Where have all the young men gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the young men gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the young men gone?

-Pete Seeger

I used to wonder why many churches have so few young men in them. It isn’t hard to find men in churches. They tend to be over 40, typically older. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but I’m talking about the norm. It is also normal to find more women in churches than men. The truth is most of the young men wouldn’t be able to put into words why they aren’t comfortable setting foot in church. I’ve gone out of my way over the last 20 years to ask both those people who grew up in church and those who came to Jesus later in life if they can put their reasons into words. Most just shrug and say something like they aren’t “feeling it.”

While the old men gave up the fight long ago, lost the fight, or simply don’t have the energy they once did to keep on fighting, the young men don’t care to be in a place that doesn’t respect or relate to their MANHOOD. They don’t want to be in situations that demean who and what they are. Who can blame them?

That’s why there are so many women in today’s churches and so few men. The modern North American church is a WOMANLY culture, not a MANLY one.

Yes, women needed their own expressions of WOMANHOOD, but in Christian circles it has come at the expense of things MANLY—and the loss of the Men—and church leaders go on wondering why they can’t seem to get more people to walk in their doors? This explains why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the LDS church, aka, The Mormons) can grow so rapidly and consistently. The LDS church encourages men and families (but at the expense of women). Look at other groups like the Jehovah’s witnesses, for example. They may have some quirky doctrine, but they do encourage men to be involved, especially with serious and in-depth Bible study.

As the church lost its ability to relate to its foundational members and God’s foundational instructions, the fathers and family, they’ve also lost touch with the ability to relate to the most important being in the universe: The Father.

This long dark march of Christians and Christianity from being a foundational and influential cornerstone of American culture (and Western Culture in general), has now given way to outright persecution in the public arena in many places. And if not persecution, it is at least being challenged directly and with hostility. A simple reading by a reasonably educated person of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, for example, leads to the obvious understanding that dominated the nation for over 200 years, but seems oddly in dispute today: there is no such thing as “Separation of Church and State” enshrined in the document. Would you want to talk about Constitutional issues with people in your church these days?

The point is that the problems of our culture started with The Church; the rest of American culture has followed our example. There are whole denominations today where speaking Bible truth is no longer acceptable, yet those churches are still considered “Christian,” and “churches” rather than being called what they really are—apostate churches ( at best)—but cults is probably a more accurate word.

The Bible and the US Constitution are not “living documents” in the sense that many today believe. It makes sense that something would be considered “living” and therefor reinterpretable for today when you’ve left your foundations and don’t even read those foundation documents. Such so called “progressive” views are the fruit of choosing ignorance over knowledge. When it comes to the Bible, it is the Word of God. It is not something to be reinterpreted based on today’s socially accepted philosophies and pliable “correctness.” I can guarantee you that the USA’s founders had children who took their guns to school, read their Bibles in class, talked about Jesus and prayed openly for each other in audible voices. They prayed in “Jesus’ Name” from the floor of the Senate and House of Representative and one of the largest churches in the new Washington, DC met in the United States Capital (with the approval of Congress in 1800) and services were also held at The White House, “The church was often full so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was filled.”[1] The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, [2]John Jay, even preached a salvation message to a convicted murderer while pronouncing judgment, right from the bench. He also said this:

“Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.[3]”

These things are not a matter of whether or not you believe this man talking to you. These are matters of historical fact.[4]

Concerning the Constitution, consider that Constitutional Law students in Law Schools haven’t been required to read the Constitution since about 1920. Instead they only study case history law. Even in retirement, most haven’t even cracked open the Constitution to see what it says. Here’s something else for you to ponder:

“Until the 20th century, the ‘originalist’ view of the Constitution held sway. There are several variations on this philosophy, but it generally meant that judges should interpret the Constitution as its framers intended it and would themselves interpret it, using the text itself plus other documents of the time, such as the Federalist Papers. Joseph Story, a prominent 19th century legal scholar, wrote that the Constitution has ‘a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be ... not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever.’ Judges should not stray from the text's literal meaning, and the only proper way to change the text was by formal amendment - what Alexander Hamilton called ‘some solemn and authoritative act.’ The catch is that judges were the ones to decide how it was evolving. In the 1930s, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes put it bluntly: ‘We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.’ Others argued that courts have the right to amend it, and that the Supreme Court is a continuing constitutional convention.

But if, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, government ‘derives its powers from the consent of the governed,’ how can judges who are unelected by the governed decide to increase those powers?

That's one of the arguments made as part of an originalist revival in recent years. These critics warn that judges who decide to make a ‘politically correct’ ruling, then find some way to justify it through a creative interpretation of written precedent, can't keep doing that forever. The Constitution's language, notes Stanford history professor Jack Rakove, ‘cannot be infinitely malleable.’ Stretch the text too far, and it may snap.

Critics also point out that the Constitution hasn't "evolved" consistently, but only in a socially liberal direction: The power to forbid any "establishment of religion" expands, for example, while the companion guarantee to the "free exercise thereof" shrinks.

It's not that the framers didn't foresee these changes - or the turmoil that might result.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson debated the idea that each generation of Americans should write its own constitution. Jefferson sneered at the ‘sanctimonious reverence’ some would hold for a mere historic document. Madison fretted that without some reverence for continuity, a nation could not have the ‘requisite stability.’”[5]

If the Bible and the Constitution—which should be black and white, right and wrong—have become clouded in churches, is there any wonder Manhood has been “reinterpreted” as well? Don’t feel bad; the same thing has been happening in rabbinic circles and Judaism for centuries. It appears there is a common sad progression that takes place in religions and societies. As religiously guided morality and structures fail, something has to step into the vacuum and it is usually the State. But that’s another story.

One thing I can guarantee you about the men who founded this nation is this: they were manly men who enjoyed things like hunting, fishing and all other things considered Manly.

In the 21st Century, across the Midwest there's a growing deer population with state and county government concerned that there are too few hunters to help keep the population in check.[6] One of the main reasons, according to a national wildlife expert: A generation of teaching that guns in general and killing Bambi are bad.

Did you know there was a time when boys actually brought their guns to school so they could all go hunting afterward? I am not sure how long it will last, but I hear there are still places in North Dakota and Michigan where they do.

There was a time when kids didn't shoot each other; there were no locked doors and security guards patrolling the hallways, There was a time when Boys weren't getting school-counselor prescribed drugs for having too much natural energy (aka: ADHD—disclaimer: always check with a trained, licensed medical professional concerning medical issues).

In other words, there was a time when boys weren’t required to be docile and act like girls. They were allowed to be boys!

On a side note, doesn’t it bother anyone that school counselors can diagnose and/or prescribe Medication for ADHD in many states WITHOUT BEING DOCTORS or Pharmacists?[7] Why can’t I go and write my own prescription for those days when I’m freaking out over a missing bill payment?

[1]         Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard), The First Forty Years of Washington Society, Galliard Hunt, editor (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906), p. 16., p. 14.

[2]         John Jay also served as President of the American Bible Society, available for free viewing: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=64

[3]         John Jay on the Biblical View of War, Letter #1,

[4]         Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800. Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2.. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1874), Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.. Bishop Claggett's (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett's letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113). See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others. James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73.

[5]         Ray Cookli, Article, The Constitution: A living document? Looking beyond the text a matter for debate, September 12, 2004

[6]         One example of a resource among many: www.framinghamma.gov/DocumentView.asp?DID=1011

[7]         Check your own state laws for verification as laws vary from state to state.