I have been reading David Murrow's book "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and have found parts of it very enlightening. While his book lacks the detail that Podle's "The Church Impotent" contained, it fleshed out different ancillary areas. For example, Murrow describes how there is a lack of distinctly masculine leadership in the church. Though many pastors and ministers believe they are leaders, when they are asked to flesh out a specific vision for their ministry and to claim ownership of leadership gifts (leading people, administration, etc.) there ends up being less than 10% of leaders in the church. In other words, leadership in the church, in order to truly expand, needs to be visionary and not simply reactionary or oriented toward protecting what exists. Men want to follow someone who is leading them somewhere, in conquest. The Gospel itself speaks of the Kingdom of God going forth in conquest with Christ subduing the nations through his church (Romans 1:1-6). But todays American church is filled with "guardians" who are resistant to change and prize security.
Murrow writes: "You might say that today's church is full of passivity activists whose greatest energies are devoted to fighting change." This creates a situation where the church ends up attaching itself to parachurch ministries to fill the gap created by a lack of forward progress. But often, these parachurch ministries are themselves overly feminized. For example, Murrow states that, "Bible Study Fellowship (BSF) International is the world's premier parachurch Bible study program. It offers three to five times more classes for women." So the cycle of femininity in the church is perpetuated and men are driven away further even as the church attempts reach out. The solution, I believe, is to seek out and cultivate distinctly masculine leaders in the church and not to be frightened of them. They frighten the church because they are not safe and predictable...but neither was Jesus.