Saturday, 21 February 2015

Semantics or Religious Apartheid?

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with this? Am I missing something here?

Man Church? Who comes up with these antics and sales gimmicks?

Maybe it sounds a little extreme, but the very first thing I thought of when I saw this was, I wonder what would happen if a sister were to walk into their gathering on Wednesday at 7pm? Would she be welcome? Or would she perhaps be shown the door? And if she were shown the door, what if she made a stink about it, perhaps even filing legal action for discrimination? Would she win? Now there's a show that I'd be curious to see play itself out.

No, I'm not a fan of lawsuits at every slightest whim when someone feels that their rights were somehow trampled upon and violated, especially among people who count themselves as believers. What ever happened to turning the other cheek and going the extra mile (Matthew 5:38-42)? Paul said that "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means that you have been completely defeated already. Why rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers" (1 Corinthians 6:7-8). But I have digressed.

It's really quite sad how often we use buffoonery in the name of Christ's church!

Again, am I missing something here? In his song "Dirty Water," Lecrae says that "the most segregated time of day is Sunday service," (or maybe in this case, Wednesday evening), and I'm beginning to think that he may be on to something. The word "segregation" makes me think of another word: "apartheid," and the thought of apartheid only leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Clearly it does not belong in the church. Is that what we're talking about here; a form of religious apartheid? Ouch!

Now I'm not opposed to men fellowshipping together any more than women doing likewise. In the same way, there is nothing wrong with children's or young adult groups that cater to their specific interests. There's a host of words we could use to describe gender or age specific subsections of the church. Maybe I'm just fiddling with semantics, but whenever I hear or use the word "church," I cannot help think of it as encompassing the whole body of Christ and not just a small subsection of it. As such, if this "Man Church" were really a true "church," it would have to include everyone from cradle to grave, regardless of gender. In other words, "church" is about family, and every member in it. In my way of thinking, anything less might be better off not called a "church," however if it is, it's probably more accurately described with the word "pseudo" hyphenated in front of it.

That's the way I see it anyways. Peace.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,
for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"
(Jesus; Mt.19:14).

Photo source: Unknown; via Facebook

1 comment:

  1. My perception is that institutional church functions and service style has become increasingly feminized over the past fifteen years. Men are withdrawing from traditions and practices that they see as out of touch and irrelevant. I imagine that "Man Church" is an attempt to fill this void. Unfortunately, it is a far cry from the New Testament practices of early believers. The pendulum in this case has swung to the opposite extreme and replaced one poor choice with another.

    ReplyDelete