Confusing non-Christians with the Unchurched?
There have been a lot of posts on this blog about Christian women only wanting to date Christian men, so that they will eventually marry a Christian man. There have also been a lot of posts about the problem of being attracted to non-Christian men. I am wondering if some of the men called non-Christian are in fact Christian, but are currently Unchurched. And therefore being rejected unfairly.
It seems like a lot of single Christian men become Unchurched sometime between 15 and 30. They don’t seem to return to attending church until after they are married and have children of their own.
I first noticed it starting in high school, that church-going Christian boys that were fifteen or older were not attending church as much, or stop going altogether. In the Army, talking to fellow soldiers attending services on post that they said they did not like to attend church when they were back home on leave. I later noticed a similar thing with college men active in Christian campus outreach programs. They said they were uncomfortable in attending the church they grew up in.
I heard comments like, “Church is only for women and children,” or “Church is made for elderly people.” The consistent story was that these Christian men felt alienated in the church they grew up in, but not in the military churches or campus outreach bible studies. I assume that most of them became Unchurched when they left the military or graduated college.
My question to the Christian women out there is, “How do you determine someone is a Christian or not?” If you ask if they currently attend church and they say “no,” do you then ask if they used to attend church and had accepted Jesus as their Savior?
Fred, the 43 year old Christian husband of 22 years and a father of three.
It seems like a lot of single Christian men become Unchurched sometime between 15 and 30. They don’t seem to return to attending church until after they are married and have children of their own.
I first noticed it starting in high school, that church-going Christian boys that were fifteen or older were not attending church as much, or stop going altogether. In the Army, talking to fellow soldiers attending services on post that they said they did not like to attend church when they were back home on leave. I later noticed a similar thing with college men active in Christian campus outreach programs. They said they were uncomfortable in attending the church they grew up in.
I heard comments like, “Church is only for women and children,” or “Church is made for elderly people.” The consistent story was that these Christian men felt alienated in the church they grew up in, but not in the military churches or campus outreach bible studies. I assume that most of them became Unchurched when they left the military or graduated college.
My question to the Christian women out there is, “How do you determine someone is a Christian or not?” If you ask if they currently attend church and they say “no,” do you then ask if they used to attend church and had accepted Jesus as their Savior?
Fred, the 43 year old Christian husband of 22 years and a father of three.
posted by Anonymous @ 8:04 AM
15 Comments:
At 12:01 PM, September 25, 2006,
Marianne said…
Yep, that's a tough one. I don't require membership in a church as a prerequisite--I'm not even a member of a church. And I've heard this same story before--the church is anti-man, it's too feminine, etc etc. I agree. I don't like church much either. I hate the "me, me me" focus of ministry and interpersonal relationships. But I've decided to suck it up, go, and try to make as much of a difference as I can (thus explaining my involvement in the children's ministry on Wednesday nights). Because I was raised that whether you like it or not, you go. You serve. You work for the Kingdom.
I get it that the church has problems. I think it's biggest problem re:young people is that it asks them for nothing. How dare the church wring its hands over why young people feel like they don't "belong," and yet, they rarely challenge them to take up real work in the church? And I mean WORK--anything from cleaning toilets to putting on roofs. Men like to be told what to do (this is incontrovertible fact), and yet the church is scared to lay down the gauntlet. Heaven forbid anyone feel the least bit challenged of a Sunday morning. Young men should be literally buidling for the Kingdom, if they aren't out building it spiritually.
So, if I meet an awesome unchurched man who turns out to have at some point in his life made Christ his Savior, great. That's the first step. He can proceed to the next level, next date, whatever. But really, I can't live with an "it's all about me" person my whole life.
It smacks too much of the same arguments we've heard before, "Why aren't the girls where I am?"
When are we young women allowed to ask the guys, "Okay, give me some assurance you plan on giving back to the world at some point." Because it would be pretty awful to be that woman in church on Sunday with the kids, trying to explain why Bill hasn't it made it to church again this Sunday.
At 5:18 AM, September 26, 2006,
Anonymous said…
In speaking with a pastor recently, I asked him about many people of the twenty-something generation who were raised in homes where Christ was lived and proclaimed, went to a Bible teaching (though not fundamentalist) church, and yet now do not attend church. His comment to me was those people of this generation who have been hurt by the church and no longer attend are called "dechurched." Yes, they have accepted Christ as their Savior, but no longer choose to be involved in church because of their past experience. When I asked him what we could do to reach the "dechurched," he replied that we need to seek these people out, hear their stories, and then apologize on behalf of the church and ask what it will take from the church for that person to become involved again in church life. I found it very interesting and am still praying about implementation with the ones I know who no longer attend, both guys and girls.
At 8:36 AM, September 26, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
That was a great response on the part of your pastor -- I've rarely heard anyone from the established "inside" of the church body expressing an understanding of what goes on for people who have been hurt by their church experience.
I'm not too picky about men who don't go to church -- I had been almost completely "dechurched" myself for the entirety of 2006, until last month when I began attending Mass. I'm not usually one to throw rocks, and as we've mentioned before, most of the men of my generation who ARE involved in church seem to live there -- they've attended this church all their lives, and work for the church as well. They never step outside into the glare of the secular world, which is frankly unattractive and was not a focus of Christ's own ministry.
I also have received a strong sense over the past four or five years of just how strongly family-oriented the church is. Which it needs to be; but my dad admitted this week while on the phone with me that the church has no idea what to do with young singles. With the youths who do attend seeming completely naive and scared of the world "out there," and the church at large avoiding issues of single living altogether, it's a small wonder that a great number of Christians are unmotivated to attend until they have families of their own, which appears to be the wristband allowing you free access to all the rides.
MP is a great example of perseverance. Not many people stick it out like that.
So Fred, I suppose it could get tricky, deciphering which non-church-goers are Christian and which aren't. But then again, I have noticed that it's pretty evident right away where someone stands -- there's a difference in attitude, in communication, in pushiness, in respectability.
For example, one man I went out with in the spring was so obviously not a Christian a vegetable could have figured it out. He pushed the physical, had no moral or transcendental center to his behavior or conversation, no particular life purpose outside his job. I didn't waste much time on him after that first date.
And another guy I just met seems to be totally great. He graduated from a Christian university, comes from a family who teaches in Christian colleges, and conversed about his childhood experiences reading and watching various interpretations of The Chronicles of Narnia. There was a difference from people outside the faith in the way he spoke. I have no idea if he attends church -- he may, or he may not. I wouldn't be surprised either way. I've found that people who take their faith seriously show it in all sorts of subtle ways, regardless of whether or not they're church attenders.
And actually the fact that he DIDN'T talk about his affiliation points somewhat to his really being a Christian. Most of the non-Christians I've met and/or dated have come right out and stated their religious beliefs within the first hour of the conversation.
I am beginning to prioritize my own involvement in church, and I would certainly hope that a man who doesn't attend church, but is a Christian, would WANT, at some point in his life, to be involved in church, or to do it whether he wants to or not. Because the church needs to have a higher concentration of manliness.
And thanks, Fred, for your post -- it's encouraging to consider that there are a few more options out there, even while it solidifies a little further the idea that church isn't the best place to meet someone.
At 5:22 PM, September 26, 2006,
la persona said…
Tough call. I ended my first relationship on account of the church issue -- not as a line item that he didn´t fulfill, but because of the broader issues it represented. He was an agnostic/borderline atheist and it was difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile our increasingly disperate beliefs. Not that he was a bad guy, but it would have been foolish to think we could have made it work in the long run. Church is now as an important part of my life (wasn´t when we first met) as it was not for him. When it comes to commitment, I´m not one to make such bets with my future.
However, my second ex might fit the profile you described. A nominal Catholic, he nonetheless possessed more faith than many of the church-going Christian men I know. And yet he steadfastly refused to attend any kind of religious service. Sometimes I too wonder what is more important -- belief or a weekly act. Or are they inseparable? I still don´t know.
As far as meeting singles in the church (and this relates a bit to Marianne´s last post too), I would have to say it depends. My church (www.ancfchurch.org) has about 100 adults in attendance and in the past year there have been almost 12 engaged couples -- almost a full quarter. I don´t know what the breakdown is between married and singles of the remainder, but the fact that most of the couples were in their upper-20´s gives me hope. Maybe we just need to be more patient for single guys and gals alike to break out of the mutual transience and insecurity of the ¨recent graduate stage.¨
As for myself -- maybe this is unusual for our demographic -- I have had several opportunities to pursue dating relationships with guys in my congregation. However, with half of my church being of Asian descent, it seems most of the engaged gals have been Asian and the engaged guys white or Hispanic. Leaving the Asian guys and white girls (such as myself) out of luck. Some of them have pursued me, but maybe it´s because of cultural reasons I declined. They aspire to be doctors and businessmen, with a stable, well-to-do, suburban families and a fairly predictable life. Try as I might, I simply cannot envision that kind of life for myself.
So single I remain, dabbling with a few fellows on the fringes of organized religion, wondering if I´ve given up on a middle ground too soon.
At 7:11 PM, September 27, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Let me get this straight. Any shmuck who puts something "credible" after what they've written is taken seriously. Take "Fred", for instance. So "Fred". Are you really just some 19 year old with too much time on his hands and a devious mind? I'd try doing the same thing, but I've become much too lazy in my old age.
At 1:35 PM, September 28, 2006,
none said…
Fred, I feel you're being a bit unfair to us young women. The 20-something men I know are FAR more inclined to base their romaNTic decisions on a woman's looks (ahem... "hotness") than my female friends are.
At 1:35 PM, September 28, 2006,
none said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 1:46 PM, September 28, 2006,
none said…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/singles/newsletter/
At 2:18 PM, September 28, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
I would agree. Reading this blog, one might be inclined to think that all we care about is physical attraction, because we do stress its importance (although, Fred, I think our definition of physical attraction is the same as your definition of physical chemistry), but knowing most of these women, myself included, I can say that it's not the first thing we consider.
In fact, my policy toward dating used to be (up until a month ago), Date anyone who asks, if he isn't obviously a serial killer or otherwise clearly unsuitable. Now the policy is, Date any Christian who asks.
The four non-negotiable qualities I'm looking for are as follows: Smart, loves the Lord, has a sense of humor, is giving. Looks don't factor into any of those.
I'm not going to speak for the men, because I don't understand them and don't want to accuse unfairly; but for a lot of women, while we recognize our passionate nature and do put an emphasis on the physical aspect of a relationship, it's by no means the first priority.
At 6:02 PM, September 29, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
Fred, I'm sorry, I really don't understand your arguments. They seem to run back and forth on themselves (Iike the river Saskatchewan, which comes from a Native American word meaning "river that turns back on itself").
It seems that you're criticizing young women and saying that we only date a guy if he's incredibly good-looking (I'd like to know where you base this claim), then when we tell you that we don't, and that we care more about the things that really matter to begin with (which, again, are readily discernable within the first few minutes of meeting a guy -- and my first impressions have only been wrong perhaps five times in my life -- and while I'm open to being persuaded that I've made a wrong assesment, I respect my own judgment), and that we're okay with the development of physicality over time (which is the way it should be, since the truest form of physicality is as much trust, affection, and selfless love as it is sexual desire), you indicate that we don't care about physicality at all which will doom our marriages to chilly Victorian affairs.
What do you suggest? That we kiss any guy who takes us out and pays for dinner or a movie, just to see if the chemistry is there (and I question the validity of your definitions of attraction and chemistry), and if it isn't, dump him?
Been there. Hated it.
At 12:40 PM, September 30, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
I'm still curious as to these observations about women's dating selection being based purely on a man's attractiveness. Where have you observed this?
From my observations and experience as a young single out there in the dating world, and knowing many other people of my age group in my situation, I have noticed that fairly unattractive men tend to wind up dating women who are much more attractive than they are. Which is kudos to the girls for, as I said earlier, looking for more than just looks.
I'm concerned that you are attributing male impulses to women. I have found that men tend to be sparked to interest by the visual. It's generally accepted among women, and the scientific and psychological world, as being the way men are wired. Women, on the other hand, while certainly not blind to a good-looking man, are more interested in his character, since women are generally wired to seek stability in a relationship. A woman's interest is considerably more complex than "Oh, he's hot at first glance, I'll date him," at least eight-five percent of the time, and particularly with the girls who post on this blog.
Where have you observed these claims to the contrary?
At 5:54 AM, October 01, 2006,
Marianne said…
This conversation has officially become stupid and pointless. I declare it to be over.
At 1:41 PM, October 01, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
Soy de acuerdo. As my high school senior English teacher told us at the beginning of the year, If you can't back up your opinion with fact, you don't have an opinion.
The horse is good and dead and flogged.
At 5:38 PM, October 01, 2006,
none said…
Since you guys can't see me, I just want to inform you that I'm currently rolling my eyes.
:D
At 7:55 PM, October 01, 2006,
The Prufroquette said…
LOL.
Post a Comment
<< Home