Look, here is a question on the Reasonable Faith web site from a feminist from Canada who objects to the idea of sex differences:
Dear Dr. Craig,
I have usually found your words to be a source of information and reassurance in my Christian faith, and have often sought out your writings and videos in times of doubt or questioning.
So I was really disappointed, almost shocked, when I read your newsletter of April of this year in which you casually stereotypes men and women, and complain that the church is becoming increasingly feminized, and has difficulties in attracting men.
Your compared the audiences at a couple of your speaking engagements to the audience from a clip of a Downton Abbey Q&A at another location – concluding that they were all men at the former and almost all women at the latter “simply because the Downton Abbey program is highly relational, which is more appealing to women, whereas my talks were principally intellectually oriented, which is more appealing to men.”
I believe that you are using stereotypes here, which you justify by making a ridiculous comparison that holds zero statistical significance. Not only is your statement unreasonable, it is potentially damaging – especially when made so carelessly. Stereotypes are shortcuts in classifying people. They can, and often do, limit and distort the way we perceive others and the world. Stereotypes are a lazy way of thinking that can lead to discrimination, and their use should not be encouraged.
I’m also a little disturbed by your claim regarding the feminisation of the church. What do you mean by that, and how do you support that statement?
I’m curious because the church has historically been a largely male-dominated institution (sometimes criminally so), and the bible’s instructions to and about women are often difficult to swallow. If anything, the church has had difficulty in attracting women. And if we are truly seeing more women in leadership roles at the church (I have to assume this is what you meant by feminizing), I believe this is not something to fear and resist. It would be a welcome change, and has every opportunity to challenge how we think about each other – allowing us to love each other better and see each other more clearly.
This newsletter called your expertise in some areas into question for me. Could you help to rebuild some of the faith I’ve lost in your words? I would very much appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Alexandra (Canada)
Canadians are sooooo liberal, especially on social issues like feminism, abortion and marriage. I’m sure this woman has been influenced by feminist ideology so much that she just can’t deal with the fact that men are women are very different.
Anyway, here’s a snip of Dr. Craig’s response:
Third is my claim that the church is becoming increasingly feminized. What I mean by this is that church services and programs are increasingly based on emotional and relational factors that appeal more to women than to men. The problem of the church’s lack of appeal to men has been recognized by men’s movements like Promise Keepers and books like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart. Nowhere is this feminization more evident than in contemporary worship music. Someone aptly remarked that if you were to replace references to God in many praise songs with “Baby,” they would sound just like romantic songs between a man and a woman! This is not true of classic hymns like “A Mighty Fortress” or “And Can It be?” Talking with young men, I find that many of them are just turned off by these touchy-feely worship services and would rather not go.
We see this same feminization though relational factors in network coverage of sports, traditionally a male bastion. Coverage of Olympic Games has deliberately targeted women in order to increase viewership by the addition of personal stories about athletes’ lives, rather than simply televising the events themselves. In professional sports have you noticed how in recent years television networks have engaged female reporters to go down on the field and interview baseball or football players, usually about how they felt about this or that? Jan and I had to laugh when, following the Broncos’ recent blowout of the Ravens, the female reporter asked Peyton Manning, “Didn’t you feel bad for the other team when you looked up at the scoreboard?” Uh, I don’t think so!
You’re right that the predominance of women in Christianity is a relatively new phenomenon. It is only over the last 200 years that Christianity has become increasingly female in its demographics. I’m very worried that the church is on a course that will end in relatively few men’s being active Christians.
Fourth is my claim that apologetics is a key to making the church and Christian faith relevant to men once more. People think that by having sports programs or men’s barbecues the church will draw in more men. But I’m convinced that the best kept secret to drawing in men is apologetics. Men need to see that Jesus of Nazareth was not only a tough guy but a smart guy. I never suspected that apologetics would have this special effect on men. I had no intention of ministering particularly to men in this ministry. But the appeal of apologetics to men is just undeniable. In my Defenders class we’ve got guys who don’t even attend church but who regularly come for my lectures on Christian doctrine and apologetics. One woman in the class told me, “I don’t understand a lot of what you say. But I’m glad to come because this is the only spiritual activity that my husband will participate in with me.” Wow!
Wow, indeed. Apologetics gets men to engage more in Christianity, and the church should leverage that to bring men in. That’s a fact. So, I’m glad Dr Craig didn’t give an inch to this fact-averse feminist from Canada.
My own post critical of the feminized church can be read here. Keep in mind that this is from two months after I started blogging – very raw stuff.
By the way, Dr. Craig’s ministry Reasonable Faith has a huge matching grant again this year, so if you’re looking for a great ministry to donate to, Reasonable Faith should be on your list!
Related posts
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I’ve been tempted to write a book on this topic, it is so important. I’m glad Dr. Craig is as reasonable about it as he is about everything else he talks about!
LikeLike
The problem is that churches do not teach doctrine. The reason why the men go to Craig’s classes is because at least they will learn something there, whereas in church they learn nothing. Most preachers do not seem to study the Bible thoroughly. Instead, they spend much of their time — as a salaried member of the church — performing social work that the Bible specifically assigns to deacons (See Acts 6:2-4).
I agree that churches should teach Craig’s lessons. I feel like most of Craig’s arguments are actually more drawn-out restatements of the Bible. For example, the teleological argument is a restatement of Romans 1:20. The argument from morality is a restatement of 1 Corinthians 15:32 and 1 John 4:16.
However, I would say that just convincing people of the truth of the resurrection is considered an “elementary” doctrine (Hebrews 6:1-2). Hence, apologetics is not everything.
Once again, some smart people just gravitate to apologetics because it’s the only intellectual pursuit (in religion) that they can find to study. Most modern churches are largely useless. Whether you call it “feminization,” or just call it the “sin” of not studying the Bible, or the “sin” or not loving God with your whole mind, the fact is that the anti-intellectualism is a problem. The fact that Craig is so popular just for being smart is a symptom.
LikeLike
Canadian’s are so liberal that our so called “Conservative” party in the federal government is left of center.
LikeLike
Well, I think they are in the center. But yes. Not conservative.
LikeLike
Please do not judge Canadians by this letter writer! There are plenty of conservative Canadians. You just don’t hear about them, because they tend to be too busy getting things done rather than writing letters or playing activist.
Liberalism in Canada tends to be very regional, but I do agree that there is a “feminization” in churches in general. From my observation, however, this is something willingly endorsed by male leaders in the church. I would say that the male leaders in the church themselves have become more “feminized.” Perhaps it’s because women are much more likely to volunteer and keep things running than men, and they can’t afford to lose all that free labour.
LikeLike
Hi WK
I have to say, we weren’t convinced by Craig’s analysis at all. My wife (a complementarian, pro-life, Irish ‘stay-at-home-mum’) wrote this brief response for our site:
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/william-lane-craig-apologetics-and-women/
We agree that men and women are different and that those differences are important- but we don’t think that Craig really gets to grips with the subtle and profound differences in his post. His analysis of “feminisation” was also a little simplistic.
I’ve a few thoughts of my own. I’m not sure that “feminisation” is a helpful concept for understanding the cultural shift. I think it’s more helpful to note that we have abandoned an “ideational” for a “sensate” culture. We also need to clarify what we mean by feminisation. Take this passage from Leland Ryken’s introduction to “Paradise Lost” (Crossway:2013)
“Modern feminism falls into two camps – those who want to claim for women qualities and roles that have traditionally belonged to men rather than women, and those who want to elevate feminine qualities as being applicable to men also. Milton fits comfortably into the second category. He disparages military strength and the urge towards power and elevates the domestic values, the nurturing tasks of tending a garden and such virtues as gentleness and love” Ryken, p40
Now, we can hardly suggest that Ryken and Milton are feminists! But they both defend the “female” virtues against “male” virtues!
I also found Craig’s comments about female sports reporters to be a little comical; if you’ll forgive a little trans-Atlantic baiting, it really didn’t take female reporters to introduce sentimentality into American journalism or popular culture. (-; And sports stars also talk a great deal about their feelings, especially when they’re winning.
Craig has his anecdotes, so I’ll share one of my own. I have coached under-16 boys soccer for nearly ten years; my father has considerably more experience. In Britain and Ireland the game is played quite aggressively (with no body armour!) and, unfortunately, physical competitiveness is often valued over skill and tactical awareness. Many young men are taught to be ruthless and aggressive on the pitch. One excuse is that these are “manly virtues”.
What my father and I have both observed is that the same players who act like stereotypical “real man” on the pitch are usually the same players who react with tears, moods, hysteria and tantrums when they disagree with the coach or referee. The more thoughtful players tend to be dignified and stoic. So I wonder if promoting the “male virtues” isn’t a little counter-productive.
That said, Nikki and I were both a little worried to read someone doubting Craig’s expertise because she disagreed with some brief, informal comments about the feminisation of culture. We can’t expect to agree with admired Church leaders on every subject we consider important! Surely Craig has achieved enough by putting evangelism ahead of an academic career, working tirelessly for the Kingdom, and gaining remarkable expertise in philosophy of time, philosophy of science and the New Testament! We can learn more than enough from his books, articles and (above all) his example. We’re asking too much of the guy if we expect him to keep everyone in the Church happy all of the time!
Graham
LikeLike