After hearing much about this book over the last year I finally picked it up and I am glad I did. Often for me there are books that I read where the author puts words to things I have intuitively sensed or thought about myself or what I see around me. Why Men Hate Going to Church was one of those books.

There is a huge gender gap in churches in the US today, in fact this is true around the world. The question that Murrow asks is, Why and what can we do about it. He sets out to help the reader understand what it is about our churches that actually drives men away. And as he progresses through the book the list of reasons grows astronomically.

Essentially, his argument is that the church has become feminized. That is, the church is a place where the average woman can feel quite comfortable because it is set up for her success. While, at the same time, most churches are set up for men to fail through incompetence (it’s a woman’s world). From the ways churches function to the way that conflict is dealt with, most churches cater to women. In fact, in studies sited, men who found art and religion important were more likely to have an effeminate outlook on life, that is they responded to the survey more like women.

One poignant example is the way he suggests most churches deal with conflict (though many more could be sited). For men when conflict arises it’s, “Let’s step this outside and settle this like men.” And when it’s finished they can shake hands and move on. For women conflict is more typically internalized and thus bitterness grows and you avoid that person at all costs. So the cliche: men get angry, women get even. Yes this is somewhat generalized, but it is the case for the vast majority of men and women as research indicates.

So what does this mean in a local church? Think of how most churches deal with conflict. Murrow would argue we deal with it like women. We would find it reprehensible for two of our deacons, in the midst of an argument, to say “Let’s step outside and settle this like men.” But we find no problem dealing with conflict like women by suppressing anger, disallowing outward disagreements, and never actually speaking about it, etc. Here’s the point, both models are a bit messed up, but the church caters to feminine sensibilities.

Why should it even matter, however, for the church to address this issue? I mean shouldn’t men just change and deal with it? First off men are not in our churches, they are missing. The average church has a 60% - 40% split (and this in a world that has roughly a 50% -50% split). So as Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Something needs to change to see men reached by the gospel.

But why does that even matter? Well the statistics reveal that men are the gatekeepers for the faith. Here’s what I mean by that. I saw a study about a year ago (and Murrow indicates this too) that demonstrated if a child came to faith in Christ there was about 20% likelihood that the rest of the family would follow suit. If the mother came to faith in Jesus there was about a 28% likelihood the rest of the family would follow. But if a father began following Jesus there was over a 93% likelihood the rest of the family would follow in his footsteps. Men are strategic to the cause of Jesus in our world.

Something has to give. We can continue in our pursuit of insanity just hoping on a vain wish that the men will one day come back to church. Or we can actually reevaluate and change our course. Failure to do so is unacceptable I think.

And I think David Murrow’s contribution could be a great place to start for those of us interested in Jesus’ mission in our world. He has some great insight and practical suggestions as to how we might help usher in change.

You should also check out the accompanying website for more resources.

Has anyone else read the book? If so what did you think?