Thanks for your reply. Your last point is what I was intending to convey, that of pastoral visits.
In the past (19th century) People used to walk vast distances to church. Samuel Eyles Pierce rote in his memoires that on Christmas Eve 1813 he walked a fair distance into London, caught the stage to Maidstone (not a comfortable journey I should think as there were no made up roads) then walked to Faversham about 26 miles, preached twice the next da, and three times the following day, "It being the Lord's Day" then walked 10 miles to Canterbury for the new year. 5 years later he founded the first Baptist Church in Faversham. In the mid 1840's Jonathan Reeves of Rochester wrote that he was planning to walk to Faversham from his home , about 17 miles, to hear a particular at the Baptist Church. He and his friend got up at 6.00 am but it was such heavy rain that they had to delay their departure. Eventually they had to call their trip off as the heavy rain continued. Some time after I read that I read elsewhwere that with his mum he walked from Rochester to Faversham to hear William Huntington preach. As Huntigton died when Jonathan was about 11 and was not in good health for his last two years, he musyt have been quite young when he made those journeys.
There is also an account that the pastor of a baptist church in the village of Egerton in Kent used to walk from his home in Sheerness to the chapel and back every Lord's day, a distance it is said was 20 miles. I looked it up on Via Michelin and that said the distance was more than that.
My wife had a friend whose grandmother used to walk large distances to services, not because they were poor, but because they refused to pay a fare on Sunday.
Having thought of that I guess I should perhaps withdraw my previous post.
You said it better than I could. There's nothing morally or Biblical wrong with presenting the Word of God in a "soft spoken" manner. by a more refined "city guy" type man. I've heard great Bible preachers expound the scriptures that way. As well there's nothing wrong with a "rough", country backwoods "tough" man or "former marine" type either; I've heard great preaching from them too. Where either goes wrong is when pride or scorn rear their ugly heads up and, unfortunately, I've seen that from both "types".. Not good. Rebuke (in love) when it's needed, but just don't forget that God commands us to "exhort" too.
Indeed, I believe that a false definition/description for "effeminate" has been presented. Therefore, this thread discussion has begun with confusion. This is one of the reasons that I asked for a more precise listing of those characteristics (in demeanor and behavior) which might be Biblically viewed as those exclusively for women, and never for men. (Note: If we consider the actual teaching of God's Holy Word, meekness certainly CANNOT be one of these characteristics.)
Consider that the context of the effeminate passage which lists those who are "abusers of themselves with mankind" directly after effeminate.
Wouldn't it make more sense to define effeminate as the transvestite types, trannies or the flamboyant homosexuals whom purposely wear make up/clothing to appear feminine and not the purposely meek and humble men who look like men but rather follow Christ's example and not Adam's anymore?
2 Tim 2: 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (I can list many like this all true to their contexts)
There is the Biblical answer, these who puff themselves up as harsh, manly men in the name of Christ, are simply not the true servants of Christ. They serve another father unwittingly through the pride and lusts of the flesh....mammon is not money only, recognition and making a name for oneself is also mammon.
They deceive themselves but still have time to repent if they would turn from using God's Word as merely a reference for their "theology" and feed on it daily as the BREAD OF LIFE.
I can't recall being in a church where an "effeminate man" preached from the pulpit. I have heard some relatively soft-spoken ones, I suppose, but wouldn't label them effeminate. The original poster seems to be trying to convey that if a man doesn't yell from the pulpit, he isn't being manly. If so, I disagree. But I just haven't been around any sissy preachers to be able to relate to this topic. Maybe Joel Osteen is like this? But even false teachers, get all red-faced, run the pews, pound the pulpit and scream. Some are pretty tough guys! 😄