Jeff

Jul 27

∙2026

I don’t listen to contemporary “Christian” music. I just don’t. And I’m not saying there may not be some decent bands out there. There probably are. I’m just saying that when I’m bombarded with images like these—the man buns, the long wavy hair, the tight clothing … the whole metrosexual look that is rampant in this culture—it doesn’t exactly come off as something I want to spend a lot of my attention sifting through.

That’s pretty much ruined the whole genre for me.

The way these people look and dress matters. Their clothing, their hair style, grooming, silhouette, gestures, and self presentation—even the way they posture themselves as they croon into the microphone. They bend back slightly, they get weak in the knees. The faux trembling voice. Ugh. Put that on a stage in front of me and I’m out.

But all of this communicates something. Humanity has understood this since human beings began wearing clothes. The sudden notion that appearance means absolutely nothing only appears when somebody notices what our culture is plainly trying to say.

So, to be clear, I am not making the claim that every worship leader with a man bun or a wispy cardigan is sexually attracted to men. Though I suspect that with the recent trends of “coming out” and being exposed within that camp, there are likely many more who are than we realize. That’s a separate theological question.

My concern here is the cultural uniform they have adopted. It came from somewhere. Thousands of young men did not just wake up one morning, squeeze themselves into the same tight pants, pull on the same girly-looking boots, buy the same hair gel, and wander onto church stages like dispersed members of the same boy band.

They were taught to look this way.

For several decades, Western culture has treated masculinity as a defect that needed correction. Masculine strength is now “toxic.” Authority is now oppression. Male confidence is now arrogance. Stoicism is emotional dysfunction.

The ordinary differences between men and women have been reduced to social constructions imposed by some dark patriarchy lurking behind every diesel truck, every work boot, and every firm handshake.

Young boys have received the message too. Masculinity makes people uncomfortable. So we must soften it. Dilute it. Apologize for it. You have to make yourself small, pretty, harmless, and emotionally decorative. Put on a cardigan and carry a little man bag.

The modern sexual revolution supplied the philosophy, and homosexual culture supplied the majority of the visual vocabulary. Camp, drag, glam, androgyny, feminine grooming, deliberate sexual ambiguity—these things did not remain confined to fringe subcultures. They moved through entertainment and high fashion until the entire metrosexual revolution itself became fashionable.

The fashion industry openly acknowledges this history. The Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology devoted an entire exhibition to the influence of “gay culture” on fashion.

Scholars have spent years tracing the movement of homosexual styles and sexual signals from the margins of society into ordinary clothing. Nobody seems embarrassed to admit this until a Christian notices the finished product and calls it effeminate.

Then suddenly we are told that clothing carries no meaning and flamboyant hairstyles simply fall from the sky.

Sure.

The word metrosexual itself provides an especially revealing mile marker. British writer Mark Simpson coined it in 1994 while describing a “new kind of man”—urban, consumer-driven, preoccupied with his complexion, hair, clothing, fragrance, body, and reflection. Simpson described male vanity as finally “coming out of the closet.” He later explained that queers supplied the early prototype for this carefully groomed male consumer.

Men traditionally bought clothes because they needed something to wear. The beauty and fashion industries saw a vast, largely untapped market walking around in ordinary jeans with ordinary hair, apparently content to own three pairs of shoes.

Something had to be done about this. Men needed insecurities. They needed elaborate grooming routines, designer wardrobes, expensive fragrances, accessories, skin products, and a constant urge to inspect themselves.

The market taught men to look at their bodies the way fashion advertising had trained women to look at theirs—as permanent renovation projects.

Then came Hedi Slimane.

At Dior Homme in the early 2000s, Slimane helped remake the fashionable male silhouette. Now, the “preferred” man has become rail-thin, narrow, delicate, and oddly adolescent-looking. Their jackets and clothing tightened. Their pants cling to the legs. Waist lines shrank.

Models were selected for their lean and androgynous bodies. The resulting skinny-jean plague escaped the runway, infected celebrity and indie-rock culture, swept through ordinary retailers, and eventually reached its final destination.

The Christian worship stage.

By the time Gucci’s Alessandro Michele began promoting an openly “genderless” vision of fashion, the ground had already been prepared. Whether it be lace, pearls, man-bags, floral prints, feminine blouses, gowns, painted nails, or women’s jewelry, this vision made its way into men’s wardrobes under the sacred banners of courage and self-expression.

Harry Styles wore a Gucci dress on the cover of Vogue, and the cultural priesthood celebrated the spectacle as some grand victory over masculinity.

That is how this disease was normalized. Yesterday’s deliberate provocation became today’s celebrity fashion and tomorrow’s worship-team uniform.

The newest version is sometimes called the “soft man” aesthetic. Pastel colors, pearls, and tote bags. Flowing cardigans and carefully messy hair. Thin, delicate necklaces. Skincare products designed to make the skin glow. Clothing selected to soften the shoulders, narrow the frame, expose the ankles, and give the male body a softer, “prettier” appearance.

The message being pushed is more social than it is visual… I am gentle. I am progressive. I am “safe.” I am nothing like those toxic masculine men.

What a weird little dance, though. A man can be appropriately gentle without presenting himself as feminine. He can be patient, compassionate, thoughtful, emotionally disciplined, and kind toward his family while remaining undeniably masculine.

Of course, Scripture doesn’t define manhood as brutishness, vanity, chest-thumping, or stupidity. Those are corruptions of masculinity. But effeminacy is another, far worse corruption. Trading one distortion for the other solves nothing.

Yet contemporary evangelicalism swallowed the soft-man costume whole because contemporary evangelicalism desperately wants the world to find it attractive.

The preacher has to be an influencer. The worship leader needs to be an indie-rock frontman. The sanctuary is now a darkened concert venue. Reverence for the Holy God of masculinity gave way to atmosphere—fog machines, swelling synthesizers, trembling voices, spotlights, and an immaculately groomed man in tight pants and polished nails whispering romantic lyrics to Jesus.

Celebrity preachers like Carl Lentz, Judah Smith, Rich Wilkerson Jr., and Chad Veach became so recognizable for celebrity-inspired designer clothing that GQ labeled them “hypepriests” … “Grail wearing pastors” who dress like Justin Bieber because relevance had become part of the ministry model.

Hillsong, Elevation, Bethel, and the wider contemporary worship machine carried that model into churches across the world.

Local worship leaders mimicked the famous ones and teenagers mimicked the local worship leaders. And the uniform reproduces itself every Sunday beneath the stage lights.

Now we have men leading churches while dressed in clothing that would have looked distinctly feminine within living memory. Their shoulders are toned down, the waist and legs are accentuated.

The hair is sculpted, curled, dyed, shaved, braided, bundled, or draped around the face while their jewelry glitters and their boots have heels.

Their sweaters look like they came from a woman’s boutique beside the organic soap.

And everyone is expected to pretend not to notice.

I notice. And it makes me gag.

God created mankind male and female. That distinction entered the world before sin, before fashion, before advertising, and before somebody at Gucci decided that putting a man in lace amounted to social progress. And that distinction belongs to God’s created order. But the world is at war with God and the world will naturally wage war against the visible signs of His created order. Clothing just provides one of its easiest battlefields.

Christian men have no business joining that war for the sake of looking fashionable and palatable to the world. Pastors and worship leaders have even less excuse. They stand publicly before God’s people. Their appearance teaches alongside their words, especially when their entire ministry has been wrapped in image, branding, performance, and celebrity.

Maybe many of these men have never considered, and don’t even care, where their aesthetic came from. That may explain the costume. But it doesn’t cleanse it. They have adopted a look produced by a culture determined to erase the boundary between male and female, carried into the mainstream by fashion houses and celebrities, and marketed to boys as enlightened self-expression.

Then they brought it into the church and called it worship.

Yes, it is weird. It is also intentional, culturally conditioned, and spiritually revealing. The world taught men to despise the appearance of manhood. But the evangelical entertainment industry watched, took notes, bought the skinny jeans, grew the man bun, and climbed onto the church stage to baptize it.

And that’s putting it nicely.