Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    -- Mike
    
    I recall, when I sat in on my son's English history class a few years
    ago, that women were the vast majority of followers of John Wesley.
    The reason for this was that they found attending his services a
    legitimate break from their work, giving them an unprecidented chance
    to socialize (the men had the pubs, women had no legitimate place
    to gather) and a God sanctioned reason to deny their husbands
    any more children (Wesley preached that one could committ to God
    and be free of the physical ties to an earthly marriage) which was
    a blessing in a time when many women died in childbirth.
    
    I think that the tradition that began then, of women being the
    bulk of the membership and men running the churches is one that
    has persisted from the early days of the protestant reformation.
    
    Bonnie

     -- Mike

     It seems to me that there are (usually) more women  than  men  in  the
     general  population anyway, not to mention that women nowadays tend to
     live longer.  So in any mixed group not limited by  age,  chances  are
     there  will  always be more women than men.  Do you want your question
     answered with or without taking this into consideration?

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

   There is a lot to consider in the question.  Simplifying it is the
   woman who has the children and was expected to teach them about life
   and work.  Often in the past she was not educated well if at all but
   was expected to know the religious heritage.  She was also a keeper
   of oral history for the famialy.  Was she more religious, I don't know.
   Though  her burdens were hard and life could be short, faith would be
   a support.  It would show in her craft.  Maybe it also gave her 
   something to ponder while sewing, or other work.

   My own feelings are that her body made here aware of the rhythm of the
   earth.  Her religion grows out of that.  

   Allison

I wrote a research paper for a class at UCCS a few semesters back that
was relevant to this topic (quoted below).

Women do typically outnumber men in our worshiping congregations.  And
apparently it has been this way for quite some time.

		The presence of women in the majority, historically sustained
	in silence, was rationalized according to religious tradition. "The
	Hidden Ones," Cotton Mather called them.  The women of New England,
	the Boston minister said, were the "People, who make no Noise at all
	in the World; People hardly known to be in the World; Persons of the
	Female Sex, and under all the Covert imaginable."  Yet these "Hidden
	Ones," Mather realized years before he coined the phrase, could prove
	to be the church's salvation; "as there were three Marys to one John,
	standing under the Cross of our dying Lord," he observed, "so still
	there are more godly Women in the World, than there are godly
	Men;...."

Peace,
Richard

    Alvin, I hadn't considered the fact that women outnumber men,
    especially in the older age brackets, but that might be part of the
    explanation.

    Richard, your note highlights the real tragedy that women have been
    traditionally treated as second class citizens in most Christian
    denominations, despite the possibility that their devotion to the faith
    is numerically stronger.   

    -- Mike

    If by religious you mean they attend church more often I would
    agree that women are more religious. If you mean that they spend
    more time doing the work around a church I agree. But if by
    religious you mean something internal, a relationship with God
    through prayer and study I see no evidence that women are more
    religious.

    It has been easier for women in our society to women to participate
    in religious events, services and the like for many years. As more
    women enter the work place that becomes less true. But the habits
    of a life time and the examples of previous generations has created
    a lot of inertia. I believe that the appearance of women being more
    religious is cultural not actual. 

    A corollary. I was talking to a politician years ago. He was explaining
    why in areas that we mixed Catholic and Protestant that Catholics
    generally had more representation in politics. He was explaining that
    to be elected you had to be a good <x>. Not the same religion as the
    most people just "a good <x>" where <x> was some mainline religion. He
    went on to explain that for a one to be considered to be a good
    Catholic one had to attend church once a week or close to it. Saturday
    or Sunday was fine. But in most Protestant churches to be considered
    a good religious person one had to attend Sunday morning, Sunday night,
    at least one mid week evening service and try and make most major other
    events. Thus if you had a full time job you didn't have near as much
    free time for politics nor as much flexibility in scheduling. Unless
    you wanted people to assume you were not religious.

    I believe that all too often we equate being in church with being
    religious. That's not a reasonable way to do it.

    			Alfred