It is this phenomenon that in large part drove me out of my mind and therefore out of those Evangelical churches. I took a trek through liturgical Protestant churches, and finally to Orthodoxy, where I found a real refuge from this stuff. Upon leaving Orthodoxy (long story, which I have recounted in this blog), my wife and I floated around for awhile and visited several Evangelical churches, where we found that the situation had gone from bad to worse. So, I said I was officially done with Evangelicalism and made my way from there to Continuing Anglicanism and its way of worship. And there I'll stay.
"Part of the appeal of established liturgical forms to many Christian men is that de facto evangelical forms of piety *really are* affective and quite feminine, and not all men are willing to adopt them.
"Getting intimate with God," publicly shedding tears, closing eyes in religious ecstasy, swaying hips, "surrendering"--all of these are treated by universal unspoken agreement as markers of true godliness in evangelical world. Emotional spontaneity is another trait of non-liturgical worship. The altar call is the obvious one (and I don't necessarily object to it) but less obvious are the myriad "response-points" built in ("maybe the Lord really got a hold of you today," at the end of sermons, etc.
I grew up in this world. There is a whole attitude, posture, set of mannerisms, mode of expression that signals one is "on fire for Jesus." It's the unofficial language, a barometer of faith. And most men have to overcome a gag reflex to engage in it.
Contrast this with established liturgical forms: hymnody that foregrounds theology and corporate identity, pre-written prayers of adoration and confession, memorized creeds, rituals that (while consonant with expressions of emotion--I've certainly cried during the Supper) don't by any means require them. A man can get through the entirety of such a service without any spontaneous or overt expressions of emotion, and can even talk about them afterwards without ever emphasizing the intimate "experience" he had with God as a result. There's something martial in established forms--something of the army formed up in the presence of a captain. The external, corporate actions are what matter. They are what win wars and display allegiance. Personal, internal response is less important. Liturgical worship is manly. It gives Christian men permission to honor God without a requirement for affectation. And it takes the pressure off of them to produce signals throughout the week that they are "walking with the Lord" (yes, I know this is biblical language, but it has taken on the life of its own).
I say all this acknowledging the legitimacy of a sparing but still heartfelt form of religious expression among men. The gospel makes me weep. Rich Mullins singing "Hold Me, Jesus" cuts me to the core. I am not the chest-thumping machismo guy. No motorcycles in the lobby, thanks. I also worship in a denomination where both sides are expressed. Some PCA churches are more affectational/evangelical. Others are 100% established forms, hymnals, and stained glass. And even that is a far cry from a traditional Anglican or Roman Catholic service. The point is that men know in their bones that evangelical worship favors feminine forms of piety, and all except those who have fully embraced the affectational, passive, individual, highly expressive posture would be embarrassed if their buddies at work saw them in church.
This implied requirement to become "one of the girls" is really costing a lot of churches, if not in male attendance then at least in fruitful male discipleship and engagement. Established forms have a lot of power to unlock Christianity's considerable masculine capital."