words the amazing shock of grace discovered in the heart

God is neither male nor female but He has male and female characteristics. I would consider his love, kindness, patience as female characteristics and His strength, might, power as masculine. So I would consider songs about the softer side of the Lord as feminine and the tougher being masculine. Lately I’ve been wondering about the songs at my church. So many of the songs seem to be about how a person feels about God rather than declaring how strong and mighty He is. The trouble is so many ‘worship’ songs are about our feeling towards God. As a church worship group they don’t have a choice since no one is really gifted as songwriters, so they just have to choose between a bunch of feminine songs. I’ve been trying to think of some masculine worship songs and it’s a struggle. No I’m not gonna suggest songs that mention beer or DIY! That’s just dumb! I can think of We Will Ride (Lindell Cooley), House of Gold (Paul Oakley) and the kids song My God Is So Big. It’s down to the songwriters to change things. But will they?

How many times can I like this??

“The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is His name!”  Too many modern ‘worship’ songs paint God as anything but.  We need more songs like Kutless’ “Strong Tower”, or the awesome song “Ride With Me”.  I gave up being a ‘worship leader’ when the songs became uncomfortably lovey-dovey (“draw me gently to my knees and I’m, lost for words, so lost in love, I’m sweetly broken, wholly surrendered”?!?  Really???), subliminally sexualized messes.  I have a severe problem with the whole ‘warmth of your embrace’ stuff.  I don’t even sing much anymore at all, because this metrosexual Jesus has taken over the church, along with the “We’re nothing but navel lint” songs that diminish the Work of Christ in us.

Charlotte, you raise some interesting points.

Taking the “most written by men”.  They’re written by the subset of men (and some women) whose writing conforms to the marketing pressures of the “Christian” publishing industry, namely the monochrome quasi-monopoly of Kingsway/Hillsongs/etc. that every church feels it needs to buy into in order to conform to the established religion of comfortable Western feelings-based “worship” (inverted commas intentional) which entertains us and makes us feel “anointed” (inverted commas intentional).  The marketing forces drive it towards passive, emotion-based entertainment.  So the subset of material and writers marketed at us is skewed and twisted.  The majority of the buyers of such CDs are women; human nature being what it is, they’ll tend to buy “lovey-dovey” material sung by suitor-like young men.

Pitch:  Following on from the above, they are pitched so they sound good for the entertainment CD, which is about relatively high-pitched soloists performing to us.  This is a world away from a congregation actively involved in corporate singing (e.g. trad hymns, the material of John Bell, Iona, etc.).

Congregation or worship leader?  Charlotte, re-read your own questions and see how much they are focussed onto the worship leader (e.g. “performed by men”;  “I [a WL] can’t sing along”; “when I lead I have to transpose down”, etc.)  But then consider… shouldn’t the focus be on the congregation?  All those aspects you raise should (in my ever so humble opinion!) be focussed on enabling active congregational song.

All these various presentation and performance aspects are biased, skewed and twisted by the marketing forces of religion towards us, and by our unthinking buying into all that.

(And we haven’t even begun to look at the theological content…!)

Assumption. Maybe right, maybe wrong. Don’t think you can give a definitive answer either way. Remember that David was supposed to be a good looking guy.

Good questions. Thank you-especially for suggesting that we examine our interpretations of masculinity and femininity.

I can do better – I can give you Bible references that basically say exactly the same thing (actually more explicitly) than that worship song…
Psalm 135:5 “Our Lord is greater than all gods”
Psalm 96:5 “He is to be feared above all other gods”
Psalm 82:1 “He presides over the other gods”
Psalm 136:2 “Give thanks to the God of gods”

Hmmm, on that particular song (though I don’t think it’s sung so much these days), surely the point of ‘sonship’ is less to do with gender, but more to do with being both heir and developing into the character of the father? In which case, “now I am your heir, I am adopted in your family” would be better as it has a meaning in contemporary culture that’s closer to the Biblical meaning than either Son or Child and (b) rhymes with ‘care’ in the previous line :-)

My question is, why do we have to call it the “feminisation” of worship? Why not call it the “bastardisation” of worship, or the “watering down” of worship, or maybe just “false” or “improper” worship? Worship is worship; there aren’t masculine and feminine ways of worshiping. I know about the scripture that says the “effeminate” (men with female characteristics) will not inherit the kingdom of God, but I don’t see how that applies to worship. Maybe if the men are dancing around in frilly dresses? “Feminisation” is a loaded term that implies any characteristics seen as feminine are inherently wrong or ungodly. And it makes women feel degraded and alienated from the conversation. In heaven, we’ll all worship in the same manner–and according to Revelations, it won’t be by singing songs about war or standing around totally composed. I think our culture has warped our view of gender.

The fact that he was good looking does not mean she threw herself at him or that it is impossible that he coerced her. Women had little power as it was, plus David was the king so she could hardly have said “no” even if she had wanted to.