Q&A: Why U.S. churches have men in leadership and women in the pews

Landon Schnabel noticed a recurring paradox while working as a Christian minister: men often occupied leadership positions in U.S. churches, while women made up a larger share of those attending services, Bible studies and other activities. The pattern suggested a masculine, patriarchal institution with a predominantly female membership.

Schnabel, now an associate professor of sociology, challenges the long-standing assumption that women are universally more religious than men in his book, "Is Faith Feminine? What Americans Really Think About Gender and Religion." Drawing on gender theory, social psychology, national surveys that included additional Jewish, Muslim and secular respondents, and international data, he argues that gender gaps in religiosity are influenced by social and institutional forces.

His research distinguishes between organized religion and individual faith. Respondents who viewed religion as feminine tended to focus on personal comfort, care and support. Those who saw it as masculine often referred to religious institutions as patriarchal. People also appeared to judge their own religion through the believers they knew, while evaluating other faiths through their institutions.

Schnabel said this helps explain differing perceptions of Islam and Christianity. Muslims surveyed most often described Islam with terms such as “gentle” and “comforting,” while the predominantly Christian general public more frequently characterized it as “assertive” and “dominant.” Christianity itself combines teachings about humility, gentleness and compassion with institutions that have historically been led by men.

Churches have repeatedly tried to attract more men through activities and messages associated with masculinity. Examples include “cowboy church,” “biker church” and “fight church,” where pastors participate in mixed martial arts settings. Schnabel said he also tried less aggressive approaches, including basketball nights and backpacking trips, but concluded that activities alone do not address the deeper reasons men and women engage differently with religion.

He said religion may offer women more comfort, strength, community and hope, while also placing greater expectations on them. Efforts to recruit men have sometimes gone beyond activities, with some religious leaders adopting militant language and nationalist themes. Schnabel argues that these approaches have not necessarily increased church attendance and have instead contributed to the politicization of American Christianity, attracting some people to a more combative religious identity while pushing others—particularly progressives, young people and young women—away.

The effort to make Christianity appear more masculine is not new. During the 19th-century revivals of the Second Great Awakening, men generally preached to audiences made up largely of women. Later, “Muscular Christianity” promoted a more vigorous and rugged image of faith and influenced organizations such as the YMCA. Similar efforts appeared in different forms through the 20th century, including Billy Sunday’s criticism of “effeminate” Christianity, Billy Graham’s political evangelicalism, the religious right’s militant masculinity, the Promise Keepers movement and the use of military imagery after the September 11 attacks.

Schnabel also points to a long-standing pattern in religious leadership. Women founded or co-founded several 19th-century new religious movements, but men often assumed control as those movements became more institutionalized. He said his own experience growing up Seventh-day Adventist raised questions about why women were not ordained despite Ellen White’s central role as a co-founder and prophet of the church.

His argument against the idea of a universal female advantage in religiosity comes partly from comparing different faith traditions. Earlier research largely focused on Christians and sometimes treated exceptions as unusual cases. Data from the World Values Survey, covering 66 countries and territories between 2017 and 2022, show that women tend to be more religious than men among Christians, while men tend to be more religious among Muslims, especially in Muslim-majority countries. Religious expectations, including men’s obligation to attend Friday prayers in Islam, are among the factors that may influence those differences.

Schnabel’s surveys in the United States found a similar contrast. Women consistently rated themselves as more religious than men among Christians, but not across all religious groups. He argues that a biological explanation would be expected to produce similar results across societies, whereas the pattern varies by tradition and social setting.

He said the apparent paradox can therefore have two answers at once: women may be drawn to the personal benefits of faith, even when religious institutions are led by men and may exclude them from authority. His surveys also indicated a double standard surrounding nonbelief. Nearly nine in 10 respondents said it was more acceptable for men than women to be nonreligious, and one young woman told him that men who leave religion are often viewed as intellectual while women are questioned and scrutinized.

After accounting statistically for the additional comfort women receive from religion and for personality traits culturally associated with femininity, Schnabel said the gender gap in his national survey reversed, with men appearing more religious.

Schnabel also describes the United States as becoming less attached to religious institutions rather than simply less interested in faith. Since 1972, the General Social Survey has recorded a sharp rise in the share of Americans with no religion, while weekly attendance and identifying as “very religious” have declined or remained flat. At the same time, belief in an afterlife has remained stable and more people describe themselves as “very spiritual.”

He interprets these trends as a movement of faith away from institutions. Gender appears to be part of that shift: among young adults, the traditional religious gender gap is narrowing largely because young women are leaving religious institutions, according to recent surveys cited by Schnabel. He argues that many young women view these institutions as focused more on politics and control than on care and community.

If current patterns continue, Schnabel says, organized religion could become more masculine in tone not because churches attract large numbers of men, but because they lose women while some male attendees are drawn to institutions offering political identity and clear authority.

Sources: Phys.org.