The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity

by Leon J. Podles

After documenting the highly feminized state of Western Christianity, Dr. Podles identifies the masculine traits that once characterized the Christian life but are now commonly considered incompatible with it. In an original and challenging account, he traces this feminization to three contemporaneous medieval sources: the writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the rise of scholasticism, and the expansion of female monasticism. He contends that though masculinity has been marginalized within Christianity, it cannot be expunged from human society. If detached from Christianity, it reappears as a substitute religion, with unwholesome and even horrific consequences. The church, too, is diminished by its emasculation. Its spirituality becomes individualistic and erotic, tending toward universalism and quietism. In his concluding assessment of the future of men in the church, Dr. Podles examines three aspects of Christianity-initiation, struggle, and fraternal love-through which its virility might be restored.

In the otherwise stale and overworked field of "gender studies," The Church Impotent is the only book to confront the lopsidedly feminine cast of modern Christianity with a profound analysis of its historical and sociological roots. Dr. Podles presents the fruit of his meticulous scholarship in a lucid and readable style thoroughly accessible to the non-specialist.

Genres: Nonfiction, Christianity, History, Christian, Theology, Religion, Cultural

286 pages, Paperback

First published December 3, 2005

Reviews

[C.R. Wiley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full disclosure: Lee is a friend and he wrote the foreword to my latest nonfiction book.

That said, I think this is a great book. Detractors primarily engage in question begging. They either don't have anything to say about why men generally don't like church, or they don't seem to care that they don't.

While Lee does attend to matters of taste and the psychology of masculinity, his primary insight is there problem has theological roots. Medieval bridal mysticism turns most men off. And popular piety in both Roman Catholicism and much of Protestantism is tinctured with bridal mysticism.

Lee then attempts to find a way out of the morass.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.

[Leslie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love how many of the negative reviews of this book are from women. Ironic?

This is an important topic. A corporate bridal theology is necessary in our feminized world. I'm grateful to my husband, who brought this book into our marriage and taught me a better way of looking at my relationship with Christ. Every Christian man and woman should read it.

[Matheus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read.

Podles is an academic that knows how to write.

I started reading this thinking the author would exaggerate and be overly alarming, but what a surprise. One of the most accurate diagnosis of the current western church I have seen in the past years.

The book is good because I am a living spectator of what it describes. It is good because it is true.

Highly, highly recommend it.

[ThePrill · Rating 2 out of 5]

The time has come to review this cigar. I want to be as brief as possible while also covering every thought I had while reading it (thank God for kindle notes and highlights). I did not like this book. Despite the problem that Podles is correctly highlighting, his abiblical framework is not the answer. It is shocking how little he appeals to Scripture to justify his arguments, especially as the issue he is dealing with is a CHURCH one. His opening section tries to define masculinity, mostly in highlighting how 'other' it is from the 'normative' femininity, which apparently is the default setting for humanity, which men can revert back to if they don't 'rise above it'. A lot of this is done through initiation rites, for which Podles bizarrely includes examples like tribes which force their young men to be the recipients of anal sex by older men, such that, if I recall correctly, they will be repulsed by the idea of forever being in the position of receiver (feminine) rather than giver (masculine).

Podles goes to describe anything even remotely communitarian in nature as feminine, including the Godhead. Concepts like holiness, on the other hand, are masculine, which Podles gives no coherent reasoning for. He claims that virginity and celibacy are the supernatural successors of martyrdom in the history of the Church, as any good Catholic might. However, his reasoning for this is so mystical and gnostic, rites of initiation into the 'celestial Mysteries' by which its initiates may perceive 'divine light'. He puts the 'Protestant discomfort with Catholic Mariology' down to the fact that Mary exemplifies Christianity as 'feminine and receptive'. All very bizarre.

But, if that doesn't beat all, we get to the crux of Podles' argument, that of medieval mysticism's eroticism and emotionalism ruining the Church for men. Here, we get a plethora of revolting examples of demon-possessed (my own definition) nuns having visions of the Christ child kissing their breasts or of their kissing the Christ child's foreskin. Images of individuals marrying Christ, in which they switch the roles of female and male as Christ begs them to invite him in (asking Jesus into your heart, anyone?) also littered writings of the time.

Moving into the more modern day, Podles begs the question of whether men can 'worship a saviour unless they know what it is to be a saviour?' His appeal to men is that Christianity will 'fulfill' and 'perfect' their masculinity, as if that is the basis for anyone coming to Christ. He teeters on the edge of Trinitarian heresy with the statement that 'The Trinitarian space between the Father and the Son allows there to be a potential space between the will of the father and the will of the son.' He names philia as the highest type of love (brotherly love), when the Bible consistently names agape as the greatest form, and he uses the example of Christ's queries to Peter in John 21 to justify this.

Podles has some correct assessments of the problem, but his remedies are all wrong. The very one-handed high reviews of this book are strange, to say the least. One piece of kudos I will grant him is his assessment that 'In the first millennium heresy came from men, not women. In the second millennium, although men continue to develop and revive heresies, women have been the sources of serious distortions of Christianity.' Thought-provoking, to say the least. However, if there is a charge to reintegrate men into the Church, Podles ought to be nowhere near the front line.

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye-opening. The feminine imbalance of the church is pretty obvious now, but I had not realized just how long ago the seeds were being sown. Some assorted takeaways & observations:
* Though the church held out remarkable long against female leadership, even before this happened we had female leadership by proxy, with feminine men in the pulpits.
* Reading about bridal mysticism makes me wish I didn't have eyes.
* Podles gives an interesting history of Mary "veneration" as well. He claims the obsession with Mary was less as result of effeminacy in men, but of a male attempt to reconcile the sexual undertones of spiritual devotion (as it was being taught) with their own masculinity. They way they were told to relate spiritually to Jesus felt gay, so they redirected their focus to Mary.
* He attempts to define femininity and masculinity, which I thought had some helpful insight. I found I had to sift through some modern freud-esque psychoanalysis stuff, but I'm not sure how of that the author himself endorses. The conclusions he came to seemed pretty biblical. Much like Michael Foster, he contends that femininity is centered around community and inclusion. It did seem like he was reinforcing the modern gender/sex distinction, which I dislike.
* It's important to have the right response to a book like this. One could use this as rage-fuel and become intent on purging femininity from the church. But it's the imbalance that's the issue, not the feminine. What we need is a synthesis of the masculine and feminine in worship, with the masculine taking the lead.

[Caleb M. Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work on the feminization of Christianity. A few missteps here and there because of the author's prior commitment to Catholicism (a rather amusing reality given that the RC has some of the most egregious examples of the phenomena Podles is describing, and has no real grounds for fixing it), but all in all a very helpful book. Especially fun to read in tandem with Gilder's Men and Marriage—lots of fun overlap.

I can't help but see one major pattern from this book that has confirmed some things I've been pondering myself. The Church vitally needs rites of passage. Abdicating personal, confessional baptism for "household" baptism has majorly exacerbated this problem. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a vow before the Lord to raise your children in the faith, but confessor's/believer's/credobaptism is part of the re-masculinization of the church that is so desperately needed in our day and age, something which the data Podles presents backs up nicely. Begome Baptist.

But yeah, recommended.

[Allyson Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

What an interesting read! The first chunk was a little hard to get through via audio just because he was providing so much data to support his claim that men have largely abandoned Christianity. He gave a fascinating history of the feminization of the church and its contrast to the traditional understanding of Christianity in a masculine framework. Medieval theological mysticism was wild. I have gained a new appreciation for the Reformation's recovery of a masculine theology. I was surprised to hear him group the Puritans among those who propagated emotionalism, bridegroom, and individualistic theology. I think I need to delve into that a little more and analyze it for myself. I'm not sure I agree completely with his understanding of gender theology, but his critique was helpful in understanding how far the Church has drifted from the biblical view. I also found the Christian version of the rite of passage for boys into manhood to be a good model. Makes me want to suggest something similar for my son!

[Jeremy]

Quoted positively in Why Ministers Must Be Men (pp. 42–43). Also mentioned positively here and here (Bernard of Clairvaux might be to blame for mystical language of Jesus as a lover). Related post here (with more links at the bottom).

Critical review at First Things.

[Nathan Duffy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Powerful antidote to the feminism infecting the Church, by way of tracing the historical roots of this feminization, and articulating a Christian approach to masculinity and femininity that doesn't erase differences but embraces them rightly. Podles' documenting the influence of the Bridal Mysticism of the Middle Ages was particularly enlightening.

[Joel Rasmussen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed interesting read that helped me put into words the frustration I have with effeminate Christianity. It addresses the masculine roots of the faith the brutal heros of the Bible, the men God called to serve and fight and die for his name.
And it contrasts it to the decline today, gives explanation for it and ways to combat it.

[Steve Hemmeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

The church is overly feminine in character and piety today. Cultural feeling is that the church is more for women, and that a “man’s man” wouldn’t go. The church sings songs that are largely feminine, where exuding emotional expression is essential to feeling pious. Christians need to recover a healthy view of masculine Christianity and not inadvertently suppress it.

This is Leon Podles’ thesis, with which I generally agree. But I am concerned with some underlying assumptions he makes, which I’ll address here. Podles overreacts to a genuine problem in the church.

Culture today sees male and female on a fluid spectrum. You might feel and identify as female today and male tomorrow. Too many conservatives today overreact, insisting there is a hard line between the two. A man should never act stereotypically female: as a receiver, a submitter. If he does, he is acting against nature and emasculating himself.

Better to see the two sexes as two good ways to live out our piety. Occasionally the lines cross, but we should revert to our lane when needed. Yes, a man should consider himself part of the bride of Christ, and submit to Him, as a wife is called to do to her husband (Eph 5:22). But he should also imitate Christ in manly initiative, going forth into the world to actively do His Father’s will. We need more of the latter today, but that doesn’t make the former wrong. Both can be distorted and overused. Female piety can be distorted, as Podles documents happened in the middle ages, and is happening again today. But I’ve seen plenty of distortion of male piety in reaction against that these days, too.

Examples:
If a husband heeds his wife’s wisdom, he has been emasculated.
If a woman wants a career outside the home that doesn’t interfere with her domestic duties, she is stepping out of bounds.
A husband being a servant leader is just code for abdicating his real leadership.
A single young woman seeking to marry should have no aspirations outside the home, or she is a feminist.

All of this comes from overly bifurcating sex roles. There are plenty of times the man needs to be tender and caring, and the woman needs to be tough and courageous. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher. One cannot assign specific virtues to separate gender boxes. The fruit of the Spirit are not gender-specific. The Bible gives us examples of this in the courageous initiative of Abigail (1 Sam. 25) and Ruth, of David’s Psalms (awful lot of feminine-sounding love talk in there), and others.

Here are some examples of Podles overly bifurcating the sexes:
“Masculinity involves nurturing, but a nurturing achieved in a willingness to suffer and die.” (195)
What? This is meant in contrast to the feminine. Is a mother not willing to suffer and die for her child in bearing and raising him?

“Men disclose themselves through their actions, women through their words.”
What? Tell that to David and Solomon, who wrote the Psalms and Song of Solomon.
Tell that to every wife who wants (legitimately) to hear more words of affection from their husbands.
Yes, a man’s actions mean more to him than his words, but a woman’s actions in the home are as equally as definitive for her as a man’s outside the home. The stereotype is unhelpful.

Finally, “the body of Christ in the Eucharist was the object of women’s devotion” (200).
Podles seems to take this as a criticism, when it should be true for both sexes. He says Christ becomes a feminine figure in feeding His church, in communion, and thus criticizes not feminism, but the very pattern God gave us in the sacrament. This gets a little crass, but I believe the metaphor is biblically sound: Podles rejects the idea as overly feminized, that Jesus unites with His church as a man inserts his seed in a woman, causing pleasure and communion. Medieval theologians may have run too far with this metaphor, but it is valid in that Jesus does this so as to make her fruitful (John 15:1-6).

Purgatory. Podles claims this doctrine is uniquely feminine, as women more than men, “seek to aid others even beyond the barrier of death and also causes them to be reluctant to admit that any are lost” (206). This does not seem to me uniquely feminine and Podles gives no rationale for it.

Self-flagellation. Podles cites positively the public practice of self-flagellation by men as a helpful rejoinder to the feminization of the medieval church (233-236). This is the epitome of overreaction in Podles’ Catholicism: seeing such unhelpful piety as a constructive corrective to the feminization of the church.

The last chapter is the best:
The critique: “A man can be holy, or he can be masculine, but he cannot be both” (326).
The answer: “holiness is not the negation, but the fulfillment of masculinity” (326).

Podles has mostly helpful things to say, and I recommend the book, but the reader should be warned against some Roman Catholic distortions and overly rigid gender assumptions.

3 stars, out of 5.

[Andrew Meredith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was far more scholarly than I anticipated going in. I expected a "the Western church is overwhelmingly feminine, here's what to do about it," and instead, I got a very detailed lay of the land with an open-ended conclusion.

The first chapter is over 40 pages of statistics covering denominations, countries, continents, and the globe over to prove that women outnumber men in every type of Christianity all over the West (in some cases drastically). Interestingly, this hasn't always been the case. The church was at parity or even majority men up until the high middle ages. Even more interestingly, Eastern Christianity sees no such disparity and has always been slightly majority men up to today. More on that later.

The second chapter looks at common responses to the increasing feminization of the Western church from all different angles. Some say it's not a problem, women are just more religious (but the early church statistics, the Eastern statistics, and the majority male attendance of other religions say otherwise). Some (atheists) say men are more analytical and less sentimental, and so, of course, they would reject the farce that is Christianity in greater numbers. Some say Jesus Himself, though a man, was feminine. And so on and so forth.

The third chapter asks what masculinity even is to understand what its function is and why it's important. To do so, the author looks at epics both Christian and pagan and traces the hero's journey. A boy must separate himself from the home, journey into danger and pain, fight a worthy foe, die to his old self, and then return back to civilization a changed man, now capable of reuniting with the feminine, but this time in a husbandly and fatherly way. Masculinity culminates in self-sacrifice, up to a willingness to die, which men see as a privilege.

The fourth and fifth chapters trace masculinity through the Old and New Testaments, respectively, and then the latter chapter looks at how early Christianity viewed manhood through its understanding of Christ and what it means to be a brother of Christ and a son of God.

Chapter six, probably the most important chapter, traces the feminine turn the Western church specifically took in the 12th-13th century and then comparatively against the East puts forth three interrelated reasons. First, Bernard of Clairvaux's individualization of the biblical corporate Bride of Christ imagery for Contemplative purposes, which proved to be popular among women and led to much erotic mysticism. Second, the women’s movement of this time when for various societal reasons women began to flood convents and the mendicant orders which led to the softening of the church's polemical and combative teaching/preaching so prevalent during its first thousand years. Third, the scholastic introduction of the Aristotelian understanding of femininity as passivity, originally meant as demeaning by Aristotle but regarded as ideal for those seeking to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Chapter seven traces the development of these ideas into universalism, Quietism, and Mariology (for manly eros), and the subsequent masculine distaste for the erotic portrayal of Christ, the new "nicer, softer, sentimental" church, and the sudden push for passivity in Christianity. They were strongest in Catholicism but took root in Protestantism as well.

Chapter eight then looks at some unsuccessful attempts to bring men back to church by reformulating the message without adequately changing the church.

Chapter nine examines masculinity when it becomes an end unto itself, concluding that fascism and/or nihilism are its only ends. Masculinity needs guidance, or it is destructive to society and to self.

Finally, chapter ten puts forth a clarion call to see the problem and to act along with some tentative ideas about how the church could begin to meet men's needs for manly initiation, meaningful struggle, and brotherly love.

There is much to meditate on here, and much that needs to be prayerfully sifted through (Podles is Catholic after all), but I do tentatively recommend the book as it puts its finger directly on a major issue in today's Christianity.

[Daniel Chepkauskas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent book. The helpful aspects are those which highlight the history of mysticism in the Catholic Church and how it lead to increased feminization of the Church. I have strong disagreement with the Catholic understanding of scripture, but agree with Podles’ assessment that many factors have caused the Church to be absent of men.

A chapter on “reversing” the trend would have been helpful, although I would have probably disagreed with his approach.

[Jehian Tiley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn’t finish this. Ended up being very dull with with his Marian reflections.
Diagnosis good.
Solution - “You think what?”
Go read Zach Garris.

[Dale Larson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stumbled on this book, rather by accident, and found that it was available for free online (http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm) so I thought I'd check out the first chapter. I wasn't necessarily expecting much but found an extremely thorough statistical survey male versus female participation in church - thorough as in, perhaps, a collation of every study ever done on the topic. I was intrigued so I read on. Next he spent several chapters exploring the question of, "what is masculinity?", again, if far greater depth than I would have expected. A biblical perspective was laid out, obviously, but secular philosophy as well as more general anthropology were looked into as well. Again, I was impressed by the rigor that was put into the research, so I decided to keep going. Moving further, Podles explored the changes that took place in the medieval church that, in his opinion, began to change it into a religion with which men were extremely uncomfortable. Again, this historical survey was covered in great depth, and his case (accurate or otherwise) was very well made. Finally he moved into his thoughts no what appropriate Christianity might look like. Unlike many authors who write on masculinity (especially from a Christian perspective) he approached the topic with balance and circumspection, understanding that religious masculinity can very easily be misused to hurt and oppress.

I went into this book thinking I might just skim a little bit but found the research to be so well done and the analysis so balanced that I ended up giving it a good thorough read. If you're interested in the topic of why Western Christianity is often seen as a place unfit for men, I strongly recommend this book.

[Jonathan Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book. A little dated but still powerful. It’s amazing the inroads that feminism and homosexuality were making into the church several decades ago (that’s when this book was written) and it has marched on into our time today.

Chapters 3 and 10 were great and worth the cost of this book. Very good for young men and fathers. Highly recommended

[Nyameye Otoo · Rating 2 out of 5]

I normally wouldn't read other reviews before posting mine - but I was surprised at the lack of 1) any kind of detailed review, given the denseness and book length and 2) more critical reviews, especially given the general positivity this books seems to receive in more or less "evangelical" circles. The latter I can't quite fathom.

As such, hopefully this review gives some rationale to the "negative" 2/5, and some reasons why. I will however, begin with some strengths:
* Podles seems to be both transparent and honest about his thoughts, and mostly*, shows his working.

* Podles helpfully shows there is a real problem with Men in and outside the Church, and this needs to be taken seriously, possibly moreso now than when published. Men need the Gospel too, even if it seems shameful to them. Disagreement with Podles would be in the causes and solutions.

* Podles shows clearly, especially from the 13th Century and a few afterwards, there was some very bizzare (like seriously weird) erotic theology spun out of western Roman Catholic mysticism. Good to know when the OG "Jesus is my boyfriend" was, but never did I expect to also find "Jesus is my oddly intimate child" or "Mary is my girlfriend" there too!

* It is hard to argue that the above did not contribute whatsoever to male discomfort, but I doubt some of the more modern influence in less theological protestant denominations.

* Helpful reminder of the communal nature of the Christian community. The bridal imagery is applied to the Church writ large primarily, not to individuals.

----------

Certainly one of the most bizzare reads I've had, and although it was well written, I'm not sure it was actually coherent. It may be my personal misapprehension - but it would seem that outwith a niche Roman Catholic frame of reference, many things in this book seem... Confusing if not objectionable. 

There is a lot of philosophical and theological assumptions woven throughout the book that could lose the reader. Infact there's just a lot going on in this book full stop! Far more than is needed - it almost feels like the book is trying to do too much at once: offer a (novel) definition of (Christian?) Masculinity, offer a historical-cultural narrative of the decline of that masculinity in the Western Church, and briefly offer correctives to the perceived lack of Masculinity. It feels quite scattershot.

While there are certainly some interesting/positive points to the book, I think ultimately the book fails to achieve it's aim in providing a "better" form of "Masculinity". It seems to have a few apparent contradictions - and Podles presents alternatives he disagrees with that provide more explanatory power in my opinion. Also, the theses' implications seem quite bizarre in their proposal for femininity - although the final chapter is more constructive.

At the end of the day, as I read it, the methodology and emerging model is sub-biblical, and has ambiguous if not worrying implications for the place of the feminine in Christianity. The book isn't about femininity however, but it's lack of coverage seems like a gap to be easily filled with reader queries.

Throughout, but especially in the early chapters, Podles states the thesis of the book is to highlight that something has gone fundamentally wrong with Western Christianity that drives a wedge between it and the Masculine man - and importantly it cannot be explained as being purely situational or accidental to the culture or time itself:

"There is something about Christianity, especially Western Christianity, that drives a wedge between the church and men who want to be masculine." (p. 43)

"Explanations that rely on accidents of time and place explain too little. Philosophers and theologians [...] often seem unaware that the lack of male religious observance, [...] is not universal either in Christianity or religion in general. [...] If men are by nature nonreligious, why do Islam and Judaism have predominantly male memberships and why have they for centuries evoked intense commitment from men? If Christianity in itself is obnoxious to men in some peculiar way, why was there little comment on the lack of men during its first millennium, and why do Orthodox churches seem to differ from Western ones in the proportion of male membership? What is it about the nature of men and of Western Christianity that has created such a tension in their relationship in the last millennium?" (p. 45-46)

And so Podles argues that it must be a slow but real drift, accelerated at key points in history, away from an essential understanding of Christianity as fundamentally "masculine". This drift is explored in great (and convoluted) detail throughout the book, with the solution being some kind of return to the "masculine" understanding of Christianity in the West, to avoid further erosion and fix the urgent alienation of men from the faith.

Ultimately, given that Podles explicitly states that women should become "spiritually" masculine - it would be useful if Podles offered more on limiting the seemingly obvious implication: the solution to feminisation is to instead do it's diametric opposite - to masculinize the Church. Yet the most that seems to be offered is the following:

"Many readers may agree with my description of the situation in which men are alienated from Christianity but fear that any attempt to reconnect masculinity and spirituality would lead to the corruption of Christianity. In a century of murderous violence in which even the pope wonders if God would send anyone to hell because men have already gone through hell on earth, the last thing we need is a religious war. Previous attempts to combine masculinity and Christianity sometimes ended in disaster." (p. 318)

Unfortunately, the arguments given in the interim to do just that are either hard to follow, wierd, possibly heterodox or seemingly contradictory. Rather than summarising the book - below are my biggest problems with the book in general, which may explain why I think it fundamentally fails.

 • Firstly, and this is more to do with approach than substance - but Podles conveniently seems to leave substantial evidence or arguments that would undermine the first thesis that Christianity was always seen as "masculine". I put the term "masculine" in quotes because of my second concern with the book below. The lack of strong contrary evidence is a general criticism I think.

However, it seems Podles entire thesis rests on this idea: "masculine" aversion to Christianity cannot be something accidental (i.e., historically/contextually explained), and this to me seems like a huge assumption virtually ignored in the book - especially in the ancient western context. When it does come up, it is hand-waived away away: either clear views of perceived femininity of Christianity from western culture, or clearly "too masculine" but common views on feminity that exists in early Christian literature are both conveniently swept away.

While many would read Celsus' claims as representative of how core Christian theology was perceived by the "masculine" western culture of the time (2nd Century) - Podles simply thinks it shouldn't be taken seriously:

'Celsus claimed that Christians were “able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.” [Contra Celsium 3.45] As Origen points out, however, Celsus is a snob and despises anything that appeals to the vulgar.' (p. 155)

Similarly, Pliny (the Younger, 1st Century), [Epistulae 10.96:4-8] thought of Christianity as a ”perverse" "madness", something "masculine" western roman man would not be attracted to (I don't believe this is brought up by Podles, but drawn from an essay by Hengel).

If however, this isn't just isolated individual's responses but reflective of the wider ancient western culture - then we have clear early examples of Christianity being seen as not "masculine". And if early, then providing explanatory power to why western masculine ideology is/was suspicious of Christianity from the beginning - due to ancient western ideals of "autonomous" power as ideal in the male.

On the flip side - with examples of the denigration of women from early Christians (most likely taken from their own cultural milleu and not Christianity itself e.g, views of gender which are more suited to the western/greaco-roman than Christianity), we are told these views, or their reversals shouldn't be taken at face value (or evidence that if changed, Christianity would be less palatable to the Graeco-Roman male):

"The relationship of the sexes in the church showed no signs of imbalance. Although it is possible to gather misogynic statements from the Fathers, we should not take these too seriously. Many of the Fathers had difficult personalities, and were highly critical of everyone, both men and women." (p. 160)

Is it possibly a bit of a stretch to say it showed "no signs of imbalance", and that all views of the early Church Fathers should essentially just be seen as rhetoric - rather than genuine belief?

All this to say, Podles isn't particularly convincing in showing an ancient Greek or Roman would not find Christianity as a weak, and therefore "non-masculine" religion. This is simply not explored, and seems a fundamental question. If ancient western ideologies of masculinity were anti-christian, why couldn't the "western" part of "western Christianity", even now, have an aversion to the Christian part?

It doesn't seem to be a  case of what is "more masculine" or "less masculine", but competing theories or theologies of "true" masculinity. The point might well be "Why doesn't someone who is against Christianity find Christianity appealing?" or maybe more pointedly "What would a "masculine" man consider appealing about following a religion who's leader was crucified?" (1 Cor. 1:18-25) - is it a category difference? Would ancient western men see being crucified as "noble" and "masculine" apart from "Christianity"?

Podles himself even seemingly acknowledges this early in the book - but doesn't take the self-defined aversion to Christianity at face value - whether historical or theoretical as in Nietzsche:

"Those who look to social forces to explain the comparatively weak religious commitment of men fail [...] because the phenomenon appears always to antedate the historical period under consideration. [...] Nietzsche and those who take a more theoretical approach, seeing an eternal animosity between masculinity and Christianity (or even religion in general), cannot account for Judaism and Islam, or for the first millenium of Christianity, the age of the Church Fathers, in which there is no evidence of a substantial disparity in religious practice between men and women." (p. 58)

This lead to the second issue I see with this book; how Podles goes about defining masculinity - both in method and conclusion.

• Secondly then, Podles view of Masculinity. It's a rare day when I am the one coming across as some kind of biblicist, but it's quite remarkable (coming from a generic Protestant) how little biblical textual work is done in the quarter of the book when building up an argument for what masculinity is.

Podles defines what he sees as a better theory of masculinity in Ch. 3-5ish, but begins not with the Bible or revelation (even Holy tradition) but instead (outdated?) oddly sexualised developmental psychology, biology, and via truth garnered from classical myth. Only then after this does Podles survey the Christian texts. 

This seems to make "masculinity" simply something which is naturally defined and observed, something which can be read out of the corrupted world we currently live in - rather than something which is revealed to us best in the one picture of uncorrupted masculinity which we do have - in the person of Jesus. Therefore, for Podles, as is clearly shown in the following chapters and rest of the book, "masculinity" is something which has full definition  logically prior to the Jesus's incarnation - and therefore can be used to assess how "masculine" or "feminine" something is in and if itself, even God? For Podles - it seems God is masculine BECAUSE he is Holy, and because Holiness connotes separation, which is "masculine" (defined prior), God is masculine:

"God is always masculine in the Scriptures for two main reasons, [...]. He transcends creation: [...] God is, therefore, utterly separate from creation; that is, he is holy. The holy is a masculine category. To be holy is to be separated, set apart from common or profane use." (p. 98)

"Separation, as we have seen, is a leitmotif of the masculine, its identifying characteristic. [...] masculinity [is] created by separation." (p. 99)

In my estimation this is backwards for the Christian - masculinity should not be defined as an external standard which is then applied to God (or other religions) - but rather something which is derived from revelation both written and incarnate - and only then becoming the canon by which to measure other masculinities from.

This issue - masculinity as something before all other things - seems to pervade the rest of Podles (short) analysis of texts he views as relevant - but highlights the strangest part of Podles definition of Masculinity. That being it seems to be derived from mostly (modern, post-modern?), theories of sex and gender that are very strange. But first - focusing on odd readings of the Bible.

Some of the textual readings are brilliant, some are...forced (it's unclear, but Podles seems to positively cite van Gennep on p. 79n41 as viewing Jewish circumcision as in initiation ritual into being accepted into the masculine - but this could happen in the first fortnight of a birth. In any case, it's a particularly history-of-religions-sans-theology type reading). He also routinely allegorises:

"[on the marriage formula in Genesis] Scripture does not describe a sociological reality (which partner leaves the family to join the family of the other partner), but a characteristic action of the man, separation, which reflects the divine pattern of action." (p. 100)

It seems for Podles, in a kind of natural theology or history-of-religions-sans-theology approach, the Bible is simply one source for defining "masculinity" rather than an unique one. For Podles, it appears that far too great, or even equal weight is given to "epic" literature myth from Western history (mystery religions,Homer, Beowulf etc.) for defining Masculinity:

"At present, scholars tend to think that the mysteries of Mithras resembled Christianity closely because Mithraism borrowed from Christianity. It is very likely that there is a generic resemblance and that the borrowings went both ways. [...] the main reason that Mithraism resembled Christianity is that both were religions of masculinity, [...]" (p. 85)

For Podles, to be masculine is, first and foremost - to be separate. Primarily and oppositionally from the feminine - although through a process of initiation true "masculinity" is achieved - which leads back to the (feminine) community with the ideal of self-sacrifice. This, alongside the rest of Podles proposal of masculinity from "psychology" leads to some weird pictures and conclusions of masculinity that dont seem any less strange than the ones he's critiquing.

Apart from the assumption that masculinity primarily something to be defined in opposition, the grounding for lots of this in any Christian sense is lacking, instead it seems almost "Freudian":

"At first an infant, male or female, exists in an oceanic consciousness, in which the mother and child merge into one, blissful, erotic identity.” (p. 64)

...erotic? However it gets stranger, a supporting footnote reads:

‘Elisabeth Badinter writes: “this very erotic relationship teaches the infant the nirvana of passive dependence and will leave indelible marks on the adult’s psyche. [...] for the boy it is an inversion of later roles. To become a man, he will have to learn to differentiate himself from his mother and repress, [...] that delicious passivity in which he was entirely and exclusively one with her. The erotic bond between mother and child is not limited to oral satisfactions. It is she who, by the care she gives him, awakens all his sensuality, initiates him to pleasure, and teaches him to love his body”’ (p. 66n4)

Whether right or wrong - is it less odd than the mysticism? Podles seems to suggest that to prior to becoming "masculine", a male is by default deficient compared to the female (I'm not sure if this implies a natural deficiency?):

"What a woman receives from her experience of her physical female nature, a man must receive from his culture, because he will not receive it by simply living out the logic of his male body. In other words, through initiation ceremonies, men try to achieve what women possess by nature." (p.81; see also p72;)

As positive side-note here, I do think Podles' highlighting of sacrifice, vulnerability, and self-giving are crucial to fully formed masculinity.

• Thirdly - confusingly - masculinity for Podles is "spiritual", not something physical at all. So...it then becomes difficult to see how this can be true in the Christian sense as if Christians believe in an eternal heaven, does embodied feminity become useless in the eschaton?

"[Interpreters] confuse maleness and masculinity, [a] distinction of which the Scriptures are well aware. Maleness is a bodily given, but God does not have a body; maleness is sexual, but Yahweh is not a sexual being. [..]” (p. 98; see also p. 158 quote below)

Unexplored implications like this abound - it's relatively controversial to totally separate gender from sex or embodiedness - but this is what Podles does. Space doesn't allow enumeration. But simply - if Christ eternally reconciles - is this not feminine by Podles standards?

It would be interesting to see, against the general swathe of Christianity and certainly anything canonocal, what this books argument implies for the reading of the (non-Christian) Gospel of Thomas, compare:

"Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary come out from us, because women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘Behold, I will draw her so that I might make her male, so that she also might be a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’" (Thomas 114)

"[the Holy Spirit] conforms both men and women to his own image as Son, by that making them all God’s sons (not daughters). God has no only-begotten daughter; he therefore has no daughters begotten of the Spirit, only sons. There is only one pattern for both men and women to be conformed to, that of the Son. In the Son, Christians become deiform, apotheosized, and achieve an intimacy and union with the godhead that is beyond the categories of natural reason." (p. 135)

"Masculinity was a spiritual quality: Men could fall short of it, and women could attain it." (p. 158)

It seems simpler to say men and women are different, regardless of our theory of gender, embodied human beings'gender is different and biased in different ways. Given imperfection, those sinful biases will be displayed differently, and differently in different cultures. Is it surprising that a culture formed by one particular set of sinful biases would be opposed to the true, unique, masculinity displayed in Jesus?

Must we create a temporal spiritual-gender hierarchy, pitting one gender against the other - rather showing the superiority of the Good News over and against any other culture or philosophy's conceptions?

Given a choice between goofy 13th-century-erotic-individualised-bridal-mystic theology approach Podles is dismantling, and Podles own idiosyncratic graeco-roman-mythic-sexualised-developmental-psychology-initiatory-mascilinity approach - it seems maybe we should pick neither as the truly “Christian” one. Regardless of how important appealing to “masculine” seekers may be.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, although it's amazing how he can still be a Roman Catholic with all his observations of the downstream effects of the cult of Mary.

[Will Allen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The feminization of the Western church, be that Catholic or Protestant, is something that ought not be shrugged off. There is a large discrepancy in the number of men and women who attend church, and it has been this way for centuries. There indeed seems to be something about our Christianity that men don’t like, and that women do.

One huge and foundational step leading to this was the advent of “Bridal Mysticism,” a kind of theology which took the metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ and individualized it:

“The soul as the bride of God is an allegory in Origen and Bernard, but the allegory cannot be extended to the individual soul precisely because it is individual. In the New Testament, the bride is the Church. Even worse, this allegory was taken up into the increasing humanization of the relationship of the Christian and Christ, and the individual Christian person, body and soul, came to be seen as the bride of Christ. Thus, sensuality and spirituality joined hands,” (165).

This bridal mysticism didn't remain with the Catholics, but became a major part of Protestant, even Puritan, piety. Much of our evangelical conception of piety is at its theological roots informed by bridal mysticism.

If you’ve ever heard from a pulpit something like, “men, you’re the Bride of Christ, get over it,” then you’ve heard this thousand-year-old falsity firsthand. Calling out such a statement might seem like a nitpick, but time is able to make disastrous mountains out of eisegetical molehills. Wine ages well, but milk not so much. Simply put, a little bit of wrong exegesis by one generation has contributed to all manner of distorted Christianities today.

When Christ calls a man to himself, He does not expect him to give up the very masculinity which He gave him at his creation. It is well worth pondering how the local church can recover a Christian identity that distinctly redeems the maleness of men without calling them to be more like women.

A side note. The reason I docked this book is because the middle chapters seem to be filled with much psychoanalysis and other strange ways for defining the masculine. The opening and closing chapters are where the good stuff is. The rest can be skimmed or ignored.

[Stephen]

The Church Impotent seeks to address the question: why is there such a huge gender disparity between religious participation in western Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, like Judaism and Islam? The problem is much older than most recognize, though it’s easy enough to point to a quick falling-away of men in the church since the 1960s. Podle argues that the problem first appeared in Catholicism in the 1400s, where it continued and grew more pronounced, especially in Catholicism’s protestant offspring. The problem is distinctly western, moreover, since Eastern Orthodoxy enjoys heavy participation from its men. Podle attributes this to two events of the middle ages; a newfound heavy emphasis on individual church members as brides of Christ (rather than the Church itself, congregationally, as The Bride), and the divisive role of Scholasticism, which split piety from theology: men’s focus shifted to increasingly skeptical theology, leaving women to make a much larger mark on faith-practices. Although I was disappointed by the book as a whole, in part because there was no exploration of Islam, Judaism, and Eastern Orthodoxy’s masculine attractions, Podle’s work proved absolutely fascinating merely for his initial treatment of masculinity. As it turned out, I’d encountered him before, being quoted in Leaving Boyhood Behind. Podle takes the view that because men begin from a female biological template, the entire masculine raison d’être is to further define and maintain that separation from femininity — necessitating often painful rites of passage in traditional societies, and the contempt boys and men throw at anything which is ‘girly’. Podles suggests that men, not being nourished by an approach to religion that emphasizes passivity and ‘bridehood’, have instead religionized masculinity itself, leading down dark roads like fascism and nihilistic self-destruction.

[Brandon H. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days on the subject of masculinity and Christianity. This is some of the better ink.

I hear it often asked, "Why are there no men in church?" or, "Where have all the Christian men gone?" Such questions have puzzled many, especially women. Here Leon Podles provides a significant piece to that puzzle. Not only does he cover the topic of why men are not in church but he also brought to light an aspect of what it means to be a man I had never heard before. And most of the book is about what it means to be a man from biblical, anthropological, and psychological perspectives. He also uses literature to bolster his position. While the book is easy to read and understand, it is not light reading and I suspect it will deepen the understanding of what it means to be a man for many.

"If men are by nature non-religious, why do Islam and Judaism have predominantly male memberships and why have they for centuries evoked intense commitment from men? If Christianity in itself is obnoxious to men in some peculiar way, why was there little comment on the lack of men during its first millennium, and why do Orthodox churches seem to differ from Western ones in the proportion of male membership? What is it about the nature of men and of Western Christianity that has created such a tension in their relationship in the last millennium?" (28)

The answer to these questions is what this book is about.

[Alex Lopez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of this was gold. The author sets out a compelling case for why churches are largely comprised of women, why men — especially blue-collar men — won't take Christianity seriously, and why our culture is utterly confuddled about masculinity. He traces the issue to the feminisation of Christianity in Medieval bridal mysticism. At first, the thesis seemed a long shot, but I came out convinced. The parallels he draws between bridal mysticism and modern evangelicalism are properly eerie, and tragically accurate. He also provides some striking masculine alternatives in the Jesuits, the Beowulf poet, and the Reformers. A good wake-up call; one I wish I had read younger.

[Dwain Minor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been asked on a few occasions why men are less likely to come to church. I only had vague answers to that question before reading this book. Now the answer seems so much more clear.

Isn’t that exactly what you want from a book like this?

[Anton Beetge · Rating 1 out of 5]

Weird with a capital ‘W’

[ValeReads Kyriosity · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as engaging as the Gilder book, but still lots of good content. And some places where he whiffed it, as well. Mostly left me grateful to be in a church community that is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Narration was great as far as vocal quality and comprehension are concerned, but pronunciation left a lot to be desired.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book goes on equal footing with Till We Have Faces and The Four Loves by CS Lewis. And, I expect Sexual Persona by C Paglia will be an excellent companion.

[Jesse Beauford · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book that dives into an area that I have little knowledge about, particularly about bridal mysticism. Here is a google search that actually seems to summarize it fairly well (at least according to the book)

Bridal mysticism highlights the passionate love and longing that the soul feels for Christ, mirroring the romantic love found in the Song of Songs.
Union with the Divine:
The ultimate goal is spiritual union with Christ, described as a mystical marriage or transforming union.
Affective Piety:
It often involves experiencing and expressing devotion through emotions, feelings, and personal experiences, rather than solely through intellectual understanding.

The book provides brief excerpts from mystics describing their love for Christ that honestly I find particularly disturbing, and disgusting as a man. That being said, I don’t think that scripture denies emotion in our love for Christ but the holding up of a female understanding of love for Christ (who is masculine) as the highest and purest form of it, leaves me with the word “homosexual” bouncing through my brain like a pinball.

So what’s the answer, well, I think there are more than clues in scripture such as “brotherly love” and “adoption as sons”, but one in particular, is David and Jonathan and their love for each other which seems to be the kind of love forged in the fire of combat and danger and not in the way our modern perverse society wants to portray it. The scriptural examples that I see don’t sound like something to the tune of “when heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss” followed with 6-8 repetitions of “He loves us”. Or maybe something a little older like, “can’t nobody can do me like Jesus, he’s my friend”.

I’ll stop belaboring the point and say, I grew up in churches that had some of this stuff and by the time I was 15 I wanted nothing to do with church as I knew it, but thanks be to God that I had books of deep theological truth that “renewed my mind” and have found a church that doesn’t have this sort of rubbish being used in its liturgy.

[William Schrecengost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good overall. My only concern was that at the end he seemed to encourage bringing a heavily masculinized religion into the church. After such a long discussion on the feminine take over of the church, to go off hard in the other direction isn’t going to fix anything. The church needs to be a place where masculinity and femininity flourish, not where one or the other dominates the other.
Podles fights against the excess of the bridal imagery applied to the church, but he didn’t offer a correct understanding of it. It seems to be a common flaw in these books that recover masculine Christianity that they fail to offer a picture of biblical femininity. We may be trying to fix male impotence in the church, but during this whole time women have been filling in for us. They will need a reorientation regarding their position in the church as well. Unfortunately it seems that the “masculinist” position on women is little more than a household servant with benefits. Women are the glory of the man, not merely a baby-birther or a maid.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought I knew where this book would focus (first wave feminism, post-2nd-great-awakening sappy gospel songs). I was wrong. He traces the roots of effeminacy and lack of men in the church back to the 13th century. I think he did a good job making this case, but I'm not scholarly enough to know definitively if this is THE right answer. I think he gets it right when he points out that it is a perennial struggle for men to be masculine in accordance with Scripture. I fully agree that any whiff of genderbending or feminism in the church is a turnoff for men - I've felt this visceral reaction myself. The trick lies in understanding our unique role within the corporate bride of Christ as embodied souls, living out our masculinity or femininity for Him, not in psychologizing and androgenizing ourselves in some sort of misguided mysticism. Overall this was really good, but I obviously had some strong disagreements with the RC theology at times. This affected some aspects of the book, but not enough to dissuade me from recommending it.