in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
No way a mainline Christian would care that a man dressed in a "metrosexual" way or a woman had a short haircut.
My husband's family go to church in shorts and tshirts. Even his grandmother wore those polyester doubleknit baggy shorts and a pullover knit shirt to church before she died.
Mainline churches don't care what people wear.
Evangelical churches might be a little different.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
living with 4 other guys.
"good morning, richard!
richard is almost never in the house.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Thanks for the info, Finkelstein. I didn't know they actually did that.
So, did you cut your hair and have your pants narrowed?
Were they then too narrow and therefore become 'tight pants?'
Exactly what measurement is okay for the pant leg opening?
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Good point, Simon. A larger more forgiving group versus a smaller more fanatic group.
I fear for the latter being created and hiding away in the Warwick compound.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Not surprised, Simon, but outraged that such a subjective thing could actually be used to deny participation in field service.
Refusing to allow people to participate in field service is actually a new thing. It is a signal of ever-tightening control.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Yes, LUHE, I do have other reasons in mind. I'm afraid that elders might give the 'metrosexual' excuse to those they believe are gay.
And, true, organizations can provide interpretation for 'metrosexual,' but they haven't done that. They've used the vague term 'metrosexual' without clarification. To me this smacks of the same stuff as the word 'brazen;' a vague excuse to discipline someone they don't like.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
I'm not saying that freedom of expression is absolute.
What I am saying is that 'metrosexual' is a very subjective idea and leaves a lot open to interpretation. This makes it really easy to target and persecute a person for other reasons.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
LUHE, what kind of haircut or clothing are you referring to that might be deemed metrosexual by a school? A haircut like David Beckham? A designer shirt? Male students with manicures?
Just exactly how do you forbid the 'metrosexual look?'
